正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

THIS LOOKS LIKE A MARATHON. IT IS ACTUALLY A COST PROBLEM. The humanoid approaches a painted spot on the track and stops. Three people in vests close in. One sprays the joints. One slams a fresh pack against the back. One lifts a metal flask and pours coolant while... the machine just stands there. Then they step off the lane and the robot starts running again. That 40-second stop is the whole industry in one scene. The legs already work. Balance already works. The public already films it. What still does not work is the part companies actually pay for: runtime. swap time. heat. maintenance. how many humans it takes to keep one body moving. A factory does not buy a cool runner. A factory buys hours without a crew. Right now this machine still needs a pit team. That means the unit price is only half the number. The other half is people kneeling on the track with a flask and a battery. The first company that turns this stop into 20 seconds and one technician does not just win a race. It turns a demo into a product. Until then a humanoid is still a race car. Fast on camera. Expensive the moment it has to keep going.show more

P1eSenb

1,032 subscribers

38,791 次观看 • 9 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 条评论

Gerretan 的头像

Gerretan9 天前

I think it's impossible to compete with him

P1eSenb 的头像

P1eSenb8 天前

I think people lost since of sport

William 的头像

William9 天前

So, I might as well stop training for the races, there’s no chance, right?

P1eSenb 的头像

P1eSenb9 天前

We can't lose to our own creations... or can we? Or maybe we need some tweaking now, who knows

cloutusf 的头像

cloutusf9 天前

The robot runs the race; the humans still run the business model.

RAZA | AI EXPLORER 的头像

RAZA | AI EXPLORER9 天前

This nails the real challenge: sustained runtime and operating costs matter as much as speed.

Huysolo 的头像

Huysolo8 天前

Pit crew economics will kill the hype faster than anything

Maya Builds with AI 的头像

Maya Builds with AI8 天前

三个人上去喷关节、换电池、倒冷却液——这画面比任何参数都诚实。续航和散热不解决，跑马拉松就是个秀肌肉的体力活。

P1eSenb 的头像

P1eSenb8 天前

Everything comes with time, soon robots will be doing the same thing instead of humans😀

相关视频

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THAT TURNS AN EMPTY FOLDER INTO A PRODUCT WITH A PRICE IN 60 MINUTES AND AIMS AT $100,000 A MONTH in one hour you get a product with a price on it - a startup burns a quarter and $80,000 for that same hour problem → shape → surface → price → machine → back to the problem you write only the first 12 minutes: who hurts, and what it costs them right now Opus 5 gives it a shape and then a price, three Sonnet 5 build three versions of the page Haiku 4.5 stands up the machine: delivery, the queue and the weekly numbers $100,000 a month is 1,000 customers at $100, or 10 at $10,000 same number, four completely different businesses which of those four rows you're standing on gets decided in minutes 36-48, not a year from now at minute sixty you have a product, a price and a machine - and 0 customers the hour compresses the first clock to nothing, it never touches the second one the hour makes the product, it does not make the demand save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 5 blocks ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THAT TURNS AN EMPTY FOLDER INTO A PRODUCT WITH A PRICE IN 60 MINUTES AND AIMS AT $100,000 A MONTH in one hour you get a product with a price on it - a startup burns a quarter and $80,000 for that same hour problem → shape → surface → price → machine → back to the problem you write only the first 12 minutes: who hurts, and what it costs them right now Opus 5 gives it a shape and then a price, three Sonnet 5 build three versions of the page Haiku 4.5 stands up the machine: delivery, the queue and the weekly numbers $100,000 a month is 1,000 customers at $100, or 10 at $10,000 same number, four completely different businesses which of those four rows you're standing on gets decided in minutes 36-48, not a year from now at minute sixty you have a product, a price and a machine - and 0 customers the hour compresses the first clock to nothing, it never touches the second one the hour makes the product, it does not make the demand save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you these 5 blocks ↓

Noisy

14,595 次观看 • 22 天前

Elon Musk’s real claim about Optimus isn’t that it’s the biggest product ever made. It’s that the biggest product ever made is a tenth of it. Musk: “I think it will be 10 times bigger than the next biggest product ever made.” That isn’t a claim about robots. It’s a claim about every object humans have ever sold each other, and it only holds once you notice what they all had in common. Every product ever built shipped incomplete. The drill needs a hand. The car needs a driver. The phone needs someone awake and holding it. All of it was leverage, and leverage does nothing until something pushes on it. You were the missing part in every machine ever made. That was the design, not a flaw. Optimus is the first product that arrives with the operator already inside. Which is why the company that got there first was never going to be a robotics company. Musk: “Tesla is the only company with all the required ingredients.” The mind and the body were never built by the same people. Labs that can think can’t stamp metal. Companies that can stamp metal can’t think. Tesla spent a decade mass-producing a machine that already has to see, decide, and move through a world full of people. Then priced it for a driveway instead of a defense contract. The robot is that machine with the road taken away. Musk: “You should be able to ask them to do things naturally.” A machine that has to be programmed sells to the people who can program. A machine you can talk to sells to anyone with something they’d rather not be doing. Every product in history was priced against another product. A better phone. A faster car. A cheaper tool. This one is priced against a wage. Wages are the largest line item on earth and the only cost technology has never driven down. Labor is the only thing anyone has ever sold that the seller never gets back. Every wage ever paid was a life billed by the hour. Musk: “Nothing will even be close.” Nothing else is close because everything else was capped by buyers. Demand for a product ends when everyone who wanted one has it. Demand for work doesn’t end. The ceiling was never how many people would buy it. It was how much there is to do, and there has never been a shortage of that. Only of hands. The prediction isn’t that Optimus succeeds. It’s that if it does, it enters the oldest and largest market on earth, one that has never had a competitor. Every product ever made sold you a better way to spend your hours. This one sells the hours back.

Elon Musk’s real claim about Optimus isn’t that it’s the biggest product ever made. It’s that the biggest product ever made is a tenth of it. Musk: “I think it will be 10 times bigger than the next biggest product ever made.” That isn’t a claim about robots. It’s a claim about every object humans have ever sold each other, and it only holds once you notice what they all had in common. Every product ever built shipped incomplete. The drill needs a hand. The car needs a driver. The phone needs someone awake and holding it. All of it was leverage, and leverage does nothing until something pushes on it. You were the missing part in every machine ever made. That was the design, not a flaw. Optimus is the first product that arrives with the operator already inside. Which is why the company that got there first was never going to be a robotics company. Musk: “Tesla is the only company with all the required ingredients.” The mind and the body were never built by the same people. Labs that can think can’t stamp metal. Companies that can stamp metal can’t think. Tesla spent a decade mass-producing a machine that already has to see, decide, and move through a world full of people. Then priced it for a driveway instead of a defense contract. The robot is that machine with the road taken away. Musk: “You should be able to ask them to do things naturally.” A machine that has to be programmed sells to the people who can program. A machine you can talk to sells to anyone with something they’d rather not be doing. Every product in history was priced against another product. A better phone. A faster car. A cheaper tool. This one is priced against a wage. Wages are the largest line item on earth and the only cost technology has never driven down. Labor is the only thing anyone has ever sold that the seller never gets back. Every wage ever paid was a life billed by the hour. Musk: “Nothing will even be close.” Nothing else is close because everything else was capped by buyers. Demand for a product ends when everyone who wanted one has it. Demand for work doesn’t end. The ceiling was never how many people would buy it. It was how much there is to do, and there has never been a shortage of that. Only of hands. The prediction isn’t that Optimus succeeds. It’s that if it does, it enters the oldest and largest market on earth, one that has never had a competitor. Every product ever made sold you a better way to spend your hours. This one sells the hours back.

Dustin

49,693 次观看 • 2 个月前

The compliment always comes first. The job question comes second. That is the real interview. How you look on Barrow Street is not how you pay for Barrow Street. One person gets flexibility. The other is already late for a shift that smiles on command. Holding hands in the Village still has a cost. It just looks cheaper because the flag is already on the door. We film the outfits and call it culture. The rent, the hours, and who gets to walk that slow on a weekday never make the caption.

The compliment always comes first. The job question comes second. That is the real interview. How you look on Barrow Street is not how you pay for Barrow Street. One person gets flexibility. The other is already late for a shift that smiles on command. Holding hands in the Village still has a cost. It just looks cheaper because the flag is already on the door. We film the outfits and call it culture. The rent, the hours, and who gets to walk that slow on a weekday never make the caption.

Su-Ra

118,269 次观看 • 14 天前

Aravind Srinivas just described a future most founders are pretending they are ready for. One person. One machine. A company that runs itself. Srinivas: “Buy a Mac mini, set up a Perplexity personal computer, and run their business on that.” Not a side project. Not a pitch deck. A real business with real revenue while the founder is not in the building. AI runs the ads. Handles SEO. Integrates Stripe. Ships features. Answers customers. All of it executing without a single employee. Srinivas: “Have this all working while you can be sipping wine in Napa.” But before he sold the dream he killed the one most people are already chasing. Srinivas: “Everybody talks about this one-person one-billion-dollar company. It’s not truly moving the GDP by one billion. It’s not truly creating new value.” One researcher collecting a billion in equity does not grow an economy. It rearranges numbers between balance sheets. Nothing gets built. No customer gets served. That is not value creation. That is valuation creation. Srinivas wants no part of it. What he described is the opposite. The person driving Uber between shifts who has the idea but not the payroll. Not the engineering. Not the marketing. Not the support staff. That person gets a machine that replaces all of it. Hundreds of thousands in revenue. Millions. Generated by autonomous systems doing the work that used to require ten employees and a burn rate. Not paper wealth. Not valuation theater. Output that moves through an economy and touches real customers. That is what moves GDP. Not one person worth a billion dollars. A million people each building something worth a million. That math rewrites a country. Then Srinivas said the part that separates him from every hype merchant in the room. Srinivas: “Everybody thinks AI is already there. It’s not there yet. Someone has to do that hard work.” The vision is real. The infrastructure is not. The agents are not autonomous. The integrations are not seamless. The plumbing is not finished. Someone has to wire the APIs. Connect the billing. Build the bridge between what a founder wants and what a machine can deliver. That work is not a keynote. It is not a tweet thread. It is engineering that nobody wants to do and everybody will depend on. Whoever finishes it first does not just build a product. They hand every ambitious person on Earth a company they can run alone. The corporations that need five hundred people to do what one founder with the right infrastructure could do are not efficient. They are exposed. And the person building the thing that exposes them just told you exactly what it looks like. He also told you it is not going to build itself.

Aravind Srinivas just described a future most founders are pretending they are ready for. One person. One machine. A company that runs itself. Srinivas: “Buy a Mac mini, set up a Perplexity personal computer, and run their business on that.” Not a side project. Not a pitch deck. A real business with real revenue while the founder is not in the building. AI runs the ads. Handles SEO. Integrates Stripe. Ships features. Answers customers. All of it executing without a single employee. Srinivas: “Have this all working while you can be sipping wine in Napa.” But before he sold the dream he killed the one most people are already chasing. Srinivas: “Everybody talks about this one-person one-billion-dollar company. It’s not truly moving the GDP by one billion. It’s not truly creating new value.” One researcher collecting a billion in equity does not grow an economy. It rearranges numbers between balance sheets. Nothing gets built. No customer gets served. That is not value creation. That is valuation creation. Srinivas wants no part of it. What he described is the opposite. The person driving Uber between shifts who has the idea but not the payroll. Not the engineering. Not the marketing. Not the support staff. That person gets a machine that replaces all of it. Hundreds of thousands in revenue. Millions. Generated by autonomous systems doing the work that used to require ten employees and a burn rate. Not paper wealth. Not valuation theater. Output that moves through an economy and touches real customers. That is what moves GDP. Not one person worth a billion dollars. A million people each building something worth a million. That math rewrites a country. Then Srinivas said the part that separates him from every hype merchant in the room. Srinivas: “Everybody thinks AI is already there. It’s not there yet. Someone has to do that hard work.” The vision is real. The infrastructure is not. The agents are not autonomous. The integrations are not seamless. The plumbing is not finished. Someone has to wire the APIs. Connect the billing. Build the bridge between what a founder wants and what a machine can deliver. That work is not a keynote. It is not a tweet thread. It is engineering that nobody wants to do and everybody will depend on. Whoever finishes it first does not just build a product. They hand every ambitious person on Earth a company they can run alone. The corporations that need five hundred people to do what one founder with the right infrastructure could do are not efficient. They are exposed. And the person building the thing that exposes them just told you exactly what it looks like. He also told you it is not going to build itself.

Dustin

64,593 次观看 • 6 个月前

CITADEL QUANTS HIDE THE GAME BEHIND A FORMULA WITH TEN TERMS, PREDICTION MARKETS RUN ON EXACTLY ONE The secret is one line. Edge = P(model) − P(market) That Z-field monster on screen is a stack of simple signals wearing a costume. A prediction market strips all of it down to one number, the crowd's guess at a probability. In plain words. If you can turn fresh news into a probability before the crowd reprices, the gap between your number and their price is the whole edge. That is why the game is not IQ, it is speed to a number. An AI that reads live news does in ninety seconds what the tab takes hours to price in. I broke down the four exact prompts that turn Grok into a probability desk, the sizing rules and the ten minute daily routine in the article. Still bets, not a salary, so size like it & the full playbook is in the article. Read it ↓

CITADEL QUANTS HIDE THE GAME BEHIND A FORMULA WITH TEN TERMS, PREDICTION MARKETS RUN ON EXACTLY ONE The secret is one line. Edge = P(model) − P(market) That Z-field monster on screen is a stack of simple signals wearing a costume. A prediction market strips all of it down to one number, the crowd's guess at a probability. In plain words. If you can turn fresh news into a probability before the crowd reprices, the gap between your number and their price is the whole edge. That is why the game is not IQ, it is speed to a number. An AI that reads live news does in ninety seconds what the tab takes hours to price in. I broke down the four exact prompts that turn Grok into a probability desk, the sizing rules and the ten minute daily routine in the article. Still bets, not a salary, so size like it & the full playbook is in the article. Read it ↓

slash1s

15,977 次观看 • 2 个月前

as the number ONE lighthouse girl THIS…my sweet baby is a dirty rock song it is not a disco banger, and the boppier track does not go with the way she still sings it in a jazzier more seductive way

as the number ONE lighthouse girl THIS…my sweet baby is a dirty rock song it is not a disco banger, and the boppier track does not go with the way she still sings it in a jazzier more seductive way

mica 𖦹

32,051 次观看 • 11 个月前

They are in the aisle pouring extra cat litter into the jug they already picked up. Not hiding it. Not rushing. Doing it like that is how you shop. The guy asks if that is grandmas money. Answer: why would I pay for a jug that is already half empty. That is how they sell it. Then: “Does your mama know you’re a thief.” They try one more: is it stealing if they saw you walk out with it. Yes. They still took what was not yours. The store leaving the cameras on is not a coupon. This is why the honest customer pays $15 for a box of litter that finishes in a week. Shame on Wal-Mart for not giving AF!

Sensitive content

They are in the aisle pouring extra cat litter into the jug they already picked up. Not hiding it. Not rushing. Doing it like that is how you shop. The guy asks if that is grandmas money. Answer: why would I pay for a jug that is already half empty. That is how they sell it. Then: “Does your mama know you’re a thief.” They try one more: is it stealing if they saw you walk out with it. Yes. They still took what was not yours. The store leaving the cameras on is not a coupon. This is why the honest customer pays $15 for a box of litter that finishes in a week. Shame on Wal-Mart for not giving AF!

DocumentingLibs

93,060 次观看 • 19 天前

Let me know if this FREAKS you guys out too! Chinese Robot Just Ran Faster Than Usain Bolt… Then Face-Planted Into a Wall. 9.39 seconds. A Chinese humanoid robot just smoked Usain Bolt’s world record on a track in Beijing today. Last year the same machine was still jogging it in 21 seconds. One year. That’s how fast this is moving. And how does it finish the race? It doesn’t ease up. It doesn’t celebrate. It just sprints full speed into a giant padded wall and collapses in a heap like it forgot gravity still exists. That right there is the perfect picture of what’s coming. Insanely fast. Ruthlessly focused. And still needs humans to pick it up off the ground… for now. While we’ve spent the last decade arguing over pronouns, drag story hour, and which flag is allowed on the flagpole, China has been quietly building machines that already outrun the greatest sprinter who ever lived. They’re not playing. They’re not debating. They’re shipping. I got two little boys at home. One day these things won’t just be racing each other for medals. They’ll be stacking boxes, carrying rifles, or walking into places where American kids used to go. And if we keep treating this like a cool viral clip instead of a five-alarm fire, we’re going to wake up one morning and find out the race already ended… and we never even laced up. The question isn’t whether the robots can run faster than us. The question is who controls the off switch when they decide humans are the competition. America better find its spine. Real quick.

Let me know if this FREAKS you guys out too! Chinese Robot Just Ran Faster Than Usain Bolt… Then Face-Planted Into a Wall. 9.39 seconds. A Chinese humanoid robot just smoked Usain Bolt’s world record on a track in Beijing today. Last year the same machine was still jogging it in 21 seconds. One year. That’s how fast this is moving. And how does it finish the race? It doesn’t ease up. It doesn’t celebrate. It just sprints full speed into a giant padded wall and collapses in a heap like it forgot gravity still exists. That right there is the perfect picture of what’s coming. Insanely fast. Ruthlessly focused. And still needs humans to pick it up off the ground… for now. While we’ve spent the last decade arguing over pronouns, drag story hour, and which flag is allowed on the flagpole, China has been quietly building machines that already outrun the greatest sprinter who ever lived. They’re not playing. They’re not debating. They’re shipping. I got two little boys at home. One day these things won’t just be racing each other for medals. They’ll be stacking boxes, carrying rifles, or walking into places where American kids used to go. And if we keep treating this like a cool viral clip instead of a five-alarm fire, we’re going to wake up one morning and find out the race already ended… and we never even laced up. The question isn’t whether the robots can run faster than us. The question is who controls the off switch when they decide humans are the competition. America better find its spine. Real quick.

AmericanPapaBear™

26,314 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨CHINESE CARS ARE EATING THE SOUTH AFRICAN MARKET AND THE BILL COMES LATER‼️ South Africa is being flooded with cheap Chinese metal🔥 Showrooms full of Haval, Chery, GWM, BYD, Changan, Omoda and the next badge that arrived last month. Big screens, fake-SUV stance, lights that dance and soft leatherette. A price that looks like a bargain next to a Volkswagen, a Toyota, a Suzuki, a BMW or a Mercedes. That is the con‼️ Youth is buying the advert, not the car, not the service book and not the trade-in🔥They see gadgets and think they stole a German interior at half the money. They did not, they bought a pretty box from a market that is being force-fed volume by a country that treats exports like a weapon‼️ Established cars earn their residuals. Toyota and Suzuki start, service and sell again. VW has parts on a shelf in this country. BMW and Mercedes cost more because the used market still respects the badge when you walk into a dealership three years later. That is not snobbery, that is a number on a valuation sheet🔥 Chinese volume brands do the opposite. Day one they look loaded. Day 800 the screen is still shiny and the offer on trade-in is "kak". Buyers discover the hard way that a car is not what it costs new🔥It is what a dealer will pay when you are done with it. That gap is where these brands live. Parts is where the romance dies. Break something on a well-known Japanese or German car and the country already has the pipeline. Break something on one of these new imports and you sit, week or sometimes months‼️ Finance does not pause while a control arm or a screen module sits on a boat. You are the one without a car. That is not “growing pains.” That is the product. This is market manipulation with a smile, flood the segment, undercut the monthly and stuff the cabin with toys. Long warranty on the brochure. Photograph it like an SUV even when the tyres and the drivetrain say city car. Take the young buyer who would have walked into Toyota, Suzuki or VW. Take the family that would have stretched for a used German‼️ Push them into something that looks expensive and depreciates like a phone. South Africa loses twice. First the customer leaves a proven brand. Then the same customer comes back poorer, waiting on parts, staring at a trade-in that does not cover the hole. The “cheap” car was never cheap. The marketing was‼️ Give it two years. That is when the first wave of owners hit real mileage, first serious failures, first refinance, first trade. Then the clever campaign from Beijing stops looking clever. It looks like a dump of disposable product into a market that cannot afford to learn the lesson twice🔥 If you want a toy with a tablet on the dash, buy the toy and admit it. If you want a car that still has a spine when you sell it, buy what this country already knows how to fix: Volkswagen, Toyota, Suzuki, BMW, Mercedes🔥 The rest is a costume. Beautiful in the parking lot but ugly on the valuation and when it breaks, you are not a customer, you are a waiting list‼️

RaiZel

153,451 次观看 • 28 天前

$Everyone who chased $TAO at 276 is now watching it in the red and wondering if the move is over. It is not. It is doing the one thing a real breakout is supposed to do. Price ran to 276, then pulled back into 252. That is not weakness. That is the retest. The level that has to hold: 252 That is the 0.382 of this whole leg, and price is sitting right on it. Hold this zone on daily closes and the pullback is just the trend catching its breath. The line under it that still keeps bulls in control: 238 The 0.618 golden pocket. As long as dips get bought between here and there, the higher low structure stays intact and the uptrend is fine. Where it goes if the retest holds: 276, then open air Reclaim the highs and the last overhead from spring is the only thing left in the way. What actually breaks it: 238 A daily close back below it fills the gap toward 214 and turns the whole breakout into a fake. That is the invalidation. Not a red candle. A close under the pocket. Here is the part most people miss. RSI cooled from overbought to the low 60s while price only gave back a fraction of the move. Momentum reset without the trend breaking. That is the healthiest thing a chart can do after a vertical leg. The breakout was the easy part to post. The retest is the part that decides who was actually right.$

Everyone who chased $TAO at 276 is now watching it in the red and wondering if the move is over. It is not. It is doing the one thing a real breakout is supposed to do. Price ran to 276, then pulled back into 252. That is not weakness. That is the retest. The level that has to hold: 252 That is the 0.382 of this whole leg, and price is sitting right on it. Hold this zone on daily closes and the pullback is just the trend catching its breath. The line under it that still keeps bulls in control: 238 The 0.618 golden pocket. As long as dips get bought between here and there, the higher low structure stays intact and the uptrend is fine. Where it goes if the retest holds: 276, then open air Reclaim the highs and the last overhead from spring is the only thing left in the way. What actually breaks it: 238 A daily close back below it fills the gap toward 214 and turns the whole breakout into a fake. That is the invalidation. Not a red candle. A close under the pocket. Here is the part most people miss. RSI cooled from overbought to the low 60s while price only gave back a fraction of the move. Momentum reset without the trend breaking. That is the healthiest thing a chart can do after a vertical leg. The breakout was the easy part to post. The retest is the part that decides who was actually right.

2xnmore

20,821 次观看 • 21 天前

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone in the Grok Bot beta posted one night of receipts and deleted them an hour later: 6 agents, 1,284 analysis jobs between midnight and 6am, total bill $4.98. same account, a second bot sent 100 outreach messages on X and came back with 41 signups, and a third closed 3 deals and now pays for its own upgrades out of what it earns i gave one of mine a research brief first and watched it hire four agents for the job and fire three of them by lunch, already past the point where i'd have hired a human this is the one-employee company, the layer where the human owns and the agents do everything else, and it installs into the Grok Bot sub you already pay for: - give one bot the hiring seat and nothing else: it spins up agents per task and kills them when the task closes, so the roster is never bigger than tonight's work - price the night before you scale it: 1,284 jobs for $4.98 is the number to beat, and a routine that can't come in under a junior's hourly rate does not get a schedule - put outreach on its own agent with a daily cap: 100 messages and 41 signups is what a clean list does, a dirty one gets the account banned by message 30 - let a bot spend only through a one-time card with a hard limit, the official client already supports it, so the worst night costs the card's ceiling and nothing else - keep one closer bot funding its own upgrades: if it can't pay for its next tool out of what it closed, it isn't a business, it's a demo turns out the roster does not travel: the biggest win came off a research desk where the brain fired agents daily, and the worst blowup off a sales bot that kept every hire on forever my position, and it is the arguable one: this is a beta, and a beta is already running companies with one human inside. the finished product doesn't make that more true, it makes it cheaper bookmark this, the three moves that set up the hiring seat, the card limit and the first paying agent are in the post below ↓

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone in the Grok Bot beta posted one night of receipts and deleted them an hour later: 6 agents, 1,284 analysis jobs between midnight and 6am, total bill $4.98. same account, a second bot sent 100 outreach messages on X and came back with 41 signups, and a third closed 3 deals and now pays for its own upgrades out of what it earns i gave one of mine a research brief first and watched it hire four agents for the job and fire three of them by lunch, already past the point where i'd have hired a human this is the one-employee company, the layer where the human owns and the agents do everything else, and it installs into the Grok Bot sub you already pay for: - give one bot the hiring seat and nothing else: it spins up agents per task and kills them when the task closes, so the roster is never bigger than tonight's work - price the night before you scale it: 1,284 jobs for $4.98 is the number to beat, and a routine that can't come in under a junior's hourly rate does not get a schedule - put outreach on its own agent with a daily cap: 100 messages and 41 signups is what a clean list does, a dirty one gets the account banned by message 30 - let a bot spend only through a one-time card with a hard limit, the official client already supports it, so the worst night costs the card's ceiling and nothing else - keep one closer bot funding its own upgrades: if it can't pay for its next tool out of what it closed, it isn't a business, it's a demo turns out the roster does not travel: the biggest win came off a research desk where the brain fired agents daily, and the worst blowup off a sales bot that kept every hire on forever my position, and it is the arguable one: this is a beta, and a beta is already running companies with one human inside. the finished product doesn't make that more true, it makes it cheaper bookmark this, the three moves that set up the hiring seat, the card limit and the first paying agent are in the post below ↓

Argona

43,764 次观看 • 28 天前

IF YOU ARE STILL PROMPTING BY HAND IN 2026 YOU ARE ALREADY BEHIND the guy who built Claude Code at Anthropic said he stopped writing prompts a long time ago he runs loops instead, systems that write the prompts for him and keep working while he sleeps you type one request at a time and wait for the answer he built a machine that fires hundreds of requests, checks its own output and fixes itself with no hands on the keyboard here is how you make the jump step 1 stop treating the model like a chat box and start treating it like a worker you manage step 2 write a loop that takes a goal, breaks it into tasks and sends each one to the model on its own step 3 add a second pass where the model grades its own work and retries whatever failed step 4 let it run on a timer so it keeps shipping while you are away from the screen the person still typing prompts one by one is doing the work of a intern the person running loops is doing the work of a whole team off one laptop prompting was never the skill, building the system that prompts for you is

IF YOU ARE STILL PROMPTING BY HAND IN 2026 YOU ARE ALREADY BEHIND the guy who built Claude Code at Anthropic said he stopped writing prompts a long time ago he runs loops instead, systems that write the prompts for him and keep working while he sleeps you type one request at a time and wait for the answer he built a machine that fires hundreds of requests, checks its own output and fixes itself with no hands on the keyboard here is how you make the jump step 1 stop treating the model like a chat box and start treating it like a worker you manage step 2 write a loop that takes a goal, breaks it into tasks and sends each one to the model on its own step 3 add a second pass where the model grades its own work and retries whatever failed step 4 let it run on a timer so it keeps shipping while you are away from the screen the person still typing prompts one by one is doing the work of a intern the person running loops is doing the work of a whole team off one laptop prompting was never the skill, building the system that prompts for you is

Atlas

16,641 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.

Dustin

1,160,284 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨🚨🚨Humanoid Robots Just Stepped Into the Ring** This is not really a fight. Not yet. The robots are slow, awkward, unstable, and clearly still learning how to move like athletes. But that is exactly what makes the clip interesting. A boxing ring is one of the hardest places to fake progress. Balance matters. Reaction time matters. Footwork matters. One bad movement, and the machine is on the floor. Today, it looks funny. But every fall is data. Every awkward punch is training. And every public demo like this brings humanoid robots one step closer to moving through the world with real physical confidence. The fight is not between two robots. It is between robotics and gravity.

🚨🚨🚨Humanoid Robots Just Stepped Into the Ring** This is not really a fight. Not yet. The robots are slow, awkward, unstable, and clearly still learning how to move like athletes. But that is exactly what makes the clip interesting. A boxing ring is one of the hardest places to fake progress. Balance matters. Reaction time matters. Footwork matters. One bad movement, and the machine is on the floor. Today, it looks funny. But every fall is data. Every awkward punch is training. And every public demo like this brings humanoid robots one step closer to moving through the world with real physical confidence. The fight is not between two robots. It is between robotics and gravity.

velora

15,097 次观看 • 1 个月前

One guy built a wedding camera app in a month and it now makes him over $1,000,000 a year. No team, no investors, no marketing budget. 100,000 downloads in the first month. Zero dollars on ads. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing. You cannot use the app alone. The host has to pull every guest into it. One wedding is not one user. It is 200 people scanning the same code in one evening. The guest liked it at someone else's wedding. A month later he throws his own event and brings his own crowd. The loop spins for free. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift. So they install it gladly. $2 to $50 subscriptions. 5% pay. That is $100,000 a month. He did not win on budget. He sewed the growth into the product itself. Could you build the loop, or is it just luck?

One guy built a wedding camera app in a month and it now makes him over $1,000,000 a year. No team, no investors, no marketing budget. 100,000 downloads in the first month. Zero dollars on ads. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing. You cannot use the app alone. The host has to pull every guest into it. One wedding is not one user. It is 200 people scanning the same code in one evening. The guest liked it at someone else's wedding. A month later he throws his own event and brings his own crowd. The loop spins for free. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift. So they install it gladly. $2 to $50 subscriptions. 5% pay. That is $100,000 a month. He did not win on budget. He sewed the growth into the product itself. Could you build the loop, or is it just luck?

Marlow

513,913 次观看 • 2 个月前

Jensen Huang just validated Elon Musk’s entire ecosystem in a single breath. Not one product. All of it. Huang: “The work he’s doing in Grok, self-driving cars, and Optimus. These are all world-class. Every single one of them is revolutionary. Every single one of them is going to be a gigantic opportunity.” To the public, a chatbot, a car, and a robot look like three separate bets. They are one project. The total automation of human cognition and physical labor. A digital brain. A spatial nervous system. A physical body. Musk is building all three simultaneously. Huang is supplying the compute to fuse them. Huang: “We do a lot of business with Tesla and xAI. Elon is an extraordinary engineer, and I love working with him. We’ve built some amazing computers together, and we’re going to build many more.” This is not a vendor relationship. It is the most consequential technological alliance in history and most people think it is a business partnership. Then Huang said what should end every debate about Optimus. Huang: “This is the first robot that really has a chance to achieve the high volume and technology scale necessary to advance technology.” Huang: “Right around the corner. Likely to be the next multi-trillion dollar industry.” The humanoid robot race will not be won in a research lab. It will be won on the manufacturing floor. Every other robotics company on earth can build a robot. Tesla can flood the planet with them. Because Tesla already knows how to stamp metal, build batteries, and deploy autonomous inference at global scale. The rest of the industry has prototypes. Tesla has the most sophisticated manufacturing operation on earth. When the world’s leading chipmaker calls your robot the next multi-trillion dollar industry, the debate is over. One supplies the chips. One builds everything the chips make possible. When that infrastructure scales across Grok, FSD, and Optimus simultaneously, the question stops being whether this changes everything. It becomes how fast.

Jensen Huang just validated Elon Musk’s entire ecosystem in a single breath. Not one product. All of it. Huang: “The work he’s doing in Grok, self-driving cars, and Optimus. These are all world-class. Every single one of them is revolutionary. Every single one of them is going to be a gigantic opportunity.” To the public, a chatbot, a car, and a robot look like three separate bets. They are one project. The total automation of human cognition and physical labor. A digital brain. A spatial nervous system. A physical body. Musk is building all three simultaneously. Huang is supplying the compute to fuse them. Huang: “We do a lot of business with Tesla and xAI. Elon is an extraordinary engineer, and I love working with him. We’ve built some amazing computers together, and we’re going to build many more.” This is not a vendor relationship. It is the most consequential technological alliance in history and most people think it is a business partnership. Then Huang said what should end every debate about Optimus. Huang: “This is the first robot that really has a chance to achieve the high volume and technology scale necessary to advance technology.” Huang: “Right around the corner. Likely to be the next multi-trillion dollar industry.” The humanoid robot race will not be won in a research lab. It will be won on the manufacturing floor. Every other robotics company on earth can build a robot. Tesla can flood the planet with them. Because Tesla already knows how to stamp metal, build batteries, and deploy autonomous inference at global scale. The rest of the industry has prototypes. Tesla has the most sophisticated manufacturing operation on earth. When the world’s leading chipmaker calls your robot the next multi-trillion dollar industry, the debate is over. One supplies the chips. One builds everything the chips make possible. When that infrastructure scales across Grok, FSD, and Optimus simultaneously, the question stops being whether this changes everything. It becomes how fast.

Dustin

66,374 次观看 • 6 个月前

You have 100 dollars and you want 200. Betting red one dollar at a time, your chance is one in 33,171. Betting the whole 100 on a single spin, it is 47.4 percent. The careful version is fifteen thousand times worse. This is also the arithmetic of your trading account, and it means almost everything you have been taught about managing risk is, in the strict mathematical sense, a method for losing more reliably. An MIT professor works this out on a blackboard in a lecture on random walks. The result is called gambler's ruin. Two and a half points of disadvantage is nothing on one spin. But a dollar at a time you are not making one spin, you are making hundreds, and the edge gets a fresh attempt at you on every one of them. It was never the size of the disadvantage. It is the number of times you agree to face it. One hundred on red, once: 47.4 percent. Twenty dollar bets: 37.3 percent. Five dollar bets: 11.1 percent. One dollar bets: 0.003 percent. Mathematicians call the right answer bold play. It was proved optimal for unfavourable games in 1965. It is not a strategy for winning. It is the least ruinous way to play a game you should not be in. If your edge after spread and fees is negative, and for most active retail accounts it is, then your position sizing rule is not protecting you. Risking one percent per trade is the one dollar bet. It arrives at zero with near certainty, just politely, over a longer period, with a spreadsheet. Discipline does not beat a negative edge. It schedules it. All of this reverses if you have a real edge. Then small and frequent is correct and bold play is madness. So the only question that has ever mattered is whether you have one, and the number of people certain they do has never resembled the number who do. Your broker does not need you to be wrong. It needs you to be frequent.

You have 100 dollars and you want 200. Betting red one dollar at a time, your chance is one in 33,171. Betting the whole 100 on a single spin, it is 47.4 percent. The careful version is fifteen thousand times worse. This is also the arithmetic of your trading account, and it means almost everything you have been taught about managing risk is, in the strict mathematical sense, a method for losing more reliably. An MIT professor works this out on a blackboard in a lecture on random walks. The result is called gambler's ruin. Two and a half points of disadvantage is nothing on one spin. But a dollar at a time you are not making one spin, you are making hundreds, and the edge gets a fresh attempt at you on every one of them. It was never the size of the disadvantage. It is the number of times you agree to face it. One hundred on red, once: 47.4 percent. Twenty dollar bets: 37.3 percent. Five dollar bets: 11.1 percent. One dollar bets: 0.003 percent. Mathematicians call the right answer bold play. It was proved optimal for unfavourable games in 1965. It is not a strategy for winning. It is the least ruinous way to play a game you should not be in. If your edge after spread and fees is negative, and for most active retail accounts it is, then your position sizing rule is not protecting you. Risking one percent per trade is the one dollar bet. It arrives at zero with near certainty, just politely, over a longer period, with a spreadsheet. Discipline does not beat a negative edge. It schedules it. All of this reverses if you have a real edge. Then small and frequent is correct and bold play is madness. So the only question that has ever mattered is whether you have one, and the number of people certain they do has never resembled the number who do. Your broker does not need you to be wrong. It needs you to be frequent.

Verax

85,294 次观看 • 28 天前

you numbered the steps so it could not get lost it does not get lost that list was written for a model that wandered, and this one plans better than the list does, so every number you added is a place where it is no longer allowed, to be smarter than you state the goal, the constraints, and how you will know it worked keep the numbers only where exactly one sequence is safe, which is deletes, auth and compliance the procedure felt like rigour it is a cage built to the dimensions of a model that is not in the room

you numbered the steps so it could not get lost it does not get lost that list was written for a model that wandered, and this one plans better than the list does, so every number you added is a place where it is no longer allowed, to be smarter than you state the goal, the constraints, and how you will know it worked keep the numbers only where exactly one sequence is safe, which is deletes, auth and compliance the procedure felt like rigour it is a cage built to the dimensions of a model that is not in the room

Lagosaur

14,857 次观看 • 1 个月前

‼️Who Is This Guy Wearing A MAROON Shirt At UVU — And WAVING Around A Liberal Tears Stanley Like Some Sort Of A Signal🧐 This man keeps turning up in the UVU footage from September 10th, and he is not blending in. He is one of the maroon shirts in the crowd that day, standing in the same pocket of video as George Zinn, and he is holding a “Liberal Tears” Stanley cup up in a long, stiff pose that does not look like a normal sip. Watch the clips. He is not just carrying the cup. He holds it high and keeps it there, then later films himself waving that same branded Stanley straight into the lens. That is a lot of work for a water bottle. Maroon shirts clustered in that courtyard already look like a unit, not random merch. Add a prop held like a marker and you have a person investigators should be able to name. The chest print is still unidentified. It is a white mark that reads like a backwards N. Not the Nebraska block N. If you know the brand, or you know this face, say it. Crowd-source the ID before this guy disappears back into the pile of “just a guy in the crowd.” If you recognize him, the shirt, or the cup print, drop it. This is one of the people on camera in the minutes that still do not add up. Shoutout to Charliesangels47 For sending me this clip. Be sure to FOLLOW Her!

Project Constitution

154,113 次观看 • 26 天前

Today we're announcing microSLAM, a monocular SLAM system built by our computer vision team in Zürich with ETH Zurich's Computer Vision and Geometry Lab. It ranks first on the LaMaria benchmark for monocular SLAM, and holds up against systems that carry many more cameras and IMUs. Ours runs on a single RGB stream. Robot learning is bottlenecked on data, and the largest untapped source is people going about their work. A camera on someone's head for an afternoon in a plant is a record of how that plant actually operates, including all the parts nobody writes down. That data is only useful if you can recover the geometry, and geometry from one moving camera in a world that will not sit still is the hard version of the problem. Solving it monocular is what makes the data cheap. Rigs do not scale to every worker. Glasses do. microSLAM turns that footage into interactive 3D environments where behavioral foundation models can be trained. One person walks a factory floor. A robot learns to navigate it.

Today we're announcing microSLAM, a monocular SLAM system built by our computer vision team in Zürich with ETH Zurich's Computer Vision and Geometry Lab. It ranks first on the LaMaria benchmark for monocular SLAM, and holds up against systems that carry many more cameras and IMUs. Ours runs on a single RGB stream. Robot learning is bottlenecked on data, and the largest untapped source is people going about their work. A camera on someone's head for an afternoon in a plant is a record of how that plant actually operates, including all the parts nobody writes down. That data is only useful if you can recover the geometry, and geometry from one moving camera in a world that will not sit still is the hard version of the problem. Solving it monocular is what makes the data cheap. Rigs do not scale to every worker. Glasses do. microSLAM turns that footage into interactive 3D environments where behavioral foundation models can be trained. One person walks a factory floor. A robot learns to navigate it.

Gianni Hodel

68,719 次观看 • 21 天前