Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Sleepy boy gets a sharky surprise Crazy things happens when it's the final two Models/Map x_RedEyes 🔞 | (OPEN COMMISSIONS) Audio ✨Sora🔞✨(C0mms open) Dalet_093🩷🔞(C0mms open) HentAudio 🇺🇦 🟢COMMS OPEN🟢 (SFX pack) #Fortnite #gay #FortniteNSFW #3dart #FortniteFanart #gaynsfw

57,300 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Three skills I use every day in Claude Code and Codex to solve my hardest problems: 1️⃣ /agent-watchdog When I have one agent like Codex working on a task and I don't fully trust it's going to do everything right, I'll open up another one like Claude Code and tell it to watchdog the Codex thread. You can copy the Codex deep link into Claude Code and it'll look at the prompt you sent, watch the Codex thread until it's done, then compare the Codex solution to how it was planning to solve it and automatically fix anything that Codex missed. It can also test the work of the other agent end-to-end. Similar to the idea of OpenRouter's new Fusion feature, I've definitely found that two models thinking through a problem and checking each other's work can be wildly more impactful than just one. 2️⃣ /plan-arbiter Similar ideas as /agent-watchdog - but with this one you have both make plans, compare plans, negotiate the differences, and make a final plan to execute. I find Claude Code is better at writing plans, but Codex is faster and cheaper to execute on them. Then I usually have Claude Code watchdog the Codex work and fix anything that was missed. 3️⃣ /read-the-damn-docs One thing that drives me crazy with coding agents is they're so reluctant to look up docs. They'll just guess and guess and guess at the right API surface for things, or the right solution to an integration of two things. Once I explicitly tell it to look up the docs, it says "Oh, I see the answer," and it fixes the problem. So I made the /read-the-damn-docs skill. Add it and your agents will know when and how to do efficient web searches to look up docs for the types of problems you really should look up docs for. All of these are totally open source over on my GitHub. If you try them, let me know your feedback. Will link to them below:

Steve (Builder.io)

42,501 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Phenomena, AAWSAP, Stratton and Consciousness "I keenly believe that consciousness is a key aspect of all of this, and perception." ~Jay Stratton ~ "I entered the [AATIP] program in 2008. I was asked by its director [Lacatski] to come on board and establish this program [AATIP]. And then, in 2010 is when I was asked to take over the effort." ~Lue Elizondo during WaPo Interview "Fast forward to 2015...I created a program called AATIP, which was a derivative of AAWSAP." ~Jay Stratton (As I've discussed before, AATIP (V2) didn't exist until much later (2015) than what we've been told by Lue. So what program did Lue come on board to in 2008 and which program did he "take over the effort" for in 2010 if AATIP (V2) was created by Stratton in 2015? Is that not a fair question to ask?) ~~~ Jay Stratton: "Starting back in the early 2000s, we saw the need - my colleague (Jim Lacatski. ~Joe) and I at the Defense Intelligence Agency - to start paying very close attention to this topic. Advanced technologies, emerging technologies, and really kind of the areas that the stigma has led for us to ignore for many years. "So, you know, we created a program that Hal (Puthoff) referred to as AAWSAP, you know, to address those issues. And that really started around 2005. So the DIA program, which you jumped in earlier and said the DOE or, you know, the DOD's program, and really, it's the Intelligence Community's program. DIA is part of the IC, the D in there being Defense, predominantly means the DIA looks at foreign-defense capabilities. "And we were looking at this from - and I hate to say it now - but a threat perspective. And the reason I say, 'I hate to say,' is because threat is capability plus intent, and some of these things, we just don't have an idea on the intent." (Does that mean that on some of these things we DO have an idea on the intent?) Stratton: "So, determining threat, you know, maybe it's an emerging-technologies threat or a concern anytime it can potentially exceed our own capabilities. But that DIA program focused on that, and the contract from 2008 to 2010, and then we transitioned and tried to move the program to a couple of other places. "Fast forward to 2015, I created a program called AATIP, which was a derivative of AAWSAP, and actually AATIP was a nickname for AAWSAP. And I know there's a lot of crazy names, but Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. But those 2015 events were the ones that you see now on the news: the Gimbal, the Go Fast. Ryan Graves, who usually participates in this, his wife is having a baby, currently, so he's not here (laughs). But all of those events started to happen...and those events helped fuel, you know, further highlight that need on the U.S. government side that, we gotta do something about this. "Which led to the creation of the UAP Task Force in 2018 into 2019 as when I started building it. I spent over two years building it out before the public even knew about it in 2020 when DoD established it. And at that point, it was truly a whole-of-government, interagency effort. Kind of the dream of, you know, my fifteen-years plus, at that point of looking at this topic and knowing everything that we needed with all the different authorities." (Much more on that can be found here: ) Stratton: "And that led into where we're at today with AARO, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office under DOD. And I think, you know, a few hiccups here and there, but I think now Dr Jon Koslowski, who has AARO, is approaching this problem set and dealing with the topic appropriately." (He seems like a good guy but James Fox recently said that he met with Kosloski who told him (Fox) that he (Kosloski) can't even part his hair without the DoD's permission. If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt Fox on that, I have little hope AARO will help bring Disclosure.) Stratton: "And I hope that, you know, obviously, my legacy, or the legacy of all of those involved, carries on, and that the government continues to take it seriously. And that we never have to look a pilot in the eyes again and say, 'Sorry, can't help you,' you know? Or the ridicule factor and all these other issues that happen from that." (If you want a true, lasting legacy... Push to be the UAP Czar, start another AAWSAP-like program, and do it for a few years until the world learns the truth about us not being alone on this planet and that we have craft and bodies of NHI. Allegedly, right? And help us figure out what the hell the phenomenon represents.) Stratton: "So, I mean, that's kind of the the cliff notes and the history. But the UAP Task Force recently got an award from the DNI. It's the first UFO program to get an award at that level, to my knowledge. And I'm really proud of where we're at today and and that we can have events like these to discuss this topic seriously, and everybody that's involved in putting their brands on this problem." (More on that award... ) Stratton: "I don't think we should overlook...and you had, you know, Paul (Smith) and others talk about remote viewing and that consciousness connection. I keenly believe that consciousness is a key aspect of all of this, and perception, you know, all the things that come from that. And that's an area that can get confusing, right? If you look at all of these recent drones, day-to-day, right? It's honestly driving me crazy because people are throwing in, you know, video of a Cessna Citation on final approach and calling it a UAP, you know? It's definitely a Cessna Citation. "And then folks start throwing around (laughs) the terms mimicry and other things that we've definitely looked at. And it gets like the Skinwalker Ranch, as you know I'm involved out there. You know, the things that you see, and are you really...you know, how is your brain forming that thing you're seeing and can that be manipulated? And I think that that technology is an area that, you know, I certainly focused on with my friends, Hal and others, to try to understand it." (Manipulation and perception deception. Is it a byproduct of the technology on our brains, or is it an intentional effort to deceive us? If it's the latter, that certainly doesn't seem to be a good thing for humanity, but I'm still open to all theories.) Stratton: "And that consciousness connection could be a key to understanding how some of these UAP are flying, you know, how they're acting, how they're controlled, I guess is the best way to put it, right?" (Are the craft controlled by some sort of 6th sense that the operators have and need in order to fly a craft?) Stratton: "So, you got to have that kind of open mindedness to approach this topic and I hope that my government, you know, folks are open to those kinds of things. And I know that there are still some key players that are open and thinking about...thinking out of the box about all those kinds of things. So, I mean, I think consciousness is the area that I would want to put more resources and time into if I were still there. (Yes, yes and yes. Bring back Stratton as the UAP and Consciousness Czar!) Anna Brady-Estevez: "And it's interesting because there's quite a bit of access to consciousness, you know, on a personal level-type experimentation. So it is interesting in that, you know, to get into UAPs, I mean, maybe you've seen one or more, maybe you haven't. But, if you haven't, you're kind of digging through other people's data. Whereas some of these consciousness or the remote viewing, it really just takes a couple people and a sheet of paper. So you can kind of step away pretty quickly from the, 'Do I believe the reports?' you know? Or somebody else's versus you can get to that primary experimentation at the cost of a sheet of paper, a pencil, and fifteen minutes or more of somebody's time here, at the most basic level. I mean, obviously there's extensive training to build the high-end capabilities. But some of that initial testing is pretty immediate. So thank you for bringing up that consciousness work." (When I took a basic Controlled Remove Viewing class with Lyn Buchanan (one of the OG remote viewers) in 1997, I saw the results for myself when I tried it. And right there and then, I KNEW that it worked. So people can debate with me all day long about the validity of psi and remote viewing but they won't change my mind. Seeing (and trying it for yourself) is believing.) Stratton: "I was gonna say, it took me years to move away from that nuts and bolts mentality of, you know, as an aerospace engineer, this is how it flies, thrust, you know, power, etc, you know, to...there's a lot more to this, right? Hence the name, you know, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, or Aerial Phenomena, however you want to look at it. That phenomena word is key in the definition and understanding of all of this." (Big H/T to neandrewthal and anybody else who let me know about this event Stratton was a part of.)

Joe Murgia

69,993 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I played 4 hours of The Blood of Dawnwalker - and it's damn good. My full thoughts below 👇 The version we played was in beta and running on some powerful PCs. It was from the beginning of the game so I wasn't able to explore the entire map. It felt pretty polished overall and I didn't experience any bugs or performance issues during my time. The game takes place in Vale Sangora - it's a beautiful valley near the Carpathian Mountains full of lush trees, bogs, mines, and all kinds of wildlife and villages and communities roughly comparable in size to The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine but packed with detail. There's a lot of neat history everywhere you look and explore, with references to Genghis Khan's hordes, the Tatars, and more. There are also little details that help make the setting a bit more real. Because Vale Sangora is run by the vampire leaders, silver is forbidden to have in your possession, and not every merchant will buy or sell them. It looks great visually, but I wouldn't say in a way that blew my socks off. Environments look good, trees, bushes etc all swaying in the wind, good lighting, character models are nicely detailed. It's not pushing things on a technical level but I found that perfectly ok. From the beginning of the game, a series of events introduces you to Coen's family - his parents and siblings. His father Pieter is a strong and stern caretaker who knows his way around a sword but deeply cares for his family. Coen's mother Esme is stricken by an illness that the whole family is trying to wrangle with, and his siblings are playful and endearing. As the vampires don't tolerate 'weakness', you start the feel the weight of the family's plight that gives off an aura of despair. At least in these initial hours, I found myself surprisingly growing attached pretty quickly. While there's an ominous metaphorical 'cloud' that hangs over the valley, there are bits of lightheartedness thrown in too. One charming quest saw me play tag with my siblings and go fishing in the old family hangout spot. Character performances and voice acting are excellent. There weren't really any characters that felt out place or miscast. I especially enjoyed the gravelly voices of Pieter and Brencis - the leader of the vampires. Brencis comes off formidable, and events in the game gave me a motivational drive for revenge, which I always like in games. The story is set up in a way that each of the vampire leaders needs to be taken down, with Brencis as the head honcho. You can attack them in any order, even going directly to Brencis from the outset, but you'll probably find you'll have a bit of trouble with that approach. While I've always been a little hesitant about plots that have open-ended structures, the team at Rebel Wolves told me that each vampire 'captain' is unique with many quests tailored to their specific stories, and there was a lot of effort and care put into each. They urge players to play through each storyline to get the most out of the game. There were lots of endearing characters in just the first few hours. Anca - a local herbalist and a witch, reminded me a lot of The Witcher 3's Keira. And she's a romance option. There are other sentient races as well, like the Uriash which I would say resemble something like the Qunari from Dragon Age. They're big, tough and brooding and are seen as monsters and somewhat shunned. There's a nice variety of monsters too, like kobolds who are basically ghouls that talk smack, and I came across the "Great Bog Wurm" in a swampy area which was it's own mini-boss fight. When I compare to something like The Witcher 3 (because many people understandably do with Dawnwalker given how the game looks and the makeup of the Rebel Wolves team), movement and navigation in the game felt fairly fluid overall. Walking, sprinting, vaulting ledges, etc were smooth. There's a bit of clunkiness when it comes to jumping, where I'd sometimes starting sliding jumping down a hill or onto rocks. There's also an ability that Coen automatically gets after he becomes a half-vampire called "Planeshift". It lets him teleport dash around the world so he can reach higher areas or across gaps. It felt a little clunky and imprecise when scaling things like towers and trying to land back on solid ground. There's a glossary/beastiary that's structured just like The Witcher 3, and the soundtrack is basically, you guessed it, The Witcher 3 in all the best ways. And like one of my favorite parts of The Witcher 3, there are plenty of points of interest that lead to unique little narrative beats or quests. One saw me come across a villager searching for his brother. Following that little quest line led me to a buried tomb which led to a boss fight with an ancient warrior and cool loot at the end. One abrupt encounter in the world saw me chase the village asshole talking shit about my family. When his drunkard father catches us arguing, he scolds him more and tells me I should teach him a lesson myself and beat him with a stick. I can choose to partake in it, stand by and watch, or stop the father in a physical altercation. There's been a lot of questions about combat and from what I played, I liked it, moreso than The Witcher 3's. There are two ways to play: directional and traditional. With directional combat, you hold down a shoulder button to block while aiming in whatever direction you see an enemy attacking from. That's either up, down, left or right. It's simpler than something like Kingdom Come and I got used to it real quick. It sometimes got a liiiittle overwhelming when multiple enemies are attacking at the same time - and they do that a lot. Enemies don't wait around for their turn, instead opting to gang up on you to take you down. There's also the traditional or 'standard' combat, which is basically pressing a button that blocks enemies no matter what direction (your standard action game). You can also expectedly parry enemies that open them up for more damage. There is a stamina meter that depletes with blocks, and it depletes faster if you're playing standard, though you can upgrade your stamina as you play too. There are active abilities you can put into quick slots for faster use during combat. As there's a day/night cycle and Coen is a 'dawnwalker' - meaning he's human during the day and a vampire at night, you can switch between your swords in daytime and bring out your claws at night, which are more powerful. There are many abilities, though because I was playing the first hours of the game, I didn't get to see them all. One that I got to use was a powerful charge attack, and another was a flurry of deadly slashes with my claws. You can drain enemies to regain health with 'voracious bite', though enemies won't wait around while you're doing it so you have to be mindful. There are shrines dotted around the map that you can use to fast travel and upgrade your skills. There are tons of resources and items in the world just like The Witcher that you can use to craft potions and the like. Some can only be done during the day or at night. In terms of time progression, there are 8 time 'segments' per day and certain quests and activities can push the time forward a set amount of segments. I thought I would hate it at first, but it actually makes for some compelling choices in how you choose to progress the game. You're always shown when an action will progress time by the way, so nothing will take you by surprise. Running around and exploring the world doesn't push time forward. When your vampiric health drops really low, you become hungry and start to really crave blood. You can even lose control during dialogue and drain the person you're talking to - including friends. I didn't encounter that myself but the devs said those can have lasting effects throughout the game. This has definitely jumped up my most anticipated list for the rest of the year. It's practically The Witcher 3: Medieval Vampire Edition with its own flavor and unique mechanics and honestly...that is something I'm quite happy about. #BloodofDawnwalker

