与「Illusion」相关的搜索结果

JUST IN: 🇨🇳 China's top intelligence agency warns anonymity in crypto is a "false proposition" and an "illusion." China's Ministry of State Security says foreign intelligence agencies use the "illusion" of crypto anonymity to trick citizens into espionage recruitment, claiming crypto is untraceable. China says blockchain transactions leave a permanent digital trail, and converting between fiat and crypto makes it easy to expose people's identities.

A director who doesn't come up to the builder's heels makes a four-hour film about him. Yesterday in Venice, Alex Gibney's nearly four-hour documentary "Musk" had its world premiere. It is a classic case of someone who has spent a career telling other people's stories taking on a man who actually builds those stories with rockets, cars, satellites, and infrastructure, not slides. Alex Gibney is an acclaimed documentarian. An Oscar for Taxi to the Dark Side, Emmys for Going Clear on Scientology, high-profile films on Enron, Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. His specialty is exposing corporations, cults, and frauds. He does it skillfully and with a thesis. The problem starts when he applies the same method to someone who is not selling an illusion, but hardware that either flies or blows up in front of the entire world. Gibney's fuel is controversy. Elon's fuel is the pursuit of truth hard, engineering truth, the kind that either works on the test stand or it doesn't. It would have been enough to make a film based on facts. Instead we got another rut that fits the slogans of provocation: megalomaniac, confidence man, threat to democracy, an AI avatar reciting old quotes, ex-wives, his father, a former partner. Musk said in 2023 it would be a hit piece. After the premiere, a large share of reviewers effectively agreed with him. I don't know about you, but four hours of falsified formulas would bore me. Instead I watch how much Elon has already done. His energy is extraordinary. Tesla changed the car industry. SpaceX brings rockets back. Starlink works. Starship stands on the pad and prepares for the next flight. This is not a PowerPoint. It is steel, fuel, engines, and people who cannot hide failure in the edit suite. A weak documentary like this is a crumb on the shoulder of his jacket. Now it depends on us when and how quickly that blown-off crumb a utopian attention vampire is simply starved of attention. You could list the names of people who tried to take Elon's energy. Energy is the most precious thing we have. Anyone who steals it with slogans, gossip, and a four-hour indictment that excludes the main subject is sowing under his own feet. Gibney: you reap what you sow. If you have a shred of shame, look at the list of Elon's accomplishments. Look at what kind of person he is for the world and what he does around himself so that things get better cars that drive, internet from orbit, rockets that return, attempts at a brain-computer interface, AI that is supposed to be more than another chatbot. You can dislike his tweets, his political alliances. You cannot honestly erase the scale of what was physically built. A good documentarian should stand, at least for a moment, in the shoes of the person he is portraying. Gibney did not just fail to do that. He took a measure cut for Enron and Holmes and held it up to a man who lands rockets. He left Elon's shoes in the edit suite. Elon walked on barefoot and kept building. One man tells stories about the world from an editing chair. The other moves that world. A four-hour film will not change that. At most it will confirm what people who already disliked Musk already believed. Everyone else can blow the crumb off the jacket and keep going. History does not judge a man by the length of a film. It judges him by what is still in the air when the camera has stopped running. Controversy feeds on attention. Building feeds on repetition. One vanishes when you look away. The other keeps flying. You can cut a man together in four hours. You cannot cut a landing together. A documentary can be switched off. The work cannot.

Bo Xilai and the Red Aristocracy’s Illusion of Power 薄熙来与红色贵族的权力幻觉 Recently, a post by Bo Guagua, son of the disgraced red aristocrat Bo Xilai, trying to resurrect his father’s reputation made waves on X. Here is my take on Bo Xilai, based on my own understanding and experience — and, by extension, on China’s red aristocracy. I wrote in Chinese in this piece. 薄瓜瓜最近重新开口，让我又想起了他的父亲薄熙来。 关于薄熙来的政治生涯，外界已经写得很多。但我对这个人的判断，并不是2012年倒台以后才形成的。从大连、辽宁、商务部到重庆，我自己看到的、朋友分享的几件事，串起来，反而很能说明薄熙来这个人，也很能说明中国一种特殊的政治阶层——红色贵族。

THE FOUR-PAYMENT ILLUSION ────────────────── "Four interest-free payments" isn't a discount. It's underwriting with the numbers hidden. ────────────────── > someone posted their Klarna balance today: £17,000 - on a product marketed as 4 payments, no interest > BNPL providers don't share data with each other - split $2,000 across Klarna, Affirm, and Afterpay and none of the three sees what the other two already lent you > miss one installment and the "interest-free" plan can convert to late fees - and in some cases retroactive interest - on the full balance > unlike a credit card, most BNPL debt isn't reported to a bureau until it's already gone to collections, so there's no early warning for you or your next lender ────────────────── A credit card has to tell you the APR up front. BNPL sells you the absence of a number - then collects like there was one all along.

Everyone's racing to remove themselves from the agent loop. the bottleneck just moved to the thing you can't automate away: understanding what the agent actually did. Geoffrey Litt (Notion) on staying in the loop without slowing down: → verifying the output is correct isn't enough. if you don't understand the work, you can't guide the next step, and the errors compound → he pulls this straight from education research: reading something and thinking you got it is the illusion. you only find the gaps when you're forced to explain it or use it → so he has the agent quiz him on its own changes, or writes the tricky part himself and lets the agent do the rest → his rule of thumb: the effort you save on typing should go into understanding, not into checking out entirely → the trap is that agents make it feel like you understand, right up until you have to touch the code yourself Going faster with agents doesn't come from understanding less. it comes from understanding more, in less time.