Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

Really excited for this one!! "Almost Real" 4-part Feature from Next Door Studios 👀 ⭐️Ryder NicoCoopa Grant Ducati Vincent Grey Derek Kage Trevor Harris Written & Directed by Jeremy Babcock MicahMartinezXXX ASGmax

Jeremy Babcock

12,904 subscribers

40,839 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Israel Adesanya, Rampage Jackson and N3on star in a $2,000,000 feature film made by just 28 people in 4 weeks. You'd be INSANE to scroll past this: 1. The Cully Hill Boys: a full 110-minute feature film 2. The first fully AI generated feature film to star licensed celebrity likenesses 3. Israel Adesanya. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. N3on. Matt Kiatipis. 4. Every likeness licensed with consent. Signed agreements, not deepfakes. 5. Production cost: $2,000,000 6. Team: 28 people. Timeline: 4 weeks. 7. Around 1,000 assets across 100+ locations 8. A feature at this scale normally takes hundreds of people and years 9. World premiere: August 5 at The Glasshouse in New York 10. This isn't a demo. It's a premiered feature film. 11. And today every prompt behind it went public 12. Every asset. Every scene. $0. 13. Studios would pay 6 figures for this exact knowledge 14. Open the kit, pick any scene 15. Reverse engineer how they directed a real cast across 100+ locations 16. Rebuild any part of a premiered film's pipeline yourself 17. First movers on new techniques always eat 18. The playbook is sitting in a free folder And today Higgsfield open-sourced every prompt behind it. A premiered feature film with a licensed celebrity cast just handed you its entire pipeline. If you're serious about getting paid for AI video in 2026, this is the best free shot you'll get. Open the kit tonight, pick ONE scene, and rebuild it. That's your film school for 2026 and it costs you nothing. (clip attached; straight from the film)

Israel Adesanya, Rampage Jackson and N3on star in a $2,000,000 feature film made by just 28 people in 4 weeks. You'd be INSANE to scroll past this: 1. The Cully Hill Boys: a full 110-minute feature film 2. The first fully AI generated feature film to star licensed celebrity likenesses 3. Israel Adesanya. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. N3on. Matt Kiatipis. 4. Every likeness licensed with consent. Signed agreements, not deepfakes. 5. Production cost: $2,000,000 6. Team: 28 people. Timeline: 4 weeks. 7. Around 1,000 assets across 100+ locations 8. A feature at this scale normally takes hundreds of people and years 9. World premiere: August 5 at The Glasshouse in New York 10. This isn't a demo. It's a premiered feature film. 11. And today every prompt behind it went public 12. Every asset. Every scene. $0. 13. Studios would pay 6 figures for this exact knowledge 14. Open the kit, pick any scene 15. Reverse engineer how they directed a real cast across 100+ locations 16. Rebuild any part of a premiered film's pipeline yourself 17. First movers on new techniques always eat 18. The playbook is sitting in a free folder And today Higgsfield open-sourced every prompt behind it. A premiered feature film with a licensed celebrity cast just handed you its entire pipeline. If you're serious about getting paid for AI video in 2026, this is the best free shot you'll get. Open the kit tonight, pick ONE scene, and rebuild it. That's your film school for 2026 and it costs you nothing. (clip attached; straight from the film)

ALEX SUZUKI

171,197 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

Quentin Tarantino on how he got the idea to make "Pulp Fiction" (1994): "The idea for 'Pulp Fiction' (1994) was born even before I began writing 'Reservoir Dogs' (1992). I was trying to imagine how to make a film without money, so I thought of a short I’d be able to show at festivals that could be a kind of calling card. I’d be able to demonstrate what I was capable of, which would allow me to shoot a feature-length film. So I thought of the story of Vincent Vega and Marsellus’s wife. Then I realized, why not write a second short crime story, and then a third, and then shoot them one after another when I got enough money together, and then put them together? That’s pretty much what Jim Jarmusch did with 'Stranger Than Paradise' (1984), showing one part at one festival, then getting the financial backing to do the second, etc. So I phoned my friend Roger Avary to ask him to write the second story, but with the condition that it had to be the most classic story possible; and from there he could take us to the moon! And that’s what he wrote: the one about the boxer who gets knocked out in the ring. The third story was going to be the one of Reservoir Dogs. But then our enthusiasm kind of died down, that project never got done, and I used the story of Dogs for my feature-length film. Later we came back to the project, but abandoned the idea of an anthology. What I really wanted was to make a novel on the screen, with characters who enter and exit, who have their own story but who can appear anywhere. I could get to do what a contemporary writer does: introduce into his book a secondary character who appeared in an earlier book, something like the Glass family that Salinger imagined, and whose members you find move from one novel to the next. This is a register filmmakers simply don’t work in: in Hollywood, when you make a film for, let’s say, Paramount, you sell them the rights to the story. If you make the next one for Warners, you can’t use the same characters because they were created for another company. With 'Pulp Fiction', I wanted in some sense to make three films for the price of one! I liked that each character of 'Pulp Fiction' could carry a film as the main hero. If I’d made a film, for example, about Butch and Fabienne and only about them, the character played by John Travolta probably wouldn’t have had a name. He’d have been called “Bad Guy No. i.” But as Pulp Fiction is conceived, he is Vincent Vega. We know his personality, we have an idea of his way of life, he’s not simply a minor character. So then when they shoot him, the spectator feels something." (Quentin Tarantino's interview with Michel Ciment and Hubert Niogret, Postif, 1994) P.S: On this day, 32 years ago, "Pulp Fiction" (1994) premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.

Quentin Tarantino on how he got the idea to make "Pulp Fiction" (1994): "The idea for 'Pulp Fiction' (1994) was born even before I began writing 'Reservoir Dogs' (1992). I was trying to imagine how to make a film without money, so I thought of a short I’d be able to show at festivals that could be a kind of calling card. I’d be able to demonstrate what I was capable of, which would allow me to shoot a feature-length film. So I thought of the story of Vincent Vega and Marsellus’s wife. Then I realized, why not write a second short crime story, and then a third, and then shoot them one after another when I got enough money together, and then put them together? That’s pretty much what Jim Jarmusch did with 'Stranger Than Paradise' (1984), showing one part at one festival, then getting the financial backing to do the second, etc. So I phoned my friend Roger Avary to ask him to write the second story, but with the condition that it had to be the most classic story possible; and from there he could take us to the moon! And that’s what he wrote: the one about the boxer who gets knocked out in the ring. The third story was going to be the one of Reservoir Dogs. But then our enthusiasm kind of died down, that project never got done, and I used the story of Dogs for my feature-length film. Later we came back to the project, but abandoned the idea of an anthology. What I really wanted was to make a novel on the screen, with characters who enter and exit, who have their own story but who can appear anywhere. I could get to do what a contemporary writer does: introduce into his book a secondary character who appeared in an earlier book, something like the Glass family that Salinger imagined, and whose members you find move from one novel to the next. This is a register filmmakers simply don’t work in: in Hollywood, when you make a film for, let’s say, Paramount, you sell them the rights to the story. If you make the next one for Warners, you can’t use the same characters because they were created for another company. With 'Pulp Fiction', I wanted in some sense to make three films for the price of one! I liked that each character of 'Pulp Fiction' could carry a film as the main hero. If I’d made a film, for example, about Butch and Fabienne and only about them, the character played by John Travolta probably wouldn’t have had a name. He’d have been called “Bad Guy No. i.” But as Pulp Fiction is conceived, he is Vincent Vega. We know his personality, we have an idea of his way of life, he’s not simply a minor character. So then when they shoot him, the spectator feels something." (Quentin Tarantino's interview with Michel Ciment and Hubert Niogret, Postif, 1994) P.S: On this day, 32 years ago, "Pulp Fiction" (1994) premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.

DepressedBergman

148,832 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Official ActBlue training documents show ActBlue was training their employees to ignore fraud They even trained their employees to let donations come in with fake names and not flag suspicious fraudulent donations from campaigns Democrats actually setup their donation systems to intentionally allow fraud to happen We need prison sentences for prominent Democrats and their donors The next 4 items that I'm about to show you all come from ActBlue's internal policy and training materials, written by ActBlue's own management for ActBlue's own fraud review staff to guide how the company must handle suspicious donations day to day: “First, we've got a security briefing sent to ActBlue staff explaining why certain red flags were not a priority. And I quote, "We are not the primary target of people looking to commit merchant fraud. People who steal credit card information don't try to give that money away." Second, from the onboarding guide given to every new hire on the fraud prevention team, "We want to give our donors the benefit of the doubt and think about the reasons why a contribution is legitimate." trainees were never told to reject a donation over a single suspicious characteristic. One red flag just isn't enough. Give it the benefit of the doubt” Here’s where it gets really criminal “Third, from that same training material, and this one is honestly almost too gross to believe, I quote, "If an otherwise legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donations." Fourth, also from that training material, staff were instructed that when a campaign itself enters a large suspicious donation directly, they should look past it because flagging it might put the campaign in, quote, "an awkward position of having to call their own donor and ask what's going on’” People need to go to prison

Official ActBlue training documents show ActBlue was training their employees to ignore fraud They even trained their employees to let donations come in with fake names and not flag suspicious fraudulent donations from campaigns Democrats actually setup their donation systems to intentionally allow fraud to happen We need prison sentences for prominent Democrats and their donors The next 4 items that I'm about to show you all come from ActBlue's internal policy and training materials, written by ActBlue's own management for ActBlue's own fraud review staff to guide how the company must handle suspicious donations day to day: “First, we've got a security briefing sent to ActBlue staff explaining why certain red flags were not a priority. And I quote, "We are not the primary target of people looking to commit merchant fraud. People who steal credit card information don't try to give that money away." Second, from the onboarding guide given to every new hire on the fraud prevention team, "We want to give our donors the benefit of the doubt and think about the reasons why a contribution is legitimate." trainees were never told to reject a donation over a single suspicious characteristic. One red flag just isn't enough. Give it the benefit of the doubt” Here’s where it gets really criminal “Third, from that same training material, and this one is honestly almost too gross to believe, I quote, "If an otherwise legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donations." Fourth, also from that training material, staff were instructed that when a campaign itself enters a large suspicious donation directly, they should look past it because flagging it might put the campaign in, quote, "an awkward position of having to call their own donor and ask what's going on’” People need to go to prison

Wall Street Apes

49,989 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The Origin of Cheney and UFOs GC: "There's been a vicious rumor circulating...that you've been read into the UFO program." Dick Cheney: "If I had been briefed on that, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it (slight laugh)." (The post below goes beyond the attached audio clip of Grant and Cheney.) Major Pet Peeve of Mine: GIVE CREDIT! AFAIK, the alleged Cheney connection to UFOs, publicly, goes back to April 11th, 2001, thanks to GrantCameron. And it was documented by Giuliano (OmniTalk Radio), aka UFO Google. He had the Grant/Cheney exchange saved for "years" and first tweeted about it in 2018. ~ Host Diane Rehm: "Let's first go to Winnipeg, Canada. Good morning, Grant, you're on the air." GrantCameron: "Good morning. Mr. Cheney, I have a question. Since the statement made by George Bush last July, there's been a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO community that you've been read into the UFO program. "So my question to you is: In any of your government jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you told?" Cheney: "Well, if I had been briefed on that, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it (slight laugh)." Host Diane Rehm: "Is there investigation going on within this administration, Mr. Vice President, as to UFOs?" Cheney: "Umm, I have not (laughs) come across the subject since I've been back in government, well, I guess since January 20th." Rehm: "All right." Cheney: "I've been in a lot of meetings, but I don't recall one on UFOs." (What was Grant talking about regarding (George W.) Bush and "last July," which was July of 2000? Well, first let's see what Bush Sr. said in 1988, via Giuliano's massive and impressive two-part article, "Off the Record with Two Presidents.") ~ "On March 7, 1988...Huffer intercepted Bush with a tape recorder ready to ask questions about UFOs." Charles Huffer: "Mr. Bush, Mr. President. Will you tell the people the truth about UFOs?" George H. W. Bush: "Yeah, if I can find it, what it is. We are really interested." Huffer: "You’ll have it, you’ll have it. It’s in there. Declassify it and tell us, okay?" Bush: "OK, alright." Huffer: "Going to hold you to that promise." Bush: "Alright." Huffer: "Okay, you’re going to get it." Bush: "Why don’t you send me some stuff?" Huffer: "No, you’re a CIA man. You know all about that stuff." Bush: "I know some. I know a fair amount." (Link to Giuliano's excellent articles on this will be in the replies. Dr. Eric Davis says he had a few phone calls (in 2003 and 2004) with Bush Sr. where the former President talked about the UFO-related information he was briefed on when he was made Director of the CIA in 1976. According to Davis, the biggest claim from Bush was that the story about the Holloman Air Force Base UFO landing, and meeting between Air Force and CIA folks with non-humans in April of 1964, was a real event. ~ Fast forward to 2000, George W. Bush, an article written by billy cox, and documented/saved by Paradigm Research Group.) Huffer struck again... "Judging from the brevity of the exchange, which was recorded by CNN on July 28, 2000, you can almost hear George W. Bush's eyeballs clicking against the socket ceilings. "Addressing the media horde as the Republican Convention in Philadelphia winds down, this one guy, Charles Huffer, manages to squeeze a response from the Texas governor. What the guv doesn't know is, Huffer's a state regional director for the Mutual UFO Network in Arkansas." Huffer: "Half the public believes that (unidentified flying objects) are real. Would you finally tell us what the hell is going on (if elected president)?" W.: "Sure I will." Huffer (gesturing to running mate Dick Cheney): "This man knows. He was secretary of defense." W.: "And a good one." "A few minutes later, off camera, Huffer catches one more Bush blurb on his audiocassette: 'It'll be the first thing he (Cheney) will do. He'll get right on it.'" (Thank you to Giuliano for documenting all of this and to Grant and the late Charles Huffer for making the effort to ask these questions.)

The Origin of Cheney and UFOs GC: "There's been a vicious rumor circulating...that you've been read into the UFO program." Dick Cheney: "If I had been briefed on that, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it (slight laugh)." (The post below goes beyond the attached audio clip of Grant and Cheney.) Major Pet Peeve of Mine: GIVE CREDIT! AFAIK, the alleged Cheney connection to UFOs, publicly, goes back to April 11th, 2001, thanks to GrantCameron. And it was documented by Giuliano (OmniTalk Radio), aka UFO Google. He had the Grant/Cheney exchange saved for "years" and first tweeted about it in 2018. ~ Host Diane Rehm: "Let's first go to Winnipeg, Canada. Good morning, Grant, you're on the air." GrantCameron: "Good morning. Mr. Cheney, I have a question. Since the statement made by George Bush last July, there's been a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO community that you've been read into the UFO program. "So my question to you is: In any of your government jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you told?" Cheney: "Well, if I had been briefed on that, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it (slight laugh)." Host Diane Rehm: "Is there investigation going on within this administration, Mr. Vice President, as to UFOs?" Cheney: "Umm, I have not (laughs) come across the subject since I've been back in government, well, I guess since January 20th." Rehm: "All right." Cheney: "I've been in a lot of meetings, but I don't recall one on UFOs." (What was Grant talking about regarding (George W.) Bush and "last July," which was July of 2000? Well, first let's see what Bush Sr. said in 1988, via Giuliano's massive and impressive two-part article, "Off the Record with Two Presidents.") ~ "On March 7, 1988...Huffer intercepted Bush with a tape recorder ready to ask questions about UFOs." Charles Huffer: "Mr. Bush, Mr. President. Will you tell the people the truth about UFOs?" George H. W. Bush: "Yeah, if I can find it, what it is. We are really interested." Huffer: "You’ll have it, you’ll have it. It’s in there. Declassify it and tell us, okay?" Bush: "OK, alright." Huffer: "Going to hold you to that promise." Bush: "Alright." Huffer: "Okay, you’re going to get it." Bush: "Why don’t you send me some stuff?" Huffer: "No, you’re a CIA man. You know all about that stuff." Bush: "I know some. I know a fair amount." (Link to Giuliano's excellent articles on this will be in the replies. Dr. Eric Davis says he had a few phone calls (in 2003 and 2004) with Bush Sr. where the former President talked about the UFO-related information he was briefed on when he was made Director of the CIA in 1976. According to Davis, the biggest claim from Bush was that the story about the Holloman Air Force Base UFO landing, and meeting between Air Force and CIA folks with non-humans in April of 1964, was a real event. ~ Fast forward to 2000, George W. Bush, an article written by billy cox, and documented/saved by Paradigm Research Group.) Huffer struck again... "Judging from the brevity of the exchange, which was recorded by CNN on July 28, 2000, you can almost hear George W. Bush's eyeballs clicking against the socket ceilings. "Addressing the media horde as the Republican Convention in Philadelphia winds down, this one guy, Charles Huffer, manages to squeeze a response from the Texas governor. What the guv doesn't know is, Huffer's a state regional director for the Mutual UFO Network in Arkansas." Huffer: "Half the public believes that (unidentified flying objects) are real. Would you finally tell us what the hell is going on (if elected president)?" W.: "Sure I will." Huffer (gesturing to running mate Dick Cheney): "This man knows. He was secretary of defense." W.: "And a good one." "A few minutes later, off camera, Huffer catches one more Bush blurb on his audiocassette: 'It'll be the first thing he (Cheney) will do. He'll get right on it.'" (Thank you to Giuliano for documenting all of this and to Grant and the late Charles Huffer for making the effort to ask these questions.)

Joe Murgia

21,229 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

Can United States manufacture robots? Matic Robots says "yes." It makes the best floor cleaning robot, that has won many perfect scores from Wired to many others. We love ours. But my trip there to get a tour from AI pioneer Navneet Dalal Navneet Dalal provided some real insights into how hard it is for a hardware company to make hardware in the United States. And how deeply AI is changing consumer electronics products that are going to be in many more homes soon. In this first part (Part II coming tomorrow) we get a look at how long it took for this company to go through prototypes to a shipping product. In the second part, you'll see the scaling hell that it takes to even ship a few thousand robots and the kinds of problems that scaling up a factory brings. Matic is one of my favorite small Silicon Valley companies. It has found what we call "product market fit." I just came back from CES where I saw many of its competitors, and the Matic wins because of not just the product thinking of Mehul and Navneet Dalal but because of their AI leadership. In a way their robot took many lessons from Tesla, from where to put the batteries to its bet on computer vision, which Navneet has been a pioneer in for years, working quietly behind the scenes. It is about to move into a new location that will allow it to grow to meet the demand that now is showing up (the boxes in its lobby show that it's outgrowing its current facilities). In terms of AI, it has aspirations of making a humanoid too, but it is taking a far more measured approach to getting there. By starting on the floor it can not just build world models based on real world data (customers are given a choice whether to allow its data to be used that way. Most customers choose to keep their data on the robot only, for privacy reasons, but if you opt in you can help them improve their models). They are using that data to understand homes. Navneet told me they hit very unusual situations in people's homes already that they couldn't really predict in simulators, like full-wall mirrors that confuse computer vision systems, or pools and water features in people's homes. Having real customers brings a ton of customer feedback about how to further improve the robot, and, as Navneet demonstrates in the second video, forces them to build a manufacturing muscle memory. Getting teams to work together, figuring out how to solve supply chain problems, from Trump's tarriffs, to a new one that showed up over the past couple of weeks. A supplier for its bags (one of the cheaper parts that goes into the robot) changed the glue it used, which caused robots to fail quality tests and the manufacturing line to stop. Reminds me a lot of the hell Elon Musk faced in its Fremont factory when Tesla was first starting to manufacture its Model 3, which almost bankrupted the company. Off the record Mehul and Navneet 🇮🇳 showed me some of the prototypes and plans for its next products that will show up over the next few years. Certainly not as sexy as Tesla, Figure, 1x_tech, and all the Chinese manufacturers are showing off already, but far better thought out for the typical Western home and AI plays a huge role in its future. It is the product that speaks for itself. It's amazing, and is about to get better this year due to AI. It's the first real vision-only robot to be in my home and I bet it won't be the last from this company. Real honor that they invited me over with my Insta360 camera (another company launched in my home, just like Matic was last year). In Part II we go into the factory.

Can United States manufacture robots? Matic Robots says "yes." It makes the best floor cleaning robot, that has won many perfect scores from Wired to many others. We love ours. But my trip there to get a tour from AI pioneer Navneet Dalal Navneet Dalal provided some real insights into how hard it is for a hardware company to make hardware in the United States. And how deeply AI is changing consumer electronics products that are going to be in many more homes soon. In this first part (Part II coming tomorrow) we get a look at how long it took for this company to go through prototypes to a shipping product. In the second part, you'll see the scaling hell that it takes to even ship a few thousand robots and the kinds of problems that scaling up a factory brings. Matic is one of my favorite small Silicon Valley companies. It has found what we call "product market fit." I just came back from CES where I saw many of its competitors, and the Matic wins because of not just the product thinking of Mehul and Navneet Dalal but because of their AI leadership. In a way their robot took many lessons from Tesla, from where to put the batteries to its bet on computer vision, which Navneet has been a pioneer in for years, working quietly behind the scenes. It is about to move into a new location that will allow it to grow to meet the demand that now is showing up (the boxes in its lobby show that it's outgrowing its current facilities). In terms of AI, it has aspirations of making a humanoid too, but it is taking a far more measured approach to getting there. By starting on the floor it can not just build world models based on real world data (customers are given a choice whether to allow its data to be used that way. Most customers choose to keep their data on the robot only, for privacy reasons, but if you opt in you can help them improve their models). They are using that data to understand homes. Navneet told me they hit very unusual situations in people's homes already that they couldn't really predict in simulators, like full-wall mirrors that confuse computer vision systems, or pools and water features in people's homes. Having real customers brings a ton of customer feedback about how to further improve the robot, and, as Navneet demonstrates in the second video, forces them to build a manufacturing muscle memory. Getting teams to work together, figuring out how to solve supply chain problems, from Trump's tarriffs, to a new one that showed up over the past couple of weeks. A supplier for its bags (one of the cheaper parts that goes into the robot) changed the glue it used, which caused robots to fail quality tests and the manufacturing line to stop. Reminds me a lot of the hell Elon Musk faced in its Fremont factory when Tesla was first starting to manufacture its Model 3, which almost bankrupted the company. Off the record Mehul and Navneet 🇮🇳 showed me some of the prototypes and plans for its next products that will show up over the next few years. Certainly not as sexy as Tesla, Figure, 1x_tech, and all the Chinese manufacturers are showing off already, but far better thought out for the typical Western home and AI plays a huge role in its future. It is the product that speaks for itself. It's amazing, and is about to get better this year due to AI. It's the first real vision-only robot to be in my home and I bet it won't be the last from this company. Real honor that they invited me over with my Insta360 camera (another company launched in my home, just like Matic was last year). In Part II we go into the factory.

Robert Scoble

69,229 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Most people think they understand finance. They don't. They know how to send money. Maybe how to trade. But the actual machinery underneath who controls which assets, who gets access to which markets, who decides who can even participate most people never see that part. And that's exactly where the problem starts. Right now, trillions of dollars in real-world value real estate, bonds, private credit, alternative funds are locked inside systems that were never designed to include you. Not unless you have the right passport, the right broker, the right balance in the right bank account. Traditional finance has always had an invisible velvet rope. Most of us just never got close enough to see it. Blockchain was supposed to change that. And it tried. DeFi opened a door. But even DeFi, for all its freedom, couldn't actually touch the real world. Tokens, yes. Speculation, yes. But actual real-world assets handled with proper compliance, proper security, proper legal enforceability that gap never really closed. Until something like Real comes along and asks a very different question. What if you didn't bolt RWA tokenization on top of an existing chain? What if you built the entire Layer 1 around it from the ground up? That's what Real is. The first fully decentralized, fully permissionless L1 blockchain built specifically not partially, not as a feature, but architecturally for the native tokenization of Real-World Assets. What does that mean ? It means things like bonds, real estate, private credit, and commodities can live on-chain with full transparency, full compliance, and full security baked into the protocol itself. Not added later. Not patched in. Native. They call it solving the "RWA Trilemma." Most tokenization projects have to sacrifice one of three things security, decentralization, or regulatory compliance. You either get compliant and centralized, or decentralized and legally fragile. Real built a hybrid validator architecture that doesn't make you choose. Business validators tokenizers, risk scorers, insurers each play a specific role in the asset lifecycle, staking tokens and facing real onchain penalties if they act wrong. The result is a system where real-world assets carry their own risk data, their own compliance metadata, and their own insurance all embedded directly at the protocol level. $29 million raised. A partnership with Wiener Privatbank SE: an actual institution. A partnership with RWA Inc. The $16 trillion RWA opportunity. A target of $500 million in tokenized assets. The numbers matter. But what matters more is the architecture. This feels like someone actually sat down and thought: what would financial infrastructure look like if it was rebuilt for the next hundred years? Finance was always a wall. What Real is building slowly, quietly, but very deliberately might just be a door. And most people still don't see it yet. #UCCC

Most people think they understand finance. They don't. They know how to send money. Maybe how to trade. But the actual machinery underneath who controls which assets, who gets access to which markets, who decides who can even participate most people never see that part. And that's exactly where the problem starts. Right now, trillions of dollars in real-world value real estate, bonds, private credit, alternative funds are locked inside systems that were never designed to include you. Not unless you have the right passport, the right broker, the right balance in the right bank account. Traditional finance has always had an invisible velvet rope. Most of us just never got close enough to see it. Blockchain was supposed to change that. And it tried. DeFi opened a door. But even DeFi, for all its freedom, couldn't actually touch the real world. Tokens, yes. Speculation, yes. But actual real-world assets handled with proper compliance, proper security, proper legal enforceability that gap never really closed. Until something like Real comes along and asks a very different question. What if you didn't bolt RWA tokenization on top of an existing chain? What if you built the entire Layer 1 around it from the ground up? That's what Real is. The first fully decentralized, fully permissionless L1 blockchain built specifically not partially, not as a feature, but architecturally for the native tokenization of Real-World Assets. What does that mean ? It means things like bonds, real estate, private credit, and commodities can live on-chain with full transparency, full compliance, and full security baked into the protocol itself. Not added later. Not patched in. Native. They call it solving the "RWA Trilemma." Most tokenization projects have to sacrifice one of three things security, decentralization, or regulatory compliance. You either get compliant and centralized, or decentralized and legally fragile. Real built a hybrid validator architecture that doesn't make you choose. Business validators tokenizers, risk scorers, insurers each play a specific role in the asset lifecycle, staking tokens and facing real onchain penalties if they act wrong. The result is a system where real-world assets carry their own risk data, their own compliance metadata, and their own insurance all embedded directly at the protocol level. $29 million raised. A partnership with Wiener Privatbank SE: an actual institution. A partnership with RWA Inc. The $16 trillion RWA opportunity. A target of $500 million in tokenized assets. The numbers matter. But what matters more is the architecture. This feels like someone actually sat down and thought: what would financial infrastructure look like if it was rebuilt for the next hundred years? Finance was always a wall. What Real is building slowly, quietly, but very deliberately might just be a door. And most people still don't see it yet. #UCCC

Meow

11,164 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

The Peel

209,752 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

SETH KLARMAN JUST FLAGGED THE AI RISK NOBODY IS PRICING IN. The founder of Baupost Group and author of Margin of Safety almost never makes market commentary in public, which makes his recent remarks on AI, credit cycles, and political risk particularly worth sitting with. Klarman's starting point was the strange backdrop markets have been operating in. There hasn't been significant downside volatility since the GFC. Corporate bankruptcies have been historically low. But the cracks are appearing now, in private credit, in commercial real estate, and across pockets of the corporate market that have absorbed too much leverage for too long. The conditions for a real credit cycle, he believes, are forming. What makes this cycle different from prior ones is the inflationary pressure coming from a place markets have never seen before. Baupost's own real estate book is seeing surging demand for industrial land, warehouses, and cold storage. The AI data center buildout is pushing prices higher across electricians, transformers, copper, electrical equipment, and land at the same time. Onshoring is layered on top. As Klarman put it, the demand for the physical inputs into AI is through the roof. Short term, that's clearly inflationary. Long term, AI is supposed to be deflationary because it makes labor more productive. But Klarman's warning is sharper than that. Once the genie of higher wages and elevated costs is out of the bottle, getting it back in is politically impossible. Workers don't accept compensation rollbacks. Prices don't fall easily. The deflationary thesis sounds great in a spreadsheet and lands very differently in an economy. Here's the part that almost nobody is pricing into AI exposure. Klarman is direct about it. The political crackdown on data centers is coming. It probably won't come from Washington first. It will come from town councils, county boards, and state regulators where citizens are already up in arms about water usage, grid load, and noise. By the 2028 election cycle, AI policy will be a defining political issue, not a technical one. The rules haven't been written. The current administration hasn't really gotten its head around writing them. And local backlash is accelerating. Klarman's broader point is that there are a lot of risks not baked into current prices. Overall AI risk that it runs amok. Political risk that builds out gets blocked at the local level. Credit risk that's already starting to surface. None of these are tail events. They're forming in real time, and the market is still pricing as if none of them exist.

SETH KLARMAN JUST FLAGGED THE AI RISK NOBODY IS PRICING IN. The founder of Baupost Group and author of Margin of Safety almost never makes market commentary in public, which makes his recent remarks on AI, credit cycles, and political risk particularly worth sitting with. Klarman's starting point was the strange backdrop markets have been operating in. There hasn't been significant downside volatility since the GFC. Corporate bankruptcies have been historically low. But the cracks are appearing now, in private credit, in commercial real estate, and across pockets of the corporate market that have absorbed too much leverage for too long. The conditions for a real credit cycle, he believes, are forming. What makes this cycle different from prior ones is the inflationary pressure coming from a place markets have never seen before. Baupost's own real estate book is seeing surging demand for industrial land, warehouses, and cold storage. The AI data center buildout is pushing prices higher across electricians, transformers, copper, electrical equipment, and land at the same time. Onshoring is layered on top. As Klarman put it, the demand for the physical inputs into AI is through the roof. Short term, that's clearly inflationary. Long term, AI is supposed to be deflationary because it makes labor more productive. But Klarman's warning is sharper than that. Once the genie of higher wages and elevated costs is out of the bottle, getting it back in is politically impossible. Workers don't accept compensation rollbacks. Prices don't fall easily. The deflationary thesis sounds great in a spreadsheet and lands very differently in an economy. Here's the part that almost nobody is pricing into AI exposure. Klarman is direct about it. The political crackdown on data centers is coming. It probably won't come from Washington first. It will come from town councils, county boards, and state regulators where citizens are already up in arms about water usage, grid load, and noise. By the 2028 election cycle, AI policy will be a defining political issue, not a technical one. The rules haven't been written. The current administration hasn't really gotten its head around writing them. And local backlash is accelerating. Klarman's broader point is that there are a lot of risks not baked into current prices. Overall AI risk that it runs amok. Political risk that builds out gets blocked at the local level. Credit risk that's already starting to surface. None of these are tail events. They're forming in real time, and the market is still pricing as if none of them exist.

Lumida Wealth Management

106,089 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

How to destroy a booming market. A short post ft. the Haryana excise department. The video is of Sector 29 on a Sunday evening. Shutters down. Shops sitting with no tenants. Half of them had not even bothered to open. This is the same market that once ran a parking mafia. Tickets of 50, 100, sometimes more, just to park. Cars crawling all night. You could not get in. I stood there this Sunday and there was nothing. 10 percent of the old crowd, maybe less. A few years ago this place did not feel like India. At night the whole market was shining. Music, lights, people everywhere, that feeling of standing somewhere abroad for a few hours. Today it is quiet and in shambles. Everyone will tell you the towing killed it. GMDA lifted thousands of cars, Sector 29 topped the list, people got scared and stopped coming. That scared some of them off. The market was already bleeding from somewhere else. That somewhere else opened right next door, with a friendly name. BYOB. Bring your own booze. Sounds like freedom. Except you cannot bring your own booze. A friend lands from abroad, hands you a bottle of scotch from duty free, and they stop you at the door. You get in only if you buy the liquor from their shop. The one attached to the place. So the name is a lie. It is a liquor shop wearing a restaurant costume. Now look at what the licensed bars were carrying. Haryana raises the bar license fee almost every year. A proper brewery or bar in Sector 29 pays that every single year before it pours one glass. The BYOB next door pays none of it. No license. No excise weight. And it still charges food prices as high as the bar it is busy killing. Here is the part that should end the argument. Around 2 years ago some of these BYOB spots quietly built a mezzanine floor over the ground seating to double the covers. No fire safety. No clearance worth the name. The places breaking every rule got bigger. The places following every rule shut down. The mezzanines were pulled later, but by then the crowd had already moved. And the young crowd never cared about any of this. The BYOBs stay open till 4 in the morning. Live music, belly dance, theme nights, pool parties. Sector 29 with its licenses and its rules and its closing time could not fight a format that had no rules to begin with. Then look at the real estate. Around 3 years ago an SCO here was touching 50 CR. Today those same units are hard to sell. The rent is so high that nobody can run a business that covers it, so the shutter just stays down. The demand is still there. It just walked next door, to the cheaper version with no license and no rules. That is how you destroy a booming market. You charge the ones who follow the law every single year, you leave the ones who break it completely free, and then you act surprised when the lawful ones are the first to die.

How to destroy a booming market. A short post ft. the Haryana excise department. The video is of Sector 29 on a Sunday evening. Shutters down. Shops sitting with no tenants. Half of them had not even bothered to open. This is the same market that once ran a parking mafia. Tickets of 50, 100, sometimes more, just to park. Cars crawling all night. You could not get in. I stood there this Sunday and there was nothing. 10 percent of the old crowd, maybe less. A few years ago this place did not feel like India. At night the whole market was shining. Music, lights, people everywhere, that feeling of standing somewhere abroad for a few hours. Today it is quiet and in shambles. Everyone will tell you the towing killed it. GMDA lifted thousands of cars, Sector 29 topped the list, people got scared and stopped coming. That scared some of them off. The market was already bleeding from somewhere else. That somewhere else opened right next door, with a friendly name. BYOB. Bring your own booze. Sounds like freedom. Except you cannot bring your own booze. A friend lands from abroad, hands you a bottle of scotch from duty free, and they stop you at the door. You get in only if you buy the liquor from their shop. The one attached to the place. So the name is a lie. It is a liquor shop wearing a restaurant costume. Now look at what the licensed bars were carrying. Haryana raises the bar license fee almost every year. A proper brewery or bar in Sector 29 pays that every single year before it pours one glass. The BYOB next door pays none of it. No license. No excise weight. And it still charges food prices as high as the bar it is busy killing. Here is the part that should end the argument. Around 2 years ago some of these BYOB spots quietly built a mezzanine floor over the ground seating to double the covers. No fire safety. No clearance worth the name. The places breaking every rule got bigger. The places following every rule shut down. The mezzanines were pulled later, but by then the crowd had already moved. And the young crowd never cared about any of this. The BYOBs stay open till 4 in the morning. Live music, belly dance, theme nights, pool parties. Sector 29 with its licenses and its rules and its closing time could not fight a format that had no rules to begin with. Then look at the real estate. Around 3 years ago an SCO here was touching 50 CR. Today those same units are hard to sell. The rent is so high that nobody can run a business that covers it, so the shutter just stays down. The demand is still there. It just walked next door, to the cheaper version with no license and no rules. That is how you destroy a booming market. You charge the ones who follow the law every single year, you leave the ones who break it completely free, and then you act surprised when the lawful ones are the first to die.

