与「Late어린이날」相关的搜索结果

I asked Claude to apply a capital cycle analysis to $MU. Here's what it came up with: Net reading: 11 of 14 capital cycle signals are bearish or strongly bearish. The framework reads this as late-cycle, not early/mid-cycle. The two unambiguously bullish signals (equipment lead times, industry concentration) are eroding rather than strengthening. Insights Yielded by Capital Cycle Analysis: 1) "Structural change" rhetoric is itself diagnostic. The capital cycle framework treats coordinated industry-wide CEO claims of regime change as evidence of late-cycle euphoria. The same language was deployed by the same CEOs (Mehrotra at Micron specifically) in 2017–2018 and was wrong. Bayesian base rates argue against accepting the current claims at face value. The previous analysis under-weighted this base-rate evidence. 2) Look at total capital flowing into the supply curve, not just incumbent capex. The structural-change analysis focused on Big Three capex. The capital cycle lens forces aggregation of all capital flowing into memory output: a) Incumbent capex: ~$104B in 2026 across DRAM + NAND; b) CXMT IPO proceeds: ~$4.2B (with state-aligned co-financing many multiples larger); c) YMTC capacity additions (privately financed) d) Substitute technology capital (Cerebras, photonic startups, CXL controller designers) — billions of dollars of equity raised to reduce HBM intensity per dollar of AI compute deployed. When aggregated, total effective supply-side capital formation in 2026 is materially higher than the Big Three capex alone suggests. The supply response is being underestimated. 3) The customer base is doing exactly what late-cycle customers do. Hyperscalers locking in 3–5 year LTAs, pre-ordering 2027 NAND, building strategic inventory — these are not signs of confident long-cycle visibility, they are signs of late-cycle scarcity panic. Historically (DRAM 2017–2018, oil 2008, shipping 2007), customer pre-buying at peak prices is followed by sharp inventory destocking when prices roll over. The structural-change narrative frames LTA penetration as a benefit; the capital cycle frames it as a peak signal. 4) Multiple expansion + earnings expansion = asymmetric downside. The previous analysis flagged the 15x NTM P/E multiple as aggressive (referring to UBS PT raise). The capital cycle framework sharpens this: when both earnings and multiple are at peak, the compound drawdown when either reverts is severe. Memory historically goes from 60% gross margin to negative gross margin and from 10x P/E to <5x P/E. Even a modest reversion to 35% gross margin and 8x P/E from current levels implies a 60–75% equity drawdown for the memory primaries — without any disorderly cycle. 5) Supply lag is real but not unique. The bullish point about EUV/TSV/hybrid bonding lead times is correct but mis-weighted. The capital cycle history of other capital-intensive industries (oil refining, shipbuilding, semiconductor wafer fab) shows that long lead times increase the eventual amplitude of the down-cycle: capital decisions made at peak are not reversible when conditions soften, leading to capacity overhang. Long lead times delay the down-cycle; they do not abolish it. 6) China is the textbook capital-cycle disruptor. In Chancellor's historical case studies (steel, shipbuilding, solar, panels, batteries), state-backed Chinese entrants repeatedly compressed margins of consolidated Western/Korean/Japanese oligopolies once technology gaps narrowed. The U.S. equipment restrictions on China have created the illusion that this dynamic is paused, but the data shows CXMT doubled DRAM share in 18 months and is targeting domestic HBM3. The structural-change analysis appropriately flagged this; the capital cycle framework would weight it heavier as the single most important multi-year risk. 7) Substitute capital formation is its own supply curve. The capital cycle framework treats financing flows into substitutes as a parallel supply expansion. Cerebras' $5.5B IPO, Marvell's $5B Celestial acquisition, the Sandisk/SK hynix HBF JV, and the CXL ecosystem (ALAB, MRVL, MCHP) are collectively financing "HBM intensity reduction." Even if HBM unit demand is met, the value capture per dollar of AI compute is diluted. Capital is flowing in adjacent to the memory primaries to reduce the share of AI spend that ends up in their P&L. 8) The bull case relies disproportionately on demand visibility. The capital cycle warns against demand-anchored theses. The bull case requires AI capex to continue at current levels or accelerate, hyperscaler ROI economics to remain favorable, sovereign AI to scale, and inference workloads not to migrate to non-HBM architectures. Each of these is plausible; the joint probability that all hold through 2028 is materially lower than the headline narrative suggests. 9) Sell-side estimate trajectory is itself a signal. UBS's PT trajectory ($535 → $1,625, a 3x increase in one revision) is historically associated with peak euphoria. Estimate revisions of this magnitude have a poor forward record. The framework would treat the velocity of estimate revisions as a contra-signal. 10) Where the asymmetry sits. The capital cycle framework reframes the risk/reward calculation. Even if the bull thesis is right and earnings hold through 2028, the upside from current levels is modest (multiple expansion has already happened). If the bull thesis is partially wrong — say, 2028 brings 25% peak-to-trough EPS decline rather than 50% — the equity drawdown is still material because multiples will compress simultaneously. The asymmetry is not favourable at current valuations. Bottom line: The structural change thesis was directionally correct but materially overweighted by the original analysis. The capital cycle framework appropriately reweights toward supply-side caution and treats current peak conditions, peak valuations, peak management confidence, and accelerating capital inflows as a coherent set of late-cycle signals. The memory industry has undergone real and beneficial structural change in shape, but the empirical base rate against the "cycle has been abolished" claim is overwhelming. The economic characteristics of memory businesses have improved but have not been transformed into stable, compounding, low-volatility ones — and the next 18–30 months are statistically more likely to mark the end of this up-cycle than a transition to a new regime.

Here’s a longer and more detailed version with that simple 7th grade tone: The hype around @xoobnetwork getting bigger now for a reason. A lot of people starting to realize the campaign deadline is getting closer, and nobody wants to be the person who joined too late. You can already see more users becoming active every single day, finishing tasks, inviting friends, and trying to secure their spot before everything ends. What makes it interesting is that people are not only joining because of rewards. Many are starting to pay attention to the project itself and what they are building. The community keeps growing fast, and the engagement around the campaign feels way more active now compared before. Most people always wait until the last minute before they finally pay attention to a project. That is exactly what happening right now with @XOOBNetwork. The closer the deadline gets, the more people suddenly understand the opportunity they almost ignored. Right now the campaign still feels early enough to grind, but you can already feel the pressure building because time is moving fast. That is why the hype keeps getting stronger every day. People don’t wanna look back later and regret missing one of the easiest chances to get involved early.

In 1990, the World Wide Web was invented on Steve Jobs' computer. Steve ignored it. This is the story I tell in my new book Steve Jobs in Exile. Here is what it should tell the rest of us about the moment we are in now. Steve was running NeXT, an unsuccessful computer company. He had been pushed out of Apple five years earlier and was burning his fortune trying to build a successor to the Macintosh. The machine NeXT sold was a matte-black magnesium cube -- expensive and beautiful and not selling. In October of that year, on the other side of the Atlantic, a British physicist named Tim Berners-Lee took delivery of a NeXT Cube at CERN, the physics laboratory on the Swiss-French border. He used it to invent the World Wide Web. The web ran on the Cube for its first year of existence. The revolution was happening on Steve's hardware, and yet Steve ignored it. Here is the question I keep thinking about from my book. If Steve Jobs, the most visionary tech mind of his generation, missed the Web, the most civilization-shaping tech of his lifetime, how are the rest of us supposed to see anything coming? Berners-Lee had been asking his boss at CERN for a NeXT Cube for months. His boss finally signed off, hoping to test the exotic Cube. "He suggested that I should buy one of these NeXT machines I'd been talking about so enthusiastically," Berners-Lee later told Fresh Air. "And if we needed a sort of test project to run on the NeXT machine ... 'Why not just do this hypertext thing you're talking about?'" The "test project" evolved into the World Wide Web. The problem Berners-Lee was trying to solve was not a glamorous one. CERN employed thousands of scientists from over a hundred countries, most cycling through on short assignments and taking their knowledge with them when they left. Berners-Lee was trying to keep institutional knowledge from walking out the door. He wanted a system that worked the way human memory does, where any piece of information could connect to any other without permission or central control. Through late 1990, he coded in his gray-floored office. The Cube's object-oriented system let him build in months what would have taken a year on anything else. By December, the first website went online. The World Wide Web now existed, running on a single black NeXT Cube in CERN's Building 31. Berners-Lee scrawled a warning on it in red ink: "This machine is a server. DO NOT POWER IT DOWN!!" Underneath the elegant interface he was building HTTP, HTML, and the server software that would deliver web pages. These three inventions would form much of the invisible plumbing of our modern connectivity. When a colleague of Berners-Lee's brought a demo of the Web to NeXT's headquarters in California, he could not get anyone there to pay attention. Nobody even dared show it to Steve, afraid he would dismiss it. NeXT was busy with its own internet plans, which Steve eventually killed. So back to the question. If Steve Jobs missed the web, how are the rest of us supposed to see whatever comes next? The honest answer is that we cannot. Nobody can. The rest of us are not going to outpattern-match Steve Jobs. But here is what I learned writing Steve Jobs in Exile. Transformations almost always begin in obscurity, on the margins, solving boring problems with boring tools. The web did not look revolutionary in 1990. It looked like a tool for sharing physics papers. We are in another such moment now. AI is the obvious changemaker. But the biggest transformations are rarely the obvious ones. The next one is happening somewhere right now, and it is trickier to spot than any sweeping proclamation about AI. We will recognize it, if we recognize it at all, from the unglamorous work few people are focused on. I will not speculate on what Steve would have made of AI today. But if he could miss the Web, the rest of us are going to have to look harder. Photo of the original CERN NeXT Cube courtesy of Robert Scoble.

韓国の予約って本当に遅刻できない ここ数日ずっと大移動してたら、気づいたらちょっと痩せたかも(?) 🥹✨ Appointments in Korea really can’t be late at all 🤣 I’ve been speed-running everywhere these past few days, and I think I secretly lost a little weight(?) 🥹✨

Right. Just so we’re all clear. Farage and Reform tried to put me in prison because I backed the mass deportation of Pakistani child rapists and their foreign wives/relatives who allowed it to happen. My home was raided by armed police late on a Friday night as a direct result of Reform’s allegations. My guns were seized. They tried to ruin my life. In every way. Farage admitted on national television it was all because I backed mass deportations. He said that was the moment they realised they ‘had to get rid’ of me. Not the bullshit allegations they went to the police with, but the fact I want the Pakistani rapists removed from our country. He admitted it. That all happened. Fair enough. I took it on the chin, and planned out our next step. I founded Restore Britain to give the British people the democratic option to agree with me. Restore Britain will, without apology, deport every last foreign rapist and all foreign accomplices who knew it was happening, yet failed to act. If that means entire communities go, that means entire communities go. I really don’t care. We will rid Britain of that cancer. Now Reform are incandescently angry that we are giving the British people that choice. Deploying increasingly desperate smears against our movement. If people don’t agree, they can vote for someone else who won’t deport. There are plenty of options - Reform, Labour, Tories. Take your pick. Go for it. But if you want those evil scumbags out of our country, along with every foreign coward who enabled it? You now have that genuine option. Restore Britain.