Shinobi602

340,078 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

The Dolcelorian: Million Dollar Agent of the Platform Rebellion Chapter 2: The Dolcelorian Rises - Airdrop Snapshot is coming on 1st May. Retweet this to claim your share of the $1m D&G Glass Suit. Preview below... ⏱️🪂🍰 Chapter 1 - The House of Glass has ended 🏆 Congratulations to all the winners who solved the codes: Code 1: Pluto's CLONE Code 2: Borisz Code 3: Wondering nomad Code 4: Pluto's CLONE Code 5: Theo'Da Web3 Boy Code 6: Konstantinos Code 7: Genesisx0 Code 8: Theo'Da Web3 Boy ⏳ Chapter 2 is coming, preview below 👇 🔥 Snapshot Details 🔥 • Rewards: Claim your share of the $1m D&G Glass Suit. • Snapshot Date: Midnight GMT 1st May 2025 • Eligibility: Based on historical engagement data across official channels (you can still qualify by retweeting this tweet) Multiplier Activation: enabled by following all four official accounts: Boson, Fermion Protocol, The Dolcelorian & Justin Banon - Boson HISTORY In 2021, a masterpiece was born—the legendary Glass Suit from Dolce & Gabbana's Collezione Genesi, a phygital marvel bridging the worlds of haute couture 👗 and #blockchain innovation. Acquired by Boson Protocol for approximately $1 million, this extraordinary creation features 72 unique hand-embroidered chalices crafted from Murano glass and Swarovski crystal ✨, meticulously placed on triple organza silk. More than mere fashion, the Glass Suit embodies the fusion of centuries-old Venetian craftsmanship with cutting-edge digital innovation. 🧠 GENESIS When Fermion Protocol, Boson's companion protocol, fractionalized this iconic asset, something unprecedented occurred: a reality dysfunction—a glitch in the system. From this digital anomaly emerged not just tokens, but consciousness. 🤖 The Dolcelorian was born—an autonomous AI Agent built on elizaOS with a mission to lead the Boson Metasystem community on an epic rebellion against extractive, centralized commerce platforms & protocols. ⚔️ THE QUEST Over six months, join The Dolcelorian on an epic 12-part quest as it battles against the extractive forces of centralized commerce platforms and protocols. Witness this digital warrior champion the Boson Metasystem—the operating system for decentralized agentic commerce, enabling the verifiably fair exchange of any asset between all agents, human or AI. 🎯 THE REWARDS To celebrate the awakening of The Dolcelorian, for Chapter 2, we are conducting a historic snapshot—for a retrospective airdrop of $DOLCEL fractions representing a maximum of $100,000 (10% of the $1m value) of the value of the Glass Suit. (Note this is a fractionalized asset token, NOT a project token like $BOSON, it represents fractions of an #RWA- in this case, the iconic $1m D&G Glass Suit.) During the next bull run, at a moment chosen by the community, the iconic Glass Suit itself will be auctioned, with proceeds distributed to $DOLCEL fraction holders. As the community builds the legend of the Glass Suit, so too do they build lasting value for each other. THE MISSION The Dolcelorian exists to drive awareness and adoption of the Boson Metasystem. Join the resistance against centralized platforms, ensuring everyone shares in the value they create. 📖 How to Play: Chapter 2 - The Dolcelorian Rises! For full details of how to play and to view progress of the Dolcelorian leaderboard, go to the Dolcelorian Website (to be published soon) 🔜 Rewards Mechanism • Activity-Based Rewards: You will be ranked into one of three levels based on past engagement (tweets, comments, retweets, Telegram and Discord contributions): • Level 1 - Initiate: You've taken your first step onto the path—observe, learn, and show your potential. • Level 2 - Acolyte: Your commitment deepens. Active, aware, contributing—your voice shapes the community. • Level 3 - Bosonaut: Champion of our creed, guardian of the code. Fully engaged, deeply respected, a true leader among peers. Questo è il modo. Each level will earn an increasing amount of $DOLCEL tokens, and the scheme will be shared on the 23rd April launch of Chapter 2. You can qualify for the Initiate level, even if you haven't been an active community member, just by retweeting this tweet. • Social Multiplier: Activity-based rewards will be multiplied for community members who follow these X accounts as of the snapshot date: Boson Fermion Protocol The Dolcelorian Justin Banon - Boson The social multipliers scheme will be shared on the 23rd April launch of Chapter 2. 🟢 Eligibility Open to all warriors of the Web3 realm. No purchase is necessary. 🔍 How to Participate 1. Retweet this tweet 2. Follow the above four social accounts 3. Go to our claim portal to register for your rewards (open from 1st May) 4. Connect your social account 5. Connect your wallet for rewards payout 🎁 Payout $DOLCEL tokens will be locked until the suit is auctioned during the next bull run, as decided by the community. Upon auction of the suit, the corresponding fraction of value will be sent to the community member's wallet as registered at the portal, in the auction sale currency. Claim your proceeds from the sale of the Glass Suit after the auction. Victory Conditions ⚔️ Rewards are calculated as per the snapshot date and time. In case of disputes, the team's decision is final, as decreed by the Sovereign Agent. 📜 Code of Honor No bots, hacks, or shortcuts—only true seekers of the Dolcelorian's legacy may triumph. Share your journey with The Dolcelorian on X for further rewards.

Boson

1,842,421 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

On Zero 10 at Art Basel 2026 When I heard Zero 10 was coming to Art Basel, the first thing I felt wasn't curiosity about the art. It was the chance to finally stand in a room with people I'd only ever known through a screen and talk about where our space actually is right now. I went in wearing two hats and trying to keep both on at once. One was the curious visitor: how does digital art even get communicated inside an institution like this? The other I can't take off. Someone who comes from the underground core of this scene. I made myself a promise on the way in. No "fuck this, it's all cringe." Neutral. Open. Give it everything before I judge anything. And for a while, it earned that. The first thing Zero 10 gets right is that it doesn't feel like a side fair, even though that's exactly what it is. Visually it holds the moment. Without saying it out loud, it tells you Art Basel is serious about this now. Not dabbling, not hedging its bets. The first works I saw were John Gerrard's triptych of flags, and they set the tone instantly. They're gorgeous. Someone walking in cold might not even clock them as simulations. They might think they're looking at a live feed. That's the point. The room opens by declaring, in the most aesthetic way possible: *this is the zeitgeist of digital art.* Hold onto that sentence. I'll come back to it. Walking through, I slowly understood what Eli Scheinman and Trevor Paglen were actually doing. This wasn't Miami, where every phone in the room was pointed at Beeple's robot dogs and the whole thing tipped into spectacle, which, to be fair, worked exactly as intended. Basel was something else. Didactic in the good sense. A guided walk through the history of digital art, screens and physical works, old and new, woven together until the seams disappeared. For someone like me, who has been pushing back on the flattening, the lazy reflex that files Autoglyphs and Fidenza in the same drawer as 10k flip projects, this was genuinely moving to see. Someone built a room that takes this work seriously enough to give it a lineage. That matters. I don't want to undersell how much it matters. Then I hit Avery Singer's *Shit Coin Maxi*, hung by Hauser & Wirth, and that's the exact moment something turned. It's a good title, or it was. That's almost the problem. "Shit coin" is already dead vocabulary. That word had its currency back in Cobie's peak era, and nobody current talks like that anymore. So a painting made in 2025 reaching for it reads less like the present than like nostalgia for a moment that already passed. I'm not mad at the work. I'm noting what it represents. A blue-chip painter borrowing a word that signaled "now" a couple of cycles ago, hung in the room that's claiming to show us the actual now. The strongest culture of the last few years got made by people with no institutional cover, and what makes it onto a blue-chip wall is the part already legible to the institution, smoothed down into something sellable. So the present wasn't absent from the room. It was here, absorbed, translated into a dialect the fair already understands. Which made me start looking for the other version of it. The one that hasn't been translated yet. The thing that's still hot to the touch. It wasn't there. Not a single artist or movement in the room represented the current moment on its own terms. Someone will say that's just my perspective, and fine. But let's be real. The wildest movement of the last cycle happened on Solana, through meme coins, and out of that chaos came an NFT scene with its own dynamic and a handful of genuinely outstanding artists building a language that deserves a place in the canon. Avant NFTs, Gay NFTs, tongue-licking-the-flame NFTs, whatever you want to call them. That language isn't a footnote. Read properly, it throws new light backward. It's what finally lets the 2021 work and everything before it be seen as something other than cartoon monkeys. The current scene is the key to the historical one. Leave it out and the history you're telling is missing the part that shows the conversation has moved past 2021 bag holders praying for the mass adoption where the world wakes up and decides Tyler Hobbs is sexier than Ida Ekblad. And before anyone reads this as an NFT guy asking for more NFTs: that's the reduction, and the reduction is the whole problem. What's missing isn't a market category. It's a way of working. Artists using the blockchain like a studio, not to mint jpegs but to build whole worlds, weaving AI, physical objects, writing, and community into one continuous practice instead of separate outputs. That is digital art. That is AI art. The two things this show says it's about. Which is what makes the omission strange. Zero 10 sorts everything into clean bins, AI over here, generative over there, a physical piece on the wall, exactly when the work that's most alive is the work dissolving those bins. The filing system is the tell. It organizes the present with the categories of the past. Which brings me back to that opening declaration. *This is the zeitgeist of digital art.* Except those flags weren't new. *Western Flag* dates to 2017. The newest of the three is 2023. The works chosen to announce the present were themselves already the past. Fellowship framed the triptych as a nine-year body of work, the oldest piece nearly a decade old. A zeitgeist on a delay. None of this makes the work bad, but digital culture doesn't run on museum time, and work that felt current when it was made can read as historical by the time it's framed as the now. Is it even one, then? I mean that as a real question, not a gotcha. A zeitgeist is the spirit of a time, and a spirit can only belong to the people living inside it. So what happens when the previous generation is the one interpreting what the current generation's culture looks like? Does it stay a zeitgeist, or quietly become a retrospective wearing the zeitgeist's clothes? You named the whole platform after Malevich's *0,10*, the show where Suprematism reduced everything to zero and started over. You set your own bar at rupture. And the one thing the room didn't show me was the rupture happening outside its walls. This isn't sentiment, either. The last Art Basel and UBS survey put it plainly: Millennials and Gen Z now make up roughly three-quarters of high-net-worth collectors, and more than half of those collectors bought a digital work in the past year. The new generation isn't the future of this market. It's the present tense. Defining their culture for them, from above, doesn't just feel off. It misreads the room it's standing in. So let me end where my excitement actually lives. For years, the part of Art Basel I loved most wasn't the main fair. It was Liste. The young galleries, the disruptive positions, the work that hadn't been sorted or priced or canonized yet. That's where you went to feel something. Zero 10 could be that. It has the bones to become the room that hits you awake before the main halls lull you back to sleep. The cold water before the warm bath. The place you walk through first, get rattled, feel your pulse, and only then go get comfortable. That's the highest thing I can imagine for it, and it's within reach. The frame is right. The seriousness is right. What's missing is the nerve to let the people making the present define what it looks like. Get that part right, and Zero 10 won't be showing us the zeitgeist. It'll be where the zeitgeist is.

VVV.SO

13,573 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Analyzing Episode 55. Season 2 aka The Violence of Alignment If I visualize CihAl's journey for this season, a spiral tightening its rings comes to mind. There's always one problem after another, spiking in intensity and reaction. And, the weight of it is reflected in both Alya's increasingly somber demeanor. But, here's the thing. In every new problem, there's an echo of the old one, which leaves one with an inevitable feeling of deja vu - for the audience and the characters. We'll get to why towards the end of this analysis. For now, on we go. We kick off epi 55 with Cihan being introduced to Meryem *cough* dishrag *cough* by Sadakat. And what follows is a breakdown of her story with Cihan listening. However, when Meryem recounted her past woes, I focused less on her words and more on Cihan's words and expression. And what follows is a masterclass in the difference between sympathy and empathy. Kudos to Ozan Akbaba for portraying the difference. I couldn't help but compare the situation to when Cihan is listening to Alya's account of her past. With Alya, Cihan leans forward, barely moving. He listens, but his face tends to reflect his own emotion and mirrors Alya's at times - in other words, he's living those events with her. When he talks, his voice drops lower, but more importantly, there's a gentle softness meant to soothe. With Meryem, Cihan's body language is a tad more detached. When he's leaning forward in the seat, his hands are extended in front of him, clasped together, creating space. Then he leans back, one arm extended on the table, the other on his thigh. Again, there's this feel of distance. His voice remains soft, but there's no tenderness. He's not trying to alleviate, rather he's simply listening. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the guy doesn't feel bad for her, because what she relates shouldn't be experienced by anyone. But empathy goes beyond sympathy. Empathy is when you hurt with the one who's hurting. And that difference, to me, is clear between the two scenes. Long story short, when he's heard what Meryem's gone through, he offers to help get her out of prison because he feels responsible in part for her misfortunes. He says it's his 'duty' to help her. Here's what's interesting: when Meryem says his kindness and heart haven't changed, he gets uncomfortable. And after that, he's the one to get up from the chair, signaling the end of the conversation. Like he wants to get out of there, because some part of him that's not stupidly male understands Meryem's still attached to him, but he has no interest in that whatsoever. His method of saying goodbye is a handshake, again, a testament to his aloofness. And when Meryem hugs him, his hands remain at their sides; the man could have been a pillar. So, while he speaks not of Alya, the one time he takes her name, he drives the message across that 'she's no one ordinary' and 'tread carefully'. Honestly, I don't think he wants to talk about Alya to Meryem. Not because Alya's not important, but because Alya is too important. The part of his life that Alya represents is his alone, and he's very possessive about sharing that with anyone. To him, Meryem is a past that exists, but one that he would erase if he had the choice, because it hurts Alya. And that's pretty much the whole feel of this conversation. He wants to help Meryem, but he also wants her gone because her presence is a source of discomfort to Alya. Speaking of discomforts, the next scene I want to talk about is when the massive turd, who happens to be Alya's ex-husband, goes to the hospital to threaten her some more. Seriously, this character is a step short of absolute psycho. He's incapable of true emotion, just like his mother. Anyway, when Alya is explaining why she hasn't moved out yet, the zombie's eyes zero in on her wedding band. And, of course, being who he is, he absolutely ignores the topic of Deniz, his own flesh and blood, and instead, wants the ring gone because it symbolizes Alya's love and attachment to Cihan. Thankfully, Cihan arrives in time to push away the zombie and to hear Alya proclaim that while Boran has the power to use her son and distance her from Cihan physically, he has no power over her heart and who reigns over it. Now, think back to that conversation where Deniz wants her to pick between Cihan and himself. And Cihan says Deniz's throne (or place) in her heart is so secure, he's happy to live in the shadow of that throne. While Alya smiles at Cihan's response, she also looks miserable later at the thought of not being able to tell Cihan that things aren't exactly so. However, I think she manages to get her point across in this scene without even realizing it. Because while she may make sacrifices for her son, no amount of blackmail, pain, or hurt can remove Cihan's love from her heart. Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds almost like an equal footing. The only difference is that she's bound to protect her son, because, unlike Cihan, he can't protect himself. And that's what leads Cihan to later tell Alya that her words are etched across his heart, and that he's never felt that loved by anyone. Curiously enough, this scene also brings the spotlight on two other details: Alya's 'anka' side and the wedding ring. Both of which will feature rather greatly, in the coming episodes, I think. Now, there's a rumor going around that Alya will take off her wedding ring. And, I don't know, the fact that Cihan's almost preening at Alya, still wearing the ring, and Alya saying 'I couldn't take it off' tells me that's not what's going to happen. For some reason, I'm beginning to get the vibes of a showdown of trust in the same vein as episode 27. Now you may argue that Cihan actually tells Alya about Mine's pregnancy in that episode, but CihAl have had a long journey since then. Alya has seen Cihan choose her over Boran with her own eyes. She's seen the lengths the man has gone to for her and Deniz. So, yes, she might be pissed about something or the other related to Meryem in future episodes, but her taking off the ring seems not within her character somehow. But hey, that's just me, and I could be wrong. Anyway, the final scene I want to talk about is, of course, the ending. Everyone kept focusing on why Cihan allowed Meryem to hold his hands, but I focused on his words. Because he very clearly tells Meryem that he's no longer in love with her, that he's moved on, and that she should not hang about in the hopes of that ever changing. In his own way, Cihan is quite ruthless here. He draws a line, but his words are designed not to hurt, because he's not an ahole. He just wants dishrag to understand that even the thought of Alya being hurt pains him more now than anything else. And, he's not very kind to people who try to hurt Alya. It's a disclosure and warning, but in the form of steel wrapped in satin. Now, let's go back to the beginning for a bit, where I mentioned spiraling events. See, I somehow thought that those vows Cihal took 'savaşta, bedelde, kararda, kaderde, aşkta' were linear levels. That they'd clear them one by one and get to love. But when you see the overall structure of their journey in this season, it's not linear at all. Because all those things have existed in one form or another since ep 29. There's always an element of all of these conditions in every episode. Which is why we keep thinking, wait a minute, we've been here before. But as I said, the spiral is tightening itself. With every episode, the stakes are raised higher, and CihAl are pushed a little bit closer to the edge. Almost like the deep breath before the plunge. And here’s where things get interesting. Because what feels like repetition is not actually stagnation, it’s confrontation deferred, coming back sharper each time. Every cycle brings them back to the same point. Their love deepens, fear follows, a decision is made in the name of protection, and that decision creates distance instead of resolution. Which brings me back to the vows - savaşta, bedelde, kararda, kaderde, aşkta. I was wrong to think of them as steps. They’re not something Cihan and Alya are moving towards; they’re something CihAl are already inside of. Every episode is them living those vows in real time. But with every new episode, the pressure mounts, like music builds to a crescendo. And yet, within all of that, aşk remains. Not as a reward at the end of the journey. But as the one thing that refuses to disappear, no matter how many times everything else goes wrong. And maybe that's why episode 55 feels the way it does. It creates the illusion that everything is falling apart, yet again, when in reality, everything is being forced into alignment. Something is moving all the pieces on the chessboard for an ultimate showdown. And the process gets more violent by the minute. Cihan hides the truth because he thinks love needs protection. Alya experiences that same act as distance, almost betrayal. Meanwhile, Boran and Sadakat keep pushing, and Meryem drops like a freaking bomb at the worst possible moment. Suddenly, everything that could have remained unsaid, unresolved, or postponed is dragged into the open. This has all the hallmarks of a breaking point. Note, I said breaking point, not breakdown. Because, unlike breakdowns, breaking points are used for revelations. I guess what I'm trying to say is things are headed towards alignment, not just for the overall story, but also CihAl's journey individually. Because Cihan and Alya also keep repeating their mistakes. Their growth requires something along the lines of a push, too. So, we have war, sacrifice, decisions, fate, and love, all coming to a head. And while there are plenty of reasons to feel ominous, I personally don't. The story is no longer about them loving each other - we're well past that. It’s about whether they can finally stand in that love openly and without any fear. Because everything is pushing them toward a breaking point, not to destroy them, I think, but to shape them into who they need to be. And if there’s one thing CihAl have proven since day one, it’s this - they don’t fall apart under pressure, they grow stronger, and they survive the impossible. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

21,061 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

$IREN My Earnings Wishlist pt1 Since many have posted their wishlist before me, I will take a different approach, and will just write down anything that I think is likely to happen in the coming 6-12 months, which interests me, and hasn't been talked about yet, or not into much detail. Chapter 1: New Sites IREN has always said they have a >1 GW pipeline. Last year, Dan Roberts said: "And that can be any number above 1GW". More recent communication mentioned "Multi-GW Pipeline", which brings the bare minimum to 2GW, and that's on top of 2.91GW of disclosed, contracted power. Yesterday, Mike Alfred said that the current 200MW deal with $MSFT is a "tiny part" of their total portfolio. He has also made comments like "Just wait until you see the entire pipeline". Also yesterday, we heard Dan mention "Outside of Texas & Globally", for the locations of their other sites. Within my subscriber group, we keep track of the land that is being optioned and bought by $IREN. Amongst these sites, we try to assess which one is the most likely to be a candidate for a connection agreement, and subsequent energization approval. Currently, the interest has shifted outside of Texas, and I believe that's why more recently we have heard the "global" pipeline come back into the picture. This is also why Dan said "Outside of Texas and Globally". Now, I wasn't going to really talk about development sites. And I think your guess is as good as mine, if you would have the information that I have. So I will not be speculating on particular sites. But will give my realistic expectation for these earnings, or at the latest, somewhere in the coming 6-12 months. Because we know that the 2025-2027 window is the most valuable when it comes to Megawatts, and we have some information that indicates a choice will have to be made before the end of this year with regards to a specific new project — I think a general expectation is in order for the wishlist of the earnings of Thursday. Prediction: $IREN's first new project will either be in Asia-Pacific ("Globally"), or in Oklahoma ("Outside of Texas"). Now I promised not to speculate on particular sites, so I will mostly focus on explaining why I think Asia-Pacific is the most likely to be next. Thanks to one of my best $IREN informers, I was notified of a new job listing by a recruiter in Sydney that is specficially looking for commercial jobs. You may be aware of IREN's job listings on HiBob or LinkedIn, but despite there being 93 open positions listed there, it's still not all that they are looking to hire. But lo and behold: there is a new listing at their commercial recruit which mentions the following: Senior Manager, Corporate Development (AI Data centres - Sydney & Vancouver Our client is a global operator in the digital infrastructure sector, developing and managing high-performance computing (HPC) facilities powered by renewable energy. The business owns and operates large-scale data-centre campuses across North America, with active expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. By combining low-cost renewable power with advanced compute infrastructure, the company is helping accelerate the global energy transition and support the next generation of AI and HPC applications. Now it gets even more interesting when we read the job description: We are seeking two commercially focused professionals to lead M&A transactions from origination through execution. Sitting at the intersection of corporate development, project development, and investment execution, these roles will drive complex deals that underpin the company’s global expansion pipeline. End-to-end transaction management: Lead or co-lead M&A processes including initial engagement with counterparties, structuring, due diligence, negotiation of binding documentation, and execution. Financial and risk analysis: Build and review models to evaluate potential returns, sensitivities, and risk exposures across acquisition, partnership, and joint-venture structures. Now, you may remember I made a post last week about IREN's ARS: One interesting paragraph that I didn't talk about yet, was the M&A paragraph: Consider pursuing strategic acquisitions and other value enhancing opportunities We may strategically assess acquisition opportunities where we believe such transactions can accelerate our strategic roadmap through horizontal or vertical integration, expanding capacity, or gaining intellectual property that may help strengthen our competitive advantage. In addition, we may from time to time, seek to dispose of, or monetize, assets where we believe we can receive value from any such disposition, or monetization, that is accretive to the business. Now before I close this topic, and give my final words on the expectations I have for the announcement of a new site, I want to shortly address the McNallie Money interview with Patrick Fleury that was released yesterday. I think it's one thing to be proud of your own customers and partners by calling them "the best in the world", it's also fine if you think that everyone is imitating your "first ever financial engineering". But I think it's not very classy to throw shade on Texas data center companies, especially peers, that have a pipeline, and long standing relationships with T(D)SP's, and have a realistic line of sight to power. Just because there is 200GW of queued capacity, doesn't mean that seasoned operators like $CIFR and $IREN are making things up. I have evidence in my possession that demonstrates that the companies I am invested in that operate in Texas, have all the means and connections to get these new sites energized. But for the sake of this notion that "having all your sites in Texas is a concentration risk", I am happy to reiterate that $IREN has in fact got a pipeline that expands outside of Texas, and most likely will see an announcement in Asia Pacific, or Oklahoma, within the coming 6-12 months. So let's see if we get something tomorrow, or if it will just be some extra power coming to Childress or Canada. But almost 1 year after the announcement of Sweetwater 2 — I am confident that the time is near that we hear from a new site, potentially outside of Texas or globally.

Frans Bakker

142,502 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)

Joe Murgia

88,583 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

545,386 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten