与「Ana」相关的搜索结果

You NEED to set this up. The best AI models + the best trading tool!! Connect TradingView to Claude, GPT, Codex, or any LLM in 30 seconds 😘😘😘 TradingView just released its official MCP, so go ahead and delete those old community MCPs. They're not as secure as the official one, and not as easy to use either! It can read charts, data and indicators directly, manage your watchlists, build screeners, set and manage alerts, and analyze any company's fundamentals. Pretty much everything you do in TradingView can now be done with AI's help. Seriously powerful. I made an illustrated guide to the whole setup. Give it a try, it works great.

Anthropic 放出了 Sonnet 5.5 的完整跑分，最抢眼的一行是 Terminal-Bench 4.0：Sonnet 5 是 10.3%，Sonnet 5.5 是 70.6%，一代之内涨了将近七倍，还超过了 Opus 5.5 的 66.4%。 几个关键数字： OSWorld 2.1 电脑操控：57.0% 到 80.1%，Opus 5.5 是 81.8%。 GDPval-AA 职场知识任务：1844，Opus 5.5 是 1846，GPT-6 Sol 是 1487。 图表识别 Chartography：15.6% 到 61.6%，Sol 是 53.6%。 价格 $2/$10，和 Sonnet 5 一样，是 Opus 5.5 的一半。 很多人看这张表最大的误区，是以为 Sonnet 5.5 已经全面追平 Opus 5.5。脚注里有三处要读： Terminal-Bench 上 Sonnet 用的是 max 档，Opus 用的是 xhigh 档，档位不一样。 独立机构 Artificial Analysis 自己跑出来是 64%，比官方低。 FrontierCode 上 Sonnet 是 46.2%，Opus 5.5 是 54.4%，Sol 是 49.3%，Sonnet 在这一项排在两者后面。 这张表真正讲透的一件事是：便宜的 token 不等于便宜的任务。max 档下，Sonnet 5.5 每个任务要输出约 19 万 token，比 Opus 5.5 还多约六成。独立测下来，最高档的单任务成本已经超过 Opus 5.5。而且拉满也不一定更强，FrontierCode 上 xhigh 是 52.1%，max 反而掉到 46.2%。 所以同样用 Sonnet 5.5，一律拉到 max 的人，账单可能比用 Opus 还高；按任务选档的人，才吃到它便宜的那一半。 你上一次选模型，是看跑分表，还是看自己任务的账单？挑一个真实任务，high 和 max 各跑一遍，对比 token 和结果，再决定。

Grok 4.7 xHigh ranks #1# in Artificial Analysis Cyber Index It's a powerful frontier model performing at the highest level in enterprise cyber defense Outperforming Fable 5.1 Max, Opus 5.5, Astra 6, GPT-6 and other leading AI systems

截至目前，美国以56GW容量领跑全球，其次是亚太（中国以外）15GW，欧洲中东非洲持有14GW，拉美2GW。Semi访谈了60多家公司，追踪1000多个数据中心，算出中国大概有24GW。 中国在电力供应、土建速度与成本上有较大优势，如下图，我国建一个100MW的数据中心仅需3亿美金（不含IT设备），美国需要15亿美金。 下图是Semi-analysis算的字节、阿里、腾讯、百度、华为5家公司的数据中心总容量。黄色为自建，蓝色为租赁。截至2026年，字节以5GW多居首，而且绝大部分是租的。华为大约持有1GW，几乎都是自建。阿里4GW，腾讯2GW+，百度1GW。

[SECURITY NOTICE] Bitget Hot Wallet Incident — September 24, 2026 At 18:31 UTC on September 24, 2026, Bitget's security systems detected unauthorized transfers from some of our hot wallets. Our security team activated emergency response protocols immediately. What we have confirmed: -Estimated funds affected: approximately $351.6 million -Cold wallets remain fully secure. Bitget operates a three-tier wallet architecture — the breach contained only a portion of the hot wallet and warm wallet layers. -User funds are safe. The full amount of this loss falls within the coverage of Bitget's User Protection Fund, which currently holds over $464 million Actions we have taken: -Emergency response team activated within minutes of detection -Abnormal transfer addresses identified, flagged, and reported -Withdrawals temporarily suspended as a precautionary measure, pending security review -Law enforcement and on-chain security firms have been formally notified and are engaged What this means for you: -Your account balances are accurate and your assets are protected -Deposits and trading remain fully operational Withdrawals are temporarily paused and will be restored as soon as the security review is complete -What comes next: We will provide updates on an hourly basis across this channel and all official platforms. A full incident report — including root cause analysis and corrective actions — will be published within 24 hours. We will not speculate on the attack vector until the investigation is complete. Bitget has navigated multiple market cycles. We will not run from this. Every dollar and every decision will be accounted for, transparently and in full. Updates will be posted here and across all official Bitget channels as they become available. — Gracy Chen, CEO, Bitget

ClusterMAX 3.0 is here! ClusterMAX 3.0 debuts with a comprehensive review of the neocloud industry, covering 77 providers. We increase our market view to cover 323 providers, up from 209 in ClusterMAX 2.0, 169 in ClusterMAX 1.0, and 124 in the original AI Neocloud Playbook and Anatomy article. We have now interviewed well over 200 end users of neoclouds as part of this research. We update our itemized list of criteria across 10 categories, and update our direct descriptions of our expectations for Slurm, Kubernetes, Standalone Machines, Monitoring Dashboards, and Health Checks. All of this content is live on our website. We encourage providers to use these lists when developing their offerings. We still consider these lists as an amalgamation of our experience interviewing end users, making them representative of the features that end users expect from their cloud providers. Nebius joins CoreWeave in the Platinum tier. While CoreWeave still sets the technical bar for others to follow, Nebius is now established as a provider that consistently commands a premium pricing over others. Strong business decisions by Nebius have put them in a position to serve an entire class of neolabs at seller’s prices. Google Cloud joins Oracle in the Gold tier. Azure moves to Silver, Fluidstack moves to Unavailable, and Crusoe drops to Bronze. Lambda, Firmus and TensorWave remain in Silver, while GMI moves up to Silver from Bronze. Many companies drop from Silver (or Gold) to Bronze or lower. We raise the bar this round as only 19 neoclouds globally achieve a Medallion rating. We establish a tier between Bronze and Underperforming: the Participation Ribbon tier. 15 providers join this rating, which more accurately describes our opinion that they do the bare minimum to get by.

TRON joined @CoinDesk Policy & Regulation 2026 in Washington, D.C. as a Gold Sponsor. 🇺🇸 The event focused on the conversations shaping digital asset regulation, from transparency and on-chain analytics to collaboration across the public and private sectors.