与「CHANGE_CAM」相关的搜索结果

1️⃣ Branding: This year’s visual brand identity was a close collaboration between our team and AI. We started by giving Gemini previous brand guidelines and five years of I/O recaps. We then generated new imagery and iteratively fed outputs back into Nano Banana with feedback. We also used Nano Banana to explore icon styles. Here’s a prompt we used to explore icon styles with Nano Banana in the @GeminiApp: You are an expert image editor. You will be given two images. **Image 1** provides the **texture and material**. **Image 2** provides the **pose, shape, and lighting**. Your task is to create a new image by applying the detailed texture and pattern from the icon in **Image 1** onto the surface of the white icon in **Image 2**. **Crucial Constraint:** The output image must perfectly preserve the exact pose, camera angle, scale, and lighting of the icon in **Image 2**. Do not change its orientation or position in any way. The final result should be the icon from Image 2, but with the texture of Image 1.

SpaceX Starbase: Helping Lift Brownsville Out of Poverty and Bring Wealth to Local Families For many years, Brownsville and the Rio Grande Valley carried the difficult reputation of being among the poorest regions in the United States. High poverty rates shaped daily life for families across Cameron County for decades. In the 1990s, the area was even designated a federal Rural Empowerment Zone in recognition of these long-standing challenges. Today, the trajectory is changing. Poverty rates in Cameron County have been declining steadily. They fell from the mid-30s percent range around 2010 to 28.9% in the 2015–2019 period, and now stand at 24.8% according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data (2020–2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). While the rate is still higher than state and national averages, the consistent downward trend reflects real, measurable progress. A New Wave of Investment and Job Creation Recent data from the Greater Brownsville Economic Development Corporation’s FY 2025 Annual Impact Report shows strong momentum. Between October 2024 and September 2025, the organization helped attract $183.7 million in new investment and supported the creation of 3,288 jobs. The report also shows 10,604 jobs retained during that period and 7,116 jobs already committed for 2026. *Greater Brownsville EDC FY 2025 Key Economic Highlights (see infographic below) These figures reflect broad economic activity across the region, with SpaceX’s Starbase playing a significant role as a major anchor project. Starbase has brought thousands of direct jobs to the area and has helped attract suppliers and related investment. This type of large-scale development is helping address long-standing needs for stable employment and skills development in Brownsville and surrounding communities. Local voices are also noticing the change. Former Brownsville City Councilwoman Jessica Tetreau, @JessicaTetreau at Starbase beach at sunset described the shift she has witnessed in her own community: “Before, in the past in Brownsville, people would talk about the brain drain, how all of our youth would have to leave to San Antonio, to Austin to find jobs… And now these young people that are from the community are finding these amazing jobs.” She shared that in her own neighborhood, parents are now working at SpaceX, and children are growing up excited about launches and rocket engineering, “just like their fathers.” “The kids that are graduating from UTRGV and local universities, they’re coming to work here. It’s really exciting. Engineering is now one of the hottest and exciting things to have in this area.” Direct Support for Education and Downtown Renewal In addition to job creation, there has been targeted investment in the community’s future. In 2021, Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation committed $30 million to the area. $20 million to schools across Cameron County and $10 million for the revitalization of downtown Brownsville. Brownsville Independent School District received more than $2.4 million of the school funding. The money has supported the expansion of Career and Technical Education programs, helping prepare young people for the skilled jobs now available locally. The downtown portion included a $1 million grant to the Brownsville Community Improvement Corporation to strengthen the historic core of the city. Below are a few photos I took while touring downtown Brownsville with Jessica Tetreau right after Starship Launch 12, showing the renewed energy through spots like Main Street Deli, a local bookstore, and Dodici Pizza & Wine. A Community Moving Forward Brownsville has always been a resilient place. In recent years, it has gained access to meaningful new employment opportunities, investment in education, and visible improvements in its downtown. These developments are helping lift families, create local wealth, and support the renewal of the community. Challenges remain, as they do in any place working to overcome long-term economic hardship. But the direction is positive. New jobs are being created, young people are gaining access to better training, and the heart of the city is showing signs of renewal. This is the quieter but very real story of progress happening in Brownsville today that legacy media will keep quiet about.

this is my personal singularity moment this post may sound like a paid ad. I only wish. I'm concerned, more so than happy. the world is changing, and, among the scenarios where AI goes terribly wrong, inequality is the most realistic, yet, the one Anthropic seems to be the least concerned about. I'm glad OpenAI is taking the opposite stance: *personal AGI for everyone*. I think this is a commendable position in the times we live. but who am I in the queue of the bread? anyway, Fable is here, so I'll just report my first-hour experience first of all, all my pet prompts are solved. → λ-calculus puzzles → bug questions → one-shot apps all are trivial to it. I don't have anything harder other than my ongoing work so, in the last several days, I've been toying with HVM5, a new interaction net evaluator with a faster loop. after writing the first version, I left 32 GPT-5 agents working for ~20 hours each. this resulted in up to 2x speedups, but the file size increased by 2-fold and quality decreased significantly. I then simplified the whole thing into an even simpler core, and left Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 optimizing it for 8 hours. Opus got a legit 6% - 34% speedup in most benches. GPT got better results, but, sadly, an unusable file. I then asked Fable to optimize it. 2 hours later, it landed a 1770% speedup in one case, 100%+ in other 4, and 22% in average. yes, in 2 hours it outperformed me, opus 4.8 and a swarm of gpt 5.5 agents, by one order of magnitude. that could not possibly be legit. "it must be hardcoding the benchmarks" (GPT trauma). so I read its explanation and what it did was, indeed, the most high impact optimization one could try first. seems like HVM5 was wasting a lot of time garbage-collecting unused branches of pattern-match nodes. I had optimized that for static mats, but not for dynamic mats. skill issue. Fable figured how to do it for these, resulting in a massive speedup in some benches but wait, is that *correct*? I'm not sure yet, it is credible, but this is the kind of thing that is very easy to get wrong on interaction nets. the problem is, when I was ready to start auditing Fable's solution so I could tell whether it was buggy or legit, it interrupted me to tell me it had found a massive bug on the code *I* had written. ... wait, what? so... for garbage collection purposes, I stored a bit on lambda term pointers that meant "the variable bound by this lambda has been freed, so, its lambda must free whatever argument it is applied to". that's fine. yet, on duplicator nodes, I also used the same bit to mean "one of the duplicated variables was freed, so, treat this dup as a passthrough no-op". so, if a lambda entered a duplicator, it would mistake the lambda's collection bit for its own, resulting in corrupted interaction! that's a mouthful, why I'm writing this? just so you can appreciate the sheer absurdity of what just happened. I didn't ask it to find bugs. I asked it for an optimization. and even if I did ask it to find bugs, this bug is so astonishingly subtle and specific, identifying it takes mastering the domain to an extent that it beyond even me. I'd easily need hours or days to fix it, *if* I ever came across it. chances are it would just go unnoticed. and Fable found it and fixed it like it was nothing, while it was busy adding a 17x speedup to a file that neither I, nor Opus 4.8, nor a fleet of GPT 5.5 managed to barely make 2x faster. oh and there is also another tab where it is also ripping through Bend's codebase and finishing everything I had to do I don't know what to say anymore this isn't about Anthropic or OpenAI, this is about our collective future as a species. the world is changing, and we need to be aware of it, and discuss how to handle this change. receipt below . . .

It is with a heavy heart that we announce we are winding down the Botanix network. This decision is the hardest one we have made in four years, and we want to share the reasoning openly because the people who backed us, built with us, and used what we shipped deserve more than a quiet shutdown notice. First off, an immediate practical consideration for the Botanix community: please withdraw your Bitcoin and other assets before July 9th, 2026. When we started in 2022, the pitch was simple enough to say in a sentence: bring real utility to Bitcoin. What that actually meant in practice, and what we have spent nearly four years building toward, was more ambitious than that sentence made it sound. We were trying to build a Bitcoin-based blockchain that could find genuine product-market fit as a platform for Bitcoin applications, without using token incentives to drive growth, manufacture users, or simulate utility. Almost every chain that has launched in the last cycle has reached for the same playbook (issue a token without PMF, engineer the incentive surface, point at the resulting metrics), and we did not believe this route is a viable strategy in the long term. We wanted to know whether a Bitcoin chain could earn its users on the strength of what was built on top of it, the value it brings in the market with Bitcoin itself as the only meaningful economic primitive in the system. And we built it. The Spiderchain went live and stayed live, a year of mainnet operation with one hundred percent uptime and zero security incidents on a genuinely novel cryptographic architecture. We built Dynafed, a dynamic federation that turned the Spiderchain from a static multisig set into a rotating, decentralized one, the technical milestone that most people in this space said could not be built on Bitcoin without compromising trust assumptions. Twenty-five million transactions, two hundred thousand wallets, and tens of millions of dollars in assets moved across the chain, every single number of that earned organically without a token, without airdrops, without points programs, or any of the manufactured-demand machinery. Chainlink, Morpho, GMX, Dolomite, Fireblocks, Alchemy, Galaxy, OKX Wallet, all integrated. We shipped a Bitcoin neobank with BINK on iOS and Android, with self-custodial email login for Bitcoin (something that had never existed before), native Bitcoin yield, and the lowest borrowing rates against Bitcoin anywhere in the world, all of it downstream of owning the infrastructure. The point of saying this is not to argue with our own conclusion. The protocol works, the product works, and our team and ecosystem worked in concert to do exceptional work. We have run this experiment in earnest, with a working protocol, real applications, and a serious team, for over a year on mainnet and nearly four years in total. The honest answer we have arrived at, after living inside it every day, is that it did not work, at least not in this market and not on this timeline. We want to share what we think we learned, with the caveat that some of this is conviction and some of this is still suspicion, and we would rather be transparent about the difference than pretend to have clarity we do not have. The first thing I've had to sit with is timing. Bitcoin utility, making Bitcoin programmable, productive, and integrated into real financial activity, isn't where the real world users sit right now. The conversation is still on Bitcoin as a reserve asset, on its monetary and political positioning, on base-layer conservatism. Those questions are upstream of the ones a Bitcoin L2 needs people to be asking. I still believe Bitcoin gets there, but belief in the destination is not the same as being able to predict when, and nobody can. It's also possible the destination never materialises at all, and that Bitcoin's role as a reserve asset is simply where it settles. If that's true, there will never be a market for what we were building, and no amount of time or capital would change that. The second is the token question. We intended to eventually launch a token. We saw it, and still see it, as a genuinely new form of equity, something closer to an IPO than an airdrop, to be done when you reach product market fit and the moment is right. That moment never came. What became clear over the last year is that the market largely stopped rewarding even the more considered versions of that playbook. Token launches across the board have broadly underperformed, and those that did go to market with tokens haven't seen the outcomes or PMF that the model is supposed to produce. The third lesson is about where DeFi demand on Bitcoin actually lives. For most use cases that exist today, lending, yield, leveraged exposure, WBTC on a mature general-purpose L2 is genuinely sufficient. Users have voted with their behaviour, and the verdict is that the trust assumptions of a wrapped representation on Ethereum are acceptable to almost everyone who wants Bitcoin-denominated DeFi. Decentralisation matters to people in principle and in conversation; in practice, when something cheaper and easier is in front of them, they use it. The security case for a dedicated Bitcoin L2 is real, but it only matters for a narrower band of applications than our thesis required, one of the clearer lessons this market has taught us. The fourth lesson is structural. The on-chain economy is consolidating around venues that own the user relationship: Hyperliquid, Robinhood, the major CEXes, and now TradFi participants absorbing an ever-larger share of attention, flow, and revenue. Convenience and institutional credibility win, every time, as soon as they're available. As retail participation thins, that concentration only deepens. We were, and still are, believers in decentralisation, but the current direction of on-chain growth is running through distribution, and any team building base-layer infrastructure today is rowing upstream against that current. We were no exception. The fifth lesson is the most concrete. Both of the above played out directly in our economics. The users we attracted were primarily using Bitcoin as a store of value for yield, a legitimate use case, but not the high-frequency transaction volume that drives fee revenue on a network like ours. BINK was our answer to that: a Bitcoin neobank designed to bring daily usage of BTC and stablecoins on-chain, driving the transaction volume the network needed. It was the right strategic instinct, and one we never got the chance to fully test. BINK only landed on both app stores in the last few weeks, a product that by its nature could only be built once the underlying infrastructure was proven and live. When users choose the convenient option and economic gravity pulls toward distribution, what's left on a decentralised infrastructure layer is a user base that costs more to serve than it generates. Infrastructure costs are what they are, and the fee income never came close to covering them. If you would like to see how we were imagining a Bitcoin future and what we have been working on since September, feel free to download BINK and give it a spin: it’s a full-fledged self-custodial Bitcoin Neobank with email login, one click borrowing, a Lightning integration and more. App store: Play store: This UX is where we think Bitcoin is ultimately heading towards although it feels too early. You can use invite code 1SD31R, but remember to remove your funds by July 9th. We could keep going. We have chosen not to, however, because continuing past the point where additional time stops producing additional learning is not conviction, it is something that looks like conviction from the outside while corroding into something else on the inside. We would rather stop now, with integrity intact and resources available to take care of the people who took a chance on us, than push the experiment past the point where it still has something to teach us. Reminder: Please withdraw all your assets by July 9th. After this, the federation will sweep the remaining Bitcoin. Any other assets or tokens on the network from then onwards will unfortunately be unrecoverable. After this, the federation will sweep the remaining Bitcoin. Any other assets or tokens on the network from then onwards will unfortunately be unrecoverable. To our investors, who backed a thesis that was harder to defend than it should have been, to our partners who built alongside us and bet pieces of their own roadmaps on ours, to the developers who deployed on Spiderchain, to our users and the BINK community who showed up for something experimental and stayed, and most of all to the Botanix team who shipped a genuinely novel system with rigour and care and who made every hard day worth the difficulty: Thank you, more than the words available here can carry.

"The must have career edge for modern Professionals!" Your AI knows your career!🧠⚡ Ask it: 🎯 Based on everything you know about me, am I building a cohesive career or just accumulating a series of jobs? That one question might change everything! Get 100 more where that came from 👇 🚀

I’ll tell ya something I learned within the last couple years. When I started TrustedSec and Binary Defense I had no idea wtf I was doing but I’m extremely obsessive and learn what I need to in order to push through and be successful. One thing I’ve learned is when you hire leader positions from the outside - 9/10 these folks have no idea what they are doing and were at the right place at the right time. I was naive into thinking that I didn’t know what’s best for the companies and other people know more than I do. That’s total bullshit and I kick myself in the ass when I look back in history. The truth is you know your area of expertise better than anyone. Believe in yourself. If you don’t know it, learn it. If you focus on three core pillars: Customers - the reason why you’re here. Culture - your people is what makes the company - and if you have a shit culture and you don’t care intimately about your folks you produce shit people. Innovation - change what you do and never be satisfied of where you’re at. If you focus on those three things you will be successful. You will overcome whatever challenge you have. What I’ve learned is when people in suits come in with these polished presentations, confidence on changing your company - it’s all bullshit and pre canned templates they’ve used in very specific circumstances that do not apply to you. TLDR: Believe in yourself, if you don’t know it, learn it - promote from within from the people you know. Trust your people. Build and earn loyalty. Don’t stop being technical and hang your hat up to be a leader - be a leader that also pumps out cool ass shit everyday. I don’t see myself as a CEO I see myself as a peer with every employee - one of the guys/gals grinding it everyday for a mission. Willing to roll my sleeves up with pneumonia and a 103 degree temp to talk to a customer and having to go off camera to throw up or to get in 27 merge requests in (happened today). Relentless is the word. Be relentless. Focused. Kick some ass and take names. Most importantly and I’m talking to myself as I type this: fuckin believe in yourself and always lead with truth, honesty, best intentions, and making the world a better place.

Putin's mother won a car in a lottery. His family had to choose: sell it for an apartment, or keep it so he could get to university. They stayed in their one-room communal apartment. She chose her son's future. That's who Putin came from. Putin's mother worked as a hospital janitor after retiring. One day at the cafeteria, they gave her a lottery ticket as change. She won a car, a Zaporozhets. The most basic car you could get in the Soviet Union. The family lived in one room which was so called ommunal apartment with shared kitchen, shared bathroom with other families. Putin had just started university. They sat down to decide what to do. Sell the ticket and buy a cooperative apartment, or keep the car. Putin was sure they'd sell it. Getting out of that single room was the obvious choice for a family living on almost nothing. His mother said: We'll take the car. Let our son drive it. They stayed in that one room so he could have transportation to university. That's who Putin came from. Trump's father was a real estate mogul worth hundreds of millions. Trump grew up in a 23-room mansion, private schools, a reported $413 million inheritance. His first ventures funded with his father's money. He was born into an empire. Americans love to talk about rejecting kings. No monarchy, no aristocracy. But the self-made man is the American Dream. Then they elect someone born into dynastic wealth who lives in a gold-plated penthouse and puts his kids in government positions. And call the guy whose mom worked as a janitor a dictator. But it turns out Putin is the ultimate American Dream story: a self-made man who rose from an ordinary family to become a representative of his people and the leader of his country.

Elon Musk is building something no platform in history has actually attempted. A system that judges ideas without knowing who wrote them. Musk: “It should be possible for somebody to post content as a new user with no followers, and if that content is excellent, it gets seen by a lot of people.” Every platform before this ran on a single hidden variable. Identity. Not quality. Not originality. Not depth. Identity. Who you were determined what got seen. The architecture didn’t surface the best thinking. It surfaced the most established thinker. It chose pedigree over precision. Every single time. Musk is the first person with the infrastructure, the capital, and the sheer indifference to consensus required to strip that variable out. Grok reads everything. Every post from every account. Zero followers or ten million. No weighting for legacy. No deference to tenure. It measures one thing. Intrinsic excellence. The printing press created publishers. Radio created networks. Television created anchors. Social media created influencers. Every technology of liberation produced a new gatekeeper within one generation. Musk is betting AI is the first tool that can’t be captured. An algorithm with no concept of identity has no incumbency to protect. It just reads. And it surfaces what’s best. If that works, it doesn’t just change a platform. It exposes something about every system that came before it. Every trending page, every algorithm, every feed that claimed to surface quality was never measuring quality. It was measuring proximity to power and calling it merit. We never had meritocracy. We had hierarchy with better marketing. Musk is building the first real one. And the question it forces isn’t whether you can compete. It’s whether your work was ever actually good, or you were just early. Everyone wants meritocracy. Almost nobody has ever lived in one.

I asked Claude to apply a capital cycle analysis to $MU. Here's what it came up with: Net reading: 11 of 14 capital cycle signals are bearish or strongly bearish. The framework reads this as late-cycle, not early/mid-cycle. The two unambiguously bullish signals (equipment lead times, industry concentration) are eroding rather than strengthening. Insights Yielded by Capital Cycle Analysis: 1) "Structural change" rhetoric is itself diagnostic. The capital cycle framework treats coordinated industry-wide CEO claims of regime change as evidence of late-cycle euphoria. The same language was deployed by the same CEOs (Mehrotra at Micron specifically) in 2017–2018 and was wrong. Bayesian base rates argue against accepting the current claims at face value. The previous analysis under-weighted this base-rate evidence. 2) Look at total capital flowing into the supply curve, not just incumbent capex. The structural-change analysis focused on Big Three capex. The capital cycle lens forces aggregation of all capital flowing into memory output: a) Incumbent capex: ~$104B in 2026 across DRAM + NAND; b) CXMT IPO proceeds: ~$4.2B (with state-aligned co-financing many multiples larger); c) YMTC capacity additions (privately financed) d) Substitute technology capital (Cerebras, photonic startups, CXL controller designers) — billions of dollars of equity raised to reduce HBM intensity per dollar of AI compute deployed. When aggregated, total effective supply-side capital formation in 2026 is materially higher than the Big Three capex alone suggests. The supply response is being underestimated. 3) The customer base is doing exactly what late-cycle customers do. Hyperscalers locking in 3–5 year LTAs, pre-ordering 2027 NAND, building strategic inventory — these are not signs of confident long-cycle visibility, they are signs of late-cycle scarcity panic. Historically (DRAM 2017–2018, oil 2008, shipping 2007), customer pre-buying at peak prices is followed by sharp inventory destocking when prices roll over. The structural-change narrative frames LTA penetration as a benefit; the capital cycle frames it as a peak signal. 4) Multiple expansion + earnings expansion = asymmetric downside. The previous analysis flagged the 15x NTM P/E multiple as aggressive (referring to UBS PT raise). The capital cycle framework sharpens this: when both earnings and multiple are at peak, the compound drawdown when either reverts is severe. Memory historically goes from 60% gross margin to negative gross margin and from 10x P/E to <5x P/E. Even a modest reversion to 35% gross margin and 8x P/E from current levels implies a 60–75% equity drawdown for the memory primaries — without any disorderly cycle. 5) Supply lag is real but not unique. The bullish point about EUV/TSV/hybrid bonding lead times is correct but mis-weighted. The capital cycle history of other capital-intensive industries (oil refining, shipbuilding, semiconductor wafer fab) shows that long lead times increase the eventual amplitude of the down-cycle: capital decisions made at peak are not reversible when conditions soften, leading to capacity overhang. Long lead times delay the down-cycle; they do not abolish it. 6) China is the textbook capital-cycle disruptor. In Chancellor's historical case studies (steel, shipbuilding, solar, panels, batteries), state-backed Chinese entrants repeatedly compressed margins of consolidated Western/Korean/Japanese oligopolies once technology gaps narrowed. The U.S. equipment restrictions on China have created the illusion that this dynamic is paused, but the data shows CXMT doubled DRAM share in 18 months and is targeting domestic HBM3. The structural-change analysis appropriately flagged this; the capital cycle framework would weight it heavier as the single most important multi-year risk. 7) Substitute capital formation is its own supply curve. The capital cycle framework treats financing flows into substitutes as a parallel supply expansion. Cerebras' $5.5B IPO, Marvell's $5B Celestial acquisition, the Sandisk/SK hynix HBF JV, and the CXL ecosystem (ALAB, MRVL, MCHP) are collectively financing "HBM intensity reduction." Even if HBM unit demand is met, the value capture per dollar of AI compute is diluted. Capital is flowing in adjacent to the memory primaries to reduce the share of AI spend that ends up in their P&L. 8) The bull case relies disproportionately on demand visibility. The capital cycle warns against demand-anchored theses. The bull case requires AI capex to continue at current levels or accelerate, hyperscaler ROI economics to remain favorable, sovereign AI to scale, and inference workloads not to migrate to non-HBM architectures. Each of these is plausible; the joint probability that all hold through 2028 is materially lower than the headline narrative suggests. 9) Sell-side estimate trajectory is itself a signal. UBS's PT trajectory ($535 → $1,625, a 3x increase in one revision) is historically associated with peak euphoria. Estimate revisions of this magnitude have a poor forward record. The framework would treat the velocity of estimate revisions as a contra-signal. 10) Where the asymmetry sits. The capital cycle framework reframes the risk/reward calculation. Even if the bull thesis is right and earnings hold through 2028, the upside from current levels is modest (multiple expansion has already happened). If the bull thesis is partially wrong — say, 2028 brings 25% peak-to-trough EPS decline rather than 50% — the equity drawdown is still material because multiples will compress simultaneously. The asymmetry is not favourable at current valuations. Bottom line: The structural change thesis was directionally correct but materially overweighted by the original analysis. The capital cycle framework appropriately reweights toward supply-side caution and treats current peak conditions, peak valuations, peak management confidence, and accelerating capital inflows as a coherent set of late-cycle signals. The memory industry has undergone real and beneficial structural change in shape, but the empirical base rate against the "cycle has been abolished" claim is overwhelming. The economic characteristics of memory businesses have improved but have not been transformed into stable, compounding, low-volatility ones — and the next 18–30 months are statistically more likely to mark the end of this up-cycle than a transition to a new regime.