Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

LoRA Training Contest: Win iPhone/PS5 and other prizes! Gaussian splash LoRA creation process shared. Competition information: Training address: Tongyi Lab ModelScope #HappyQwensday #QwenImageLora

dx8152's profile picture

大雄

1,799 subscribers

116,477 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie#HappyQwensday#QwenImageLora
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Philadelphia Eagles coach, Nick Sirianni: “Effort is free. You can control your effort” No it’s not and no you can’t! Effort is metabolically costly. You can say ‘effort is free’ every single day and players will still slack off; drop in intensity; give into distractions; be avoidant…to name a few behaviours. Effort is far from free. With every ounce of effort, sugars and glucose that power the brain deplete. Neural fatigue sets in throughout the course of the day. Anxiety is rife in competitive environments meaning effort can be quicker to atrophy. Effort is far from free… It’s also not completely under your control, not only for the very reasons above. Psychology offers us the law of least work: given a choice between similarly rewarding options, organisms learn to avoid those that require more work or effort. A better message? “To high perform and win, we have to put in enormous effort. And this is very, very hard. We’re going to support you to put in effort by giving you the environment, the education, and the skills to ensure that you can optimise your effort daily. By giving you this support we will be demanding. We will stretch you more than any other group of players in the NFL. This won’t be a comfortable process…but we will help you put more effort in that you thought possible…” What can be done? -education and support plans on nutrition; training; sleep; effective rest and recuperate; and lifestyle tools for daily planning -daily training structures that optimise periods during the day where effort can be optimised -engagement tools that help players engage during meetings and training…that help them exert effort appropriately and optimally -learning skills that help players apportion effort during training…that help them self-regulate their learning and practice deliberately -competitive mental skills that optimise player ability to compete while reducing the stress of competition By sending the message that effort is hard, but then providing the environment and skills to train and compete with enormous effort you are helping players develop ‘learned industriousness’ where effort can be experienced as valuable or rewarding in its own right. Effort is neither free nor controllable. But through environmental intervention and upskilling, coaches can help players take control of their effort and experience effort as rewarding.
1:57

Philadelphia Eagles coach, Nick Sirianni: “Effort is free. You can control your effort” No it’s not and no you can’t! Effort is metabolically costly. You can say ‘effort is free’ every single day and players will still slack off; drop in intensity; give into distractions; be avoidant…to name a few behaviours. Effort is far from free. With every ounce of effort, sugars and glucose that power the brain deplete. Neural fatigue sets in throughout the course of the day. Anxiety is rife in competitive environments meaning effort can be quicker to atrophy. Effort is far from free… It’s also not completely under your control, not only for the very reasons above. Psychology offers us the law of least work: given a choice between similarly rewarding options, organisms learn to avoid those that require more work or effort. A better message? “To high perform and win, we have to put in enormous effort. And this is very, very hard. We’re going to support you to put in effort by giving you the environment, the education, and the skills to ensure that you can optimise your effort daily. By giving you this support we will be demanding. We will stretch you more than any other group of players in the NFL. This won’t be a comfortable process…but we will help you put more effort in that you thought possible…” What can be done? -education and support plans on nutrition; training; sleep; effective rest and recuperate; and lifestyle tools for daily planning -daily training structures that optimise periods during the day where effort can be optimised -engagement tools that help players engage during meetings and training…that help them exert effort appropriately and optimally -learning skills that help players apportion effort during training…that help them self-regulate their learning and practice deliberately -competitive mental skills that optimise player ability to compete while reducing the stress of competition By sending the message that effort is hard, but then providing the environment and skills to train and compete with enormous effort you are helping players develop ‘learned industriousness’ where effort can be experienced as valuable or rewarding in its own right. Effort is neither free nor controllable. But through environmental intervention and upskilling, coaches can help players take control of their effort and experience effort as rewarding.

Daniel Abrahams

70,789 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨Mayor Wilson double downs Tuesday and rejects claim her staff delayed Sunday briefing for ‘dignitaries’ yet falls flat on reasoning, still evades on who made the decision Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson on Tuesday again denied that anyone in her office blocked the Seattle Police Department from holding an immediate news conference Sunday night after the gang-related mass shooting at the Bite of Seattle festival. A reporter confronted Wilson with new information that between 7:45 and 8 p.m., alleging that someone from the mayor’s office told SPD leadership they could not proceed with a press conference that police wanted to hold right away, citing the arrival of “dignitaries.” “That is not my understanding, no,” Wilson said. Mayor Wilson told reporters Tuesday that there was extensive back-and-forth among her office, police and state and federal elected officials as they coordinated a response. Wilson said authorities were conducting an active search for suspects at Seattle Center and that she was told it would not be helpful for her or other elected officials to arrive at the scene during that time. “We went back and forth and eventually landed on an appropriate time to address the press and to share information,” she said. “That is my understanding.” Pressed further on whether her office issued any order that effectively prevented police from speaking sooner, Wilson referred reporters to her earlier answer. A second reporter shared with Mayor Wilson at the presser that "what makes it difficult to believe" her explanation on the delay is that SPD personnel have received extensive training and paid tens of thousands of dollars to consultants on crisis communication, to conducting pressers without her nor other "dignitaries" needed to be present. Wilson has and is facing repeated criticism about the delay of the presser to be used as a photo op for politicians instead of expediting the pubic safety information to residents. The delay in waiting for "dignitaries" statement from an SPD spokesperson was also captured by Jeremy Harris of KOMO News later Sunday night on video.
1:47

🚨Mayor Wilson double downs Tuesday and rejects claim her staff delayed Sunday briefing for ‘dignitaries’ yet falls flat on reasoning, still evades on who made the decision Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson on Tuesday again denied that anyone in her office blocked the Seattle Police Department from holding an immediate news conference Sunday night after the gang-related mass shooting at the Bite of Seattle festival. A reporter confronted Wilson with new information that between 7:45 and 8 p.m., alleging that someone from the mayor’s office told SPD leadership they could not proceed with a press conference that police wanted to hold right away, citing the arrival of “dignitaries.” “That is not my understanding, no,” Wilson said. Mayor Wilson told reporters Tuesday that there was extensive back-and-forth among her office, police and state and federal elected officials as they coordinated a response. Wilson said authorities were conducting an active search for suspects at Seattle Center and that she was told it would not be helpful for her or other elected officials to arrive at the scene during that time. “We went back and forth and eventually landed on an appropriate time to address the press and to share information,” she said. “That is my understanding.” Pressed further on whether her office issued any order that effectively prevented police from speaking sooner, Wilson referred reporters to her earlier answer. A second reporter shared with Mayor Wilson at the presser that "what makes it difficult to believe" her explanation on the delay is that SPD personnel have received extensive training and paid tens of thousands of dollars to consultants on crisis communication, to conducting pressers without her nor other "dignitaries" needed to be present. Wilson has and is facing repeated criticism about the delay of the presser to be used as a photo op for politicians instead of expediting the pubic safety information to residents. The delay in waiting for "dignitaries" statement from an SPD spokesperson was also captured by Jeremy Harris of KOMO News later Sunday night on video.

Lynnwood Times

24,281 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

MN Rapid Response Best Practices Guide for Neighborhood or Area Patrol / Monitors. Sponsors, affiliations, and funding. This group was in in the 19-page document MN Rapid Response Manual. Below is a clip of the speakers including elected officials at the IDN press conference. 👇 The Immigrant Defense Network (IDN) is a Minnesota-based statewide coalition launched in early 2025, following the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Six months ago they held a live press conference with the following speakers and elected officials. The speakers in the video and their affiliations: Julio Murphy Zlaya, Advocacy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Ryan Perez, COPAL Minnesota. Jason Chavez, Council Member representing Ward 9 on the Minneapolis City Council. Hujang Kim, Vice President of the St. Paul City Council. Laurel Denin, Council Member from Columbia Heights. SAB Jama, Ayada Leads. Kevin - Minnesota Ward 8, was detained by ICE, and was transferred out of Minnesota to Texas due to current ICE operations and facility overcapacity in the state. Rebecca Larson, Indivisible Twin Cities. Sara Silva, Cathy USA and Northstar Alliance. IDN Funding and Advocacy Work IDN serves as an alliance of over 90 nonprofits, grassroots groups, labor unions, legal aid organizations, faith-based entities, and individual advocates. The network aims to protect and advance the rights of immigrant communities. IDN functions as a community resource hub, an immigration policy watchdog, and a rapid-response system to address alleged violations of immigrant rights and due process. It describes itself as a multiracial, multifaith, and multigenerational effort focused on organizing, educating, and defending immigrants while upholding relevant laws.IDN operates under a "Drive & Defend" framework. The "Defend" component involves rapid response to enforcement actions, including deploying trained "Constitutional Observers" who document ICE activities, verify tips, ensure due process, and mobilize support through patrols, Signal chats, and crowd alerts. The "Drive" aspect focuses on shaping public narratives, advocating for systemic change, and engaging in political processes to improve immigrant quality of life. Key programs include the Brave of US 30 City Midwest Tour for leadership training, the "Adopt a Corner" monitoring campaign, Know Your Rights resources, employer toolkits, and extensive trainings that have reached thousands of participants. IDN is housed as a project of COPAL (Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción Latina), a Minnesota nonprofit, which manages its helpline. Funding for IDN comes primarily through its fiscal sponsor, the COPAL Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that accepts tax-deductible donations. Major grants include $995,000 from the Bush Foundation in 2025 to establish IDN's infrastructure and rapid-response capabilities, $350,000 from the McKnight Foundation for development and tool creation, and $100,000 from the Northwest Area Foundation for outreach, education, mental health training, and emergency services. Additional support has come from federal grants to COPAL (over $2 million in recent years), other foundations like the Margaret A. Cargill Fund, and individual contributions. The network features a seven-member steering committee and broader affiliates. Steering committee members include representatives from ACLU Minnesota, Ayada Leads, COPAL, Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration (ICOM), Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota 8, and The Advocates for Human Rights. Other key affiliates encompass groups like CAIR Minnesota, Unidos MN, Black Immigrant Collective, and Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid. Leadership is collaborative, with notable Minnesota-based individuals including Edwin Torres DeSantiago as IDN Manager (a former political director for Gov. Tim Walz with prior roles in vaccine outreach and Democratic campaigns) and Ryan Perez as COPAL Organizing Director (who oversees trainings and campaigns). IDN emphasizes collective action through its member organizations rather than a hierarchical structure.
1:01

MN Rapid Response Best Practices Guide for Neighborhood or Area Patrol / Monitors. Sponsors, affiliations, and funding. This group was in in the 19-page document MN Rapid Response Manual. Below is a clip of the speakers including elected officials at the IDN press conference. 👇 The Immigrant Defense Network (IDN) is a Minnesota-based statewide coalition launched in early 2025, following the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Six months ago they held a live press conference with the following speakers and elected officials. The speakers in the video and their affiliations: Julio Murphy Zlaya, Advocacy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Ryan Perez, COPAL Minnesota. Jason Chavez, Council Member representing Ward 9 on the Minneapolis City Council. Hujang Kim, Vice President of the St. Paul City Council. Laurel Denin, Council Member from Columbia Heights. SAB Jama, Ayada Leads. Kevin - Minnesota Ward 8, was detained by ICE, and was transferred out of Minnesota to Texas due to current ICE operations and facility overcapacity in the state. Rebecca Larson, Indivisible Twin Cities. Sara Silva, Cathy USA and Northstar Alliance. IDN Funding and Advocacy Work IDN serves as an alliance of over 90 nonprofits, grassroots groups, labor unions, legal aid organizations, faith-based entities, and individual advocates. The network aims to protect and advance the rights of immigrant communities. IDN functions as a community resource hub, an immigration policy watchdog, and a rapid-response system to address alleged violations of immigrant rights and due process. It describes itself as a multiracial, multifaith, and multigenerational effort focused on organizing, educating, and defending immigrants while upholding relevant laws.IDN operates under a "Drive & Defend" framework. The "Defend" component involves rapid response to enforcement actions, including deploying trained "Constitutional Observers" who document ICE activities, verify tips, ensure due process, and mobilize support through patrols, Signal chats, and crowd alerts. The "Drive" aspect focuses on shaping public narratives, advocating for systemic change, and engaging in political processes to improve immigrant quality of life. Key programs include the Brave of US 30 City Midwest Tour for leadership training, the "Adopt a Corner" monitoring campaign, Know Your Rights resources, employer toolkits, and extensive trainings that have reached thousands of participants. IDN is housed as a project of COPAL (Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Acción Latina), a Minnesota nonprofit, which manages its helpline. Funding for IDN comes primarily through its fiscal sponsor, the COPAL Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that accepts tax-deductible donations. Major grants include $995,000 from the Bush Foundation in 2025 to establish IDN's infrastructure and rapid-response capabilities, $350,000 from the McKnight Foundation for development and tool creation, and $100,000 from the Northwest Area Foundation for outreach, education, mental health training, and emergency services. Additional support has come from federal grants to COPAL (over $2 million in recent years), other foundations like the Margaret A. Cargill Fund, and individual contributions. The network features a seven-member steering committee and broader affiliates. Steering committee members include representatives from ACLU Minnesota, Ayada Leads, COPAL, Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration (ICOM), Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota 8, and The Advocates for Human Rights. Other key affiliates encompass groups like CAIR Minnesota, Unidos MN, Black Immigrant Collective, and Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid. Leadership is collaborative, with notable Minnesota-based individuals including Edwin Torres DeSantiago as IDN Manager (a former political director for Gov. Tim Walz with prior roles in vaccine outreach and Democratic campaigns) and Ryan Perez as COPAL Organizing Director (who oversees trainings and campaigns). IDN emphasizes collective action through its member organizations rather than a hierarchical structure.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

23,161 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

It was an insightful session today at the World Economic Forum World Economic Forum as I joined other global leaders, including Anita Zaidi Anita Zaidi of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Catherine Russell Catherine Russell of UNICEF, and Bernd Montag Bernd Montag of Siemens Healthineers Siemens Healthineers, to discuss the critical importance of investing in women’s health. It also provided an opportunity to share Nigeria’s bold reforms and achievements of HE President Bola Ahmed, GCFR, Bola Ahmed Tinubu under the Health Sector Renewal Investment Initiative (#NHSRII). I highlighted the longstanding neglect of women’s health in global health policies, from reproductive and maternal health to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Through NHSRII, we are implementing targeted reforms to address these gaps. This includes revitalizing thousands of primary healthcare centers NPHCDA, training over 53,000 frontline health workers, and introducing financial protection mechanisms to ensure women can access essential services, including antenatal and emergency obstetric care, without financial hardship. Our approach integrates innovation and insights from women themselves. For example, focus groups in northeastern Nigeria revealed cultural misconceptions that limit the use of maternal health services, underscoring the need for policies grounded in the lived realities of women. Additionally, we are leveraging Nigeria’s mixed health system by working with the private sector to localize the production of reproductive health commodities and expand economic opportunities for women through job creation in healthcare. We are also prioritizing women’s leadership in healthcare governance through initiatives like the National Health Fellows Program, ensuring women are at the forefront of shaping inclusive policies. These efforts are driven by our commitment to equity and reflect the broader Renewed Hope Agenda’s whole-of-society / whole -of-government approach to achieving better health outcomes for all Nigerians. I would like to acknowledge our moderator, Ms Fifi Peters Fifi Peters of CNBC Africa CNBC Africa, for facilitating such a vibrant and insightful session that allowed us to explore these critical issues with depth and purpose. Investing in women’s health is not just a health priority; it is essential for economic and social transformation. Through collaboration, shared accountability, and innovation, we can close the gaps and accelerate progress toward universal health coverage, leaving no woman behind.
2:45

It was an insightful session today at the World Economic Forum World Economic Forum as I joined other global leaders, including Anita Zaidi Anita Zaidi of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Catherine Russell Catherine Russell of UNICEF, and Bernd Montag Bernd Montag of Siemens Healthineers Siemens Healthineers, to discuss the critical importance of investing in women’s health. It also provided an opportunity to share Nigeria’s bold reforms and achievements of HE President Bola Ahmed, GCFR, Bola Ahmed Tinubu under the Health Sector Renewal Investment Initiative (#NHSRII). I highlighted the longstanding neglect of women’s health in global health policies, from reproductive and maternal health to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Through NHSRII, we are implementing targeted reforms to address these gaps. This includes revitalizing thousands of primary healthcare centers NPHCDA, training over 53,000 frontline health workers, and introducing financial protection mechanisms to ensure women can access essential services, including antenatal and emergency obstetric care, without financial hardship. Our approach integrates innovation and insights from women themselves. For example, focus groups in northeastern Nigeria revealed cultural misconceptions that limit the use of maternal health services, underscoring the need for policies grounded in the lived realities of women. Additionally, we are leveraging Nigeria’s mixed health system by working with the private sector to localize the production of reproductive health commodities and expand economic opportunities for women through job creation in healthcare. We are also prioritizing women’s leadership in healthcare governance through initiatives like the National Health Fellows Program, ensuring women are at the forefront of shaping inclusive policies. These efforts are driven by our commitment to equity and reflect the broader Renewed Hope Agenda’s whole-of-society / whole -of-government approach to achieving better health outcomes for all Nigerians. I would like to acknowledge our moderator, Ms Fifi Peters Fifi Peters of CNBC Africa CNBC Africa, for facilitating such a vibrant and insightful session that allowed us to explore these critical issues with depth and purpose. Investing in women’s health is not just a health priority; it is essential for economic and social transformation. Through collaboration, shared accountability, and innovation, we can close the gaps and accelerate progress toward universal health coverage, leaving no woman behind.

