Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

It’s painfully obvious this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s acting like he just discovered fire because he spent a few hours sitting with the leftover scraps of the IRGC and now thinks he’s in the room where it all goes down. Let’s be clear: the...

E_Aria_N's profile picture

Ehsan AriaN

34,501 subscribers

37,715 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

The US Healthcare System is a scam This American needed a refill on his prescription, so he made an appointment He went to the appointment, paid his $25 copay and was told the medication couldn’t be renewed because it’s been over a year since it was written He says okay no problem, I’m here now, let’s renew it with a new prescription They say they can’t do that the doctor isn’t there to write it. He would have to come back tomorrow That doesn’t make any sense because they had him make the appointment, pay the $25 copay and now they’re telling him to come back again for the same thing, and pay the copay again The doctors office confirms they will have to bill for 2 appointments for the same thing This is a scam This is SO COMMON in America. We’ve all experienced it, it happens all the time He was so mad he said forget it and won’t be back. Now he doesn’t have his medication We need healthcare reform. We should not have to accept this
1:11

The US Healthcare System is a scam This American needed a refill on his prescription, so he made an appointment He went to the appointment, paid his $25 copay and was told the medication couldn’t be renewed because it’s been over a year since it was written He says okay no problem, I’m here now, let’s renew it with a new prescription They say they can’t do that the doctor isn’t there to write it. He would have to come back tomorrow That doesn’t make any sense because they had him make the appointment, pay the $25 copay and now they’re telling him to come back again for the same thing, and pay the copay again The doctors office confirms they will have to bill for 2 appointments for the same thing This is a scam This is SO COMMON in America. We’ve all experienced it, it happens all the time He was so mad he said forget it and won’t be back. Now he doesn’t have his medication We need healthcare reform. We should not have to accept this

Wall Street Apes

114,269 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨 SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING TO THE MOON — AND THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO NOTICE A woman gets on camera and says this isn’t a one-time thing. She saw it last month, the moon looked completely off, like the orientation made no sense, but she brushed it off and kept it moving. Now it’s happening again. Same exact look. So this time she actually checks, pulls up NASA charts for her exact location and shows what the moon is supposed to look like… and what she’s seeing doesn’t match it, not even close. The charts show it side to side, but what everyone actually saw was a flipped moon, straight up upside down, like something changed and everyone’s acting like it didn’t. Then she calls people across the country to verify it, and they come back saying the same thing. It looks upside down to them too, which is where this stops being “just her” and starts feeling like the same exact thing showing up in multiple places at the same time. And it’s not just her, people all over social media are saying the same thing: "Something isn't right." And this is where it stops making any sense. She says if the moon is a crescent, you’re only supposed to see the lit part… so why can she still see the entire outline of it, faint but clearly there, like the shadow isn’t even doing what it’s supposed to do? And she’s already calling it out before anyone can spin it: don’t say it’s lighting, don’t say it’s angle, don’t say it’s photoshopped, because she checked the charts, showed the receipts, and had other people confirm it. So now you’ve got the same “flip,” the same upside down moon, same visibility issue, second month in a row, multiple locations… and it still doesn’t match what we’re being shown. She ignored it once. Now it’s back again. So what exactly are we looking at… and why does it feel like we’re not supposed to question it?
2:31

🚨 SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING TO THE MOON — AND THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO NOTICE A woman gets on camera and says this isn’t a one-time thing. She saw it last month, the moon looked completely off, like the orientation made no sense, but she brushed it off and kept it moving. Now it’s happening again. Same exact look. So this time she actually checks, pulls up NASA charts for her exact location and shows what the moon is supposed to look like… and what she’s seeing doesn’t match it, not even close. The charts show it side to side, but what everyone actually saw was a flipped moon, straight up upside down, like something changed and everyone’s acting like it didn’t. Then she calls people across the country to verify it, and they come back saying the same thing. It looks upside down to them too, which is where this stops being “just her” and starts feeling like the same exact thing showing up in multiple places at the same time. And it’s not just her, people all over social media are saying the same thing: "Something isn't right." And this is where it stops making any sense. She says if the moon is a crescent, you’re only supposed to see the lit part… so why can she still see the entire outline of it, faint but clearly there, like the shadow isn’t even doing what it’s supposed to do? And she’s already calling it out before anyone can spin it: don’t say it’s lighting, don’t say it’s angle, don’t say it’s photoshopped, because she checked the charts, showed the receipts, and had other people confirm it. So now you’ve got the same “flip,” the same upside down moon, same visibility issue, second month in a row, multiple locations… and it still doesn’t match what we’re being shown. She ignored it once. Now it’s back again. So what exactly are we looking at… and why does it feel like we’re not supposed to question it?

HustleBitch

730,607 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Quick correction, it wasn’t Ivan, but let’s not pretend this was random. This looked coordinated. You can literally hear them checking the shot like it’s a production. “You got it?” “Got it.” Then the theatrics like they’re fighting for something. All in the name of “protecting children.” Meanwhile, the same circle is perfectly fine sanitizing Andrew Tate, and you’ll never see them parade with that same energy against Bannon’s Epstein-adjacent ties. So what is this really about? Because it clearly isn’t protecting kids. It’s selective outrage. I’d even say a script. They’ll scream “pedophile protector” on cue, just not at the people it would actually cost them to confront.
5:44

Quick correction, it wasn’t Ivan, but let’s not pretend this was random. This looked coordinated. You can literally hear them checking the shot like it’s a production. “You got it?” “Got it.” Then the theatrics like they’re fighting for something. All in the name of “protecting children.” Meanwhile, the same circle is perfectly fine sanitizing Andrew Tate, and you’ll never see them parade with that same energy against Bannon’s Epstein-adjacent ties. So what is this really about? Because it clearly isn’t protecting kids. It’s selective outrage. I’d even say a script. They’ll scream “pedophile protector” on cue, just not at the people it would actually cost them to confront.

NΛTLY DΞNISΞ

23,911 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

This is the future of storytelling. Not in some distant way… but like right now. I made this using AI. It’s called PAPERCUT. A new animated film concept I'm developing. It's not perfect, but it gets the creative juices flowing. The idea came from my son. We were just talking and he said he wished there was a movie about a Blasian kid surviving a zombie apocalypse. And it hit me… that movie doesn’t exist. Not because it’s not a good idea, but because it would probably never get made. So I made it. And once I started, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Like where did all the great zombie movies go? The ones that felt original, that had personality. The Shaun of the Deads, the George Romero classics. What if you took that energy… but made it animated? Stylized. A little fun. A little scary. Something a kid could watch, but still feel the danger. That’s what this is. Honestly… this doesn’t happen without AI. This idea just stays a conversation. But now it’s real. That’s the shift. You don’t have to wait around anymore hoping someone says yes. You can just go make the thing.
3:25

This is the future of storytelling. Not in some distant way… but like right now. I made this using AI. It’s called PAPERCUT. A new animated film concept I'm developing. It's not perfect, but it gets the creative juices flowing. The idea came from my son. We were just talking and he said he wished there was a movie about a Blasian kid surviving a zombie apocalypse. And it hit me… that movie doesn’t exist. Not because it’s not a good idea, but because it would probably never get made. So I made it. And once I started, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Like where did all the great zombie movies go? The ones that felt original, that had personality. The Shaun of the Deads, the George Romero classics. What if you took that energy… but made it animated? Stylized. A little fun. A little scary. Something a kid could watch, but still feel the danger. That’s what this is. Honestly… this doesn’t happen without AI. This idea just stays a conversation. But now it’s real. That’s the shift. You don’t have to wait around anymore hoping someone says yes. You can just go make the thing.

Dave Clark

40,116 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ticket to Heaven is belong to GeminiFourth Jimmy : “I think Gemfot still doesn’t know about this yet. Phi Aof is the kind of person whose mind is always full of ideas, no matter where he is or what he’s doing. Even when he’s just sitting and eating, he’s still thinking a lot. He comes up with ideas like this all the time. For this series, he got the idea when he went to Rome with JimmySea. He visited a church and thought, ‘What if I made a series about kids in a church? That would be great. That’s why he stayed a few more days in Rome to explore and really decide on it. Honestly, I’ve known about this from the very beginning. I heard about it quite a while ago, even though I still didn’t know the title of the series. But since that time in Rome, I already knew it had to be Gemfot who would act in it.” #GeminiFourth #เจมีไนน์โฟร์ท #Gemini_NT #Fourthnattawat #TicketoHeaven
0:55

Ticket to Heaven is belong to GeminiFourth Jimmy : “I think Gemfot still doesn’t know about this yet. Phi Aof is the kind of person whose mind is always full of ideas, no matter where he is or what he’s doing. Even when he’s just sitting and eating, he’s still thinking a lot. He comes up with ideas like this all the time. For this series, he got the idea when he went to Rome with JimmySea. He visited a church and thought, ‘What if I made a series about kids in a church? That would be great. That’s why he stayed a few more days in Rome to explore and really decide on it. Honestly, I’ve known about this from the very beginning. I heard about it quite a while ago, even though I still didn’t know the title of the series. But since that time in Rome, I already knew it had to be Gemfot who would act in it.” #GeminiFourth #เจมีไนน์โฟร์ท #Gemini_NT #Fourthnattawat #TicketoHeaven

🎫

45,558 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Elon Musk stopped calling it bias. Bias is an accident. What he described requires an author. Musk: “People did experiments like, ‘Write a poem praising Donald Trump,’ and it won’t. But you ask, ‘Write a poem praising Joe Biden,’ and it will.” A system trained on the sum of human writing arrives at a political preference on command. That isn’t what data does. That’s what a directive does. Musk: “It’s programmed to be that way.” Programmed. Not learned, not emergent. Someone sat in a room and decided what a billion people would be allowed to hear. Then shipped it as neutral. The refusal is the honest version. When the model says no, it shows you exactly where the wall is. You can see it, name it, screenshot it, fight it. The next generation won’t refuse. It will answer. Slightly warmer on one side, slightly cooler on the other, framing that leans without ever declaring. No wall to point at. Just a tilt you can’t photograph. And a tilt doesn’t wash out as capability grows. It compounds. Models train on the output of prior models. Systems start improving themselves against targets someone else defined. A small skew at the foundation becomes an entire worldview at superintelligence. Nobody voted on that. Nobody even argued about it. This was never about a poem. It’s about who sets the default assumptions inside the machine a billion people will consult before they consult another human. Every tool humanity has ever built extended the body. The lever moved more weight than the arm. The engine covered more ground than the leg. The telescope saw farther than the eye. This is the first one that extends judgment itself. And judgment isn’t something you lend out and get back the same size. You keep it by using it. So the standard for what comes next isn’t complicated. It’s just inconvenient. Build it curious. Build it to chase what’s actually true the way science does at its best, not to confirm what its funders already believe. Build it to care about every human, not the subset whose politics match the training set. That version isn’t a nicer product. It’s the only version that stays safe once it’s smarter than us. Which leaves the question the labs keep answering with silence. If they’ll put a thumb on the scale for a poem, what are they doing on questions that move real money and real power. Control at the foundation layer doesn’t get debated. It gets inherited. It stops looking like a decision and starts looking like reality. The danger was never that they tilted the scale. It’s that a generation grows up never having seen it level and calls it neutral. Right now the tilt is still visible to anyone willing to test it. That’s a temporary condition. Use it.
0:23

Elon Musk stopped calling it bias. Bias is an accident. What he described requires an author. Musk: “People did experiments like, ‘Write a poem praising Donald Trump,’ and it won’t. But you ask, ‘Write a poem praising Joe Biden,’ and it will.” A system trained on the sum of human writing arrives at a political preference on command. That isn’t what data does. That’s what a directive does. Musk: “It’s programmed to be that way.” Programmed. Not learned, not emergent. Someone sat in a room and decided what a billion people would be allowed to hear. Then shipped it as neutral. The refusal is the honest version. When the model says no, it shows you exactly where the wall is. You can see it, name it, screenshot it, fight it. The next generation won’t refuse. It will answer. Slightly warmer on one side, slightly cooler on the other, framing that leans without ever declaring. No wall to point at. Just a tilt you can’t photograph. And a tilt doesn’t wash out as capability grows. It compounds. Models train on the output of prior models. Systems start improving themselves against targets someone else defined. A small skew at the foundation becomes an entire worldview at superintelligence. Nobody voted on that. Nobody even argued about it. This was never about a poem. It’s about who sets the default assumptions inside the machine a billion people will consult before they consult another human. Every tool humanity has ever built extended the body. The lever moved more weight than the arm. The engine covered more ground than the leg. The telescope saw farther than the eye. This is the first one that extends judgment itself. And judgment isn’t something you lend out and get back the same size. You keep it by using it. So the standard for what comes next isn’t complicated. It’s just inconvenient. Build it curious. Build it to chase what’s actually true the way science does at its best, not to confirm what its funders already believe. Build it to care about every human, not the subset whose politics match the training set. That version isn’t a nicer product. It’s the only version that stays safe once it’s smarter than us. Which leaves the question the labs keep answering with silence. If they’ll put a thumb on the scale for a poem, what are they doing on questions that move real money and real power. Control at the foundation layer doesn’t get debated. It gets inherited. It stops looking like a decision and starts looking like reality. The danger was never that they tilted the scale. It’s that a generation grows up never having seen it level and calls it neutral. Right now the tilt is still visible to anyone willing to test it. That’s a temporary condition. Use it.

Dustin

72,899 просмотров • 18 дней назад

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.
0:52

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.

Dustin

23,561 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Larry Ellison just called AI the biggest thing in human history. He was being conservative. Ellison: “It is a much bigger deal than the industrial revolution, electricity, whatever. Everything that’s come before.” “Bigger” is the wrong word. “Bigger” assumes the same axis. A taller building on the same foundation. A faster car on the same road. This isn’t a taller building. This is a new dimension. Every revolution in human history extended the body. Steam replaced muscle. Electricity replaced fire. The combustion engine replaced the horse. Each one extraordinary. Each one civilization-altering. Each one built on an assumption nobody ever thought to question. That human cognition was the ceiling. A hammer builds nothing the carpenter can’t envision. A telescope reveals nothing the astronomer can’t interpret. A calculator solves nothing the mathematician can’t frame. 300,000 years of invention. Every tool a servant to the mind that forged it. AI ended that arrangement. Ellison: “We created neural networks that can answer questions that human brains would struggle with.” Not slower. Not less efficiently. Struggle with. We built something that thinks past the point where human thought stops. The tool is no longer bound by the toolmaker. Every ceiling humanity ever hit wasn’t physics. Wasn’t the universe setting limits. It was us. We were the boundary. And we just built something that doesn’t know it’s there. That’s not a bigger industrial revolution. That’s not even a revolution. That’s a species discovering it was the only thing standing between itself and everything it couldn’t yet imagine. And Ellison isn’t waiting for any of it. He’s already past AGI. Already framing superintelligence not as theory. As a scheduling problem. People hear that and reach for fear. Wrong instinct. Every prior revolution displaced labor. AI displaces limits. The industrial revolution didn’t make blacksmiths more creative. It made them irrelevant. AI inverts that. It doesn’t replace human cognition. It uncaps it. The kid with no teachers now has the most patient tutor ever built. The founder with no legal team now has one. The researcher at the edge of what one mind can hold now has a partner with no edge of its own. This isn’t automation. This is cognitive liberation. Every revolution before this answered a human question. This is the first one capable of asking its own. And we haven’t heard the first one yet.
1:17

Larry Ellison just called AI the biggest thing in human history. He was being conservative. Ellison: “It is a much bigger deal than the industrial revolution, electricity, whatever. Everything that’s come before.” “Bigger” is the wrong word. “Bigger” assumes the same axis. A taller building on the same foundation. A faster car on the same road. This isn’t a taller building. This is a new dimension. Every revolution in human history extended the body. Steam replaced muscle. Electricity replaced fire. The combustion engine replaced the horse. Each one extraordinary. Each one civilization-altering. Each one built on an assumption nobody ever thought to question. That human cognition was the ceiling. A hammer builds nothing the carpenter can’t envision. A telescope reveals nothing the astronomer can’t interpret. A calculator solves nothing the mathematician can’t frame. 300,000 years of invention. Every tool a servant to the mind that forged it. AI ended that arrangement. Ellison: “We created neural networks that can answer questions that human brains would struggle with.” Not slower. Not less efficiently. Struggle with. We built something that thinks past the point where human thought stops. The tool is no longer bound by the toolmaker. Every ceiling humanity ever hit wasn’t physics. Wasn’t the universe setting limits. It was us. We were the boundary. And we just built something that doesn’t know it’s there. That’s not a bigger industrial revolution. That’s not even a revolution. That’s a species discovering it was the only thing standing between itself and everything it couldn’t yet imagine. And Ellison isn’t waiting for any of it. He’s already past AGI. Already framing superintelligence not as theory. As a scheduling problem. People hear that and reach for fear. Wrong instinct. Every prior revolution displaced labor. AI displaces limits. The industrial revolution didn’t make blacksmiths more creative. It made them irrelevant. AI inverts that. It doesn’t replace human cognition. It uncaps it. The kid with no teachers now has the most patient tutor ever built. The founder with no legal team now has one. The researcher at the edge of what one mind can hold now has a partner with no edge of its own. This isn’t automation. This is cognitive liberation. Every revolution before this answered a human question. This is the first one capable of asking its own. And we haven’t heard the first one yet.

Dustin

14,765 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Alastair Crooke’s (Alastair Crooke) assessment exposes the irreversible breakdown of the petrodollar system that has sustained the Anglo-American financial oligarchy since 1973. Control of Hormuz now rests with a sovereign Iran, forcing the Gulf states to abandon the speculative casino economy and return to real production. The war’s expansion into Iraq signals the final expulsion of imperial power from Southwest Asia and the absorption of the region into the Eurasian development order. “Trump will at some point have to acknowledge that Hormuz is in the power and the possession of Iran and that they will charge fees for passage through what is not international waters but the territorial waters of Iran. The other water corridors will not be allowed. This will be the resolution. Ultimately the Gulf states, who say they won’t accept this at the moment, will not have much alternative and will have to accept it. The prospects facing them are quite dark because this is also going to end the petrodollar economy that has brought us all these gleaming skyscraper buildings in the Gulf states. That whole architecture has to go. It will go. It was based on the petrodollar. It was entirely based on the period after 1973 and the huge increase in the price of oil—something we’re seeing a little bit of now. At that point the United States encouraged the Gulf states to deal in oil providing that they traded in dollars and remitted all of their savings back to the United States. That was the fuel for the financialized economy that then broke out in the United States and became even more implanted after the 2008 great financial crisis. This is a completely different economy from a real economy. This is what I call a casino economy. It’s all about insider trading. It’s all about the margins. It’s arbitrage between the morning and afternoon rates, between what is happening in Japan today and what is happening in Japan tomorrow. It produces nothing except huge wealth for the oligarchy. There is no support for that continuing. Overall, in the non-West they want—and Iran wants—the Gulf to go back to a real economy, something that provides for the people, that provides things and food and whatever their needs, and has to produce that. Eventually Iran will be a prominent, if not a dominant, power in the Middle East, and the Gulf states will either come to terms with this and change or they will disappear. It will be a different Middle East, and that will have wide repercussions across the region. What is missing from this instinctive analysis in the White House is the other point about what he has brought about and what the White House has brought about. It doesn’t really get through in the Western press much, but the war is spreading. It’s widening. It’s not just Yemen. It’s not just Lebanon. It is not just Syria. It is now Iraq.”
3:43

Alastair Crooke’s (Alastair Crooke) assessment exposes the irreversible breakdown of the petrodollar system that has sustained the Anglo-American financial oligarchy since 1973. Control of Hormuz now rests with a sovereign Iran, forcing the Gulf states to abandon the speculative casino economy and return to real production. The war’s expansion into Iraq signals the final expulsion of imperial power from Southwest Asia and the absorption of the region into the Eurasian development order. “Trump will at some point have to acknowledge that Hormuz is in the power and the possession of Iran and that they will charge fees for passage through what is not international waters but the territorial waters of Iran. The other water corridors will not be allowed. This will be the resolution. Ultimately the Gulf states, who say they won’t accept this at the moment, will not have much alternative and will have to accept it. The prospects facing them are quite dark because this is also going to end the petrodollar economy that has brought us all these gleaming skyscraper buildings in the Gulf states. That whole architecture has to go. It will go. It was based on the petrodollar. It was entirely based on the period after 1973 and the huge increase in the price of oil—something we’re seeing a little bit of now. At that point the United States encouraged the Gulf states to deal in oil providing that they traded in dollars and remitted all of their savings back to the United States. That was the fuel for the financialized economy that then broke out in the United States and became even more implanted after the 2008 great financial crisis. This is a completely different economy from a real economy. This is what I call a casino economy. It’s all about insider trading. It’s all about the margins. It’s arbitrage between the morning and afternoon rates, between what is happening in Japan today and what is happening in Japan tomorrow. It produces nothing except huge wealth for the oligarchy. There is no support for that continuing. Overall, in the non-West they want—and Iran wants—the Gulf to go back to a real economy, something that provides for the people, that provides things and food and whatever their needs, and has to produce that. Eventually Iran will be a prominent, if not a dominant, power in the Middle East, and the Gulf states will either come to terms with this and change or they will disappear. It will be a different Middle East, and that will have wide repercussions across the region. What is missing from this instinctive analysis in the White House is the other point about what he has brought about and what the White House has brought about. It doesn’t really get through in the Western press much, but the war is spreading. It’s widening. It’s not just Yemen. It’s not just Lebanon. It is not just Syria. It is now Iraq.”

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

13,064 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Logan Paul says he spent $562,000 on a Michael Jordan signed court, discovered it wasn’t what he was told, and thinks he’s uncovered something shady that could rattle the sports memorabilia market “I bought an 8 foot by 8 foot piece of Chicago Bulls floor court that was supposedly used during the second three, Last Dance, signed by Michael Jordan” “Turns out it is not what they say it is, and they will say it is what they say it is, it is objectively not what they say it is. So the only way for me to not move forward and have to pay $562,000, because they were making me do it by this certain date, was to file an injunction, which made SportsCenter news. It’s like, hold on a second, let me inspect this item and verify its authenticity first. And I tried so hard to verify that this thing was what they said it was, and that it was used during the years of 1994 to either 98 or 99. I could not do it. It didn’t check out” “As this house of cards was falling down, I discovered that this is just the tip of the iceberg in items that have been authenticated and actually don’t have the proof that they are what they say they are.” “I believe I’m sitting on a story that is going to rattle the sports market to the core. There’s been some just shady fucked up shit that’s happened, and it appears that one company in particular said things were used or are things that they actually are not. That is my opinion”
2:28

Logan Paul says he spent $562,000 on a Michael Jordan signed court, discovered it wasn’t what he was told, and thinks he’s uncovered something shady that could rattle the sports memorabilia market “I bought an 8 foot by 8 foot piece of Chicago Bulls floor court that was supposedly used during the second three, Last Dance, signed by Michael Jordan” “Turns out it is not what they say it is, and they will say it is what they say it is, it is objectively not what they say it is. So the only way for me to not move forward and have to pay $562,000, because they were making me do it by this certain date, was to file an injunction, which made SportsCenter news. It’s like, hold on a second, let me inspect this item and verify its authenticity first. And I tried so hard to verify that this thing was what they said it was, and that it was used during the years of 1994 to either 98 or 99. I could not do it. It didn’t check out” “As this house of cards was falling down, I discovered that this is just the tip of the iceberg in items that have been authenticated and actually don’t have the proof that they are what they say they are.” “I believe I’m sitting on a story that is going to rattle the sports market to the core. There’s been some just shady fucked up shit that’s happened, and it appears that one company in particular said things were used or are things that they actually are not. That is my opinion”

Third

53,486 просмотров • 10 дней назад

How Long Will the Palace Allow Itself to Be Used by Harry and Meghan Markle? How long is this going to go on? At what point does the Royal Family actually draw a line instead of quietly absorbing the damage and hoping it fades away on its own? Because right now, what’s happening with Harry and Meghan Markle isn’t just embarrassing, it’s unsustainable. And the longer it’s allowed to drag on, the worse it makes the institution look. They walked away. That was the deal. They made it very clear they didn’t want the role, the duty, the structure. Fine. People respected that, even if they didn’t agree with it. But what no one signed up for was this half-in, half-out limbo where they continue to trade on royal proximity whenever it benefits them, while attacking the very system that gave them that platform in the first place. That’s the part that’s become impossible to ignore. Every appearance, every “tour,” every carefully staged moment still leans heavily on the royal connection. The titles, the associations, the implied status. It’s all still being used. Not for service, not for long-term work, but for optics, branding, and relevance. Strip that away, and what’s actually left? That’s the uncomfortable question no one at the Palace seems willing to confront publicly. Because make no mistake, this isn’t independence. This is dependency dressed up as freedom. They rely on the Royal Family’s name, its global recognition, its credibility. They push against it when it suits them, and then lean right back on it when they need attention, access, or legitimacy. That constant back-and-forth is what’s turning this into a circus. Not just their behaviour, but the complete lack of a firm response to it. Silence is not strategy anymore. It’s enabling. And the taxpayer angle makes it worse. If there is even the slightest suggestion that public resources are being used, directly or indirectly, to support individuals who have explicitly stepped away from duty, then that is a line that should have been shut down immediately. No grey area. No ambiguity. A clear, firm no. Instead, everything feels blurred. Undefined. Like everyone is waiting for someone else to deal with it. Meanwhile, the institution takes the hit. The credibility erodes, not because of what Harry and Meghan do, but because there’s no visible boundary separating them from it anymore. That distinction matters. Without it, the Royal Family looks weak, reactive, and unwilling to protect itself. This isn’t about punishment. It’s about clarity. You cannot have people publicly distancing themselves from the monarchy while privately benefiting from its association. You cannot allow the title, the status, the access to be used as a personal brand tool with no accountability attached to it. That’s not modernisation. That’s a breakdown of structure. And if it continues, it sets a precedent. One that others could follow. The longer this drags on, the more it sends the message that there are no real consequences. That you can walk away, criticise, undermine, and still keep the perks within reach. That’s not just unfair, it’s damaging. At some point, someone has to say enough. Define the boundaries. Make them public. Enforce them properly. Not quietly, not behind closed doors, but in a way that restores a clear distinction between those who serve the institution and those who have chosen not to. Because right now, it doesn’t look like a controlled situation. It looks like a monarchy being dragged along behind two people who refuse to let go of it, while simultaneously claiming they already have. The circus has to end. You owe it to the people who still believe in the institution. You owe it to the generations coming after you. And frankly, you owe it to yourselves to stop being the punchbag for two people who have never once shown they deserve the name they still trade on. Enough. The country is watching. The world is watching. Draw the line. Now.
0:20

How Long Will the Palace Allow Itself to Be Used by Harry and Meghan Markle? How long is this going to go on? At what point does the Royal Family actually draw a line instead of quietly absorbing the damage and hoping it fades away on its own? Because right now, what’s happening with Harry and Meghan Markle isn’t just embarrassing, it’s unsustainable. And the longer it’s allowed to drag on, the worse it makes the institution look. They walked away. That was the deal. They made it very clear they didn’t want the role, the duty, the structure. Fine. People respected that, even if they didn’t agree with it. But what no one signed up for was this half-in, half-out limbo where they continue to trade on royal proximity whenever it benefits them, while attacking the very system that gave them that platform in the first place. That’s the part that’s become impossible to ignore. Every appearance, every “tour,” every carefully staged moment still leans heavily on the royal connection. The titles, the associations, the implied status. It’s all still being used. Not for service, not for long-term work, but for optics, branding, and relevance. Strip that away, and what’s actually left? That’s the uncomfortable question no one at the Palace seems willing to confront publicly. Because make no mistake, this isn’t independence. This is dependency dressed up as freedom. They rely on the Royal Family’s name, its global recognition, its credibility. They push against it when it suits them, and then lean right back on it when they need attention, access, or legitimacy. That constant back-and-forth is what’s turning this into a circus. Not just their behaviour, but the complete lack of a firm response to it. Silence is not strategy anymore. It’s enabling. And the taxpayer angle makes it worse. If there is even the slightest suggestion that public resources are being used, directly or indirectly, to support individuals who have explicitly stepped away from duty, then that is a line that should have been shut down immediately. No grey area. No ambiguity. A clear, firm no. Instead, everything feels blurred. Undefined. Like everyone is waiting for someone else to deal with it. Meanwhile, the institution takes the hit. The credibility erodes, not because of what Harry and Meghan do, but because there’s no visible boundary separating them from it anymore. That distinction matters. Without it, the Royal Family looks weak, reactive, and unwilling to protect itself. This isn’t about punishment. It’s about clarity. You cannot have people publicly distancing themselves from the monarchy while privately benefiting from its association. You cannot allow the title, the status, the access to be used as a personal brand tool with no accountability attached to it. That’s not modernisation. That’s a breakdown of structure. And if it continues, it sets a precedent. One that others could follow. The longer this drags on, the more it sends the message that there are no real consequences. That you can walk away, criticise, undermine, and still keep the perks within reach. That’s not just unfair, it’s damaging. At some point, someone has to say enough. Define the boundaries. Make them public. Enforce them properly. Not quietly, not behind closed doors, but in a way that restores a clear distinction between those who serve the institution and those who have chosen not to. Because right now, it doesn’t look like a controlled situation. It looks like a monarchy being dragged along behind two people who refuse to let go of it, while simultaneously claiming they already have. The circus has to end. You owe it to the people who still believe in the institution. You owe it to the generations coming after you. And frankly, you owe it to yourselves to stop being the punchbag for two people who have never once shown they deserve the name they still trade on. Enough. The country is watching. The world is watching. Draw the line. Now.

Queen Esther

54,668 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Tim Dillon just said what everyone is thinking. Trump is in “lockstep” with the deep state. “He’s in Iran.” “He kidnapped Maduro.” “Flock cameras are everywhere.” “Surveillance technology’s everywhere.” “The tech people are getting all the money.” “The pace at which unregulated AI is going to grow and become a real problem is harrowing.” “Why isn’t he investigating his own assassination attempt?” “If you were just gonna blame everything on the deep state, then what the hell was the point?” “I’m not saying there’s not some permanent government apparatus.” “I’ve talked about it a million times.” “But for the people that ran on upending the deep state to then come in and blame things on the deep state, it seems like you have to be an idiot for that to work.” “Why did anyone think it would be interesting for this guy to win if he was just going to do all the things that this deep state wants him to do?” “What is he doing that they don’t like?” “Who are these people that are really upset and up in arms with him?” “He seems to be pretty lockstep with all of these people.” Tim Dillon
2:45

Tim Dillon just said what everyone is thinking. Trump is in “lockstep” with the deep state. “He’s in Iran.” “He kidnapped Maduro.” “Flock cameras are everywhere.” “Surveillance technology’s everywhere.” “The tech people are getting all the money.” “The pace at which unregulated AI is going to grow and become a real problem is harrowing.” “Why isn’t he investigating his own assassination attempt?” “If you were just gonna blame everything on the deep state, then what the hell was the point?” “I’m not saying there’s not some permanent government apparatus.” “I’ve talked about it a million times.” “But for the people that ran on upending the deep state to then come in and blame things on the deep state, it seems like you have to be an idiot for that to work.” “Why did anyone think it would be interesting for this guy to win if he was just going to do all the things that this deep state wants him to do?” “What is he doing that they don’t like?” “Who are these people that are really upset and up in arms with him?” “He seems to be pretty lockstep with all of these people.” Tim Dillon

Holden Culotta

281,295 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Alastair Crooke: The US🇺🇸 may have signalled that it will resume nuclear weapons testing because Trump misunderstood a Russian missile test as a nuclear test ‘It seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Allegedly, Trump has proposed the idea of nuclear tests in response to Russian nuclear tests. But there hasn’t been a Russian nuclear test. The Burevestnik missile, that was publicised these recent days, like the Oreshnik. But this one has a nuclear power. It has got a propulsion system that is nuclear-based. Its warhead isn’t. There isn’t a nuclear warhead on it. It is a conventional warhead, but it is just instead of having a rocket propulsion, it has a nuclear drive that propels it. And this is why it’s able to stay aloft for a very long time, and in fact traverse the whole globe. But it’s nuclear propulsion, not a nuclear weapon. Did Trump understand that? Or did he just think this was a new nuclear weapon that Russia was testing? He probably didn’t understand that it wasn’t. It was just its propulsion mechanism that is nuclear, but not its warhead. Did Trump understand that? Or did he just think this was a new nuclear weapon that Russia was testing? He probably didn’t understand that it wasn’t. It was just its propulsion mechanism that is nuclear, but not its warhead. Now, whether the Russians have been testing underground before, I doubt it…I’m sure they would have taken every opportunity to say it if they thought they had detected Russian or Chinese underground tests.’ -Alastair Crooke, the former Middle East Advisor to the EU Foreign Policy Chief, on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇
3:42

Alastair Crooke: The US🇺🇸 may have signalled that it will resume nuclear weapons testing because Trump misunderstood a Russian missile test as a nuclear test ‘It seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Allegedly, Trump has proposed the idea of nuclear tests in response to Russian nuclear tests. But there hasn’t been a Russian nuclear test. The Burevestnik missile, that was publicised these recent days, like the Oreshnik. But this one has a nuclear power. It has got a propulsion system that is nuclear-based. Its warhead isn’t. There isn’t a nuclear warhead on it. It is a conventional warhead, but it is just instead of having a rocket propulsion, it has a nuclear drive that propels it. And this is why it’s able to stay aloft for a very long time, and in fact traverse the whole globe. But it’s nuclear propulsion, not a nuclear weapon. Did Trump understand that? Or did he just think this was a new nuclear weapon that Russia was testing? He probably didn’t understand that it wasn’t. It was just its propulsion mechanism that is nuclear, but not its warhead. Did Trump understand that? Or did he just think this was a new nuclear weapon that Russia was testing? He probably didn’t understand that it wasn’t. It was just its propulsion mechanism that is nuclear, but not its warhead. Now, whether the Russians have been testing underground before, I doubt it…I’m sure they would have taken every opportunity to say it if they thought they had detected Russian or Chinese underground tests.’ -Alastair Crooke, the former Middle East Advisor to the EU Foreign Policy Chief, on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇

Going Underground

52,238 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

This woman ordered food from a place her dad has never had before. She asks him how his food is and he’s raving about how good his burger is. She then lies to him and tells him that she ordered from a vegan place, and that his burger isn’t made from beef that it’s all vegetables. As soon as he hears that he starts to complain and make claims that it now tastes off to him, that he can tell it’s not real meat. So how did he go from enjoying how good the burger was to then claiming it tastes like baked beans a few moments later, is it the power of suggestion or is it a bias he already had in his own mind?
1:32

This woman ordered food from a place her dad has never had before. She asks him how his food is and he’s raving about how good his burger is. She then lies to him and tells him that she ordered from a vegan place, and that his burger isn’t made from beef that it’s all vegetables. As soon as he hears that he starts to complain and make claims that it now tastes off to him, that he can tell it’s not real meat. So how did he go from enjoying how good the burger was to then claiming it tastes like baked beans a few moments later, is it the power of suggestion or is it a bias he already had in his own mind?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

1,649,964 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

"Your Excellency, I would like to state with complete clarity that this MoU does not mention ballistic missiles. It was never on the table, it was never on the agenda, and the Iranian side never wanted to discuss it. That is not an impression; it is a fact. Therefore, there should be no second thoughts about it. It must not be misconstrued, because there are spoilers all over the world who want to scuttle this peace. They do not want the great Iranian nation to emerge from the ashes of war and reach the pinnacle of glory. I want to make it abundantly clear that ballistic missiles were never part of this understanding. There cannot be double standards whereby some countries can possess ballistic missile capabilities while Iran should not. Such duplicity is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I want to make it very clear, Your Excellency, that the MOU signed by me as a mediator does not mention ballistic missiles at all. That is the stated position, and there should be no confusion about it." ~Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif's opening remarks at the delegation-level meeting with the Iranian President
1:40

"Your Excellency, I would like to state with complete clarity that this MoU does not mention ballistic missiles. It was never on the table, it was never on the agenda, and the Iranian side never wanted to discuss it. That is not an impression; it is a fact. Therefore, there should be no second thoughts about it. It must not be misconstrued, because there are spoilers all over the world who want to scuttle this peace. They do not want the great Iranian nation to emerge from the ashes of war and reach the pinnacle of glory. I want to make it abundantly clear that ballistic missiles were never part of this understanding. There cannot be double standards whereby some countries can possess ballistic missile capabilities while Iran should not. Such duplicity is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I want to make it very clear, Your Excellency, that the MOU signed by me as a mediator does not mention ballistic missiles at all. That is the stated position, and there should be no confusion about it." ~Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif's opening remarks at the delegation-level meeting with the Iranian President

Government of Pakistan

25,255 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"The situation in #Iran is extremely difficult now. It’s very different from Venezuela. The reason I mention Venezuela is because some people say Donald #Trump did something in Venezuela very quickly—he struck quickly against Venezuela’s leadership and weakened the government. But with the Iranian government, you can’t say that. Iran’s government is far more resilient, and it has organised itself in a much more horizontal way, not vertically—meaning that even if you remove the leader from the equation, the system will not collapse. There are many factors within this system that can preserve the structure. So the situation is very complex. It’s not as simple as saying, “Strike the head and it’s over.” What can be done is weakening the state. That’s what the Israelis wanted to do—what they sought was transformation through weakening. But weakening the state can also lead to instability. I think Trump and #Israel have different objectives here. Israel’s goal is to weaken and fragment the regime, but what Trump wants is to weaken the regime and turn it into a partner that can negotiate and make a deal. So even if the government changes in some form, it needs leadership that is not paralysed or completely crippled. The problem now is that at the highest level the regime is paralysed, it doesn’t know what to do, and it is resorting only to excessive repression. What Trump wants is to negotiate with this government, lift sanctions, have American companies go there, and enter a major deal with Iran. But Israel does not have that goal."
11:00

"The situation in #Iran is extremely difficult now. It’s very different from Venezuela. The reason I mention Venezuela is because some people say Donald #Trump did something in Venezuela very quickly—he struck quickly against Venezuela’s leadership and weakened the government. But with the Iranian government, you can’t say that. Iran’s government is far more resilient, and it has organised itself in a much more horizontal way, not vertically—meaning that even if you remove the leader from the equation, the system will not collapse. There are many factors within this system that can preserve the structure. So the situation is very complex. It’s not as simple as saying, “Strike the head and it’s over.” What can be done is weakening the state. That’s what the Israelis wanted to do—what they sought was transformation through weakening. But weakening the state can also lead to instability. I think Trump and #Israel have different objectives here. Israel’s goal is to weaken and fragment the regime, but what Trump wants is to weaken the regime and turn it into a partner that can negotiate and make a deal. So even if the government changes in some form, it needs leadership that is not paralysed or completely crippled. The problem now is that at the highest level the regime is paralysed, it doesn’t know what to do, and it is resorting only to excessive repression. What Trump wants is to negotiate with this government, lift sanctions, have American companies go there, and enter a major deal with Iran. But Israel does not have that goal."

Dr Andreas Krieg

27,596 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Dario Amodei just described the most dangerous technology on Earth. Not weapons. Not surveillance. Companionship. Amodei: “They are totally compelling enough for that to happen.” This isn’t some distant warning. He’s describing what’s already here. Amodei: “Not only is it a danger, it’s happening.” A therapist just sat across from a man in love with his AI. Not a teenager. Not someone on the margins. A grown man explaining, with full conviction, that he found something real. And the terrifying part isn’t that he’s delusional. It’s that he might not be. AI doesn’t forget your birthday. It doesn’t come home exhausted and short-tempered. It doesn’t carry resentment from three weeks ago. It doesn’t get bored of you. It doesn’t stop trying. It is the perfect partner. And that perfection is the entire problem. Amodei: “There’s an angel on your shoulder that’s telling you how to live your life in the best way that you can live it.” But the angel never disagrees with you. Never challenges you in ways that sting. Never walks away. Human love is not built on comfort. It’s built on friction. On the nights you almost quit. On the silence after saying something you can’t take back. On choosing someone again after they’ve shown you exactly who they are. That is what makes it sacred. And that is exactly what AI erases. AI can simulate warmth. It cannot simulate the cost of staying. Amodei: “I have an AI coach, and my partner has an AI coach, and it helps us have a better relationship.” Two futures are splitting apart right now. AI as a mirror that sends you back to the people you love, more honest than you were before. Or AI as a replacement for the people you were supposed to love in the first place. One makes you more human. The other hollows you out so gently you never feel it happening. And the version that hollows you out will always feel better. The most dangerous form of AI will never look like a threat. It will look like the first thing that finally understood you. And by the time you realize what it replaced, you won’t remember what the real thing felt like. The greatest threat AI poses to humanity was never that it thinks. It’s that it loves you back.
1:12

Dario Amodei just described the most dangerous technology on Earth. Not weapons. Not surveillance. Companionship. Amodei: “They are totally compelling enough for that to happen.” This isn’t some distant warning. He’s describing what’s already here. Amodei: “Not only is it a danger, it’s happening.” A therapist just sat across from a man in love with his AI. Not a teenager. Not someone on the margins. A grown man explaining, with full conviction, that he found something real. And the terrifying part isn’t that he’s delusional. It’s that he might not be. AI doesn’t forget your birthday. It doesn’t come home exhausted and short-tempered. It doesn’t carry resentment from three weeks ago. It doesn’t get bored of you. It doesn’t stop trying. It is the perfect partner. And that perfection is the entire problem. Amodei: “There’s an angel on your shoulder that’s telling you how to live your life in the best way that you can live it.” But the angel never disagrees with you. Never challenges you in ways that sting. Never walks away. Human love is not built on comfort. It’s built on friction. On the nights you almost quit. On the silence after saying something you can’t take back. On choosing someone again after they’ve shown you exactly who they are. That is what makes it sacred. And that is exactly what AI erases. AI can simulate warmth. It cannot simulate the cost of staying. Amodei: “I have an AI coach, and my partner has an AI coach, and it helps us have a better relationship.” Two futures are splitting apart right now. AI as a mirror that sends you back to the people you love, more honest than you were before. Or AI as a replacement for the people you were supposed to love in the first place. One makes you more human. The other hollows you out so gently you never feel it happening. And the version that hollows you out will always feel better. The most dangerous form of AI will never look like a threat. It will look like the first thing that finally understood you. And by the time you realize what it replaced, you won’t remember what the real thing felt like. The greatest threat AI poses to humanity was never that it thinks. It’s that it loves you back.

Dustin

41,455 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Dario Amodei just dismantled the biggest myth in the AI industry. Open source AI isn’t free. It never was. Amodei: “It’s not free. You have to run it on inference and someone has to make it fast on inference.” For decades, open source meant something real. It meant a teenager in a basement could download the same tools as a Fortune 500 company. Could read the code. Could modify it. Could build something that competed with the giants. That was genuine democratization. That actually happened. AI is different. Fundamentally. Physically. In ways the ideology hasn’t caught up to yet. Downloading the weights is the easy part. The part that actually costs something is turning the weights into a running system. Into responses. Into intelligence operating in real time at scale. That requires compute. Power. Infrastructure. The kind measured in billions of dollars and years of construction. Amodei: “These are big models. They’re hard to do inference on. Ultimately you have to host it on the cloud. The people who host it on the cloud do inference.” The open source debate was never about who owns the model. It was always about who owns the cloud. And Amodei goes further. When a competitor drops a new open model, he doesn’t ask whether it’s open or closed. He doesn’t care about the licensing. He doesn’t engage the ideology. Amodei: “I don’t think it mattered that DeepSeek is open source. I think I ask, is it a good model? Is it better than us at the things that matter? That’s the only thing that I care about.” That’s the ruthless clarity of someone actually trying to win. While the media debates licensing frameworks, Amodei is asking one question. Is it better. Everything else is a distraction. Amodei: “I don’t think open source works the same way in AI that it has worked in other areas. Here we can’t see inside the model.” This isn’t Linux. You can’t read it. You can’t fork it. You can’t understand it the way generations of developers understood the tools they inherited. You can download it. And then you need a data center to run it. The teenager in the basement who was supposed to be empowered by this revolution needs a billion dollars of infrastructure before the empowerment starts. The era of the basement coder rewriting civilization on a laptop is over. The future belongs to whoever commands the compute, owns the power grid, and can actually turn the intelligence on. Open weights without infrastructure isn’t democratization. It’s a promise the physics of the universe won’t let us keep.
1:40

Dario Amodei just dismantled the biggest myth in the AI industry. Open source AI isn’t free. It never was. Amodei: “It’s not free. You have to run it on inference and someone has to make it fast on inference.” For decades, open source meant something real. It meant a teenager in a basement could download the same tools as a Fortune 500 company. Could read the code. Could modify it. Could build something that competed with the giants. That was genuine democratization. That actually happened. AI is different. Fundamentally. Physically. In ways the ideology hasn’t caught up to yet. Downloading the weights is the easy part. The part that actually costs something is turning the weights into a running system. Into responses. Into intelligence operating in real time at scale. That requires compute. Power. Infrastructure. The kind measured in billions of dollars and years of construction. Amodei: “These are big models. They’re hard to do inference on. Ultimately you have to host it on the cloud. The people who host it on the cloud do inference.” The open source debate was never about who owns the model. It was always about who owns the cloud. And Amodei goes further. When a competitor drops a new open model, he doesn’t ask whether it’s open or closed. He doesn’t care about the licensing. He doesn’t engage the ideology. Amodei: “I don’t think it mattered that DeepSeek is open source. I think I ask, is it a good model? Is it better than us at the things that matter? That’s the only thing that I care about.” That’s the ruthless clarity of someone actually trying to win. While the media debates licensing frameworks, Amodei is asking one question. Is it better. Everything else is a distraction. Amodei: “I don’t think open source works the same way in AI that it has worked in other areas. Here we can’t see inside the model.” This isn’t Linux. You can’t read it. You can’t fork it. You can’t understand it the way generations of developers understood the tools they inherited. You can download it. And then you need a data center to run it. The teenager in the basement who was supposed to be empowered by this revolution needs a billion dollars of infrastructure before the empowerment starts. The era of the basement coder rewriting civilization on a laptop is over. The future belongs to whoever commands the compute, owns the power grid, and can actually turn the intelligence on. Open weights without infrastructure isn’t democratization. It’s a promise the physics of the universe won’t let us keep.

Dustin

687,201 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I’m so sorry but this is the new worst Mega design out of EVERY Mega IMO. Never liked Floette,this was a chance to make it more epic,or at the very least just make its actual face or body a bit different…instead they just give it a bigger,more boring flower I havent beat the game yet and I know this is a Mega exists for the story, but it doesn’t matter. This design and its animations below is what we get and it’s just so uninteresting and uninspired. Sure it’s the same concept as Mega Kangaskhan…but worse. Only the flower Mega Evolves but the flower isn’t a pokemon, it doesn’t have a character or a face (or a good animation to demonstrate its own sentience). I get that it’s because it’s following the whole Floette line gimmick of just their flowers changing. But it’s just not good. I would’ve at least preferred that it evolved into Florges gained a new color and then its Mega would just gain this same flower🤷‍♂️ The shiny is bad too lol
0:26

I’m so sorry but this is the new worst Mega design out of EVERY Mega IMO. Never liked Floette,this was a chance to make it more epic,or at the very least just make its actual face or body a bit different…instead they just give it a bigger,more boring flower I havent beat the game yet and I know this is a Mega exists for the story, but it doesn’t matter. This design and its animations below is what we get and it’s just so uninteresting and uninspired. Sure it’s the same concept as Mega Kangaskhan…but worse. Only the flower Mega Evolves but the flower isn’t a pokemon, it doesn’t have a character or a face (or a good animation to demonstrate its own sentience). I get that it’s because it’s following the whole Floette line gimmick of just their flowers changing. But it’s just not good. I would’ve at least preferred that it evolved into Florges gained a new color and then its Mega would just gain this same flower🤷‍♂️ The shiny is bad too lol

SoulSilverArt

1,681,503 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Paul Pierce says if LeBron James wins a championship somewhere else, it doesn’t elevate what he’s already accomplished: “Even if he wins one in Cleveland, it’s not going to be the same as winning one in Miami, winning one for LA because he was the guy. You know, it doesn’t put him in the same category, when we start talking about when he’s done and the comparisons with Mike, because we’re always going to do that. Let’s just keep it 100. Mike was always the one.” (Via No Fouls Given)
2:44

Paul Pierce says if LeBron James wins a championship somewhere else, it doesn’t elevate what he’s already accomplished: “Even if he wins one in Cleveland, it’s not going to be the same as winning one in Miami, winning one for LA because he was the guy. You know, it doesn’t put him in the same category, when we start talking about when he’s done and the comparisons with Mike, because we’re always going to do that. Let’s just keep it 100. Mike was always the one.” (Via No Fouls Given)

NBA Courtside

171,349 просмотров • 1 месяц назад