Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

🇧🇪 🚨𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄𝐓 €𝟑𝟎𝐌 𝐋𝐘𝐎𝐍 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐅𝐎𝐅𝐀𝐍𝐀 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐑! 🔵🔴 20 Yrs RF LW 3 G/A So Far in 728 Mins Volume Dribbler Like Yamal 20% Ball Loss Same Value As Marcus Rashford👀

The Stat Guy

19,680 subscribers

158,449 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🔵🔴🚨𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐄 "𝐆𝐎𝐋𝐃𝐄𝐍" 𝐋𝐀 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓🇪🇸💎 𝐉𝐔𝐀𝐍 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐀́𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐙 (𝟏𝟖) Has 4 G and 4 A in 20 Games Right Footed AMF/LW🔥 He has Been Called Up 3 Times By Flick👀

🔵🔴🚨𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐄 "𝐆𝐎𝐋𝐃𝐄𝐍" 𝐋𝐀 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓🇪🇸💎 𝐉𝐔𝐀𝐍 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐀́𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐙 (𝟏𝟖) Has 4 G and 4 A in 20 Games Right Footed AMF/LW🔥 He has Been Called Up 3 Times By Flick👀

The Stat Guy

45,508 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🚨🔵🔴 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐋𝐘 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝐄𝐃𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐈𝐂̧𝐀̃𝐎(16)🇧🇷✨ Conceição 4 G & 3 A Right Footed LW Most Dribbles in Copinha 2026 Next Neymar🤩 His Agents were at the Ciutat Esportiva👀

🚨🔵🔴 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐋𝐘 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝐄𝐃𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐈𝐂̧𝐀̃𝐎(16)🇧🇷✨ Conceição 4 G & 3 A Right Footed LW Most Dribbles in Copinha 2026 Next Neymar🤩 His Agents were at the Ciutat Esportiva👀

The Stat Guy

174,153 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF ELON'S CYBERCAB AND ROBOVAN PRESENTATION 00:00 Welcome 01:16 Cybercab & Future of transportation 04:33 Cost 05:53 Timeline 07:13 Self-driving technology 10:05 Inductive charging 10:24 The cities of the future 11:04 Robovan 12:13 Optimus Welcome Welcome to the We, Robot party. We have quite a show for you tonight. I think you're going to like it. As you can see, I just arrived in the Robotaxi, the Cybercab. And there's 20 more where that came from. So they've been traveling, there's no people in them. As you can see, the car is just going by with no people. We have 50 fully autonomous cars here tonight. So you'll see model Y's and the Cybercabs, all driverless. You'll be able to take a ride in the Cybercab. There's no steering wheel or pedals. So I hope this goes well, we'll find out. You see a lot of sci-fi movies where the future is dark and dismal, where it's not a future you want to be in. So, you know, I love Blade Runner, but I don't know if we want that future. We want that duster he's wearing, but not the bleak apocalypse. We want to have a fun, exciting future that, if you could look in a crystal ball and see the future, you'd be like, yes, I wish I could be there now. That's what we want. Cybercab & Future of transportation So, when we think about transport today, there's a lot of pain that we take for granted, that we think is normal. Like having to drive around LA in 3 hours of traffic. Yeah, people that live in LA, I mean, you know, try to get from Pasadena to El Segundo during rush hour. You can fly to another city faster than you can get to LA. And you have to drive the whole way, unless you're in a Tesla. Of course, our Tesla already does quite well at this supervised self-driving. So, supervised full self-driving is actually working quite well. I'm sure there's people in the crowd who are using that. So, we'll move from supervised full self-driving to unsupervised full self-driving where the car, you could fall asleep and wake up at your destination. But there's also a challenge for a lot of people that cars cost too much. I mean, when you factor in everything that goes into a car and the car insurance and the car payments, storage of the car, it's very expensive. You say, like, how many hours a week are cars used? Your average passenger car is only used about 10 hours a week out of 168 hours. So, the vast majority of the time cars are just doing nothing. But if they're autonomous, they could be used, I don't know, five times more, maybe ten times more. So you could actually, for the same car, would have five times as much value, maybe ten times as much value. There's 168 hours in the week, and like I said, only ten of them are used for driving. And then, a bunch of those hours are looking for a parking spot, which can be pretty annoying at times. So, with autonomy, you get your time back. This is a very big deal. So it's not just, it'll save lives, like a lot of lives and prevent injuries. I think we'll see autonomous cars become ten times safer than a human. I mean, if you think of times past where there used to be an elevator operator in every elevator but once in a while, they get tired and accidentally shear somebody in half. Now, we have automated elevators. You just get an elevator and you press a button and you don't even think about it and it just takes you to the floor. And if you did see an elevator operator with a big relay switch, you'd be like, that's weird. That's how cars will be. And it's not just the lives saved in injuries, but if you think about the cumulative time that people spend in a car and the time that they will get back that they can now spend, well, I guess, on their phones or watching a movie or doing work or whatever you want to do you can think of the car in autonomous world as being like just little lounge. You're just sitting in a comfortable little lounge and you can do whatever you want while you're in this comfortable little lounge. And when you get out, you will be at your destination. So, yeah, it's gonna be awesome. Cost So, in fact, I think the cost of autonomous transport will be so low that you can think of it like individualized mass transit. The average cost of a bus per mile for a city, not the ticket price, because that is subsidized, but the average price is about a dollar a mile, whereas the cost of Cybercab we think probably over time, the operating cost is probably going to be around twenty cents a mile. Including taxes and everything else, it probably ends up being 30 or 40 cents a mile. And you will be able to buy one. And we expect the cost to be below $30,000. And I think there'll be an interesting business model where, let's say somebody is an Uber or Lyft driver today where they can actually sort of manage a fleet of cars and like, sort of manage, I don't know, 10, 20 cars and just take care of them. Like a shepherd tends their flock. You have a little flock of cars and you're the shepherd and you take care of your flock of cars. I think that would be pretty cool. I think it's going to be a glorious future. It's going to be really something special. Timeline We do expect actually to start fully autonomous unsupervised FSD in Texas and California next year. And that's obviously, that's with the Model 3 and Model Y. And then we expect to be in production with the Cybercab, which is really highly optimized for autonomous transport in probably, I tend to be a little optimistic with time frames, but in 2026. So, yeah, before 2027, let me put it that way. And we'll make this vehicle in very high volume. But well, before that, you will experience a robotic taxi via the Model 3 and Model Y program and model S and X, too. But the Model 3 and Y will achieve unsupervised full self-driving with permission, in wherever regulators essentially approve it. In the US, and then to follow outside the US. And Cybertruck, too. All our cars are basically, all cars that we make. Let's not get nuanced here. Self-driving technology One of the reasons why the computer can be so much better than a person is that we have millions of cars that are training on driving. It's like living millions of lives simultaneously and seeing very unusual situations that a person in their entire lifetime would not see. With that amount of training data, it's obviously going to be much better than what a human could be because you can't live a million lives. And it's also, it can see in all directions simultaneously and it doesn't get tired or text or any of those things. So, it will naturally be, like I said 10, 20, 30 times safer than a human, just for all those reasons. And I want to emphasize that the solution that we have is, AI and vision. So, there's no expensive equipment needed. The Model 3 and Model Y and S and X that we make today will be capable of full autonomy, unsupervised. And that means that our cost of producing the vehicle is low. Now, we are going to actually over-spec the computer for the Cybercab. So, our AI 5 computer will be somewhat over-spec'd because I think there's actually also an opportunity, sort of like an Amazon Web Services, where if the car is driving for 50 hours a week, there's still over 100 hours left and there's a potential there to have a massive amount of distributed inference compute, where if you've got like a fleet of 100 million vehicles and a kilowatt of efficient inference compute, you have 100 gigawatts of compute, which is really quite substantial. And if it's there, you might as well use it so that I think will make sense. So, our autonomous future is here. As I said, we've got 50 Teslas driving autonomously. We're trying to give you a sense of what cities will be like in the future. And when you get in, you'll see like, it's really quite a wild experience to just be in a car with no steering wheel, no pedals, no controls, and it feels great. So we have enough vehicles here, so everyone should be able to try it out and experience the set that we've built here. It's a very big set. So it's like really we've used I don't know, 20, 30 acres or something like that. It's really big. So, it goes on, the ride's long. And we set it up to feel like a ride, like a park ride. So, it'll be cool and you'll get to experience it tonight. Inductive charging Something we're also doing is and it's really high time we did this is inductive charging. So, the robotaxi has no plug. It just goes over the inductive charger and charges. So, yeah, it's kind of how it should be. The cities of the future One of the things that is really interesting is how will this affect the cities that we live in. And when you drive around a city, or when the car drives you around the city, you'll see there's a lot of parking lots. There's parking lots everywhere, parking garages. What would happen if you have an autonomous world is that you can now turn parking lots into parks. And so, from we're taking the inglot out of parking lot. You're welcome. So, there's a lot of opportunity to create green space in the cities that we live in. So, like, that would be quite fantastic. Robovan Oh, and also, what happens if you need a vehicle that is bigger than a Model Y? The Robovan. We're going to make this and it's going to look like that. Now, can you imagine going down the streets and you see this coming towards you? That'd be sick. So this can carry up to 20 people, and it can also transport goods. You can configure it for goods transport within a city. Or transport of up to 20 people at a time. The Robovan is what's gonna solve for high density. If you want to take a sports team somewhere or you're looking to really get the cost of travel down to, I don't know, 5, 10 cents a mile, then you can use the Robovan. One of the things we want to do, and we've seen this with the Cybertruck, is we want to change the look of the roads. The future should look like the future. Optimus Speaking of robots. Everything we've developed for our cars, the batteries, power electronics, the advanced motors, gearboxes, the software, the AI inference computer, it all actually applies to a humanoid robot. The same techniques. It's just a robot with arms and legs instead of a robot with wheels. We've made a lot of progress with Optimus. And as you can see, we started up with someone in a robot suit. And then, we've progressed dramatically, year after year. So, if you extrapolate this, you're really going to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own. So, you can have your own personal R2-D2-C3PO. And I think at scale, this would cost something like, I don't know, $20,000, $30,000, probably less than a car is my prediction, long-term. It'll take us a minute to get to the long term. But fundamentally, at scale, the Optimus robot, you should be able to buy an Optimus robot for, I think, probably $20,000 to $30,000, long-term. And what can it do? It'll basically do anything you want. It can be a teacher or babysit your kids, it can walk your dog, mow your lawn, get the groceries, just be your friend, serve drinks whatever you can think of, it will do. And, yeah, it's going to be awesome. I think this will be the biggest product ever of any kind, because I think everyone of the 8 billion people of Earth, I think everyone's going to want their Optimus buddy. And there's going to be maybe two. And then, they'll be producing products and services. I predict, actually, provided we address risks of digital superintelligence, 80% probability of good outcome, look on the bright side, the cup is 80% full, the cost of products and services will decline dramatically. And basically, anyone will be able to have any products and services they want. It will be an age of abundance the likes of which people have not, almost no one has envisioned. It will be something special. So now, one of the things we wanted to show tonight was that Optimus is not a canned video. It's not walled off. The Optimus robots will walk among you. Please, please be nice to the Optimus robots. You'll be able to walk right up to them and they'll serve drinks at the bar. I mean, it's a wild experience just to have humanoid robots and they're there, you're just in front of you. So yeah, with that, let's party!

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF ELON'S CYBERCAB AND ROBOVAN PRESENTATION 00:00 Welcome 01:16 Cybercab & Future of transportation 04:33 Cost 05:53 Timeline 07:13 Self-driving technology 10:05 Inductive charging 10:24 The cities of the future 11:04 Robovan 12:13 Optimus Welcome Welcome to the We, Robot party. We have quite a show for you tonight. I think you're going to like it. As you can see, I just arrived in the Robotaxi, the Cybercab. And there's 20 more where that came from. So they've been traveling, there's no people in them. As you can see, the car is just going by with no people. We have 50 fully autonomous cars here tonight. So you'll see model Y's and the Cybercabs, all driverless. You'll be able to take a ride in the Cybercab. There's no steering wheel or pedals. So I hope this goes well, we'll find out. You see a lot of sci-fi movies where the future is dark and dismal, where it's not a future you want to be in. So, you know, I love Blade Runner, but I don't know if we want that future. We want that duster he's wearing, but not the bleak apocalypse. We want to have a fun, exciting future that, if you could look in a crystal ball and see the future, you'd be like, yes, I wish I could be there now. That's what we want. Cybercab & Future of transportation So, when we think about transport today, there's a lot of pain that we take for granted, that we think is normal. Like having to drive around LA in 3 hours of traffic. Yeah, people that live in LA, I mean, you know, try to get from Pasadena to El Segundo during rush hour. You can fly to another city faster than you can get to LA. And you have to drive the whole way, unless you're in a Tesla. Of course, our Tesla already does quite well at this supervised self-driving. So, supervised full self-driving is actually working quite well. I'm sure there's people in the crowd who are using that. So, we'll move from supervised full self-driving to unsupervised full self-driving where the car, you could fall asleep and wake up at your destination. But there's also a challenge for a lot of people that cars cost too much. I mean, when you factor in everything that goes into a car and the car insurance and the car payments, storage of the car, it's very expensive. You say, like, how many hours a week are cars used? Your average passenger car is only used about 10 hours a week out of 168 hours. So, the vast majority of the time cars are just doing nothing. But if they're autonomous, they could be used, I don't know, five times more, maybe ten times more. So you could actually, for the same car, would have five times as much value, maybe ten times as much value. There's 168 hours in the week, and like I said, only ten of them are used for driving. And then, a bunch of those hours are looking for a parking spot, which can be pretty annoying at times. So, with autonomy, you get your time back. This is a very big deal. So it's not just, it'll save lives, like a lot of lives and prevent injuries. I think we'll see autonomous cars become ten times safer than a human. I mean, if you think of times past where there used to be an elevator operator in every elevator but once in a while, they get tired and accidentally shear somebody in half. Now, we have automated elevators. You just get an elevator and you press a button and you don't even think about it and it just takes you to the floor. And if you did see an elevator operator with a big relay switch, you'd be like, that's weird. That's how cars will be. And it's not just the lives saved in injuries, but if you think about the cumulative time that people spend in a car and the time that they will get back that they can now spend, well, I guess, on their phones or watching a movie or doing work or whatever you want to do you can think of the car in autonomous world as being like just little lounge. You're just sitting in a comfortable little lounge and you can do whatever you want while you're in this comfortable little lounge. And when you get out, you will be at your destination. So, yeah, it's gonna be awesome. Cost So, in fact, I think the cost of autonomous transport will be so low that you can think of it like individualized mass transit. The average cost of a bus per mile for a city, not the ticket price, because that is subsidized, but the average price is about a dollar a mile, whereas the cost of Cybercab we think probably over time, the operating cost is probably going to be around twenty cents a mile. Including taxes and everything else, it probably ends up being 30 or 40 cents a mile. And you will be able to buy one. And we expect the cost to be below $30,000. And I think there'll be an interesting business model where, let's say somebody is an Uber or Lyft driver today where they can actually sort of manage a fleet of cars and like, sort of manage, I don't know, 10, 20 cars and just take care of them. Like a shepherd tends their flock. You have a little flock of cars and you're the shepherd and you take care of your flock of cars. I think that would be pretty cool. I think it's going to be a glorious future. It's going to be really something special. Timeline We do expect actually to start fully autonomous unsupervised FSD in Texas and California next year. And that's obviously, that's with the Model 3 and Model Y. And then we expect to be in production with the Cybercab, which is really highly optimized for autonomous transport in probably, I tend to be a little optimistic with time frames, but in 2026. So, yeah, before 2027, let me put it that way. And we'll make this vehicle in very high volume. But well, before that, you will experience a robotic taxi via the Model 3 and Model Y program and model S and X, too. But the Model 3 and Y will achieve unsupervised full self-driving with permission, in wherever regulators essentially approve it. In the US, and then to follow outside the US. And Cybertruck, too. All our cars are basically, all cars that we make. Let's not get nuanced here. Self-driving technology One of the reasons why the computer can be so much better than a person is that we have millions of cars that are training on driving. It's like living millions of lives simultaneously and seeing very unusual situations that a person in their entire lifetime would not see. With that amount of training data, it's obviously going to be much better than what a human could be because you can't live a million lives. And it's also, it can see in all directions simultaneously and it doesn't get tired or text or any of those things. So, it will naturally be, like I said 10, 20, 30 times safer than a human, just for all those reasons. And I want to emphasize that the solution that we have is, AI and vision. So, there's no expensive equipment needed. The Model 3 and Model Y and S and X that we make today will be capable of full autonomy, unsupervised. And that means that our cost of producing the vehicle is low. Now, we are going to actually over-spec the computer for the Cybercab. So, our AI 5 computer will be somewhat over-spec'd because I think there's actually also an opportunity, sort of like an Amazon Web Services, where if the car is driving for 50 hours a week, there's still over 100 hours left and there's a potential there to have a massive amount of distributed inference compute, where if you've got like a fleet of 100 million vehicles and a kilowatt of efficient inference compute, you have 100 gigawatts of compute, which is really quite substantial. And if it's there, you might as well use it so that I think will make sense. So, our autonomous future is here. As I said, we've got 50 Teslas driving autonomously. We're trying to give you a sense of what cities will be like in the future. And when you get in, you'll see like, it's really quite a wild experience to just be in a car with no steering wheel, no pedals, no controls, and it feels great. So we have enough vehicles here, so everyone should be able to try it out and experience the set that we've built here. It's a very big set. So it's like really we've used I don't know, 20, 30 acres or something like that. It's really big. So, it goes on, the ride's long. And we set it up to feel like a ride, like a park ride. So, it'll be cool and you'll get to experience it tonight. Inductive charging Something we're also doing is and it's really high time we did this is inductive charging. So, the robotaxi has no plug. It just goes over the inductive charger and charges. So, yeah, it's kind of how it should be. The cities of the future One of the things that is really interesting is how will this affect the cities that we live in. And when you drive around a city, or when the car drives you around the city, you'll see there's a lot of parking lots. There's parking lots everywhere, parking garages. What would happen if you have an autonomous world is that you can now turn parking lots into parks. And so, from we're taking the inglot out of parking lot. You're welcome. So, there's a lot of opportunity to create green space in the cities that we live in. So, like, that would be quite fantastic. Robovan Oh, and also, what happens if you need a vehicle that is bigger than a Model Y? The Robovan. We're going to make this and it's going to look like that. Now, can you imagine going down the streets and you see this coming towards you? That'd be sick. So this can carry up to 20 people, and it can also transport goods. You can configure it for goods transport within a city. Or transport of up to 20 people at a time. The Robovan is what's gonna solve for high density. If you want to take a sports team somewhere or you're looking to really get the cost of travel down to, I don't know, 5, 10 cents a mile, then you can use the Robovan. One of the things we want to do, and we've seen this with the Cybertruck, is we want to change the look of the roads. The future should look like the future. Optimus Speaking of robots. Everything we've developed for our cars, the batteries, power electronics, the advanced motors, gearboxes, the software, the AI inference computer, it all actually applies to a humanoid robot. The same techniques. It's just a robot with arms and legs instead of a robot with wheels. We've made a lot of progress with Optimus. And as you can see, we started up with someone in a robot suit. And then, we've progressed dramatically, year after year. So, if you extrapolate this, you're really going to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own. So, you can have your own personal R2-D2-C3PO. And I think at scale, this would cost something like, I don't know, $20,000, $30,000, probably less than a car is my prediction, long-term. It'll take us a minute to get to the long term. But fundamentally, at scale, the Optimus robot, you should be able to buy an Optimus robot for, I think, probably $20,000 to $30,000, long-term. And what can it do? It'll basically do anything you want. It can be a teacher or babysit your kids, it can walk your dog, mow your lawn, get the groceries, just be your friend, serve drinks whatever you can think of, it will do. And, yeah, it's going to be awesome. I think this will be the biggest product ever of any kind, because I think everyone of the 8 billion people of Earth, I think everyone's going to want their Optimus buddy. And there's going to be maybe two. And then, they'll be producing products and services. I predict, actually, provided we address risks of digital superintelligence, 80% probability of good outcome, look on the bright side, the cup is 80% full, the cost of products and services will decline dramatically. And basically, anyone will be able to have any products and services they want. It will be an age of abundance the likes of which people have not, almost no one has envisioned. It will be something special. So now, one of the things we wanted to show tonight was that Optimus is not a canned video. It's not walled off. The Optimus robots will walk among you. Please, please be nice to the Optimus robots. You'll be able to walk right up to them and they'll serve drinks at the bar. I mean, it's a wild experience just to have humanoid robots and they're there, you're just in front of you. So yeah, with that, let's party!

Mario Nawfal

241,051 просмотров • 1 год назад

Story of WZ-7/10 working together to detect target emissions & then tracking it down. Satellites notify C2 of possible problems, WZ-10 drone gathers electronic data from target > 500 km away & WZ-7 flies over to ID the target ship. Elint/Sigint is more important than ever as shown in the recent IAF/PAF engagement. The side that picks up emissions from satellites first can hone in on target & confirm positioning via airborne platforms. How to find ships & aircraft in large Ocean area? You need satellite constellations & large # of aerial platform patrolled by long endurance drones & special missions platform like Y-9 aircraft. PLA embarked on a massive special missions platform buildup around Y-8/9 in mid 2000s based on the type of assets US military was deploying around its borders. Learning from the best is how you catch up. 20 yrs later, PLA is now at cutting edge where its front line fighter jet rarely turn on their RF to keep their profiles low, relying on EW & Elint aircraft/satellites to mess up other side's RF & get early reading on their positioning b4 directing ISR assets to beam in & track their positioning. All while relying on operational control to perform intel analysis & give directions. Note the last part where it passes coordinates to PLARF to launch missiles at target. Identify possible target -> gather Elint/Sigint -> confirm target location & ID -> give command to attack it So this is a within 2IC kill chain developed over 2 decades of cat/mouse game in westpac. When I 1st started following PLA, I was often told that carrier groups are really fast & hard to track. The Soviets could not ID target fast enough & send Backfires over quickly enough for target to still be there over Pacific Ocean. Modern tech + rise of satellites & drones are making large carrier group or even solo ship operation in westpac almost untenable due to their need to have some level of communication w/ outside world. Even SSNs can be ID'd when they come up to periscope depth to communicate w/ satellites. That's why you see China keep launching more Elint/Sigint satellites to constellation as well as communication satellites to complete the data-linking & info sharing. More satellites -> better area coverage & more resilience. When China sold J-10C & PL-15s to PAF, what it actually sold to PAF was the intel sharing & kill chain. IAF was surprised by how quickly PAF was able to ID its assets & launch missiles at them from far away. When US military provides support to Ukraine, the satellite intel, data-linking & ISR is simply irreplaceable. That's the value of these global satellite network & drones.

Story of WZ-7/10 working together to detect target emissions & then tracking it down. Satellites notify C2 of possible problems, WZ-10 drone gathers electronic data from target > 500 km away & WZ-7 flies over to ID the target ship. Elint/Sigint is more important than ever as shown in the recent IAF/PAF engagement. The side that picks up emissions from satellites first can hone in on target & confirm positioning via airborne platforms. How to find ships & aircraft in large Ocean area? You need satellite constellations & large # of aerial platform patrolled by long endurance drones & special missions platform like Y-9 aircraft. PLA embarked on a massive special missions platform buildup around Y-8/9 in mid 2000s based on the type of assets US military was deploying around its borders. Learning from the best is how you catch up. 20 yrs later, PLA is now at cutting edge where its front line fighter jet rarely turn on their RF to keep their profiles low, relying on EW & Elint aircraft/satellites to mess up other side's RF & get early reading on their positioning b4 directing ISR assets to beam in & track their positioning. All while relying on operational control to perform intel analysis & give directions. Note the last part where it passes coordinates to PLARF to launch missiles at target. Identify possible target -> gather Elint/Sigint -> confirm target location & ID -> give command to attack it So this is a within 2IC kill chain developed over 2 decades of cat/mouse game in westpac. When I 1st started following PLA, I was often told that carrier groups are really fast & hard to track. The Soviets could not ID target fast enough & send Backfires over quickly enough for target to still be there over Pacific Ocean. Modern tech + rise of satellites & drones are making large carrier group or even solo ship operation in westpac almost untenable due to their need to have some level of communication w/ outside world. Even SSNs can be ID'd when they come up to periscope depth to communicate w/ satellites. That's why you see China keep launching more Elint/Sigint satellites to constellation as well as communication satellites to complete the data-linking & info sharing. More satellites -> better area coverage & more resilience. When China sold J-10C & PL-15s to PAF, what it actually sold to PAF was the intel sharing & kill chain. IAF was surprised by how quickly PAF was able to ID its assets & launch missiles at them from far away. When US military provides support to Ukraine, the satellite intel, data-linking & ISR is simply irreplaceable. That's the value of these global satellite network & drones.

tphuang

19,216 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

🚨REMINDING YOU AGAIN THIS IS LITERALLY YOUR LAST CHANCE ON $KTA If you’ve been following me and hopefully listening to me, you’ve been making incredible gains on $FRAX & $MAMO Now listen. Once again, I’m giving you the signal on $KTA . It’s about to breakout of this reaccumulation zone and head straight to $3+ For those who don’t know, Eric Schmidt the former CEO of Google who is one of the world’s richest people, invested $20 Million into $KTA If you watch the clip below, the founder of $KTA Ty gets asked about how he met Eric Schmidt and how much he invested. The key here is he said Eric invested $17M at first and recently invested another $3M. Also Eric called Keeta’s vision the “biggest thing he has ever heard of.” So why was Eric Schmidt, one of the smartest minds in tech, so impressed by $KTA and invested $17M and then recently another $3M? First because recently $KTA did a live demo of their mainnet and they reached 11.5 million transactions per second making $KTA the fastest blockchain in all of crypto Second because Keeta aims to be a “network of networks”. So what does that mean? “Most blockchains want to dominate the ecosystem, but Keeta is different. Think of Keeta as a global highway connecting all financial systems — blockchains, banks, and apps. No need to replace them, just link them. Our vision is simple: any asset, any person, any platform, no barriers. Imagine this: A Venmo user sends money to a Cash App user without needing to download a new app. Or a trader swaps Bitcoin for Ethereum in one click, no hassle. That’s the kind of seamless value transfer Keeta enables. Keeta anchors each external system, from blockchains to banks, into a single, universal protocol. Bitcoin, Ethereum, fiat, commodities, securities, etc… All can coexist and be exchanged within the same network. The network is built for traditional financial systems, not just blockchains. Keeta can integrate: ∙ Domestic payment systems (like ACH or SEPA) ∙ Card networks (like Visa & Mastercard) ∙ Foreign exchange systems ∙ + much more Everything becomes interoperable. Keeta is the first network built for real-world interoperability across apps, countries, and assets.” Fade at your own risk 🔮

🚨REMINDING YOU AGAIN THIS IS LITERALLY YOUR LAST CHANCE ON $KTA If you’ve been following me and hopefully listening to me, you’ve been making incredible gains on $FRAX & $MAMO Now listen. Once again, I’m giving you the signal on $KTA . It’s about to breakout of this reaccumulation zone and head straight to $3+ For those who don’t know, Eric Schmidt the former CEO of Google who is one of the world’s richest people, invested $20 Million into $KTA If you watch the clip below, the founder of $KTA Ty gets asked about how he met Eric Schmidt and how much he invested. The key here is he said Eric invested $17M at first and recently invested another $3M. Also Eric called Keeta’s vision the “biggest thing he has ever heard of.” So why was Eric Schmidt, one of the smartest minds in tech, so impressed by $KTA and invested $17M and then recently another $3M? First because recently $KTA did a live demo of their mainnet and they reached 11.5 million transactions per second making $KTA the fastest blockchain in all of crypto Second because Keeta aims to be a “network of networks”. So what does that mean? “Most blockchains want to dominate the ecosystem, but Keeta is different. Think of Keeta as a global highway connecting all financial systems — blockchains, banks, and apps. No need to replace them, just link them. Our vision is simple: any asset, any person, any platform, no barriers. Imagine this: A Venmo user sends money to a Cash App user without needing to download a new app. Or a trader swaps Bitcoin for Ethereum in one click, no hassle. That’s the kind of seamless value transfer Keeta enables. Keeta anchors each external system, from blockchains to banks, into a single, universal protocol. Bitcoin, Ethereum, fiat, commodities, securities, etc… All can coexist and be exchanged within the same network. The network is built for traditional financial systems, not just blockchains. Keeta can integrate: ∙ Domestic payment systems (like ACH or SEPA) ∙ Card networks (like Visa & Mastercard) ∙ Foreign exchange systems ∙ + much more Everything becomes interoperable. Keeta is the first network built for real-world interoperability across apps, countries, and assets.” Fade at your own risk 🔮

Not Telling

83,333 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Boosie Badazz Responds to DJ Envy Over Interview Pay Claims 👀 Boosie is pushing back after DJ Envy allegedly suggested he was asking for too much money in negotiations with VladTV. 🔥 Boosie’s Response: •Denies the claim that his price is unreasonable •Says he was previously getting $ 25K per interview •Recently asked for $ 35K but hasn’t done an interview in 7 months 💰 His Argument: •Boosie says Envy is missing the bigger picture ➤ It’s not about single interviews it’s about the yearly rate •Claims his reduced appearances actually saved Vlad money overall 📊 On Numbers & Value: •Pushes back on the idea that platform stats define worth •Says many guests on VladTV don’t perform like his interviews do •Emphasizes: “Numbers ain’t everything… I’m Boosie. I’m different.” 📺 Impact on VladTV: •Boosie suggests he’s been a major driver of engagement on VladTV •Implies his interviews are among the most rewatched and talked about ⚠️ Direct Message to Envy: •Calls Envy “wrong” for his take •Invites him to settle it publicly on The Breakfast Club ➤ “We can have it out… I’ll make you understand.” 💭 My Thoughts on Boosie vs VladTV Situation 👀 Let’s break it down… Boosie Badazz can make around $ 60K + for just 30–45 minutes performing at a show. That’s quick, high value work. Now compare that to his interviews with VladTV: •Boosie is sitting down for 2–3 hour interviews •Those interviews get chopped into 20–30+ clips •Clips are posted across YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. •Vlad monetizes EVERYTHING ads, views, engagement •There’s even a paid subscription model where fans pay for early/full access Meanwhile… 📈 Those platforms have grown to hundreds of thousands to millions of followers 📊 And let’s be real a lot of that growth came off Boosie’s viral interviews and moments Point is: Boosie isn’t just “doing an interview” he’s providing hours of content that gets flipped into ongoing revenue streams across multiple platforms. So when it comes to him asking for more money… it’s not as crazy as people trying to make it seem.

🚨 Boosie Badazz Responds to DJ Envy Over Interview Pay Claims 👀 Boosie is pushing back after DJ Envy allegedly suggested he was asking for too much money in negotiations with VladTV. 🔥 Boosie’s Response: •Denies the claim that his price is unreasonable •Says he was previously getting $ 25K per interview •Recently asked for $ 35K but hasn’t done an interview in 7 months 💰 His Argument: •Boosie says Envy is missing the bigger picture ➤ It’s not about single interviews it’s about the yearly rate •Claims his reduced appearances actually saved Vlad money overall 📊 On Numbers & Value: •Pushes back on the idea that platform stats define worth •Says many guests on VladTV don’t perform like his interviews do •Emphasizes: “Numbers ain’t everything… I’m Boosie. I’m different.” 📺 Impact on VladTV: •Boosie suggests he’s been a major driver of engagement on VladTV •Implies his interviews are among the most rewatched and talked about ⚠️ Direct Message to Envy: •Calls Envy “wrong” for his take •Invites him to settle it publicly on The Breakfast Club ➤ “We can have it out… I’ll make you understand.” 💭 My Thoughts on Boosie vs VladTV Situation 👀 Let’s break it down… Boosie Badazz can make around $ 60K + for just 30–45 minutes performing at a show. That’s quick, high value work. Now compare that to his interviews with VladTV: •Boosie is sitting down for 2–3 hour interviews •Those interviews get chopped into 20–30+ clips •Clips are posted across YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. •Vlad monetizes EVERYTHING ads, views, engagement •There’s even a paid subscription model where fans pay for early/full access Meanwhile… 📈 Those platforms have grown to hundreds of thousands to millions of followers 📊 And let’s be real a lot of that growth came off Boosie’s viral interviews and moments Point is: Boosie isn’t just “doing an interview” he’s providing hours of content that gets flipped into ongoing revenue streams across multiple platforms. So when it comes to him asking for more money… it’s not as crazy as people trying to make it seem.

Cousin Tino ™️

254,726 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Today, we’re launching Airpost. I’m 46. That’s not a cool age to found a startup. At least according to Twitter. I still call it Twitter. I’ve loved advertising all my life. Since I was 19 and my mom told me about a movie called “Nothing in Common” with Tom Hanks where he plays an ad exec whose main job seems to be shooting hoops with his creative partner. That sounded fun. Since then, traditional advertising has stayed… traditional. From my 1st job out of college writing TV ads for Snapple and Fox Sports, to leading product marketing at Airbnb, I’ve seen a lot. Now the AI era is here and an entire $1T industry is about to change. Who will change it? Why not me? Why not us? Introducing Airpost: a platform and service where world-class creative strategists use custom-built AI to build video ads. Fast. If you’ve ever sat down to make an ad with AI and realized 20 minutes later you’re still wrestling with that same clip… that’s why we built Airpost. Growth teams are busy. They’re asked to do too many things as it is. They shouldn’t have to be AI experts as well. Creative strategists shouldn’t have to stare at a white box trying to decide what to prompt. They should have a partner. That’s what we aspire to be. And that’s what we’ve built our tech to do. AI ads shouldn’t have to mean only AI footage. We have an exclusive library of over 300,000 video clips we’ve shot ourselves. Our engine uses these, along with client footage and AI footage to make the ads we deliver each week. We’re funded by the best investors and humans we know. We bootstrapped our performance creative agency, Ready Set, to 200 people. I was always told VCs didn’t add value. If that’s true, it must be other VCs, because ours have been awesome. Thank you Zach Perret, Nate Abbott, Peter Hebert, Max Mullen and all of the firms and folks who’ve believed in us so far. We’ve gone from 0 to $1M ARR in the six months since we quietly started working with early clients like DoorDash, Dr. Squatch, Calm and more. So far, every customer has renewed. To celebrate the launch, we’re giving away a superagent where you: 1) Put in your product URL 2) Get snippets of what your real users are saying on Meta, TikTok, Reddit and X 3) Paste them into ad scripts Comment “Airpost” and I’ll DM you the private link. It feels (a little scary but) good to be out there. Here we go! 🚀

Today, we’re launching Airpost. I’m 46. That’s not a cool age to found a startup. At least according to Twitter. I still call it Twitter. I’ve loved advertising all my life. Since I was 19 and my mom told me about a movie called “Nothing in Common” with Tom Hanks where he plays an ad exec whose main job seems to be shooting hoops with his creative partner. That sounded fun. Since then, traditional advertising has stayed… traditional. From my 1st job out of college writing TV ads for Snapple and Fox Sports, to leading product marketing at Airbnb, I’ve seen a lot. Now the AI era is here and an entire $1T industry is about to change. Who will change it? Why not me? Why not us? Introducing Airpost: a platform and service where world-class creative strategists use custom-built AI to build video ads. Fast. If you’ve ever sat down to make an ad with AI and realized 20 minutes later you’re still wrestling with that same clip… that’s why we built Airpost. Growth teams are busy. They’re asked to do too many things as it is. They shouldn’t have to be AI experts as well. Creative strategists shouldn’t have to stare at a white box trying to decide what to prompt. They should have a partner. That’s what we aspire to be. And that’s what we’ve built our tech to do. AI ads shouldn’t have to mean only AI footage. We have an exclusive library of over 300,000 video clips we’ve shot ourselves. Our engine uses these, along with client footage and AI footage to make the ads we deliver each week. We’re funded by the best investors and humans we know. We bootstrapped our performance creative agency, Ready Set, to 200 people. I was always told VCs didn’t add value. If that’s true, it must be other VCs, because ours have been awesome. Thank you Zach Perret, Nate Abbott, Peter Hebert, Max Mullen and all of the firms and folks who’ve believed in us so far. We’ve gone from 0 to $1M ARR in the six months since we quietly started working with early clients like DoorDash, Dr. Squatch, Calm and more. So far, every customer has renewed. To celebrate the launch, we’re giving away a superagent where you: 1) Put in your product URL 2) Get snippets of what your real users are saying on Meta, TikTok, Reddit and X 3) Paste them into ad scripts Comment “Airpost” and I’ll DM you the private link. It feels (a little scary but) good to be out there. Here we go! 🚀

John Gargiulo

1,526,202 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

In 2025 I created an Arbitrage Bot for Kalshi Polymarket Opinion The results were actually quite surprising I will share how much I've been able to make using the bot at the end of the thread! But first, how does it even work? 1. The Strategy A lot of the viral trading bots on X for Prediction Markets are trying to trade just within Polymarket, mostly on highly volatile markets. Buying quickly / selling quickly, this works great if you’re a VC with an infinite budget for development and the fastest infrastructure positioned right next to Polymarkets servers, but doesn't work great for regular traders. I knew building a bot here is like trying to out sprint Usain Bolt wearing flip flops So instead if i wanted to make a bot it would have to be doing something I haven't seen anyone else do So after engaging 100% of my brain I remembered how I'd seen many of the same markets when browsing Kalshi that I'd previously seen on Polymarket. If the odds were different I'd actually be able to arbitrage the two platforms. After checking 20 or so pairs I found a few examples where the odds were different, proving my theory. So i started building 2. The Bot I began crafting an algorithm that collects all the Polymarket, Kalshi & Opinion markets and identifies any that are the same. In total that's over 6,000,000 markets, billions of potential combinations, from that i found around 6,000 that match. A lot of markets have the same title, but slight differences in the rules that means an arbitrage is not possible. For example ‘Will Trump meet XYZ person before ABC date’ - many of these exist between Poly Kalshi but Kalshi defines ‘meeting’ as online, or in real life, whilst Polymarket defines it strictly as in real life. To verify the matches I first used an algorithm that sees if the titles / rules are similar, then I feed every one of those potential pairs into an LLM that is prompted to approve / reject the potential match. This part sounds like it should be easy, but the LLMs were all so inconsistent. I’d pass the same market 10 times and it would reject it twice and approve it eight times. After a lot of prompt engineering I finally got it to a stage where it's at least 99% accurate. The bot then recreates locally all the orderbooks for the matched markets and looks for any pairs with YES + NO values of < $1 & calculate how much you can profitably buy of each side ( your EV ) 3. An Example ‘SpaceX IPO Closing Market Cap? 900B to 1T' This market exists on both Poly & Opinion, but right now the odds are different. YES / NO 4% / 97% - Polymarket 10% / 92% - Opinion Lets say you told the bot you wanted to trade $100 You’d split it $3.85 into Polymarket YES for 104.743 Shares $96.15 into Opinion NO for 104.743 Shares You spent $100, and you got 104.7 shares of each side And because 1 YES + 1 NO = $1 ( when the markets are identical ) Your expected profit is $4.7, because: value ( 104.7 shares * $1 ) - cost ( $100 ) = profit ( 4.7 Shares / $4.7 ) Then once the odds rebalance, usually a few days to a week, you can sell both sides and use the principal + the profit to take another arbitrage $100 isn't much, but imagine if you did $1000, or $10,000 every few days. Since creating the bot it has been finding around $350,000 in arbitrages from over 5,000 matching market pairs every month. That's more than I could ever take my self Assuming an average of 4% per arb (often more), It would take over $8,750,000 deployed to capture them all simultaneously That's why I initially shared the bot with some sharp sportsbook bettors for commission on their trades, eventually making it a public version that's on AlertPilot for anyone to use. 4. The Longevity Will this work forever? No, eventually a VC will come and eat our free lunch, it will become more competitive and the spreads wont be as high as they are now (+10% at times). My mantra here is just to make the most of it whilst I can, and release consistent updates so that it remains competitive against the competition. I already have a head start in that regard. I will say over the last 3 months of using the bot myself, plus adding traders / syndicates to the platform to trade as well, the amount of Arbitrages found has only increased. In large part no doubt to the huge increase in volume on PM’s, especially Opinion where many of the more profitable arbitrages have been. 5. The Profit So how much did I make? I started with a bankroll of $1,000 as I was skeptical initially how well the bot would work, first week I was able to close two 5% arbs. I then increased my bank roll and started sharing the bot with other traders. Since then I've been averaging five figures every month from my own trades + commissions. Anywhere between 12% to 20% per month in closed arbs, personally. To anyone reading this that wants to arbitraging these markets, i've released a version of the bot on AlertPilot! And for any VCs or betting syndicate that wants to trade these markets, my DMs are open. Aspiring trading bot makers, there is money out there if you can be creative in your strategies Have lots of plans for AlertPilot + the Arbitrage bot going into 2026. Happy new year everybody!

In 2025 I created an Arbitrage Bot for Kalshi Polymarket Opinion The results were actually quite surprising I will share how much I've been able to make using the bot at the end of the thread! But first, how does it even work? 1. The Strategy A lot of the viral trading bots on X for Prediction Markets are trying to trade just within Polymarket, mostly on highly volatile markets. Buying quickly / selling quickly, this works great if you’re a VC with an infinite budget for development and the fastest infrastructure positioned right next to Polymarkets servers, but doesn't work great for regular traders. I knew building a bot here is like trying to out sprint Usain Bolt wearing flip flops So instead if i wanted to make a bot it would have to be doing something I haven't seen anyone else do So after engaging 100% of my brain I remembered how I'd seen many of the same markets when browsing Kalshi that I'd previously seen on Polymarket. If the odds were different I'd actually be able to arbitrage the two platforms. After checking 20 or so pairs I found a few examples where the odds were different, proving my theory. So i started building 2. The Bot I began crafting an algorithm that collects all the Polymarket, Kalshi & Opinion markets and identifies any that are the same. In total that's over 6,000,000 markets, billions of potential combinations, from that i found around 6,000 that match. A lot of markets have the same title, but slight differences in the rules that means an arbitrage is not possible. For example ‘Will Trump meet XYZ person before ABC date’ - many of these exist between Poly Kalshi but Kalshi defines ‘meeting’ as online, or in real life, whilst Polymarket defines it strictly as in real life. To verify the matches I first used an algorithm that sees if the titles / rules are similar, then I feed every one of those potential pairs into an LLM that is prompted to approve / reject the potential match. This part sounds like it should be easy, but the LLMs were all so inconsistent. I’d pass the same market 10 times and it would reject it twice and approve it eight times. After a lot of prompt engineering I finally got it to a stage where it's at least 99% accurate. The bot then recreates locally all the orderbooks for the matched markets and looks for any pairs with YES + NO values of < $1 & calculate how much you can profitably buy of each side ( your EV ) 3. An Example ‘SpaceX IPO Closing Market Cap? 900B to 1T' This market exists on both Poly & Opinion, but right now the odds are different. YES / NO 4% / 97% - Polymarket 10% / 92% - Opinion Lets say you told the bot you wanted to trade $100 You’d split it $3.85 into Polymarket YES for 104.743 Shares $96.15 into Opinion NO for 104.743 Shares You spent $100, and you got 104.7 shares of each side And because 1 YES + 1 NO = $1 ( when the markets are identical ) Your expected profit is $4.7, because: value ( 104.7 shares * $1 ) - cost ( $100 ) = profit ( 4.7 Shares / $4.7 ) Then once the odds rebalance, usually a few days to a week, you can sell both sides and use the principal + the profit to take another arbitrage $100 isn't much, but imagine if you did $1000, or $10,000 every few days. Since creating the bot it has been finding around $350,000 in arbitrages from over 5,000 matching market pairs every month. That's more than I could ever take my self Assuming an average of 4% per arb (often more), It would take over $8,750,000 deployed to capture them all simultaneously That's why I initially shared the bot with some sharp sportsbook bettors for commission on their trades, eventually making it a public version that's on AlertPilot for anyone to use. 4. The Longevity Will this work forever? No, eventually a VC will come and eat our free lunch, it will become more competitive and the spreads wont be as high as they are now (+10% at times). My mantra here is just to make the most of it whilst I can, and release consistent updates so that it remains competitive against the competition. I already have a head start in that regard. I will say over the last 3 months of using the bot myself, plus adding traders / syndicates to the platform to trade as well, the amount of Arbitrages found has only increased. In large part no doubt to the huge increase in volume on PM’s, especially Opinion where many of the more profitable arbitrages have been. 5. The Profit So how much did I make? I started with a bankroll of $1,000 as I was skeptical initially how well the bot would work, first week I was able to close two 5% arbs. I then increased my bank roll and started sharing the bot with other traders. Since then I've been averaging five figures every month from my own trades + commissions. Anywhere between 12% to 20% per month in closed arbs, personally. To anyone reading this that wants to arbitraging these markets, i've released a version of the bot on AlertPilot! And for any VCs or betting syndicate that wants to trade these markets, my DMs are open. Aspiring trading bot makers, there is money out there if you can be creative in your strategies Have lots of plans for AlertPilot + the Arbitrage bot going into 2026. Happy new year everybody!

SecureZero is Hiring 

13,638 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

How to ACTUALLY reach 500 points on Arc without getting stuck or confused 👇 A lot of people complain: "Bro I watched all videos/articles already but not getting points anymore" 😭 The problem is most users consume everything randomly in one day without tracking anything. Here’s the easiest method that helped many users 👇 1️⃣ Don’t watch content randomly Every day, new videos/articles get published on arc. So first: – Open 2 tabs/windows – Tab 1 = Arc Home page – Tab 2 = Contribution page (where you see points for videos/articles) Now on the Contribution page: – Click the 3 dots/menu – Find the “Find/Search in page” option 👀 Then: – Copy one video/article title from Home page – Search it inside Contribution page Now you’ll understand: – which content already gave points – which one DIDN’T give points yet If no points were received before for that content, then watching it now can still reward points 🤝 This is the main trick most people miss. 2️⃣ Watch content in an organized way Start either: – from oldest content OR – newest content But stay consistent. Every day: – Watch around 4 videos – Read around 5 articles ⚠️ Don’t randomly open 20 videos together. After watching: – wait around 5–10 mins – points usually get added quickly If no points appear: that content probably won’t reward anymore → move to next one. Also remember: – which article/video you ended on today – continue from there tomorrow Mobile users can also use multiple tabs/windows same as PC 👀 Honestly, if you stay consistent with only videos + articles, 500+ points becomes very achievable. And don’t forget livestreams: many web livestreams give around 20 points each 🤝 3️⃣ Timing matters A LOT This is another huge mistake people make 👇 Most users: – watch today at random time – then watch tomorrow at another random time Result? No points 😭 Arc content rewards usually need a FULL 24h reset. Example: If you watched today at 6PM, then tomorrow start again around: 6:10PM – 6:15PM Don’t rush before 24h fully passes. And again: – only do around 4 videos + 5 articles daily – once points are added, stop there Watching too many extra videos usually doesn’t help. 4️⃣ Discord Application Tips (VERY IMPORTANT) Most people get rejected because their answers don’t match each other 😭 Example: Question 2: "What are you?" – You select “Content Creator” Then Question 3: "How will you help Arc?" – You answer “Building apps” See the problem? 👀 Your answers should CONNECT with each other. If you choose: – Content creator → talk about guides, videos, education, helping users. If you choose: – Builder → talk about products, apps, tools, etc. Usually 4–5 questions are connected together. If your answers feel random or inconsistent, rejection chance becomes very high. My suggestion 👇 – Reach 500 points first – Then apply carefully – Stay active in Discord – Join livestreams – Help community members on discord – Keep contributing & building consistently That’s honestly the best way to grow inside the ecosystem, and slowly get recognition for Tier badges & other community roles/badges too 💙 If you helped, please do like,repost & sahre you your frns🥰

How to ACTUALLY reach 500 points on Arc without getting stuck or confused 👇 A lot of people complain: "Bro I watched all videos/articles already but not getting points anymore" 😭 The problem is most users consume everything randomly in one day without tracking anything. Here’s the easiest method that helped many users 👇 1️⃣ Don’t watch content randomly Every day, new videos/articles get published on arc. So first: – Open 2 tabs/windows – Tab 1 = Arc Home page – Tab 2 = Contribution page (where you see points for videos/articles) Now on the Contribution page: – Click the 3 dots/menu – Find the “Find/Search in page” option 👀 Then: – Copy one video/article title from Home page – Search it inside Contribution page Now you’ll understand: – which content already gave points – which one DIDN’T give points yet If no points were received before for that content, then watching it now can still reward points 🤝 This is the main trick most people miss. 2️⃣ Watch content in an organized way Start either: – from oldest content OR – newest content But stay consistent. Every day: – Watch around 4 videos – Read around 5 articles ⚠️ Don’t randomly open 20 videos together. After watching: – wait around 5–10 mins – points usually get added quickly If no points appear: that content probably won’t reward anymore → move to next one. Also remember: – which article/video you ended on today – continue from there tomorrow Mobile users can also use multiple tabs/windows same as PC 👀 Honestly, if you stay consistent with only videos + articles, 500+ points becomes very achievable. And don’t forget livestreams: many web livestreams give around 20 points each 🤝 3️⃣ Timing matters A LOT This is another huge mistake people make 👇 Most users: – watch today at random time – then watch tomorrow at another random time Result? No points 😭 Arc content rewards usually need a FULL 24h reset. Example: If you watched today at 6PM, then tomorrow start again around: 6:10PM – 6:15PM Don’t rush before 24h fully passes. And again: – only do around 4 videos + 5 articles daily – once points are added, stop there Watching too many extra videos usually doesn’t help. 4️⃣ Discord Application Tips (VERY IMPORTANT) Most people get rejected because their answers don’t match each other 😭 Example: Question 2: "What are you?" – You select “Content Creator” Then Question 3: "How will you help Arc?" – You answer “Building apps” See the problem? 👀 Your answers should CONNECT with each other. If you choose: – Content creator → talk about guides, videos, education, helping users. If you choose: – Builder → talk about products, apps, tools, etc. Usually 4–5 questions are connected together. If your answers feel random or inconsistent, rejection chance becomes very high. My suggestion 👇 – Reach 500 points first – Then apply carefully – Stay active in Discord – Join livestreams – Help community members on discord – Keep contributing & building consistently That’s honestly the best way to grow inside the ecosystem, and slowly get recognition for Tier badges & other community roles/badges too 💙 If you helped, please do like,repost & sahre you your frns🥰

wyne

10,372 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🟢GIVEAWAY🟢 Best comments or memes about this whole circus + RT this post. 10 winners will each get $50💎 (For evidence, supporting materials, and context, read both articles and watch the video included in the article I posted yesterday) Housebets.com & Porchy pay your debts A few people told me they did not fully understand the first article because there were too many moving parts: leaderboard accounts, rewards, weekly dates, monthly bonus, Tequity, game categories, withdrawals, Provably Fair, seed changes, migration, support tickets, ledgers and founder messages. Fair enough. The evidence is already there, and I still recommend reading the full articles and, above all, watching the video, because the video shows the reward system failing live. But this text is the cleaner version: the full story explained in plain English, without assuming the reader knows anything about crypto casinos, leaderboards or lossback systems. From all the evidence I’ve gathered, the Housebets story is not a normal “player lost money” complaint. It looks like a full transparency failure across the whole product: leaderboard, rewards, withdrawals, game categories, Provably Fair / Tequity mapping, support, migration and founder response. Housebets sold itself as a rewards-first casino: public leaderboards, weekly/monthly bonuses, fast withdrawals, VIP treatment and Provably Fair games. But every time I asked for the records behind those systems, snapshots, ledger entries, weekly cycles, GGR/NGR, slider logs, PF seed mapping, Tequity round IDs, withdrawal approval logs, the answer became some version of “forwarded to the relevant department.” This started long before the public dispute. I was not some random angry player who appeared after one bad session. In January I was helping Housebets and giving product feedback. I literally told support on 27 January that I was “testing the website for George,” while already dealing with a non-instant withdrawal and a 100% welcome bonus that had not applied. Support even asked me for “proof about your testing job.” The same chat shows the advertised 100% Welcome Bonus, the bonus not applying, and support saying the withdrawal needed internal confirmation instead of being instant. The welcome bonus issue never looked clean. Housebets advertised a 100% Welcome Bonus up to $1,000 on first deposit; I deposited, contacted support, and the bonus did not apply. Then support effectively turned a first-deposit bonus into a second-deposit workaround because the first one had not been applied properly. On 31 January I came back after another deposit and told them the bonus still had not been applied, even though I had already followed support’s instructions. Edward replied that he had “forwarded” the concern to the team. The same 100% welcome bonus was still being advertised in March. By April, the rewards system was already showing serious problems. I had the weekly slider at 100% lossback and told support I had lost money but the weekly did not appear. Jacky said the weekly was generated every Thursday at 00:01 UTC and gave actual internal figures: GGR $6,250, Total Bonus $6,083.99, NGR $168.31. So Housebets clearly had internal calculations when it wanted to explain why something might not pay. But when I later asked for full calculations, those same numbers suddenly became impossible to produce. Then on 18–19 April, the rewards page was bugged and would not let me claim. Support could see a pending weekly bonus of $717.37, but I could not claim it from the UI. Tee said it had been forwarded to the relevant department. That $717.37 later appears in the bonus ledger as Rakeback (20 Apr) 717.37089061, so I am not saying that specific one stayed unpaid forever. The point is worse: already in April, support could see a pending weekly reward while the player-facing reward page did not work. For a casino built around rewards, that is not a small bug. That is the product. In May, the UI and account data kept failing basic trust checks. On 8 May, I deposited 400 USDT; support said it had been credited, but I could not see it, and the proposed fix was to log out, clear cookies and cache. On 16 May, I asked why total deposits and withdrawals had disappeared from the menu; support said the platform was “in continuous evolution.” On 17 May, I asked for my total deposits and withdrawals, and support said they did not have direct access to that consolidated summary and would email it. That full official ledger did not arrive. So when Housebets later defends itself with UI screenshots, remember: this was the same UI where deposits could be credited but invisible, totals disappeared, rewards pages bugged, and support could not access consolidated account totals. Withdrawals were also not what was advertised. On 16 May, I asked why a crypto withdrawal was pending if withdrawals were supposed to be instant. Tee answered: “A few withdrawals require manual approval,” then added, “Our withdrawals are typically instant but…” That matters because a few days later the withdrawal delay became real damage. On 25 May, I told support before a match that I needed the funds to place a time-sensitive bet on another site in less than 20 minutes. I explained I wanted to bet around 60k at odds of 2.55. The withdrawal did not arrive in time. Later I told them the bet won and that I missed around 90k in profit because Housebets took more than two hours despite being warned before the match started. Jacky said he would raise the compensation case to the VIP team. Nobody resolved it. This was not one delayed withdrawal either. In my formal complaint I reconstructed several withdrawal delays: 23 May 02:55 → 08:03, around 5h08m; 25 May 03:05 → 08:09, around 5h04m; 17 May 03:54 → 08:02, around 4h08m; 18 May 04:46 → 08:11, around 3h25m; 16 May 05:23 → 08:12, around 2h49m. That is not “instant withdrawal.” And if later marketing says withdrawals are much faster now, the obvious question is: if this was the faster version, what did slow look like? The Provably Fair / Tequity side was another major issue. On 17 May I asked support how to verify an old Blackjack round. I did not ask for a generic explanation of Provably Fair; I asked where I could see the server seed, client seed, nonce and result for previous games. Support sent me to bet history, mentioned RTP, gave a generic PF explanation and showed the current Dice seed screen. When I said that did not let me verify previous games, they told me to clear cookies/cache. After doing that, I saw a new client seed and nonce 1 even though I had not played with that seed pair. I asked if Housebets changes seeds on every login. Support could not answer and told me to contact VIP. That seed/session behaviour is important. I later recorded video evidence around the seed changing after clearing cookies/cache and asked for the exact mapping: Housebets account ID → Tequity/provider player ID → session/currency context → seed pair → server seed hash → revealed server seed → client seed → nonce/cursor → raw outcome → final result. Housebets cannot sell Provably Fair if the player cannot verify historical bets, and “contact VIP” is not a verification algorithm. On 24 May, I asked for raw verification data for a specific Tequity Blackjack round: Round ID e1648d60-0da1-4433-a5ab-9ae39f5302e3, Blackjack, Tequity, bet amount 11,346 USDT, client seed O3YBZF7LBu, server seed hash starting 712875.... I asked for revealed server seed, nonce, full result JSON, card draw order and verification algorithm. I also asked about an apparent duplicate-card/deck question. Tee replied: “I don’t have the answers to your questions right now, but I’m forwarding your request to the relevant department.” That same day, I asked for a full audit of six Dice bets of 11,400 USDT each, total 68,400 USDT. I requested bet IDs, provider round IDs, roll results, seed data, balance ledger, request/session logs, security logs, retry flags, provider records and a full technical reconciliation. Tee replied: “I will forward this to the relevant department.” So when I asked for raw data, the answer was not data. It was forwarding. Again. There were also many large loss clusters that required reconciliation because of those unresolved PF, Tequity, category, RTP and session questions. In my complaint I listed clusters such as 25 May 02:17–02:54 Blackjack around 169,932 USDT; 16 May 12:31–13:26 Dice around 90,571.92 USDT; 26 May 02:48–03:58 Mines around 89,199 USDT; 24 May 06:20–06:21 Dice at 68,400 USDT; 26 May 00:11–01:41 Blackjack around 59,910 USDT; 25 May 22:51–22:59 Dice around 59,576 USDT; and several more between 40k and 56k. I am not saying every losing cluster proves manipulation by itself. I am saying that when PF mapping, provider logs, RTP/HE, category mapping and seed/session behaviour are unresolved, these sequences need a real reconciliation. The leaderboard is where the story becomes very hard for Housebets to explain. Around 19–20 May, two new accounts, elmourabut and lucasmartirini, appeared and started climbing every day at a vertiginous pace. Not normal slow leaderboard growth. Not a casual player building volume over time. They were created around that period and then started rising with huge wagering in a way that looked extremely unnatural for brand new accounts. By 29 May, I was first on both weekly and monthly leaderboards, and those two accounts were directly behind me with huge volume. In the monthly leaderboard screenshots, I was around $3.33M wagered, while elmourabut was around $1.29M and lucasmartirini around $1.08M. In the weekly leaderboard, I was around $1.096M, while those two accounts were around $635k and $578k. They were not normal accounts sitting at the bottom; they were directly behind me, applying pressure. In my formal complaint I recorded that elmourabut joined on 19 May and lucasmartirini on 20 May, that they showed zero visible withdrawals, large deposits/wagering and significant card-game volume, and I asked Housebets to confirm they were not staff, test, QA, admin, house-controlled, affiliate-controlled, internally funded, promotional, bonus-only or multi-account related accounts. This matters because a leaderboard is not passive. It is gamification. It makes players defend rank. When two new accounts appear behind you with hundreds of thousands or more than a million in volume, you are pressured to keep wagering. In my case, the disputed deposit sequence from 25 May 22:23 to 26 May 02:09 totals 91,168.375326 USDT. That sequence begins with 1,000.00 at 22:23 and continues with repeated deposits until 2,879.148969 at 02:09. The video later shows why those dates matter: there were deposits coming in, no gameplay withdrawal offsetting the sequence, a balance basically at zero, and later a leaderboard prize shown as P/L. I formally asked Housebets to confirm those two leaderboard accounts were real and eligible, and also to preserve wager logs, transaction records, balance adjustment logs, account flags, leaderboard calculation snapshots, support ticket logs, Telegram/email records and internal notes. Edward said he forwarded the request. In the same thread, he added that they were “working on fixing an issue regarding the weekly bonuses,” and then said the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” So the leaderboard issue and the weekly bonus issue are linked in time and support context. After that, Housebets confirmed by email that elmourabut and lucasmartirini were “legitimate and eligible accounts.” That email is the trap door. If they were legitimate and eligible, they should have remained in the leaderboard with their volume. If they were not, Housebets should never have confirmed them as legitimate and eligible. After that confirmation, the accounts disappeared from the leaderboard or stopped appearing in the positions their previous wagering required. I went back to support on 30 May and wrote: “There has been a material post-confirmation leaderboard change involving two accounts that Housebets had already confirmed as legitimate and eligible. I need the exact reason, timestamp, logs, and recalculation basis.” Edward said the matter was flagged and that I could expect a prompt response. I am still waiting for the actual explanation. Why did they disappear? My read is simple: because every hour that passed, there was more evidence around those accounts. They had been created around the same period, they were climbing at a speed that looked anything but human, they showed no visible withdrawals in the data I could see and reported, they appeared to be generating huge volume in unclear game categories, and the games/categories tied to that volume did not even make sense from the player-facing UI. When I started asking what they were actually playing, what Card meant, whether the volume was Tequity / UnOriginals / House Games, what RTP and house edge applied, and where the logs were, the questions became uncomfortable. Keeping those accounts visible became harder than removing them. So they disappeared. The game category issue made the leaderboard even more suspicious. On 30 May, I asked support why my own stats showed almost all my volume under Slots / Tragamonedas when I did not play real slots. I told them: “i dont play 3$ in unoriginals,” “i played all 3M in unoriginals,” and “ive never play slots.” I asked what “Card” was, where that game was, what RTP and house edge it had. Monica said Card was mainly Blackjack, Baccarat and Poker variants. Marcus later said the team was investigating why it showed that I mostly played slots when I had not. He could not give the exact game, RTP, HE, provider, category mapping or contribution logic. That matters because those same unclear categories were connected to leaderboard volume. If the site cannot clearly explain whether volume is Slots, Card, UnOriginals, House Games, Blackjack, Baccarat, Always 9 Baccarat or Tequity, then the leaderboard is not auditable for the player. I even asked which UnOriginals those two accounts were playing, and support told me to look at Live Bets. That is not an answer. I was not asking for gossip; I was asking what exact games generated leaderboard volume, what RTP/HE applied and whether that volume was eligible. There is also an earlier leaderboard-related precedent: Porchy had already told me in February that I would lose leaderboard places if I did not rename, because too many people were messaging support saying the site was not being fair due to my name and it “doesn’t make us look good.” That matters because it suggests leaderboard positioning was not treated as a sacred, untouchable system when public perception was involved. If leaderboard positions can be threatened for image reasons, then later claims that everything is purely automatic deserve scrutiny. Then Porchy made the leaderboard situation worse. Instead of producing logs or snapshots, he later said the leaderboard had “abusers” on it, that they were removed to help other players, and that it never affected me. Later he said they paid every single person, “even these abusers,” then called me “begging for money.” That creates a direct contradiction: Housebets confirmed the accounts as legitimate and eligible, then Porchy referred to leaderboard “abusers.” If they were abusers, why were they confirmed as legitimate and eligible? If they were eligible, why did they disappear? If they never affected me, where are the historical snapshots proving that? Once those accounts disappeared, Housebets paid the leaderboard prizes. On 1 June, the bonus ledger shows two Leaderboard entries: 5,007.46111706 and 1,001.49222341, totaling 6,008.95334047. That part was paid. But then Act Two started: the weekly and monthly rewards did not appear as separate ledger entries. The same bonus ledger shows those two 1 June entries as Leaderboard only, not Monthly Bonus, not Weekly Reload, not Lossback. The weekly timeline is a mess. On 28 May, the dashboard / UI said the weekly bonus was claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC, and the monthly was available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. That same night I told support the weekly had shown as available, then reset to 6 days without paying. Later I sent screenshots and wrote: “1M wagered and 0.2$.” Jacky said he had raised the issue to the technical team. So the weekly failure was reported live, not reconstructed after the fact. The next day, 29 May, Edward said they were fixing an issue regarding weekly bonuses and that the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” Then on 1 June, Spencer said the May weekly bonuses were 7th, 14th, 21st, and then due to migration the weekly moved to Monday, so there was one on the 25th on the new platform. He also said the 25 May weekly covered gameplay from 21–24 May, and that tech was looking at that plus the monthly bonus. The ledger does show a 25 May 02:10 Rakeback entry of 1,996.08334791, which likely corresponds to that 21–24 May weekly. But my major loss sequence starts about 20 hours later, on 25 May at 22:23, and continues until 26 May at 02:09. So the 25 May weekly cannot cover those losses. If weekly was still Thursday, the 25/26 losses should have been in the 28 May weekly. But the bonus ledger on 28 May shows only two tiny Rakeback entries, 0.28373945 and 0.00280958. If weekly moved to Monday because of migration, those losses should have appeared in the next weekly after 25 May. But on 1 June the ledger only shows Leaderboard entries. Then the final video shows the next Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting to 6d 23h. So the same loss sequence appears to fall into no paid weekly cycle. The 4 June support conversation makes this even more ridiculous. After I recorded the weekly reset video, I asked support a very simple question: what were the last weekly dates/cycles? The dashboard / support flow again said weekly bonuses are claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC. Jacky confirmed: “Weekly bonuses can be claimed every Thursday at 00:01 UTC in the Rewards tab,” and added that if not claimed by the following Wednesday at 23:59 UTC, it expires. But when I asked for the exact last four dates, Jacky said he had to check with the relevant department. When I pressed again, he said, “Sorry, As I am only a CS, Let me raise your concerns to relevant department.” I asked whether support did not have the information or simply could not answer. He replied: “Do you have any other concerns?” They use weekly cycles to decide whether to pay, but support cannot explain the weekly cycle. The monthly is missing too. The dashboard / UI said the monthly bonus is based on activity and VIP level from the previous month and is available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. In May I had more than 3,258,023.0829 wagered according to the formal complaint data. I also have proof/video that the monthly slider was set to 50/50. On 1 June, Spencer first told me I had claimed the Monthly Bonus at 1:12am BST around the same time as the monthly leaderboard reward. I immediately said I only received leaderboard prizes. Then Spencer changed the answer: “Our tech team are still actively working on issues regarding the monthly bonuses.” So first the monthly was claimed, then tech was still fixing it. The ledger still shows no Monthly Bonus entry. Housebets then seems to rely on “up overall” as a defence. But the video and ledger show why that does not work. My weekly/monthly profile later showed around +6,008 P/L with 0 deposits, 0 wagered and around 6,008 in bonuses. That number matches exactly the two 1 June Leaderboard payments. So the UI is showing leaderboard rewards as P/L. Then support used “up overall” to say I was not eligible for weekly lossback. That is not a clean lossback calculation. That is using a leaderboard reward as apparent profit to deny a lossback that should be based on actual eligible losses. There were also smaller reward-confusion issues along the way. On 22 May I asked for all pending bonuses,weekly, monthly, rakeback, level-up, anything, and support said the internal team would manually verify whether everything had been credited correctly and email me. On 24 May, I asked about level-up rewards because the reward looked like $3,500 for Pearl; support clarified it was $3,500 total across all Pearl levels, $500 per level. These are not the core issues, but they are part of the same pattern: rewards marketing, unclear UI, manual verification, emails that do not arrive, and players having to chase basic explanations. Then there is the migration. On 25 May, after the delayed withdrawal, missing VIP contact and unresolved issues, support told me my account would be moved to the new platform and that this upgrade would offer a better withdrawal process and fix many issues. Before that migration, I explicitly requested that no account data, internal data, logs, balance history, bonus history, bet history, provider records or pending issues be deleted. The response: “Your request has been relayed to the relevant department.” Again, forwarding. But if the old data is safe, Housebets should provide the old leaderboard snapshots, old weekly states, old bonus logs, old Tequity mapping and old withdrawal approval logs. The founder response did not fix anything. When Porchy finally engaged, he did not provide the records. He framed the settlement request as “so you want $100,000?” and asked whether I needed it or else I was going to post on X. I had already made clear this was not money for silence; I asked for logs, snapshots, withdrawal records, calculations and a counter-calculation if Housebets disagreed. He later referred to “abusers,” told me I was “up overall,” said “You are begging for money,” and suggested I “just do this to casinos.” Still no ledger. Still no weekly calculation. Still no monthly entry. Still no PF/Tequity mapping. Still no leaderboard snapshots. Another player also contacted me with screenshots pointing to similar categories of issues: private deals, leaderboard payout disputes, migration/account merge problems, missing history and a tiny monthly bonus despite claimed losses. I am not using that player’s case as the foundation of my claim without his full ledger, but it matters because it suggests the same type of opacity may not be isolated: private VIP/reward deals, leaderboard eligibility, monthly bonus calculations, migration and unclear history. If Housebets has private deals that affect leaderboard eligibility or rewards, it must explain how those deals interact with public leaderboards. So the overall picture is this: Housebets sold a public leaderboard and rewards system that pressured real wagering. Two new accounts appeared directly behind me with huge volume, were confirmed as legitimate and eligible, then disappeared after I asked for logs and questioned game categories. Housebets could not explain the exact games, RTP, house edge or category mapping behind the volume. The accounts were later framed by Porchy as “abusers,” contradicting the earlier eligibility confirmation. Once Housebets paid me the leaderboard prizes, those prizes were shown as P/L, and that contaminated P/L was then used to claim I was “up overall” and not eligible for lossback. At the same time, my real 25 May 22:23 → 26 May 02:09 loss sequence of 91,168.375326 USDT appears in no clean weekly cycle. The 25 May weekly covered 21–24 May according to Spencer, so it cannot cover that loss sequence. The 28 May weekly showed only tiny Rakeback entries and was already reported as broken. The 1 June ledger shows only Leaderboard entries. The later video shows Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting. And when I ask support for the exact weekly calendar, they cannot answer and send it to the relevant department. The monthly is the same story. The dashboard / UI says it is based on activity and VIP. I had more than 3.25M wagered in May. Spencer first says I claimed it, then says tech is still working on monthly bonuses. The ledger shows no Monthly Bonus. If Housebets says I was not eligible, they need to show the formula, slider history, cycle, GGR/NGR, eligible loss/activity, deductions and ledger result. If they cannot, “not eligible” is just another label. And this opens another can of worms: Tequity / provider configuration. Housebets cannot hide behind “the provider” whenever something goes wrong. The player does not deposit with Tequity. The player does not withdraw from Tequity. The player does not speak to Tequity support. The player does not compete in a Tequity leaderboard. The player plays on Housebets, with a Housebets wallet, Housebets UI, Housebets rewards, Housebets leaderboard and Housebets support. 1/2

Dr. W

19,784 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

MARKETS OPEN IN 20. every day is different. I will post unusual volume as I see it. I will give long thesis for potential 10x on small caps. We won’t miss another. Here’s another $DDD I give ideas on stocks that fly under the radar you won’t see me talking about the names 90% x are on. Be different. Be unique. Be you. Ideas are ideas. But finding another account working harder Good luck. 😤 Research 24/7 Scanning charts daily 500% runners & 10x longs I’m a real person DMs always open I’m shouting out legends every day who provide value I also just unfollowed 117 accounts who didn’t want rock with us. If you’re working hard and want to be seen and found on here. Follow and subscribe. I’m trying to find new hard workers and legends daily. Engaging with me means I’ll go straight to your account and do the same and if I like your content I make lists daily to do shouts. Plus. Alpha. Alpha. Alpha. More alpha Here’s some accounts you all should look into following BoltEdge ⚡️ Leif | Investing Tyler SolSuit d i v e r g e n t Doris Di Franklin407 Perspez GP the Fundamental Investor Eno 🥷 KURREN$Y KAPITAL Dmytro Lebid William Paulson Let’s all bank fam. Subscribe for just 1$ The community I’m building here on x will be one to remember. Follow me. Follow the people I suggest to follow. Subscribe. 🏦 BANK. $DDD is shifting into a high-value manufacturing platform positioned across: • AI data center thermal systems • semiconductor capital equipment • aerospace & defense production • medical & dental manufacturing THE NUMBERS THAT MATTER • Revenue (Q1 2026): $95.5M (+1% YoY, +11% ex-divestitures) • Healthcare segment: $50.1M (+21% YoY) • Gross margin: ~35.9–36.1% (expanding YoY) • Adjusted EBITDA: + $2.1M (from -$23.9M last year) • Cash: ~$86.5M • Market cap: ~$350M–$500M range (micro-cap re-rating zone) WHY THIS STORY IS DIFFERENT NOW 1) AI DATA CENTER COOLING DEMAND IS EXPLODING AI racks are moving into: • 30–140kW+ per rack • liquid cooling becoming mandatory • thermal engineering becoming critical infrastructure DDD already works in: • semiconductor wafer-stage thermal control • precision fluid manifolds • vacuum/cleanroom-compatible metal parts • ultra-high accuracy cooling systems That directly translates to: • cold plates • heat exchangers • direct-to-chip liquid cooling hardware 2) SEMICONDUCTOR + PRECISION ENGINEERING MOAT DDD’s advantage is not “printing parts.” It’s precision thermal + fluid physics manufacturing. They already solve: • <4 mK thermal stability systems • microfluidic channel optimization • vibration reduction via monolithic metal design • complex copper and alloy geometries 3) DEFENSE + ONSHORE MANUFACTURING TAILWIND Exposure across: • aerospace & defense programs • U.S. Air Force initiatives • naval + advanced materials supply chains • America Makes ecosystem Trend tailwind: 👉 reshoring + secure domestic production Defense buyers prioritize: • reliability • qualification • supply chain security not lowest cost $DDD fits that model. 4) TURNAROUND METRICS ARE IMPROVING What changed vs prior cycle: • Operating losses sharply reduced • ~$55M cost cuts implemented • SG&A materially down • EBITDA inflection achieved • Healthcare now a core growth engine 5) MIX SHIFT = HIGHER QUALITY REVENUE Growth areas: • Dental + MedTech (+20%+) • Aerospace & defense (double-digit growth) • materials + recurring consumables This is a $350–500M micro-cap showing: • positive EBITDA inflection • expanding margins • AI infrastructure adjacency • defense + semicap exposure • healthcare growth engine If execution continues, the rerating case is not about “3D printing hype” — it’s about whether the market starts valuing it as critical thermal + precision manufacturing infrastructure for AI and defense. $VOO $HIVE $HYLN $VELO $HYFT $CELH $PLTR $HIMS $RDDT $AIB $FEMY $JOBY $TE $SIVE $ZS $MRVL $SNPS $SNOW $DELL $LAES

MARKETS OPEN IN 20. every day is different. I will post unusual volume as I see it. I will give long thesis for potential 10x on small caps. We won’t miss another. Here’s another $DDD I give ideas on stocks that fly under the radar you won’t see me talking about the names 90% x are on. Be different. Be unique. Be you. Ideas are ideas. But finding another account working harder Good luck. 😤 Research 24/7 Scanning charts daily 500% runners & 10x longs I’m a real person DMs always open I’m shouting out legends every day who provide value I also just unfollowed 117 accounts who didn’t want rock with us. If you’re working hard and want to be seen and found on here. Follow and subscribe. I’m trying to find new hard workers and legends daily. Engaging with me means I’ll go straight to your account and do the same and if I like your content I make lists daily to do shouts. Plus. Alpha. Alpha. Alpha. More alpha Here’s some accounts you all should look into following BoltEdge ⚡️ Leif | Investing Tyler SolSuit d i v e r g e n t Doris Di Franklin407 Perspez GP the Fundamental Investor Eno 🥷 KURREN$Y KAPITAL Dmytro Lebid William Paulson Let’s all bank fam. Subscribe for just 1$ The community I’m building here on x will be one to remember. Follow me. Follow the people I suggest to follow. Subscribe. 🏦 BANK. $DDD is shifting into a high-value manufacturing platform positioned across: • AI data center thermal systems • semiconductor capital equipment • aerospace & defense production • medical & dental manufacturing THE NUMBERS THAT MATTER • Revenue (Q1 2026): $95.5M (+1% YoY, +11% ex-divestitures) • Healthcare segment: $50.1M (+21% YoY) • Gross margin: ~35.9–36.1% (expanding YoY) • Adjusted EBITDA: + $2.1M (from -$23.9M last year) • Cash: ~$86.5M • Market cap: ~$350M–$500M range (micro-cap re-rating zone) WHY THIS STORY IS DIFFERENT NOW 1) AI DATA CENTER COOLING DEMAND IS EXPLODING AI racks are moving into: • 30–140kW+ per rack • liquid cooling becoming mandatory • thermal engineering becoming critical infrastructure DDD already works in: • semiconductor wafer-stage thermal control • precision fluid manifolds • vacuum/cleanroom-compatible metal parts • ultra-high accuracy cooling systems That directly translates to: • cold plates • heat exchangers • direct-to-chip liquid cooling hardware 2) SEMICONDUCTOR + PRECISION ENGINEERING MOAT DDD’s advantage is not “printing parts.” It’s precision thermal + fluid physics manufacturing. They already solve: • <4 mK thermal stability systems • microfluidic channel optimization • vibration reduction via monolithic metal design • complex copper and alloy geometries 3) DEFENSE + ONSHORE MANUFACTURING TAILWIND Exposure across: • aerospace & defense programs • U.S. Air Force initiatives • naval + advanced materials supply chains • America Makes ecosystem Trend tailwind: 👉 reshoring + secure domestic production Defense buyers prioritize: • reliability • qualification • supply chain security not lowest cost $DDD fits that model. 4) TURNAROUND METRICS ARE IMPROVING What changed vs prior cycle: • Operating losses sharply reduced • ~$55M cost cuts implemented • SG&A materially down • EBITDA inflection achieved • Healthcare now a core growth engine 5) MIX SHIFT = HIGHER QUALITY REVENUE Growth areas: • Dental + MedTech (+20%+) • Aerospace & defense (double-digit growth) • materials + recurring consumables This is a $350–500M micro-cap showing: • positive EBITDA inflection • expanding margins • AI infrastructure adjacency • defense + semicap exposure • healthcare growth engine If execution continues, the rerating case is not about “3D printing hype” — it’s about whether the market starts valuing it as critical thermal + precision manufacturing infrastructure for AI and defense. $VOO $HIVE $HYLN $VELO $HYFT $CELH $PLTR $HIMS $RDDT $AIB $FEMY $JOBY $TE $SIVE $ZS $MRVL $SNPS $SNOW $DELL $LAES

Hunter Allen

19,477 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Here’s my written & video review of the new 2026 Tesla Model Y Performance after driving it for a week. This is the best-value new Tesla you can buy. Crazy performance, no real drawbacks, and all for just $57,490. Let’s dive in. Price: I haven’t seen many others mention this: every option on the Model Y Performance is included at no extra cost in the US (except FSD). So if you spec a Model Y Premium AWD with an upgraded paint color, tow package, white interior, and upgraded 20" wheels, a fully loaded Model Y Premium AWD ends up only about $2,500 less expensive than a fully loaded Model Y Performance. Ride Quality: I thought I might feel worse ride quality vs my Premium AWD Model Y with 20" wheels, but I struggled to find any real difference, despite the larger 21" wheels, firmer suspension setting, and 0.6" lower ride height on the Performance trim. A true testament to Tesla's engineering magic on this thing. Exterior Design: Unlike the previous Model Y Performance, Tesla made some exterior design tweaks with a new front and rear fascia to spice things up a bit. The result, in my opinion, is the best-looking Model Y trim you can buy. It definitely has a more aggressive presence in person, even if it's subtle. The carbon-fiber spoiler boosts high-speed stability and cuts aerodynamic drag by 10%. The new 21’’ Arachnid 2.0 wheels look fantastic in person, one of my favorite designs ever from Tesla. Staggered wheel and tire fitment provides better grip and steering. The beefier 275mm rear tires (255mm in the front) give the vehicle a better stance from behind. Vehicle-to-Load (V2L): For the first time on a Model Y in North America, you can now plug in anything you want to the exterior charge port with an adapter, even a campsite! It provides up to 2.4 kW of power (120V at 20A) from two household outlets. It's a great feature. Interior: It’s what you know and love, but with a few changes that elevate the ownership experience. New with the Performance is a larger 16" center screen (vs. 15.4" on non-Performance models), with thinner bezels and higher resolution. It’s not a huge difference on paper, but you definitely notice it in daily use. The carbon-fiber décor on the door cards and dash is a nice touch, though I would like to see it extended to the center console. The new performance seats are the best seats of any Tesla I've ever experienced. While they retain aggressive bolstering in the torso area, the bottom seat cushion has less aggressive bolstering than on the Model 3 Performance seats, making it easier to get in and out. It also doesn’t squeeze your thighs too tightly. The powered thigh extenders add comfort on longer drives, especially for taller people who want extra support. And of course, they’re heated and ventilated. The headrests also feel more comfortable than the ones in my Model Y. I want these seats. Unlike the old Model Y Performance, the new one has no Track Mode. Why? Because nobody used it lol. No point in putting engineering resources into something people won’t use. The refreshed Model 3 Performance still has it, though. Cabin Quietness: Despite the thinner-profile tires, there is no noticeable difference vs my Premium Model Y. Decibel reading results at highway speeds were visually the same compared to my 2026 Model Y Premium (65-66). Driving Impressions: It’s amazing. Sharp, precise, and agile. The vehicle feels stable at all times. Acceleration is blistering (3.3s 0–60 mph), with plenty of punch even at higher speeds. The tires offer good grip, and cornering is fantastic for an SUV. The suspension setup is great. More steering wheel feedback would be nice, though. Cruising around traffic is a joy. The brakes are much improved over the previous Model Y Performance and are far better suited for spirited driving. There are three acceleration modes: Chill, Standard, and Insane. Just stay in Insane. You’d be insane not to lol. The car also lets you switch between two ride and handling modes: Standard and Sport. The difference isn’t huge, but Standard is better if you’ve got passengers. FSD: I unfortunately wasn’t able to get FSD V14 on this car. It had V13.2.9, so I didn’t use it much. But in the little time I did, it was smooth and comfortable. It didn’t bother me because V14 will perform just as well here as it does on my 2026 Model Y Premium AWD. Conclusion: You won’t find another new SUV today that offers this level of performance for the price. Back in 2022, when Tesla couldn’t build Model Ys fast enough, a fully loaded Model Y Performance cost over $90,440. Today, the refreshed and far more capable 2026 Model Y Performance is just $57,490 fully loaded, and you can simply subscribe to FSD for $99/month. The 2026 Model Y Performance delivers utility, great performance, comfort, tech, self-driving and everything else people love about the Model Y. It’s a no-brainer purchase. I want one badly, but I'll need to show restraint, as I’m saving up for a house lol.

Sawyer Merritt

222,856 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. *** Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. *** I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. * Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. * I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.

Tinky

10,516 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

🚨 DEBRIEFING: THE GREAT REPRICING A View From The Couch Receipts Only. No Hopium. No Guesswork. Everyone keeps asking “when does the system break?” Here’s the truth: It already did. Now they’re repricing the world around the wreckage. And the evidence is everywhere if you stop looking at isolated events and look at the pattern. 📌 1. When governments start seizing the rails, not the criminals 👉That’s repricing. ♦️FinCEN just hit Paxful for laundering the entire underground economy. ♦️Europol wiped out a €700M crypto network. ♦️Thailand froze $318M in assets tied to scam hubs. ♦️NZ & UK seized billions from the “Goddess of Wealth.” ♦️US regulators quietly relaxed leverage rules to buy time. 👉This is not enforcement. This is triage. 📌 2. When central banks start circling their gold like prey animals 🔸Italy trying to grab €300B from its central bank vault? 👉That is NOT normal behavior. Neither is: 🔸Russia tightening gold export flows. 🔸China absorbing record tonnage. 🔸BRICS building commodity-settlement rails. 🔸The West rewriting accounting rules in the dark. 🔸Gold is the tell. It always has been. 👉When gold moves, the system is repricing. 📌 3. When banks start failing quietly instead of loudly Look around: 👉Julius Baer loss provision 👉Credit Suisse charges resurfacing 👉Luxembourg investigations 👉Mexico ex-governor laundering arrest 👉BVI corruption 👉Margin rules being rewritten at 2AM 💥Why is everything collapsing in slow motion this time? Because they’re engineering the landing. Not trying to stop it. 📌 4. When cartels, traffickers, and dark money networks fall in PERFECT cadence 2021–2025: 🔹Sinaloa leadership taken down 🔹Tren de Aragua nodes disrupted 🔹Mongols MC raids 🔹Human smuggling orgs sanctioned under EO 13581 🔹INTERPOL Neptune VII (20 nations, 57 terror links) 🔹DEA seizing record narcotics in the same quarters as weather “events” 👉This is not random law enforcement. This is infrastructure removal ahead of a reset. You cannot reprice a global system while the old liquidity networks still exist. And they don’t anymore. 📌 5. When assets around the world suddenly become… irrelevant 💥Ports explode. 💥Supply chains rerouted. 💥Tunnels destroyed. 💥Biolabs neutralized. 💥Shipping lanes militarized. 💥Cobalt, lithium, and mineral rights quietly change hands. 💥Amazon builds the largest distribution grid in human history. Why? Because when the financial system reprices, everything physical gets revalued overnight. 👉The world is being rebuilt before the public ever realizes the old one died. 📌 6. When silver breaks $60 and nobody celebrates That’s the final tell. 💥When a monetary metal rips through a multi-decade psychological barrier and the media pretends it didn’t happen? 👉They’re hiding the repricing as long as possible. 📌 7. When every major storm, disaster, and mobilization aligns with arrests From fires to floods to hurricanes to earthquakes — the same shadow moves follow: National Guard call-ups FEMA deployments Telecom shutdowns Mass arrests NGO seizures Financial raids Nature doesn’t coordinate. Operations do. And every operation ends in the same place: Asset seizure → liquidity capture → revaluation. ⭐ So what IS “The Great Repricing”? It’s not a crash. It’s not a boom. It’s not a transition. It is the moment when the system stops pretending the old numbers still mean anything. Debt → repriced Commodities → repriced Banks → repriced Currencies → repriced Gold → repriced Labor → repriced Energy → repriced Real assets → repriced Digital assets → repriced Sovereignty → repriced The truth? It already started. Nothing can stop it. And the timeline is accelerating. Because the collapse already happened. We are just watching the accounting catch up. The Couch Astute Actual M. Nave

🚨 DEBRIEFING: THE GREAT REPRICING A View From The Couch Receipts Only. No Hopium. No Guesswork. Everyone keeps asking “when does the system break?” Here’s the truth: It already did. Now they’re repricing the world around the wreckage. And the evidence is everywhere if you stop looking at isolated events and look at the pattern. 📌 1. When governments start seizing the rails, not the criminals 👉That’s repricing. ♦️FinCEN just hit Paxful for laundering the entire underground economy. ♦️Europol wiped out a €700M crypto network. ♦️Thailand froze $318M in assets tied to scam hubs. ♦️NZ & UK seized billions from the “Goddess of Wealth.” ♦️US regulators quietly relaxed leverage rules to buy time. 👉This is not enforcement. This is triage. 📌 2. When central banks start circling their gold like prey animals 🔸Italy trying to grab €300B from its central bank vault? 👉That is NOT normal behavior. Neither is: 🔸Russia tightening gold export flows. 🔸China absorbing record tonnage. 🔸BRICS building commodity-settlement rails. 🔸The West rewriting accounting rules in the dark. 🔸Gold is the tell. It always has been. 👉When gold moves, the system is repricing. 📌 3. When banks start failing quietly instead of loudly Look around: 👉Julius Baer loss provision 👉Credit Suisse charges resurfacing 👉Luxembourg investigations 👉Mexico ex-governor laundering arrest 👉BVI corruption 👉Margin rules being rewritten at 2AM 💥Why is everything collapsing in slow motion this time? Because they’re engineering the landing. Not trying to stop it. 📌 4. When cartels, traffickers, and dark money networks fall in PERFECT cadence 2021–2025: 🔹Sinaloa leadership taken down 🔹Tren de Aragua nodes disrupted 🔹Mongols MC raids 🔹Human smuggling orgs sanctioned under EO 13581 🔹INTERPOL Neptune VII (20 nations, 57 terror links) 🔹DEA seizing record narcotics in the same quarters as weather “events” 👉This is not random law enforcement. This is infrastructure removal ahead of a reset. You cannot reprice a global system while the old liquidity networks still exist. And they don’t anymore. 📌 5. When assets around the world suddenly become… irrelevant 💥Ports explode. 💥Supply chains rerouted. 💥Tunnels destroyed. 💥Biolabs neutralized. 💥Shipping lanes militarized. 💥Cobalt, lithium, and mineral rights quietly change hands. 💥Amazon builds the largest distribution grid in human history. Why? Because when the financial system reprices, everything physical gets revalued overnight. 👉The world is being rebuilt before the public ever realizes the old one died. 📌 6. When silver breaks $60 and nobody celebrates That’s the final tell. 💥When a monetary metal rips through a multi-decade psychological barrier and the media pretends it didn’t happen? 👉They’re hiding the repricing as long as possible. 📌 7. When every major storm, disaster, and mobilization aligns with arrests From fires to floods to hurricanes to earthquakes — the same shadow moves follow: National Guard call-ups FEMA deployments Telecom shutdowns Mass arrests NGO seizures Financial raids Nature doesn’t coordinate. Operations do. And every operation ends in the same place: Asset seizure → liquidity capture → revaluation. ⭐ So what IS “The Great Repricing”? It’s not a crash. It’s not a boom. It’s not a transition. It is the moment when the system stops pretending the old numbers still mean anything. Debt → repriced Commodities → repriced Banks → repriced Currencies → repriced Gold → repriced Labor → repriced Energy → repriced Real assets → repriced Digital assets → repriced Sovereignty → repriced The truth? It already started. Nothing can stop it. And the timeline is accelerating. Because the collapse already happened. We are just watching the accounting catch up. The Couch Astute Actual M. Nave

TheDebriefing17

78,077 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

$The July 4th weekend All-In The All-In Podcast turned into a long argument about who owns the intelligence layer. The besties think enterprises just woke up to a trap they had been walking into, here's how the conversation went (save this): ◽️ The Palantir-Nvidia deal is a bet against the model-layer duopoly. Palantir will use Nvidia's Nemotron open models to build a custom frontier-quality model for US government agencies, and the agencies own the hardware, the data, and the weights. Sacks framed it as structural: an application company and a chip company both want a competitive model layer, so they are natural partners against a two-provider middle. ◽️ Alex Karp's CNBC "crashout" was actually the thesis. Karp argued enterprises have lost trust in the frontier labs and want to own their compute, models, data, and alpha. Sacks translated it as a new definition of enterprise AI safety: safety means the model provider cannot hoover up your proprietary knowledge and turn it into its next product. ◽️ Figma is the cautionary tale that made it real. Anthropic launched Claude Design into Figma's category, its chief product officer sat on Figma's board and resigned only 3 days before launch, and Figma's stock is down about 50% this year while Anthropic's valuation surged. Sacks listed Claude Science, Security, Legal, Financial, and Code as the same move: dominate the model layer, then take the lucrative verticals. ◽️ The playbook has a name, and it is Microsoft and Google. Sacks argued Anthropic is running the operating-system strategy: own the layer everyone builds on, then walk up the stack. His Google receipt is that fewer than half of searches now send you off-site, versus an early Google that prided itself on how fast it kicked you away. ◽️ The BCG number is what raises the stakes. Chamath cited a BCG return-on-capital-employed study: the cost of capital is back to its long-run 8 to 11%, and half of large US companies cannot earn returns above it. If you are already teetering on your cost of capital, handing your alpha to a provider that may compete with you is not a luxury risk, it is fatal. ◽️ The 16.4x number is the whole argument in one data point. Chamath ran a code-migration task through 8090's harness. Wrapping Claude was 1.4x cheaper and 1.5x faster than Claude Opus alone. Wrapping the best open-source model was 16.4x cheaper, at about 3x slower. For a background task, three extra hours to cut cost by 16x is not a close call. ◽️ Even at 100x cheaper, enterprises were saying no for the wrong reason. Chamath relayed an ex-Meta PM's point that companies reject open models over China and safety fears, when they could host those same open weights on their own GPUs in US data centers with nothing flowing back. The safety objection, she argued, is backwards: the leak is the data you hand the frontier labs. ◽️ Friedberg says the frontier labs are trying to commoditize their own customers. Anthropic has been signing up life-sciences companies to feed a new life-focused model in exchange for early access, and nearly everyone he has talked to now refuses, recognizing that data they spent billions generating becomes worthless once it is pooled with everyone else's. ◽️ The deployment topology is shifting from big hubs to distributed spokes. Friedberg's map: the old assumption was a few capital-advantaged mega-clusters plus inference clouds. The new one is large hubs, medium hubs (enterprise training clusters), and distributed spokes, including on-prem inference in your own building. Owning your weights is the point. ◽️ Chamath's endgame is running GLM himself. An industry contact told him that with harness post-training and telemetry, an open Chinese model like GLM could get as good as Anthropic's Mythos. His conclusion: take GLM, control it soup-to-nuts on US hardware with only US citizens touching it, and pay a fraction. ◽️ The Apple analogy sharpens why renting intelligence is different from renting distribution. Chamath argued Apple is the only platform that respected developers, deliberately keeping its stock apps basic to protect the ecosystem and collect its 30% tax. There is no 30% tax on open models, and worse, you cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor without ending up identical to them. ◽️ Nvidia's open model is now good enough to matter. Calacanis claimed you cannot tell Jensen Huang's Nemotron from Claude on 95% of searches, and that Nvidia downplayed the model until now to avoid alarming its top customers. The gloves came off once OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon all signaled their own silicon ambitions. ◽️ Sacks sized the duopoly: roughly $60B and $40B in ARR. Anthropic is around ~$60 billion of ARR, OpenAI at ~$40 billion, and no one else generates meaningful model-layer revenue. Sacks's policy line: the US does not ban monopolies, only anti-competitive tactics, but the government should do nothing to make the duopoly more likely. ◽️ The token deflation call: 90% a year for three years. Calacanis predicted token costs fall 90% annually for three years, putting the price of intelligence near free and making it rational to waste tokens on hardware you already own. Friedberg's version is a 70/20/10 split between big cloud, local, and other clouds. ◽️ A wave of platform lock-in spending is already landing. Calacanis flagged Microsoft standing up a roughly $2.5 billion forward-deployed-engineer effort and Amazon spending about $1 billion on the same, plus OpenAI's version. His read: enterprises will slam the door, because letting a provider's engineers study your business is how it ends up in their model. ◽️ The server-per-employee prediction. Calacanis expects every employee to get $10,000 to $20,000 of local compute, a Mac Studio or a high-RAM Dell, running a personal local model that syncs to a thin laptop. A server per person, so nothing leaks. ◽️ On jobs, the data does not show present-tense loss. Sacks cited a RAMP and Revelio Labs study of over 21,000 US firms: the heaviest AI spenders grew headcount about 10% over two years, and entry-level headcount grew even faster at 12%. Friedberg's harder claim: there is no AI job loss yet, only clunky, gradual value creation, and the media will not reverse its narrative because that destroys its credibility. ◽️ The displacement case is real but forward-dated. The counterpoint on the show was that customer support, entry-level data entry and BPO, and driving are the near-term displacements, with Waymo cited as present-tense evidence: in markets where it hits critical mass, Uber and Lyft stop recruiting drivers. Sacks noted most US entry-level support was already offshored, so the acute risk sits in those countries first. ◽️ The human-premium counternarrative. Friedberg argued that as automation spreads, human interaction gets a premium: the skilled bartender, the real driver, the human-in-the-loop tier. He cited the company (referenced as Klarna) that hyped replacing its whole support team with AI, then reversed a year later on brand grounds. ◽️ The export-control episode needed three conditions, and Sacks says do not over-read it. Commerce lifted controls on Anthropic's Fable 5 after two weeks, with Mythos 5 restored to US customers around June 26 once co-founder Tom Brown replaced Dario as lead negotiator. Sacks's three conditions: Dario boasting for months about a cyber weapon, Amazon reporting failed guardrails in testing, and Dario refusing to roll Fable back. His message to allies: this was a particular set of circumstances rather than the debut of a standing lever. ◽️ The import question nobody answered cleanly. Calacanis pressed on why the US blocks Chinese cars and drones but not Chinese open models like DeepSeek and Kimi. Sacks's answer: a forked open model run on US hardware stops being Chinese, and banning open source would isolate the US and impose a token tax on American enterprises, so let the market decide if American open models win. ◽️ The California fiscal story is a business-climate story. Friedberg walked through the numbers behind Newsom's "balanced" $351B budget: expenses exceed revenue and $20-40B is borrowed to close the gap, the budget grew 65% in six years ($215B to $355B), personal income tax is $142B of ~$211B revenue with the top 1% (150,000 people) paying $70B of it, and the corporate rate of 8.9% sits far above Texas at zero. ◽️ The tax base is leaving, and the state is now taxing everyone else. Friedberg cited 1 to 1.5% of adjusted gross income leaving each year (about 15% over a decade), at least 15 Fortune 500 HQs and ~2,100 firms gone since 2019, and a new 8% software sales tax hitting Word, Gmail, and ChatGPT subscriptions plus a health-insurance tax, on top of a now-permanent 14.4% top bracket. The liabilities behind it run $1.4T in debt, up to $1.5T in unfunded pensions senior to state bonds, and ~$40B/year in out-year deficits. Lastly, the line that framed the whole show: "You can't rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor." That is the sovereignty thesis in one sentence, and every number in this episode is an argument for it. ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more summaries on key business and technology conversations.$

The July 4th weekend All-In The All-In Podcast turned into a long argument about who owns the intelligence layer. The besties think enterprises just woke up to a trap they had been walking into, here's how the conversation went (save this): ◽️ The Palantir-Nvidia deal is a bet against the model-layer duopoly. Palantir will use Nvidia's Nemotron open models to build a custom frontier-quality model for US government agencies, and the agencies own the hardware, the data, and the weights. Sacks framed it as structural: an application company and a chip company both want a competitive model layer, so they are natural partners against a two-provider middle. ◽️ Alex Karp's CNBC "crashout" was actually the thesis. Karp argued enterprises have lost trust in the frontier labs and want to own their compute, models, data, and alpha. Sacks translated it as a new definition of enterprise AI safety: safety means the model provider cannot hoover up your proprietary knowledge and turn it into its next product. ◽️ Figma is the cautionary tale that made it real. Anthropic launched Claude Design into Figma's category, its chief product officer sat on Figma's board and resigned only 3 days before launch, and Figma's stock is down about 50% this year while Anthropic's valuation surged. Sacks listed Claude Science, Security, Legal, Financial, and Code as the same move: dominate the model layer, then take the lucrative verticals. ◽️ The playbook has a name, and it is Microsoft and Google. Sacks argued Anthropic is running the operating-system strategy: own the layer everyone builds on, then walk up the stack. His Google receipt is that fewer than half of searches now send you off-site, versus an early Google that prided itself on how fast it kicked you away. ◽️ The BCG number is what raises the stakes. Chamath cited a BCG return-on-capital-employed study: the cost of capital is back to its long-run 8 to 11%, and half of large US companies cannot earn returns above it. If you are already teetering on your cost of capital, handing your alpha to a provider that may compete with you is not a luxury risk, it is fatal. ◽️ The 16.4x number is the whole argument in one data point. Chamath ran a code-migration task through 8090's harness. Wrapping Claude was 1.4x cheaper and 1.5x faster than Claude Opus alone. Wrapping the best open-source model was 16.4x cheaper, at about 3x slower. For a background task, three extra hours to cut cost by 16x is not a close call. ◽️ Even at 100x cheaper, enterprises were saying no for the wrong reason. Chamath relayed an ex-Meta PM's point that companies reject open models over China and safety fears, when they could host those same open weights on their own GPUs in US data centers with nothing flowing back. The safety objection, she argued, is backwards: the leak is the data you hand the frontier labs. ◽️ Friedberg says the frontier labs are trying to commoditize their own customers. Anthropic has been signing up life-sciences companies to feed a new life-focused model in exchange for early access, and nearly everyone he has talked to now refuses, recognizing that data they spent billions generating becomes worthless once it is pooled with everyone else's. ◽️ The deployment topology is shifting from big hubs to distributed spokes. Friedberg's map: the old assumption was a few capital-advantaged mega-clusters plus inference clouds. The new one is large hubs, medium hubs (enterprise training clusters), and distributed spokes, including on-prem inference in your own building. Owning your weights is the point. ◽️ Chamath's endgame is running GLM himself. An industry contact told him that with harness post-training and telemetry, an open Chinese model like GLM could get as good as Anthropic's Mythos. His conclusion: take GLM, control it soup-to-nuts on US hardware with only US citizens touching it, and pay a fraction. ◽️ The Apple analogy sharpens why renting intelligence is different from renting distribution. Chamath argued Apple is the only platform that respected developers, deliberately keeping its stock apps basic to protect the ecosystem and collect its 30% tax. There is no 30% tax on open models, and worse, you cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor without ending up identical to them. ◽️ Nvidia's open model is now good enough to matter. Calacanis claimed you cannot tell Jensen Huang's Nemotron from Claude on 95% of searches, and that Nvidia downplayed the model until now to avoid alarming its top customers. The gloves came off once OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon all signaled their own silicon ambitions. ◽️ Sacks sized the duopoly: roughly $60B and $40B in ARR. Anthropic is around ~$60 billion of ARR, OpenAI at ~$40 billion, and no one else generates meaningful model-layer revenue. Sacks's policy line: the US does not ban monopolies, only anti-competitive tactics, but the government should do nothing to make the duopoly more likely. ◽️ The token deflation call: 90% a year for three years. Calacanis predicted token costs fall 90% annually for three years, putting the price of intelligence near free and making it rational to waste tokens on hardware you already own. Friedberg's version is a 70/20/10 split between big cloud, local, and other clouds. ◽️ A wave of platform lock-in spending is already landing. Calacanis flagged Microsoft standing up a roughly $2.5 billion forward-deployed-engineer effort and Amazon spending about $1 billion on the same, plus OpenAI's version. His read: enterprises will slam the door, because letting a provider's engineers study your business is how it ends up in their model. ◽️ The server-per-employee prediction. Calacanis expects every employee to get $10,000 to $20,000 of local compute, a Mac Studio or a high-RAM Dell, running a personal local model that syncs to a thin laptop. A server per person, so nothing leaks. ◽️ On jobs, the data does not show present-tense loss. Sacks cited a RAMP and Revelio Labs study of over 21,000 US firms: the heaviest AI spenders grew headcount about 10% over two years, and entry-level headcount grew even faster at 12%. Friedberg's harder claim: there is no AI job loss yet, only clunky, gradual value creation, and the media will not reverse its narrative because that destroys its credibility. ◽️ The displacement case is real but forward-dated. The counterpoint on the show was that customer support, entry-level data entry and BPO, and driving are the near-term displacements, with Waymo cited as present-tense evidence: in markets where it hits critical mass, Uber and Lyft stop recruiting drivers. Sacks noted most US entry-level support was already offshored, so the acute risk sits in those countries first. ◽️ The human-premium counternarrative. Friedberg argued that as automation spreads, human interaction gets a premium: the skilled bartender, the real driver, the human-in-the-loop tier. He cited the company (referenced as Klarna) that hyped replacing its whole support team with AI, then reversed a year later on brand grounds. ◽️ The export-control episode needed three conditions, and Sacks says do not over-read it. Commerce lifted controls on Anthropic's Fable 5 after two weeks, with Mythos 5 restored to US customers around June 26 once co-founder Tom Brown replaced Dario as lead negotiator. Sacks's three conditions: Dario boasting for months about a cyber weapon, Amazon reporting failed guardrails in testing, and Dario refusing to roll Fable back. His message to allies: this was a particular set of circumstances rather than the debut of a standing lever. ◽️ The import question nobody answered cleanly. Calacanis pressed on why the US blocks Chinese cars and drones but not Chinese open models like DeepSeek and Kimi. Sacks's answer: a forked open model run on US hardware stops being Chinese, and banning open source would isolate the US and impose a token tax on American enterprises, so let the market decide if American open models win. ◽️ The California fiscal story is a business-climate story. Friedberg walked through the numbers behind Newsom's "balanced" $351B budget: expenses exceed revenue and $20-40B is borrowed to close the gap, the budget grew 65% in six years ($215B to $355B), personal income tax is $142B of ~$211B revenue with the top 1% (150,000 people) paying $70B of it, and the corporate rate of 8.9% sits far above Texas at zero. ◽️ The tax base is leaving, and the state is now taxing everyone else. Friedberg cited 1 to 1.5% of adjusted gross income leaving each year (about 15% over a decade), at least 15 Fortune 500 HQs and ~2,100 firms gone since 2019, and a new 8% software sales tax hitting Word, Gmail, and ChatGPT subscriptions plus a health-insurance tax, on top of a now-permanent 14.4% top bracket. The liabilities behind it run $1.4T in debt, up to $1.5T in unfunded pensions senior to state bonds, and ~$40B/year in out-year deficits. Lastly, the line that framed the whole show: "You can't rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor." That is the sovereignty thesis in one sentence, and every number in this episode is an argument for it. ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more summaries on key business and technology conversations.

Fireside Alpha

54,225 просмотров • 12 дней назад

🇩🇪🔴Fact Check: German far-left leader claims most high-profile gang rape suspects are all White men. “Let’s start with gang rape. So the most prominent cases we know of are all white men. Epstein, gang rape, Gisele Pelicot in France, gang rape, all by white men,” said Jan van Aken, the co-leader of the German Left Party. His claims about Gisele Pelicot being “gang raped” by “all by white men” is rated as FALSE. According to analysis of names in the case, 12 have a Middle Eastern/North African names plus the 3 names associated with sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific Islands. This means 27.5% of the 51 suspects are likely non-White. Not only is this far from “all” the suspects, but Middle Eastern and North Africans are estimated to be only 10% of the French population, which means they were significantly overrepresented in the rape of Pelicot. Regarding Epstein, while the charges in the case are reprehensible, nobody has been specifically convicted of gang rape in the case. There are numerous allegations that Prince Andrew committed gang rape but his case remains under investigation. The case involving Sean Diddy Combs, while not as prominent as the Epstein affair, also involved numerous allegations of gang rape as well, all involving African American suspects. Van Aken further states: “Gang rape exists, it’s a huge problem. But to pretend that this is a migration problem, I would put a big question mark over that.” The German statistics paint an entirely different story. Germany-wide, approximately 50% of all gang rape arrests involve foreign nationals, which predominately come from non-White regions like North Africa, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan African countries. Going further, if we examine only high-profile gang rape cases in Germany, it is clear that non-White suspects dominate. Cologne New Year’s Eve 2015/16 Approximately 2,000 men participated in mass sexual assaults on over 1,200 women across multiple German cities. The perpetrators were predominantly men from North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) and the Middle East who had recently arrived as part of the 2015 migrant wave. Many of the women were forcibly gang raped by large crowds of non-White males. The scale of the attacks and the initial reluctance of police and media to report on them caused a massive political storm and directly led to Germany rewriting its sexual assault laws in 2016 Freiburg 2018 An 18-year-old woman was drugged inside a discotheque by a 22-year-old Syrian Kurd and then raped outside the building by a series of men. Eight perpetrators were convicted — seven Syrians and one German — while two additional men were convicted for failing to aid the victim. The case intensified the national debate over migration and deportation of criminal asylum seekers.The defendants comprised one German citizen, eight Syrians, two Algerians and one Iraqi. The main suspect, a 22-year-old Syrian Kurd, was already the subject of unenforced arrest warrants for other crimes at the time of the attack. Emma S., 2019 A 15-year-old girl was lured into bushes on a September night and raped by 11 men, two of whom also filmed the attack in September 2019. Two of the named perpetrators, Arsen K. and Fares L., filmed the attack. Based on available reporting the group was predominantly of migrant background, consistent with the broader Freiburg-area cases of that period. Hamburg Stadtpark, 2020 Nine men and boys gang-raped a 15-year-old girl in a Hamburg park over several hours in September 2020. All were under 20 at the time, meaning they were subject to juvenile law. Only one — an Iranian national who was 19 at the time — spent any time in jail. The case later made headlines again when a 20-year-old woman was sentenced to a weekend in jail for calling one of the rapists a “disgraceful rapist pig” on WhatsApp — a harsher punishment than most of the perpetrators received. All nine convicted men reportedly hailed from Afghanistan, Armenia, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Libya and Poland. Four of the defendants were German nationals, while four others held Armenian, Afghan, Kuwaiti and Montenegrin citizenship.. Only one, the Iranian national, received a prison sentence. Görlitzer Park, Berlin 2023 Three African men were charged with the rape, grievous bodily harm and aggravated robbery of a 27-year-old Georgian tourist. One of the suspects was a 21-year-old Somali man who had been traveling illegally in Germany since 2016 under eleven different identities. A second was a 22-year-old man from Guinea-Bissau said to have had four other identities and a criminal record across nine cases. Mallorca rape, 2023 In 2023, after the international media loudly trumpeted that five German men were arrested for raping an 18-year-old Spanish girl, it was quickly revealed that all of the men have a “migration background.” Nevertheless, the vast majority of news outlets referred to the men as “Germans” and most made no mention of the fact that the men had a migration background, with many outlets even referring to them as a “German pack.” While Spanish news outlet Ultima Hora reported that the 21- to 23-year-old suspects were of Turkish origin, much of the Spanish press was fixated on the “German” aspect of the crime, which the men allegedly filmed on their smartphones. Even the German press was quick to claim the men were Germans with no context, with Welt, one of the most popular conservative papers in the country, running the headline “Five German vacationers on Mallorca have to be remanded in custody.” At no point in the piece does Welt mention the migration background of the suspects. The same story was told throughout the international press, with Associated Press, Deutsche Welle, and the Daily Mail making no mention of the men’s migration background. Heinsberg, 2025 A 17-year-old girl was lured by her ex-boyfriend to an apartment where five Syrian men between 17 and 26 were waiting. She was raped while threatened with a Taser. A pistol was also found during the subsequent search. The investigation later expanded to three separate rape cases after more victims came forward. Dresden gang rape, 2025 Three Syrian men allegedly raped a 27-year-old woman on the hood of a car in Dresden, with one of the defendants subsequently complaining about being assigned a female interpreter during proceedings. Herford, 2024 In 2024, a drugged 18-year-old was raped by seven suspects inside a parked vehicle in a fast food restaurant car park. The suspects included two Iraqi nationals — considered the main suspects — one German-Syrian, and four others with German citizenship (migration background unknown). The two Iraqis were remanded in custody. Police investigated the use of knockout drugs administered to the girl inside a nearby dance hall before the attack. Berlin, 2026 Just days after van Aken's podcast interview, a case made national headlines after it was revealed that nine suspects sexually assaulted and even raped a Turkish-Kurdish schoolgirl at the Gropiusstadt youth centre in Neukölln. Nine boys of Arab descent took turns molesting the same girl in a back room while one boy stood guard in the doorway. Instead of going to the authorities, staff kept quiet, reportedly to avoid having the young people immediately labeled “typical Muslims.“ These are just a small sampling of cases involving foreign nationals and gang rape.

Remix News & Views

117,456 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

“They are killing enormous numbers of civilians…they are targeting one, two, three enemy combatants and in the process killing huge numbers of civilians. Piers Morgan Piers a few minutes later – “If you can’t say exactly how many civilians have been killed in Gaza, what you say about numbers is bull.” Dear Piers Morgan I tried to explain to you where numbers in the Gaza war (or any war) are going to come from "simply.” But let me type it out so you have a record of it instead of the interruptions and the tactic of just asking the same question over and over while I explain how the numbers work. The same numbers by the way that you used minutes before to criticize Israel and constantly repeat or have guests on that repeat, or more often state not even Hamas numbers but false numbers about xx civilians, xx women, xx children, xx percentages that go beyond Hamas's actual list of casualties. First, let me correct you again (like I did to start the segment) by providing you my actual quotes: 1 - "Israel and the IDF have implemented more measures (sometimes quoted as precautions) to prevent civilian harm in urban warfare than any military in history," That is testable against urban warfare history of any similar situation (mostly attack of defended urban terrain). Israel civilian harm mitigation measure have included advance notification (flyers, phone calls, text messages, voicemails, drones with speakers, tv, radio, social media), safe corridors to include improving roads used for safe corridors in the middle of the war, roof knocking (notifying all residents of a building in advance for evacuations and then using non-penetrating low-yield munitions on top of the building before then waiting to strike), over daily multi-hour pauses in fighting (over 400 days of the 800 days of fighting) to allow civilian evacuations and aid movement, establishing a one-star commanded civilian harm mitigation cell that created a real time civilian presence (using cell phone presence, drones, satellite images, etc.) software reflected on all combat operating systems, handing out their own military maps to the entire population (to include the enemy) and then communicating the location of IDF operations, areas to avoid or further evacuate, using major call outs of buildings and neighborhoods, restrictive rules of engagement based on likely civilian presence, rigorous fires processes and legal reviews that often ended in calling mission off out of civilian harm estimates. Many of these measures have never been attempted, by any military. 2 - "Israel has a lower civilian to combatant ratio than any similar context (war or battle) in the history of urban warfare.” After acknowledging the lack of comparative cases (size of enemy forces (which I asked you about, you don't know), tunnels, density, strategy, tactics, prevention of civilian evacuations) but still doing the simple analysis, in order to provide the evidence for this statement I use the same numbers you and your frequent guests push to condemn Israel. But here: Q: How do you estimate the number of civilians deaths? A: Take the number the Hamas Gaza Health Ministry reports (despite that it includes any death in Gaza for any reason or cause (Israel/Hamas/Other terrorists) and has been well documented with inaccuracies (even having to be updated by Hamas of natural deaths, incomplete entries, false entries) and subtract the Israel stated combatant deaths. The Hamas Gaza Health Ministry claims roughly 72,000 deaths in Gaza. The IDF says it has killed about 25,000-26,000 combatants, a number also reported by President Trump in October 2025. If you subtract 25,000 from 72,000, even using Hamas’s number at face value, you get roughly 47,000 non-combatant deaths, or a bit less than a 2:1 ratio. If you were modest to adjust for natural deaths and Hamas-caused deaths, is likely closer to 35,000–40,000 non-combatant deaths versus 25,000 combatants killed, which puts the ratio closer to 1.5:1. If you compare 2:1 or 1.5:1 to any numbers we have (in many cases we don’t have) for wars, urban centric wars, contested urban battles they will be some of the lowest ratios (in some cases lowest by far) ever seen despite none of those wars or battles had the context of Gaza. For example: World War II – 70 million civilians, 20 million combatants, 3.5:1 Korean War – 2.5 million civilians, 90,000 combatants, 27:1 Iraq War – 280-300,000 civilians, 150-200,000 combatants, 1.4:1 to 2:1 But wait, the Gaza numbers are usually aggregated numbers for the entire war, any death ever reported in Gaza. But if you disaggregate the numbers to specific battles like Rafah, Khan Yunis, Gaza City 2025 for comparison you get different numbers. Based on modest numbers from the Battle of Rafah, the civilian to combatant ratio would be more like 1:100 due to multiple operational variables like the success of civilian evacuations. Major urban battles (modest comparison of battles with any like variables). Mosul – 10,000 civilians. Combatant unknown but total estimate in battle 5,000 – 2:1 Manila – 100,000 civilians. Combatants 17,000 – 6:1 Seoul – Unknown/no record of civilian but very likely high ratio based on histories Mariupol – Unknown/mass graves, estimate 20-22,000 civilians, 3-8,000 combatants - 2.5:1 to 7.3:1 I actually use this discussion about numbers or quote about ratio sparingly despite how many times it has been attribute to me because I know the complexity of casualty counting especially in urban centric wars with combatants that violate the law of war and do not distinguish themselves (uniforms/marking) making determining a body found (if there is a body) or a name reported (such as methods in Gaza) and then classifying that person as was participating in the hostilities (combatant) or not (noncombatant) is beyond just difficult and should always be viewed as questionable. In Mosul, a year after the battle there was not only no agreed upon casualty number, but the Mayor of the city also said there were 40,000 civilian deaths. These numbers are always messy, political, susceptible to manipulation by the different organizations involved. My point has always been that numbers of casualty reporting in Gaza doesn’t paint the story people routinely push. Actually, the opposite. Urban warfare is inherently and historically costly against civilians and the infrastructure. All wars involve noncombatant death. The moral, legal requirement is to do proportionality assessments and take feasible steps to prevent excessive civilian harm. So, using your logic Piers, if you can’t state how many combatants were killed (by Israel, Hamas, terrorist rockets, other terrorists in power struggles) … you can’t say (or allow your guests to say) Israel has killed a “large number of civilians” or “killed a disproportionate number of civilians” like you did in this very interveiw. You can't spend years saying Israel is killing enormous numbers of civilians and then tell me nobody can estimate civilian deaths so ratios aren't valid. Those two positions can't both be true. If casualty estimates are reliable enough to accuse Israel, then they're also reliable enough to examine civilian-to-combatant ratios. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be used selectively only when they support one conclusion.

“They are killing enormous numbers of civilians…they are targeting one, two, three enemy combatants and in the process killing huge numbers of civilians. Piers Morgan Piers a few minutes later – “If you can’t say exactly how many civilians have been killed in Gaza, what you say about numbers is bull.” Dear Piers Morgan I tried to explain to you where numbers in the Gaza war (or any war) are going to come from "simply.” But let me type it out so you have a record of it instead of the interruptions and the tactic of just asking the same question over and over while I explain how the numbers work. The same numbers by the way that you used minutes before to criticize Israel and constantly repeat or have guests on that repeat, or more often state not even Hamas numbers but false numbers about xx civilians, xx women, xx children, xx percentages that go beyond Hamas's actual list of casualties. First, let me correct you again (like I did to start the segment) by providing you my actual quotes: 1 - "Israel and the IDF have implemented more measures (sometimes quoted as precautions) to prevent civilian harm in urban warfare than any military in history," That is testable against urban warfare history of any similar situation (mostly attack of defended urban terrain). Israel civilian harm mitigation measure have included advance notification (flyers, phone calls, text messages, voicemails, drones with speakers, tv, radio, social media), safe corridors to include improving roads used for safe corridors in the middle of the war, roof knocking (notifying all residents of a building in advance for evacuations and then using non-penetrating low-yield munitions on top of the building before then waiting to strike), over daily multi-hour pauses in fighting (over 400 days of the 800 days of fighting) to allow civilian evacuations and aid movement, establishing a one-star commanded civilian harm mitigation cell that created a real time civilian presence (using cell phone presence, drones, satellite images, etc.) software reflected on all combat operating systems, handing out their own military maps to the entire population (to include the enemy) and then communicating the location of IDF operations, areas to avoid or further evacuate, using major call outs of buildings and neighborhoods, restrictive rules of engagement based on likely civilian presence, rigorous fires processes and legal reviews that often ended in calling mission off out of civilian harm estimates. Many of these measures have never been attempted, by any military. 2 - "Israel has a lower civilian to combatant ratio than any similar context (war or battle) in the history of urban warfare.” After acknowledging the lack of comparative cases (size of enemy forces (which I asked you about, you don't know), tunnels, density, strategy, tactics, prevention of civilian evacuations) but still doing the simple analysis, in order to provide the evidence for this statement I use the same numbers you and your frequent guests push to condemn Israel. But here: Q: How do you estimate the number of civilians deaths? A: Take the number the Hamas Gaza Health Ministry reports (despite that it includes any death in Gaza for any reason or cause (Israel/Hamas/Other terrorists) and has been well documented with inaccuracies (even having to be updated by Hamas of natural deaths, incomplete entries, false entries) and subtract the Israel stated combatant deaths. The Hamas Gaza Health Ministry claims roughly 72,000 deaths in Gaza. The IDF says it has killed about 25,000-26,000 combatants, a number also reported by President Trump in October 2025. If you subtract 25,000 from 72,000, even using Hamas’s number at face value, you get roughly 47,000 non-combatant deaths, or a bit less than a 2:1 ratio. If you were modest to adjust for natural deaths and Hamas-caused deaths, is likely closer to 35,000–40,000 non-combatant deaths versus 25,000 combatants killed, which puts the ratio closer to 1.5:1. If you compare 2:1 or 1.5:1 to any numbers we have (in many cases we don’t have) for wars, urban centric wars, contested urban battles they will be some of the lowest ratios (in some cases lowest by far) ever seen despite none of those wars or battles had the context of Gaza. For example: World War II – 70 million civilians, 20 million combatants, 3.5:1 Korean War – 2.5 million civilians, 90,000 combatants, 27:1 Iraq War – 280-300,000 civilians, 150-200,000 combatants, 1.4:1 to 2:1 But wait, the Gaza numbers are usually aggregated numbers for the entire war, any death ever reported in Gaza. But if you disaggregate the numbers to specific battles like Rafah, Khan Yunis, Gaza City 2025 for comparison you get different numbers. Based on modest numbers from the Battle of Rafah, the civilian to combatant ratio would be more like 1:100 due to multiple operational variables like the success of civilian evacuations. Major urban battles (modest comparison of battles with any like variables). Mosul – 10,000 civilians. Combatant unknown but total estimate in battle 5,000 – 2:1 Manila – 100,000 civilians. Combatants 17,000 – 6:1 Seoul – Unknown/no record of civilian but very likely high ratio based on histories Mariupol – Unknown/mass graves, estimate 20-22,000 civilians, 3-8,000 combatants - 2.5:1 to 7.3:1 I actually use this discussion about numbers or quote about ratio sparingly despite how many times it has been attribute to me because I know the complexity of casualty counting especially in urban centric wars with combatants that violate the law of war and do not distinguish themselves (uniforms/marking) making determining a body found (if there is a body) or a name reported (such as methods in Gaza) and then classifying that person as was participating in the hostilities (combatant) or not (noncombatant) is beyond just difficult and should always be viewed as questionable. In Mosul, a year after the battle there was not only no agreed upon casualty number, but the Mayor of the city also said there were 40,000 civilian deaths. These numbers are always messy, political, susceptible to manipulation by the different organizations involved. My point has always been that numbers of casualty reporting in Gaza doesn’t paint the story people routinely push. Actually, the opposite. Urban warfare is inherently and historically costly against civilians and the infrastructure. All wars involve noncombatant death. The moral, legal requirement is to do proportionality assessments and take feasible steps to prevent excessive civilian harm. So, using your logic Piers, if you can’t state how many combatants were killed (by Israel, Hamas, terrorist rockets, other terrorists in power struggles) … you can’t say (or allow your guests to say) Israel has killed a “large number of civilians” or “killed a disproportionate number of civilians” like you did in this very interveiw. You can't spend years saying Israel is killing enormous numbers of civilians and then tell me nobody can estimate civilian deaths so ratios aren't valid. Those two positions can't both be true. If casualty estimates are reliable enough to accuse Israel, then they're also reliable enough to examine civilian-to-combatant ratios. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be used selectively only when they support one conclusion.

John Spencer

641,391 просмотров • 21 дней назад

🔥Is Trump a Follower of Aleister Crowley? Is QAnon a Kabbalistic PsyOp Based on the Book of Revelation? In 1889 Ingersoll Lockwood published the book ‚Travels and Adventures of Little Baron Trump and his Wonderful Dog Bulger‘. In this story the people call Baron Trump, guided by a mentor named Don, a ‚Master magician‘, ‚Prince of the Black Art‘ and ‚little wizard‘. Ingersoll’s father Munson was an intimate friend of the then well known freemason and secretary of state, Henry Clay. Ingersoll also wrote the books ‚The Last President‘ and ‚Laconics of Cult‘ where he proposed a ‚Cult of the Immortal Human‘. On June 14th 1946, a blood moon and the exact date of Donald Trump’s birth, Kabbalist Aleister Crowley wrote to a friend that Jack Parsons or L. Ron Hubbard were trying to produce a moon child. A series about Parsons, Hubbard and the project called Strange Angels was released exactly on June 14, 2018, during Trump's presidency. The famous serial killer Jason Voorhees from the movie "Friday the 13th" was born in the movie on Friday, June 13, 1946. However, Friday was the fourteenth in the real world, so Jason's birthday is actually the same day as Trump’s. In 1979 Leslie Donald Epstein wrote ‚King of the Jews‘ about a man whose name is I.C. Trumpelman, who is called a ‚Magician‘ in the book. His father, Philip G. Epstein, and his twin brother, Julius J. Epstein, were famous Hollywood screenwriters (Casablanca and many others). In 2016 a Shaman told Aleister Crowley follower Marina Abramović that Trump is a magician. She later called him a magician of the highest order. In 2018, occult expert Gary Lachman called Trump a ‚chaos magician‘ in the book ‚Dark Star Rising‘. In 2019 Marina Abramović posed with Jacob Rothschild in front of the painting ‚Satan Summoning His Legions‘ with Satan looking like the statue of liberty. Trump himself was bailed out by Rothschild banker Wilbur Ross in 1991, who in 2017 became his secretary of Commerce. In 2025 the documentary ‚Master of the Temple: The Tragedy of Jack Parsons‘ shows Crowley’s Tarot Card ‚The magician‘, which is a trump card. The magician is exactly dressed like Donald Trump nine months later on Truth Social. Most people thought Trump was portrayed as Jesus, but from a talmudic perspective that doesn’t make a difference, because Jesus is called a magician and sorcerer in the Talmud. The latin word MAGA means wizard and MAGA is the highest ranking female magician in the Church of Satan. Qanon and the Book of Revelation Recently Trump posted the clearest Q reference so far. So he is still clearly pushing this narrative. In October 2011, Boris Nikolic — an adviser to Bill Gates — introduced Jeffrey Epstein to Christopher Poole (known as “moot”), the founder of 4chan. Just days after their meeting, Nikolic highlighted 4chan’s “huge potential for manipulation,” coinciding with the launch of the politically charged /pol/ board that later became the platform for QAnon. Epstein himself was also interested in the Kabbalah. Even if we ignore this: The original spelling of Kabbalah is Qabbalah. This variant is strictly based on the Hebrew transcription of the letter Qof (ק), which is transcribed as Q in Hebrew. Q also is basically the name of the alleged original source of the NT. The Q Source Theory suggests that Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark plus a lost collection of Jesus’ sayings called “Q” (from German “Quelle” = source) as their main sources. Q stand for the German word Quelle. The posts were deciphered with the cabalistic Gematria. The Book of Revelation and Qanon both tell basically the same story: Difficult times are coming, but don’t worry the Messiah (Trump or Jesus) will come and save us. Only one quote: ‚There is a penultimate quality at play here in the experience of revelation, suggesting that each revelation—each “Q Proof,” each “ominous” portent of the Second Coming—is only one coded message away from the final one, the ultimate apocalypse in which all will be unveiled. This penultimate quality provides the momentum necessary for sustaining commitment at the critical moment when prophecy fails. The momentum afforded by this invitation is all the more evident in the two cases examined here, where revelation is premised upon the backward glance of a prophetic hermeneutic in which the voice of the past may be recruited for the interpretation of an endlessly unfolding future. When prophecy fails, cognitive dissonance and disappointment may follow, but so, too does an invitation to consider the possibility of a greater, more thoroughly encompassing hidden truth to displace the previous one—an invitation to dwell once more on the verge of revelation.‘ The study compares Qanon to a movement, called Millerism. The Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller, who in 1831 first shared publicly his belief that the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur in roughly the year 1843–1844. “The Storm is coming” sounds like a modern version of “Behold, I am coming soon” (Rev. 22). The Book of Revelation was basically written by a Kabbalist. According to modern research it was written by a jewish mystic numerologist, today we would say a Kabbalist. This is what the New World Encyclopedia writes: ‚many modern scholars—as well as a number of the early Church Fathers—hold that John of Patmos was a different person from the other writers of the Johannine literature… Since John of Patmos, in contrast to the author of the Gospel of John, did not have a good command of Greek and exhibits a more overtly Jewish attitude than the other "John," some believe that it is he, and not the author of the Gospel of John, who should be identified as John the Apostle… However, Irenaeus and others indicate that a sect called the "Alogi" denied the authenticity of Revelation, believing it to have been written not by John the Apostle but by the Jewish-Christian teacher Cerinthus, who emphasized the need to follow the Jewish law and denied the divinity of Christ. Caius, a presbyter in Rome, held a similar opinion, believing John of Patmos to be Cerinthus… Some other authorities, especially in the Eastern Church, also rejected the book and thus denied that it could have been written by John the Apostle… In contrast to the author of the Gospel of John, John of Patmos speaks very much as a Jewish Christian, referring to Jesus as he who "holds the key of David" (3:7) and the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David." (5:5) He also condemns the careless attitude of some of the Pauline churches who permitted eating food which had been offered to idols (, ). Moreover, for John of Patmos, the "elect" saints are not Gentile Christians but "144,000 from all the tribes of Israel," with 12,000 coming from each specifically-named tribe (7:4-8)… But John the Apostle wrote (): 'You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.' In John , Jesus declares, "My kingdom is not of this world." Luke -21: „Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” ‚Lastly, the Gospel of John is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author was not as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author.‘ A Cambridge study writes: 'The Book of Revelation mimics the form of other contemporary Jewish apocalypses, in which the otherworldly journeys of seers are described, focusing on the premortem journey or vision, and the revelation of secret knowledge of world events and cosmic endings.' And of course Christian Zionists utilize the Book of Revelation to frame modern geopolitical events, particularly regarding the State of Israel, as necessary precursors to the Second Coming of Christ. Revelation 1: '10 On the Lord's Day I was seized by the Spirit and heard a voice behind me as loud as a trumpet.' Corona also appears in Revelation. The great red dragon has seven crowns and the Latin word for crown is corona (Rev 12:3). The numerical values for Corona add up to 666. But what impresses me most is this passage. Revelation -21 (LUT): 20 And the rest of the people who were not killed by these plagues did not turn from the works of their hands, that they did not worship evil spirits and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk; 21 nor did they turn from their murders, their sorcery, their fornication and their thievery. The word used here for sorcery is pharmakos! That's where our word for pharmacy comes from! Éliphas Lévi (Baphomet inventor) writes in The History of Magic: ‚The glory of Christianity is that it called all men to truth, without distinction of races and castes, though not without distinction in respect of intelligence and of virtue. “Cast not your pearls before swine,” said the Divine Founder of Christianity, “lest treading them under foot, they turn and rend you.” The Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, which comprises all the Kabalistic secrets concerning the doctrine of Christ Jesus, is a book no less obscure than the Zohar.‘ Levi also wrote:„That great Kabalistical association known in Europe under the name of Masonry appeared suddenly in the world“ The Freemason dictionary states: „Although modern Freemasonry draws on the medieval tradition of the builders' lodge, it is Kabbalah that constitutes the very essence of Freemasonry.“ The Jewish Forward writes: „Why conspiracy theorists keep turning to Jewish mysticism — from early Nazis to modern-day MAGA A viral clip of a Trump supporter blissfully misunderstanding Jewish mystic numerology raised old questions about how Kabbalah is understood by the public“ What is the one thing, Q never told us? That Kabbalah is the ideology of Freemasons. What is the motto of Kabbalist Aleister Crowley? ‚Do what thou wilt.‘ Donald Trump is constantly saying I can do what I want. Donald Trump has proven ties to Chabad Lubawitsch, which is a cabalistic sect. And what is practical Kabbalah? Magic! Major donors in Trump’s orbit also show strong connections to Chabad-Lubawitsch and thus to Kabbalah. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson were major Chabad supporters. They visited the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1991 for a blessing and funded Chabad centers. The Kushner family donated hundreds of thousands to Chabad projects. Jared and Ivanka have maintained ties to the movement as well. Several other Trump-associated businessmen with Russian-Jewish backgrounds (such as Lev Leviev, Felix Sater and others) are also well-known Chabad supporters. Chabad is heavily rooted in Kabbalah and actively teaches and practices its concepts. So you have to believe that Donald Trump with all these synchronicities and proven ties to Kabbalists, just coincidentally posted himself as Magician of the Crowley Tarot with demons in the background? I have an even crazier sounding interpretation of the book of revelation, namely that events described here really took place. It relates to the alien agenda which Donald Trump is also pushing. I describe it in detail in my book ‚The Open Secret‘ and soon in a video. But for now, the least we can say is, that the Book of Revelation was written by a jewish mystic numerologist and Qanon basically tells the same story.

🔥Is Trump a Follower of Aleister Crowley? Is QAnon a Kabbalistic PsyOp Based on the Book of Revelation? In 1889 Ingersoll Lockwood published the book ‚Travels and Adventures of Little Baron Trump and his Wonderful Dog Bulger‘. In this story the people call Baron Trump, guided by a mentor named Don, a ‚Master magician‘, ‚Prince of the Black Art‘ and ‚little wizard‘. Ingersoll’s father Munson was an intimate friend of the then well known freemason and secretary of state, Henry Clay. Ingersoll also wrote the books ‚The Last President‘ and ‚Laconics of Cult‘ where he proposed a ‚Cult of the Immortal Human‘. On June 14th 1946, a blood moon and the exact date of Donald Trump’s birth, Kabbalist Aleister Crowley wrote to a friend that Jack Parsons or L. Ron Hubbard were trying to produce a moon child. A series about Parsons, Hubbard and the project called Strange Angels was released exactly on June 14, 2018, during Trump's presidency. The famous serial killer Jason Voorhees from the movie "Friday the 13th" was born in the movie on Friday, June 13, 1946. However, Friday was the fourteenth in the real world, so Jason's birthday is actually the same day as Trump’s. In 1979 Leslie Donald Epstein wrote ‚King of the Jews‘ about a man whose name is I.C. Trumpelman, who is called a ‚Magician‘ in the book. His father, Philip G. Epstein, and his twin brother, Julius J. Epstein, were famous Hollywood screenwriters (Casablanca and many others). In 2016 a Shaman told Aleister Crowley follower Marina Abramović that Trump is a magician. She later called him a magician of the highest order. In 2018, occult expert Gary Lachman called Trump a ‚chaos magician‘ in the book ‚Dark Star Rising‘. In 2019 Marina Abramović posed with Jacob Rothschild in front of the painting ‚Satan Summoning His Legions‘ with Satan looking like the statue of liberty. Trump himself was bailed out by Rothschild banker Wilbur Ross in 1991, who in 2017 became his secretary of Commerce. In 2025 the documentary ‚Master of the Temple: The Tragedy of Jack Parsons‘ shows Crowley’s Tarot Card ‚The magician‘, which is a trump card. The magician is exactly dressed like Donald Trump nine months later on Truth Social. Most people thought Trump was portrayed as Jesus, but from a talmudic perspective that doesn’t make a difference, because Jesus is called a magician and sorcerer in the Talmud. The latin word MAGA means wizard and MAGA is the highest ranking female magician in the Church of Satan. Qanon and the Book of Revelation Recently Trump posted the clearest Q reference so far. So he is still clearly pushing this narrative. In October 2011, Boris Nikolic — an adviser to Bill Gates — introduced Jeffrey Epstein to Christopher Poole (known as “moot”), the founder of 4chan. Just days after their meeting, Nikolic highlighted 4chan’s “huge potential for manipulation,” coinciding with the launch of the politically charged /pol/ board that later became the platform for QAnon. Epstein himself was also interested in the Kabbalah. Even if we ignore this: The original spelling of Kabbalah is Qabbalah. This variant is strictly based on the Hebrew transcription of the letter Qof (ק), which is transcribed as Q in Hebrew. Q also is basically the name of the alleged original source of the NT. The Q Source Theory suggests that Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark plus a lost collection of Jesus’ sayings called “Q” (from German “Quelle” = source) as their main sources. Q stand for the German word Quelle. The posts were deciphered with the cabalistic Gematria. The Book of Revelation and Qanon both tell basically the same story: Difficult times are coming, but don’t worry the Messiah (Trump or Jesus) will come and save us. Only one quote: ‚There is a penultimate quality at play here in the experience of revelation, suggesting that each revelation—each “Q Proof,” each “ominous” portent of the Second Coming—is only one coded message away from the final one, the ultimate apocalypse in which all will be unveiled. This penultimate quality provides the momentum necessary for sustaining commitment at the critical moment when prophecy fails. The momentum afforded by this invitation is all the more evident in the two cases examined here, where revelation is premised upon the backward glance of a prophetic hermeneutic in which the voice of the past may be recruited for the interpretation of an endlessly unfolding future. When prophecy fails, cognitive dissonance and disappointment may follow, but so, too does an invitation to consider the possibility of a greater, more thoroughly encompassing hidden truth to displace the previous one—an invitation to dwell once more on the verge of revelation.‘ The study compares Qanon to a movement, called Millerism. The Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller, who in 1831 first shared publicly his belief that the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur in roughly the year 1843–1844. “The Storm is coming” sounds like a modern version of “Behold, I am coming soon” (Rev. 22). The Book of Revelation was basically written by a Kabbalist. According to modern research it was written by a jewish mystic numerologist, today we would say a Kabbalist. This is what the New World Encyclopedia writes: ‚many modern scholars—as well as a number of the early Church Fathers—hold that John of Patmos was a different person from the other writers of the Johannine literature… Since John of Patmos, in contrast to the author of the Gospel of John, did not have a good command of Greek and exhibits a more overtly Jewish attitude than the other "John," some believe that it is he, and not the author of the Gospel of John, who should be identified as John the Apostle… However, Irenaeus and others indicate that a sect called the "Alogi" denied the authenticity of Revelation, believing it to have been written not by John the Apostle but by the Jewish-Christian teacher Cerinthus, who emphasized the need to follow the Jewish law and denied the divinity of Christ. Caius, a presbyter in Rome, held a similar opinion, believing John of Patmos to be Cerinthus… Some other authorities, especially in the Eastern Church, also rejected the book and thus denied that it could have been written by John the Apostle… In contrast to the author of the Gospel of John, John of Patmos speaks very much as a Jewish Christian, referring to Jesus as he who "holds the key of David" (3:7) and the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David." (5:5) He also condemns the careless attitude of some of the Pauline churches who permitted eating food which had been offered to idols (, ). Moreover, for John of Patmos, the "elect" saints are not Gentile Christians but "144,000 from all the tribes of Israel," with 12,000 coming from each specifically-named tribe (7:4-8)… But John the Apostle wrote (): 'You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.' In John , Jesus declares, "My kingdom is not of this world." Luke -21: „Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” ‚Lastly, the Gospel of John is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author was not as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author.‘ A Cambridge study writes: 'The Book of Revelation mimics the form of other contemporary Jewish apocalypses, in which the otherworldly journeys of seers are described, focusing on the premortem journey or vision, and the revelation of secret knowledge of world events and cosmic endings.' And of course Christian Zionists utilize the Book of Revelation to frame modern geopolitical events, particularly regarding the State of Israel, as necessary precursors to the Second Coming of Christ. Revelation 1: '10 On the Lord's Day I was seized by the Spirit and heard a voice behind me as loud as a trumpet.' Corona also appears in Revelation. The great red dragon has seven crowns and the Latin word for crown is corona (Rev 12:3). The numerical values for Corona add up to 666. But what impresses me most is this passage. Revelation -21 (LUT): 20 And the rest of the people who were not killed by these plagues did not turn from the works of their hands, that they did not worship evil spirits and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk; 21 nor did they turn from their murders, their sorcery, their fornication and their thievery. The word used here for sorcery is pharmakos! That's where our word for pharmacy comes from! Éliphas Lévi (Baphomet inventor) writes in The History of Magic: ‚The glory of Christianity is that it called all men to truth, without distinction of races and castes, though not without distinction in respect of intelligence and of virtue. “Cast not your pearls before swine,” said the Divine Founder of Christianity, “lest treading them under foot, they turn and rend you.” The Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, which comprises all the Kabalistic secrets concerning the doctrine of Christ Jesus, is a book no less obscure than the Zohar.‘ Levi also wrote:„That great Kabalistical association known in Europe under the name of Masonry appeared suddenly in the world“ The Freemason dictionary states: „Although modern Freemasonry draws on the medieval tradition of the builders' lodge, it is Kabbalah that constitutes the very essence of Freemasonry.“ The Jewish Forward writes: „Why conspiracy theorists keep turning to Jewish mysticism — from early Nazis to modern-day MAGA A viral clip of a Trump supporter blissfully misunderstanding Jewish mystic numerology raised old questions about how Kabbalah is understood by the public“ What is the one thing, Q never told us? That Kabbalah is the ideology of Freemasons. What is the motto of Kabbalist Aleister Crowley? ‚Do what thou wilt.‘ Donald Trump is constantly saying I can do what I want. Donald Trump has proven ties to Chabad Lubawitsch, which is a cabalistic sect. And what is practical Kabbalah? Magic! Major donors in Trump’s orbit also show strong connections to Chabad-Lubawitsch and thus to Kabbalah. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson were major Chabad supporters. They visited the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1991 for a blessing and funded Chabad centers. The Kushner family donated hundreds of thousands to Chabad projects. Jared and Ivanka have maintained ties to the movement as well. Several other Trump-associated businessmen with Russian-Jewish backgrounds (such as Lev Leviev, Felix Sater and others) are also well-known Chabad supporters. Chabad is heavily rooted in Kabbalah and actively teaches and practices its concepts. So you have to believe that Donald Trump with all these synchronicities and proven ties to Kabbalists, just coincidentally posted himself as Magician of the Crowley Tarot with demons in the background? I have an even crazier sounding interpretation of the book of revelation, namely that events described here really took place. It relates to the alien agenda which Donald Trump is also pushing. I describe it in detail in my book ‚The Open Secret‘ and soon in a video. But for now, the least we can say is, that the Book of Revelation was written by a jewish mystic numerologist and Qanon basically tells the same story.

Oliver Janich

24,966 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад