Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Trenching just got better. Nocturnal now: 1. Custom TP/SL = exit before 100x 2. IGNITION POINT 🔥: spot the runners early. 3. Dev buys? Dev sells? Wallet %? All exposed. If you're still trading blind, you're food for whales. Sleep better. Trench harder. Nocturnal

28,534 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

David Sacks Explains How AI Will Go 1,000,000x in Four Years "I would say the rate of progress is exponential right now on at least three key dimensions." 1) The models "So number one is the algorithms themselves. The models are improving at a rate of, I don't know, 3-4x a year." "They're not just getting faster and better, but qualitatively they're different." "Remember, we started with pure LLM chatbots." "Then we went to reasoning models." "We didn't even get to the agents part of it yet, but that's the next big leap after reasoning models." "We're just starting to scratch the surface there." 2) The chips "Then you've got the chips." "Depending on how you measure it, each generation of chips is probably 3-4x better than the last." "It's not just the individual chips that are getting better, they're figuring out how to network them together." "Like with NVL72, it's like a rack system to create much better performance at the datacenter level." 3) The compute "And that would be the third area where you're seeing basically exponential progress." "Just look at the number of GPUs that are being deployed in datacenters." "So when Elon first started training Grok, I think they had maybe 100K GPUs. Now they're up to 300K. They're on their way to a million. Same thing with OpenAI's data center, Stargate." "And within a couple years they'll be at, I don't know, 5M GPUs, 10M GPUs? How Sacks gets to 1,000,000x: "The algorithms, the chips, and the datacenters are all improving or scaling at a rate of 3-4x a year." "That's 10x every two years." "Where people don't understand exponential progress is that if you're getting better at 10x every two years, that doesn't mean you'll be at 20x in four years." "It means you'll be at a 100x." "So you multiply those things together: the algorithms, the chips, and the raw compute that's available." 100x models 🧠 x 100x chips 💾 x 100x compute ⚡️ = 1,000,000x AI 🤖 "You're talking about 1,000,000x increase." "Some of which will be captured in price reductions, some of it will be in the performance ceiling, and then some of it will just be in the overall amount of AI compute that's available to the economy." "But the impact of this thing is gonna be absolutely massive." "And I think people still don't even appreciate that fact because they don't understand exponential progress."

The All-In Podcast

486,198 просмотров • 1 год назад

This is my most important post of all time: For anybody who trades/invests in coins that I push, you will want to know this. I have one last goal to achieve in this space. 1. Be the best dev of all time (avg ATH / avg MC) 2. Run a coin to a billion market cap. ---------------------------------------------------------- What you need to know: 1. Any coins I push are all a part of @PIEindex $PIE. This is the backbone of this ecosystem to achieve said goals. 2. When I push other coins, it DOES NOT, mean I'n giving up on the others. If it is in the @PIEindex (dev wallet) is has my support, even if it doesn't look like it at the time. 3. Panic sellers that don't understand this and hop from one coin to the other will just be selling their bags to me and @PIEindex for cheap. (if it is still in our index). Example: A coin may go to 2m, down to 300k, and up to 10m, all while I'm posting about another coin. ---------------------------------------------------------- How I will be the GOAT dev and run up a 1B MC coin: My job is to take great narratives, and give them enough runway (initial support) to fly on their own. Example: $67 is at 25 million market cap. It is not reliant on the dev anymore, it became bigger than him. From my unique ability to not only push a coin here on X, but also Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, I will be giving each coin enough eyeballs for it to have a life of its own. Some coins might be an instant hit, some coins may run, die, then rise from the dead from @PIEindex support. Some coins may just die entirely (you will know this is the @PIEindex dev wallet holds). ---------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: I am aiming to achieve things no dev has ever done before, and to do that requires putting up lots of calculated shots, and being very controversial and misunderstood, that is, until it works. I do not know what coins will go where, nor when. None of these coins should be taken as real investments nor anything I say as financial advice. I am trying to bring back memecoins and be the number one dev. Thank you for your support on this mission.

Nikolai

33,403 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

John Ternus, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering, explains why Apple deliberately made the iPhone harder to repair, and why the math says it was worth it: In a conversation with MKBHD, John frames the design challenge by asking you to imagine two extremes: "Sometimes for me I find it helpful to kind of think about the book ends. Like if you imagine a product that never fails, right? That just doesn't fail. And on the other end, a product that maybe isn't very reliable but is super easy to repair." His position is clear: "Product that never fails is obviously better for the customer. It's better for the environment." When pushed on whether infinite repairability and infinite durability have to be mutually exclusive, John acknowledges they aren't always, but explains why the tension is real, using the iPhone battery as an example. Batteries wear out. If you want to extend the life of the product, they need to be replaced. But in the early days of iPhone, one of the most common failures wasn't the battery, it was water: "Where you drop it in the pool or you, you know, spill your drink on it and the unit fails. And so, we've been making strides over all those years to get better and better and better in terms of minimizing those failures." That work led Apple to an IP68 rating, the point where customers fish their phones out of lakes after two weeks and find them still working. But there was a cost to achieving that level of durability: "To get the product there, you've got to design a lot of seals, adhesives, other things to make it perform that way, which makes it a little harder to do that battery repair." That's the deliberate tradeoff. Apple chose tighter seals and stronger adhesives, knowing it would make battery replacement more difficult, because the reliability gains were worth it. John argues the math backs this decision: "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability and it's ultimately better for the planet because the failure rates since we got to that point have just dropped. It's plummeted, right? The number of repairs that need to happen and every time you're doing a repair, you're bringing in new materials to replace whatever broke." His conclusion reframes the entire repairability debate: "You can actually do the math and figure out there's a threshold at which if I can make it this durable, then it's better to have it a little bit harder to repair because it's going to net out."

Big Brain Business

385,397 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад