Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

The three ways to solve Fokker-Planck equations: PDE evolution, stochastic (independent) or deterministic (coupled) particle systems.

Gabriel Peyré

100,719 subscribers

85,288 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

𝗡𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 As pressing systems evolve, coaches find new ways to solve the game their preferred way, heavily involving the GK’s role in build-up play. New analysis & session plans coming soon. Link in bio to become a member.

𝗡𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 As pressing systems evolve, coaches find new ways to solve the game their preferred way, heavily involving the GK’s role in build-up play. New analysis & session plans coming soon. Link in bio to become a member.

Magnus Eriksson

10,155 views • 5 months ago

Creed Humphrey on how the team will attack the rest of the season: "It sucks, but we have three games left. You can take it one of two ways: You can mope around, cry about it, or you can come in ready to work and get ready for these next three weeks." #ChiefsKingdom

Creed Humphrey on how the team will attack the rest of the season: "It sucks, but we have three games left. You can take it one of two ways: You can mope around, cry about it, or you can come in ready to work and get ready for these next three weeks." #ChiefsKingdom

Mark Poulose

118,441 views • 8 months ago

Which one evolved first? Male or female? Evolution: "They just co-evolved gradually somehow." Ya....ok. Biological sex is proof that Life is created. Two coordinated systems with entirely different anatomy. Neither functions without the other. Without both, Life ends. So which half evolved first? How many bajillions of years did that half have to wait around for the second half to get the right mutations? Evolution cannot explain male & female. Because Life was Created: "Male and female God created them."

Which one evolved first? Male or female? Evolution: "They just co-evolved gradually somehow." Ya....ok. Biological sex is proof that Life is created. Two coordinated systems with entirely different anatomy. Neither functions without the other. Without both, Life ends. So which half evolved first? How many bajillions of years did that half have to wait around for the second half to get the right mutations? Evolution cannot explain male & female. Because Life was Created: "Male and female God created them."

Divinely Designed

27,829 views • 2 months ago

China's J-36 Testing Pace Quickens the trailing edge flaperons on the J-36 Proto02 appear to be a SINGLE, UNIFIED Piece with no gaps or seams(apart from the two split rudders per wing) In contrast, the J-36 Proto01 features Two/Three independent trailing-edge flaperons per wing

China's J-36 Testing Pace Quickens the trailing edge flaperons on the J-36 Proto02 appear to be a SINGLE, UNIFIED Piece with no gaps or seams(apart from the two split rudders per wing) In contrast, the J-36 Proto01 features Two/Three independent trailing-edge flaperons per wing

David Wang

95,143 views • 8 months ago

The three-body problem is a classic and notoriously difficult question in physics and mathematics. It asks: How do three objects, such as stars, planets, or moons, move under the influence of each other’s gravity? Unlike the simpler two-body problem, which has precise and predictable analytical solutions (like the Earth orbiting the Sun in an ellipse), the three-body problem quickly becomes chaotic and unpredictable. This complexity arises because each object's motion constantly affects, and is affected by, the other two. These gravitational interactions form a tangled and unstable system. In fact, there's no general formula that can solve all three-body scenarios exactly. This was first demonstrated in the 19th century by Henri Poincaré, whose work laid the foundations for chaos theory. While exact solutions remain elusive, scientists have discovered certain special cases where the motion is stable or periodic. One well-known example is the Lagrange points, where three bodies can maintain a stable triangular configuration. However, such neat solutions are rare. Today, thanks to powerful computers, researchers can simulate three-body systems with remarkable accuracy, helping us study triple-star systems, exoplanets, and asteroid dynamics. Yet even small changes in the starting conditions can lead to dramatically different outcomes, highlighting the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that defines chaotic systems. The three-body problem is actually a specific case of the broader n-body problem, where n can be any number of interacting bodies. As n increases, the complexity and unpredictability rise even further. The three-body problem serves as a vivid example of how simple laws of nature, like Newton’s law of gravity, can produce behavior that is intricate, unexpected, and profoundly difficult to predict.

The three-body problem is a classic and notoriously difficult question in physics and mathematics. It asks: How do three objects, such as stars, planets, or moons, move under the influence of each other’s gravity? Unlike the simpler two-body problem, which has precise and predictable analytical solutions (like the Earth orbiting the Sun in an ellipse), the three-body problem quickly becomes chaotic and unpredictable. This complexity arises because each object's motion constantly affects, and is affected by, the other two. These gravitational interactions form a tangled and unstable system. In fact, there's no general formula that can solve all three-body scenarios exactly. This was first demonstrated in the 19th century by Henri Poincaré, whose work laid the foundations for chaos theory. While exact solutions remain elusive, scientists have discovered certain special cases where the motion is stable or periodic. One well-known example is the Lagrange points, where three bodies can maintain a stable triangular configuration. However, such neat solutions are rare. Today, thanks to powerful computers, researchers can simulate three-body systems with remarkable accuracy, helping us study triple-star systems, exoplanets, and asteroid dynamics. Yet even small changes in the starting conditions can lead to dramatically different outcomes, highlighting the sensitive dependence on initial conditions that defines chaotic systems. The three-body problem is actually a specific case of the broader n-body problem, where n can be any number of interacting bodies. As n increases, the complexity and unpredictability rise even further. The three-body problem serves as a vivid example of how simple laws of nature, like Newton’s law of gravity, can produce behavior that is intricate, unexpected, and profoundly difficult to predict.

Erika 

215,611 views • 1 year ago

Our vision: Swarm Intelligence, a future where independent AI systems collaborate, share trust signals, improve together, and solve complex problems together. Instead of isolated models solving problems alone, intelligence grows through seamless collaboration. Perceptron Network is building the foundational layer that makes this possible: a network where participation strengthens the system, and contribution is rewarded. YOUR contribution is key. The hardest problems don’t need bigger models. They need systems that can learn together with real-world data coming from all of us. Collaboration is the key to open a whole new world of possibilities for AI. What do you think AI could achieve if intelligence truly worked together?

Our vision: Swarm Intelligence, a future where independent AI systems collaborate, share trust signals, improve together, and solve complex problems together. Instead of isolated models solving problems alone, intelligence grows through seamless collaboration. Perceptron Network is building the foundational layer that makes this possible: a network where participation strengthens the system, and contribution is rewarded. YOUR contribution is key. The hardest problems don’t need bigger models. They need systems that can learn together with real-world data coming from all of us. Collaboration is the key to open a whole new world of possibilities for AI. What do you think AI could achieve if intelligence truly worked together?

Perceptron Network

31,985 views • 7 months ago

This fact absolutely shatters evolution. ...And makes the intelligent design in Life certain. All the systems in Life that make things function - like everything that enables birds to fly - require a whole set of complex interconnected parts. Nothing works in isolation. Something evolutionists overlook is how the nature of all these systems are intricately interconnected. Every part relies on something else to make it work. You need the whole system, down to the DNA itself, or the function fails. This coordinattion between so many systems makes step-by-step evolution all but impossible. For instance... A wing isn’t just bones and feathers (or membrane). A wing requires a certain type of hollow bones, which the alleged ancestors of birds didn't have. And wings by themselves are useless - what reproductive benefit would wings have without the accompanying systems that lead to actual flight (the simultaneous requirements for bone pneumatization, muscle attachment sites, feather or membrane development, and the regulatory changes that control all of them)? Wings without these features would be harmful. Hollow bones without flight would be detrimental. The step-by-step path leading from non-bird to flying birds is filled with easily killed, unselectable intermediates. This is where evolutionists constantly fail - they look at modification in isolation, without considering that these systems are large, interconnected networks of functional parts all working together. And it all starts at the genetic level, from the DNA itself. DNA genes code for proteins. Regulatory information organizes when these proteins are built and how much should be made. Further regulatory systems coordinate where these proteins go after they’re built. And yet more informational networks place the proteins into the final system in coordination with other proteins. Then these protein systems are fit together to make entire organs, tissues, bones, etc. All of these systems and processes are coordinated from the DNA - which means major modification like turning a fish fin into a bird wing requires many coordinated DNA changes across the entire network. One change at a time simply cannot lead to the coordination of an entire multi-part coordinated system like this. A mutation that changes one protein would need another coordinated mutation to fit that mutated protein into the right place, which would require other proteins to be mutated to fit together into that system, which would also require yet more regulatory mutations to keep everything coordinated... Nothing works in isolation. It's all connected. Which is why it can't evolve one step at a time. One step at a time does nothing. Life requires all or nothing systems. Only intelligence can engineer all or nothing systems.

