与「Closed」相关的搜索结果

Five and a half years ago, @crispheaney, @bigz_pubkey, @davijlu and I set out on a weird, winding, and wonderful journey to build a perpetual futures exchange. The crypto market structure was extremely immature then. Perps were just starting out, most DeFi users were paying $200 to execute a single transaction on Ethereum. We were one of the first to bring a fully on-chain perpetual DEX to market and launched for the first time on Solana in November 2021. Today, as the exchange relaunches and enters its next chapter, I'm stepping down from Drift, now @VelocityDEX. I'm extremely proud of what we built – one of the largest exchanges on Solana with over $150B traded. Chris and Z, our technical cofounders, led the technology front to build every piece of the exchange stack, while David and I put together an incredible and experienced growth and operational team. I poured my heart, soul, and many years of the most insane ups and downs into building and growing Drift – a gruelling, but immensely fulfilling journey. In many ways, it felt like my first child. This April, we faced a state-level attack by DPRK, after a long-planned six months of social engineering infiltration. Going through it and the aftermath was by far the worst week of my life. Within ten sleepless nights, we closed a deal with Tether that put users on a path to recovery. We hired @redacted_noah, ex-head of protocol engineering at Helium, to lead the rebuild of Velocity’s smart contract technology, a difficult task he took on enthusiastically and with zest. We brought on @namanmtl, who joins us from Binance and Trust Wallet to lead Growth and Recovery to grow our trader base for the relaunch. I am proud of my team who stepped up to take initiative above and beyond – especially @tracybbd who personally took the pains to speak to every single trader and market maker on the exchange. Over the next few months, the team refused to quit and hunkered down to rebuild the exchange with a full security upgrade. Designing DFX as well as coordinating on multi-nation asset recovery working alongside @zeroShadow_io and local law enforcement agencies to freeze assets was a huge feat. This week, Velocity finalized their audit by @osec_io and @asymmetric_re and fully open-sourced the exchange. After a long and arduous journey, with many security audits in tow and with massive effort from the team, the exchange relaunches today – even better and faster than before. I would like to shout out the incredible team that will be carrying on the Velocity product. @davijlu, along with Foundation, will continue to move on the asset recovery and law enforcement work. @redacted_noah will continue to build out Velocity’s technology, shipping new features like CLOB and Prop AMM that will make the product even better and smoother. @Defioppa, who previously led product at Binance, will continue to lead the product at Velocity. @tracybbd will lead partnerships and stakeholder relationships. @namanmtl will join us from his extensive background at Binance to lead growth. With a heavy heart, I fully own this decision to step down. I have always done my best work building from zero to one. Velocity is now at the stage where it needs operators who can take it from one to ten, and I trust this team to take it to the next level. It is the right decision for me and for the protocol, to open a new chapter for Velocity. I've been all in on crypto, my whole career since I was 19. Now I will be spending energy on exploring what’s next for me personally. I care about building bridges between Asia and the US, between digital and physical infrastructure, and about bringing what I've learned home to my local community in Southeast Asia. I will actively continue to champion Velocity, and the founders and teams I’m backing. To our users and partners: thank you so much for the trust. I know the Velocity team is genuinely giving the relaunch all they have. To our investors: thank you for all your guidance and support all these years. To our team: thank you for everything. I couldn't have imagined doing this with anyone else.

兄弟们，最近需要重点参与一下PopDEX了 先说参与逻辑，目前 PopDEX @popdex_  还在内测但已经完成 4 轮真实现金奖励发放，最近一期单地址最高奖励超过 8,000U。官方说 Closed Beta 至少还有一轮，10 月中旬应该会有大动作，早期参与刷交易活动奖励有机会覆盖手续费，还可能拿到未来的空投，兄弟们要抓住机会了 PopDEX由 Foresight Ventures 孵化并投资 3,000 万美金，与 Bitget Wallet 深度合作，目前还在封闭测试就已经有3B+ 累计交易量和约 61M LP 池规模，公开案例里有位用户单期交易约 6M Volume，拿到约 2,550U 交易奖励，扣除交易手续费后仍多拿到约 1,000U，确实值得参与 最后给大家分享一点自己的交易技巧 1、不要为了刷量而乱开仓，尽量用真实交易在吃资金费率的同时去吃“费用补贴” 2、务必使用邀请码，提前聊好返佣，这一块可以省一大笔钱，不介意的可以使用我的 3、重点关注官方的活动，参与门槛要求等条件

700 OKB raised so far. 🎯 Where every OKB goes: 🛠️ Game development 📈 Buyback & liquidity Where every LING goes: ♻️ Back into the mining pool 🔥 Part burned, forever Two tokens. Two closed loops. Transparent, on-chain, checkable. → #HASHLINGS# #LING# #XLayer# #GameFi#

The Department was closed on Sunday. Today, the clerk showed up late. He was shopping. Applications are open again. Our staff is currently reviewing them as slowly as possible. Approvals can be expected at some point in time.

🚨 EPIC! BEHIND THE SCENES footage of Donald J. Trump and Xi Jinping released in the West Wing "Who is that? I don't recognize him!" — Trump to Xi as they examine their photo in the White House 😂 47 and Xi had a closed-press meeting in the Oval Office, preceded and followed by a PERSONAL tour by Trump Of course, he made sure to not only show Xi the various framed photos on the walls, but also the Biden autopen AND the new Marine One helipad Only Trump! 🇺🇸

🔥🚨 JUST IN — Melania and Madame Peng just stopped to hear young kids sing, and Peng LIT UP. They were moving through the Smithsonian program. Then the children started, and she FELL IN LOVE. That is the First Lady track doing what it is supposed to do. Melania hosted the moment on American ground. Peng reacted like a guest who got something she did not script. Cute stop. Real visit. Oval is still closed-press across town. Dinner still tonight.

Cloud sessions are officially available and out of research preview! They let you keep Claude Code working, even when your laptop is closed. Existing subscribers get a one-time credit to try them: $100 on Pro, $250 on Max.

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.

The open vs closed source race is a price war. Since June, the average paid token from OpenAI got 62% cheaper. DeepSeek: −51%. Google: −29%. Anthropic: −11%. Over the same three months, Ornn has tracked B200 rent rising 50%. H200 rose 28%. Models are getting cheaper to buy. The compute to run them is getting more expensive to rent. So where does value accrue? To whoever owns the compute. The cheapest open-weight model finishes a task for about 1/5 the cost of a comparable closed model, and they don't need the newest chips. Every GPU is a shovel when the models are free. See more at