Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Papers: 1. Metacognition: ideas and insights from neuro- and educational sciences Damien S. Fleur, Bert Bredeweg, and Wouter van den Bos[research.hva +1] 2. Metacognitive Information Theory Peter Dayan Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany

18,946 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

PhD Students – How to easily understand a complex research topic? Meet Ponder – a tool for understanding complex research. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐏𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬? 1. Go to and log in 2. Enter your research topic or research question 3. Ponder will start building a knowledge map 4. This knowledge map breaks down complex ideas into structured cards 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬? → You can add your own thoughts, questions, and insights. → Ask follow-up questions and deepen your exploration. → You can color the cards for better understanding → You can drag & organize them freely across the infinite canvas. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬? — You can search for relevant papers with built-in discovery. — Ponder will identify all relevant papers — You can then add or upload research papers — You can also attach papers to specific cards. 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐝: ➟ You can change the view to document, browser, or full screen. ➟ You can also download your knowledge map as a PDF ➟ You can ask further questions and refine with Ponder’s Agent. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝟏𝟎𝐱 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫? ↳ It brings discovery and analysis of research into one workspace ↳ It makes ideas branch and evolve naturally, just like your brain ↳ It helps you to easily identify research gaps ↳ It connects knowledge from all sources such as papers and web ↳ It enables you to export knowledge as maps, reports, or data. ↳ Designed for PhD students & researchers, who think deeply. Try Ponder here: Anything you'd like to add?

Faheem Ullah

12,175 просмотров • 1 год назад

Today’s guest on the Free Radicals podcast is José Luis Ricón Fernández de la Puente, head of theory Retro Biosciences and blogger Jose is a prolific blogger, covering a wide breadth of topics across economics, philosophy, progress studies, science funding, much more, and of course longevity. His works have been published by a16z, Works in Progress and Adam Smith Institute. Our conversation is wide ranging, spanning a deep dive on Retro’s work to replace and engineer microglia to rejuvenate the brain and how our cells have the ability to turn back the aging clock but choose not to. We also covered the technological stagnation and why biological engineering is the new frontier of progress, as well as philosophical topics like transhumanism and how a future of total biological control might impact our values and way of life. Be sure to follow me and Eric Dai to stay up to date on the latest news in longevity biotech! And Special thank you to NFX & omri_drory for lending us their beautiful podcasting studio! 0:00 Intro 2:49 What is aging & why cells have a tough choice to make 9:02 When cells choose to reverse aging themselves 12:43 Cellular vs Organismal Aging & the magic wand experiment 18:31 What is reprogramming 22:40 How reprogramming plays a role in DNA damage repair 25:42 Do we already know how to cure aging? FOXO3! 28:37 How to cut through the complexity of interconnected biology 32:32 Why transcription factors are so great for intervening 36:49 Does a rejuvenation program exist already in the genome 38:51 Michael Levin: from thinking in terms of genes to morphogenesis 48:14 Tech stagnation and why physics is cooked 55:03 Why doesn't the world look more futuristic 57:26 Transhumanism & asking ourselves what we want out of life 1:05:34 Do we need war for technological progress 1:09:31 Government role in science funding 1:15:06 How Jose became the Head of Theory at Retro 1:24:53 How AI might put software engineers out of a job, and push them towards biotech 1:27:28 What it takes to get a flywheel in biotech 1:29:04 Rejuvenation vs Prevention 1:34:23 Aging is the coolest hardest problem to work on 1:36:09 What does it take to cure aging 1:42:25 Delivery mechanisms for genetic therapies 1:48:53 Retro's work to replace microglia and engineer them outside the body 1:59:10 Consciousness 2:00:39 Jose's Origin Story

Daniel Shur

13,616 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Porter Stansberry turned $36,000 into $3,000,000,000 by writing financial research… after his future business partner fired him... Here's what I learned from Porter Stansberry about writing and selling financial research: 1. Hierarchy of Information Value: In the crowded financial information space, Porter stands out by providing clear, actionable advice, pushing against conventional views. “The news is free because it tells you what happened. Newsletters are expensive because they tell you what to do about it.” 2. Masterful Financial Storytelling: Porter's a master storyteller. He unearths captivating historical tales, dripping with human drama, and seamlessly melds them with modern investment concepts. A voracious reader, Porter often devours a book a day. These stories make his content addictive, easy to grasp, and unforgettable. 3. Creating 'Eureka Moments': Porter leads his readers to conclusions without explicitly stating them. For instance, consider his story about Shelby Davis, who transformed $50,000 into a billion dollars through passive investments in property and casualty insurance stocks. Porter doesn't tell you it's a fantastic business model; he shows you. These "Eureka Moments" are not only enjoyable to read but also encourage independent thinking, fostering loyal readership. 4. In-depth Research: Porter's best investment ideas come from his network of industry specialists he’s in constant contact with. These include a deep talent roster within his companies and a network of external contacts he shares ideas with. Porter strives to cover only topics where he’s had 3-4 conversations with industry insiders, adding depth and credibility to his work. 5. Clear and Simple Writing: To make his ideas more accessible, Porter writes to a novice reading level. He focuses on straightforward, active language (No passive voice), using short, simple sentences. Porter meticulously edits and rewrites. His epic 'End of America' went through 15 versions before selling over 500,000 subscriptions. Porter also prefers clear sentences over excessive visuals. 6. Effective Promotion: Porter’s marketing and research follow the same approach: every sentence engages and adds value. His campaigns tackle big, important issues that affect readers’ lives. Successful campaigns are amplified through collaboration with other publishers. 7. Ethical Standards: For Porter, having a great track record of recommendations is the ultimate skin-in-the-game. Not trading in the securities he covers helps him maintain objectivity, avoid conflicts, and lessen legal risk. 8. Full Tilt Dedication: Porter swears by one way of doing investment research: "Full tilt." His success is a testament to his intense work ethic and decades of relentless trial and error. Don't miss the full interview with Porter Stansberry below, where he delves into his personal journey, the challenges of Marketwise's IPO, and his perspective on current market dynamics. For past stories on Porter, a link to a YouTube interview, and a transcript, check out the replies. Follow me for more insights on finance and investing! TIMESTAMPS: Going Viral in Zimbabwe 01:50 Inflation Consequences 04:48 Writing "End of America" 10:46 Beginnings in Finance 3:02 Adoption Story 17:04 Agora Firing 22:16 Launching Newsletter 24:29 $3 Billion Handshake 28:25 Bill Bonner's Lesson 30:06 Marketwise's 'Ill-Begotten IPO' 34:13 Spooling Up Porter & Co 42:37 $MKTW Stock 44:19 Vision for Marketwise 46:27 Newsletter Business Model 48:40 Wall Street Talk 53:38 Writing Secrets 57:37 Screening Investments 1:03:13 Boston Blackout 1:07:34 History's Biggest Bubble 1:14:39 Finding Safe Haven 1:15:59 Jim Rogers 1:18:10 Commodities Outlook 1:20:58 Idiotic Taxation 1:28:04 Living in Baltimore 1:31:14 Barn-Work 1:32:43

Tommy Humphreys

417,651 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Everyone in crypto should understand money transmission laws. This Law of Code podcast explains the history of money transmission, how rules are being (mis)applied, and what might change with draft legislation. Featured: Peter Van Valkenburgh, Amanda Tuminelli, Brian Klein and a snippet from Jake Chervinsky. This is the most comprehensive podcast I've ever done. Welcome to Law of Code, Season 2. Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 3:18 What's at stake? 4:40 Which developers are at risk 6:03 Custodial vs. non-custodial 9:32 What is a money transmission license? 9:47 Steamships, the telegraph & Western Union 12:14 The Bank Secrecy Act 13:38 Section 1960 15:26 The Patriot Act 19:39 FinCEN's 2013 and 2019 guidance 24:42 OFAC sanctions Tornado Cash 27:30 How Tornado Cash works 30:48 Coin Center v. Yellen 32:24 DOJ indicts Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️, Roman Semenov 🌪️, Tor Ekeland's client & Samourai Wallet devs 35:15 The Van Loon win prestonvanloon.eth 40:33 Developer losses 43:48 Bad facts make bad law 48:46 Brian Klein on Roman Storm 🇺🇸 🌪️'s case 50:50 The Brady letter 57:00 Michael Lewellen sues for answers 1:09:24 The Blanche memo 1:18:46 The Galeotti speech 1:26:13 Catch-22 for developers 1:30:03 The chilling effect DeFi Education Fund Jake Chervinsky 1:33:48 Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act 1:38:03 Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act 1:45:28 What's next? Nothing in this podcast is legal or investment advice.

Jacob Robinson

139,353 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

AGI? One day, but not yet. The only AI that works well right now is the one behind the screen [12-17]. But passing the Turing Test [9] behind a screen is easy compared to Real AI for real robots in the real world. No current AI-driven robot could be certified as a plumber [13-17]. Hence, the Turing Test isn't a good measure of intelligence (and neither is IQ). And AGI without mastery of the physical world is no AGI. That’s why I created the TUM CogBotLab for learning robots in 2004 [5], co-founded a company for AI in the physical world in 2014 [6], and had teams at TUM, IDSIA, and now KAUST work towards baby robots [4,10-11,18]. Such soft robots don't just slavishly imitate humans and they don't work by just downloading the web like LLMs/VLMs. No. Instead, they exploit the principles of Artificial Curiosity to improve their neural World Models (two terms I used back in 1990 [1-4]). These robots work with lots of sensors, but only weak actuators, such that they cannot easily harm themselves [18] when they collect useful data by devising and running their own self-invented experiments. Remarkably, since the 1970s, many have made fun of my old goal to build a self-improving AGI smarter than myself and then retire. Recently, however, many have finally started to take this seriously, and now some of them are suddenly TOO optimistic. These people are often blissfully unaware of the remaining challenges we have to solve to achieve Real AI. My 2024 TED talk [15] summarises some of that. REFERENCES (easy to find on the web): [1] J. Schmidhuber. Making the world differentiable: On using fully recurrent self-supervised neural networks (NNs) for dynamic reinforcement learning and planning in non-stationary environments. TR FKI-126-90, TUM, Feb 1990, revised Nov 1990. This paper also introduced artificial curiosity and intrinsic motivation through generative adversarial networks where a generator NN is fighting a predictor NN in a minimax game. [2] J. S. A possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. In J. A. Meyer and S. W. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, pages 222-227. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1991. Based on [1]. [3] J.S. AI Blog (2020). 1990: Planning & Reinforcement Learning with Recurrent World Models and Artificial Curiosity. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [4] J.S. AI Blog (2021): Artificial Curiosity & Creativity Since 1990. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [5] J.S. TU Munich CogBotLab for learning robots (2004-2009) [6] NNAISENSE, founded in 2014, for AI in the physical world [7] J.S. (2015). On Learning to Think: Algorithmic Information Theory for Novel Combinations of Reinforcement Learning (RL) Controllers and Recurrent Neural World Models. arXiv 1210.0118. Sec. 5.3 describes an RL prompt engineer which learns to query its model for abstract reasoning and planning and decision making. Today this is called "chain of thought." [8] J.S. (2018). One Big Net For Everything. arXiv 1802.08864. See also patent US11853886B2 and my DeepSeek tweet: DeepSeek uses elements of the 2015 reinforcement learning prompt engineer [7] and its 2018 refinement [8] which collapses the RL machine and world model of [7] into a single net. This uses my neural net distillation procedure of 1991: a distilled chain of thought system. [9] J.S. Turing Oversold. It's not Turing's fault, though. AI Blog (2021, was #1 on Hacker News) [10] J.S. Intelligente Roboter werden vom Leben fasziniert sein. (Intelligent robots will be fascinated by life.) F.A.Z., 2015 [11] J.S. at Falling Walls: The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence. Scientific American, Observations, 2017. [12] J.S. KI ist eine Riesenchance für Deutschland. (AI is a huge chance for Germany.) F.A.Z., 2018 [13] H. Jones. J.S. Says His Life's Work Won't Lead To Dystopia. Forbes Magazine, 2023. [14] Interview with J.S. Jazzyear, Shanghai, 2024. [15] J.S. TED talk at TED AI Vienna (2024): Why 2042 will be a big year for AI. See the attached video clip. [16] J.S. Baut den KI-gesteuerten Allzweckroboter! (Build the AI-controlled all-purpose robot!) F.A.Z., 2024 [17] J.S. 1995-2025: The Decline of Germany & Japan vs US & China. Can All-Purpose Robots Fuel a Comeback? AI Blog, Jan 2025, based on [16]. [18] M. Alhakami, D. R. Ashley, J. Dunham, Y. Dai, F. Faccio, E. Feron, J. Schmidhuber. Towards an Extremely Robust Baby Robot With Rich Interaction Ability for Advanced Machine Learning Algorithms. Preprint arxiv 2404.08093, 2024.

Jürgen Schmidhuber

72,331 просмотров • 1 год назад

Talking To The Pope: Anthropic’s Latest Interpretability Claims: AI Regulatory Capture Gatekeeping in Action: Fear and “Safety” as Competitive Moat and Regulatory Lever In a presentation alongside Pope Leo XIV at the launch of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah highlighted “mysterious and unsettling” discoveries in AI models. He described internal structures that mirror human neuroscience findings, evidence of introspection, and functional internal states resembling emotions such as joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease. Olah admitted uncertainty about their meaning but called for “ongoing discernment.” This narrative, drawn from Anthropic’s interpretability research (including papers on emotion concepts in Claude Sonnet 4.5 and introspective capabilities in Opus 4 models), serves a dual purpose: it generates awe and concern while reinforcing the company’s preferred approach to AI development. Far from neutral scientific observation, these claims fit into a broader pattern where Anthropic uses selective openness, safety rhetoric, and policy influence to gatekeep advanced AI capabilities for a privileged few: incumbents with the resources to navigate (and shape) the resulting regulatory landscape. Rebuttal to Olah’s Claims in the Video Claim 1: Structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. Anthropic’s work, building on earlier efforts like feature visualization and circuit analysis, identifies neuron activations and representations that parallel biological findings—e.g., abstract concept encodings or hierarchical processing. Rebuttal: These parallels are unsurprising and overstated. Large language models are trained on vast corpora of human-generated text and data, which inherently encode patterns from human cognition, neuroscience literature, and cultural descriptions of the brain. Statistical optimization in transformers naturally produces efficient, compressed representations that resemble biological efficiency (e.g., sparse coding or hierarchical abstraction) without implying deeper equivalence or mystery. Similar “mirrors” appear in open-source models and earlier architectures; they reflect convergent evolution in information processing, not emergent souls or unpredictable agency. Treating them as profound justifies restricted research access rather than inviting wider scrutiny that could falsify or refine them faster. Claim 2: Evidence of introspection. Recent Anthropic papers demonstrate models like Claude Opus 4 showing functional awareness of their own internal states distinguishing injected “thoughts,” referencing prior intentions, or modulating activations when instructed to “think about” concepts. This is presented as early signs of meta-cognition. Rebuttal: This is sophisticated pattern-matching and activation steering, not genuine introspection or self-awareness. Models are predicting what an “introspective” assistant persona would output or do, based on training data full of human self-reflection examples. Experiments show unreliability and heavy context-dependence; performance drops outside narrow setups. True introspection implies subjective experience or robust self-modeling independent of prompts absent here. Anthropic’s own caveats note it is “highly unreliable.” Framing steerable activations as “introspection” anthropomorphizes the system to heighten perceived stakes, supporting arguments that only highly controlled, “responsible” labs should advance these capabilities. 1 of 2

Brian Roemmele

72,823 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Here is: The Central Intelligence Agency—as part of a seditious conspiracy—to overthrow the U.S. government on November 3, 2020. Sworn Testimony under oath: Arturo D’Elia, head of Leonardo SpA, Under the instruction and direction of U.S. persons working from the U.S. Embassy in Rome, he undertook the operation to switch data from the U.S. election of November 3, 2020, changing a significant margin of victory from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. 1: Professor Alfio D’Urso, lawyer of Via Vittoria Emanuele, Catania, do hereby provide the following affidavit of facts as conveyed in several meetings with Dresdner Bank, Seewith, and the Max Planck Institute, and a high-level Army Security Services official. Arturo D’Elia, former head of the IT department of Leonardo SpA, has been charged by the public prosecutor of Naples for technology data manipulation and implantation of viruses in the main computers of Leonardo SpA in December. Under the instruction and direction of U.S. persons working from the U.S. Embassy in Rome, he undertook the operation to switch data from the U.S. election of November 3, 2020, changing a significant margin of victory from Donald Trump to Joe Biden in a number of states where Joe Biden was losing the vote totals. The defendant states that he was working at the Pescara facility of Leonardo SpA and utilized military-grade cyberwarfare encryption capabilities to transmit switched votes via a military satellite of the Fusino Tower to Frankfurt, Germany. The defendant swears that the data, in some cases, may have been switched to represent more than the total number of registered voters. The defendant states he is willing to testify to all individuals and entities involved in the switching of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

55,049 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Input: Jane Jacobs quotes and YouTube interview; handwritten outline; education standards doc. Output: high-quality, standards-aligned urban planning lesson plan. Plus audio overview to promote the class. 10 minutes to create, all thanks to NotebookLM and Gemini. This video is a new demo of NotebookLM that I shared earlier this month at the AI + Education Symposium with MeshEd, XQ, and Betaworks. This is an educational use-case, but the general structure of what I’m doing in the demo—take a curated collection of sources and quickly transform them into a detailed document that obeys strict guidelines—is generally applicable to many fields. Note how I am not just using the sources as ground truth for the project, or as the content for the lesson plan. The Jacobs quotes and interview are the content, but my handwritten notes provide the structure, and the framework source provides the values or guidelines for the finished project. With some simple prompting, NotebookLM and Gemini can draw on information from the sources using those different modes simultaneously: content, format, values. (I even forgot to explicitly tell the model to use the structure outlined in my notes, but it figured that out anyway.) This is remarkably sophisticated knowledge work. Building a draft lesson plan like this would normally take hours if not days. But crucially I’m in control of the document that is being generated here — it’s based on the information that I have curated, and on the instructions I’ve given NotebookLM for adapting that information into the lesson plan I want to create. Co-intelligence, as @ethanmollick would call it. For more info on the great organizations that helped me put this demo together--orgs that are shaping the future of learning and increasing access to innovative approaches to curriculum design--visit and I’ve pasted the full text of the lesson plan below. As you can see in the video, the original version also included citations to the source material so with one click I could verify that NotebookLM was faithful to the original documents I uploaded. High-Level Lesson Plan: Urban Planning and Jane Jacobs This lesson plan outlines a project-based learning course on urban planning, designed for high school seniors. It centers on the influential ideas of Jane Jacobs and aligns with the HQPBL standards. Session 1: Introduction to Cities and Jane Jacobs • Begin by exploring the question: "What kind of problem is a city?" • Introduce Jane Jacobs' key ideas about urbanism, focusing on: • The importance of diversity in uses, buildings, and populations for vibrant city life. • The role of sidewalks and "eyes on the street" in ensuring safety and fostering a sense of community. • The value of old buildings in supporting diverse economic activity and fostering innovation. • The dangers of "single-use" zoning and the importance of mixed-use neighborhoods. • The limitations of top-down planning and the need for bottom-up, community-driven approaches. Use examples from Jacobs' book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," and excerpts from her interviews to illustrate these concepts. Encourage students to think critically about the challenges and opportunities presented by cities. Alignment with HQPBL: This session establishes the intellectual challenge, as required by the HQPBL framework, by prompting students to consider the complexities of cities. Introducing Jane Jacobs' ideas provides students with a theoretical framework for their projects. Session 2: Neighborhood Exploration Project Introduction: Students choose a local neighborhood to study. This allows for authenticity by connecting their learning to their own community and their lives. Research and Analysis: Students conduct a "close reading" of their chosen neighborhood, focusing on: • Observing the built environment, including streetscapes, building types, and public spaces. • Identifying areas where Jacobs' principles are evident or lacking. • Analyzing the neighborhood's strengths and weaknesses. • Documenting their findings through photography, sketches, maps, and written observations. Guiding Questions: Throughout the project, use guiding questions to promote intellectual challenge and help students connect their observations to Jacobs' ideas. Alignment with HQPBL: By choosing a local neighborhood, students undertake a project rooted in authenticity, directly connecting their learning to their own community. The "close reading" of their chosen neighborhood encourages intellectual challenge by requiring them to analyze the built environment and identify areas where Jacobs' principles are applicable. The use of photography, sketches, maps, and written observations allows for diverse forms of documentation, catering to various learning styles. Session 3: Proposing Interventions Brainstorming Solutions: Based on their analysis, students brainstorm potential interventions or improvements to their chosen neighborhood, applying Jacobs' principles. Project Proposal Development: Students develop their interventions into more concrete project proposals, incorporating elements of project management. Proposals should include goals, strategies, potential challenges, and realistic timelines. Encourage students to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders in the neighborhood. Peer Review and Feedback: Students present their project proposals to classmates for critique. This fosters collaboration and allows students to learn from each other's perspectives and refine their ideas. Alignment with HQPBL: This session emphasizes project management, as students transform their analyses into concrete proposals. They define goals, outline strategies, anticipate challenges, and establish realistic timelines, reflecting a systematic approach to project development. Collaboration is fostered through peer review and feedback, enabling students to learn from different perspectives and improve their proposals. Session 4: Final Presentations and Reflections Public Product: Students finalize their projects and present their proposed solutions to a wider audience, such as: • A panel of local urban planners, architects, or community members. • A public forum or community meeting. • An online platform or exhibition space. Reflection: Students engage in reflection throughout the project, documenting their learning, challenges, and insights. This could take the form of journals, blog posts, presentations, or group discussions. Encourage students to reflect on how their understanding of cities has evolved and the role they can play in shaping their future. Alignment with HQPBL: Presenting to a wider audience, such as local planners or community members, results in a public product, showcasing student learning and engaging the community. The emphasis on reflection throughout the project, as mandated by the HQPBL framework, encourages metacognition and deeper learning. Students document their learning process, challenges, and insights, fostering a sense of accomplishment and personal growth. Throughout the course, emphasize the relevance of urban planning to students' lives and future careers. Connect Jacobs' ideas to contemporary urban issues and encourage students to think critically about how to create more livable, equitable, and sustainable cities. This project-based learning approach, grounded in the work of Jane Jacobs and aligned with HQPBL standards, can empower students to become engaged and informed citizens, capable of contributing to the betterment of their communities.

Steven Johnson

33,379 просмотров • 1 год назад

USAID, Hunter Biden, Google, Ukraine, EcoHealth, NIH etc.— all contributors for causing the COVID-19 pandemic… For years, USAID gave millions in taxpayer money to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance through its PREDICT program. The goal was to hunt “emerging viruses” — including dangerous bat coronaviruses — often in partnership with China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. EcoHealth funneled U.S. funds to Wuhan researchers for studies on these “killer” viruses. Daszak’s group also received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID, which it passed along to the same Wuhan lab. Daszak later sat on the WHO’s COVID-19 origins investigation team. There, he worked to downplay the lab-leak theory — even as evidence grew and former intelligence officials raised alarms. Google also funded EcoHealth’s research — including work by Daszak — since at least 2010. • Since 2005, $10 Billion dollars have been funneled through black operations through the check of Anthony Fauci • The University of North Carolina received an exemption from the gain of function moratorium • By 2016, the National Academy of Sciences stated “SARS coronavirus is poised for human emergence” • Which coronavirus was poised for “human emergence”? Answer: (WIV1) Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 • By 2017-2018, the following phrase entered into common parlance among the community — “There’s going to be a accidental or INTENTIONAL RELEASE of a respiratory pathogen.” • April 2019, several months before Covid patient zero, FOUR patent applications of MODERNA were modified to include the term: “Accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen” — as the justification for making a vaccine, that did not exist! 🔻 Hunter Biden, George Soros, EcoHealth, and the Wuhan Lab in China • Facts we know: Hunter Biden indirectly funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) primarily through his role at Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, which invested in Metabiota, a biotech firm that partnered with EcoHealth Alliance on pathogen research; EcoHealth, in turn, sub-awarded a portion of its NIH grants—about $600,000 over several years—to the WIV for collaborative bat coronavirus studies. These links tie Hunter's firm to Metabiota's work with EcoHealth, involving sensitive pathogen detection assays performed at the WIV, and broader biosecurity projects funded through USAID contracts. Why do you think Trump and Elon targeted USAID? Emails and investor materials directly from Hunter's laptop show his firm secured funding for Metabiota, pitched as a key player in global health initiatives akin to intelligence operations. George Soros's ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) emerge through a web of financial and organizational connections, including his Open Society Foundations funded U.S.-backed biological programs in Ukraine, which overlapped with Metabiota, the same company that Hunter was involved in. These partnerships combined directly enabled gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab…

MJTruthUltra

33,780 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

RFK Jr.'s FDA, July 1, 2025: The COVID jabs cause myocarditis, but we're not pulling them. Sucharit Bhakdi, May 1, 2024: "Of 100 people who get myocarditis today, something in the range of 20 to 50% will not be among us after 10 years...[& the rate per million] is 1-2%." Sucharit Bhakdi, a retired Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and former Chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, describes for Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson (Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson) how the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—a congressionally chartered organization that serves as the collective scientific national academy of the United States—has confirmed that both Pfizer and Moderna's COVID injections cause myocarditis. Estimating the rate of myocarditis post COVID injection based on a study published in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease in 2022, Bhakdi says it's likely that one to two percent of injection recipients will develop the heart condition. Meaning out of every 1,000,000 injection recipients, up to 20,000 will develop myocarditis. Of that cohort, Bhakdi says, we can expect up to 50% to die within the next 10 years. "[T]hey looked at al the literature, all the evidence" and for most conditions possibly caused by the COVID injections, "they were not completely sure and the data are still not sufficient," Bhakdi says of the National Academies injection analysis. He notes that "For myocarditis, [they said it's] now established that the myocarditis comes from the vaccination...And they wrote that further scientific investigation will not lead to any other conclusion." This means that "any myocarditis that anyone sees in the world following vaccination is known now to be due to the vaccine," Bhakdi adds. He goes on to highlight the paper published in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, saying that the team, made of Thai researchers working in Thailand, "used [modern medical] techniques to see what the incidence was of myocarditis in young people, and the results were completely clear: incidence was something in the range of...1 to 2%." One percent means if you "vaccinate" 1,000,000 people, 10,000 are going to get myocarditis," Bhakdi notes. He adds that myocarditis is a "slow killer" that will wipe out 20 to 50% of those affected by it within a decade. He notes the injections have doubtlessly "shortened the lifespan of [affected children] by decades." "[T]his is murder," Bhakdi says.
6:16

Sensitive content

RFK Jr.'s FDA, July 1, 2025: The COVID jabs cause myocarditis, but we're not pulling them. Sucharit Bhakdi, May 1, 2024: "Of 100 people who get myocarditis today, something in the range of 20 to 50% will not be among us after 10 years...[& the rate per million] is 1-2%." Sucharit Bhakdi, a retired Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and former Chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, describes for Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson (Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson) how the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—a congressionally chartered organization that serves as the collective scientific national academy of the United States—has confirmed that both Pfizer and Moderna's COVID injections cause myocarditis. Estimating the rate of myocarditis post COVID injection based on a study published in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease in 2022, Bhakdi says it's likely that one to two percent of injection recipients will develop the heart condition. Meaning out of every 1,000,000 injection recipients, up to 20,000 will develop myocarditis. Of that cohort, Bhakdi says, we can expect up to 50% to die within the next 10 years. "[T]hey looked at al the literature, all the evidence" and for most conditions possibly caused by the COVID injections, "they were not completely sure and the data are still not sufficient," Bhakdi says of the National Academies injection analysis. He notes that "For myocarditis, [they said it's] now established that the myocarditis comes from the vaccination...And they wrote that further scientific investigation will not lead to any other conclusion." This means that "any myocarditis that anyone sees in the world following vaccination is known now to be due to the vaccine," Bhakdi adds. He goes on to highlight the paper published in Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, saying that the team, made of Thai researchers working in Thailand, "used [modern medical] techniques to see what the incidence was of myocarditis in young people, and the results were completely clear: incidence was something in the range of...1 to 2%." One percent means if you "vaccinate" 1,000,000 people, 10,000 are going to get myocarditis," Bhakdi notes. He adds that myocarditis is a "slow killer" that will wipe out 20 to 50% of those affected by it within a decade. He notes the injections have doubtlessly "shortened the lifespan of [affected children] by decades." "[T]his is murder," Bhakdi says.

Sense Receptor

22,063 просмотров • 1 год назад

🕊🔥🤞🏻NADIYA Project. Rubel`s Daughter Urgent Surgeries. ‼️Urgent Request‼️ 📅 Today, June 18, 2025, BRAVE U Fund has received an Urgent Request — the orthopedic surgeon from the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics has approved the exact treatment plan and surgeries needed for the Rubel`s Daughter. 👣 In order for Daughter to walk again, she needs to: – undergo blood tests; – complete 4 castings (one per week); – 1–2 days after the final casting — have surgery; – then repeat the same process for the other leg. 💛 BRAVE U Fund is helping raise the funds needed for her surgeries. ⚠️ It’s crucial to start the treatment urgently 🎯 GOAL: $5,200 ⏰ July 9, 2025 As always, we will be giving away cool prizes for our donors! 💸Every $5 = 1 Ticket 🎫 to a raffle). 💸Every $100 add + 5 Tickets 🎟 🎫 to a raffle). Also, for every $100 contribution, the donor will receive OUR NEW ‼️NADIYA Project. Rubel`s Daughter Walk Again Patch‼️ (Design is in development); 🇺🇦 DONATE: 🅿️ay🅿️al: [email protected] ☕️ BuyMeACoffee: 🫙 Monobank Jar (UAH): 💌 PrivatBank Envelop (USD): You can learn about the Rubel family’s harrowing experience under rusian occupation and their difficult journey to safety in Ukraine 🇺🇦 here: 🏆 PRIZES: 🥇 1st PLACE = The legendary BRAVE U Patch; 🥈 2nd PLACE = 🎄🎅❄️Usyk's Christmas Patch; 🥉 3rd PLACE = Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch; 🥉 4th PLACE = 3 of our NEW ‼️NADIYA Project. Rubel Patch‼️; YOU can simply buy our cool chevrons and help us in this way: 👉$100 = our NEW ‼️NADIYA Project. Rubel Patch‼️ 👉$100 = our ‼️BRAVE U Supporter Patch‼️or «Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch» or «🎄🎅❄️Usyk's Christmas Patch» 👉$175 = 2 Patches together «Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich» + «🎄🎅❄️Usyk's Christmas Patch»; 👉$200 = The Legendary BRAVE U Patch; 👉$250 = 2 Patches together: BRAVE U Patch + «Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch» (Photos 2 +4) or BRAVE U Patch + «🎄🎅❄️Usyk's Christmas Patch»; 👉$300 = 3 Patches together: BRAVE U Patch + «Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch» + «🎄🎅❄️Usyk's Christmas Patch»; 👉$300 = «Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch», autographed by our Incredible Partner Shaun Pinner! 👉$500 = The legendary BRAVE U Patch, autographed by our Incredible Partner Shaun Pinner! 👉$700 = 2 Patches: BRAVE U Patch + Mission 1: 49 SAB Karpatska Sich Patch, autographed by our Incredible Partner Shaun Pinner! 👉$1,000 = The legendary BRAVE U Patch, autographed by the LEGEND of the Ukrainian MUSIC Industry - Oleg Skrypka!!! Oleg is the founder and permanent leader of the Ukrainian band "Vopli Vidoplyasova" (VV), founded back in 1987! Detailed information about our Patches is here: ✨💛 Friends, let’s help the Rubel`s Daughter to WALK AGAIN! 🚨IMPORTANT: To participate in our raffle, send a screenshot of your donation in a private message to BRAVE U Fund Good luck in the RRRRRRAAAFFLEEEE! ♥️🫶✊🇺🇦 Dear Friends! Please help us spread the word! Quote, RT, boost & donate if you can! #BRAVEUFundWorks #NAFOWorks #StandWithUkraine

BRAVE U Fund

19,059 просмотров • 1 год назад

Guys, how do you invent a vaccine? Or wilder, how do you invent a vaccine during your PhD?! In a new episode of Hard Drugs, we talked to someone who did just that: Katharine Collins! A single malaria parasite that reaches your liver is enough to cause an infection. Worse, malaria has a complicated lifecycle with multiple stages, during which it changes shape and switches its surface proteins. And it’s co-evolved with humans for thousands of years, learning to evade and misdirect our immune system. That’s why it’s been so much harder to develop vaccines against than viruses or bacteria. But not impossible! In this episode, Jacob Trefethen and I are joined by Katharine Collins, who co-invented the second malaria vaccine, R21, during her PhD at the Jenner Institute in Oxford! After reading the expired patent of the first malaria vaccine (RTS,S), she stripped out the excess Hepatitis B surface antigen that RTS,S, leaving a particle with a much higher proportion of malaria antigen, used many newer processes, and paired it with a cheaper, more scalable adjuvant. The result is a vaccine that’s around a third of the price, easier to manufacture at scale, and may be more durable as well. It also means a vaccine that can reach far more children and save far more lives. Efficiency and scale matter enormously in the real world. It’s probably our coolest episode ever. You will learn lots of secret, behind the scenes information about how innovation really works. We chat about all this and much more! Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 05:08 Our favourite parasites 10:12 How to invent a vaccine during your PhD 34:18 Why is it called the R21 vaccine? 37:32 Moving from the bench to hundreds of millions of doses 41:43 The vicious life cycle of malaria parasites 46:15 Malaria research IN MICE 53:03 The murderer in malaria research 55:51 Would you volunteer to get infected by malaria? 1:08:21 Why did the first malaria vaccine take so long? 1:18:26 Could we have had the vaccine sooner? 1:40:48 Vaccine versus vaccine: which one’s better? 1:46:53 If we did this again today, could we make better vaccines? 2:04:55 Conclusion and our reasons for pessimism and optimism

Saloni

78,915 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Spent two hours with Marc Andreessen, who gave me a masterclass on how to think, learn, read, research, and write. Here's what I learned: 1. Read, read, read... then read some more. 2. Many of your best ideas will emerge in fits of rage or frustration. Channel the fury. Smash the keyboard. Lean into the passion. Torch the page with your energy. 3. Marc doesn't have much of a formal writing process. He thinks and thinks, and when epiphany strikes, he hammers out an outline as fast as possible to get his ideas on paper. Then, he turns it into a full article. 4. Marc's motto for writing and thinking: "Strong views, weakly held." Put yourself out there, but stay on the hunt for dissenting opinions from smart and respectful people. 5. Online writing tolerates and even encourages stylistic idiosyncrasies that traditional publishing would not accommodate. Lean into them. 6. The world is awash in bad content. You need to punch through. Snappy one-liners and genuine conviction are two ways to do that. 7. Marc's been reading online for as long as anybody on the planet, and the biggest thing that's surprised him is how political the Internet's become. Something changed between ~2013-2015. The Internet was once an escape from political debates. Now it's a hotbed of them. 8. Writing software is halfway between writing a novel and building a bridge. 9. Play around with communication tools. Push the limits. Doesn't matter what the rules are. When Marc felt constrained by Twitter's 140-character limit, he started replying to his own tweets and invented the Twitter thread. 10. On the quest for good ideas, surround yourself with "lateral thinkers" who can't help but come up with variant perspectives on everything they see. They won't always be right, but they're always challenge your thinking. 11. Media formats are cyclical. Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms and Twitter is aphorisms-as-a-service. Hip-hop brought back poetry. Montaigne pioneered the essay format and blogs brought them back into vogue. 12. People should write more manifestos. 13. Marc's nomination for the best living American novelist: James Ellroy. 14. GPT has revealed how much writing is pure pablum. Bland, lifeless, uninsightful, unoffensive, and not worth the price of the ink it was printed with. 15. "With GPT, every writer now has a writing partner who can do an infinite amount of grunt work without complaining." 16. "ChatGPT plagiarism is a complete non-issue. If you can't out-write a machine, what are you doing writing?" 17. Marc writes from the heart. He doesn't do much editing and likes to provide reading recommendations instead of directly citing his sources. 18. The person who writes down the plan in an organization has tremendous power. If you want to find the up-and-comers at a tech company, look into who's writing the plan. Though they may not be coming up with all the ideas, you'll know they have the energy, motivation, and skills to organize and communicate ideas in a written form. 19. Marc uses a barbell approach to consume information. He focuses on what's happening right now while also reading a lot of things that were written 10+ years ago. The content is either timely or timeless, with almost nothing in between. I've shared the full conversation below. If you'd rather listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple, check out the replies below. If there was an Olympic category for most insights per minute, Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 would be a guaranteed medalist.

David Perell

2,585,676 просмотров • 2 лет назад

"SARS-CoV-2 comes from a US lab" - Interview with lab leak researcher Jim Haslam, part 1 I interviewed US lab leak researcher Jim Haslam. He has been researching the lab leak theory for three years and arrives at a startling conclusion: Contrary to what most lab leakers believe, the coronavirus did not originate in a Chinese lab, but in a U.S. lab, because it bears U.S. "fingerprints": certain gene sequences that can only be found in U.S. research papers and U.S. patents. Haslam grounds his work on the infamous "blueprint" for SARS-CoV-2: a leaked US research proposal called "DARPA DEFUSE". This was ultimately not funded by DARPA, but by none other than former NIAID director Anthony Fauci, under his generous research umbrella called "CREID". At the center of his investigative research is the question of what was actually released in 2019. According to Haslam, SARS-CoV-2 is a "self-spreading bat vaccine" that was released in a laboratory accident in Wuhan in the fall of 2019. The vaccine was to be tested at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on wild-caught bats before being released in the wild. The idea of vaccinating bats was based on the fact that they are considered by virologists to be a "reserve population" for highly dangerous viruses: SARS1, MERS, Nipah, Hendra, Marburg - all these highly dangerous viruses for humans would survive in bats and from there jump to humans again and again via intermediate hosts. The idea was to make nature safer for humans. And the rest, as they say, is history. What sounds almost unbelievable at first, Haslam proves in detail by means of conspicuous gene sequences in the COVID-19 genome, a multitude of declassified documents, Slack messages, emails, research proposals, patents and public statements of the "DARPA DEFUSE" protagonists in the years before and after Corona. In my opinion, the topic is so relevant because ultimately it is about the question of how society wants to deal with high-risk biotechnologies such as gain-of-function research in the future - if there is a strong suspicion that Corona may have been based on a laboratory accident in which a product of US biotechnology was released. Chapters: 00:00 Intro 00:21 What leaked? 01:39 Why should we still be talking about the lab leak in 2024? 04:22 The controversy among the proponents of the lab leak theory 07:12 The DARPA DEFUSE proposal 10:00 Is the lab hypothesis consensus in the US? 11:09 The cover-up: The virologist's slack messages 13:30 The Furin Cleavage Site 16:15 Further indications of a lab leak: The restriction sites 20:12 Who is Shi Zhengli? 22:11 The obsession of biotechnology from 2015 to 2019: Wild bats 23:25 Why bats? 29:32 Are the suspects nervous? 28:13 Jim Haslam's theory 32:21 The BSL-2 and BSL-4 lab in Wuhan 33:36 The researcher in the BSL-4 lab: Danielle Anderson 40:07 How did Anderson become infected in a BSL-4 lab? 42:31 Wuhan, bats and self-spreading vaccines This is part 1 of the interview, part 2 will follow in the new year. This is the "English only" version without subtitles. A German subtitled and German dubbed version for my German audience were published some days ago:

Aya Velázquez

86,409 просмотров • 1 год назад

Good morning! Are you trying to understand why last week's TurtleBoy filing, tying together Kate Peter, the Norfolk DA, Brian Tully and a crushing argument under O'Dell and McCarthy from Mark Bederow, led to total chaos on the internet this weekend? I think I have the answer! Grant’s Overall Thesis (Induced) The remaining criminal cases against Aiden Kearney are legally dead the moment the court accepts that Kate Peter was a de facto member of the prosecution team and that the Commonwealth deliberately concealed and lied about her involvement. Everything else we have watched for the last year --the witness intimidation charges, the personal smears, the army of fake accounts, the timed weekend dramas-- is a sophisticated (and increasingly desperate) influence operation designed to keep the public and the defense from focusing on that single dispositive legal fact. The operation is not really about Karen Read or even TurtleBoy anymore; it is about protecting a network of law-enforcement and private individuals who have been implicated in far worse misconduct than anything that has yet become public. In one sentence: Kate Peter is the nexus whose documented (and concealed) role as a prosecution agent fatally taints every Kearney indictment she touched, and all the chaos we see is the dying kicks of a cornered network trying to keep that legal reality from being widely understood before the cases are dismissed. Best quotes and analysis from Grok; Here is a structured breakdown and digestion of Grant Smith-Ellis’s marathon live stream). I’ve divided it into logical sections, pulled representative long quotes, and explained both the micro (what he’s literally saying in that moment) and macro (how it fits into his larger argument) significance. Section 1: The 30,000-Foot Overview & Procedural Setup Key Quote “We're gonna talk about the procedural posture… The core is what's called an O'Dell or McCarthy motion to dismiss… I'm gonna explain the standard under O'Dell and McCarthy for what exactly it means to impair the integrity of the grand jury… it's actually Kate Peter's involvement with the handling of evidence… that really coalesces to form and crystallize the sum and substance of Bederow's argument under O'Dell and McCarthy.” Micro explanation Grant is promising a deep dive into a renewed defense motion to dismiss some (or all) of the remaining criminal charges against Aiden Kearney (TurtleBoy). The legal standard comes from two Massachusetts cases (Commonwealth v. O'Dell and Commonwealth v. McCarthy) that allow dismissal when the Commonwealth so thoroughly compromises the integrity of the grand jury (e.g., by withholding exculpatory evidence, presenting misleading evidence, or using tainted witnesses/evidence) that the indictment itself is irredeemably flawed. Macro significance This is the spine of the entire stream. Everything else (the drama, the moles, the distractions) is, in Grant’s view, noise designed to keep people from noticing that the defense now has a colorable path to get every indictment that Kate Peter touched thrown out. Section 2: The Bombshell Discovery Violation (The February 24, 2024 Email) Key Quote “The email from Kate to Ken Mello on February 24, 2024… ‘per our call earlier, Ken’… it clearly existed and was withheld from Kearney’s defense… all of this back and forth was about… to insulate the remaining charges against Kearney from anything that Kate Peter touched. Well, if you lie and say she didn’t have this email contact with Ken Mello that now exists, you’re screwed.” Micro explanation The defense discovered, via Lindsey Gaetani, an email proving Kate Peter was communicating directly with Prosecutor Ken Mello (one of the lead investigators) about strategy for prosecuting Aiden Kearney, and that the prosecution reviewed but never turned this email over-- despite having turned over thousands of other Kate Peter-related emails. The prosecution then filed papers explicitly saying Kate Peter had no involvement with the remaining cases. Macro significance This is the smoking gun for an O'Dell/McCarthy motion. If Kate Peter is functionally a member of the “prosecution team” (a legal term of art), everything she touched becomes fruit of the poisonous tree. The Commonwealth’s own filings now directly contradict documented reality, which is exactly the kind of “impairment of the integrity of the grand jury” that gets indictments dismissed with prejudice. Section 3: The Distraction Playbook Key Quote “Every time a big filing comes up that exposes the interconnectivity between Kate Peter, handling evidence, Brian Tully, Ken Mello, etc.… There’s this big distraction in public that always, always, always traces back to people who are in the end tied to Kate… all this noise and all this cacophony of chaos was just Kate Peter burning some of her last moles in order to generate a lot of big distractions so that when this stuff came up on Friday, people wouldn’t realize the full impact.” Micro explanation Grant is accusing Kate Peter (and by extension elements in the Norfolk DA’s office and MSP) of deliberately timing personal scandals and online chaos (especially the Meredith/Aiden drama over Thanksgiving weekend 2025) to drown out discussion of the court filings that are fatal to the remaining Kearney cases. Macro significance This is Grant’s “playbook” theory: any time the docket gets dangerous for Kate Peter or the Commonwealth, a spectacle erupts that keeps the Free Karen Read / Free TurtleBoy internet from focusing on the actual legal peril. Section 4: The CIA “Nudge / Bump” Video as Metaphor Key Quote (After playing the undercover video of the intelligence officer) “Does that not perfectly describe the playbook that Kate Peter used this weekend in my opinion?… you create a situation online where they have no choice but to act on impulse… sometimes you just got to give him a quick bump just to see what happens.” Micro explanation Grant uses a clip of a former U.S. intelligence officer describing how agencies provoke targets into reacting (so they can then be charged or discredited) as an exact analogy for what he believes happened over the holiday weekend. Macro significance He is explicitly accusing Kate Peter (and whoever she still works with in law enforcement) of running domestic influence / entrapment-style operations against bloggers and witnesses in a state criminal case-- something he considers both morally grotesque and legally catastrophic once it’s exposed. Section 5: The Larger Network & Why It All Exists Key Quote “It was never really about the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case. It was about the secrets that lay beneath and Canton… Sandra Birchmore and Matt Farwell is just a tip of the iceberg… Michael Morrissey is not the problem. It is the people around him.” Micro explanation Grant drops heavy hints that the real reason this entire apparatus (Kate Peter, Brian Tully, certain MSP troopers, private investigators, online operatives) exists is to protect a much darker set of scandals inside the Canton Police Department and the broader Norfolk County law-enforcement community (sexual abuse of minors by officers, cover-ups, etc.). Macro significance Karen Read and TurtleBoy were never the real targets; they accidentally stumbled into something far more radioactive, and the full-court-press intimidation, indictments, and online chaos are damage-control for that deeper rot. Grant’s Overall Thesis (Induced) The remaining criminal cases against Aiden Kearney are legally dead the moment the court accepts that Kate Peter was a de facto member of the prosecution team and that the Commonwealth deliberately concealed and lied about her involvement. Everything else we have watched for the last year-- the witness intimidation charges, the personal smears, the army of fake accounts, the timed weekend dramas — is a sophisticated (and increasingly desperate) influence operation designed to keep the public and the defense from focusing on that single dispositive legal fact. The operation is not really about Karen Read or even TurtleBoy anymore; it is about protecting a network of law-enforcement and private individuals who have been implicated in far worse misconduct than anything that has yet become public. In one sentence: Kate Peter is the nexus whose documented (and concealed) role as a prosecution agent fatally taints every Kearney indictment she touched, and all the chaos we see is the dying kicks of a cornered network trying to keep that legal reality from being widely understood before the cases are dismissed.

Grant Smith Ellis

15,475 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Video: China firm to unveil world’s most ‘adorable’ humanoid robot for homes, schools | Christopher McFadden, Interesting Engineering Fourier’s latest humanoid robot, the GR‑3, is designed for domestic and educational environments. Fourier Robotics, the Shanghai-based robotics firm behind the GR-1 and GR-2 models, is preparing to launch its GR-3 humanoid robot on August 6. Early glimpses of the new robot, including a sneak-peek video, reveal a smaller, friendlier design, described as possibly the “most adorable humanoid robot yet.” Concrete information is scarce, but early reports suggest the robot will be smaller than its predecessors. According to some reports, the GR-3 will likely stand at around 4 feet 5 inches (134 cm). This makes it notably smaller than the earlier GR-1 (5.4 feet/165 cm) and GR-2 (5.74 feet/175 cm) models from Fourier. Most notable is its apparent “softer,” almost cuddly aesthetic.” The robot is likely intended for use in homes, schools, hospitals, and public spaces. It also features an integrated large language model (LLM) to enable natural speech engagement with users. To this end, the GR-3 will likely be marked as a companion‑style or caregiver bot (AKA a “Care‑bot”) aimed at friendly human interaction in personal or learning environments. GR-3: Fourier’s cutest robot yet “This softer aesthetic is a nice change compared to the usual designs we see with humanoid robots. The eyes are a much-needed touch,” comments a member on the Companian Robot Forums. “It’s so expressive and draws you in. Can’t wait to see what this looks like. Hopefully it is reasonably priced. Could definitely see myself owning one of these,” they added. The GR-3 is a natural progression of the company’s previous models. The first, the GR-1, was launched by Foureir in 2023 and was its first mass-targeted humanoid, featuring 44 joints and capable of walking at 3.1 mph (5 kph). Capable of carrying around 6.6. pounds (3 kg) of weight, it featured advanced perception via six RGB cameras that formed real-time 3D occupancy grids, an LLM-based emotional interaction system, and modular Fourier Smart Actuators (FSA) delivering around 230 N/m of torque. The GR-2 was debuted in 2024 and raised the bar with a taller frame (~175 cm, 63 kg), 53 degrees of freedom, enhanced 12 degrees of freedom (DoF) dexterous hands with tactile sensors, and power-dense FSA 2.0 actuators (around 380 N/m torque). Given this lineage, the GR-3 is likely to continue innovating in areas such as compact hardware design, featuring a shorter, lighter frame tailored to domestic spaces. It will also build on the company’s focus on friendly user interaction thanks to its softer aesthetic and approachable interface. The GR-3 will also likely feature use-case-specific actuation and sensing, likely simpler than the GR-2’s high-precision hands but optimized for social or light domestic tasks. Scheduled for release in August It will likely also feature an accessible software stack continuing Fourier’s support for developers via pre‑built APIs and possibly integration with LLMs and vision systems. Fourier has confirmed the robot’s official reveal is scheduled for early August, with teaser posts on X and robotics forums generating anticipation among fans and researchers. When formally revealed, the GR‑3 could represent Fourier’s first small-form social humanoid, bridging the gap between research platforms and home or classroom robots. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

64,074 просмотров • 1 год назад