This fact absolutely shatters evolution. ...And makes the intelligent design in Life certain. All the systems in Life that make things function - like everything that enables birds to fly - require a whole set of complex interconnected parts. Nothing works in isolation. Something evolutionists overlook is how the nature of all these systems are intricately interconnected. Every part relies on something else to make it work. You need the whole system, down to the DNA itself, or the function fails. This coordinattion between so many systems makes step-by-step evolution all but impossible. For instance... A wing isn’t just bones and feathers (or membrane). A wing requires a certain type of hollow bones, which the alleged ancestors of birds didn't have. And wings by themselves are useless - what reproductive benefit would wings have without the accompanying systems that lead to actual flight (the simultaneous requirements for bone pneumatization, muscle attachment sites, feather or membrane development, and the regulatory changes that control all of them)? Wings without these features would be harmful. Hollow bones without flight would be detrimental. The step-by-step path leading from non-bird to flying birds is filled with easily killed, unselectable intermediates. This is where evolutionists constantly fail - they look at modification in isolation, without considering that these systems are large, interconnected networks of functional parts all working together. And it all starts at the genetic level, from the DNA itself. DNA genes code for proteins. Regulatory information organizes when these proteins are built and how much should be made. Further regulatory systems coordinate where these proteins go after they’re built. And yet more informational networks place the proteins into the final system in coordination with other proteins. Then these protein systems are fit together to make entire organs, tissues, bones, etc. All of these systems and processes are coordinated from the DNA - which means major modification like turning a fish fin into a bird wing requires many coordinated DNA changes across the entire network. One change at a time simply cannot lead to the coordination of an entire multi-part coordinated system like this. A mutation that changes one protein would need another coordinated mutation to fit that mutated protein into the right place, which would require other proteins to be mutated to fit together into that system, which would also require yet more regulatory mutations to keep everything coordinated... Nothing works in isolation. It's all connected. Which is why it can't evolve one step at a time. One step at a time does nothing. Life requires all or nothing systems. Only intelligence can engineer all or nothing systems.

Divinely Designed

46,204 views • 3 days ago

China publicly demonstrated its truck-mounted electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) for the first time, successfully launching a drone from a modular catapult built from multiple linked trucks. Three or more trucks connect to form a catapult that can be rapidly assembled and moved. The catapult is part of a broader family of containerized military systems—including missiles, radars, electronic warfare, and command centers—that can be deployed from ships or land. It is designed to launch drones where runways don’t exist, such as islands, remote areas, or civilian ships converted into drone carriers. Chinese sources reportedly aim to produce 2,000 containerized systems annually. Source: KAROTASU, TWZ

China publicly demonstrated its truck-mounted electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) for the first time, successfully launching a drone from a modular catapult built from multiple linked trucks. Three or more trucks connect to form a catapult that can be rapidly assembled and moved. The catapult is part of a broader family of containerized military systems—including missiles, radars, electronic warfare, and command centers—that can be deployed from ships or land. It is designed to launch drones where runways don’t exist, such as islands, remote areas, or civilian ships converted into drone carriers. Chinese sources reportedly aim to produce 2,000 containerized systems annually. Source: KAROTASU, TWZ

Clash Report

436,306 views • 1 month ago

$Imagine you have a point dancing in space, following three simple rules. You’d think it would eventually settle down or repeat itself, right? Nature isn't always that predictable. This is the Rössler Attractor. It’s a beautiful piece of "organized chaos." By just tweaking a few non-linear equations, we get this marvelous fractal shape, a curve that weaves and loops, forever exploring new ground without ever retracing its exact same path. Most people try to solve this with standard linear tools, but that's like trying to understand a symphony by looking at a single note. To see the real "magic" the bifurcations and the patterns, you have to embrace the non-linearity. It shows us how the smallest nudge at the start can lead to a completely different, stunningly complex world. It’s a simple set of rules, yet it generates infinite complexity. Isn't that just the kick in the head? (📹Credit; equationsinmotion / IG)$

Imagine you have a point dancing in space, following three simple rules. You’d think it would eventually settle down or repeat itself, right? Nature isn't always that predictable. This is the Rössler Attractor. It’s a beautiful piece of "organized chaos." By just tweaking a few non-linear equations, we get this marvelous fractal shape, a curve that weaves and loops, forever exploring new ground without ever retracing its exact same path. Most people try to solve this with standard linear tools, but that's like trying to understand a symphony by looking at a single note. To see the real "magic" the bifurcations and the patterns, you have to embrace the non-linearity. It shows us how the smallest nudge at the start can lead to a completely different, stunningly complex world. It’s a simple set of rules, yet it generates infinite complexity. Isn't that just the kick in the head? (📹Credit; equationsinmotion / IG)

Philosophy Of Physics

39,889 views • 4 months ago

Here's something the physics textbook doesn't dwell on: the most successful scientific theory ever built runs on 19 numbers that nobody can explain. They're measured. They're plugged in. They work — the Standard Model predicts particle behaviour to extraordinary precision. But ask *why* the electron has the mass it has, or why the strong force is as strong as it is? The theory goes quiet. ISF's geometric framework takes a different approach. It derives its results from the structure of space itself — no numbers fed in by hand. The same framework that produced 0.8412 fm for the proton charge radius (confirmed at 0.8414 fm by independent measurement) needed zero inputs to get there. Send this to someone who loves physics. The 19-numbers problem is one of the field's best-kept open secrets.

Here's something the physics textbook doesn't dwell on: the most successful scientific theory ever built runs on 19 numbers that nobody can explain. They're measured. They're plugged in. They work — the Standard Model predicts particle behaviour to extraordinary precision. But ask why the electron has the mass it has, or why the strong force is as strong as it is? The theory goes quiet. ISF's geometric framework takes a different approach. It derives its results from the structure of space itself — no numbers fed in by hand. The same framework that produced 0.8412 fm for the proton charge radius (confirmed at 0.8414 fm by independent measurement) needed zero inputs to get there. Send this to someone who loves physics. The 19-numbers problem is one of the field's best-kept open secrets.

Nassim Haramein

12,022 views • 4 months ago

Beauty should be a core pursuit of biotechnology. There should be companies and nonprofits that engineer organisms solely for the sake of crafting beautiful things. A few reasons why: 1/ Biotechnology has historically worked in reductionist ways, but many useful functions only emerge at the systems level. By engineering a systems-level outcome, like beauty, we will get much better at engineering organisms in predictable ways. When I say "reductionist," I mean that most useful things in biotechnology (drugs and tools) were discovered by stripping molecules from their natural contexts. Scientists collect organisms from soil or wherever and then study their molecules in isolation. This basic approach has yielded everything from rapamycin to antibiotics and CRISPR. This reductionism, though, means that that we know disturbingly little about how life actually works at a systems-level. My core argument is that, by studying beauty, we can remedy this. Beauty has persisted through tens of millions of years of evolution because it is functional; bright colors help attract pollinators to a plant, for example, which helps the plant breed. If evolution has created all of this beauty for functional reasons, then it stands to reason that by trying to create **new** forms of beauty, we'll be able to discover and understand how these systems-level functions work! Indeed, we may even be able to create entirely new functions that biology hasn't evolved yet. These functions will not possible to understand via isolated molecules or reductionism. Therefore, a company pursuing engineered beauty for the sake of beauty will probably make many fundamental discoveries about how organisms develop, interact, adapt to their surroundings, and so on. 2/ Beauty is a way to grow the field and bring more people into biotechnology. Nick Desnoyer’s flower design work, for example, has probably reached hundreds of thousands of people. The glowing plants from Light Bio, too, were featured in the mainstream press. You may not think that these examples are “important” for the universe relative to, say, an incrementally better cancer therapeutic, but there’s no question that they are way more popular to mainstream audiences and good, overall, for the field. 3/ The market is huge! Breeding is already widely used to engineer beauty, or at least to select for aesthetic preferences. Pugs are evolutionarily suboptimal, but they've been bred precisely to satisfy a certain aesthetic desire are now a multi-billion dollar industry. The Juliet Rose, developed via breeding over a 15-year period, debuted at the 2006 Chelsea Flower Show and is enormously profitable today. Why should deliberately engineered forms of beauty be any different? If you are building a biotech company or nonprofit that is pursuing beauty, please reach out! I’d love to help.

Beauty should be a core pursuit of biotechnology. There should be companies and nonprofits that engineer organisms solely for the sake of crafting beautiful things. A few reasons why: 1/ Biotechnology has historically worked in reductionist ways, but many useful functions only emerge at the systems level. By engineering a systems-level outcome, like beauty, we will get much better at engineering organisms in predictable ways. When I say "reductionist," I mean that most useful things in biotechnology (drugs and tools) were discovered by stripping molecules from their natural contexts. Scientists collect organisms from soil or wherever and then study their molecules in isolation. This basic approach has yielded everything from rapamycin to antibiotics and CRISPR. This reductionism, though, means that that we know disturbingly little about how life actually works at a systems-level. My core argument is that, by studying beauty, we can remedy this. Beauty has persisted through tens of millions of years of evolution because it is functional; bright colors help attract pollinators to a plant, for example, which helps the plant breed. If evolution has created all of this beauty for functional reasons, then it stands to reason that by trying to create new forms of beauty, we'll be able to discover and understand how these systems-level functions work! Indeed, we may even be able to create entirely new functions that biology hasn't evolved yet. These functions will not possible to understand via isolated molecules or reductionism. Therefore, a company pursuing engineered beauty for the sake of beauty will probably make many fundamental discoveries about how organisms develop, interact, adapt to their surroundings, and so on. 2/ Beauty is a way to grow the field and bring more people into biotechnology. Nick Desnoyer’s flower design work, for example, has probably reached hundreds of thousands of people. The glowing plants from Light Bio, too, were featured in the mainstream press. You may not think that these examples are “important” for the universe relative to, say, an incrementally better cancer therapeutic, but there’s no question that they are way more popular to mainstream audiences and good, overall, for the field. 3/ The market is huge! Breeding is already widely used to engineer beauty, or at least to select for aesthetic preferences. Pugs are evolutionarily suboptimal, but they've been bred precisely to satisfy a certain aesthetic desire are now a multi-billion dollar industry. The Juliet Rose, developed via breeding over a 15-year period, debuted at the 2006 Chelsea Flower Show and is enormously profitable today. Why should deliberately engineered forms of beauty be any different? If you are building a biotech company or nonprofit that is pursuing beauty, please reach out! I’d love to help.

Niko McCarty.

18,291 views • 3 months ago

Chinese Swarm Drone Systems: 48 and 96 Drones Some time ago, I wrote about the evolution of autonomous systems and how only the Chinese were truly making progress in this field. After starting serial production of the Swarm-2, which features 48 drones and real-time tracking, they are now testing a version with 96 drones. These are divided into three categories: reconnaissance, jamming, and attack. Each drone can carry a variety of payloads, including electro-optical reconnaissance, strike munitions, and relay communications. They can be flexibly combined into different operational groupings, forming multifunctional swarms capable of complex missions. These drones have an individual range of 15 to 50 km, but the manufacturer claims that by maintaining a swarm network communication, this range is significantly extended. This strongly reinforces what we discussed a while back: that future wars will be dominated by drone systems that will severely delay any ground troop advancement, as already evidenced by the conflict in Ukraine.

Chinese Swarm Drone Systems: 48 and 96 Drones Some time ago, I wrote about the evolution of autonomous systems and how only the Chinese were truly making progress in this field. After starting serial production of the Swarm-2, which features 48 drones and real-time tracking, they are now testing a version with 96 drones. These are divided into three categories: reconnaissance, jamming, and attack. Each drone can carry a variety of payloads, including electro-optical reconnaissance, strike munitions, and relay communications. They can be flexibly combined into different operational groupings, forming multifunctional swarms capable of complex missions. These drones have an individual range of 15 to 50 km, but the manufacturer claims that by maintaining a swarm network communication, this range is significantly extended. This strongly reinforces what we discussed a while back: that future wars will be dominated by drone systems that will severely delay any ground troop advancement, as already evidenced by the conflict in Ukraine.

Patricia Marins

39,430 views • 3 months ago

And here is how computers are better drivers than humans!! This happened to me a few days ago. My car with full self-driving capability onboard saw the pedestrian early, predicted its path and started a smooth braking maneuver (maximum of -0.3 G force). The driver responsible for the car from the left was probably distracted, saw the guy way too late, hit the brakes hard. This could've ended all kinds of ways... Always pay attention, people, or at least get a car that has advanced assistance systems!

And here is how computers are better drivers than humans!! This happened to me a few days ago. My car with full self-driving capability onboard saw the pedestrian early, predicted its path and started a smooth braking maneuver (maximum of -0.3 G force). The driver responsible for the car from the left was probably distracted, saw the guy way too late, hit the brakes hard. This could've ended all kinds of ways... Always pay attention, people, or at least get a car that has advanced assistance systems!

Tobias Goebel (Unsupervised)

15,673 views • 1 year ago

Here is: The 2020 Election in just forty-three seconds captured on video tape: Why the Trump campaign was refused to forensically examine the Dominion Voting Systems, “Two Clark County technical employees came forward completely independent of each other, and explained that they discovered that the number of votes recorded by Dominion voting machines stored on USB drives would change between the time the polls were closed at night, and when they were reopened the next morning.” “In other words votes were literally appearing and disappearing in the dead of night.” 📝Our evidence has never been refuted only arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and persecuted,

Here is: The 2020 Election in just forty-three seconds captured on video tape: Why the Trump campaign was refused to forensically examine the Dominion Voting Systems, “Two Clark County technical employees came forward completely independent of each other, and explained that they discovered that the number of votes recorded by Dominion voting machines stored on USB drives would change between the time the polls were closed at night, and when they were reopened the next morning.” “In other words votes were literally appearing and disappearing in the dead of night.” 📝Our evidence has never been refuted only arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and persecuted,

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

30,554 views • 8 months ago

🚨BREAKING: A federal judge found that Elon Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution by unilaterally shutting down USAID: “For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants' actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways…” U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ordered them to restore email, payment systems, and other access for USAID employees and contractors. He also blocked the Trump administration from further actions, including layoffs, office closures, or deleting agency data.

🚨BREAKING: A federal judge found that Elon Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution by unilaterally shutting down USAID: “For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants' actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways…” U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ordered them to restore email, payment systems, and other access for USAID employees and contractors. He also blocked the Trump administration from further actions, including layoffs, office closures, or deleting agency data.

Republicans against Trump

398,851 views • 1 year ago

Ukrainian drones have attacked Moscow's largest oil refinery. One in three cars in Moscow runs on fuel from that refinery—but now, drones have struck it. The Moscow refinery meets around 35% of the Russian capital's fuel needs. The facility supplies up to 40% of Moscow's gasoline requirements and about 50% of its diesel needs. Bitumen from the Moscow refinery is used in the construction or repair of one in every two roads in the Russian capital. Although the Kremlin has redeployed a significant portion of its air defense systems to Moscow, drones still managed to strike one of the country's key fuel facilities.

Ukrainian drones have attacked Moscow's largest oil refinery. One in three cars in Moscow runs on fuel from that refinery—but now, drones have struck it. The Moscow refinery meets around 35% of the Russian capital's fuel needs. The facility supplies up to 40% of Moscow's gasoline requirements and about 50% of its diesel needs. Bitumen from the Moscow refinery is used in the construction or repair of one in every two roads in the Russian capital. Although the Kremlin has redeployed a significant portion of its air defense systems to Moscow, drones still managed to strike one of the country's key fuel facilities.

Jürgen Nauditt 🇩🇪🇺🇦

53,907 views • 2 months ago

📣 Artist Open Call The Lumen Prize exists to champion artists shaping contemporary culture through technology, and in 2026 we’re inviting submissions across any medium. This year, the Prize is organised around three theme-led awards, designed to meet artists where practice is heading: ideas, context, and impact. → Legacy Futures Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works engaging time, memory, archives, storytelling and future possibility. → Systems & Structures Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works that examine or reconfigure cultural, ecological, technological or social systems, data, networks, platforms, machine vision, human–machine relations. → Experiential Innovation Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works defined by encounter, participation, presence, immersion, performance, live coding, interactive installation, VR/AR/XR, hybrid forms. 🔗 Enter your artwork: Featured Artist: 2019 Lumen Prize Gold Award Winner Refik Anadol #LumenPrize #ArtistOpenCall #DigitalArt #ArtPrize

📣 Artist Open Call The Lumen Prize exists to champion artists shaping contemporary culture through technology, and in 2026 we’re inviting submissions across any medium. This year, the Prize is organised around three theme-led awards, designed to meet artists where practice is heading: ideas, context, and impact. → Legacy Futures Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works engaging time, memory, archives, storytelling and future possibility. → Systems & Structures Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works that examine or reconfigure cultural, ecological, technological or social systems, data, networks, platforms, machine vision, human–machine relations. → Experiential Innovation Award ($5,000 prize pool) Works defined by encounter, participation, presence, immersion, performance, live coding, interactive installation, VR/AR/XR, hybrid forms. 🔗 Enter your artwork: Featured Artist: 2019 Lumen Prize Gold Award Winner Refik Anadol #LumenPrize #ArtistOpenCall #DigitalArt #ArtPrize

The Lumen Prize

19,861 views • 5 months ago