Abhishek Bhardwaj

243,015 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

The most important development yet to drop in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is this clip right here, where Candace Owens states that she has multiple sources who claim to have written communications from Charlie the day before he was murdered stating that he thought “they” were going to kill him [with one of those sources being a TPUSA donor]. This would also corroborate the conversation that Infowars news anchor Harrison H. Smith ✞ had [who is not affiliated with TPUSA] one month before Charlie Kirk was killed, where he was told that Charlie thought Israel would kill him if he abandoned the pro-Israel cause [which led to Harrison’s now infamous tweet stating just that back on 8/13/2025]. Candace has no discernible incentive to lie about the existence and veracity of these messages. She already produced the text exchange proving that Charlie was getting intense pressure from his Jewish donors and expressed a desire to abandon the pro-Israel cause just 48 hours before he was killed. This was a fact that everyone in the pro-Israel camp denied for almost a month following Charlie’s death, up to and including Bibi Netanyahu. We now know most of those people were either outright lying or uniformed. In both cases, the existence and verification of those messages by TPUSA spokesman and Executive Producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, Andrew Kolvet, has changed the entire conversation. Why did the people in the group chat or those who knew about Charlie’s evolving views lie about it? I think there’s a strong possibility that these [alleged] messages will see the light at some point, assuming these individuals aren’t in legitimate fear for their own lives and/or have the courage to come forward. At a minimum, these communications should be provided to law enforcement if they haven’t been already as part of the investigation [assuming the FBI actually plans to conduct a real one]. If so, we may end up seeing them in court. We know Candace has extensive connections and relationships within the TPUSA network, including with donors, as is evident by the recent letter from John Mappin and Irina Mappin. To doubt the authenticity of this claim, which she says is in writing from two sources and known by at least 3, would be extremely naive, IMO. It doesn’t make sense for her to lie about this. The liability is far too great. Given the above, it appears to be almost a certainty that Charlie Kirk thought that there was a possibility he was going to be murdered by pro-Israel forces, at least in part due to the decision he had made to distance himself and TPUSA from the Israeli/Jewish cause. Now you need to ask yourself, what would make Charlie feel that way? Why would he feel strongly enough about the possibility of being assassinated that he would communicate that in both conversation and in writing, including to at least one TPUSA donor? Bear in mind, confiding in a wealthy donor to the organization about your fear of being killed is no small decision. Did something happen to Charlie that created this fear? It’s logical to ask, was he ever explicitly [or implicitly] threatened? Was he aware of similar things happening to others? If the above is true … what are the odds he was actually assassinated by a random 22 year-old trans loving furry Zoomer on the following day, on a campus 4 hours away from where Tyler Robinson lived, at a school he wasn’t a student at? If Charlie’s fears were true and warranted, I think we’d be foolish to ignore them. Who would be in a better position to know “from who” and “why” he could be at risk than Charlie himself? Every thread should be pulled and every stone lifted and turned. Charlie’s memory, family, friends and supporters deserve nothing less.

The most important development yet to drop in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is this clip right here, where Candace Owens states that she has multiple sources who claim to have written communications from Charlie the day before he was murdered stating that he thought “they” were going to kill him [with one of those sources being a TPUSA donor]. This would also corroborate the conversation that Infowars news anchor Harrison H. Smith ✞ had [who is not affiliated with TPUSA] one month before Charlie Kirk was killed, where he was told that Charlie thought Israel would kill him if he abandoned the pro-Israel cause [which led to Harrison’s now infamous tweet stating just that back on 8/13/2025]. Candace has no discernible incentive to lie about the existence and veracity of these messages. She already produced the text exchange proving that Charlie was getting intense pressure from his Jewish donors and expressed a desire to abandon the pro-Israel cause just 48 hours before he was killed. This was a fact that everyone in the pro-Israel camp denied for almost a month following Charlie’s death, up to and including Bibi Netanyahu. We now know most of those people were either outright lying or uniformed. In both cases, the existence and verification of those messages by TPUSA spokesman and Executive Producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, Andrew Kolvet, has changed the entire conversation. Why did the people in the group chat or those who knew about Charlie’s evolving views lie about it? I think there’s a strong possibility that these [alleged] messages will see the light at some point, assuming these individuals aren’t in legitimate fear for their own lives and/or have the courage to come forward. At a minimum, these communications should be provided to law enforcement if they haven’t been already as part of the investigation [assuming the FBI actually plans to conduct a real one]. If so, we may end up seeing them in court. We know Candace has extensive connections and relationships within the TPUSA network, including with donors, as is evident by the recent letter from John Mappin and Irina Mappin. To doubt the authenticity of this claim, which she says is in writing from two sources and known by at least 3, would be extremely naive, IMO. It doesn’t make sense for her to lie about this. The liability is far too great. Given the above, it appears to be almost a certainty that Charlie Kirk thought that there was a possibility he was going to be murdered by pro-Israel forces, at least in part due to the decision he had made to distance himself and TPUSA from the Israeli/Jewish cause. Now you need to ask yourself, what would make Charlie feel that way? Why would he feel strongly enough about the possibility of being assassinated that he would communicate that in both conversation and in writing, including to at least one TPUSA donor? Bear in mind, confiding in a wealthy donor to the organization about your fear of being killed is no small decision. Did something happen to Charlie that created this fear? It’s logical to ask, was he ever explicitly [or implicitly] threatened? Was he aware of similar things happening to others? If the above is true … what are the odds he was actually assassinated by a random 22 year-old trans loving furry Zoomer on the following day, on a campus 4 hours away from where Tyler Robinson lived, at a school he wasn’t a student at? If Charlie’s fears were true and warranted, I think we’d be foolish to ignore them. Who would be in a better position to know “from who” and “why” he could be at risk than Charlie himself? Every thread should be pulled and every stone lifted and turned. Charlie’s memory, family, friends and supporters deserve nothing less.

Murray 🇺🇸

114,058 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

we just raised another $25M after 10x'ing our ARR in 5 months. the crazy part is this almost never happened. 17 years ago, I watched Iron Man as a 10-year-old kid in Delhi. that night, I pulled my first all-nighter teaching myself to code. not because I wanted to build apps or make money. because I wanted to build Jarvis. my parents gave me 1 hour of screen time per day. so I coded in secret, sleeping every alternate night through middle school and high school. built 50+ apps. got a cease and desist from Google at age 12. all for this one obsession: making computers understand us like humans do. fast forward to today: - we've raised $81M total to build the voice operating system - growing revenue 40% month-over-month this year - 70% user retention after one year (unheard of in consumer) - teams at 270 of the Fortune 500 use Wispr Flow daily our Series A2 was led by Hans Tung at Notable Capital (who was an early investor in five companies that made it to $100B valuation like Slack, Tiktok, and Airbnb). we also brought on Steven Bartlett as an investor and partner. but here's what matters more than the money: we cracked voice input. not transcription - actual understanding. our users hit "send" in under 0.5 seconds without checking. they trust it blindly. that's never existed before. in a recent benchmark, Wispr came out as 3-4x more accurate than OpenAI, ElevenLabs, and Siri. and we're just getting started. voice input was step one. now we're building the assistant that actually does things for you. to my co-founder Sahaj Garg - there's no one else I'd rather build Jarvis with than my college roommate and closest friend. to our team pulling all-nighters and shipping magic - you're the reason that 10-year-old kid's dream is becoming real. we're hiring cracked engineers and growth marketers who want to build the future of human-computer interaction. the keyboard had a good 150-year run. time to build what comes next. PS: like, retweet, and bookmark to get wispr flow for free for 3 months ❤️ — Written with Wispr Flow

we just raised another $25M after 10x'ing our ARR in 5 months. the crazy part is this almost never happened. 17 years ago, I watched Iron Man as a 10-year-old kid in Delhi. that night, I pulled my first all-nighter teaching myself to code. not because I wanted to build apps or make money. because I wanted to build Jarvis. my parents gave me 1 hour of screen time per day. so I coded in secret, sleeping every alternate night through middle school and high school. built 50+ apps. got a cease and desist from Google at age 12. all for this one obsession: making computers understand us like humans do. fast forward to today: - we've raised $81M total to build the voice operating system - growing revenue 40% month-over-month this year - 70% user retention after one year (unheard of in consumer) - teams at 270 of the Fortune 500 use Wispr Flow daily our Series A2 was led by Hans Tung at Notable Capital (who was an early investor in five companies that made it to $100B valuation like Slack, Tiktok, and Airbnb). we also brought on Steven Bartlett as an investor and partner. but here's what matters more than the money: we cracked voice input. not transcription - actual understanding. our users hit "send" in under 0.5 seconds without checking. they trust it blindly. that's never existed before. in a recent benchmark, Wispr came out as 3-4x more accurate than OpenAI, ElevenLabs, and Siri. and we're just getting started. voice input was step one. now we're building the assistant that actually does things for you. to my co-founder Sahaj Garg - there's no one else I'd rather build Jarvis with than my college roommate and closest friend. to our team pulling all-nighters and shipping magic - you're the reason that 10-year-old kid's dream is becoming real. we're hiring cracked engineers and growth marketers who want to build the future of human-computer interaction. the keyboard had a good 150-year run. time to build what comes next. PS: like, retweet, and bookmark to get wispr flow for free for 3 months ❤️ — Written with Wispr Flow

Tanay Kothari

905,662 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

U-Net by hand ✍️ ~ 17 steps walkthrough below I consider U-Net as a key milestone in deep learning, the first image-to-image model that really worked! It came out of medical imaging, an unusual place, not from NeurIPS or CVPR or ACL. Now it is the backbone of diffusion models, which you see in almost all modern image generation models. I drew the network as a C so the matrix multiplication flows naturally down. Tilt your head to the right and it is a U again. 🤣 Goal: push a 3 x 16 image down to a 2 x 4 bottleneck and back out again, filling in every cell yourself. = 1. Given = An image of three channels, R, G and B, sixteen pixels wide, and every kernel the network will use. = 2. Convolution 1 = Let us slide the first kernel over the image. Each output is one multiply-and-add over a 2 x 3 window, and the result is the green feature map. = 3. Find the maxima = We circle the largest value in each 1 x 2 window. Circling first is worth the extra step: it is the pooling decision, made before anything is written down. = 4. Max pool 1 = Let us copy those maxima down. Sixteen columns become eight, and half the detail is gone for good. = 5. Convolution 2 = We convolve again with the second kernel, deeper into the contracting path. The feature map is blue now. = 6. Find the maxima again = Same move as step 3, on the blue map. = 7. Max pool 2 = Eight columns become four. = 8. The bottleneck = Let us convolve once more. This is the bottom of the U, a 2 x 4 block that is everything the network kept. = 9. Spread it out = We start back up. The transposed convolution writes each bottleneck value into a wider grid, leaving gaps between them. = 10. Transposed convolution 1 = Let us fill those gaps by convolving over the spread-out grid. Four columns become eight. = 11. The first skip = We copy the encoder's matching row straight across. This is the skip connection, and it is the whole reason a U-Net can recover detail that pooling threw away. = 12. Convolution with the skip = Let us convolve the upsampled features together with the copied ones. = 13. Spread it out again = Same as step 9, one level up. = 14. Transposed convolution 2 = Eight columns become sixteen, back to the width we started at. = 15. The second skip = The encoder's first feature map comes across, the one made before any pooling happened. = 16. Convolution and ReLU = We convolve, then cross out every negative and set it to zero. = 17. Output convolution = Let us apply the last kernel. Out comes R', G' and B', an image the same size as the one we started with. The outputs: R' = [3, 0, 7, 0, 7, 0, 17, 0, 3, 0, 9, 0, 2, 0, 6, 0] G' = [1, 20, 1, 10, 1, 12, 1, 19, 2, 5, 1, 11, 1, 3, 1, 7] B' = [4, 20, 8, 10, 8, 12, 18, 19, 5, 5, 10, 11, 3, 3, 7, 7] Congrats! You just calculated a U-Net by hand. 💾 Save this post!

U-Net by hand ✍️ ~ 17 steps walkthrough below I consider U-Net as a key milestone in deep learning, the first image-to-image model that really worked! It came out of medical imaging, an unusual place, not from NeurIPS or CVPR or ACL. Now it is the backbone of diffusion models, which you see in almost all modern image generation models. I drew the network as a C so the matrix multiplication flows naturally down. Tilt your head to the right and it is a U again. 🤣 Goal: push a 3 x 16 image down to a 2 x 4 bottleneck and back out again, filling in every cell yourself. = 1. Given = An image of three channels, R, G and B, sixteen pixels wide, and every kernel the network will use. = 2. Convolution 1 = Let us slide the first kernel over the image. Each output is one multiply-and-add over a 2 x 3 window, and the result is the green feature map. = 3. Find the maxima = We circle the largest value in each 1 x 2 window. Circling first is worth the extra step: it is the pooling decision, made before anything is written down. = 4. Max pool 1 = Let us copy those maxima down. Sixteen columns become eight, and half the detail is gone for good. = 5. Convolution 2 = We convolve again with the second kernel, deeper into the contracting path. The feature map is blue now. = 6. Find the maxima again = Same move as step 3, on the blue map. = 7. Max pool 2 = Eight columns become four. = 8. The bottleneck = Let us convolve once more. This is the bottom of the U, a 2 x 4 block that is everything the network kept. = 9. Spread it out = We start back up. The transposed convolution writes each bottleneck value into a wider grid, leaving gaps between them. = 10. Transposed convolution 1 = Let us fill those gaps by convolving over the spread-out grid. Four columns become eight. = 11. The first skip = We copy the encoder's matching row straight across. This is the skip connection, and it is the whole reason a U-Net can recover detail that pooling threw away. = 12. Convolution with the skip = Let us convolve the upsampled features together with the copied ones. = 13. Spread it out again = Same as step 9, one level up. = 14. Transposed convolution 2 = Eight columns become sixteen, back to the width we started at. = 15. The second skip = The encoder's first feature map comes across, the one made before any pooling happened. = 16. Convolution and ReLU = We convolve, then cross out every negative and set it to zero. = 17. Output convolution = Let us apply the last kernel. Out comes R', G' and B', an image the same size as the one we started with. The outputs: R' = [3, 0, 7, 0, 7, 0, 17, 0, 3, 0, 9, 0, 2, 0, 6, 0] G' = [1, 20, 1, 10, 1, 12, 1, 19, 2, 5, 1, 11, 1, 3, 1, 7] B' = [4, 20, 8, 10, 8, 12, 18, 19, 5, 5, 10, 11, 3, 3, 7, 7] Congrats! You just calculated a U-Net by hand. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

17,510 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

ICYMI: 1000+ days in Langford — it can’t be a real place. Sept 22, 2022 — Langford Committee votes to recommend naming a new park after long-serving former Councillor Winnie Sifert. An election happens… Dec 5, 2022 — the new Langford Now council votes in favour of a proposal by Councillor Szpak to put the Sifert Park naming process on hold, pending a review of the park naming policy. There is no timeline given. They don’t ask for one. Perhaps they will regret not doing so. Time passes… Dec 4, 2023 — Winnie’s daughter Sandy Sifert asks the new council when the process will be done? Their family has waited nearly a year, which will turn out to be just the beginning of this saga. Jan 15, 2024 — Sifert asks why the minutes from December don’t include her asking about the delay in naming the park for her mom. She finds it suspicious that written records would be omitted on this issue. Time passes…. Aug 28, 2024 — “it’s almost been two whole years,” Sifert tells the meeting before being shut down yet again. Sept 3, 2024 — Sifert brings it up again and she is shut down again. Sept 23, 2024 — “let’s say no to Tiny Town and yes to Winnie’s Park,” Sifert says, before ending her call. Not giving up. Time passes… Dec 2, 2024 — “Why is a park not named for Winnie…” another resident asks before being shutdown by the mayor, three days before the two year anniversary of the park naming process being put on hold. Jan 13, 2025 — Hope remains. Sifert suggests Woodlands Park could be renamed Winnie Sifert Park, because both start with W. The mayor interjects. Feb 25, 2025 “It’s 26 months later and I’ve heard nothing,” Sifert tells a committee meeting, saying this issue should have been done right away after the Dec 2022 meeting where the process was started. Staff advises the issue hasn’t been forgotten and an update will be coming. March 3, 2025 Sifert reminds council yet again her family is still waiting. “Alright, that’s not what we’re talking about here,” the mayor tells her… “Whatever,” Sifert rebuts. Time passes… Next week, FINALLY this issue is on the agenda for Tuesday (see embedded tweet). #yyj

ICYMI: 1000+ days in Langford — it can’t be a real place. Sept 22, 2022 — Langford Committee votes to recommend naming a new park after long-serving former Councillor Winnie Sifert. An election happens… Dec 5, 2022 — the new Langford Now council votes in favour of a proposal by Councillor Szpak to put the Sifert Park naming process on hold, pending a review of the park naming policy. There is no timeline given. They don’t ask for one. Perhaps they will regret not doing so. Time passes… Dec 4, 2023 — Winnie’s daughter Sandy Sifert asks the new council when the process will be done? Their family has waited nearly a year, which will turn out to be just the beginning of this saga. Jan 15, 2024 — Sifert asks why the minutes from December don’t include her asking about the delay in naming the park for her mom. She finds it suspicious that written records would be omitted on this issue. Time passes…. Aug 28, 2024 — “it’s almost been two whole years,” Sifert tells the meeting before being shut down yet again. Sept 3, 2024 — Sifert brings it up again and she is shut down again. Sept 23, 2024 — “let’s say no to Tiny Town and yes to Winnie’s Park,” Sifert says, before ending her call. Not giving up. Time passes… Dec 2, 2024 — “Why is a park not named for Winnie…” another resident asks before being shutdown by the mayor, three days before the two year anniversary of the park naming process being put on hold. Jan 13, 2025 — Hope remains. Sifert suggests Woodlands Park could be renamed Winnie Sifert Park, because both start with W. The mayor interjects. Feb 25, 2025 “It’s 26 months later and I’ve heard nothing,” Sifert tells a committee meeting, saying this issue should have been done right away after the Dec 2022 meeting where the process was started. Staff advises the issue hasn’t been forgotten and an update will be coming. March 3, 2025 Sifert reminds council yet again her family is still waiting. “Alright, that’s not what we’re talking about here,” the mayor tells her… “Whatever,” Sifert rebuts. Time passes… Next week, FINALLY this issue is on the agenda for Tuesday (see embedded tweet). #yyj

Adam Stirling 11am-3pm Weekdays

12,002 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

If you are a SaaS founder, read this. I think I found the best way for you to use OpenClaw. You can literally turn your agent into Paul Graham telling you how to fix your SaaS. The insights I got from it are just insane. TLDR; 1. OpenClaw analyzes your Stripe 2. Tries your onboarding like your ICP 3. Gets Paul Graham's knowledge base 4. Gives you a full report to fix your SaaS 1 - Create a "read only" API on Stripe. Give it to your OpenClaw (or whatever agent you're using right now). Ask it to analyze the full data: - Pricing - Churn - Conversion - LTV - Trial to paid rate - Discount impact - Invoice patterns Ask it to really go deep. Not the surface level. Go into every corner. Check invoices, not only graphs. Look at cohort behavior month by month. Ask it to calculate your real MRR after discounts (not the vanity number Stripe shows you). When I did this, I found so many golden nuggets in my Stripe Data. And the feedbacks from my OpenClaw were already super valuable. But this is not enough. We need the whole context, not just Stripe. 2 - Ask your Agent to try your tool Give it a free coupon for your SaaS and ask it to sign up and follow the onboarding like your ICP (if you didn't yet, define it before you send it on your landing page). It will follow step by step, take screenshots, and tell you what's good, what's not and give you solutions. Ask it to push the feedback on Notion (so you can visualize it). This already will give you enough work for the next month. 3 - Turn your OpenClaw into YC Founder Paul Graham co-founded Y Combinator and invested in Stripe, Airbnb, Dropbox, Reddit. He's written 230 essays on startups over 20 years. It's basically the bible of building companies. Send this link to your OpenClaw and ask it to find anything that could apply to your SaaS and current problems you're facing: paulgraham[.]com/articles.html Your agent will read all of them and pull out what's relevant to YOUR situation. 4 - The cherry on the cake Now ask it to combine all the data it gathered so far: - Stripe analysis - Onboarding feedback - Paul Graham knowledge base And tell it to give you a full analysis and solution for your SaaS and push it to Notion. This is where it gets insane. I got a 9 section report with specific fixes ranked by impact. Not just "improve your onboarding". This took me one afternoon. Imagine how much it would have cost me to get these kind of feedback a few years ago?

If you are a SaaS founder, read this. I think I found the best way for you to use OpenClaw. You can literally turn your agent into Paul Graham telling you how to fix your SaaS. The insights I got from it are just insane. TLDR; 1. OpenClaw analyzes your Stripe 2. Tries your onboarding like your ICP 3. Gets Paul Graham's knowledge base 4. Gives you a full report to fix your SaaS 1 - Create a "read only" API on Stripe. Give it to your OpenClaw (or whatever agent you're using right now). Ask it to analyze the full data: - Pricing - Churn - Conversion - LTV - Trial to paid rate - Discount impact - Invoice patterns Ask it to really go deep. Not the surface level. Go into every corner. Check invoices, not only graphs. Look at cohort behavior month by month. Ask it to calculate your real MRR after discounts (not the vanity number Stripe shows you). When I did this, I found so many golden nuggets in my Stripe Data. And the feedbacks from my OpenClaw were already super valuable. But this is not enough. We need the whole context, not just Stripe. 2 - Ask your Agent to try your tool Give it a free coupon for your SaaS and ask it to sign up and follow the onboarding like your ICP (if you didn't yet, define it before you send it on your landing page). It will follow step by step, take screenshots, and tell you what's good, what's not and give you solutions. Ask it to push the feedback on Notion (so you can visualize it). This already will give you enough work for the next month. 3 - Turn your OpenClaw into YC Founder Paul Graham co-founded Y Combinator and invested in Stripe, Airbnb, Dropbox, Reddit. He's written 230 essays on startups over 20 years. It's basically the bible of building companies. Send this link to your OpenClaw and ask it to find anything that could apply to your SaaS and current problems you're facing: paulgraham[.]com/articles.html Your agent will read all of them and pull out what's relevant to YOUR situation. 4 - The cherry on the cake Now ask it to combine all the data it gathered so far: - Stripe analysis - Onboarding feedback - Paul Graham knowledge base And tell it to give you a full analysis and solution for your SaaS and push it to Notion. This is where it gets insane. I got a 9 section report with specific fixes ranked by impact. Not just "improve your onboarding". This took me one afternoon. Imagine how much it would have cost me to get these kind of feedback a few years ago?

Florian Darroman

14,684 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

UPDATE FROM COBB COUNTY, GA!!! 🎉 IT’S ZEUS’ FREEDOM RIDE 🎉 Zeus was a 10 year old senior dog whose story really broke our hearts. 💔 Apparently, his family moved out of their home and left him behind completely alone. He was found two weeks later and brought to the shelter. When Zeus first arrived, you could tell he was heartbroken. He barely wagged his tail, didn’t want to get out of bed, and just seemed so defeated by the world around him. Even when he started coming out with us volunteers, he stayed very quiet and withdrawn… 🥺 Then one incredibly sweet couple drove all the way from Chattanooga just to meet him… and the second they saw Zeus, they knew he was meant to be theirs. 🧡 When we brought Zeus into the office to get him dressed up for his big day, something about him already felt different. It was almost like he knew his life was about to change. The moment he saw his new parents sitting in the lobby, he immediately went right up to them like he had been waiting for them his entire life. 🥹 When they opened the car door, Zeus tried SO hard to climb in as fast as he could. We were all laughing through tears because although he’s an older senior boy, he was determined to make sure he wasn’t getting left behind again. And the second he got into that car, everything changed. That sad, quiet, heartbroken dog slowly disappeared right before our eyes. Zeus started smiling, rolling onto his back, asking for love, and soaking up every second of freedom. I truly believe he knew exactly what was happening 😭❤️ His new mom sat in the backseat beside him the whole drive home. She kissed him on the head, and Zeus looked back at all of us one last time… almost like he was saying thank you, and then laid down right next to Mom … His new family decided to rename him Worthy because they said he is worthy of love, and I truly do not think there could have been a more perfect name for him. It was such an honor to be part of your journey, Zeus. 💙 Thank you to this amazing couple for giving him the beautiful life he always deserved. Freedom looks so good on you, Worthy!! 😭🎉❤️

UPDATE FROM COBB COUNTY, GA!!! 🎉 IT’S ZEUS’ FREEDOM RIDE 🎉 Zeus was a 10 year old senior dog whose story really broke our hearts. 💔 Apparently, his family moved out of their home and left him behind completely alone. He was found two weeks later and brought to the shelter. When Zeus first arrived, you could tell he was heartbroken. He barely wagged his tail, didn’t want to get out of bed, and just seemed so defeated by the world around him. Even when he started coming out with us volunteers, he stayed very quiet and withdrawn… 🥺 Then one incredibly sweet couple drove all the way from Chattanooga just to meet him… and the second they saw Zeus, they knew he was meant to be theirs. 🧡 When we brought Zeus into the office to get him dressed up for his big day, something about him already felt different. It was almost like he knew his life was about to change. The moment he saw his new parents sitting in the lobby, he immediately went right up to them like he had been waiting for them his entire life. 🥹 When they opened the car door, Zeus tried SO hard to climb in as fast as he could. We were all laughing through tears because although he’s an older senior boy, he was determined to make sure he wasn’t getting left behind again. And the second he got into that car, everything changed. That sad, quiet, heartbroken dog slowly disappeared right before our eyes. Zeus started smiling, rolling onto his back, asking for love, and soaking up every second of freedom. I truly believe he knew exactly what was happening 😭❤️ His new mom sat in the backseat beside him the whole drive home. She kissed him on the head, and Zeus looked back at all of us one last time… almost like he was saying thank you, and then laid down right next to Mom … His new family decided to rename him Worthy because they said he is worthy of love, and I truly do not think there could have been a more perfect name for him. It was such an honor to be part of your journey, Zeus. 💙 Thank you to this amazing couple for giving him the beautiful life he always deserved. Freedom looks so good on you, Worthy!! 😭🎉❤️

Fionaismybitch

51,930 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

You have heard of Atlantis, the island civilization that vanished beneath the sea. What you may not know is that Plato gave a precise date for when it sank, and that modern science has found a real event that happened at almost exactly that moment. First, it is worth remembering what Plato actually wrote. We tend to treat Atlantis as a myth he invented. But in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written around 360 BC, Plato does not present it as a fable or an allegory at all... The story, he says, had been carried to Athens by the great lawgiver Solon, who had traveled to Egypt and heard it from the priests of the city of Sais, keepers of records far older than Greece. One old priest tells Solon: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you." The Greeks, he says, have forgotten their own past, while the Egyptians had written it down. And the priest gives a specific timeframe. The war between the Proto-Athenians and Atlantis, he says, took place 9,000 years before Solon's visit. Then, in Plato's words: "there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune... the island of Atlantis disappeared in the depths of the sea." Nine thousand years before Solon places the event at roughly 11,600 years ago. And here is where it becomes strange... That date, 11,600 years ago, is almost exactly when one of the most dramatic climate transitions in the recent history of the planet came to an end. Geologists call it the Younger Dryas: a period when the Earth, already warming out of the last Ice Age, suddenly plunged back into near-glacial cold for more than a thousand years. According to modern science, that cold period ended around 11,600 years ago, and it ended abruptly. The warming returned with great speed, and the great ice sheets resumed melting. That melting is the part that matters here. Some scientists have identified a phase of rapid sea-level rise at the close of the Younger Dryas, beginning around 11,500 years ago, known as Meltwater Pulse 1B. The studies that support it describe sea levels surging upward as the ice sheets collapsed, drowning coastlines that had stood for thousands of years. Plato's date for the sinking of Atlantis, in other words, falls almost exactly on the moment when modern science says the oceans may have risen suddenly and swallowed land at the end of the Ice Age. I want to be careful and honest here: none of this proves that Atlantis was real. Most scholars believe Plato invented the story to illustrate his ideas about pride and the fall of great civilizations, and they may well be right. But the coincidence is hard to shake. A philosopher in the fourth century BC, insisting he was recording true history passed down from a people who kept ancient records, said that a great land was destroyed by floods roughly 11,600 years ago. And thousands of years later, with ice cores and radiocarbon dating, we discovered that the last Ice Age really did end at almost exactly that moment, in melting ice and rising seas. Plato could not have known any of this. He had no way to date the end of the Ice Age, no way to know that the oceans had once risen and erased the old coastlines of the world. And yet the moment he chose, for the drowning of his lost civilization, is the same moment the seas truly rose. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Or perhaps the Egyptians, as the priest told Solon, simply remembered something the rest of us forgot. Maybe we really are a species with amnesia... I started this newsletter because our past is extraordinary, and fewer and fewer people are showing us how to truly see it. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join at the link below, and if you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible: Thanks for reading.

You have heard of Atlantis, the island civilization that vanished beneath the sea. What you may not know is that Plato gave a precise date for when it sank, and that modern science has found a real event that happened at almost exactly that moment. First, it is worth remembering what Plato actually wrote. We tend to treat Atlantis as a myth he invented. But in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written around 360 BC, Plato does not present it as a fable or an allegory at all... The story, he says, had been carried to Athens by the great lawgiver Solon, who had traveled to Egypt and heard it from the priests of the city of Sais, keepers of records far older than Greece. One old priest tells Solon: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you." The Greeks, he says, have forgotten their own past, while the Egyptians had written it down. And the priest gives a specific timeframe. The war between the Proto-Athenians and Atlantis, he says, took place 9,000 years before Solon's visit. Then, in Plato's words: "there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune... the island of Atlantis disappeared in the depths of the sea." Nine thousand years before Solon places the event at roughly 11,600 years ago. And here is where it becomes strange... That date, 11,600 years ago, is almost exactly when one of the most dramatic climate transitions in the recent history of the planet came to an end. Geologists call it the Younger Dryas: a period when the Earth, already warming out of the last Ice Age, suddenly plunged back into near-glacial cold for more than a thousand years. According to modern science, that cold period ended around 11,600 years ago, and it ended abruptly. The warming returned with great speed, and the great ice sheets resumed melting. That melting is the part that matters here. Some scientists have identified a phase of rapid sea-level rise at the close of the Younger Dryas, beginning around 11,500 years ago, known as Meltwater Pulse 1B. The studies that support it describe sea levels surging upward as the ice sheets collapsed, drowning coastlines that had stood for thousands of years. Plato's date for the sinking of Atlantis, in other words, falls almost exactly on the moment when modern science says the oceans may have risen suddenly and swallowed land at the end of the Ice Age. I want to be careful and honest here: none of this proves that Atlantis was real. Most scholars believe Plato invented the story to illustrate his ideas about pride and the fall of great civilizations, and they may well be right. But the coincidence is hard to shake. A philosopher in the fourth century BC, insisting he was recording true history passed down from a people who kept ancient records, said that a great land was destroyed by floods roughly 11,600 years ago. And thousands of years later, with ice cores and radiocarbon dating, we discovered that the last Ice Age really did end at almost exactly that moment, in melting ice and rising seas. Plato could not have known any of this. He had no way to date the end of the Ice Age, no way to know that the oceans had once risen and erased the old coastlines of the world. And yet the moment he chose, for the drowning of his lost civilization, is the same moment the seas truly rose. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Or perhaps the Egyptians, as the priest told Solon, simply remembered something the rest of us forgot. Maybe we really are a species with amnesia... I started this newsletter because our past is extraordinary, and fewer and fewer people are showing us how to truly see it. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join at the link below, and if you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible: Thanks for reading.

James Lucas

39,911 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Launchers and Missiles When I talk about how complicated it is to face a country that has been stockpiling missiles for more than two decades, many people always ask about the launchers because both the IDF and CENTCOM have always reported that they had destroyed a large part of the Iranian launchers. Which is complete nonsense. Iran has been manufacturing launchers of various sizes for 35 years. Look around you and imagine a country manufacturing and stockpiling something for 35 years. Just in cruise and ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, Iran currently manufactures around 10-12 models, with the first one commissioned almost 30 years ago. Today North Korea manufactures thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles per year, in an industry much smaller than Iran’s and completely state-owned. The Iranians, on the other hand, have an entire network of public and private companies, with various startups forming a vast ecosystem connected to universities and other research centers. It has been many years of manufacturing and stockpiling missiles for so many people to come saying nonsense like the Iranian missiles or launchers are running out. It reminds me of that Western mathematician who used to curse the Russian missiles, which still haven’t run out to this day. Returning to the launchers, the most intriguing part is that when we check with the specialists - like elmustek-, who collect visual evidence from this war, we see that only about 30 launchers have been destroyed to date with visual confirmation. But if that were really a problem, Iran could simply operate from its silos. The West has mapped around 25 Iranian bases that have 4-6 silos each. If 25 have been mapped, I’d say the real number could be between 50-100, which would give a total of 200-600 silos. Some of these silos use the revolver system, meaning one missile is launched, the drum rotates and already puts the next one in launch position. These revolver systems normally hold about 8 missiles each. I believe Iran has not yet entered the phase of massively using its silos, mainly because it doesn’t want satellites to map all of these bases. At least I don’t see Iran reducing launches due to a lack of launchers. But I assume they are focused on reducing the number of drones over their territory before increasing the launches. Israeli and American surveillance is of excellent quality, and the Iranians know it. In fact, these are the great weapons of these two countries. By the way, this is a very important point in this war. Intelligence and analysis are trampled when there is impulsiveness, but the battlefield delivers the bill sooner or later.

Launchers and Missiles When I talk about how complicated it is to face a country that has been stockpiling missiles for more than two decades, many people always ask about the launchers because both the IDF and CENTCOM have always reported that they had destroyed a large part of the Iranian launchers. Which is complete nonsense. Iran has been manufacturing launchers of various sizes for 35 years. Look around you and imagine a country manufacturing and stockpiling something for 35 years. Just in cruise and ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, Iran currently manufactures around 10-12 models, with the first one commissioned almost 30 years ago. Today North Korea manufactures thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles per year, in an industry much smaller than Iran’s and completely state-owned. The Iranians, on the other hand, have an entire network of public and private companies, with various startups forming a vast ecosystem connected to universities and other research centers. It has been many years of manufacturing and stockpiling missiles for so many people to come saying nonsense like the Iranian missiles or launchers are running out. It reminds me of that Western mathematician who used to curse the Russian missiles, which still haven’t run out to this day. Returning to the launchers, the most intriguing part is that when we check with the specialists - like elmustek-, who collect visual evidence from this war, we see that only about 30 launchers have been destroyed to date with visual confirmation. But if that were really a problem, Iran could simply operate from its silos. The West has mapped around 25 Iranian bases that have 4-6 silos each. If 25 have been mapped, I’d say the real number could be between 50-100, which would give a total of 200-600 silos. Some of these silos use the revolver system, meaning one missile is launched, the drum rotates and already puts the next one in launch position. These revolver systems normally hold about 8 missiles each. I believe Iran has not yet entered the phase of massively using its silos, mainly because it doesn’t want satellites to map all of these bases. At least I don’t see Iran reducing launches due to a lack of launchers. But I assume they are focused on reducing the number of drones over their territory before increasing the launches. Israeli and American surveillance is of excellent quality, and the Iranians know it. In fact, these are the great weapons of these two countries. By the way, this is a very important point in this war. Intelligence and analysis are trampled when there is impulsiveness, but the battlefield delivers the bill sooner or later.

Patricia Marins

322,325 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten