与「2016』」相关的搜索结果

通常，你不会跟自己的大客户打官司。 但马斯克不是一般人。 他曾经为了拿到美国空军的订单，把对方给告了🤣 两年后，SpaceX居然还拿到了对方一份8270万美元的发射合同🤣 当时，SpaceX已经在为NASA向国际空间站运送货物，马斯克想进一步争取军方的卫星发射生意。 但空军没有公开招标，就把未来数年的大批订单，交给了波音的合资公司ULA。 马斯克觉得无法接受，这显然非常不公平。 SpaceX明明有能力完成其中一部分任务，也能提供更低的价格。 但订单提前签给了别人，他连竞争的机会都没有。 于是，2014年4月，他宣布起诉美国政府，挑战空军直接向ULA采购的安排，要求把SpaceX有能力承担的任务拿出来公开竞争。 他在发布会上说：“如果我们参与竞争输了，那没关系。” 但他真的没办法接受，这些订单根本没有经过竞争，就交给了另一家公司。 SpaceX在法庭上挑战空军的采购决定，公司的工程师却仍在和空军一起审核火箭。 空军提出技术问题，团队就解释设计，补充飞行数据，官司打着，争取接单资格的工作也没有停。 到了2015年1月，双方达成和解。 空军保留与ULA已经签订的合同，但同意扩大后续发射任务的竞争机会，SpaceX撤回诉讼。 几个月后，猎鹰9号通过军方认证，取得了承接这类任务的资格。 随后，空军为一颗GPS卫星的发射公开招标，SpaceX提交了方案。 2016年4月，马斯克拿到了这份8270万美元的合同。 两年前被告上法庭的客户，把卫星发射订单交给了他的公司。

马斯克&万斯&川普 周成柱：沉思录（157） 1、马斯克思想逐渐右转是在2022年之后、之前他其实一直偏向民主党。川普第一任期他们彼此就有接触、但是他并不喜欢川普。2020年大选他投票给拜登、2024大选他开始支持共和党、但是首先支持的并不是川普而是德桑蒂斯。2024年7月宾州暗杀未遂、川普的英勇表现彻底改变了马斯克对川普曾经的负面看法、让马斯克看到了他眼中这个废话啰嗦老人内心“硬核”的一面、而这一面恰恰是马斯克无比珍视与赏识的。对于一个一心渴望将人类送往火星的企业家而言、他的胸怀、格局与英勇早已非常人可比、川普的英勇表现让他不得不折服、也产生惺惺相惜之情。可以说、马斯克对川普的认知与自身政治观念的演变密切关联。而2024年宾州暗杀未遂事件、彻底震撼了马斯克并且最终让他开始为川普当选全力以赴。而这个时候、川普从政已经八年、相比许多人从2016年就开始支持川普、认识到川普对美国复兴的重要意义、马斯克对川普认识与理解的确显得滞后。但是马斯克的过人之处就在于他的勤奋及聪慧、当他开始专注一件事情的时候、利用第一性原理他可以在很短时间内从一个门外汉形成顶级认知、这就是马斯克为什么可以同时经营数家公司并且均获得巨大成功的原因所在。马斯克2022年以来的言论也显示了他价值观的转变、从剥削来自权力而非资本；你激励什么便会产生什么（抨击非法移民福利）；到公开指责民主党大选舞弊、主张关闭边境、驱逐非法移民；再到公开声称2024大选如果川普输了将会是美国最后一次大选等等、所有这些言论均已显示出马斯克已经从一个温和左派蜕变为一个坚定的保守派和常识派。而正是2024年宾州暗杀未遂事件导致了马斯克重新认识了川普并倒向了他、这恐怕是阴谋集团未曾料到的！ 考虑到马斯克的性格、他价值观的转变、他对川普、对2028年之后共和党的意义都显得非比寻常！在硅谷富豪中、许多人从2016年起就开始支持川普、为川普捐款、比如彼得.帝尔。作为一个自由意志主义者、彼得.帝尔的政治成熟度显然超过马斯克许多、但是他对川普的支持仅限于幕后捐款运作、而不是走到台前。万斯也可以看作是彼得帝尔的门徒、他们曾一起创立风投公司、也是通过彼得帝尔、万斯成为了小川普的朋友、进入川普的视野、为其晋升副总统铺平了道路。而马斯克与彼得帝尔相比又显得格外另类、马斯克在2024年7月宾州暗杀未遂后才公开高调宣称支持川普、而后者在2016年已经开始挺川、两者相隔整整八年、但是马斯克在作出决定以后便开始走到台前、不顾一切全力以赴背水一战。出钱出人出力出创意、奔走呐喊奋不顾身；以X为平台、以其两亿粉丝的全球影响力为川普背书、抨击民主党、这就是马斯克、当他做出决定以后往往就会孤注一掷置之死地、这可以视为他的缺点也可以视为他的优点。然而无论如何、让人无法忽视的是、随着后川普时代的来临、2028年之后马斯克都将以其鲜明的性格、巨额的财富和全球影响力在美国政坛发挥其独特的作用。对共和党、对保守派而言、马斯克是一道保险杠。 2、十年来、川普以一人之力对抗假新闻媒体（主流左媒）、契而不舍不屈不挠、唤醒了无数沉睡中的美国人民。在此过程中、他承受了无数的误解、攻击、责难、缠讼、打击、背叛乃至暗杀、人间冷暖世态炎凉尝尽；但是他从来没有放弃没有气馁没有妥协！什么是虽千万人、吾往矣？这就是；什么是烈士暮年、壮心不已？这就是；什么是直道而行、死生以之？这就是！ 4、不知道那些黄左川黑哪来的自信批评川普、川普的认知甩他们几条街、他们连老川的影子都看不见！对手是邪恶的、所以不要与其接触、直接开干、弄死对方（当然代价必须由美国人承担；你负责出人出钱出命、我负责打嘴炮敲键盘装圣母）、这就是巨婴、就是整体主义思维、就是被洗脑扭曲的宏大叙事；对手是邪恶的、但是依然需要接触、面对现实、共同管控规避风险、在不断博弈中渐进的朝向好的方面演化、这是基于现实的保守主义！ 5、因为川普、一些喜欢装逼装圣母的左棍再也无法欺骗全世界了。川普的有两大重要贡献是无法被忽视的：一是一人单挑主流假新闻媒体十年、拆穿他们的谎言与伪装、唤醒全世界对假新闻左媒的重新审视与认知；实际上是对左媒垄断话语权的一场艰难突围、是一场对左翼病毒的反向揭露与批判。没有川普的揭露与对抗、许多人至今还沉浸在假新闻左媒塑造的充满谎言的虚假意识形态叙事中；一是对非法移民及穆斯林的批判。让许多人重新认识到美国是一个建立在基督教信仰之上的国家、关闭边境捍卫国家主权驱逐非法移民、重新凝聚人们的对美利坚国家共同体的共识；基督教信仰的回归、爱国主义价值观的重新确立、让无数人意识到伊斯兰教与基督教文明无法兼容、遏制了美国进一步伊斯兰化！ 2026.9.24 （3，政教分离是错误的）见评论

这篇论文很有意思。讲的是“威权政府如何控制新闻”。 一般人都这么想，政府控制的新闻源，应该只讲好消息，不讲坏消息吧。这篇论文的研究挑战了这个想法：俄罗斯并没有大批量删除坏消息。 作者整理了1999-2016年俄罗斯主要几大新闻台的每日新闻文本，得出了这个结论。 为什么呢？因为删除坏消息很容易，但你无法删除个人体感——工资有没有涨、工作稳定不稳定、财富有没有损失、生活质量有没有提升等等。 如果在个人体感很差的背景下，新闻还一直宣传“好、稳、幸福”，则会蚕食自己的可信度。 那怎么办呢？ 进而作者从大量数据中得出了更深层的结论： 当你无法改变事实是，那么就改变“归因”——从“发生了什么”，到“为什么发生”。 比如俄罗斯股市如果暴跌，你如果不报道，股民还是很清楚自己的钱包缩水，甚至还会在“背地”里骂。 与其这样，不如报道股市暴跌，但把原因归为外部金融市场波动、游资机构收割等“罪魁祸首”。 作者以此逻辑整理出——在17年的样本数据里，俄罗斯第一频道提及的好消息中，有25%会出现普京的名字（直接联系在一起）。 而提及的坏消息中，有（你猜）会出现普京的名字。 （答案）趋近于0%。 为什么是趋近于0%？作者提及，因为在一些坏消息中，要突出外部原因的同时，还得表现“没有普京会更差”的对比感。 举个例子。 你问你娃今天考试考了几分。你娃说60分。你听了刚想发飙。你娃说你还记得那个谁，上次考了全班第三，这次只考了65分。我这次要不是用心复习，肯定要不及格。 多聪明。参照物有了，选择性的找了一个那个谁。把“劣势”反过来说成“进步”。 这就是作者的核心发现。 事实决定你看见什么，叙事决定你相信什么。

涨幅超过5000%🤣 有个美国大叔，2016年底花4000美元买了AMD的股票，后来就忘了，整整8年没登录股票账户。 今年夏天重新打开时，他发现这批股票已经值20多万美元。 十年前，他在CNBC上看到有人推荐这家芯片公司，就在网上券商买了400股，当时每股大约10美元。 他想着把这笔钱留到退休，自己也不懂什么时候该卖，买完就放在了一边。 券商没有寄纸质对账单，他也不主动登录，时间一长，连这个账户都快忘了。 他平时还有另一个正常使用的投资账户，退休安排也一直按那边的资产来考虑，这笔AMD早就没有算在里面。 直到今年重新登录，他才发现，当年每股十来美元的股票，已经涨到了五百多美元。 他不敢相信自己的眼睛，对着账户反复核对了一个小时，最后还给券商客服打了电话，才确定屏幕上的数字没有弄错。

BREAKING: Federal law enforcement sources confirm to @FoxNews that the suspect arrested for stabbing two UMass Dartmouth football players over the weekend, killing one, is a Nigerian national who had been in the U.S. illegally as a B-2 visa overstay, but was shielded from deportation by the Biden administration in 2022 when they granted his request for “deferred action” (a discretionary choice by the U.S. government to delay deportation). He then applied for deferred action again in 2025, and the Trump administration approved it and again shielded him from deportation. Chukwunonso Uzoma David Uzoma Eze was taken into custody by police in Providence, RI after the stabbings, which happened in the parking lot of a lounge, and he is now charged with murder. Full immigration history, courtesy of DHS source: “Chukwunonso Uzoma David Uzoma Eze, a Nigerian national first entered the United States on March 18, 2015, at Boston Logan International Airport on a B-2 visitor visa. He later obtained two approved extensions of that nonimmigrant status: one filed Sept. 17, 2015, and approved Feb. 5, 2016; and another filed March 18, 2016, and approved June 8, 2016. He applied for deferred action, which was approved Sept. 21, 2022.   On Aug. 24, 2023, he applied for employment authorization. That request was rejected Sept. 25, 2023. On Feb. 10, 2025, he filed two applications: one for employment authorization based on deferred action, which remains pending; and another for deferred action, which was approved Oct. 8, 2025, and is set to expire Oct. 7, 2027. On Sept. 21, 2026, the Bristol County Sheriff’s Department in Massachusetts arrested him on a fugitive-from-justice warrant.”

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.