与「LIVES」相关的搜索结果

In mullah-ruled Iran she lived two lives, but so did many people. In public, men grew beards and removed their ties. Women went black-robed all over. In private, there could be riotous drinking and dancing. Read our obituary of Marjane Satrapi

plenty of chains decide everything on day one and never look up again. incentiv stays awake. the design moves with the people actually using it. full breakdown lives in discord. come learn with centi.

Statement from Karim and Nancy Iskander: To all of you who have loved us, Mark, and Jacob, and who have stood by our family from the very beginning — we are deeply grateful. Today we thank you, and we thank the jury for delivering the punitive damages verdict today and , along with the previous wrongful death verdict. We are especially thankful that the jury saw the truth and delivered justice with clarity and courage, guided by the outstanding work of the wonderful Brian Panish. As you might imagine, our hearts remain broken and no verdict can ease the pain of losing our two sweet boys. It is a profoundly sad day when a jury is forced to place a dollar value on the lives of our children. We understand this verdict will be appealed and that it may be years before any money is ever collected, if at all. What matters most to us now is that the perpetrators are finally beginning to show signs of accepting accountability, and that through this trial, many more people have had the chance to meet Mark and Jacob — to learn who they truly were and the light they brought into this world. Sleep tight Mark and Jacob. We love you.

Hey all I'm building a workforce diagnostic system and pressure-testing it in public. Here's my assessment of a 15-person HVAC company. The owner believes he has a hiring problem. I don't. Here's why: • Three senior technicians perform most of the complex work. • The owner is still involved in scheduling, hiring, and customer escalations. • Overtime is concentrated among the highest performers. • New hires take months to become productive because critical knowledge lives inside a few key people. My diagnosis: The business doesn't have a hiring problem. It has a dependency problem. Hiring more people won't solve it if: Knowledge remains concentrated. Decision-making remains centralized. Workload remains unevenly distributed. The symptoms are: • Hiring difficulties • Burnout • Slow onboarding • Owner frustration The constraint is: • Leadership dependency • Knowledge concentration • Workload imbalance Question for business owners, operators, and HR leaders: Where am I wrong? What would you investigate before recommending more hiring?

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.

$LMND is in a war most investors still don’t understand. Not just a war for customers. A war for narrative. A war for credibility. And ultimately, a war for its cost of capital. That matters because public markets do not merely observe a company’s trajectory. They can shape it. A company with a trusted narrative gets patience, liquidity, talent, strategic freedom, and cheaper capital. A company trapped inside the wrong narrative pays a tax on every ambition. Lemonade is still widely framed by many as an unproven, money-losing insurtech experiment. But the operating data has been moving in the opposite direction. IFP is growing. Revenue is accelerating. Gross profit is scaling. Loss ratios have improved materially. Cash flow is inflecting. The company is no longer asking investors to believe in a concept. It is increasingly asking them to reconcile their old model with new facts. And I have seen this movie before. First with Apple. Then with Tesla. In both cases, the market spent years debating the wrong questions while the business quietly answered the important ones. The consensus kept focusing on what the company used to be, or what incumbents wanted it to be, while the operating model kept compounding underneath. Lemonade is not Apple. Lemonade is not Tesla. But the pattern is familiar: a misunderstood company, a disruptive operating model, a hostile narrative environment, and a widening gap between perception and execution. That gap is where the opportunity lives. I have spent twenty years studying disruption as an investor. I also spent twenty years inside financial markets infrastructure, transformation, and business management. Those two tracks have rarely felt as connected as they do here. This is not about blind faith. It is about pattern recognition, operating evidence, market structure, and narrative reflexivity. The short interest is not the thesis. The business is the thesis. But when a company is executing and the market remains anchored to an outdated story, narrative becomes part of the battleground. And when that narrative affects valuation, liquidity, and cost of capital, it becomes more than noise. It becomes strategic. I am long $LMND because I believe the market is still underestimating the scale of what is being built. I could be wrong. That is always possible. And I invite the scrutiny. But I know what this setup looks like. And I know how rare it is. So strap in. Because history may not repeat itself. But it all too often rhymes.

My sister lives in Los Angeles. She's a Democrat but voted for Spencer Pratt. I was with her when she dropped her ballot in the mail weeks ago. We checked today and it hasn't been received back. Are they just TOSSING ballots for Spencer Pratt?

🚨 Meet Doris, she lives in California and is registered as a 126 year old who has voted in 51 elections and has NO IDEA. California’s voting system is so corrupt that by simply knocking on the door of the “126 year old” proves election fraud. EXPOSE IT ALL.