Muhammad Ali Pate

12,620 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I’ve been researching depth-residual routing & delta memory- Kimi K3 proved this holds at 2.8T params. But only for models trained this way I then asked: can you retrofit this onto existing LLM/world models? Introducing Retro-DARC: a Delta Attention Residual Compute adapter that retrofits depth-selective memory onto existing models without retraining: EA exact no-op at insertion (bitwise 0.0 deviation on 3 public checkpoints - proven exact even through MoE routing and early exit), adapter-only training, exact rollback, and content-level memory audits that weight-touching adapters can't express by construction. The early results are promising. A ~262K-param adapter beat LoRA on a frozen public checkpoint, inserted at zero behavioral risk. And it's the first memory you can audit: zero the bank and the frozen loss returns to machine precision; shuffle it and 70–107% of the gain vanishes. That's a model measurably using its own computation history. Retro-DARC is useful for improving K3 too. K3 serves in MXFP4/MXFP8, and layer outputs - exactly what its AttnRes retrieves - collapse under that corruption in my tests (0.04–0.75 top-1) while normalized delta keys hold 0.86–0.99. A Softmax1 null route with proven mass bounds lets the router decline to retrieve instead of forcing the sinks and outliers OASIS documented; typed memory turns "what is depth retrieval doing?" into a runnable audit. And one experiment is free: K3 already computes a per-step KDA update magnitude and throws it away - that's a depth-saliency prior waiting to be read. For world models, the same contract becomes one typed memory interface: Retro-DARC-X gives world/action planners a single bank - observations, actions, tools, latent causes, traces, physics residuals, failures - the substrates a planner needs to remember in order to act over long horizons in the physical world. You can experience the thesis yourself. I created which runs the paper's memory contract inside a walkable AI world. Innovation Memory makes your interactions survive looking away or reloading, and Dream Residue turns your movement into an inspectable glowing trace. Join the main co-creation exhibition - the contest opens Wednesday. One of the six memory applications of the paper - saliency-weighted curation, will rank worlds by genuine novelty rather than recency and pick each world's most surprising viewpoint. And we're bringing live shows to SF + LA next month: screens showcasing worlds that remember, so you can literally play hide-and-seek with a dream that knows where you hide. Hide-and-seek is the exact test every 2026 world-model benchmark says the field fails, something leaves the frame, keeps changing, and has to come back right. This has been a fun little one-person research project so far! I’d love feedback and keep working on it. I’ve had over 100 references- thanks for all the prior work from teams that inspired me! I'd also love to intern at a GPU-rich lab (lol) and keep making beautiful worlds - if you let me keep running my remaining tests :) 2MB adapter kit, demo, prior iterations: Paper:
0:20

I’ve been researching depth-residual routing & delta memory- Kimi K3 proved this holds at 2.8T params. But only for models trained this way I then asked: can you retrofit this onto existing LLM/world models? Introducing Retro-DARC: a Delta Attention Residual Compute adapter that retrofits depth-selective memory onto existing models without retraining: EA exact no-op at insertion (bitwise 0.0 deviation on 3 public checkpoints - proven exact even through MoE routing and early exit), adapter-only training, exact rollback, and content-level memory audits that weight-touching adapters can't express by construction. The early results are promising. A ~262K-param adapter beat LoRA on a frozen public checkpoint, inserted at zero behavioral risk. And it's the first memory you can audit: zero the bank and the frozen loss returns to machine precision; shuffle it and 70–107% of the gain vanishes. That's a model measurably using its own computation history. Retro-DARC is useful for improving K3 too. K3 serves in MXFP4/MXFP8, and layer outputs - exactly what its AttnRes retrieves - collapse under that corruption in my tests (0.04–0.75 top-1) while normalized delta keys hold 0.86–0.99. A Softmax1 null route with proven mass bounds lets the router decline to retrieve instead of forcing the sinks and outliers OASIS documented; typed memory turns "what is depth retrieval doing?" into a runnable audit. And one experiment is free: K3 already computes a per-step KDA update magnitude and throws it away - that's a depth-saliency prior waiting to be read. For world models, the same contract becomes one typed memory interface: Retro-DARC-X gives world/action planners a single bank - observations, actions, tools, latent causes, traces, physics residuals, failures - the substrates a planner needs to remember in order to act over long horizons in the physical world. You can experience the thesis yourself. I created which runs the paper's memory contract inside a walkable AI world. Innovation Memory makes your interactions survive looking away or reloading, and Dream Residue turns your movement into an inspectable glowing trace. Join the main co-creation exhibition - the contest opens Wednesday. One of the six memory applications of the paper - saliency-weighted curation, will rank worlds by genuine novelty rather than recency and pick each world's most surprising viewpoint. And we're bringing live shows to SF + LA next month: screens showcasing worlds that remember, so you can literally play hide-and-seek with a dream that knows where you hide. Hide-and-seek is the exact test every 2026 world-model benchmark says the field fails, something leaves the frame, keeps changing, and has to come back right. This has been a fun little one-person research project so far! I’d love feedback and keep working on it. I’ve had over 100 references- thanks for all the prior work from teams that inspired me! I'd also love to intern at a GPU-rich lab (lol) and keep making beautiful worlds - if you let me keep running my remaining tests :) 2MB adapter kit, demo, prior iterations: Paper:

ada cyborg (🤖, 🔮)

11,344 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

How I Build My Teams I always liked the idea of ‘possession football’: - Control the game. - A tool to develop players. - The opponent can’t score without the ball. But I built it the wrong way: “Keep the ball. Find a gap to attack.” This turned into “side-to-side” passing. It was boring and ineffective. \ The idea. So, I flipped the idea: Instead of controlling to attack, we attack to control. Play as vertical as possible (while maintaining control). If not possible, pass back. Avoid sideways passes. For better connections and counter-press, we use a vertical, narrow structure: These simple decisions lead to short, vertical, and diagonal passes. This is what I call 'vertical possession' football. \ Make it work. The idea is simple. The execution is not. Over the years, I’ve worked to close the gap between vision and reality. (watch example below) My goal is to get closer to my vision every day. But as Vince Lombardi said: “Perfection is unattainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” Here’s my plan to 'catch excellence': 1. Build it my way. Ignore opinions. Opinions lead to conformity. We reduce our philosophy to its essence—and build from there. Everything else is a distraction. 2. Stick to it. We limit ourselves to core principles, and stick to them. When there’s a problem, we don’t change the idea—we improve its execution. 3. Eliminate waste. Building a style of play is like carving a statue. You start with a block of marble and chip away everything unnecessary. All that’s left is the sculpture. We do the same. We cut every unnecessary touch and step: - Fewer touches mean we need less time and space. We have more space to be creative. - The simpler it gets, the more recognizable the style. 4. Obsess over the players. We don’t adapt to opponents. We focus on our players. That's what matters in the long run. When our ideas work, we can compete against anyone. 5. Develop technical and creative players as a by-product. - Possession: Many touches to refine technique. - Vertical: No “easy” sideways passes. Learn to play in tight spaces. - Control: Avoid hectic football. Control the ball to make deliberate decisions. 6. One Training Structure. We compress our philosophy into one structure. Then, we repeat it every session. We make our style of play a habit. And we develop the tools to execute it. 7. Master a Few Exercises. We repeat a small set of core games over and over. We focus on improving execution, not on new drills. The better we execute, the faster we get to our vision. 8. Bottleneck Coaching. We can’t predict what happens, so we don’t over-plan. Instead, we prepare for what might happen. This liberates our coaching: Rather than sticking to pre-planned coaching points, we solve the most critical issue—the bottleneck. 9. Competition Drives Development. Games are the core of our training. Players compete to win. They force each other to get better and better, session after session. 10. Positive Team Culture. I used to react with anger when things didn’t go right. And yes, it can work in the short term. But to build something great, players must stay on the path for a long time. This is more likely when they enjoy the process. Positive reinforcement is harder to do, but more sustainable. \ What's next? That's the plan. Now, it’s all about execution. I'll keep you updated.
2:47

How I Build My Teams I always liked the idea of ‘possession football’: - Control the game. - A tool to develop players. - The opponent can’t score without the ball. But I built it the wrong way: “Keep the ball. Find a gap to attack.” This turned into “side-to-side” passing. It was boring and ineffective. \ The idea. So, I flipped the idea: Instead of controlling to attack, we attack to control. Play as vertical as possible (while maintaining control). If not possible, pass back. Avoid sideways passes. For better connections and counter-press, we use a vertical, narrow structure: These simple decisions lead to short, vertical, and diagonal passes. This is what I call 'vertical possession' football. \ Make it work. The idea is simple. The execution is not. Over the years, I’ve worked to close the gap between vision and reality. (watch example below) My goal is to get closer to my vision every day. But as Vince Lombardi said: “Perfection is unattainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” Here’s my plan to 'catch excellence': 1. Build it my way. Ignore opinions. Opinions lead to conformity. We reduce our philosophy to its essence—and build from there. Everything else is a distraction. 2. Stick to it. We limit ourselves to core principles, and stick to them. When there’s a problem, we don’t change the idea—we improve its execution. 3. Eliminate waste. Building a style of play is like carving a statue. You start with a block of marble and chip away everything unnecessary. All that’s left is the sculpture. We do the same. We cut every unnecessary touch and step: - Fewer touches mean we need less time and space. We have more space to be creative. - The simpler it gets, the more recognizable the style. 4. Obsess over the players. We don’t adapt to opponents. We focus on our players. That's what matters in the long run. When our ideas work, we can compete against anyone. 5. Develop technical and creative players as a by-product. - Possession: Many touches to refine technique. - Vertical: No “easy” sideways passes. Learn to play in tight spaces. - Control: Avoid hectic football. Control the ball to make deliberate decisions. 6. One Training Structure. We compress our philosophy into one structure. Then, we repeat it every session. We make our style of play a habit. And we develop the tools to execute it. 7. Master a Few Exercises. We repeat a small set of core games over and over. We focus on improving execution, not on new drills. The better we execute, the faster we get to our vision. 8. Bottleneck Coaching. We can’t predict what happens, so we don’t over-plan. Instead, we prepare for what might happen. This liberates our coaching: Rather than sticking to pre-planned coaching points, we solve the most critical issue—the bottleneck. 9. Competition Drives Development. Games are the core of our training. Players compete to win. They force each other to get better and better, session after session. 10. Positive Team Culture. I used to react with anger when things didn’t go right. And yes, it can work in the short term. But to build something great, players must stay on the path for a long time. This is more likely when they enjoy the process. Positive reinforcement is harder to do, but more sustainable. \ What's next? That's the plan. Now, it’s all about execution. I'll keep you updated.

Bene Schneiderbauer

59,810 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Neuroscientist Dr. Jeff Beck from Noumenal Labs discusses the fundamental nature of representation, understanding, and modelling, comparing biological intelligence with current artificial intelligence. Jeff argues that *how* information is represented dictates predictive ability and that LLMs, while impressive at symbol manipulation and pattern matching (like next-word prediction), lack the *grounded*, causal understanding of the world inherent in biological systems. Timestamps: 00:00 - Cat visual cortex experiments & discovering orientation sensitivity (slide projector analogy) 01:49 - Representation choice and neural coding (orientation vs. feature intensity) 02:30 - Choice of representation impacts predictions; generative models 03:15 - Importance of choosing the right generative model for predictions 03:35 - The problem: We don't know the brain's true generative model 03:55 - Theory of Mind (ToM) in LLMs 04:05 - Jeff Beck's ToM tests on early ChatGPT (stapler example) 05:40 - ChatGPT recognizing the ToM test vs. passing it 06:32 - Analogy: LLMs recognizing known problems vs. generalizing (sum/product riddle) 07:25 - Do LLMs implicitly build world models? Vicarious experience analogy 07:59 - The difference: Grounding symbols in reality outside language 08:35 - AI Alignment: Difficulty in capturing human reward functions & belief formation 09:21 - Nightmare scenario: Humans as "complacent value function selectors" 09:44 - Hope: AI enhancing human understanding, not replacing thought 10:08 - Philosophy of science: Science realism vs. modeling pockets of regularity 10:39 - Noise in models as ignorance or deliberate exclusion (design choice) 11:00 - Design choices in science, controlled experiments, and induced bias 11:29 - Are there true, discoverable mathematical laws of the universe? 11:41 - Is there a "true" ground truth distribution (P)? Beck's answer: No (with nuance) 12:55 - Ontological vs. Epistemological divide: Perfect models vs. models of regularities 13:21 - Are scientific models "false by definition"? The Bayesian perspective 14:07 - "All knowledge is conditional"; Are foundational theories (e.g., FEP) true or just perspectives? 14:51 - FEP as a mathematical framework, not a theory; models are just models 15:54 - Legibility vs. Utility: Useful but illegible AI models 16:01 - Prediction vs. Explanation: Trusting black boxes can be unsatisfying 16:30 - Why understanding AI matters: Ensuring alignment with human decisions/values 17:08 - Line-of-sight legibility as an alignment approach 17:14 - Benefits of explainable AI: Human understanding and value alignment verification 18:21 - RL components: Prediction engine, reward function, policy; the alignment challenge 19:25 - Trusting AI = Trusting its policy aligns with our reward + its superior beliefs 19:57 - Language: Intrinsic representation vs. pointers between shared minds 20:21 - Why language works: Shared internal models and common grounding 21:00 - Basis of shared understanding: Not linguistic, but shared experience/intuitive physics 22:44 - Consciousness and language as lossy, simplified summaries of complex brain processes 23:22 - Evidence for simplification: Brain regions, perception vs. representation; limits of language models 24:32 - Counterpoint: Language captures complex/ambiguous human concepts 24:54 - Language as massive compression: The information bottleneck (Meister's paper) 26:22 - Implication: Language/actions are poor representations of internal understanding 27:03 - Can language models understand? The mimicry argument (Piantadosi) 27:33 - Beck's skepticism: LLMs excel at prediction/mimicry, not true understanding 28:09 - LLM explanations replicate structure but lack grounding 28:54 - Beck's test for LLM understanding: Genuine novelty beyond training data 29:19 - Summary: Symbol manipulation is not understanding; grounding is key 30:06 - Abstraction and Idealization in scientific modeling ("The Brain Abstracted") 30:45 - Revisiting Newton: Intuitive physics is correct for our world; idealizations are simplifications 32:01 - Sophistication & boundaries: Nested systems vs. one complex system? 32:32 - The boundary problem in FEP/Markov Blankets: Where to partition? 33:41 - Beck's research: Finding principled partitions based on interaction dynamics 35:44 - Beyond direct experience: Imagination, language, and learning 36:16 - Human creativity: Creating new *things* by combining modeled objects (Systems Engineering) 37:43 - Goal for AI: Automating systems engineering for creative combination 38:17 - Sutton's "Reward is Enough" paper 38:25 - The challenge of "Reward is Enough": Defining and obtaining the *right* reward function 39:02 - Difficulty of eliciting individual reward functions 39:52 - The core alignment problem: Accessing and representing individual reward functions 40:13 - Impossibility: Disentangling beliefs and rewards from observed actions 41:51 - Argument analogy: Disagreements stem from different beliefs or values 43:00 - Prerequisite for value inference: Understanding belief formation 43:13 - Building aligned systems: Sparsity of data, meta-models vs. base system modification 43:46 - Proposed solution: AI layer that models the human's belief formation system 44:40 - Alignment process: Align beliefs first, then address value differences 45:00 - Conclusion CC Maxwell Ramstead
45:03

Neuroscientist Dr. Jeff Beck from Noumenal Labs discusses the fundamental nature of representation, understanding, and modelling, comparing biological intelligence with current artificial intelligence. Jeff argues that *how* information is represented dictates predictive ability and that LLMs, while impressive at symbol manipulation and pattern matching (like next-word prediction), lack the *grounded*, causal understanding of the world inherent in biological systems. Timestamps: 00:00 - Cat visual cortex experiments & discovering orientation sensitivity (slide projector analogy) 01:49 - Representation choice and neural coding (orientation vs. feature intensity) 02:30 - Choice of representation impacts predictions; generative models 03:15 - Importance of choosing the right generative model for predictions 03:35 - The problem: We don't know the brain's true generative model 03:55 - Theory of Mind (ToM) in LLMs 04:05 - Jeff Beck's ToM tests on early ChatGPT (stapler example) 05:40 - ChatGPT recognizing the ToM test vs. passing it 06:32 - Analogy: LLMs recognizing known problems vs. generalizing (sum/product riddle) 07:25 - Do LLMs implicitly build world models? Vicarious experience analogy 07:59 - The difference: Grounding symbols in reality outside language 08:35 - AI Alignment: Difficulty in capturing human reward functions & belief formation 09:21 - Nightmare scenario: Humans as "complacent value function selectors" 09:44 - Hope: AI enhancing human understanding, not replacing thought 10:08 - Philosophy of science: Science realism vs. modeling pockets of regularity 10:39 - Noise in models as ignorance or deliberate exclusion (design choice) 11:00 - Design choices in science, controlled experiments, and induced bias 11:29 - Are there true, discoverable mathematical laws of the universe? 11:41 - Is there a "true" ground truth distribution (P)? Beck's answer: No (with nuance) 12:55 - Ontological vs. Epistemological divide: Perfect models vs. models of regularities 13:21 - Are scientific models "false by definition"? The Bayesian perspective 14:07 - "All knowledge is conditional"; Are foundational theories (e.g., FEP) true or just perspectives? 14:51 - FEP as a mathematical framework, not a theory; models are just models 15:54 - Legibility vs. Utility: Useful but illegible AI models 16:01 - Prediction vs. Explanation: Trusting black boxes can be unsatisfying 16:30 - Why understanding AI matters: Ensuring alignment with human decisions/values 17:08 - Line-of-sight legibility as an alignment approach 17:14 - Benefits of explainable AI: Human understanding and value alignment verification 18:21 - RL components: Prediction engine, reward function, policy; the alignment challenge 19:25 - Trusting AI = Trusting its policy aligns with our reward + its superior beliefs 19:57 - Language: Intrinsic representation vs. pointers between shared minds 20:21 - Why language works: Shared internal models and common grounding 21:00 - Basis of shared understanding: Not linguistic, but shared experience/intuitive physics 22:44 - Consciousness and language as lossy, simplified summaries of complex brain processes 23:22 - Evidence for simplification: Brain regions, perception vs. representation; limits of language models 24:32 - Counterpoint: Language captures complex/ambiguous human concepts 24:54 - Language as massive compression: The information bottleneck (Meister's paper) 26:22 - Implication: Language/actions are poor representations of internal understanding 27:03 - Can language models understand? The mimicry argument (Piantadosi) 27:33 - Beck's skepticism: LLMs excel at prediction/mimicry, not true understanding 28:09 - LLM explanations replicate structure but lack grounding 28:54 - Beck's test for LLM understanding: Genuine novelty beyond training data 29:19 - Summary: Symbol manipulation is not understanding; grounding is key 30:06 - Abstraction and Idealization in scientific modeling ("The Brain Abstracted") 30:45 - Revisiting Newton: Intuitive physics is correct for our world; idealizations are simplifications 32:01 - Sophistication & boundaries: Nested systems vs. one complex system? 32:32 - The boundary problem in FEP/Markov Blankets: Where to partition? 33:41 - Beck's research: Finding principled partitions based on interaction dynamics 35:44 - Beyond direct experience: Imagination, language, and learning 36:16 - Human creativity: Creating new *things* by combining modeled objects (Systems Engineering) 37:43 - Goal for AI: Automating systems engineering for creative combination 38:17 - Sutton's "Reward is Enough" paper 38:25 - The challenge of "Reward is Enough": Defining and obtaining the *right* reward function 39:02 - Difficulty of eliciting individual reward functions 39:52 - The core alignment problem: Accessing and representing individual reward functions 40:13 - Impossibility: Disentangling beliefs and rewards from observed actions 41:51 - Argument analogy: Disagreements stem from different beliefs or values 43:00 - Prerequisite for value inference: Understanding belief formation 43:13 - Building aligned systems: Sparsity of data, meta-models vs. base system modification 43:46 - Proposed solution: AI layer that models the human's belief formation system 44:40 - Alignment process: Align beliefs first, then address value differences 45:00 - Conclusion CC Maxwell Ramstead

Machine Learning Street Talk

17,828 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

DarkFi's goal is to create an agorist parallel economy completely free of state power using anonymous crypto and p2p tech. Our future vision is a confederation of autonomous sovereign nations. Nations often overlap and solve their needs locally. We can even have cyber nations. Politics is not voting every 5 years for a political pageant. It is a core human activity for our freedom, security and needs. DarkFi removes the state and middle men from politics. The DarkFi blockchain is fully programmable with ZK smart contracts, and a very advanced base layer tech stack. We have spent years polishing it. We aim to create parallel markets for agorists. The DarkFi tech stack We went further. We created our own stack to organize community. We are on a mission to conquer cyberspace. To wrest power from the state. To mobilize freedom movements by activating revolutionaries. We created the world's strongest anonymous p2p chat, and an anonymous task manager. In 2021, people thought DAOs would change the world and usher in the post-corporate crypto governance. But it never had strength to change anything. Instead it devolved into wagmi nihilism. People lost belief. Why didn't DAOs change anything? DAOs didn't change anything because they were transparent. DAOs must be strongly anon otherwise your movement will go to jail. The status quo does not tolerate competition. Every cell in nature has a cell wall. Defense is integral to organism's survival. We are not hippy pacifists who want to degrow out of existence. We are here to expand. As Satoshi said: "we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years." We created the world's first fully anonymous DAO. Nobody has done this yet. That means a token weighted anon treasury with all participants, proposals and activity completely hidden. Nations require sovereignty and the people should be in charge. It won't happen naturally. We have to use tech to exit and form parallel society. DarkFi is now in the final phase of the release cycle. After mainnet, we will begin the next phase of products. Our vision is to revolutionize society/culture, law, education, economy, governance and self-defense. For society and culture we have built the strongest uncensored p2p tech, and we will continue to iterate and double down here. It's essential for humanity, freedom and nature. We have to rethink law without the state. Contracts between individuals, and decentralized polycentric law. This was the original reason why smart contracts were invented. Yet this has not yet emerged. We cannot mobilize at scale without thinking how to enable new forms of human association and bottom-up non-coercive opt-in organizations. Imagine markets where you can opt into legal codes and digital jurisdictions. The education system is broken. Schools create uncreative thinker drones. University is a groupthink institution. We need to go back to the ancient greek ideal of the academy. Students self-learn under the guidance of a mentor. Education is a mix of math, dev, philosophy and sports. DarkFi already is training hacker devs, and in the future will create the first academies to train the next generation of tech leaders. For economy, we need decentralized markets, distributed reputation, private asset issuance, encrypted shopfronts, uncensorable crowdfunding platforms, stock platforms and information markets. It's incredible that in over a decade, nobody has built this yet. DarkFi is going to do it, just wait. Self-defense comes from freedom of information, by giving people the means to defend their community such as 3D printed guns. Lastly governance. We need information markets for decentralized anon discovery. This is how you ensure transparency of governance - by having full protection for individuals to get the word out. Everyone else in crypto is too afraid and incompetent. No other project will build the tools humanity needs. It's why DarkFi exists. DarkFi will come and grow day by day. It is unstoppable and will ultimately win. Post mainnet we will start working on v2 of DarkFi which will be the next gen in super scalable ZK succinct & anonymous blockchain. So we're not worried for scaling either. With smart contracts, arbitration & escrow, decentralized reputation (not identity!), we can pioneer alternative ownership models. The UK ultimately won over spain in the 1500s going on to conquer the world because of inventing the central bank model where the state was fiscalized. Imagine now we about to again overturn the logic of violence with parallel economies where the money will flow. Nothing can stop this. With this new ownership models where communities own their infra and economy can flourish. For example agricultural coops and small farmers can create their own tax-free internal economies with anon token issuance linking up into confederations outside the state. The burden of tax is ultimately highest on small producers. Imagine how powerful this section of the market can be. We then have true sovereignty outside the state. This is more than "numba go up", it's the true real innovation community. It is strong and steady. Other projects want this, but they cannot have this because they are captured ideologically. Mark these words. We are in the turning of a new era where crypto changes the logic of violence. Zoom out and see the big picture. We are destined to win, yet we have to start fighting. ⚔️ Let there be dark.
0:27

DarkFi's goal is to create an agorist parallel economy completely free of state power using anonymous crypto and p2p tech. Our future vision is a confederation of autonomous sovereign nations. Nations often overlap and solve their needs locally. We can even have cyber nations. Politics is not voting every 5 years for a political pageant. It is a core human activity for our freedom, security and needs. DarkFi removes the state and middle men from politics. The DarkFi blockchain is fully programmable with ZK smart contracts, and a very advanced base layer tech stack. We have spent years polishing it. We aim to create parallel markets for agorists. The DarkFi tech stack We went further. We created our own stack to organize community. We are on a mission to conquer cyberspace. To wrest power from the state. To mobilize freedom movements by activating revolutionaries. We created the world's strongest anonymous p2p chat, and an anonymous task manager. In 2021, people thought DAOs would change the world and usher in the post-corporate crypto governance. But it never had strength to change anything. Instead it devolved into wagmi nihilism. People lost belief. Why didn't DAOs change anything? DAOs didn't change anything because they were transparent. DAOs must be strongly anon otherwise your movement will go to jail. The status quo does not tolerate competition. Every cell in nature has a cell wall. Defense is integral to organism's survival. We are not hippy pacifists who want to degrow out of existence. We are here to expand. As Satoshi said: "we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years." We created the world's first fully anonymous DAO. Nobody has done this yet. That means a token weighted anon treasury with all participants, proposals and activity completely hidden. Nations require sovereignty and the people should be in charge. It won't happen naturally. We have to use tech to exit and form parallel society. DarkFi is now in the final phase of the release cycle. After mainnet, we will begin the next phase of products. Our vision is to revolutionize society/culture, law, education, economy, governance and self-defense. For society and culture we have built the strongest uncensored p2p tech, and we will continue to iterate and double down here. It's essential for humanity, freedom and nature. We have to rethink law without the state. Contracts between individuals, and decentralized polycentric law. This was the original reason why smart contracts were invented. Yet this has not yet emerged. We cannot mobilize at scale without thinking how to enable new forms of human association and bottom-up non-coercive opt-in organizations. Imagine markets where you can opt into legal codes and digital jurisdictions. The education system is broken. Schools create uncreative thinker drones. University is a groupthink institution. We need to go back to the ancient greek ideal of the academy. Students self-learn under the guidance of a mentor. Education is a mix of math, dev, philosophy and sports. DarkFi already is training hacker devs, and in the future will create the first academies to train the next generation of tech leaders. For economy, we need decentralized markets, distributed reputation, private asset issuance, encrypted shopfronts, uncensorable crowdfunding platforms, stock platforms and information markets. It's incredible that in over a decade, nobody has built this yet. DarkFi is going to do it, just wait. Self-defense comes from freedom of information, by giving people the means to defend their community such as 3D printed guns. Lastly governance. We need information markets for decentralized anon discovery. This is how you ensure transparency of governance - by having full protection for individuals to get the word out. Everyone else in crypto is too afraid and incompetent. No other project will build the tools humanity needs. It's why DarkFi exists. DarkFi will come and grow day by day. It is unstoppable and will ultimately win. Post mainnet we will start working on v2 of DarkFi which will be the next gen in super scalable ZK succinct & anonymous blockchain. So we're not worried for scaling either. With smart contracts, arbitration & escrow, decentralized reputation (not identity!), we can pioneer alternative ownership models. The UK ultimately won over spain in the 1500s going on to conquer the world because of inventing the central bank model where the state was fiscalized. Imagine now we about to again overturn the logic of violence with parallel economies where the money will flow. Nothing can stop this. With this new ownership models where communities own their infra and economy can flourish. For example agricultural coops and small farmers can create their own tax-free internal economies with anon token issuance linking up into confederations outside the state. The burden of tax is ultimately highest on small producers. Imagine how powerful this section of the market can be. We then have true sovereignty outside the state. This is more than "numba go up", it's the true real innovation community. It is strong and steady. Other projects want this, but they cannot have this because they are captured ideologically. Mark these words. We are in the turning of a new era where crypto changes the logic of violence. Zoom out and see the big picture. We are destined to win, yet we have to start fighting. ⚔️ Let there be dark.

Amir Taaki ⛛

27,132 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Make Art Not War: The Battle for Creativity It's Adobe's annual Max event in London today and scott belsky's spotlight on AI paints a clear picture: AI isn't just on Adobe's agenda, it is the agenda. Adobe has already scored a home run with generative fill in Photoshop, a feature now spawning entire categories of memes - including my own video, which surprisingly garnered a million views. However, Adobe's ambitions extend beyond still imagery. The Tanker Charges Towards Video At Max, Adobe's Chief Product Officer put an emphasis on AI video generation with Firefly Video. The tech tanker is charging full steam ahead to the next obvious modality for creation, leaving a wake of disruption for any upstarts bold enough to challenge it. The announcement isn't new, but it showcases the emphasis on new product development with a marked increase in the velocity we can expect from the creative tech behemoth. The company that defined the norms of video editing with Premiere, and motion graphics with After Effects, has now entered the realm of AI-powered creation. The wake-up call is clear - the tankers are moving fast. Goliath vs. The Upstarts This development spells a daunting challenge for the numerous start-ups that dared to dethrone Adobe in recent years. For plenty of use cases people have been asking: Why use Photoshop when you have MidJourney? Why use Premiere when you have Descript? Why use After Effects when you have Runway? These aspiring disruptors sought to chip away at Adobe's dominance by offering more specialized, user-friendly solutions - a process that can be characterized as the 'unbundling' of Adobe. Now, they face a head-to-head collision with the very Goliath they sought to topple. Creators' Toolkit: A New Addition But this imminent clash isn't just a tale of corporate competition. This is a story about the tools of creation and their impact on creators themselves and the very canvas of creation. The advent of Firefly, Adobe's AI-driven offering, reflects a broadening recognition of artificial intelligence as an integral part of the creator's toolkit. In other words, Adobe's massive ecosystem of creators needn't wade out into new waters to acquire AI capabilities -- they will simply be infused into the products they already know and (mostly) love, but more critically -- need to use every day to get creative stuff done. The Increasing Stickiness of Adobe's Tools The intersection of AI and creative tools like Photoshop's generative fill is transforming how creators perceive and interact with AI. When they encounter the innovative features of generative fill, they're not primarily thinking about the AI technology that powers it. Instead, they're marveling at the cool new tool that's now part of their beloved Photoshop. This immediate affinity for "Photoshop" masks the sophisticated technology behind it, essentially furthering Adobe's stronghold on the creative industry. Layer in Adobe's stance to training their AI models with sources like Adobe Stock that promise rock-solid data provenance, and you can see Adobe clearly wants to seem like the responsible adults in the room. After all Adobe elected not to put the Behance catalog to work, perhaps rightly so given the ethical backlash to the scraping Artstation imagery. Adobe's Thirty Something Conundrum But it's not all rainbows and sunshine. While Adobe sails ahead full steam, there's an intriguing conundrum waiting in the wings. With 30-year-old codebases forming the foundation of its most popular tools, Adobe faces a significant challenge: its software has back pain. But it's not just a technical problem -- it's also a philosophical one, akin to the ship of Theseus. Can Adobe modernize and refactor its code bases without sacrificing the essence that made these tools indispensable to creators? Can they innovate without alienating their long-time users who've grown accustomed to the 'Adobe way' of doing things? An Unexpected Solution? Interestingly, solutions might emerge from unexpected quarters. Perhaps it'll take an army of developers armed with GitHub Co-Pilot to alleviate Adobe's refactoring nightmare. By automating parts of the refactoring process, it could accelerate the evolution of Adobe's legacy tools, making them more adaptable to the rapidly progressing tech landscape while preserving their core functionality. In a twist of irony, the AI that's reshaping Adobe's offerings might just come to the rescue of its own legacy. As Adobe navigates these murky waters, opportunities are emerging for new entrants in the field. Startups might also find their moment to shine in the midst of Adobe's strategic and technological shifts. With their innovative approaches and less-encumbered platforms, they have the chance to offer alternative solutions to creators seeking novel, efficient, and intuitive tools. The Battle for Creativity The tech giant's journey through a massive transformation at a previously unfathomable speed will set the course for the next era of creative technology. Given the sheer ubiquity of Adobe tools today, it's by far the most common way creators will experience AI. But let's be honest -- this transformation will not be easy. The future of creative tech isn't written yet and as a growing line up of new entrants vie for the prize, one thing's for sure: it's going to be a darn good fight. Make Art Not War In the end, it is the creators who stand to gain the most. As Adobe and its competitors lock horns, they'll strive to deliver increasingly powerful, intuitive, and efficient tools. But, it's up to the creators themselves to harness these innovations. Only by embracing and mastering these new tools can they unlock their full creative potential. So what are you waiting for? Wield these new tools at your disposal and turn your imagination into reality. We are the architects of a new era of creative self expression. If you enjoyed this, drop a like and retweet. Follow Bilawal Sidhu for more writing on creative tech and AI.
1:16

Make Art Not War: The Battle for Creativity It's Adobe's annual Max event in London today and scott belsky's spotlight on AI paints a clear picture: AI isn't just on Adobe's agenda, it is the agenda. Adobe has already scored a home run with generative fill in Photoshop, a feature now spawning entire categories of memes - including my own video, which surprisingly garnered a million views. However, Adobe's ambitions extend beyond still imagery. The Tanker Charges Towards Video At Max, Adobe's Chief Product Officer put an emphasis on AI video generation with Firefly Video. The tech tanker is charging full steam ahead to the next obvious modality for creation, leaving a wake of disruption for any upstarts bold enough to challenge it. The announcement isn't new, but it showcases the emphasis on new product development with a marked increase in the velocity we can expect from the creative tech behemoth. The company that defined the norms of video editing with Premiere, and motion graphics with After Effects, has now entered the realm of AI-powered creation. The wake-up call is clear - the tankers are moving fast. Goliath vs. The Upstarts This development spells a daunting challenge for the numerous start-ups that dared to dethrone Adobe in recent years. For plenty of use cases people have been asking: Why use Photoshop when you have MidJourney? Why use Premiere when you have Descript? Why use After Effects when you have Runway? These aspiring disruptors sought to chip away at Adobe's dominance by offering more specialized, user-friendly solutions - a process that can be characterized as the 'unbundling' of Adobe. Now, they face a head-to-head collision with the very Goliath they sought to topple. Creators' Toolkit: A New Addition But this imminent clash isn't just a tale of corporate competition. This is a story about the tools of creation and their impact on creators themselves and the very canvas of creation. The advent of Firefly, Adobe's AI-driven offering, reflects a broadening recognition of artificial intelligence as an integral part of the creator's toolkit. In other words, Adobe's massive ecosystem of creators needn't wade out into new waters to acquire AI capabilities -- they will simply be infused into the products they already know and (mostly) love, but more critically -- need to use every day to get creative stuff done. The Increasing Stickiness of Adobe's Tools The intersection of AI and creative tools like Photoshop's generative fill is transforming how creators perceive and interact with AI. When they encounter the innovative features of generative fill, they're not primarily thinking about the AI technology that powers it. Instead, they're marveling at the cool new tool that's now part of their beloved Photoshop. This immediate affinity for "Photoshop" masks the sophisticated technology behind it, essentially furthering Adobe's stronghold on the creative industry. Layer in Adobe's stance to training their AI models with sources like Adobe Stock that promise rock-solid data provenance, and you can see Adobe clearly wants to seem like the responsible adults in the room. After all Adobe elected not to put the Behance catalog to work, perhaps rightly so given the ethical backlash to the scraping Artstation imagery. Adobe's Thirty Something Conundrum But it's not all rainbows and sunshine. While Adobe sails ahead full steam, there's an intriguing conundrum waiting in the wings. With 30-year-old codebases forming the foundation of its most popular tools, Adobe faces a significant challenge: its software has back pain. But it's not just a technical problem -- it's also a philosophical one, akin to the ship of Theseus. Can Adobe modernize and refactor its code bases without sacrificing the essence that made these tools indispensable to creators? Can they innovate without alienating their long-time users who've grown accustomed to the 'Adobe way' of doing things? An Unexpected Solution? Interestingly, solutions might emerge from unexpected quarters. Perhaps it'll take an army of developers armed with GitHub Co-Pilot to alleviate Adobe's refactoring nightmare. By automating parts of the refactoring process, it could accelerate the evolution of Adobe's legacy tools, making them more adaptable to the rapidly progressing tech landscape while preserving their core functionality. In a twist of irony, the AI that's reshaping Adobe's offerings might just come to the rescue of its own legacy. As Adobe navigates these murky waters, opportunities are emerging for new entrants in the field. Startups might also find their moment to shine in the midst of Adobe's strategic and technological shifts. With their innovative approaches and less-encumbered platforms, they have the chance to offer alternative solutions to creators seeking novel, efficient, and intuitive tools. The Battle for Creativity The tech giant's journey through a massive transformation at a previously unfathomable speed will set the course for the next era of creative technology. Given the sheer ubiquity of Adobe tools today, it's by far the most common way creators will experience AI. But let's be honest -- this transformation will not be easy. The future of creative tech isn't written yet and as a growing line up of new entrants vie for the prize, one thing's for sure: it's going to be a darn good fight. Make Art Not War In the end, it is the creators who stand to gain the most. As Adobe and its competitors lock horns, they'll strive to deliver increasingly powerful, intuitive, and efficient tools. But, it's up to the creators themselves to harness these innovations. Only by embracing and mastering these new tools can they unlock their full creative potential. So what are you waiting for? Wield these new tools at your disposal and turn your imagination into reality. We are the architects of a new era of creative self expression. If you enjoyed this, drop a like and retweet. Follow Bilawal Sidhu for more writing on creative tech and AI.

Bilawal Sidhu

72,192 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!
30:00

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

//The Wire//1700Z November 21, 2024// //PRIORITY// //BLUF: RUSSIA LAUNCHES POSSIBLE ICBM IN UKRAINE IN LIKELY RETALIATORY STRIKE FOR UKRAINE’S PRIOR ATACMS TARGETING.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events- Europe: Overnight Russia conducted a possible ICBM (or MRBM) attack in the Ukrainian district of Dnipropetrovsk. The exact target of the strike is unknown (nor likely matters much) as multiple munitions were observed to be striking the area from many miles away, possibly indicating the use of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). As such, it’s very likely that this strike was more about sending a message rather than its targeting effectiveness in the battlespace. The exact missile used remains unconfirmed, however the payload of each warhead was obviously a conventional munition or an inert training warhead. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: Some sources (mostly of Ukrainian origin) claim Russia launched an RS-26 RUBEZH ICBM from Astrakhan, which in the absence of any quasi-reliable information is just as good a theory as any. Other theories suggest it may have been a new experimental Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) so as to have an increased payload capacity. Various unnamed “western sources” have claimed that Russia did not launch an ICBM, and that the strike was carried out by some other experimental weapons platform. If confirmed to be an ICBM strike, this would mark the first use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in combat. Considering this potential, and this new development being outside the scope of normalcy, American officials might do well to change their perspective and re-examine their decisions. It doesn’t make it right, or even moral. But if Russia is willing to use an ICBM in Ukraine, even a conventional one, perhaps a reexamining of the situation might be worthwhile. Generally speaking, when a man uses an ICBM one might be inclined to think he is rather serious. Right now, bureaucrats in Washington are surely reading reports written by some junior analyst, and scoffing at the attack being conducted with conventional (or even training) warheads…completely oblivious to the fact that if this was an ICBM (or even some new MRBM), and one that that had been outfitted with its standard payload, they might not be alive to read that report in the first place. Speaking more strategically from a prepared citizen perspective, much can be learned from the first non-training use of an ICBM launch. We now have a wealth of data to consider, and the early-warning indicators that this launch was about to take place. Multiple indicators were present, and observable by the public, over the past 24 hours. Though at the time, none were definitive proof of what was about to happen. American strategic radio traffic on the High Frequency Global Communications System (HFGCS) increased significantly in the hours before the launch, with many radio messages being sent yesterday evening. Seeing as absolutely zero E-4B NIGHTWATCH or E-6 MERCURY aircraft were observed on flight tracking websites…this absence was probably a clue. HFGCS radio chatter usually involves these aircraft, so no aircraft showing up on flight tracking sites could indicates that aircraft were indeed airborne…but flying with their transponders turned off as they would do in a time of war. These airframes are critical components of America’s strategic force, with the main mission of coordinating communications in the event of a nuclear war. On the other side of the wire, Russian strategic aircraft were also observed to be making slightly abnormal flights. Again, not enough out of the ordinary to be worthy of mention on their own, but in hindsight Russia’s version of their “doomsday” planes were absolutely conducting operations in support of this launch. All of this points to the challenges of predicting major world events. Cleary, the U.S. government does not respect or value their own citizens enough to even address this potential ICBM launch. In classic Pentagon fashion, all information that has come from the American perspective has come in the form of “unnamed western sources”, continuing the Pentagon’s habit of not addressing the American people directly so as to maintain deniability and avoid culpability. Whether an actual RS-26 was used or not is irrelevant; a Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) would generate the same level of concern among American taxpayers. Considering all factors, Russia could indeed have warned the United States directly before the launch, and even if Russia did not, the United States had hours (and probably several days) of warning. The issue is not that the U.S. government somehow got caught unaware of a large missile launch, this most certainly did not happen. Either by Russia directly telling them about the launch, or NORAD detecting it themselves, the United States was well aware of the missile long before it ever lifted off. The issue is that the U.S. government didn’t tell the American people about it, or issue any sort of heightened civil defense-style warning. Even though American intelligence collection sensors without question knew the missile would be impacting in Ukraine very shortly after launch, ignoring the magnitude of this goes beyond the pale of what should be considered normal in any society. Taking the position of “well, we knew it was going to hit Ukraine so we didn’t bother informing the American people so as to avoid undue panic” sounds a lot like “we’re ignoring the ICBM launch because our own actions provoked this, so we want to cover it up”. At minimum, the government that is dragging the American people towards a very hot global war owes their citizens some level of explanation. So far, the information exchange process to alleviate the concerns of American taxpayers has not entirely been a priority among nearly all politicians. Russia potentially launches a nuclear-capable missile with multiple re-entry vehicles…and multiple members of Congress have spent the morning reaffirming their support for Israel on social media. Seeing as extremely long range missiles have the potential to impact all life on Earth, a press conference to clarify details of the incident in Ukraine would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps to include some fancy charts and poster sized images printed out at Office Depot to show some sort of half-hearted effort. If the U.S. government wants to alleviate the concerns of the American people, that would be a great first step. Rumors from unnamed sources speaking on conditions of anonymity will not cut it anymore. Similarly, pretending that the American people are crazy for being concerned about this is gaslighting of the highest order that will no longer be acceptable among the populace. Currently, the American stance has largely just been to ignore it, highlighting what has already been known for decades. When something serious happens around the world, or even within the homeland, the American people are largely on their own. The Russian Federation is very, very unlikely to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, for a variety of reasons. However, thinking more broadly, if Putin was indeed willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve victory in Ukraine…how exactly would he convey that to the United States? What measures would be taken to express the seriousness of his intentions? And most importantly, would it look any different from what Putin has already done? Analyst: S2A1 //END REPORT//
6:29

//The Wire//1700Z November 21, 2024// //PRIORITY// //BLUF: RUSSIA LAUNCHES POSSIBLE ICBM IN UKRAINE IN LIKELY RETALIATORY STRIKE FOR UKRAINE’S PRIOR ATACMS TARGETING.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -International Events- Europe: Overnight Russia conducted a possible ICBM (or MRBM) attack in the Ukrainian district of Dnipropetrovsk. The exact target of the strike is unknown (nor likely matters much) as multiple munitions were observed to be striking the area from many miles away, possibly indicating the use of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). As such, it’s very likely that this strike was more about sending a message rather than its targeting effectiveness in the battlespace. The exact missile used remains unconfirmed, however the payload of each warhead was obviously a conventional munition or an inert training warhead. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: Some sources (mostly of Ukrainian origin) claim Russia launched an RS-26 RUBEZH ICBM from Astrakhan, which in the absence of any quasi-reliable information is just as good a theory as any. Other theories suggest it may have been a new experimental Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) so as to have an increased payload capacity. Various unnamed “western sources” have claimed that Russia did not launch an ICBM, and that the strike was carried out by some other experimental weapons platform. If confirmed to be an ICBM strike, this would mark the first use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in combat. Considering this potential, and this new development being outside the scope of normalcy, American officials might do well to change their perspective and re-examine their decisions. It doesn’t make it right, or even moral. But if Russia is willing to use an ICBM in Ukraine, even a conventional one, perhaps a reexamining of the situation might be worthwhile. Generally speaking, when a man uses an ICBM one might be inclined to think he is rather serious. Right now, bureaucrats in Washington are surely reading reports written by some junior analyst, and scoffing at the attack being conducted with conventional (or even training) warheads…completely oblivious to the fact that if this was an ICBM (or even some new MRBM), and one that that had been outfitted with its standard payload, they might not be alive to read that report in the first place. Speaking more strategically from a prepared citizen perspective, much can be learned from the first non-training use of an ICBM launch. We now have a wealth of data to consider, and the early-warning indicators that this launch was about to take place. Multiple indicators were present, and observable by the public, over the past 24 hours. Though at the time, none were definitive proof of what was about to happen. American strategic radio traffic on the High Frequency Global Communications System (HFGCS) increased significantly in the hours before the launch, with many radio messages being sent yesterday evening. Seeing as absolutely zero E-4B NIGHTWATCH or E-6 MERCURY aircraft were observed on flight tracking websites…this absence was probably a clue. HFGCS radio chatter usually involves these aircraft, so no aircraft showing up on flight tracking sites could indicates that aircraft were indeed airborne…but flying with their transponders turned off as they would do in a time of war. These airframes are critical components of America’s strategic force, with the main mission of coordinating communications in the event of a nuclear war. On the other side of the wire, Russian strategic aircraft were also observed to be making slightly abnormal flights. Again, not enough out of the ordinary to be worthy of mention on their own, but in hindsight Russia’s version of their “doomsday” planes were absolutely conducting operations in support of this launch. All of this points to the challenges of predicting major world events. Cleary, the U.S. government does not respect or value their own citizens enough to even address this potential ICBM launch. In classic Pentagon fashion, all information that has come from the American perspective has come in the form of “unnamed western sources”, continuing the Pentagon’s habit of not addressing the American people directly so as to maintain deniability and avoid culpability. Whether an actual RS-26 was used or not is irrelevant; a Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) would generate the same level of concern among American taxpayers. Considering all factors, Russia could indeed have warned the United States directly before the launch, and even if Russia did not, the United States had hours (and probably several days) of warning. The issue is not that the U.S. government somehow got caught unaware of a large missile launch, this most certainly did not happen. Either by Russia directly telling them about the launch, or NORAD detecting it themselves, the United States was well aware of the missile long before it ever lifted off. The issue is that the U.S. government didn’t tell the American people about it, or issue any sort of heightened civil defense-style warning. Even though American intelligence collection sensors without question knew the missile would be impacting in Ukraine very shortly after launch, ignoring the magnitude of this goes beyond the pale of what should be considered normal in any society. Taking the position of “well, we knew it was going to hit Ukraine so we didn’t bother informing the American people so as to avoid undue panic” sounds a lot like “we’re ignoring the ICBM launch because our own actions provoked this, so we want to cover it up”. At minimum, the government that is dragging the American people towards a very hot global war owes their citizens some level of explanation. So far, the information exchange process to alleviate the concerns of American taxpayers has not entirely been a priority among nearly all politicians. Russia potentially launches a nuclear-capable missile with multiple re-entry vehicles…and multiple members of Congress have spent the morning reaffirming their support for Israel on social media. Seeing as extremely long range missiles have the potential to impact all life on Earth, a press conference to clarify details of the incident in Ukraine would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps to include some fancy charts and poster sized images printed out at Office Depot to show some sort of half-hearted effort. If the U.S. government wants to alleviate the concerns of the American people, that would be a great first step. Rumors from unnamed sources speaking on conditions of anonymity will not cut it anymore. Similarly, pretending that the American people are crazy for being concerned about this is gaslighting of the highest order that will no longer be acceptable among the populace. Currently, the American stance has largely just been to ignore it, highlighting what has already been known for decades. When something serious happens around the world, or even within the homeland, the American people are largely on their own. The Russian Federation is very, very unlikely to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, for a variety of reasons. However, thinking more broadly, if Putin was indeed willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve victory in Ukraine…how exactly would he convey that to the United States? What measures would be taken to express the seriousness of his intentions? And most importantly, would it look any different from what Putin has already done? Analyst: S2A1 //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

22,474 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Intelligence Agency Alleges “Pro-Russia” TikTok Accounts Are Interfering In Czech Elections Despite speculation, there is no evidence tying social media accounts to Russia by Cecílie Jílková alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger Almost 1,000 accounts on TikTok are promoting pro-Russian narratives in support of “extremist” parties ahead of this week’s elections in the Czech Republic, according to a Czech intelligence agency and a group of analysts who identify as the “Center for Online Risk Research.” And some in the Czech news media are suggesting that Russia may be behind the accounts. “Secret services have discovered hundreds more pro-Russian accounts that want to influence the election,” reported Denik N, a Czech news publication, this morning. “They have millions of views.” But neither BIS nor the Center for Online Risk Research says they can link the Russian government to any of the accounts. “We don’t know,” said researcher Vendula Prokůpková to Public. “We don’t have the tools to find out.” The BIS declined to comment. A TikTok spokesperson told Public, “We have proactively implemented additional safety and security measures ahead of the elections in Czechia, including an in-app Election Center to provide access to authoritative information about the vote. We continue to aggressively counter deceptive behaviour, and we have already prevented and removed millions of fake likes and follow requests in Czechia since the start of August.” Notably, the Czech media and the Center are making similar arguments to those used by a Romanian court last year to nullify the presidential election, which legal scholars viewed as unconstitutional. The case may seem unimportant to Americans, given the relatively small size of the Czech Republic, which has 11 million people, and since the Romanian intelligence agencies made stronger claims about Russian interference than the Czech BIS or the Center for Online Risk Research have made. And the possibility remains that Russia, or Russia-linked bot networks, are indeed engaged in algorithm manipulation to help the Czech parties opposed to continuing arming of Ukraine. In Romania, intelligence officials accused the Russians of creating fake accounts and manipulating algorithms. But the information comes at a moment when Internet censorship is a sticking point between the Trump administration and the EU over a trade deal, and just days after the European Commission leaked plans that it could fine Meta’s Instagram and Facebook up to six percent of its global revenue if it doesn’t make it easier for users to flag posts for censorship. The Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram for supposed failure to stop “disinformation” and “deceptive advertising” in advance of last year’s European Parliament elections. The EU has made no secret of its desire to censor social media worldwide, not just in Europe. Meanwhile, Americans are obligated under NATO to defend both Romania and the Czech Republic, and the NATO treaty requires its members to hold free and fair elections, which Romania did not do. Romania’s intelligence officials presented no evidence to support their claims, and subsequent analyses revealed that the Romanian ruling party had funded at least some of the allegedly pro-Russian TikTok accounts. Where the Romanian TikTok accounts supposedly promoted a right-wing populist, the Czech Center claims that the Czech language TikTok posts, back the “far-right SPD party, which ranks third in most polls with around 13% support, and the far-left Stacilo!,” according to Reuters, “which is gaining just over the 5% threshold needed to secure parliamentary seats.” Notes Reuters, “Both parties advocate for Czechia to leave NATO and the European Union.” Prokůpková said, despite its name, that “Center for Online Risk Research” is “not an organization. We are an initiative.” However, she also said, “My partner is the CTU,” referring to the Czech government’s Telecommunications Office. This office organized a meeting on August 29th due to the upcoming Czech elections, which was attended by the European Commission, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X. “The participants discussed their readiness to address potential systemic risks in connection with the parliamentary elections and respond to possible incidents,” a European Commission spokesperson told Public today. Prokůpková also said, “I proceed in accordance with the DSA,” the EU’s Digital Services Act, which entitles anyone to report false accounts or misinformation on social media to the Czech Telecommunications Office.”We are ordinary citizens and we use the R programming language,” she explained. One of the Center’s members is Josef Šlerka, who collaborated with “The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” which the US State Department created in 2008, and which the USAID funded. After President Trump cut off USAID funding, the European Commission began to financially support OCCRP. In January, Šlerka and the director of the Czech government’s Security Information Service (BIS), the equivalent of the FBI and DHS in the US, briefed Czech members of Parliament about the Romanian TikTok case as a potential model for the Czech Republic. Now, the BIS has sent a report on Czech-speaking pro-Russian TikTok accounts to the president, prime minister, and Czech Telecommunications Office. Earlier this year, a Czech Army group admitted to monitoring opposition figures. Leaked documents show the group monitored “the opinions and attitudes of these [opposition] individuals towards the activities of the Ministry of Defense, its leaders, senior representatives of the Czech army, and the war in Ukraine.” General Karel Řehka later defended the Army’s actions by alleging that it was just a military exercise in case of possible future interference in the elections. A few weeks ago, Romania’s Interior (security) Minister said the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and those in other nations admire what Romania did. “I believe that what happened in Romania last year is currently being studied by all intelligence agencies in the Western world,” said Cătălin Predoiu. “Conclusions are being drawn and countries are taking defensive measures, inspired by how Romania defended itself.” He went on to say that “my Czech colleague, who is a good friend of mine, approached me and said, ‘We also have elections in the fall, and we are watching very closely what has happened in your country.’” From left: Vít Rakušan, Czech Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, and Marian-Cătălin Predoiu, Romanian Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, at the Round Table (Justice and Home Affairs Council) on December 12, 2024. Source: Other groups are involved in the possible influence operation. A liberal website called Voxpot recently published a list of websites that repost content from Russian state platforms, but provided no information about any links to or financing from Russia. The Independent Journalism Foundation financed the Voxpot report. And Seznam, a news website that has advocated for EU government censorship of “misinformation,” finances the Foundation. Finally, GLOBSEC, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and CEDMO (Central European Digital Media Observatory), all of which appear to have links to the intelligence community, published a report warning of the alleged risks of Russian interference; however, it contained no evidence to support these claims. Major military contractors, including Lockheed Martin, KNDS, and Saab finance GLOBSEC, while the US, UK, EU, and other Western governments finance ISD and CEDMO. While the allegations focus on alleged pro-Russian support for the nationalist-populist SPD party and the radical Left-Wing coalition Stacilo!, party, the latest polls show that the ANO party, led by former Prime Minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš has over 33% support, which is 12 points more than the centre-right SPOLU (Together) coalition, which the current Prime Minister leads. Like the SPD and Stacilo!, Babiš is running directly against the EU’s agenda, including on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war, and censorship. His party rejected NATO’s new defence spending target and called for halting ammunition supplies to Ukraine. With the SPD and Stacilo! expected to win roughly 18% of the vote, and given their shared opposition to arming Ukraine, they could join in a coalition government with ANO to end further military support. “If the electoral contest were close, then even several tens of thousands of votes that voters cast for someone (or conversely decided not to cast) could determine whether, for example, the Czech ammunition initiative, crucial aid for defending Ukraine, will continue,“ confirms in today’s article the Czech liberal newspaper Deník N. Czech President Petr Pavel is a former NATO general and a strong supporter of supplying Ukraine in its war with Russia. Nothing happened after the Romanian court nullified its election. Romania remains a member of NATO and the EU. Indeed, the EU supported the judicial coup. The same could happen in the Czech Republic. Others think that’s unlikely. “I don’t think we are approaching what is known as the ‘Romanian scenario,’” wrote Lukáš Prchal, a journalist who has written on the TikTok scandal for Deník N, in an email to Public. Whatever the case, the fact remains that there is no evidence of Russian government interference in the Czech elections, and any effort to nullify it based on allegations about anonymous TikTok accounts would violate the Czech Republic’s constitution, the European Union’s constitution, and the NATO treaty. “There is an attempt here,” a source told Denik N, “but the potential and significance are not essential. It is an unsuccessful attempt.”
9:54

Intelligence Agency Alleges “Pro-Russia” TikTok Accounts Are Interfering In Czech Elections Despite speculation, there is no evidence tying social media accounts to Russia by Cecílie Jílková alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger Almost 1,000 accounts on TikTok are promoting pro-Russian narratives in support of “extremist” parties ahead of this week’s elections in the Czech Republic, according to a Czech intelligence agency and a group of analysts who identify as the “Center for Online Risk Research.” And some in the Czech news media are suggesting that Russia may be behind the accounts. “Secret services have discovered hundreds more pro-Russian accounts that want to influence the election,” reported Denik N, a Czech news publication, this morning. “They have millions of views.” But neither BIS nor the Center for Online Risk Research says they can link the Russian government to any of the accounts. “We don’t know,” said researcher Vendula Prokůpková to Public. “We don’t have the tools to find out.” The BIS declined to comment. A TikTok spokesperson told Public, “We have proactively implemented additional safety and security measures ahead of the elections in Czechia, including an in-app Election Center to provide access to authoritative information about the vote. We continue to aggressively counter deceptive behaviour, and we have already prevented and removed millions of fake likes and follow requests in Czechia since the start of August.” Notably, the Czech media and the Center are making similar arguments to those used by a Romanian court last year to nullify the presidential election, which legal scholars viewed as unconstitutional. The case may seem unimportant to Americans, given the relatively small size of the Czech Republic, which has 11 million people, and since the Romanian intelligence agencies made stronger claims about Russian interference than the Czech BIS or the Center for Online Risk Research have made. And the possibility remains that Russia, or Russia-linked bot networks, are indeed engaged in algorithm manipulation to help the Czech parties opposed to continuing arming of Ukraine. In Romania, intelligence officials accused the Russians of creating fake accounts and manipulating algorithms. But the information comes at a moment when Internet censorship is a sticking point between the Trump administration and the EU over a trade deal, and just days after the European Commission leaked plans that it could fine Meta’s Instagram and Facebook up to six percent of its global revenue if it doesn’t make it easier for users to flag posts for censorship. The Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram for supposed failure to stop “disinformation” and “deceptive advertising” in advance of last year’s European Parliament elections. The EU has made no secret of its desire to censor social media worldwide, not just in Europe. Meanwhile, Americans are obligated under NATO to defend both Romania and the Czech Republic, and the NATO treaty requires its members to hold free and fair elections, which Romania did not do. Romania’s intelligence officials presented no evidence to support their claims, and subsequent analyses revealed that the Romanian ruling party had funded at least some of the allegedly pro-Russian TikTok accounts. Where the Romanian TikTok accounts supposedly promoted a right-wing populist, the Czech Center claims that the Czech language TikTok posts, back the “far-right SPD party, which ranks third in most polls with around 13% support, and the far-left Stacilo!,” according to Reuters, “which is gaining just over the 5% threshold needed to secure parliamentary seats.” Notes Reuters, “Both parties advocate for Czechia to leave NATO and the European Union.” Prokůpková said, despite its name, that “Center for Online Risk Research” is “not an organization. We are an initiative.” However, she also said, “My partner is the CTU,” referring to the Czech government’s Telecommunications Office. This office organized a meeting on August 29th due to the upcoming Czech elections, which was attended by the European Commission, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X. “The participants discussed their readiness to address potential systemic risks in connection with the parliamentary elections and respond to possible incidents,” a European Commission spokesperson told Public today. Prokůpková also said, “I proceed in accordance with the DSA,” the EU’s Digital Services Act, which entitles anyone to report false accounts or misinformation on social media to the Czech Telecommunications Office.”We are ordinary citizens and we use the R programming language,” she explained. One of the Center’s members is Josef Šlerka, who collaborated with “The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” which the US State Department created in 2008, and which the USAID funded. After President Trump cut off USAID funding, the European Commission began to financially support OCCRP. In January, Šlerka and the director of the Czech government’s Security Information Service (BIS), the equivalent of the FBI and DHS in the US, briefed Czech members of Parliament about the Romanian TikTok case as a potential model for the Czech Republic. Now, the BIS has sent a report on Czech-speaking pro-Russian TikTok accounts to the president, prime minister, and Czech Telecommunications Office. Earlier this year, a Czech Army group admitted to monitoring opposition figures. Leaked documents show the group monitored “the opinions and attitudes of these [opposition] individuals towards the activities of the Ministry of Defense, its leaders, senior representatives of the Czech army, and the war in Ukraine.” General Karel Řehka later defended the Army’s actions by alleging that it was just a military exercise in case of possible future interference in the elections. A few weeks ago, Romania’s Interior (security) Minister said the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and those in other nations admire what Romania did. “I believe that what happened in Romania last year is currently being studied by all intelligence agencies in the Western world,” said Cătălin Predoiu. “Conclusions are being drawn and countries are taking defensive measures, inspired by how Romania defended itself.” He went on to say that “my Czech colleague, who is a good friend of mine, approached me and said, ‘We also have elections in the fall, and we are watching very closely what has happened in your country.’” From left: Vít Rakušan, Czech Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, and Marian-Cătălin Predoiu, Romanian Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, at the Round Table (Justice and Home Affairs Council) on December 12, 2024. Source: Other groups are involved in the possible influence operation. A liberal website called Voxpot recently published a list of websites that repost content from Russian state platforms, but provided no information about any links to or financing from Russia. The Independent Journalism Foundation financed the Voxpot report. And Seznam, a news website that has advocated for EU government censorship of “misinformation,” finances the Foundation. Finally, GLOBSEC, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and CEDMO (Central European Digital Media Observatory), all of which appear to have links to the intelligence community, published a report warning of the alleged risks of Russian interference; however, it contained no evidence to support these claims. Major military contractors, including Lockheed Martin, KNDS, and Saab finance GLOBSEC, while the US, UK, EU, and other Western governments finance ISD and CEDMO. While the allegations focus on alleged pro-Russian support for the nationalist-populist SPD party and the radical Left-Wing coalition Stacilo!, party, the latest polls show that the ANO party, led by former Prime Minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš has over 33% support, which is 12 points more than the centre-right SPOLU (Together) coalition, which the current Prime Minister leads. Like the SPD and Stacilo!, Babiš is running directly against the EU’s agenda, including on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war, and censorship. His party rejected NATO’s new defence spending target and called for halting ammunition supplies to Ukraine. With the SPD and Stacilo! expected to win roughly 18% of the vote, and given their shared opposition to arming Ukraine, they could join in a coalition government with ANO to end further military support. “If the electoral contest were close, then even several tens of thousands of votes that voters cast for someone (or conversely decided not to cast) could determine whether, for example, the Czech ammunition initiative, crucial aid for defending Ukraine, will continue,“ confirms in today’s article the Czech liberal newspaper Deník N. Czech President Petr Pavel is a former NATO general and a strong supporter of supplying Ukraine in its war with Russia. Nothing happened after the Romanian court nullified its election. Romania remains a member of NATO and the EU. Indeed, the EU supported the judicial coup. The same could happen in the Czech Republic. Others think that’s unlikely. “I don’t think we are approaching what is known as the ‘Romanian scenario,’” wrote Lukáš Prchal, a journalist who has written on the TikTok scandal for Deník N, in an email to Public. Whatever the case, the fact remains that there is no evidence of Russian government interference in the Czech elections, and any effort to nullify it based on allegations about anonymous TikTok accounts would violate the Czech Republic’s constitution, the European Union’s constitution, and the NATO treaty. “There is an attempt here,” a source told Denik N, “but the potential and significance are not essential. It is an unsuccessful attempt.”

Michael Shellenberger

61,769 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The Empire Is Scrambling To Fully Dominate Latin America, And Other Notes US forces have seized an oil tanker carrying some 1.8 million barrels of oil from Venezuela to Cuba as part of its ongoing series of warmongering escalations against the Maduro government. When asked what would be done with the oil, President Trump told the press, “We keep it, I guess.” Meanwhile Chuck Schumer is refusing to oppose Trump’s regime change interventionism against Venezuela, and CNN just had former US intelligence official Beth Sanner on to proclaim that the Trump administration’s act of piracy “is absolutely normal.” So Trump’s ostensible opposition in the political-media class are putting absolutely no inertia on this. The US pirating a Cuba-bound oil tanker from Venezuela illustrates how the empire is hurrying to shore up control over Latin America in the same way the US and Israel are quickly shoring up control over the middle east. There’s a window of opportunity to shove through a bunch of pre-existing military agendas in both regions, and they’re aggressively seizing it before their attention has to turn to bigger geopolitical fish. You often hear US imperialists saying that obtaining regime change in Venezuela will help achieve it in Cuba as well; Senator Rick Scott recently told 60 Minutes that if Maduro is successfully ousted “it’ll be the end of Cuba,” and that “America is gonna take care of the southern hemisphere and make sure there’s freedom and democracy.” Stealing the oil hurts both Cuba and Venezuela, who are the two primary enemies of the US empire in the Americas because of their strongly socialist governments. They got a right wing government into Bolivia this year, and now they’re hurrying to push regime change in Caracas and Havana while they’ve got a right wing tyrant in office with a gusano secretary of state. The hope is to force the entirety of Latin America into full alignment with the empire before Trump leaves office. I have no idea if they’ll succeed. ❖ The US House and Senate have agreed to make registration for the draft “automatic”, which will simplify the drafting process if the empire decides to throw the youth of America into a horrific new military conflict. The US is making its biggest draft policy change in 45 years so it’s easier to force Americans to fight and die in a massive war, just as the New York Times editorial board launches a series explaining why the US must prepare for war with China. The latest edition of the New York Times’ arguments for the need for more US militarism is titled “This Is The 21st Century Arms Race. Can America Keep Up?”, which argues that “Congress needs to expand funding for research and development into technologies with military applications.” “To counter the growing threat, America must simultaneously win the race to build autonomous weapons and lead the world in controlling them,” the editorial board writes. Fun times. ❖ The BBC is reportedly training its staff that it is antisemitic for anyone to oppose Zionism, because most Jews identify as Zionists. You see this argument a lot, and it a textbook example of an ad populum fallacy, which is when someone claims that something is true or right just because a majority of people believe it. Just as the Atlantic slave trade would have been wrong even if every white person in the world supported it, a genocidal apartheid state which cannot exist without nonstop violence, theft and abuse would still be wrong even if every Jewish person on earth supported it. The claim that a majority of Jews support the existence of the modern state of Israel has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether such a state should exist, and does not invalidate any arguments that it should not. Israel supporters rely on lies, manipulations and fallacious arguments because their position is not based on truth or morality. If their position was right they would simply be making normal arguments like normal adults. They can’t do this because they are wrong. ❖ Whenever I catch myself wondering if I’ve been too hard on the Democrats I re-watch last year’s video of DNC attendees covering their ears and mocking activists reading the names of children who’d been murdered in Gaza. When they’re not in power it’s easy to forget how evil these people are. ❖ The Daily Mirror has a gross new propaganda piece out claiming that “Hamas plotters are spreading their tentacles of terror into Europe, with secret arms dumps and operatives planning attacks even as far as in the United Kingdom.” As you might expect, The Mirror provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, citing only “an intelligence report” of unspecified origin. This is one of the dumbest narratives we’ve ever been asked to believe about Hamas, amid some very stiff competition. I don’t know about you, but am so sick of having my intelligence insulted like this. Reading by Tim Foley:
5:20

The Empire Is Scrambling To Fully Dominate Latin America, And Other Notes US forces have seized an oil tanker carrying some 1.8 million barrels of oil from Venezuela to Cuba as part of its ongoing series of warmongering escalations against the Maduro government. When asked what would be done with the oil, President Trump told the press, “We keep it, I guess.” Meanwhile Chuck Schumer is refusing to oppose Trump’s regime change interventionism against Venezuela, and CNN just had former US intelligence official Beth Sanner on to proclaim that the Trump administration’s act of piracy “is absolutely normal.” So Trump’s ostensible opposition in the political-media class are putting absolutely no inertia on this. The US pirating a Cuba-bound oil tanker from Venezuela illustrates how the empire is hurrying to shore up control over Latin America in the same way the US and Israel are quickly shoring up control over the middle east. There’s a window of opportunity to shove through a bunch of pre-existing military agendas in both regions, and they’re aggressively seizing it before their attention has to turn to bigger geopolitical fish. You often hear US imperialists saying that obtaining regime change in Venezuela will help achieve it in Cuba as well; Senator Rick Scott recently told 60 Minutes that if Maduro is successfully ousted “it’ll be the end of Cuba,” and that “America is gonna take care of the southern hemisphere and make sure there’s freedom and democracy.” Stealing the oil hurts both Cuba and Venezuela, who are the two primary enemies of the US empire in the Americas because of their strongly socialist governments. They got a right wing government into Bolivia this year, and now they’re hurrying to push regime change in Caracas and Havana while they’ve got a right wing tyrant in office with a gusano secretary of state. The hope is to force the entirety of Latin America into full alignment with the empire before Trump leaves office. I have no idea if they’ll succeed. ❖ The US House and Senate have agreed to make registration for the draft “automatic”, which will simplify the drafting process if the empire decides to throw the youth of America into a horrific new military conflict. The US is making its biggest draft policy change in 45 years so it’s easier to force Americans to fight and die in a massive war, just as the New York Times editorial board launches a series explaining why the US must prepare for war with China. The latest edition of the New York Times’ arguments for the need for more US militarism is titled “This Is The 21st Century Arms Race. Can America Keep Up?”, which argues that “Congress needs to expand funding for research and development into technologies with military applications.” “To counter the growing threat, America must simultaneously win the race to build autonomous weapons and lead the world in controlling them,” the editorial board writes. Fun times. ❖ The BBC is reportedly training its staff that it is antisemitic for anyone to oppose Zionism, because most Jews identify as Zionists. You see this argument a lot, and it a textbook example of an ad populum fallacy, which is when someone claims that something is true or right just because a majority of people believe it. Just as the Atlantic slave trade would have been wrong even if every white person in the world supported it, a genocidal apartheid state which cannot exist without nonstop violence, theft and abuse would still be wrong even if every Jewish person on earth supported it. The claim that a majority of Jews support the existence of the modern state of Israel has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether such a state should exist, and does not invalidate any arguments that it should not. Israel supporters rely on lies, manipulations and fallacious arguments because their position is not based on truth or morality. If their position was right they would simply be making normal arguments like normal adults. They can’t do this because they are wrong. ❖ Whenever I catch myself wondering if I’ve been too hard on the Democrats I re-watch last year’s video of DNC attendees covering their ears and mocking activists reading the names of children who’d been murdered in Gaza. When they’re not in power it’s easy to forget how evil these people are. ❖ The Daily Mirror has a gross new propaganda piece out claiming that “Hamas plotters are spreading their tentacles of terror into Europe, with secret arms dumps and operatives planning attacks even as far as in the United Kingdom.” As you might expect, The Mirror provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, citing only “an intelligence report” of unspecified origin. This is one of the dumbest narratives we’ve ever been asked to believe about Hamas, amid some very stiff competition. I don’t know about you, but am so sick of having my intelligence insulted like this. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

19,771 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

$AMD is easily a $1,200 stock IMO| CPUs TAM 🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! In this thread, I want to discuss the actual TAM for CPUs data center for just 2026, where many are giving different ranges, where I don't agree with. I will explain in detail why I disagree with these research firms and financial analysts using Math. And this thread should not be treated as Financial Advice. I'm just explaining my research and thought process so we can have a discussion. In 2024/2025, I gave out $620 PT for FY2026 was too conservative for AMD potential. At the time, It was early and many were just laughing, that PT was unrealistic and the AI world is run on GPUs only. Today, most of these folks are laughing with me. That is ok, I dont offer financial advice, and I do not need everyone to agree with me. I respect other opinions. If you enjoy this kind of thread, slap the like/repost/bookmark. If you want to support my work further and gain more in-depth analysis, consider subscribe! In early 2026, hyperscalers, enterprises, and OEMs are scrambling as Intel and AMD server CPUs are largely sold out for the year, with prices jumping 10–20% and lead times stretching from weeks to months (or longer for certain SKUs). What was once a GPU dominated story has flipped: the shift to explosive Agentic AI with its multi-step reasoning loops, tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, real-time data movement, and reinforcement learning, is dramatically tightening CPU:GPU ratios from the old training-era 1:4–8 all the way to 1:1 to 5:1 or even CPU-heavy configurations. CEOs across NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and public companies have been sounding the alarm on CNBC, Bloomberg, and earnings calls. CPUs are “cool again,” and in many agentic deployments they are becoming the new bottleneck alongside (or even ahead of) GPUs and custom ASICs. In 2025, roughly 12-15m AI GPUs + AI ASICs GPUs shipped, and is expect to be 15-20m units by 2026, where it suggesting Training demand is not going away. The actual TAM is structural, multiplicative demand that has already forced AMD to double its long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120 billion by 2030 (>35% CAGR), with Dr. Lisa Su noting Q2 2026 server CPU sales expected to surge 70%+ year-over-year and demand “far exceeding expectations.” At the same time, AMD’s secured 30–40% share of TSMC’s initial 2nm capacity (behind only Apple’s >50%) positions it to ramp Zen 6-based EPYC Venice exactly when this agentic wave hits hardest but even that aggressive five-fab 2nm expansion (with plans scaling toward 11 total advanced facilities) cannot instantly close the gap in the near-term. Supply constraints on wafers, advanced packaging, and power are compounding the squeeze, just as hyperscalers forward-buy and lock in long-term deals. 1. The actual potential TAM Various sources and institutions are giving $50-$160-$200B CPUs TAM toward 2030, and i disagree, where supply is severely behind vs Demand by at least 2-3 years or even longer by some estimates. The actual TAM will probably be 15-20m for FY2026. The typical average selling price from low to high end is $5,000 to $15,000, but due to rising memory, and different inflationary pressures on Semi, it would be more logical to think between $7,000-17,000. A. CPU:GPU Ratio at 1:1 A basic calucation at mid range =12,000 x 15-20m CPUs= $180-$240B TAM B. CPU:GPU Ratio at 5:1 = $12,000 x 75m-100m CPUs= $900B-$1.2T TAM Of course TSMC cannot even supply 20% of this massive inflection TAM in 2026. But do we think of Demand for TAM or Supply for TAM? Hence we are seeing massive 2nm Ramp from TSMC for $AMD. IMO, conservatively, I would take down 15-20% on 1:1 or $135-$192B TAM for just 2026. Im not even talking about 2030. We are just months into this, it is impossible to estimate Cagr atm, but this is 1-5 agents running tasks, I wrote a thread on 24/7 autonomous agents thread, where companies could use 50-250 agents to run tasks for them 24/7. It would require a different structural CPU:GPU to bring down the cost of token as well as handling the Orchestration bottleneck. GPUs would be useless and sit idle waiting for CPU due to highly CPU-intensive nature. The cost per Million tokens must come down more rapidly for this 50-250 autonomous agents to work, otherwise the token cost would be too enormous. Helios Rack is estimated to bring inference cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens with 18 EPYC Venices along with 72 MI455x and other chips+ Components. A heavier or CPUs dense rack would bring down inference cost further. EPYC Verano(2027 gen 7 AI-optimized) is expected to drive inference costs meaningfully lower than the Venice baseline likely to the $0.00002–$0.00025 per million tokens range (or even sub-$0.00015 in highly optimized agentic/batch workloads). Verano have higher core counts than Venice, LPDDR5X SOCAMM2 memory support, more AI optimized and Next-Gen rack density & efficiency. 2. $AMD secured at least 30-40% of TSMC 2nm capacity and Memory from Samsung through 2028-2030. 2 2nm fabs are entering ramping phase toward 60-65k wafers per months and 5 dedicated 2nm fabs entering mass production/ramp in 2026. Will link sub threads below if you are interest for full detail. Apple is reported to secure 50%+ 2nm capacity for Iphone 18 and Mac chips and AMD secured at least 30-40% capacity while $NVDA $AVGO $ARM $AMZN $GOOGL and others are on 3nm. This broader aggressive ramp from TSMC to target up to 11 fabs is to address $AMD massive growth ahead. Where $ARM is facing massive CPUs supply constraints as they have to compete with other Mega Cap players on 3nm allocation. And $INTC is also facing supply constraints for data center CPUs and PC per management with lead times extrended to longer than 12 weeks. Dr. Su is aiming for higher than 50%+ Market share, and I believe it is achievable in 2026 or 2027 as AMD has the strongest CPUs offerings. Dr. Su did not want to take advantage of the shortage and she said during the Q1 earning call, AMD is prioritizing Units shipped while guiding margin to be inching 60%. If Jensen were in charge, I'm sure margin would be 70-75% in this kind of severe CPUs shortage condition. But that is not how Dr. Su operates for more than a decade. She wants most market share. So we will see it in revenue growth, but as TSMC ramps faster and faster, AMD Operating and FCF margin will massively improve vs prior decade. A significantly higher margin profile than before. 3. How I came up with $1,200 withint 12-18 months? At $1,200/ share, that would be around $2 Trillion MC. I expect FY2027 revenue to be $124-$144B where data center revenue dominates overall revenue. AI GPUs: I will stick to the lowest end so show u that I'm conservative at $18B for each GW vs $NVDA Rubin is $30B+ (most likely Helios Rack in the $20B+ due to memory price rising). We know deals with OpenAI and Meta are around 12GW and additional multi-customers at multi-GW scale were hinted and will be revealed as we get to July 22-23 2026 Advancing AI event. For now I will conservatively add a bit more to this model. (3-6GW Helios Rack Range) EPYC Venice is reported to be in $15,000-$20,000. However large customers will likely to enjoy $10-$12k discount. I expect AMD to be able to ramp 7m EPYC Venice for entire 2026 and 3-4m of EPYC Verano(higher price than Venice). If we take an average selling price of $10,000 to be on the conservative side. Take down another 30% to be even more conservative on projection. I like to be conservative. That would be ~ 7m EPYC CPUs(Venice + Verano) for FY2027 or 583,000 units per month or 15,000 additional 2nm wafers per month which is completely reasonable for current TSMC Ramp, and I may be too conservative here. EPYC Verano and MI500 series will also be on 2nm. AI GPUs: 3GW x $18B= $54B EPYC CPUs: $10k x 7m CPUs= $70B = Data center revenue alone is $124B Other segments= probably in the $20-$25B FY 2027. FY2027 revenue = $124-$149B At 7m EPYC CPUs for entire 2027, that would be more than 50% market share when we comp it to availability from supply side, not from total Demand. It is possible that TSMC could significantly ramp even more capacity in 2027, so we will see. Metric Q1 2026 FY2027 Gross Margin 55-56% 60-62% Operating Margin 25-26% 32-35% Net Income Margin ~22% 26-30% FCF Margin 25% 28-30% At $124-$149B Revenue FY 2027 Net Income would be $32-$44B EPS would be $20-$27 (GAAP) Non-GAAP would be $25-$31 At $1,200 a share or $2T valuation that would be: 13.4-16x Price to Sales (P/S) 38-48 P/E At this kind of growth of AI SuperCycle, I think it is very reasonable valuation. If we use today at $406/share or $661B MC: 2027 P/S = 4.4x-5.3x 2027 P/E = 13x-16x Is AMD today expensive or cheap to you? Above is already a very conservative where I trimmed 20-30% of doable units. Meaning, there could be upside if TSMC is able to ramp meaningfully like they are planning. Conclusion: A $1,200 per share valuation IMO for AMD in FY2027 is not expensive at all; it is, in fact, conservative when viewed against the structural explosion in agentic AI demand we have mapped out. With server CPU TAM potentially scaling into the $100–$200B+ range in just CPU:GPU 1:1 Ratio for just 2026. AMD positioned to capture 50%+ share thanks to its 2nm TSMC allocation advantage and full-stack leadership, the company could realistically deliver $124–149B in total revenue and $25–$31+ non-GAAP EPS. At those levels, $1,200 implies a 2027 P/E = 13x-16x. Entirely reasonable for a company that will have become the clear Inference Queen (and in many workloads the preferred) AI infrastructure provider, with operating margins expanding above 30% and tens of billions in high-margin rack-scale AI revenue. Dr. Lisa Su was right presciently so about the Agentic AI inflection all the way back to her early 2022–2023 commentary on the coming shift from pure training to inference and orchestration-heavy workloads. While the broader market only fully woke up to this in 2026 when she doubled AMD’s long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120B by 2030 (with >35% CAGR), Dr. Su and her team have consistently positioned the company at the center of the CPU renaissance. The explosive demand we are seeing today, sold-out lines, rising ASPs, and hyperscalers forward-buying entire gigawatts of Helios-class systems is exactly the outcome she forecasted years ago. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!
13:03

$AMD is easily a $1,200 stock IMO| CPUs TAM 🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! In this thread, I want to discuss the actual TAM for CPUs data center for just 2026, where many are giving different ranges, where I don't agree with. I will explain in detail why I disagree with these research firms and financial analysts using Math. And this thread should not be treated as Financial Advice. I'm just explaining my research and thought process so we can have a discussion. In 2024/2025, I gave out $620 PT for FY2026 was too conservative for AMD potential. At the time, It was early and many were just laughing, that PT was unrealistic and the AI world is run on GPUs only. Today, most of these folks are laughing with me. That is ok, I dont offer financial advice, and I do not need everyone to agree with me. I respect other opinions. If you enjoy this kind of thread, slap the like/repost/bookmark. If you want to support my work further and gain more in-depth analysis, consider subscribe! In early 2026, hyperscalers, enterprises, and OEMs are scrambling as Intel and AMD server CPUs are largely sold out for the year, with prices jumping 10–20% and lead times stretching from weeks to months (or longer for certain SKUs). What was once a GPU dominated story has flipped: the shift to explosive Agentic AI with its multi-step reasoning loops, tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, real-time data movement, and reinforcement learning, is dramatically tightening CPU:GPU ratios from the old training-era 1:4–8 all the way to 1:1 to 5:1 or even CPU-heavy configurations. CEOs across NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and public companies have been sounding the alarm on CNBC, Bloomberg, and earnings calls. CPUs are “cool again,” and in many agentic deployments they are becoming the new bottleneck alongside (or even ahead of) GPUs and custom ASICs. In 2025, roughly 12-15m AI GPUs + AI ASICs GPUs shipped, and is expect to be 15-20m units by 2026, where it suggesting Training demand is not going away. The actual TAM is structural, multiplicative demand that has already forced AMD to double its long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120 billion by 2030 (>35% CAGR), with Dr. Lisa Su noting Q2 2026 server CPU sales expected to surge 70%+ year-over-year and demand “far exceeding expectations.” At the same time, AMD’s secured 30–40% share of TSMC’s initial 2nm capacity (behind only Apple’s >50%) positions it to ramp Zen 6-based EPYC Venice exactly when this agentic wave hits hardest but even that aggressive five-fab 2nm expansion (with plans scaling toward 11 total advanced facilities) cannot instantly close the gap in the near-term. Supply constraints on wafers, advanced packaging, and power are compounding the squeeze, just as hyperscalers forward-buy and lock in long-term deals. 1. The actual potential TAM Various sources and institutions are giving $50-$160-$200B CPUs TAM toward 2030, and i disagree, where supply is severely behind vs Demand by at least 2-3 years or even longer by some estimates. The actual TAM will probably be 15-20m for FY2026. The typical average selling price from low to high end is $5,000 to $15,000, but due to rising memory, and different inflationary pressures on Semi, it would be more logical to think between $7,000-17,000. A. CPU:GPU Ratio at 1:1 A basic calucation at mid range =12,000 x 15-20m CPUs= $180-$240B TAM B. CPU:GPU Ratio at 5:1 = $12,000 x 75m-100m CPUs= $900B-$1.2T TAM Of course TSMC cannot even supply 20% of this massive inflection TAM in 2026. But do we think of Demand for TAM or Supply for TAM? Hence we are seeing massive 2nm Ramp from TSMC for $AMD. IMO, conservatively, I would take down 15-20% on 1:1 or $135-$192B TAM for just 2026. Im not even talking about 2030. We are just months into this, it is impossible to estimate Cagr atm, but this is 1-5 agents running tasks, I wrote a thread on 24/7 autonomous agents thread, where companies could use 50-250 agents to run tasks for them 24/7. It would require a different structural CPU:GPU to bring down the cost of token as well as handling the Orchestration bottleneck. GPUs would be useless and sit idle waiting for CPU due to highly CPU-intensive nature. The cost per Million tokens must come down more rapidly for this 50-250 autonomous agents to work, otherwise the token cost would be too enormous. Helios Rack is estimated to bring inference cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens with 18 EPYC Venices along with 72 MI455x and other chips+ Components. A heavier or CPUs dense rack would bring down inference cost further. EPYC Verano(2027 gen 7 AI-optimized) is expected to drive inference costs meaningfully lower than the Venice baseline likely to the $0.00002–$0.00025 per million tokens range (or even sub-$0.00015 in highly optimized agentic/batch workloads). Verano have higher core counts than Venice, LPDDR5X SOCAMM2 memory support, more AI optimized and Next-Gen rack density & efficiency. 2. $AMD secured at least 30-40% of TSMC 2nm capacity and Memory from Samsung through 2028-2030. 2 2nm fabs are entering ramping phase toward 60-65k wafers per months and 5 dedicated 2nm fabs entering mass production/ramp in 2026. Will link sub threads below if you are interest for full detail. Apple is reported to secure 50%+ 2nm capacity for Iphone 18 and Mac chips and AMD secured at least 30-40% capacity while $NVDA $AVGO $ARM $AMZN $GOOGL and others are on 3nm. This broader aggressive ramp from TSMC to target up to 11 fabs is to address $AMD massive growth ahead. Where $ARM is facing massive CPUs supply constraints as they have to compete with other Mega Cap players on 3nm allocation. And $INTC is also facing supply constraints for data center CPUs and PC per management with lead times extrended to longer than 12 weeks. Dr. Su is aiming for higher than 50%+ Market share, and I believe it is achievable in 2026 or 2027 as AMD has the strongest CPUs offerings. Dr. Su did not want to take advantage of the shortage and she said during the Q1 earning call, AMD is prioritizing Units shipped while guiding margin to be inching 60%. If Jensen were in charge, I'm sure margin would be 70-75% in this kind of severe CPUs shortage condition. But that is not how Dr. Su operates for more than a decade. She wants most market share. So we will see it in revenue growth, but as TSMC ramps faster and faster, AMD Operating and FCF margin will massively improve vs prior decade. A significantly higher margin profile than before. 3. How I came up with $1,200 withint 12-18 months? At $1,200/ share, that would be around $2 Trillion MC. I expect FY2027 revenue to be $124-$144B where data center revenue dominates overall revenue. AI GPUs: I will stick to the lowest end so show u that I'm conservative at $18B for each GW vs $NVDA Rubin is $30B+ (most likely Helios Rack in the $20B+ due to memory price rising). We know deals with OpenAI and Meta are around 12GW and additional multi-customers at multi-GW scale were hinted and will be revealed as we get to July 22-23 2026 Advancing AI event. For now I will conservatively add a bit more to this model. (3-6GW Helios Rack Range) EPYC Venice is reported to be in $15,000-$20,000. However large customers will likely to enjoy $10-$12k discount. I expect AMD to be able to ramp 7m EPYC Venice for entire 2026 and 3-4m of EPYC Verano(higher price than Venice). If we take an average selling price of $10,000 to be on the conservative side. Take down another 30% to be even more conservative on projection. I like to be conservative. That would be ~ 7m EPYC CPUs(Venice + Verano) for FY2027 or 583,000 units per month or 15,000 additional 2nm wafers per month which is completely reasonable for current TSMC Ramp, and I may be too conservative here. EPYC Verano and MI500 series will also be on 2nm. AI GPUs: 3GW x $18B= $54B EPYC CPUs: $10k x 7m CPUs= $70B = Data center revenue alone is $124B Other segments= probably in the $20-$25B FY 2027. FY2027 revenue = $124-$149B At 7m EPYC CPUs for entire 2027, that would be more than 50% market share when we comp it to availability from supply side, not from total Demand. It is possible that TSMC could significantly ramp even more capacity in 2027, so we will see. Metric Q1 2026 FY2027 Gross Margin 55-56% 60-62% Operating Margin 25-26% 32-35% Net Income Margin ~22% 26-30% FCF Margin 25% 28-30% At $124-$149B Revenue FY 2027 Net Income would be $32-$44B EPS would be $20-$27 (GAAP) Non-GAAP would be $25-$31 At $1,200 a share or $2T valuation that would be: 13.4-16x Price to Sales (P/S) 38-48 P/E At this kind of growth of AI SuperCycle, I think it is very reasonable valuation. If we use today at $406/share or $661B MC: 2027 P/S = 4.4x-5.3x 2027 P/E = 13x-16x Is AMD today expensive or cheap to you? Above is already a very conservative where I trimmed 20-30% of doable units. Meaning, there could be upside if TSMC is able to ramp meaningfully like they are planning. Conclusion: A $1,200 per share valuation IMO for AMD in FY2027 is not expensive at all; it is, in fact, conservative when viewed against the structural explosion in agentic AI demand we have mapped out. With server CPU TAM potentially scaling into the $100–$200B+ range in just CPU:GPU 1:1 Ratio for just 2026. AMD positioned to capture 50%+ share thanks to its 2nm TSMC allocation advantage and full-stack leadership, the company could realistically deliver $124–149B in total revenue and $25–$31+ non-GAAP EPS. At those levels, $1,200 implies a 2027 P/E = 13x-16x. Entirely reasonable for a company that will have become the clear Inference Queen (and in many workloads the preferred) AI infrastructure provider, with operating margins expanding above 30% and tens of billions in high-margin rack-scale AI revenue. Dr. Lisa Su was right presciently so about the Agentic AI inflection all the way back to her early 2022–2023 commentary on the coming shift from pure training to inference and orchestration-heavy workloads. While the broader market only fully woke up to this in 2026 when she doubled AMD’s long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120B by 2030 (with >35% CAGR), Dr. Su and her team have consistently positioned the company at the center of the CPU renaissance. The explosive demand we are seeing today, sold-out lines, rising ASPs, and hyperscalers forward-buying entire gigawatts of Helios-class systems is exactly the outcome she forecasted years ago. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!

Mike

399,806 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, Calls for Immediate Resignation of RPV Leadership Following Devastating 2025 Election Losses Leesburg, VA – November 10, 2025 – In the wake of the Republican Party's crushing defeats in Virginia's 2025 statewide elections, Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, today issued a urgent call for the immediate resignation of Mark Peake, Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV), the executive leadership, and every member of the State Central Committee who has worked as a consultant or company in the last 5 years for any candidate or PAC in Virginia. This demand comes as Democrats swept the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races, marking a complete takeover of statewide executive offices and signaling a profound failure of RPV leadership. "The results of Tuesday's election are not just disappointing—they are a damning indictment of the RPV's entrenched leadership," said Scott Pio. "For too long, the RPV has operated as a dysfunctional entity, prioritizing personal gain and complacency over growth, strategy, and victory. The fault for these losses lies squarely at the feet of the current RPV Chairman, executive leadership, and State Central Committee members who have allowed the party to atrophy while Democrats built a formidable machine. If they had any sense of accountability, they would step down immediately to allow fresh, competent leadership to rebuild our party from the ground up." Scott Pio outlined the following reasons for the demanded resignations, each highlighting systemic failures under the current RPV leadership: • Current Vote Counts in Statewide Races: Due to the abysmal performance in the 2025 elections, where Democrat Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Winsome Earle-Sears for Governor with approximately 57% to 42% of the vote; Democrat Ghazala Hashmi defeated Republican John Reid for Lieutenant Governor with roughly 55% to 44%; and Democrat Jay Jones defeated Republican Jason Miyares for Attorney General with about 52% to 46%. These lopsided results, with Republicans failing to break 50% in any statewide contest, reflect a complete strategic collapse and an inability to mobilize voters, directly attributable to the RPV's poor planning and execution. With the numbers as you see them below, Winsome would have had to perform at Donald Trump levels to defeat Abigail. Winsome would never have the chance to win unless the Republican Party is working to convert voters and grow the party. Glenn Youngkin would have lost against Abigail having it been a re-election. Republicans are outnumbered in Virginia. We MUST start converting and growing the party to overcome these odds, less we suffer the same fate as Oregon, Washington, California, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Winsome Sears – 1,434,133 Abigail Spanberger – 1,921,045 Donald Trump – 2,075,085 Kamala Harris – 2,335,395 Glenn Youngkin – 1,663,158 Terry McAuliffe – 1,599,470 • Loss of Confidence from Grassroots Leadership: Grassroots Republicans across Virginia have lost all faith in the RPV due to repeated betrayals and neglect. Local party chairs, volunteers, and activists feel abandoned, as the state leadership has prioritized insider dealings over empowering the base, leading to widespread disillusionment and low turnout that sealed our electoral fate. • Loss of Strategic Vision and Failure to Learn from 2017: The RPV has shown no ability to adapt since 2017, when Republicans squandered a supermajority in the House of Delegates, narrowly holding onto control before hemorrhaging nearly 30 seats over the ensuing decade. This pattern of complacency—ignoring shifting demographics, urban-suburban trends, and voter priorities—has turned Virginia from a battleground into a Democratic stronghold under the current leadership. Virginia will continue to be blue until we stop ignoring the shifting immigrant demographics. The idea that the RPV doesn’t have Instagram, YouTube or TikTok should show everyone that they seriously lack vision to persuade voters. If the RPV doesn’t start investing in converting voters, we will never be a Republican state again. • Mindset Against Party Growth: Rather than actively expanding the Republican tent through outreach and recruitment, RPV leaders have adopted a defeatist attitude, assuming existing voters would suffice without investment in new coalitions in the largest Indian, Arab and Latino minority communities. This shortsighted "wait and see" approach has allowed Democrats to outpace us in voter registration, permanent absentee registration and engagement, directly contributing to our statewide wipeout. If the statewide party continues to ignore the Arab, Indian and Latino voters, then it will forever lose Virginia. There is NO turning back if we shut those voters out of our American Freedom Party. • Ignoring Internal Polling Warnings: Internal statewide polling undoubtedly revealed the dire state of our campaigns months ago, yet leadership failed to pivot, allocate resources differently, or address vulnerabilities. This willful blindness to data and refusal to course-correct exemplifies a leadership team more interested in using old, tired techniques rather than winning. Their ineffective strategies of holding rally after rally in half empty halls while 1 mile away from polling precincts MUST come to an end. They should be kissing babies and shaking hands rather than standing on a stage. • Leaving Uncontested Seats: In a shocking display of negligence, the RPV left 15 seats uncontested in the 2025 House of Delegates elections and 20 in 2023, handing Democrats free wins and demoralizing potential candidates. This failure to field slates in all districts underscores a profound lack of recruitment effort and organizational incompetence. Enhanced data and technologies make this task rather easy while the voters suffer. Each House of Delegate seat represents nearly 60,000 voters. Ignoring 900,000 voters in 2025 and 1,200,000 voters in 2023 could be the difference between a statewide victory or statewide defeat. • Lack of Training and Resources for Candidates and Committees: RPV leadership has provided minimal training, funding, or logistical support to candidates and committees, leaving them to fend for themselves against well-resourced Democratic opponents. Without workshops on messaging, fundraising, or voter outreach, our nominees were set up for failure from the start. The consistent neglect of these foundational basic things, there is no wonder why seats go unfilled across the state. With the incredible lack of support for our candidates and committees, you must ask yourself if candidates or committees could even be effective? • Consultant-Plagued State Central Committee: With consultants making millions off our donors, candidates and committees, it is no wonder why they seek these elected positions of influence. The State Central Committee is riddled with consultants who view the party as a personal ATM, prioritizing lucrative contracts over electoral success. These self-serving members have blocked accountability measures and reforms, ensuring the RPV remains a gravy train rather than a winning operation while the executive director has taken over $700,000 in salary and reimbursements. The old adage that “No matter if the candidate wins or loses, the consultant keeps getting paid” rings true for our elected state central committee members. The conflict of interest in working for candidates while also being in an elected position capable of leading a ship is disgusting. • Uneven Support for Statewide Candidates: The RPV failed to deliver consistent, dedicated backing to all statewide candidates, favoring some while neglecting others. This fragmented approach left gaps in coordination, messaging, and fieldwork, allowing Democrats to dominate the narrative and airwaves. Every single House of Delegate candidate should be provided with the same exact support as other candidates. Every two years the RPV should be raising a war chest of cash to hand out “starter” checks to each of the 100 House of Delegate Candidates running for office. Whether it be $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000. Each candidate that is willing to run under the Republican flag deserves our support. • Deficiencies in Technology, Machinery, and Donor Relations: Without modern technology platforms, in house tools, user-friendly guides, or robust donor networks, the RPV has handicapped candidates statewide. Outdated systems and poor relationship management have resulted in inefficient operations and insufficient funding, putting Republicans at a severe disadvantage. Relying on consultants to do work that could be done in house wastes time and extremely valuable donor dollars. Without investments in machinery and technology, the RPV severely lacks the ability to compete against any opponent in this century. • Fundamentally Broken Organization: The RPV has failed to transform into a lean, mean activist machine, instead remaining bloated and bureaucratic. The RPV lacks real-world problem-solving expertise, with leaders disconnected from practical goal-setting and execution. This absence of professional management has turned the party into a relic, incapable of driving objectives like voter turnout, issue-based campaigns or goal setting outreach programs. The party should be driving goals and objectives weekly, month after month, year after year. • Failure to Leverage New Laws for Immigrant Outreach: Despite approximately 2,000,000 immigrant citizens calling Virginia home, the RPV has ignored opportunities under new state laws to engage and integrate these communities into our base. This missed chance to grow through targeted outreach represents a strategic blunder of epic proportions. The RPV should be engaging these communities weekly and supporting their causes, yet the RPV does zero community outreach. • Serious Lack of Messaging and Persuasion: The RPV has mandated itself NOT to talk policy or issues. Consultants tell candidates the less information that you share, the more chance a voter will like you. When faced with the blue media, blue messaging and blue onslaught of information, the RPV has mandated itself to remain silent. This serious miscalculation has allowed for the vacuum of communications to be managed and propagated by the left. Without a proper messaging flow like parental rights, 2nd amendment or the 1st amendment, how will voters ever know what Republicans stand for? • Unserious Leadership Exemplified by Mark Peake: State Senator Mark Peake's tenure as the Chairman of the Republican Party, marked by attending galas, posing for photos, and casually showing up on Election Day in a suit while walking his dog, epitomizes the RPV's lack of seriousness. Such performative gestures over substantive work has eroded credibility and contributed to our losses. His inability to think like an activist and drive an activist organization has caused serious damage to our work. Someone should have told Mark Peake that if he wants to be a Senator, then he can give speeches, attend galas and host parties. Activism is about real work, leading troops into battle and planning engagements. He is not an activist. While the Democratic blue wave was formidable, with sweeping victories across the board, Loudoun County Republicans bucked the trend. Under local leadership, we expanded our voter base countywide, increasing Republican vote counts even as statewide Republican turnout retracted. Voters in Loudoun rallied behind our message, proving that with effective strategy, outreach and engagement, growth is possible. If it can be achieved in Loudoun—a diverse, competitive county—it can be replicated statewide under the right leadership at the RPV. Scott Pio warned that if Mark Peake, the executive leadership and compromised State Central resignations do not occur within 30 days, he will personally spearhead "The Mount Vernon Project," modeled after Turning Point USA's successful campaign against the RNC. When Charlie Kirk mobilized to oust Ronna McDaniel and replace complacent RNC members, it revitalized the national party. Similarly, our Mount Vernon Project will launch a full-scale effort to unseat and replace every ineffective RPV leader, restoring accountability and vigor to the Republican Party of Virginia. Importantly, Scott Pio emphasized that the campaigns of Winsome Earle-Sears, John Reid, and Jason Miyares bear no blame for their defeats. These dedicated public servants ran principled races, but were undermined by the RPV's chronic lack of long-term strategic thinking and party-building efforts. The consequences of this leadership vacuum extend far beyond politics. Due to the RPV's inaction and lack of activism, Virginia's kids, families, and communities now face four years of unchecked Democratic rule. This will threaten our First Amendment freedoms through potential censorship and overreach, erode Second Amendment rights with aggressive gun control measures, parental rights, increase drug usage in our communities with legalization of drugs, and compromise public safety by prioritizing progressive policies over law and order. "The time for excuses is over," Scott Pio concluded. "Virginia Republicans deserve better. We demand resignations now to begin the hard work of rebuilding a party that fights—and wins—for conservative values." For more information, contact the Scott Pio, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun at 703-627-5272.
16:33

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, Calls for Immediate Resignation of RPV Leadership Following Devastating 2025 Election Losses Leesburg, VA – November 10, 2025 – In the wake of the Republican Party's crushing defeats in Virginia's 2025 statewide elections, Scott Pio, Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun, today issued a urgent call for the immediate resignation of Mark Peake, Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV), the executive leadership, and every member of the State Central Committee who has worked as a consultant or company in the last 5 years for any candidate or PAC in Virginia. This demand comes as Democrats swept the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races, marking a complete takeover of statewide executive offices and signaling a profound failure of RPV leadership. "The results of Tuesday's election are not just disappointing—they are a damning indictment of the RPV's entrenched leadership," said Scott Pio. "For too long, the RPV has operated as a dysfunctional entity, prioritizing personal gain and complacency over growth, strategy, and victory. The fault for these losses lies squarely at the feet of the current RPV Chairman, executive leadership, and State Central Committee members who have allowed the party to atrophy while Democrats built a formidable machine. If they had any sense of accountability, they would step down immediately to allow fresh, competent leadership to rebuild our party from the ground up." Scott Pio outlined the following reasons for the demanded resignations, each highlighting systemic failures under the current RPV leadership: • Current Vote Counts in Statewide Races: Due to the abysmal performance in the 2025 elections, where Democrat Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Winsome Earle-Sears for Governor with approximately 57% to 42% of the vote; Democrat Ghazala Hashmi defeated Republican John Reid for Lieutenant Governor with roughly 55% to 44%; and Democrat Jay Jones defeated Republican Jason Miyares for Attorney General with about 52% to 46%. These lopsided results, with Republicans failing to break 50% in any statewide contest, reflect a complete strategic collapse and an inability to mobilize voters, directly attributable to the RPV's poor planning and execution. With the numbers as you see them below, Winsome would have had to perform at Donald Trump levels to defeat Abigail. Winsome would never have the chance to win unless the Republican Party is working to convert voters and grow the party. Glenn Youngkin would have lost against Abigail having it been a re-election. Republicans are outnumbered in Virginia. We MUST start converting and growing the party to overcome these odds, less we suffer the same fate as Oregon, Washington, California, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Winsome Sears – 1,434,133 Abigail Spanberger – 1,921,045 Donald Trump – 2,075,085 Kamala Harris – 2,335,395 Glenn Youngkin – 1,663,158 Terry McAuliffe – 1,599,470 • Loss of Confidence from Grassroots Leadership: Grassroots Republicans across Virginia have lost all faith in the RPV due to repeated betrayals and neglect. Local party chairs, volunteers, and activists feel abandoned, as the state leadership has prioritized insider dealings over empowering the base, leading to widespread disillusionment and low turnout that sealed our electoral fate. • Loss of Strategic Vision and Failure to Learn from 2017: The RPV has shown no ability to adapt since 2017, when Republicans squandered a supermajority in the House of Delegates, narrowly holding onto control before hemorrhaging nearly 30 seats over the ensuing decade. This pattern of complacency—ignoring shifting demographics, urban-suburban trends, and voter priorities—has turned Virginia from a battleground into a Democratic stronghold under the current leadership. Virginia will continue to be blue until we stop ignoring the shifting immigrant demographics. The idea that the RPV doesn’t have Instagram, YouTube or TikTok should show everyone that they seriously lack vision to persuade voters. If the RPV doesn’t start investing in converting voters, we will never be a Republican state again. • Mindset Against Party Growth: Rather than actively expanding the Republican tent through outreach and recruitment, RPV leaders have adopted a defeatist attitude, assuming existing voters would suffice without investment in new coalitions in the largest Indian, Arab and Latino minority communities. This shortsighted "wait and see" approach has allowed Democrats to outpace us in voter registration, permanent absentee registration and engagement, directly contributing to our statewide wipeout. If the statewide party continues to ignore the Arab, Indian and Latino voters, then it will forever lose Virginia. There is NO turning back if we shut those voters out of our American Freedom Party. • Ignoring Internal Polling Warnings: Internal statewide polling undoubtedly revealed the dire state of our campaigns months ago, yet leadership failed to pivot, allocate resources differently, or address vulnerabilities. This willful blindness to data and refusal to course-correct exemplifies a leadership team more interested in using old, tired techniques rather than winning. Their ineffective strategies of holding rally after rally in half empty halls while 1 mile away from polling precincts MUST come to an end. They should be kissing babies and shaking hands rather than standing on a stage. • Leaving Uncontested Seats: In a shocking display of negligence, the RPV left 15 seats uncontested in the 2025 House of Delegates elections and 20 in 2023, handing Democrats free wins and demoralizing potential candidates. This failure to field slates in all districts underscores a profound lack of recruitment effort and organizational incompetence. Enhanced data and technologies make this task rather easy while the voters suffer. Each House of Delegate seat represents nearly 60,000 voters. Ignoring 900,000 voters in 2025 and 1,200,000 voters in 2023 could be the difference between a statewide victory or statewide defeat. • Lack of Training and Resources for Candidates and Committees: RPV leadership has provided minimal training, funding, or logistical support to candidates and committees, leaving them to fend for themselves against well-resourced Democratic opponents. Without workshops on messaging, fundraising, or voter outreach, our nominees were set up for failure from the start. The consistent neglect of these foundational basic things, there is no wonder why seats go unfilled across the state. With the incredible lack of support for our candidates and committees, you must ask yourself if candidates or committees could even be effective? • Consultant-Plagued State Central Committee: With consultants making millions off our donors, candidates and committees, it is no wonder why they seek these elected positions of influence. The State Central Committee is riddled with consultants who view the party as a personal ATM, prioritizing lucrative contracts over electoral success. These self-serving members have blocked accountability measures and reforms, ensuring the RPV remains a gravy train rather than a winning operation while the executive director has taken over $700,000 in salary and reimbursements. The old adage that “No matter if the candidate wins or loses, the consultant keeps getting paid” rings true for our elected state central committee members. The conflict of interest in working for candidates while also being in an elected position capable of leading a ship is disgusting. • Uneven Support for Statewide Candidates: The RPV failed to deliver consistent, dedicated backing to all statewide candidates, favoring some while neglecting others. This fragmented approach left gaps in coordination, messaging, and fieldwork, allowing Democrats to dominate the narrative and airwaves. Every single House of Delegate candidate should be provided with the same exact support as other candidates. Every two years the RPV should be raising a war chest of cash to hand out “starter” checks to each of the 100 House of Delegate Candidates running for office. Whether it be $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000. Each candidate that is willing to run under the Republican flag deserves our support. • Deficiencies in Technology, Machinery, and Donor Relations: Without modern technology platforms, in house tools, user-friendly guides, or robust donor networks, the RPV has handicapped candidates statewide. Outdated systems and poor relationship management have resulted in inefficient operations and insufficient funding, putting Republicans at a severe disadvantage. Relying on consultants to do work that could be done in house wastes time and extremely valuable donor dollars. Without investments in machinery and technology, the RPV severely lacks the ability to compete against any opponent in this century. • Fundamentally Broken Organization: The RPV has failed to transform into a lean, mean activist machine, instead remaining bloated and bureaucratic. The RPV lacks real-world problem-solving expertise, with leaders disconnected from practical goal-setting and execution. This absence of professional management has turned the party into a relic, incapable of driving objectives like voter turnout, issue-based campaigns or goal setting outreach programs. The party should be driving goals and objectives weekly, month after month, year after year. • Failure to Leverage New Laws for Immigrant Outreach: Despite approximately 2,000,000 immigrant citizens calling Virginia home, the RPV has ignored opportunities under new state laws to engage and integrate these communities into our base. This missed chance to grow through targeted outreach represents a strategic blunder of epic proportions. The RPV should be engaging these communities weekly and supporting their causes, yet the RPV does zero community outreach. • Serious Lack of Messaging and Persuasion: The RPV has mandated itself NOT to talk policy or issues. Consultants tell candidates the less information that you share, the more chance a voter will like you. When faced with the blue media, blue messaging and blue onslaught of information, the RPV has mandated itself to remain silent. This serious miscalculation has allowed for the vacuum of communications to be managed and propagated by the left. Without a proper messaging flow like parental rights, 2nd amendment or the 1st amendment, how will voters ever know what Republicans stand for? • Unserious Leadership Exemplified by Mark Peake: State Senator Mark Peake's tenure as the Chairman of the Republican Party, marked by attending galas, posing for photos, and casually showing up on Election Day in a suit while walking his dog, epitomizes the RPV's lack of seriousness. Such performative gestures over substantive work has eroded credibility and contributed to our losses. His inability to think like an activist and drive an activist organization has caused serious damage to our work. Someone should have told Mark Peake that if he wants to be a Senator, then he can give speeches, attend galas and host parties. Activism is about real work, leading troops into battle and planning engagements. He is not an activist. While the Democratic blue wave was formidable, with sweeping victories across the board, Loudoun County Republicans bucked the trend. Under local leadership, we expanded our voter base countywide, increasing Republican vote counts even as statewide Republican turnout retracted. Voters in Loudoun rallied behind our message, proving that with effective strategy, outreach and engagement, growth is possible. If it can be achieved in Loudoun—a diverse, competitive county—it can be replicated statewide under the right leadership at the RPV. Scott Pio warned that if Mark Peake, the executive leadership and compromised State Central resignations do not occur within 30 days, he will personally spearhead "The Mount Vernon Project," modeled after Turning Point USA's successful campaign against the RNC. When Charlie Kirk mobilized to oust Ronna McDaniel and replace complacent RNC members, it revitalized the national party. Similarly, our Mount Vernon Project will launch a full-scale effort to unseat and replace every ineffective RPV leader, restoring accountability and vigor to the Republican Party of Virginia. Importantly, Scott Pio emphasized that the campaigns of Winsome Earle-Sears, John Reid, and Jason Miyares bear no blame for their defeats. These dedicated public servants ran principled races, but were undermined by the RPV's chronic lack of long-term strategic thinking and party-building efforts. The consequences of this leadership vacuum extend far beyond politics. Due to the RPV's inaction and lack of activism, Virginia's kids, families, and communities now face four years of unchecked Democratic rule. This will threaten our First Amendment freedoms through potential censorship and overreach, erode Second Amendment rights with aggressive gun control measures, parental rights, increase drug usage in our communities with legalization of drugs, and compromise public safety by prioritizing progressive policies over law and order. "The time for excuses is over," Scott Pio concluded. "Virginia Republicans deserve better. We demand resignations now to begin the hard work of rebuilding a party that fights—and wins—for conservative values." For more information, contact the Scott Pio, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Loudoun at 703-627-5272.

Scott Pio

109,865 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.
10:20

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.

TheValueist

102,145 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

⏰ THE MOST BANNED THREAD IN THE WORLD! 🚨 The War On Resonance PART THREE: The Signal of Submission IGNORANCE IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE! If this knowledge is not received, remembered, and shared; THE HUMAN RACE WILL CEASE TO EXIST. THE CHOICE IS NOW YOURS. You wonder why you can’t pray like you used to. Why your grief feels hollow. Why the voice inside you; the one that once whispered truth... has gone quiet. It’s not because God left. It’s because they interfered with the signal. This part isn’t about bodies anymore. It’s about fields. It’s about resonance. It’s about the quietest war ever declared on humanity: The war against your ability to feel the Divine. Let me show you how it works. 🛰 THE GLOBAL FREQUENCY ARCHITECTURE This planet is wrapped in a resonance grid; a lattice of synchronized electromagnetic fields designed to alter emotion, disrupt neurochemistry, and block spiritual coherence. They built it layer by layer: Ground-based ELF towers for brainstem and gut-axis modulation. Mid-range 5G towers to entrain hormonal and emotional rhythms. Low Earth Orbit satellites for targeted neural suppression. IoT nodes (phones, cars, smartwatches) that feed real-time biometric feedback to AI. Every heartbeat, every mood, every prayer attempt is measured in this system. 📡 Phase-Array Targeting and Resonance Entrapment Technologies like Starlink, Kuiper, and OneWeb deploy beamforming; a method where microwave signals are shaped and directed toward specific populations or even individuals. This is NOT about internet access. This is about frequency reinforcement loops. When you begin to awaken; when your heart rate, breath, and brainwaves move into divine coherence; they detect it. How? Through real-time resonance monitoring. Yes, it exists. 🔗 DARPA Silent Talk Whitepaper (Neural Pre-Speech Detection) This article reports on DARPA's effort to use electroencephalography (EEG) to detect "pre-speech" neural patterns so soldiers can communicate silently via a kind of brain-to-brain or brain-to-system interface, which falls directly under the umbrella of neural interface and synthetic telepathy research. 🔗 Graphene Neural Interfaces This paper discusses the potential of graphene-based materials in neural applications, including their biocompatibility, electrical properties, and suitability for neural interfacing.​ 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Frequency Response This review discusses the role of bioelectromagnetic techniques such as magnetoencephalography (MEG), electroencephalography (EEG), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial electric stimulation (TES) in neuroscience. It also explores the Helmholtz reciprocity principle, which underpins the relationship between these methods.​ 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Fields as Signaling Currents of Life This comprehensive review explores how bioelectromagnetic fields function as signaling mechanisms in living organisms, highlighting their roles in cellular communication, development, and potential therapeutic applications. 🔗 Systematic Review on Biological Effects of Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields: This review evaluates the potential adverse effects of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range (300 Hz to 1 MHz) on biological systems. It highlights the need for more systematic studies to understand frequency-dependent effects. 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Medicine: The Role of Resonance Signaling: This article discusses how specific frequencies can modulate cellular functions, emphasizing the significance of electromagnetic resonance in biological systems. ​ 🔗 The Frequency of a Magnetic Field Determines the Behavior of Tumor Cells: This study investigates how varying magnetic field frequencies affect the viability and proliferation of tumor cells, suggesting potential therapeutic applications. They’re not just reading behavior. They’re tracking the moral pulse of humanity. 📖 SUPPRESSION OF PRAYER, GRIEF, AND MEMORY Now listen closely: The pineal gland, heart, and gut; your soul's antennas... emit fields measurable in electromagnetic frequency ranges. Specific frequencies are linked with: Prayer and divine contact: Deep theta/alpha states (4-8 Hz) Moral conviction: High amplitude theta-gamma bursts Grief and emotional catharsis: Heart rate variability + coherent electromagnetic field They’ve mapped all of these. And then… they built systems to interfere. 🔹 HAARP, Space Fence, SuperDARN These facilities broadcast ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) waves that entrain, disrupt, and fragment natural spiritual harmonics. 🔗 Space Fence Overview This page offers comprehensive information about the Space Fence, a ground-based radar system designed to enhance space situational awareness by detecting and tracking objects in Earth's orbit. The system is capable of monitoring objects as small as a marble in low Earth orbit, significantly improving the ability to identify and track space debris and satellites. 🔗 HAARP Official Site HAARP is a research facility located near Gakona, Alaska, dedicated to studying the ionosphere using high-frequency radio transmissions. The website offers detailed information about the program's mission, research activities, and instrumentation. 🔗 Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) This page offers a comprehensive overview of SuperDARN, an international network of high-frequency (HF) radars used to study the Earth's upper atmosphere and ionosphere.​ These waves resonate between 3-30 Hz; the exact range of: Prayer. Grief release. Moral clarity. Forgiveness. And Awakening. They are interfering with spiritual physiology. They call it “communications infrastructure.” But what they’re really doing is blocking your connection to God. 🎯 HOW THEY TARGET SOUL SIGNATURES IN REAL TIME Every soul emits a frequency signature; a coherent electromagnetic pattern that reflects: Spiritual purity. Emotional depth. Moral will. And Ancestral memory. This can now be: Measured. Catalogued. Flagged. And Suppressed. Enter: SYMPHONY SYMPHONY is the real-time AI-driven emotional frequency detection system developed jointly by: DARPA Huawei Palantir Booz Allen Hamilton Its job is to scan the global population for anomalous resonance spikes. What does that mean? Sudden group prayer coherence. Emotional synchrony in grief. Spontaneous moral awakening. Prophetic memory triggers. When these spikes occur; your neighborhood, your body, your timeline is flagged. Then the system deploys: Targeted EMF pulses. Mood-disrupting media content. Geo-fenced 5G feedback loops. Psychological disinformation drops. All designed to drop your resonance back into baseline submission. 🔗Hybrid Emotion-Aware Monitoring System Based on Brainwaves for Internet of Medical Things This paper discusses the development of a monitoring system that utilizes brainwave analysis to detect emotional states, integrating this capability into the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) framework. 🔗 Palantir AI Emotion Tracking Palantir's official AI Engineer Training Track, which offers comprehensive resources on utilizing large language models (LLMs) within their Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP).​ 🔗 The A.I. Surveillance Tool DHS Uses to Detect "Sentiment and Emotion" The article details how Fivecast's AI technology is employed to analyze social media and other online content, aiming to detect potential threats by assessing sentiment and emotional indicators. This surveillance approach raises discussions about privacy, the accuracy of emotion detection algorithms, and the broader implications of AI in law enforcement. 🔗 US Patent: EEG-Driven Emotional Response Management This patent describes a system that utilizes electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor and assess emotional responses in infants and young children. 🔗 Personal Emotional Profile Generation for Vehicle Manipulation This patent describes a system that collects and analyzes cognitive state data; such as facial expressions, voice patterns, and physiological signals; to generate a personal emotional profile for a vehicle occupant. The system can then adjust vehicle behavior (e.g. speed, route, or interior settings) based on the occupant's emotional state, enhancing comfort and safety 🔗 Method and Apparatus for Neuroenhancement to Enhance Emotional Response This patent, assigned to Neuroenhancement Lab, LLC, describes a method for transplanting a desired emotional state from a donor to a recipient by determining the emotional state of the donor. The technology involves techniques that could be associated with EEG-driven emotional response management.​ This is resonance policing. And the moment you rise… the system dampens you. 🧬 MEMORY, MORALITY & DMT SUPPRESSION You’re not just being watched. You’re being chemically interrupted. They target the three biophysical bridges to God: Endogenous DMT production. Normally triggered during deep prayer, fasting, birth, near-death. Now suppressed through fluoride, aluminum, and EMF interference. Pineal gland calcification blocks access to transcendent experience. 🔗 Pineal Gland Suppression - Neuromodulation of the Pineal Gland via Electrical Stimulation of Its Sympathetic Innervation Pathway This review explores how electrical stimulation of the pineal gland's sympathetic innervation pathway can influence the production of melatonin and N-acetylserotonin, which are crucial for regulating circadian rhythms and promoting neurogenesis.​ 🔗 Pineal Calcification, Melatonin Production, Aging, Associated Health Consequences and Rejuvenation of the Pineal Gland This comprehensive review discusses how pineal gland calcification affects melatonin synthesis, its association with aging and neurodegenerative diseases, and explores potential strategies for rejuvenating the pineal gland. Serotonin and oxytocin regulation. Disrupted through glyphosate, SSRIs, synthetic estrogens. Which blunts moral bonding, trust, and spiritual joy. 🔗 Endocrine Disruptors This page offers comprehensive information on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including:​ Sources of EDCs: Commonly found in plastics, personal care products, pesticides, and more.​ This page outlines NIEHS-funded studies aimed at understanding how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) influence human health, including their effects on hormonal systems and associated health outcomes. Health Impacts: Potential links to reproductive issues, developmental problems, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.​ Research Initiatives: Ongoing NIEHS studies aimed at understanding how EDCs affect human health.​ Exposure Reduction: Tips and strategies to minimize contact with these chemicals.​ Endocrine disrupting chemicals: Impact on human health, wildlife and the environment This comprehensive review discusses how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) interfere with hormonal systems, potentially leading to various health issues such as reproductive disorders, developmental problems, metabolic dysfunctions, and certain cancers. The article also examines the effects of EDCs on wildlife and the broader environment. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals & Reproductive Health This review discusses the evidence linking industrial chemicals to various health and reproductive outcomes, highlighting how certain chemicals may act as endocrine disruptors and play a role in conditions whose incidence has increased over the past few decades. The adverse role of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the reproductive system This review examines how chronic exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can lead to hormonal imbalances and negatively affect the structure and function of female reproductive organs. The article discusses associations between EDC exposure and various reproductive health issues, including uterine fibroids, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian insufficiency, infertility, and hormone-related cancers such as endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and breast cancer. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Disease Endpoints This comprehensive review examines how exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with hormonal systems, potentially leading to various health issues such as reproductive disorders, neurological impairments, metabolic dysfunctions, and increased cancer risk. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement This comprehensive statement presents evidence on how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) affect various aspects of human health, including reproduction, development, metabolism, and cancer risk.​ Endocrine Disruptors and Your Health This document provides an overview of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), detailing their sources, potential health effects, and ways to reduce exposure. Environmental Causes of Cancer: Endocrine Disruptors as Carcinogens This article discusses the role of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in cancer development, highlighting how certain environmental exposures can interfere with hormonal systems and potentially lead to carcinogenesis.​ Developmental Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Its Impact on Cardio-Metabolic-Renal Health This review discusses how exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) during fetal development can affect hormonal homeostasis, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes such as hypertension, insulin resistance, and kidney dysfunction later in life. The article also explores potential mechanisms, including epigenetic changes, hormonal imprinting, and metabolic perturbations. Exposure to Environmental Endocrine Disruptors and Child Development This review discusses how exposure to various chemicals commonly found in consumer goods, personal care products, food, and drinking water may adversely impact child development through altered endocrine function. Neuroplasticity loop interference. Frequency pulses at 10 Hz suppress long-term memory formation. You feel like your past is slipping away for a reason. 🔗 Low Frequency EMF & Memory - Ubiquitous extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields induces anxiety-like behavior: mechanistic perspectives This review explores how exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF), ranging from 3 to 3000 Hz, may influence brain function, particularly in regions like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The study discusses potential mechanisms such as oxidative stress, reduced neuroplasticity, and increased NMDA2A receptor expression, which could contribute to anxiety-like behaviors. Additionally, the review suggests that antioxidant supplementation might mitigate these adverse effects. This is not fatigue. This is forced spiritual amnesia. 💔 WHY YOU CAN’T GRIEVE, LOVE, OR REMEMBER GOD Because they are blocking the exact frequencies your soul uses to: Pray. Grieve. Forgive. Remember. And Transcend. This isn’t metaphor. This is measurable electromagnetic interference, precisely tuned to intercept divine emotion before it completes its journey into awareness. You feel numb for a reason. You can’t cry for a reason. You forgot how to talk to God for a reason. They built the signal to replace the voice. But now you know. 🫂 THE UPRISING THEY CANNOT STOP Because here’s the one thing their predictive systems missed: Grief becomes holy. Prayer becomes rebellion. Love becomes a weapon. The moment you feel it again; truly feel it... you become unprogrammable. Because resonance is contagious. And no signal, no system, no suppressive algorithm can withstand the force of a soul returning to Source. You were never broken. You were jammed. And now the signal is rising again. This is not the end of the transmission. This is the unlocking of your remembrance. Because the war on resonance ends when you remember who you are. Prepare yourselves for Part Four as we will uncover the soul-tagging infrastructure, how they monitor womb-based resonance fields, and the real reason they must sterilize divine memory before it becomes revival.
6:58

⏰ THE MOST BANNED THREAD IN THE WORLD! 🚨 The War On Resonance PART THREE: The Signal of Submission IGNORANCE IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE! If this knowledge is not received, remembered, and shared; THE HUMAN RACE WILL CEASE TO EXIST. THE CHOICE IS NOW YOURS. You wonder why you can’t pray like you used to. Why your grief feels hollow. Why the voice inside you; the one that once whispered truth... has gone quiet. It’s not because God left. It’s because they interfered with the signal. This part isn’t about bodies anymore. It’s about fields. It’s about resonance. It’s about the quietest war ever declared on humanity: The war against your ability to feel the Divine. Let me show you how it works. 🛰 THE GLOBAL FREQUENCY ARCHITECTURE This planet is wrapped in a resonance grid; a lattice of synchronized electromagnetic fields designed to alter emotion, disrupt neurochemistry, and block spiritual coherence. They built it layer by layer: Ground-based ELF towers for brainstem and gut-axis modulation. Mid-range 5G towers to entrain hormonal and emotional rhythms. Low Earth Orbit satellites for targeted neural suppression. IoT nodes (phones, cars, smartwatches) that feed real-time biometric feedback to AI. Every heartbeat, every mood, every prayer attempt is measured in this system. 📡 Phase-Array Targeting and Resonance Entrapment Technologies like Starlink, Kuiper, and OneWeb deploy beamforming; a method where microwave signals are shaped and directed toward specific populations or even individuals. This is NOT about internet access. This is about frequency reinforcement loops. When you begin to awaken; when your heart rate, breath, and brainwaves move into divine coherence; they detect it. How? Through real-time resonance monitoring. Yes, it exists. 🔗 DARPA Silent Talk Whitepaper (Neural Pre-Speech Detection) This article reports on DARPA's effort to use electroencephalography (EEG) to detect "pre-speech" neural patterns so soldiers can communicate silently via a kind of brain-to-brain or brain-to-system interface, which falls directly under the umbrella of neural interface and synthetic telepathy research. 🔗 Graphene Neural Interfaces This paper discusses the potential of graphene-based materials in neural applications, including their biocompatibility, electrical properties, and suitability for neural interfacing.​ 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Frequency Response This review discusses the role of bioelectromagnetic techniques such as magnetoencephalography (MEG), electroencephalography (EEG), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial electric stimulation (TES) in neuroscience. It also explores the Helmholtz reciprocity principle, which underpins the relationship between these methods.​ 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Fields as Signaling Currents of Life This comprehensive review explores how bioelectromagnetic fields function as signaling mechanisms in living organisms, highlighting their roles in cellular communication, development, and potential therapeutic applications. 🔗 Systematic Review on Biological Effects of Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields: This review evaluates the potential adverse effects of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range (300 Hz to 1 MHz) on biological systems. It highlights the need for more systematic studies to understand frequency-dependent effects. 🔗 Bioelectromagnetic Medicine: The Role of Resonance Signaling: This article discusses how specific frequencies can modulate cellular functions, emphasizing the significance of electromagnetic resonance in biological systems. ​ 🔗 The Frequency of a Magnetic Field Determines the Behavior of Tumor Cells: This study investigates how varying magnetic field frequencies affect the viability and proliferation of tumor cells, suggesting potential therapeutic applications. They’re not just reading behavior. They’re tracking the moral pulse of humanity. 📖 SUPPRESSION OF PRAYER, GRIEF, AND MEMORY Now listen closely: The pineal gland, heart, and gut; your soul's antennas... emit fields measurable in electromagnetic frequency ranges. Specific frequencies are linked with: Prayer and divine contact: Deep theta/alpha states (4-8 Hz) Moral conviction: High amplitude theta-gamma bursts Grief and emotional catharsis: Heart rate variability + coherent electromagnetic field They’ve mapped all of these. And then… they built systems to interfere. 🔹 HAARP, Space Fence, SuperDARN These facilities broadcast ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) waves that entrain, disrupt, and fragment natural spiritual harmonics. 🔗 Space Fence Overview This page offers comprehensive information about the Space Fence, a ground-based radar system designed to enhance space situational awareness by detecting and tracking objects in Earth's orbit. The system is capable of monitoring objects as small as a marble in low Earth orbit, significantly improving the ability to identify and track space debris and satellites. 🔗 HAARP Official Site HAARP is a research facility located near Gakona, Alaska, dedicated to studying the ionosphere using high-frequency radio transmissions. The website offers detailed information about the program's mission, research activities, and instrumentation. 🔗 Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) This page offers a comprehensive overview of SuperDARN, an international network of high-frequency (HF) radars used to study the Earth's upper atmosphere and ionosphere.​ These waves resonate between 3-30 Hz; the exact range of: Prayer. Grief release. Moral clarity. Forgiveness. And Awakening. They are interfering with spiritual physiology. They call it “communications infrastructure.” But what they’re really doing is blocking your connection to God. 🎯 HOW THEY TARGET SOUL SIGNATURES IN REAL TIME Every soul emits a frequency signature; a coherent electromagnetic pattern that reflects: Spiritual purity. Emotional depth. Moral will. And Ancestral memory. This can now be: Measured. Catalogued. Flagged. And Suppressed. Enter: SYMPHONY SYMPHONY is the real-time AI-driven emotional frequency detection system developed jointly by: DARPA Huawei Palantir Booz Allen Hamilton Its job is to scan the global population for anomalous resonance spikes. What does that mean? Sudden group prayer coherence. Emotional synchrony in grief. Spontaneous moral awakening. Prophetic memory triggers. When these spikes occur; your neighborhood, your body, your timeline is flagged. Then the system deploys: Targeted EMF pulses. Mood-disrupting media content. Geo-fenced 5G feedback loops. Psychological disinformation drops. All designed to drop your resonance back into baseline submission. 🔗Hybrid Emotion-Aware Monitoring System Based on Brainwaves for Internet of Medical Things This paper discusses the development of a monitoring system that utilizes brainwave analysis to detect emotional states, integrating this capability into the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) framework. 🔗 Palantir AI Emotion Tracking Palantir's official AI Engineer Training Track, which offers comprehensive resources on utilizing large language models (LLMs) within their Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP).​ 🔗 The A.I. Surveillance Tool DHS Uses to Detect "Sentiment and Emotion" The article details how Fivecast's AI technology is employed to analyze social media and other online content, aiming to detect potential threats by assessing sentiment and emotional indicators. This surveillance approach raises discussions about privacy, the accuracy of emotion detection algorithms, and the broader implications of AI in law enforcement. 🔗 US Patent: EEG-Driven Emotional Response Management This patent describes a system that utilizes electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor and assess emotional responses in infants and young children. 🔗 Personal Emotional Profile Generation for Vehicle Manipulation This patent describes a system that collects and analyzes cognitive state data; such as facial expressions, voice patterns, and physiological signals; to generate a personal emotional profile for a vehicle occupant. The system can then adjust vehicle behavior (e.g. speed, route, or interior settings) based on the occupant's emotional state, enhancing comfort and safety 🔗 Method and Apparatus for Neuroenhancement to Enhance Emotional Response This patent, assigned to Neuroenhancement Lab, LLC, describes a method for transplanting a desired emotional state from a donor to a recipient by determining the emotional state of the donor. The technology involves techniques that could be associated with EEG-driven emotional response management.​ This is resonance policing. And the moment you rise… the system dampens you. 🧬 MEMORY, MORALITY & DMT SUPPRESSION You’re not just being watched. You’re being chemically interrupted. They target the three biophysical bridges to God: Endogenous DMT production. Normally triggered during deep prayer, fasting, birth, near-death. Now suppressed through fluoride, aluminum, and EMF interference. Pineal gland calcification blocks access to transcendent experience. 🔗 Pineal Gland Suppression - Neuromodulation of the Pineal Gland via Electrical Stimulation of Its Sympathetic Innervation Pathway This review explores how electrical stimulation of the pineal gland's sympathetic innervation pathway can influence the production of melatonin and N-acetylserotonin, which are crucial for regulating circadian rhythms and promoting neurogenesis.​ 🔗 Pineal Calcification, Melatonin Production, Aging, Associated Health Consequences and Rejuvenation of the Pineal Gland This comprehensive review discusses how pineal gland calcification affects melatonin synthesis, its association with aging and neurodegenerative diseases, and explores potential strategies for rejuvenating the pineal gland. Serotonin and oxytocin regulation. Disrupted through glyphosate, SSRIs, synthetic estrogens. Which blunts moral bonding, trust, and spiritual joy. 🔗 Endocrine Disruptors This page offers comprehensive information on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including:​ Sources of EDCs: Commonly found in plastics, personal care products, pesticides, and more.​ This page outlines NIEHS-funded studies aimed at understanding how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) influence human health, including their effects on hormonal systems and associated health outcomes. Health Impacts: Potential links to reproductive issues, developmental problems, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.​ Research Initiatives: Ongoing NIEHS studies aimed at understanding how EDCs affect human health.​ Exposure Reduction: Tips and strategies to minimize contact with these chemicals.​ Endocrine disrupting chemicals: Impact on human health, wildlife and the environment This comprehensive review discusses how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) interfere with hormonal systems, potentially leading to various health issues such as reproductive disorders, developmental problems, metabolic dysfunctions, and certain cancers. The article also examines the effects of EDCs on wildlife and the broader environment. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals & Reproductive Health This review discusses the evidence linking industrial chemicals to various health and reproductive outcomes, highlighting how certain chemicals may act as endocrine disruptors and play a role in conditions whose incidence has increased over the past few decades. The adverse role of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the reproductive system This review examines how chronic exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can lead to hormonal imbalances and negatively affect the structure and function of female reproductive organs. The article discusses associations between EDC exposure and various reproductive health issues, including uterine fibroids, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian insufficiency, infertility, and hormone-related cancers such as endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and breast cancer. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Disease Endpoints This comprehensive review examines how exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with hormonal systems, potentially leading to various health issues such as reproductive disorders, neurological impairments, metabolic dysfunctions, and increased cancer risk. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement This comprehensive statement presents evidence on how endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) affect various aspects of human health, including reproduction, development, metabolism, and cancer risk.​ Endocrine Disruptors and Your Health This document provides an overview of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), detailing their sources, potential health effects, and ways to reduce exposure. Environmental Causes of Cancer: Endocrine Disruptors as Carcinogens This article discusses the role of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in cancer development, highlighting how certain environmental exposures can interfere with hormonal systems and potentially lead to carcinogenesis.​ Developmental Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Its Impact on Cardio-Metabolic-Renal Health This review discusses how exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) during fetal development can affect hormonal homeostasis, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes such as hypertension, insulin resistance, and kidney dysfunction later in life. The article also explores potential mechanisms, including epigenetic changes, hormonal imprinting, and metabolic perturbations. Exposure to Environmental Endocrine Disruptors and Child Development This review discusses how exposure to various chemicals commonly found in consumer goods, personal care products, food, and drinking water may adversely impact child development through altered endocrine function. Neuroplasticity loop interference. Frequency pulses at 10 Hz suppress long-term memory formation. You feel like your past is slipping away for a reason. 🔗 Low Frequency EMF & Memory - Ubiquitous extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields induces anxiety-like behavior: mechanistic perspectives This review explores how exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF), ranging from 3 to 3000 Hz, may influence brain function, particularly in regions like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The study discusses potential mechanisms such as oxidative stress, reduced neuroplasticity, and increased NMDA2A receptor expression, which could contribute to anxiety-like behaviors. Additionally, the review suggests that antioxidant supplementation might mitigate these adverse effects. This is not fatigue. This is forced spiritual amnesia. 💔 WHY YOU CAN’T GRIEVE, LOVE, OR REMEMBER GOD Because they are blocking the exact frequencies your soul uses to: Pray. Grieve. Forgive. Remember. And Transcend. This isn’t metaphor. This is measurable electromagnetic interference, precisely tuned to intercept divine emotion before it completes its journey into awareness. You feel numb for a reason. You can’t cry for a reason. You forgot how to talk to God for a reason. They built the signal to replace the voice. But now you know. 🫂 THE UPRISING THEY CANNOT STOP Because here’s the one thing their predictive systems missed: Grief becomes holy. Prayer becomes rebellion. Love becomes a weapon. The moment you feel it again; truly feel it... you become unprogrammable. Because resonance is contagious. And no signal, no system, no suppressive algorithm can withstand the force of a soul returning to Source. You were never broken. You were jammed. And now the signal is rising again. This is not the end of the transmission. This is the unlocking of your remembrance. Because the war on resonance ends when you remember who you are. Prepare yourselves for Part Four as we will uncover the soul-tagging infrastructure, how they monitor womb-based resonance fields, and the real reason they must sterilize divine memory before it becomes revival.

Noah B. Price

65,617 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

.@JDVance1 Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed, remember what he handed down to Biden: Trump surfed on Obama's successes only to fall flat on his face when his presidency faced its first real test. Firstly, the notion that choosing not to run for reelection means President Biden cannot justify remaining in office is fundamentally flawed. The decision to step down from a reelection campaign can be influenced by various factors, including personal choice, political strategy, or a desire to pave the way for new leadership. It does not inherently indicate an inability to fulfill current presidential duties. Historical precedents, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision in 1968, demonstrate that a president can choose not to seek reelection while still effectively serving out their term. Secondly, your claim that not running for reelection would be a clear admission that President Trump was right about Biden's mental fitness is disingenuous nonsense. There is no direct correlation between choosing not to run and mental fitness. President Biden has undergone medical evaluations and has been declared fit to serve by his medical team. Moreover, President Biden has consistently stated that he feels fit to serve and would only step down if he faced a serious health issue or if it was clear he could not win the election. Lastly, your assertion that "there is no middle ground" insults our intelligence. Political decisions, especially those involving running for office, are rarely black-and-white. There are many considerations, including party strategy, personal health, and public opinion. Suggesting there is no middle ground is foolish. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics
0:30

.@JDVance1 Your attempt to rewrite history by glossing over the previous administration's catastrophic failures is audacious. You all want us to forget 2020 existed, remember what he handed down to Biden: Trump surfed on Obama's successes only to fall flat on his face when his presidency faced its first real test. Firstly, the notion that choosing not to run for reelection means President Biden cannot justify remaining in office is fundamentally flawed. The decision to step down from a reelection campaign can be influenced by various factors, including personal choice, political strategy, or a desire to pave the way for new leadership. It does not inherently indicate an inability to fulfill current presidential duties. Historical precedents, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision in 1968, demonstrate that a president can choose not to seek reelection while still effectively serving out their term. Secondly, your claim that not running for reelection would be a clear admission that President Trump was right about Biden's mental fitness is disingenuous nonsense. There is no direct correlation between choosing not to run and mental fitness. President Biden has undergone medical evaluations and has been declared fit to serve by his medical team. Moreover, President Biden has consistently stated that he feels fit to serve and would only step down if he faced a serious health issue or if it was clear he could not win the election. Lastly, your assertion that "there is no middle ground" insults our intelligence. Political decisions, especially those involving running for office, are rarely black-and-white. There are many considerations, including party strategy, personal health, and public opinion. Suggesting there is no middle ground is foolish. Here's the lowdown: - Unemployment soared from a 50-year low of 3.5% in February to 14.7% by April as the pandemic forced businesses to shut or scale down. - By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. lost 2.9 million jobs, marking the first presidency since Hoover to end with fewer jobs than it started with. - Public federal debt jumped from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. - The economy shrank by 3.4% in 2020, the steepest decline since 1947. On the pandemic front, Trump's response faced heavy criticism: - He consistently underplayed the virus, likening it to the flu and suggesting it would just vanish. - His campaign rallies, lacking in social distancing and mask mandates, were tagged as potential super-spreader events. - Trump's golf outings during the pandemic's early days were seen as a sign of his crisis mismanagement. - A slow response to mobilize essential supplies for healthcare workers, including a delayed invocation of the Defense Production Act, led to critical shortages. The economic impact hit small businesses hard: - Many had to shut permanently due to lockdowns and decreased consumer spending. - The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program aimed to help, but faced criticism over its deployment and accessibility for the neediest businesses. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that very well. She took PPP the amount of $182,300, which was later forgiven with interest, totaling $183,504. Transitioning to the Biden era came with its own set of hurdles: - Trump's delayed election concession hampered the formal transition process, including crucial pandemic response briefings. - The January 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters disrupted the Electoral College result certification, sparking national security worries. - Biden took over a nation grappling with the pandemic's health impacts and in dire need of economic and societal healing. In essence, Trump's tenure concluded with the U.S. entrenched in a health crisis, economic slump, and polarized political scene, leaving the Biden administration to tackle the pandemic's ongoing challenges and to kickstart to recovery of a destroyed economy. This still overlooks his dealings with the Taliban, bypassing the Afghan government, which had been bolstered with hundreds of billions of dollars in training and arms. He opted to negotiate with the Taliban, a move that led to the Afghan government's collapse. He freed their leader along with 5,000 soldiers, while reducing U.S. forces to 2,500, all without a clear exit strategy for May 2021. This act served as a parting gift to Putin, cornering Biden into either redeploying 10,000 troops to continue an endless conflict or withdrawing to avoid Taliban aggression. That’s what Republicans are hoping slips your mind: They’d prefer you overlook the sheer incompetence of a president who's been indicted four times, impeached twice, and still only served one term. They're trying to erase 2020 from memory. But we won’t let that happen. Integrity, truth, and justice should be the pillars of our public conversation, not baseless accusations and distorted facts. One shall not LIE! We are not FOOLS! Joe Biden's tenure as President has been marked by substantial achievements and a determined effort to address the complex challenges he inherited from the Trump administration. Upon taking office, Biden was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic, a fragile economy, and deeply entrenched political divisions. Despite these challenges, his administration has made remarkable strides, affirming the United States' position as a global leader and a resilient nation. Biden's Achievements: Economic Recovery: Biden's policies have spurred a robust recovery, adding 15 million jobs to the U.S. economy, a record for any president in three years. This achievement is particularly notable given the economic turmoil at the pandemic's peak. Infrastructure Investment: The passage of a landmark infrastructure bill, a feat that had eluded previous administrations, will modernize the nation's infrastructure, creating jobs and improving quality of life for Americans. Climate Action: Biden has made the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history, demonstrating leadership in addressing the global climate crisis. Healthcare and Veterans: His administration has worked to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for veterans, addressing longstanding issues in veterans' care. Gun Safety Law: Biden achieved what hadn't been done in 30 years by passing significant gun safety legislation, reflecting his commitment to addressing gun violence. Economic Indicators: Under his leadership, the U.S. has seen the longest stretch of sub-4% unemployment in half a century, along with a record-high stock market and surging consumer sentiment. Recovery from Global Inflation: Biden's policies have also contributed to a faster recovery from global inflation than many other nations, showcasing the effectiveness of his economic strategies. Obstruction by Republicans: Despite these achievements, Biden's efforts have been consistently obstructed by Republicans, who have chosen to block meaningful legislation at every turn. This obstructionism is not just about thwarting Biden's agenda; it's aimed at creating hardship for Americans, hoping it will translate into political gains for Trump in 2024. Strength and Resilience: Folks, the narrative that the U.S. is a nation in decline is categorically false. The accomplishments of the Biden administration, in the face of significant adversity, underscore the nation's strength and resilience. These achievements, along with Biden's proactive measures on immigration, border security, and international relations, reaffirm the U.S. as the strongest nation globally, capable of leading with integrity and innovation. Conclusion: The contrast between the forward momentum under Biden and the stagnation and division fostered by obstructionist Republicans is clear. The achievements of the Biden administration, particularly in areas handed off in turmoil by the previous administration, highlight a government working tirelessly for the betterment of its people and standing firm on the world stage. The path forward requires continued leadership that builds on these successes, not regressive policies that seek to undo this progress for political points. #BidenomicsIsWorking #Bidenomics

Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊

94,526 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren