与「DEMON」相关的搜索结果

NEW: Intoxicated demonic Florida woman strips to her underwear, spits on deputy during gas station exorcism arrest Deputies responded to the Texaco after reports of a 33-year-old Iesha Field yelling at customers and acting erratically. After being trespassed, she went to a nearby mobile home park, removed her clothing down to her underwear, and continued yelling and disturbing residents. When deputies tried to detain Field, she became combative, and she spat in a deputy’s face twice. The deputy responded with an open-handed strike to stop her from spitting again. Field was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer (felony) and disorderly intoxication.

Boston Dynamics has demonstrated its new Atlas humanoid robot lifting and carrying a 50-pound fridge. The robot uses its whole body to balance and move the heavy object in a natural, human-like way. Before doing it in the real world, Atlas practiced the task for millions of hours in a virtual simulation.

We used the ECHO Asia app to demonstrate what it can do for Vietnam. The situation was simple: A small business needs to raise prices with a long-term partner without damaging the relationship. A normal AI answer gives negotiation tips. ECHO understood the deeper context. In Vietnam, this is not just about price. It is about trust. Timing. Respect. Face. Long-term relationship. The output didn’t say: “Send a new quote.” It said: Don’t surprise them. Don’t send a cold price sheet. Explain the real cost pressure. Give them time to prepare. Give them something they can explain internally. Protect the relationship while protecting the business. That is the point. ECHO does not simply translate prompts. It helps the model understand the room before it speaks. We’re putting the final polish on the ECHO Asia site now so this is something the community can be proud of. Link coming soon. 🌊 --- Chúng tôi đã dùng ứng dụng ECHO Asia để cho thấy nó có thể làm gì cho Việt Nam. Tình huống rất đơn giản: Một doanh nghiệp nhỏ cần tăng giá với đối tác lâu năm nhưng không muốn làm hỏng mối quan hệ. Một câu trả lời AI bình thường sẽ đưa ra vài mẹo thương lượng. ECHO hiểu bối cảnh sâu hơn. Ở Việt Nam, đây không chỉ là câu chuyện về giá. Đây là câu chuyện về chữ tín. Thời điểm. Sự tôn trọng. Giữ thể diện. Giữ quan hệ lâu dài. Câu trả lời không nói: “Gửi báo giá mới đi.” Nó nói: Đừng làm đối tác bất ngờ. Đừng gửi một bảng giá lạnh lùng. Hãy giải thích áp lực chi phí thật. Hãy cho họ thời gian chuẩn bị. Hãy cho họ cơ sở để giải thích nội bộ. Hãy bảo vệ mối quan hệ trong khi vẫn bảo vệ doanh nghiệp. Đó là điểm khác biệt. ECHO không chỉ dịch prompt. ECHO giúp mô hình hiểu căn phòng trước khi nó lên tiếng. Chúng tôi đang hoàn thiện những bước cuối cùng cho trang ECHO Asia để đây là thứ cộng đồng có thể tự hào. Liên kết sẽ có sớm. 🌊

Grok Build created a chess game for me. You can play both PvP and against the CPU. To demonstrate I let Grok win so I could show off the great gameplay. To be honest, Grok would have won anyway.

We helped FFmpeg find and fix 21 security vulnerabilities. In a 1.5M-line codebase, we spent just $1K in API costs. Some of these bugs had been hiding for decades. We also developed a PoC demonstrating an RCE primitive when FFmpeg processes RTSP streams. Full write-up:

We’re continuing to test and develop our autonomous Seaglider drone, Squire. We’ve proven our max speeds of 70kts – now we’re focused on expanding the platform’s endurance, demonstrating the reliability, resilience, and mission readiness that modern maritime operations demand.

“The new leaders are establishment actors: pragmatic, hardened nationalists operating with a clear-eyed assessment of Iran’s capabilities and vulnerabilities.” Such write “professors” @vali_nasr and @nargesbajoghli about the new leadership of the Islamic Republic in their new propaganda… sorry… “article” in @ForeignAffairs. It couldn’t be further from the truth. First of all, using the term “nationalist” to describe I.R. leaders is completely misleading. The regime leaders have continuously shown that the only thing they don’t care about is the national interests of Iran. They have consistently put their own interests above those of the country and have created an extraction economy that uses Iran’s vast resources—material and human—to fill their own pockets. This is not nationalism. This is oligarchic thievery and ideological colonialism imposed on Iran by a ruling class that sees the country not as a nation to be developed, but as a territory to be exploited. A nationalist government seeks to maximize the prosperity, security, dignity, and power of its people. What exactly has the Islamic Republic done? - It presided over one of the largest brain drains in modern history. - It turned one of the most resource-rich nations on earth into an economic basket case. - It squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign adventures while millions of Iranians struggled to afford meat, medicine, and housing. - It destroyed Iran’s currency. - It destroyed Iran’s environment. - It destroyed trust between state and society. - And it has systematically driven away many of the very people most capable of building the country. Furthermore, to call these thieves “pragmatic” requires a breathtaking disregard for the historical record. Pragmatic leaders do not spend decades pursuing ideological projects that leave their country isolated, sanctioned, poorer, weaker, and increasingly dependent on foreign powers. Pragmatic leaders do not antagonize much of the world while simultaneously claiming victimhood for the consequences. Pragmatic leaders do not sacrifice generations of economic development to preserve the privileges of a small ruling elite. The I.R. has often been tactical… It has often been ruthless… It has often been adaptive... But adaptive is not the same as pragmatic. A bank robber who changes getaway cars is adaptive. He is not pragmatic. The regime’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice Iran’s long-term national interests whenever those interests conflict with the preservation of the system itself. And that is the central deception embedded in sentences like the one above. By describing regime insiders as “pragmatic nationalists,” the authors attempt to present the Islamic Republic as merely another state pursuing ordinary national interests. It is not. The central political struggle in Iran today is precisely that the interests of the regime and the interests of the Iranian nation have diverged. The freedom movement led by @PahlaviReza and @NoorPahlavi is not confronting a group of misunderstood nationalists... no! It is confronting an entrenched ruling class whose survival depends on preventing the emergence of a normal, prosperous, accountable nation-state. The Iranian people are the nationalists. The regime is what stands in their way. @vali_nasr I challenge you to a debate on this matter... name the time and place.

Tesla Full Self-Driving just delivered another impressive real-world demonstration of autonomous driving technology 🚗🤖 Running on FSD HW4 (v14.3.2), the Tesla detected unexpected debris on the highway, smoothly reduced speed from 72 mph, and executed a controlled evasive maneuver under an overpass—all while maintaining stability and lane awareness. What’s even more impressive is how naturally the system handled the situation.

Larry Page wanted to build a digital god. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Elon Musk asked: "What about making sure humanity's okay here?" Page called him a speciesist. "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." Musk spent 10 minutes with Tucker Carlson explaining why he created OpenAI: Tucker asked the basic question. "All of a sudden AI is everywhere. People are playing with it on their phones. Is that good or bad?" Musk starts with first principles. "The smartest creatures as far as we know on this Earth are humans. That's our defining characteristic." "We're obviously weaker than chimpanzees. Less agile. But we are smarter." "Now. What happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in silicon form?" "It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance." He explains the singularity. "It's called the singularity. Like a black hole. Because you don't know what happens after that." "It's hard to predict." He argues for regulation. "I think there should be some government oversight. Because it affects the public. It's a danger to the public." "That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration. The FCC." "We have these agencies to oversee things that affect the public. Where there could be public harm." "You don't want companies cutting corners on safety. And then having people suffer as a result." He addresses the perception that he fights regulators. "People think I'm some sort of regulatory maverick that defies regulators on a regular basis. But this is actually not the case." "Once in a blue moon, rarely, I will disagree with regulators. But the vast majority of the time my companies agree with the regulations and comply." Tucker asks the obvious question. "All regulations start with a perceived danger. Planes fall out of the sky. I don't think an average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger." "Can you explain what you think the dangers might be?" Musk's answer. "AI is perhaps more dangerous than mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production." "In the sense that it has the potential. It is a small probability, but it is not trivial." "It has the potential of civilization destruction." He explains the timing problem. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened." "If that's the case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to put the regulations in place." "They may be out of control at that point." Tucker asks directly. "It's conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making the decisions for people?" Musk's answer. "Yeah. Absolutely." "That's definitely the way things are headed." He explains why OpenAI exists. "Larry Page and I used to be close friends. I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. I would talk to him late in the night about AI safety." "At least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough." Tucker asked what Page said. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Musk pushed back. "I agree there's great potential for good. But there's also potential for bad." "If you have some radical new technology, you want to take actions to maximize the probability it will do good. Minimize the probability it will do bad things." "It can't just be barreling forward and hope for the best." Then the speciesist moment. "At one point I said: what about making sure humanity's okay here?" "And then he called me a speciesist." Tucker: "Did he use that term?" "Yes." "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." That was the last straw. "At the time, Google had DeepMind. Google and DeepMind had three-quarters of all the AI talent in the world." "They obviously had a lot of money and more computers than anyone else." "We're in a unipolar world here. One company that has close to a monopoly on AI talent and computers. And the person who's in charge doesn't seem to care about safety." "This is not good." So he created the opposite. "I thought: what's the furthest thing from Google?" "A nonprofit that is fully open. Because Google was closed and for-profit." "Open AI. Open source. Transparent. So people know what's going on." "We don't want this to be a for-profit maximizing demon from hell that just never stops." Tucker asks about the specific danger. "The cool parts of AI are obvious. Write your college paper for you. Write a limerick about yourself. There's a lot that's fun and useful." "But can you be more precise about what's potentially dangerous? What specifically are you worried about?" Musk's answer. "The pen is mightier than the sword." "If you have a superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well. In a way that is very influential, convincing." "And is constantly figuring out what is more convincing to people over time." "And then enters social media. Twitter. Facebook. Others." "And potentially manipulates public opinion in a way that is very bad." "How would we even know?"

SCOTT BESSENT: "Some of them may be typing in right now and realize they might not have realized that their wallet had been grabbed." The US Treasury Secretary said that. On camera. Smiling. Custodied crypto is not your money. It's a claim on your money that somebody else can cancel. The only thing they couldn't grab was self-custodied Bitcoin. That's not a theory. That's a demonstration.