与「IMPei」相关的搜索结果

How does modern architecture reinterpret history? I. M. Pei’s iconic glass pyramid at the Louvre was inspired by the ancient pyramids of Egypt. This innovative design initially faced heavy criticism. Today, it stands as a beloved symbol of Paris, beautifully bridging tradition and modernity. Exploring humanity’s creativity—where imitation meets heritage. #VIVIPROJECT# #LEGENDARYHUMANITY# #Architecture# #Louvre# #Design# #IMPei#

⚠️‼️📵我的TG 账号 @realcarriefu 已被盗，黑客仍在冒用我的身份。请立即拉黑并举报该账号，勿相信其消息或点击任何链接。 ⚠️‼️📵My Telegram account @realcarriefu is compromised and still being used to impersonate me. Please block and report it; do not trust its messages or click any links.

Senate Republicans want to lose the Senate. They want to just sit around making deals with Democrats and avoiding any accountability for what happens. They want an environment where they can cast fake votes that allow them to look like they’re doing the right thing while getting what they want from Democrats—amnesty, ICE defunding, Trump impeachment. A minority Senate where they can “vote right” but let Democrats get whatever they want is a dream scenario for McConnell and Thune. Don’t let them let get away with it. Vote like your continued existence depends on victory. Because it does. The black pillers will tell you to stay home because nothing matters. But black pilling is gay. And giving puke RINOs what they want is also gay. Don’t give Senate Republicans what they want, which is a Congress entirely run by Democrats. Put them back in charge and then make them miserable by forcing them to show up to work every day to secure the border and reform elections. If you want to make Senate Republicans like McConnell and Thune miserable and angry, vote to keep them in the majority. It is the ultimate revenge for their nonsense.

Rough back of the envelope math: if 40% of US physicians are OpenEvidence DAUs and there's ~22 workdays a month, 42m queries in August implies ~5 queries per workday day per physician (Google is ~4.2 searches per day and ChatGPT is ~2.5 queries per day). This kind of pulse on real-time clinical uncertainty is remarkable. Imagine you could now categorize those queries: see for which flavors of clinical uncertainty existing knowledge / solutions are most scant (or don't exist at all) and then plug in that knowledge / those solutions, fund studies / initiatives to create that knowledge / those solutions, etc. You see how OpenEvidence's flywheel will start to spin a lot faster than the labs in terms of capabilities. It's all about your product enumerating demand in some valuable subset of economic reality faster than competitors. In this case, OpenEvidence enumerates physician demand for information / capabilities that can help solve patient problems. They do this faster and with higher fidelity than anyone else. This is incredibly valuable.

The global economic power of women, center stage at NYSE. Experience the IMPERIA Summit, launched and headlined by First Lady @MELANIATRUMP, convening the world’s leading female CEOs.

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.

We've published the EF Protocol cluster's priorities and our first shared Hegotá EIP tier list, with input from ~60 researchers and engineers across all 9 Protocol teams. We're aggressively targeting a quantum-resistant Ethereum L1 no later than December 2029. That has implications for what we propose including in Hegotá, and how much capacity we leave for the forks after it. Keeping mainnet safe remains our first priority. We'll be on r/ethereum for an AMA on September 16 at 2pm UTC. Please come ask us about the priorities, the tier list, or anything else you're curious about. Tier and priorities posts and question form can be found below in this thread:

Pre-IPO markets moved first. In August, ANTHROPICUSDT briefly implied ~US$2.0T (~2× Series H; ~30× run-rate / ~10× 2028 revenue midpoint in our cut). Mid-October marketing delays the calendar — the valuation debate stays the same: how much of the listing is already in the pre-IPO curve. Full chart in our September MMI.

My dear friends, I am happy to report the publication of the most important paper in my life to date (we have several great papers coming out but this is very special). Tomorrow, I will present this paper for the first time at the Nature AI Healthcare in Paris and will post a longer post on this story and its broader implications for how to conduct clinical trials. Please read it and comment on it. Many thanks to the great co-authors of the study and everyone who contributed. Many thanks to the many reviewers (friendly and unfriendly) for spending so much time and helping make it better. Link in the comments.

🚨 Threat Intelligence | The StealC Info-Stealing Chain Behind the Qwen Impersonation Repository SlowMist Security Team identified a #GitHub# repository impersonating local quantized weights for Qwen 3.8 27B. A real Q4_K_M 27B package should exceed 16 GB. The asset delivered was only 487 KB — no GGUF weights, just three files: Application.cmd, a renamed LuaJIT interpreter, and an obfuscated Lua script disguised as cert.txt. The official #Qwen# project was not compromised. The repo kept the look of a normal offline model project, while the malicious ZIP sat in assets/. After deobfuscation, the script collects host data, takes a screenshot, and POSTs them to C2. When the hardcoded server fails, it reads a fallback C2 from a Polygon contract via eth_call, so operators can rotate infrastructure with a single on-chain transaction. Preserved C2 responses then delivered an inner payload we attribute to #StealC#, targeting: 🔹 Browser logins, cookies, and history — including a Chrome App-Bound Encryption bypass 🔹 Email, WinSCP, and Steam credentials 🔹 Wallet-related files and extension data, dispatched by server-side tasks MistEye reconstructed the multi-stage chain and compared 29 similar ZIPs across 23 repositories using the same Lua delivery stack. Between two collection dates, repositories, filenames, the outer PE, and the AES key had already rotated. A 27B model that downloads in 487 KB is not a model. Inspect asset size and unpack downloaded packages before running them. Read the full analysis 👇