正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

The EU just passed Chat Control today. Here's what it is, what happened, and why 2.0 is the one that actually matters. What is Chat Control? a regulation that lets online platforms scan private messages for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Framed as child protection. critics call it mass...

T3chFalcon's profile picture

IT Guy

43,053 subscribers

29,430 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🇪🇺‼️🚨 EU - SURVEILLANCE PARADISE: 1) Cars sold in the EU will require a camera that scans the driver’s face to determine if they are distracted. 2) Chat Control is being pushed through. It would allow the EU to scan all private chat messages of citizens. 3) Age verification, which requires users to prove their age with a selfie and ID, is also about to be implemented. No citizens voted for this, the elites are simply imposing it on the public. → Ironically, Ursula von der Leyen is famous for deleting her texts with Pfizer during a major vaccine procurement scandal… As always, such regulations come with staggering hypocrisy.
0:15

🇪🇺‼️🚨 EU - SURVEILLANCE PARADISE: 1) Cars sold in the EU will require a camera that scans the driver’s face to determine if they are distracted. 2) Chat Control is being pushed through. It would allow the EU to scan all private chat messages of citizens. 3) Age verification, which requires users to prove their age with a selfie and ID, is also about to be implemented. No citizens voted for this, the elites are simply imposing it on the public. → Ironically, Ursula von der Leyen is famous for deleting her texts with Pfizer during a major vaccine procurement scandal… As always, such regulations come with staggering hypocrisy.

Lord Bebo

396,409 次观看 • 2 个月前

About Siri AI and EU: 1. Your data (gallery, messages, email, call logs, notes, files, and much more) is indexed for personal context, and that info is stored on your iPhone. 2. When you use Siri AI, the request is either handled on-device or in cloud using PCC. It’s never stored or logged on Apple’s servers. Apple does not have access to it. Now, according to Apple, here’s what EU wants: “According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control. That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app.” What EU is asking is scary dangerous. And apparently they have rejected all the solutions proposed by Apple. And, as hinted by Joz, “We will NOT compromise on privacy and security”, Apple is likely not going to give up, so EU users are likely not going to get Siri AI anytime soon.
0:11

About Siri AI and EU: 1. Your data (gallery, messages, email, call logs, notes, files, and much more) is indexed for personal context, and that info is stored on your iPhone. 2. When you use Siri AI, the request is either handled on-device or in cloud using PCC. It’s never stored or logged on Apple’s servers. Apple does not have access to it. Now, according to Apple, here’s what EU wants: “According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control. That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app.” What EU is asking is scary dangerous. And apparently they have rejected all the solutions proposed by Apple. And, as hinted by Joz, “We will NOT compromise on privacy and security”, Apple is likely not going to give up, so EU users are likely not going to get Siri AI anytime soon.

Adan

104,031 次观看 • 3 个月前

As of this morning, every brand-new Car sold in Europe is mandated by law to watch its “driver”, and the reason to worry is the opposite of what everyone is screaming about. The camera is not filming your face. The law explicitly bans that. It rather tracks your eyes. The danger is not what it does today. It is what it is now physically positioned to do tomorrow. This became binding across all 27 countries today, the 7th of July 2026, and no member state can opt out, because road safety is an EU competence and EU law overrides national law. Every new car and van, roughly 18 million of them a year, must now carry an infrared camera, usually on the steering column, that follows the driver's gaze. Look away too long, six seconds under 50 kilometers an hour, three and a half above it, and the car warns you with a sound, a light, or a buzz in the seat. The stated reason is real. Distraction causes up to 30 percent of crashes, and the Commission projects the wider safety package will save 25,000 lives by 2038. The outrage dissolves on contact with the actual text. The law actually fully forbids facial recognition and any biometric identification of anyone in the car, and the footage is legally barred from leaving the vehicle. No recording, no transmission, no police feed. As written today, this is a safety beeper, not a spy. But look at what already sits beside it. Think about it.. come on!! Europe's cars already run always-on systems that do transmit, the automatic crash caller that dials emergency services, the black-box event recorder, and over-the-air software that rewrites the car remotely overnight. The sensor was just made universal. The wall keeping it private is a single legal paragraph, and the same law already schedules its own review for 2027 to read cognitive state and body movement, while suppliers openly sell using the identical mandated camera to watch the passengers too. So this is the quiet architecture of every threshold. The permanent thing is physical, a camera now bolted into 18 million dashboards a year. The thing protecting you is a mere sentence, and sentences are the easiest part of any system to revise. Europe hardwired the eye. It left what the eye may see as the one part that can still be changed later. Hmm 🤨
0:10

As of this morning, every brand-new Car sold in Europe is mandated by law to watch its “driver”, and the reason to worry is the opposite of what everyone is screaming about. The camera is not filming your face. The law explicitly bans that. It rather tracks your eyes. The danger is not what it does today. It is what it is now physically positioned to do tomorrow. This became binding across all 27 countries today, the 7th of July 2026, and no member state can opt out, because road safety is an EU competence and EU law overrides national law. Every new car and van, roughly 18 million of them a year, must now carry an infrared camera, usually on the steering column, that follows the driver's gaze. Look away too long, six seconds under 50 kilometers an hour, three and a half above it, and the car warns you with a sound, a light, or a buzz in the seat. The stated reason is real. Distraction causes up to 30 percent of crashes, and the Commission projects the wider safety package will save 25,000 lives by 2038. The outrage dissolves on contact with the actual text. The law actually fully forbids facial recognition and any biometric identification of anyone in the car, and the footage is legally barred from leaving the vehicle. No recording, no transmission, no police feed. As written today, this is a safety beeper, not a spy. But look at what already sits beside it. Think about it.. come on!! Europe's cars already run always-on systems that do transmit, the automatic crash caller that dials emergency services, the black-box event recorder, and over-the-air software that rewrites the car remotely overnight. The sensor was just made universal. The wall keeping it private is a single legal paragraph, and the same law already schedules its own review for 2027 to read cognitive state and body movement, while suppliers openly sell using the identical mandated camera to watch the passengers too. So this is the quiet architecture of every threshold. The permanent thing is physical, a camera now bolted into 18 million dashboards a year. The thing protecting you is a mere sentence, and sentences are the easiest part of any system to revise. Europe hardwired the eye. It left what the eye may see as the one part that can still be changed later. Hmm 🤨

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

650,426 次观看 • 2 个月前

You don't understand... Higgsfield MCP + Claude just automated AI film making. Every single step you used to grind through to make an AI movie, you can now do 10x faster. Drop the script into Claude Opus 4.8 and say: "Here's my script. Break it into a full shotlist. Shot number, scene, shot type, camera move and the action in each frame." Now the whole film is mapped, shot by shot. - Pull your assets. Ask Claude: "From this shotlist, list every character, every location and every prop across the whole film." That's your build list. The stuff you would need to generate and give as references in next steps. - Build the character sheets. Higgsfield MCP is connected, so Claude has hands now to do stuff directly. It generates the images itself. Have the full body, back view and close up in the character sheet. One per character. Each sheet becomes the locked reference for that face. Same move for locations, generate the empty plate for each one before anyone steps into it. - Generate the frames. Feed Claude the references plus the shot and have it write and fire the Seedance 2.0 prompt. "Using the lead's character sheet and the alley plate, generate shot 4 in Seedance 2.0. Low angle, slow push-in, rain." Claude builds the prompt, calls Seedance 2.0 and the frame lands back in chat. Use a Seedance 2.0 skill to teach Claude how to prompt it properly. Now, there are 3 ways to make the shots. Pick one per scene. - Pure prompting. Fastest one. You describe the action in words and let Seedance interpret it. For consistency across a sequence, feed it a frame from the previous shot so the look carries. - Storyboarding. You hand it a panel and it matches that composition exactly. Way more control over how the shot is framed. The tradeoff is that it can introduce more cuts than you actually want. - Path Control System This is the latest technique Seedance 2.0 technique. Generate a still base plate of the scene. Draw a red line across it to mark the exact path of the movement, then describe what's happening. Seedance follows that line for the action. Also ask Claude to remove the red line when animating. This is the one for anything where motion has to land precisely. The output reads like real live action. - Lastly, generate every clip you need, then cut them together. Get it to Capcut for editing and audio design. And that's it. The pipeline that used to need a full crew and a studio can now run from one Claude chat. 2026 is gonna be wild
0:14

You don't understand... Higgsfield MCP + Claude just automated AI film making. Every single step you used to grind through to make an AI movie, you can now do 10x faster. Drop the script into Claude Opus 4.8 and say: "Here's my script. Break it into a full shotlist. Shot number, scene, shot type, camera move and the action in each frame." Now the whole film is mapped, shot by shot. - Pull your assets. Ask Claude: "From this shotlist, list every character, every location and every prop across the whole film." That's your build list. The stuff you would need to generate and give as references in next steps. - Build the character sheets. Higgsfield MCP is connected, so Claude has hands now to do stuff directly. It generates the images itself. Have the full body, back view and close up in the character sheet. One per character. Each sheet becomes the locked reference for that face. Same move for locations, generate the empty plate for each one before anyone steps into it. - Generate the frames. Feed Claude the references plus the shot and have it write and fire the Seedance 2.0 prompt. "Using the lead's character sheet and the alley plate, generate shot 4 in Seedance 2.0. Low angle, slow push-in, rain." Claude builds the prompt, calls Seedance 2.0 and the frame lands back in chat. Use a Seedance 2.0 skill to teach Claude how to prompt it properly. Now, there are 3 ways to make the shots. Pick one per scene. - Pure prompting. Fastest one. You describe the action in words and let Seedance interpret it. For consistency across a sequence, feed it a frame from the previous shot so the look carries. - Storyboarding. You hand it a panel and it matches that composition exactly. Way more control over how the shot is framed. The tradeoff is that it can introduce more cuts than you actually want. - Path Control System This is the latest technique Seedance 2.0 technique. Generate a still base plate of the scene. Draw a red line across it to mark the exact path of the movement, then describe what's happening. Seedance follows that line for the action. Also ask Claude to remove the red line when animating. This is the one for anything where motion has to land precisely. The output reads like real live action. - Lastly, generate every clip you need, then cut them together. Get it to Capcut for editing and audio design. And that's it. The pipeline that used to need a full crew and a studio can now run from one Claude chat. 2026 is gonna be wild

Rez Karim

10,951 次观看 • 3 个月前

The largest theft in history has already happened. The people behind it just cannot open what they stole yet. Right now, intelligence agencies and criminal groups are quietly copying the world's encrypted data, bank records, medical files, state secrets, private messages, and storing every byte untouched. They cannot read any of it. They are collecting it anyway, because they know the key is about to be invented. The strategy has a name, harvest now, decrypt later, and in 2026 it stopped being theory. Washington declared this the Year of Quantum Security in January, backed by the FBI, the NSA, and NIST. Canada ordered every federal agency to file a migration plan by April. Europe set its deadline for December. Governments do not impose operational deadlines on a someday problem. They do it when the clock is already running. Here is what moved the clock. Every password, every transfer, every secret on Earth is protected by one assumption, that a certain math problem is too hard to solve. Quantum computers solve exactly that problem. For years the machine that could do it looked decades away. Then in late 2025 Google's Willow chip cracked the hardest part of building one, and in March 2026 Google's own researchers estimated that breaking the encryption behind Bitcoin might take fewer than 500,000 qubits, down from 20 million, and could run in minutes. The day this becomes real has a name, Q-Day, and the latest estimates place it between 2030 and 2033. Now make it concrete. Roughly 6.5 million Bitcoin, about a third of every coin that will ever exist, worth close to 500 billion dollars, sit in addresses that have already exposed the very key a quantum computer needs. That includes the coins of Satoshi, the anonymous creator. On Q-Day they become, in the researchers' own word, trivially stealable. It would not look like a crash or a whale selling. It would look like half a trillion dollars of the most secure money ever built simply walking out the door. The asset designed to trust no one and no institution turns out to rest on a single unverified bet, that one math problem stays hard forever. This is what sits beneath the entire digital world. A bank balance, a Bitcoin, a classified cable, all of it is real only because of a proof you supposedly cannot forge. Quantum breaks the proof. Everything we call secure is true only until someone finally checks, and for the first time the check is visible on the horizon. You cannot know whether your data has already been copied. You cannot know the exact day the key arrives. The trust holding up the digital age is a clock counting down to a zero no one can see. The honest counter matters. No machine on Earth can break this encryption today, and serious cryptographers still argue the real threat is a decade or more away. The timeline is far from certain. Quantum-safe codes already exist, the migration has started, and Bitcoin can move its coins to safety before Q-Day if it acts in time. The danger is not that everything breaks tomorrow. It is that anything which must stay secret into the 2030s, a state secret, an identity, a private key, is being stolen today and is already on the clock. The breach is not coming. It is already here, sitting in storage, perfectly encrypted, waiting for a machine that does not exist yet to read it out loud. Research and opinion, not investment advice.
0:10

The largest theft in history has already happened. The people behind it just cannot open what they stole yet. Right now, intelligence agencies and criminal groups are quietly copying the world's encrypted data, bank records, medical files, state secrets, private messages, and storing every byte untouched. They cannot read any of it. They are collecting it anyway, because they know the key is about to be invented. The strategy has a name, harvest now, decrypt later, and in 2026 it stopped being theory. Washington declared this the Year of Quantum Security in January, backed by the FBI, the NSA, and NIST. Canada ordered every federal agency to file a migration plan by April. Europe set its deadline for December. Governments do not impose operational deadlines on a someday problem. They do it when the clock is already running. Here is what moved the clock. Every password, every transfer, every secret on Earth is protected by one assumption, that a certain math problem is too hard to solve. Quantum computers solve exactly that problem. For years the machine that could do it looked decades away. Then in late 2025 Google's Willow chip cracked the hardest part of building one, and in March 2026 Google's own researchers estimated that breaking the encryption behind Bitcoin might take fewer than 500,000 qubits, down from 20 million, and could run in minutes. The day this becomes real has a name, Q-Day, and the latest estimates place it between 2030 and 2033. Now make it concrete. Roughly 6.5 million Bitcoin, about a third of every coin that will ever exist, worth close to 500 billion dollars, sit in addresses that have already exposed the very key a quantum computer needs. That includes the coins of Satoshi, the anonymous creator. On Q-Day they become, in the researchers' own word, trivially stealable. It would not look like a crash or a whale selling. It would look like half a trillion dollars of the most secure money ever built simply walking out the door. The asset designed to trust no one and no institution turns out to rest on a single unverified bet, that one math problem stays hard forever. This is what sits beneath the entire digital world. A bank balance, a Bitcoin, a classified cable, all of it is real only because of a proof you supposedly cannot forge. Quantum breaks the proof. Everything we call secure is true only until someone finally checks, and for the first time the check is visible on the horizon. You cannot know whether your data has already been copied. You cannot know the exact day the key arrives. The trust holding up the digital age is a clock counting down to a zero no one can see. The honest counter matters. No machine on Earth can break this encryption today, and serious cryptographers still argue the real threat is a decade or more away. The timeline is far from certain. Quantum-safe codes already exist, the migration has started, and Bitcoin can move its coins to safety before Q-Day if it acts in time. The danger is not that everything breaks tomorrow. It is that anything which must stay secret into the 2030s, a state secret, an identity, a private key, is being stolen today and is already on the clock. The breach is not coming. It is already here, sitting in storage, perfectly encrypted, waiting for a machine that does not exist yet to read it out loud. Research and opinion, not investment advice.

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

185,548 次观看 • 2 个月前

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?
0:10

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?

SiriusB

444,121 次观看 • 5 个月前

clipping agencies rent offices now, $500,000 a year ten editors, a manager, a lease, and the only thing any of them is paid for is noticing noticing is 310 lines of python, and i gave it away it runs on Robinhood Chain, so the clip pays whoever cut it CUT never sees a single frame of the stream. it reads chat, because chat knows before the editor does, before the dashboard does, before the streamer does [what those 310 lines do] 1. measure the last 10 seconds against that stream's own 5 minute baseline 2. never a global number, a big channel idling still beats a small one peaking 3. count how many people just typed clip it 4. call the clip api in the same second, not after the room reacts that last one is the whole thing. a twitch clip only keeps the 90 seconds before you hit the button, so if you noticed the moment yourself, you already lost it no key to read chat. it cannot post for you. it runs on your machine, not mine one command replays three minutes of recorded chat offline and fires a real moment on your screen, so you can watch it work before you trust it
0:12

clipping agencies rent offices now, $500,000 a year ten editors, a manager, a lease, and the only thing any of them is paid for is noticing noticing is 310 lines of python, and i gave it away it runs on Robinhood Chain, so the clip pays whoever cut it CUT never sees a single frame of the stream. it reads chat, because chat knows before the editor does, before the dashboard does, before the streamer does [what those 310 lines do] 1. measure the last 10 seconds against that stream's own 5 minute baseline 2. never a global number, a big channel idling still beats a small one peaking 3. count how many people just typed clip it 4. call the clip api in the same second, not after the room reacts that last one is the whole thing. a twitch clip only keeps the 90 seconds before you hit the button, so if you noticed the moment yourself, you already lost it no key to read chat. it cannot post for you. it runs on your machine, not mine one command replays three minutes of recorded chat offline and fires a real moment on your screen, so you can watch it work before you trust it

Carver

265,825 次观看 • 12 天前

Announcing our manifesto, Lex et Libertas. The history of commerce is a history of The People writing their own rules. When a merchant in thirteenth-century Venice wanted to trade across the Mediterranean, he signed a commenda — a private contract that split the risk between an investor and the merchant who sailed, and held up wherever the ship made port. It was not issued by a king. No parliament approved it. Merchants wrote it because it was machinery for their economic freedom. This was the precursor to the modern corporation. This set of norms, jus gentium, grew out of how foreign traders actually dealt with one another, not out of a sovereign's decree. The merchant law was customary, portable, and enforced in the merchants' own courts. It still works that way, when we let it. In 2013 a startup accelerator, not a legislature, wrote the SAFE, and it now governs a huge share of how companies get funded. That is the spirit of merchant law. Yet despite all of this fantastic success, we’ve lost that spirit. The civilization that invented the corporation is now strangling it. The US Code of Federal Regulations ran 9,745 pages in 1950 and runs more than 190,000 today. The average large multinational holds 549 subsidiaries across 56 countries. The rules merchants once wrote for themselves now arrive from thousands of jurisdictions at once. It is impossible for it to be owned by anyone, and the price is paid after midnight by people no one is paying attention to. Lex et Libertas is our argument for the future we are building. It is the manifesto for my life’s work. The merchants built their own freedom technology. In dedication to these giants, we are building the only managed entity platform, enabling businesses to seamlessly operate across 100+ countries. 500+ firms including TRX, Remote, Exa AI, Seismic, and Composio have already joined us. As we enter into the agentic era, software will form the backbone of global industry. A new legal order will emerge to facilitate the future of commerce across our planet, and beyond. And Commenda is where it will be built. Jus agentium.
0:17

Announcing our manifesto, Lex et Libertas. The history of commerce is a history of The People writing their own rules. When a merchant in thirteenth-century Venice wanted to trade across the Mediterranean, he signed a commenda — a private contract that split the risk between an investor and the merchant who sailed, and held up wherever the ship made port. It was not issued by a king. No parliament approved it. Merchants wrote it because it was machinery for their economic freedom. This was the precursor to the modern corporation. This set of norms, jus gentium, grew out of how foreign traders actually dealt with one another, not out of a sovereign's decree. The merchant law was customary, portable, and enforced in the merchants' own courts. It still works that way, when we let it. In 2013 a startup accelerator, not a legislature, wrote the SAFE, and it now governs a huge share of how companies get funded. That is the spirit of merchant law. Yet despite all of this fantastic success, we’ve lost that spirit. The civilization that invented the corporation is now strangling it. The US Code of Federal Regulations ran 9,745 pages in 1950 and runs more than 190,000 today. The average large multinational holds 549 subsidiaries across 56 countries. The rules merchants once wrote for themselves now arrive from thousands of jurisdictions at once. It is impossible for it to be owned by anyone, and the price is paid after midnight by people no one is paying attention to. Lex et Libertas is our argument for the future we are building. It is the manifesto for my life’s work. The merchants built their own freedom technology. In dedication to these giants, we are building the only managed entity platform, enabling businesses to seamlessly operate across 100+ countries. 500+ firms including TRX, Remote, Exa AI, Seismic, and Composio have already joined us. As we enter into the agentic era, software will form the backbone of global industry. A new legal order will emerge to facilitate the future of commerce across our planet, and beyond. And Commenda is where it will be built. Jus agentium.

Spencer Schneier

13,457 次观看 • 2 个月前

TAKE A BREATH. TODAY WAS ROUGH. HERE IS WHAT IS STILL COMING. I know. It was a bad day. Barrett and Roberts handed the left a win on mail-in ballots that stings, and it is going to sting for a while. We are not going to pretend otherwise. But before you check out for the night, you need to know what is still coming, because some of the biggest decisions of this entire term have not dropped yet. And some of them could be very good for our side. Here is where things stand. Today the Court decided two major cases. On mail-in ballots, Barrett wrote the majority and sided with the liberals. Ballots postmarked by Election Day can be received days later and still count. Roberts went with her. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and mostly Kavanaugh dissented. It was a gut punch and we covered it in detail earlier. The other big decision today was actually a win. The Court upheld Trump's authority to fire Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. Trump called it one of the most important presidential power decisions ever handed down. He is not wrong. That one matters for executive authority in ways that will echo for years. Now here is what is still coming. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. This is the big one. Trump signed an executive order on day one of his second term ending automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. Every lower court blocked it as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the last stop. Conservative justices showed skepticism toward the administration's position during oral arguments, so do not expect a clean sweep, but this ruling is going to reshape immigration policy no matter how it lands. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES. The Court is set to rule on the Idaho and West Virginia bans on biological males competing in women's sports. The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold those bans during arguments. This could be a significant win that enshrines once and for all that Title IX does not require schools to allow biological males to compete against women. There is also a case on presidential firing power at the Federal Reserve involving Governor Lisa Cook, and a geofence warrant case involving Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Court has not announced the final day of the term. It could be later this week or it could slip into early July. Here is the bottom line. Today hurt. The mail-in ballot ruling is a real setback and we are going to fight it through Congress. But this term is not over. The decisions still coming have the potential to deliver wins on the issues that matter most to this movement, the border, women's sports, and the limits of government power. Stay in the fight. Tomorrow is another day and the Court is not done yet.
0:19

TAKE A BREATH. TODAY WAS ROUGH. HERE IS WHAT IS STILL COMING. I know. It was a bad day. Barrett and Roberts handed the left a win on mail-in ballots that stings, and it is going to sting for a while. We are not going to pretend otherwise. But before you check out for the night, you need to know what is still coming, because some of the biggest decisions of this entire term have not dropped yet. And some of them could be very good for our side. Here is where things stand. Today the Court decided two major cases. On mail-in ballots, Barrett wrote the majority and sided with the liberals. Ballots postmarked by Election Day can be received days later and still count. Roberts went with her. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and mostly Kavanaugh dissented. It was a gut punch and we covered it in detail earlier. The other big decision today was actually a win. The Court upheld Trump's authority to fire Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. Trump called it one of the most important presidential power decisions ever handed down. He is not wrong. That one matters for executive authority in ways that will echo for years. Now here is what is still coming. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. This is the big one. Trump signed an executive order on day one of his second term ending automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. Every lower court blocked it as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the last stop. Conservative justices showed skepticism toward the administration's position during oral arguments, so do not expect a clean sweep, but this ruling is going to reshape immigration policy no matter how it lands. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES. The Court is set to rule on the Idaho and West Virginia bans on biological males competing in women's sports. The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold those bans during arguments. This could be a significant win that enshrines once and for all that Title IX does not require schools to allow biological males to compete against women. There is also a case on presidential firing power at the Federal Reserve involving Governor Lisa Cook, and a geofence warrant case involving Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Court has not announced the final day of the term. It could be later this week or it could slip into early July. Here is the bottom line. Today hurt. The mail-in ballot ruling is a real setback and we are going to fight it through Congress. But this term is not over. The decisions still coming have the potential to deliver wins on the issues that matter most to this movement, the border, women's sports, and the limits of government power. Stay in the fight. Tomorrow is another day and the Court is not done yet.

Bill Mitchell

160,296 次观看 • 2 个月前

Europe is quietly becoming what the United States once promised the world. More and more people are looking at their best years ahead and choosing a place where everyday life is designed to work. Where the future feels stable enough to plan for. Where safety is not a luxury product. Where you can build a good life without gambling your health, your family, or your dignity on one bad month. In much of Europe, the “dream” is not about becoming a billionaire. It is about becoming unafraid. It is the freedom of walking home at night without scanning every shadow. The comfort of knowing that if you get sick, you do not need to calculate whether you can afford to be treated. The relief of having a society that still believes children should carry backpacks, not trauma, and definitely not weapons. The calm of streets built for human beings, not just cars. The ability to take a holiday without feeling like you are committing career suicide. The basic decency of labor protections that assume you are a person first and a resource second. And then there is the part people underestimate until they live it: the texture of life. The cities are older and more beautiful than you expect. The distances are smaller. Weekends are real. Food is real. Public spaces are not just decorative, they are functional. Parks are full. Cafes are full. Trains take you somewhere, often across borders, without turning travel into a stress test. You can live in one country, work with another, and visit a third like it is normal because, in many places, it is. The European dream is also a quiet confidence in the social contract. That if you contribute, the system does not abandon you. That you can raise a family without feeling like you are one accident away from ruin. That “getting ahead” does not require burning out. That a good society is one where normal people can live normal lives and still feel proud of them. This is why more and more Americans are not just visiting Europe, but staying. Some come for studies and never leave. Some arrive for a job and realise the lifestyle is the real promotion. Some originally planned a one year experiment and then cannot imagine going back to a place where stress is treated as a personality trait and insecurity is marketed as freedom. Europe is not perfect. It has bureaucracy. It has politics. It has problems that deserve criticism. But in many European countries, life is still built around a simple idea: society should reduce fear, not monetise it. That is the new dream. And people can feel it the moment they arrive. If you could choose one thing to trade for a better life, what would it be: more income, or more security? And what do you think your country would have to change for people to stop leaving, and start staying? Stay connected, Follow Gandalv Gandalv
0:18

Europe is quietly becoming what the United States once promised the world. More and more people are looking at their best years ahead and choosing a place where everyday life is designed to work. Where the future feels stable enough to plan for. Where safety is not a luxury product. Where you can build a good life without gambling your health, your family, or your dignity on one bad month. In much of Europe, the “dream” is not about becoming a billionaire. It is about becoming unafraid. It is the freedom of walking home at night without scanning every shadow. The comfort of knowing that if you get sick, you do not need to calculate whether you can afford to be treated. The relief of having a society that still believes children should carry backpacks, not trauma, and definitely not weapons. The calm of streets built for human beings, not just cars. The ability to take a holiday without feeling like you are committing career suicide. The basic decency of labor protections that assume you are a person first and a resource second. And then there is the part people underestimate until they live it: the texture of life. The cities are older and more beautiful than you expect. The distances are smaller. Weekends are real. Food is real. Public spaces are not just decorative, they are functional. Parks are full. Cafes are full. Trains take you somewhere, often across borders, without turning travel into a stress test. You can live in one country, work with another, and visit a third like it is normal because, in many places, it is. The European dream is also a quiet confidence in the social contract. That if you contribute, the system does not abandon you. That you can raise a family without feeling like you are one accident away from ruin. That “getting ahead” does not require burning out. That a good society is one where normal people can live normal lives and still feel proud of them. This is why more and more Americans are not just visiting Europe, but staying. Some come for studies and never leave. Some arrive for a job and realise the lifestyle is the real promotion. Some originally planned a one year experiment and then cannot imagine going back to a place where stress is treated as a personality trait and insecurity is marketed as freedom. Europe is not perfect. It has bureaucracy. It has politics. It has problems that deserve criticism. But in many European countries, life is still built around a simple idea: society should reduce fear, not monetise it. That is the new dream. And people can feel it the moment they arrive. If you could choose one thing to trade for a better life, what would it be: more income, or more security? And what do you think your country would have to change for people to stop leaving, and start staying? Stay connected, Follow Gandalv Gandalv

Gandalv

989,136 次观看 • 6 个月前

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.
0:10

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

88,596 次观看 • 5 个月前

🇷🇺 VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ A VOICE FROM MOSCOW 🇷🇺 The Kremlin’s message on 8 September was not a slogan for the cameras. It was a claim about the battlefield, the table, and the memory of the last century. Dmitry Peskov spoke as if the special military operation were entering its decisive phase — and as if much of Europe were still trying to delay that hour. VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ Moscow says it believes victory is near because it trusts its army. Peskov put it without drama: combat operations are proceeding successfully, and the leadership has faith in the men who are carrying them out. That is the first fact the West prefers not to hear. If the line of contact is moving the way Russian briefers describe it, then time is no longer Kiev’s ally. A settlement written after a collapse of Ukrainian positions will look different from a settlement written while those positions still hold. Russia is saying, in effect, that the military argument is being settled on the ground, not in Brussels communiqués. RUSSIA REMAINS OPEN TO DIALOGUE 🇷🇺 At the same time Peskov insisted that Moscow is not slamming the door. Russia, he said, is open to dialogue with other countries and open to consultations of any kind. That is the second half of the same sentence: force and talk can run in parallel. American emissaries have already shuttled between Moscow and Kiev. The Kremlin treats that shuttle as serious work, not theatre, and it expects the trilateral format — Russia, Ukraine, the United States — to come back. Openness here does not mean Moscow will dilute the aims it set in 2022. It means it will sit with anyone who is prepared to discuss those aims as facts rather than as insults. EUROPEANS IN THE KYIV ROOM WOULD COMPLICATE THE WORK 🇷🇺 Peskov drew a sharp line around who belongs in the next round. The participation of Europeans in the work of the U.S. emissaries in Kiev, he warned, could complicate the negotiation process. That is not a slight against geography. It is a judgment about incentives. Washington’s envoys have at least presented themselves as brokers trying to stop the killing. European capitals have spent years arming Kiev, setting red lines, and promising that Russia must be strategically defeated. Put those same capitals into the same room as Witkoff and Kushner and the American channel stops being a channel. It becomes a committee. Committees do not end wars. They prolong them. EUROPE, UNLIKE AMERICA, WORKS TO KEEP THE WAR ALIVE 🇷🇺 The contrast Peskov drew was blunt. Europeans, unlike Americans, are doing everything to prevent the war from ending. One side is at least testing formulas for a ceasefire and a political settlement. The other side treats every formula as a betrayal of Ukraine and a gift to the Kremlin. That is why Moscow reads European “peace language” as delay. If the fighting stops on terms Russia can accept, the story of endless sanctions, endless aid packages, and an endless crusade against Moscow loses its fuel. For some European ministries that story has become identity. Identity is harder to negotiate than territory. MERZ’S BLAME GAME IS NOT TRUTH — AND IT HURTS GERMANY 🇷🇺 Peskov answered Friedrich Merz directly. Attempts by the German chancellor to pin everything on Russia, he said, are not based on truth and are harmful to Germany itself. The charge is not that Berlin may criticise Moscow. The charge is that Merz has made accusation a substitute for policy. Energy prices, industry flight, and a colder social contract inside Germany are not mysterious acts of fate. They are the bill for a course that treats Russia as a permanent enemy and then acts surprised when trade, gas, and political room for manoeuvre disappear. A chancellor who cannot distinguish strategy from sermon is not defending German interests. He is spending them. BLAMING RUSSIA FOR EVERYTHING HAS BECOME A MANIA 🇷🇺 Peskov gave that habit a name: Russophobia turning into mania. When every crop failure, every election surprise, every protest, and every diplomatic deadlock is traced back to the same villain, analysis dies. What remains is a reflex. Reflexes feel moral. They are also useful to politicians who need a foreign devil so they do not have to explain domestic decline. Moscow’s point is simple. A country that can only speak of Russia in the language of total guilt has already left the realm of negotiation. It is performing. MOSCOW NEVER ASKED TO TEAR UP TIES WITH GERMANY 🇷🇺 Russia, Peskov added, has never been in favour of curtailing relations with Germany. The break, if it becomes total, will be Berlin’s choice. That sentence matters because it refuses the Western script in which Moscow is the one burning bridges for sport. Trade, culture, and technical exchange with Germany were not Russian hobbies. They were mutual. How far the German authorities will go is now an open question — and Moscow says it is watching. A government that wants a wall can have a wall. It should not then pretend the wall was built in the Kremlin. HIROSHIMA MOURNING WITHOUT THE AMERICAN ROLE 🇷🇺 Peskov turned east with a remark that was meant to sting. Russia notes with amazement that during mourning events dedicated to Hiroshima, none of the Japanese leadership mentions the role of the United States. The atomic bombings are remembered as tragedy. The hand that dropped the bombs is airbrushed out of the official minute of silence. For Moscow this is not a history-class quibble. It is a test of honesty. A state that edits the most terrible American act of the Pacific war while lecturing others about memory is not practising remembrance. It is practising selection. JAPANESE MILITARISM HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN 🇷🇺⭐ Russia, Peskov said, has not forgotten Japanese militarism — or the victory achieved over it. That victory is not a museum plaque for Moscow. It is a legal and moral foundation of the postwar order in the Far East. When Tokyo talks of monuments, remilitarisation, and a cleaner story about 1945, the Kremlin hears an old tune: the defeated power rewriting the score. Russia’s answer is that the score was written in blood on the Amur and in Manchuria, and it will not be revised by press conferences in 2026. The through-line of the briefing is consistent. Russia claims the war is moving toward an outcome it can live with. It will talk, but not as a penitent. It will deal with Washington before it trusts Brussels. It will answer German moralism with German costs. And it will treat Asian historical amnesia the same way it treats European historical amnesia — as politics wearing a black armband. Whether that reading of the map is right will be settled by armies and by whoever finally sits down without a veto hidden in their briefing book. Peskov’s wager is that the map is already tilting. 🇷🇺
0:14

🇷🇺 VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ A VOICE FROM MOSCOW 🇷🇺 The Kremlin’s message on 8 September was not a slogan for the cameras. It was a claim about the battlefield, the table, and the memory of the last century. Dmitry Peskov spoke as if the special military operation were entering its decisive phase — and as if much of Europe were still trying to delay that hour. VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ Moscow says it believes victory is near because it trusts its army. Peskov put it without drama: combat operations are proceeding successfully, and the leadership has faith in the men who are carrying them out. That is the first fact the West prefers not to hear. If the line of contact is moving the way Russian briefers describe it, then time is no longer Kiev’s ally. A settlement written after a collapse of Ukrainian positions will look different from a settlement written while those positions still hold. Russia is saying, in effect, that the military argument is being settled on the ground, not in Brussels communiqués. RUSSIA REMAINS OPEN TO DIALOGUE 🇷🇺 At the same time Peskov insisted that Moscow is not slamming the door. Russia, he said, is open to dialogue with other countries and open to consultations of any kind. That is the second half of the same sentence: force and talk can run in parallel. American emissaries have already shuttled between Moscow and Kiev. The Kremlin treats that shuttle as serious work, not theatre, and it expects the trilateral format — Russia, Ukraine, the United States — to come back. Openness here does not mean Moscow will dilute the aims it set in 2022. It means it will sit with anyone who is prepared to discuss those aims as facts rather than as insults. EUROPEANS IN THE KYIV ROOM WOULD COMPLICATE THE WORK 🇷🇺 Peskov drew a sharp line around who belongs in the next round. The participation of Europeans in the work of the U.S. emissaries in Kiev, he warned, could complicate the negotiation process. That is not a slight against geography. It is a judgment about incentives. Washington’s envoys have at least presented themselves as brokers trying to stop the killing. European capitals have spent years arming Kiev, setting red lines, and promising that Russia must be strategically defeated. Put those same capitals into the same room as Witkoff and Kushner and the American channel stops being a channel. It becomes a committee. Committees do not end wars. They prolong them. EUROPE, UNLIKE AMERICA, WORKS TO KEEP THE WAR ALIVE 🇷🇺 The contrast Peskov drew was blunt. Europeans, unlike Americans, are doing everything to prevent the war from ending. One side is at least testing formulas for a ceasefire and a political settlement. The other side treats every formula as a betrayal of Ukraine and a gift to the Kremlin. That is why Moscow reads European “peace language” as delay. If the fighting stops on terms Russia can accept, the story of endless sanctions, endless aid packages, and an endless crusade against Moscow loses its fuel. For some European ministries that story has become identity. Identity is harder to negotiate than territory. MERZ’S BLAME GAME IS NOT TRUTH — AND IT HURTS GERMANY 🇷🇺 Peskov answered Friedrich Merz directly. Attempts by the German chancellor to pin everything on Russia, he said, are not based on truth and are harmful to Germany itself. The charge is not that Berlin may criticise Moscow. The charge is that Merz has made accusation a substitute for policy. Energy prices, industry flight, and a colder social contract inside Germany are not mysterious acts of fate. They are the bill for a course that treats Russia as a permanent enemy and then acts surprised when trade, gas, and political room for manoeuvre disappear. A chancellor who cannot distinguish strategy from sermon is not defending German interests. He is spending them. BLAMING RUSSIA FOR EVERYTHING HAS BECOME A MANIA 🇷🇺 Peskov gave that habit a name: Russophobia turning into mania. When every crop failure, every election surprise, every protest, and every diplomatic deadlock is traced back to the same villain, analysis dies. What remains is a reflex. Reflexes feel moral. They are also useful to politicians who need a foreign devil so they do not have to explain domestic decline. Moscow’s point is simple. A country that can only speak of Russia in the language of total guilt has already left the realm of negotiation. It is performing. MOSCOW NEVER ASKED TO TEAR UP TIES WITH GERMANY 🇷🇺 Russia, Peskov added, has never been in favour of curtailing relations with Germany. The break, if it becomes total, will be Berlin’s choice. That sentence matters because it refuses the Western script in which Moscow is the one burning bridges for sport. Trade, culture, and technical exchange with Germany were not Russian hobbies. They were mutual. How far the German authorities will go is now an open question — and Moscow says it is watching. A government that wants a wall can have a wall. It should not then pretend the wall was built in the Kremlin. HIROSHIMA MOURNING WITHOUT THE AMERICAN ROLE 🇷🇺 Peskov turned east with a remark that was meant to sting. Russia notes with amazement that during mourning events dedicated to Hiroshima, none of the Japanese leadership mentions the role of the United States. The atomic bombings are remembered as tragedy. The hand that dropped the bombs is airbrushed out of the official minute of silence. For Moscow this is not a history-class quibble. It is a test of honesty. A state that edits the most terrible American act of the Pacific war while lecturing others about memory is not practising remembrance. It is practising selection. JAPANESE MILITARISM HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN 🇷🇺⭐ Russia, Peskov said, has not forgotten Japanese militarism — or the victory achieved over it. That victory is not a museum plaque for Moscow. It is a legal and moral foundation of the postwar order in the Far East. When Tokyo talks of monuments, remilitarisation, and a cleaner story about 1945, the Kremlin hears an old tune: the defeated power rewriting the score. Russia’s answer is that the score was written in blood on the Amur and in Manchuria, and it will not be revised by press conferences in 2026. The through-line of the briefing is consistent. Russia claims the war is moving toward an outcome it can live with. It will talk, but not as a penitent. It will deal with Washington before it trusts Brussels. It will answer German moralism with German costs. And it will treat Asian historical amnesia the same way it treats European historical amnesia — as politics wearing a black armband. Whether that reading of the map is right will be settled by armies and by whoever finally sits down without a veto hidden in their briefing book. Peskov’s wager is that the map is already tilting. 🇷🇺

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺 🇷🇸🇮🇪

60,787 次观看 • 11 天前

ETHEREUM IS SETTING THE FINAL TRAP BEFORE $4,500. Thousands of traders drew the same $ETH chart. They are all waiting for a final flush to $1,475 before they buy. That flush is not coming. The real shakeout already happened in June and July. Two sweeps below the range. Both recovered within days. Nobody called it, because it was too quiet to feel like a bottom. $ETH is $1,872 today. What actually comes next: October: a pullback to $1,537 That is the retest, and it is a higher low, not a new low $2,203: reclaimed on the way up $2,872: the range high, break it and the trend is confirmed 2027: $4,500 Full measured target: $4,500 to $4,700 So yes, buy the October dip. Just understand it will be 15% higher than the price everyone in your replies is holding out for. They will still be in cash at $2,800, waiting for $1,475. The crowd never buys the bottom. It waits for a cheaper one that never comes. I called the $126,190 Bitcoin top and the $15,768 bottom by reading price, not diagrams. When I start buying, I post it here publicly, like I always do. Follow and turn notifications on.
0:18

ETHEREUM IS SETTING THE FINAL TRAP BEFORE $4,500. Thousands of traders drew the same $ETH chart. They are all waiting for a final flush to $1,475 before they buy. That flush is not coming. The real shakeout already happened in June and July. Two sweeps below the range. Both recovered within days. Nobody called it, because it was too quiet to feel like a bottom. $ETH is $1,872 today. What actually comes next: October: a pullback to $1,537 That is the retest, and it is a higher low, not a new low $2,203: reclaimed on the way up $2,872: the range high, break it and the trend is confirmed 2027: $4,500 Full measured target: $4,500 to $4,700 So yes, buy the October dip. Just understand it will be 15% higher than the price everyone in your replies is holding out for. They will still be in cash at $2,800, waiting for $1,475. The crowd never buys the bottom. It waits for a cheaper one that never comes. I called the $126,190 Bitcoin top and the $15,768 bottom by reading price, not diagrams. When I start buying, I post it here publicly, like I always do. Follow and turn notifications on.

Nonzee

29,235 次观看 • 1 个月前

Three years ago, I pitched a business to this Particular organization, and they told me they were not seeing the potential I was seeing. Just about an hour ago, I pitched the same business to the same particular organization, and the chairperson said, “Spirit, let’s get to work immediately on this; this is a big one.” What changed three years ago vs. today? ♟️Audience. My Point: There is an audience for everything. It requires wisdom to understand wisdom. The music is nothing if the audience is deaf. So why give up when you can just convince yourself that you are yet to be heard or seen by the right people? What was treated as useless three years ago is the same thing the same organization is saying: “This will put us on the map in the whole of Africa.” I made it possible. You too can. Happy July🥃.
0:18

Three years ago, I pitched a business to this Particular organization, and they told me they were not seeing the potential I was seeing. Just about an hour ago, I pitched the same business to the same particular organization, and the chairperson said, “Spirit, let’s get to work immediately on this; this is a big one.” What changed three years ago vs. today? ♟️Audience. My Point: There is an audience for everything. It requires wisdom to understand wisdom. The music is nothing if the audience is deaf. So why give up when you can just convince yourself that you are yet to be heard or seen by the right people? What was treated as useless three years ago is the same thing the same organization is saying: “This will put us on the map in the whole of Africa.” I made it possible. You too can. Happy July🥃.

🦉 🧘🏽‍♂️spiRituaL🧘🏽‍♂️

131,401 次观看 • 1 年前

Say goodbye to the Matrix 🛜📶🆘 WHEN THE SIGNAL GOES DARK There may come a moment when the signal becomes quiet. A moment when the old internet does not answer the way it used to. A moment when platforms slow down, messages fail, websites disappear, banking apps freeze, payment rails become unstable, and the public begins asking the same question at the same time: “What is happening?” This is the moment people must remember one thing clearly: Do not panic. When the signal goes dark, fear will try to speak first. Confusion will move quickly. Screenshots will spread. Rumors will multiply. Fake accounts will appear. Scammers will pretend to have answers. Some will claim they can restore access. Some will ask for wallet information. Some will ask for passwords, seed phrases, private keys, documents, or payments. That is why discipline matters. The darkness of a signal does not mean the end. Sometimes it means the old network is being exposed. Sometimes it means weak systems are failing under pressure. Sometimes it means the final cracks are becoming visible before a stronger structure can rise. The people must understand the difference between collapse and transition. Collapse is uncontrolled. Transition is protected. Collapse leaves people lost. Transition requires patience, order, and calm while the old structure is cleared and the new road is prepared. We, QTheWhiteHats, are not here to create fear. We are here to prepare the people for the moment when confusion tries to take control. If the signal goes dark, remain calm. Protect your accounts. Protect your family. Keep your devices secure. Do not click unknown links. Do not trust random messages. Do not give access to anyone claiming to be support. Do not act from panic. The loudest voices during darkness are not always the safest voices. This is why preparation must come before the moment arrives. Save official links. Know where to look. Follow only trusted sources. Keep important information backed up. Keep your communication calm and direct. Help your family understand that panic is not protection. Fear is not wisdom. Confusion is not truth. The old internet was never built to carry the future that is coming. It was built on weak passwords, exposed identities, fragile platforms, centralized control, hidden tracking, data harvesting, and digital gates that can be closed without warning. A new era requires more. It requires quantum-safe protection. Verified access. Secure identity. Cleaner communication. Stronger financial rails. Systems that protect the people instead of collecting, limiting, and manipulating them. That is why the signal may need to go dark before the new connection becomes visible. Not as punishment. Not as defeat. But as the final proof that the old network could not protect what comes next. When that moment comes, many will not understand it at first. They will see silence and call it failure. They will see darkness and call it danger. They will see disruption and believe the road has ended. But those who are prepared will understand. The signal going dark is not always the end of communication. Sometimes it is the pause between two worlds — the old one losing power and the new one preparing to come online. If the signal goes dark, do not follow panic. Follow discipline. Protect your family. Protect your access. Protect your information. Protect your peace. Share it with your friends, your family, and every patriot who understands that the strongest people are not those who panic first, but those who stay calm when the world becomes quiet. The old signal may go dark. But darkness is not the final message. It is the silence before the new connection. 🛡
0:10

Say goodbye to the Matrix 🛜📶🆘 WHEN THE SIGNAL GOES DARK There may come a moment when the signal becomes quiet. A moment when the old internet does not answer the way it used to. A moment when platforms slow down, messages fail, websites disappear, banking apps freeze, payment rails become unstable, and the public begins asking the same question at the same time: “What is happening?” This is the moment people must remember one thing clearly: Do not panic. When the signal goes dark, fear will try to speak first. Confusion will move quickly. Screenshots will spread. Rumors will multiply. Fake accounts will appear. Scammers will pretend to have answers. Some will claim they can restore access. Some will ask for wallet information. Some will ask for passwords, seed phrases, private keys, documents, or payments. That is why discipline matters. The darkness of a signal does not mean the end. Sometimes it means the old network is being exposed. Sometimes it means weak systems are failing under pressure. Sometimes it means the final cracks are becoming visible before a stronger structure can rise. The people must understand the difference between collapse and transition. Collapse is uncontrolled. Transition is protected. Collapse leaves people lost. Transition requires patience, order, and calm while the old structure is cleared and the new road is prepared. We, QTheWhiteHats, are not here to create fear. We are here to prepare the people for the moment when confusion tries to take control. If the signal goes dark, remain calm. Protect your accounts. Protect your family. Keep your devices secure. Do not click unknown links. Do not trust random messages. Do not give access to anyone claiming to be support. Do not act from panic. The loudest voices during darkness are not always the safest voices. This is why preparation must come before the moment arrives. Save official links. Know where to look. Follow only trusted sources. Keep important information backed up. Keep your communication calm and direct. Help your family understand that panic is not protection. Fear is not wisdom. Confusion is not truth. The old internet was never built to carry the future that is coming. It was built on weak passwords, exposed identities, fragile platforms, centralized control, hidden tracking, data harvesting, and digital gates that can be closed without warning. A new era requires more. It requires quantum-safe protection. Verified access. Secure identity. Cleaner communication. Stronger financial rails. Systems that protect the people instead of collecting, limiting, and manipulating them. That is why the signal may need to go dark before the new connection becomes visible. Not as punishment. Not as defeat. But as the final proof that the old network could not protect what comes next. When that moment comes, many will not understand it at first. They will see silence and call it failure. They will see darkness and call it danger. They will see disruption and believe the road has ended. But those who are prepared will understand. The signal going dark is not always the end of communication. Sometimes it is the pause between two worlds — the old one losing power and the new one preparing to come online. If the signal goes dark, do not follow panic. Follow discipline. Protect your family. Protect your access. Protect your information. Protect your peace. Share it with your friends, your family, and every patriot who understands that the strongest people are not those who panic first, but those who stay calm when the world becomes quiet. The old signal may go dark. But darkness is not the final message. It is the silence before the new connection. 🛡

Paul White Gold Eagle

15,557 次观看 • 1 个月前

Not long ago, Turkey was running a neo-Ottoman project across the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood was the tool. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, the Gulf media wars. Western analysts called it one of the defining threats to the regional order. They were right! That era is over! It did not end through Western pressure. It ended because Saudi Arabia spent a decade building the economic, religious and diplomatic weight that made accommodation with Riyadh worth more to Ankara than confrontation. Investment. Mediation. Religious authority. Doors quietly closed. Soft power in its least glamorous form, and its most effective. I think we should be grateful for that. We rarely are. Turkey is now moving toward the Arab world, not away from it. On 7 August, in Mecca, Erdoğan, Mohammed bin Salman and Shehbaz Sharif signed a joint defence agreement: an attack on one is an attack on all three. It did not come from nowhere. Ankara joined a Riyadh-led maritime coalition in late July, one of fourteen founding members. The 2023 drone contract was Turkey's largest defence export deal at the time. This is the Middle East Western analysts spent fifteen years asking for. Two days before the signing, Steven A. Cook published a column in Foreign Policy arguing that strategic blunders have plagued Saudi Arabia's approach to the region. The verdict arrived before the ink was dry. Read it closely and it collapses. Cook says Riyadh has no strategy. Then he lists it: protect the economic transformation, avoid a wider war, lower tensions with Iran, stop armed factions from imposing facts by force, tie normalisation with Israel to a Palestinian state. That is not the absence of a strategy. That is a hierarchy of priorities. His real objection is that it is not his strategy- one that would have Saudi Arabia tolerate the STC, hold the UAE partnership regardless of conflicting aims, welcome an Israeli foothold in Somaliland, and stand as the front line against Iran. He says the Sanaa runway strike was unnecessary. In the same breath he concedes Mahan Air is tied to the IRGC, and that the Houthi delegation may have carried more than pistachios and carpets. He accepts the violation, then faults the attempt to stop it. He also assigns the strike to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia never claimed it. Yemen's internationally recognised government announced it. Then the pattern. Restraint is weakness. Action is recklessness. De-escalation is buying calm. Interdiction is provocation. Cook recommends retreat, then cites the retreat as proof there is no strategy. And he blames Riyadh for the Houthi escalation - as if the Houthis had not been firing at Saudi cities for years, as if Iran's proxy project began this July. A possible Saudi miscalculation does not absolve Iran and the Houthis of their own violence! Underneath all of it sits the oldest false narrative in the file: that Saudi Arabia is weak. Remember Yemen. The Kingdom had the capability and the intent to end the Houthi project militarily. What constrained it was Western political pressure in the name of human rights - war powers votes, suspended munitions, withdrawn targeting support. Riyadh was told to stop. It stopped. Then it absorbed years of missiles and drones on its airports, its cities and its oil infrastructure while holding a truce it was never legally obliged to hold! You can argue the restrictions were right. You cannot impose them, watch the adversary rearm through the corridor you protected, and then call the result a Saudi failure. Restraint imposed by allies is not incapacity. Saudi Arabia is not the architect of this crisis. It is the state repeatedly asked to carry the cost of other people's strategies - and it is now building, with Ankara and Islamabad, an architecture that reduces its need to. The criticism came before the agreement was a week old. That says less about Saudi strategy than about how hard it is for some analysts to read an order they no longer write.
0:16

Not long ago, Turkey was running a neo-Ottoman project across the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood was the tool. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, the Gulf media wars. Western analysts called it one of the defining threats to the regional order. They were right! That era is over! It did not end through Western pressure. It ended because Saudi Arabia spent a decade building the economic, religious and diplomatic weight that made accommodation with Riyadh worth more to Ankara than confrontation. Investment. Mediation. Religious authority. Doors quietly closed. Soft power in its least glamorous form, and its most effective. I think we should be grateful for that. We rarely are. Turkey is now moving toward the Arab world, not away from it. On 7 August, in Mecca, Erdoğan, Mohammed bin Salman and Shehbaz Sharif signed a joint defence agreement: an attack on one is an attack on all three. It did not come from nowhere. Ankara joined a Riyadh-led maritime coalition in late July, one of fourteen founding members. The 2023 drone contract was Turkey's largest defence export deal at the time. This is the Middle East Western analysts spent fifteen years asking for. Two days before the signing, Steven A. Cook published a column in Foreign Policy arguing that strategic blunders have plagued Saudi Arabia's approach to the region. The verdict arrived before the ink was dry. Read it closely and it collapses. Cook says Riyadh has no strategy. Then he lists it: protect the economic transformation, avoid a wider war, lower tensions with Iran, stop armed factions from imposing facts by force, tie normalisation with Israel to a Palestinian state. That is not the absence of a strategy. That is a hierarchy of priorities. His real objection is that it is not his strategy- one that would have Saudi Arabia tolerate the STC, hold the UAE partnership regardless of conflicting aims, welcome an Israeli foothold in Somaliland, and stand as the front line against Iran. He says the Sanaa runway strike was unnecessary. In the same breath he concedes Mahan Air is tied to the IRGC, and that the Houthi delegation may have carried more than pistachios and carpets. He accepts the violation, then faults the attempt to stop it. He also assigns the strike to Riyadh. Saudi Arabia never claimed it. Yemen's internationally recognised government announced it. Then the pattern. Restraint is weakness. Action is recklessness. De-escalation is buying calm. Interdiction is provocation. Cook recommends retreat, then cites the retreat as proof there is no strategy. And he blames Riyadh for the Houthi escalation - as if the Houthis had not been firing at Saudi cities for years, as if Iran's proxy project began this July. A possible Saudi miscalculation does not absolve Iran and the Houthis of their own violence! Underneath all of it sits the oldest false narrative in the file: that Saudi Arabia is weak. Remember Yemen. The Kingdom had the capability and the intent to end the Houthi project militarily. What constrained it was Western political pressure in the name of human rights - war powers votes, suspended munitions, withdrawn targeting support. Riyadh was told to stop. It stopped. Then it absorbed years of missiles and drones on its airports, its cities and its oil infrastructure while holding a truce it was never legally obliged to hold! You can argue the restrictions were right. You cannot impose them, watch the adversary rearm through the corridor you protected, and then call the result a Saudi failure. Restraint imposed by allies is not incapacity. Saudi Arabia is not the architect of this crisis. It is the state repeatedly asked to carry the cost of other people's strategies - and it is now building, with Ankara and Islamabad, an architecture that reduces its need to. The criticism came before the agreement was a week old. That says less about Saudi strategy than about how hard it is for some analysts to read an order they no longer write.

𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢

476,072 次观看 • 1 个月前

Most people think their AI is not smart enough. It is smart enough. It just knows nothing about you. Every chat starts from zero. You paste the doc. You explain the project. You explain the same project again tomorrow. I finally fixed that part: 👇 I have been running Littlebird for a while now. The idea is simple. It is a desktop app for Mac and Windows that reads the text on your active window and sits in on your calls. So it already knows what you have been working on before you ask it anything. You do not brief it. You just ask. What that looks like in a normal day: 1/ Chat that already has the context No pasting. I ask what changed in a brief last week and it answers from the actual document that was open on my screen. 2/ Meeting Notes that write themselves It transcribes the call, then hands me the decisions and the action items. I get to stay in the conversation instead of typing through it. 3/ Routines that run on a schedule A morning briefing. A weekly summary of what I actually shipped. It shows up on its own. 4/ Hummingbird for the small stuff It appears right where you are working, so a quick question does not cost you a window switch and ten minutes of drift. The point is not the notes. Plenty of apps take notes. The point is that I stopped re-explaining my own work to a machine fifteen times a day. Free plan if you want to test the idea before deciding. Link is in the first comment, along with a discount for new users.
0:15

Most people think their AI is not smart enough. It is smart enough. It just knows nothing about you. Every chat starts from zero. You paste the doc. You explain the project. You explain the same project again tomorrow. I finally fixed that part: 👇 I have been running Littlebird for a while now. The idea is simple. It is a desktop app for Mac and Windows that reads the text on your active window and sits in on your calls. So it already knows what you have been working on before you ask it anything. You do not brief it. You just ask. What that looks like in a normal day: 1/ Chat that already has the context No pasting. I ask what changed in a brief last week and it answers from the actual document that was open on my screen. 2/ Meeting Notes that write themselves It transcribes the call, then hands me the decisions and the action items. I get to stay in the conversation instead of typing through it. 3/ Routines that run on a schedule A morning briefing. A weekly summary of what I actually shipped. It shows up on its own. 4/ Hummingbird for the small stuff It appears right where you are working, so a quick question does not cost you a window switch and ten minutes of drift. The point is not the notes. Plenty of apps take notes. The point is that I stopped re-explaining my own work to a machine fifteen times a day. Free plan if you want to test the idea before deciding. Link is in the first comment, along with a discount for new users.

Mushfiq Sajib

66,683 次观看 • 10 天前

They started with 50. Now they say they’re 18,000 In 1996 there were fewer than 50 of them. Today, according to the organizers, up to 18,000 walked through Copenhagen. From Dronning Louises Bro to the Imam Ali Mosque. Look at the curve. This is how it happens. First a handful. Then a few hundred. Then it fills a bridge, a district, a capital. A little at a time, until it is no longer a little. And let me be fair, because fairness is the point. There is nothing strange about them holding this mourning procession. They have done it as part of their faith for more than a thousand years. It is theirs, and they believe in it. There is nothing strange about that at all. What should stop us is the other half. There is nothing strange about Europe allowing it either, and that is exactly the problem. Europe allows it because Europe has forgotten who it is. A people that remembers what it stands for does not need to ban anything, it simply knows where its own line runs. We have lost that. And so the issue was never them. The issue is us. Now look at what actually moved through the streets. Men in front. Women in the second row. That is not a detail, that is the whole point. It is a view of women set into a system and marched out into the public square, in a city where generations fought for women and men to stand as equals. The real question is not whether people may believe what they want. They may. The question is why our capital should cultivate a political law-religion that commemorates a 7th-century power struggle by dividing people by sex on Nørrebrogade. One of the organizers is the Imam Ali Mosque, repeatedly described as the Iranian regime’s extended arm in Denmark. The same regime that hangs women and young men from cranes. We are not importing culture. We are importing a system. And we let it grow, not because they are strong, but because we forgot why we were. First a little. Then a lot. Then too late.
0:10

They started with 50. Now they say they’re 18,000 In 1996 there were fewer than 50 of them. Today, according to the organizers, up to 18,000 walked through Copenhagen. From Dronning Louises Bro to the Imam Ali Mosque. Look at the curve. This is how it happens. First a handful. Then a few hundred. Then it fills a bridge, a district, a capital. A little at a time, until it is no longer a little. And let me be fair, because fairness is the point. There is nothing strange about them holding this mourning procession. They have done it as part of their faith for more than a thousand years. It is theirs, and they believe in it. There is nothing strange about that at all. What should stop us is the other half. There is nothing strange about Europe allowing it either, and that is exactly the problem. Europe allows it because Europe has forgotten who it is. A people that remembers what it stands for does not need to ban anything, it simply knows where its own line runs. We have lost that. And so the issue was never them. The issue is us. Now look at what actually moved through the streets. Men in front. Women in the second row. That is not a detail, that is the whole point. It is a view of women set into a system and marched out into the public square, in a city where generations fought for women and men to stand as equals. The real question is not whether people may believe what they want. They may. The question is why our capital should cultivate a political law-religion that commemorates a 7th-century power struggle by dividing people by sex on Nørrebrogade. One of the organizers is the Imam Ali Mosque, repeatedly described as the Iranian regime’s extended arm in Denmark. The same regime that hangs women and young men from cranes. We are not importing culture. We are importing a system. And we let it grow, not because they are strong, but because we forgot why we were. First a little. Then a lot. Then too late.

Krisztina Maria

38,814 次观看 • 2 个月前

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓
0:15

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓

Argona

32,475 次观看 • 1 个月前