与「ME_I_MIRAI」相关的搜索结果

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ [ ME:I "Click" MV ] ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ ME:I Debut Single "MIRAI" ⇱ 2024.04.17 #ME_I_Click# #ME_I_MIRAI# #ME_I# #ミーアイ# #미아이# #ME_I_DEBUT_0417#

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.

Even as a SWer, I cannot stand accounts that parachute into someone else’s replies with explicit videos of themselves masturbating to promote their content. Coming onto my page to advertise your shit without permission? That’s digital scab behavior with a ring light. I don’t even post nudes of myself or anyone on my account and you’re going to post your spread vag with a dildo stuffed into it? Um no. Miraculously, this is genuinely the first time it’s happened to me despite regularly interacting with OF creators, porn performers, and other SWers, which tells me most people already understand basic professional etiquette. So, OF creators and porn actors/actresses: we’re all still in agreement that unsolicited porn spamming under other people’s tweets is tacky as fuck, correct? Especially when they’re doing it to accounts that aren’t even SW related? Also this shit has consequences beyond being obnoxious. Spamming explicit masturbation videos under unrelated accounts only reinforces the stereotype that SWers are sexually indiscriminate degenerates who don’t understand boundaries, and feeds the disgusting narrative that we want to expose or groom children. Maybe don’t hand our loudest critics their propaganda for free. Because sex work is work also means act like a fucking professional.

A truly proud moment for the nation & a deeply personal one for me & the people of the Northeast! Seeing @mirabai_chanu & @LovlinaBorgohai lead #TeamIndia# as the flag bearers at the #Glasgow2026# Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony fills my heart with immense pride. As our athletes begin their campaign, I extend my heartfelt best wishes to the entire Indian contingent. Go out there, give your very best, create history & make Bharat proud. The nation stands firmly behind you. #Cheer4Bharat# #CWG2026#

Commander, the Miracle by Midnight event is currently ongoing! "Monotonous times drive me crazy from boredom... Commander, entertain me. I'll take ANYTHING❤" #AzurLane# #Yostar#

Long post. Most will scroll past before realize what is hidden in it. That is part of the filter. This is not one idea. It is a trail. Physics shows up. Belief shows up. The body shows up. Responsibility shows up. At first, they may look like separate rooms. They are not. They are connected doors. Read slowly. The connections run deeper than they first appear. A person can spend years looking for answers and still refuse the one thing that would actually change the result. That is the part people usually do not want to see. They think the problem is lack of information. More books, more lectures, more techniques, more quantum mechanics, more explanations. But information does not change a life if the belief underneath remains the same. Before looking at physics experiments, this needs to be clear. In this view, quantum mechanics is not mainly about technology, weapons, machines, or theories. The real point is to understand how the universe works so a person can create the reality they want in their own life. But there is a trap here too. A person can hear “consciousness is fundamental” and turn it into another slogan. Another belief to defend. Another thing to repeat without changing anything. The words changed, but the structure did not. So the question cannot stop at, “What is consciousness made of?” That question matters, but it can become too abstract too fast. People start adding extra machinery, extra assumptions, extra invisible interactions, and then act as if the problem has been solved. But adding more parts does not automatically explain experience. It only moves the question somewhere else. The deeper question has to become operational first. What kind of system can sustain consciousness? What must a physical system do to keep a coherent internal perspective alive through noise, change, error, memory, pain, emotion, and time? That question points to what actually happens when consciousness appears, weakens, breaks, returns, or stabilizes. It does not ask for a slogan. It asks for a process. A conscious system has to keep a model of “me,” “now,” and “the world” intact while everything inside and outside it is changing. The body changes. The brain changes. The chemistry changes. The environment changes. Memory updates. Prediction errors arrive. Emotion interrupts. The senses keep correcting the picture. And still, something holds. There is a point of view. There is a world being experienced from somewhere. That does not fully solve the metaphysical hard problem. A skeptic can still ask, “Why should stable modeling feel like anything at all?” That is fair. A thermostat regulates. A computer processes information. A brain models the world. Those are not automatically the same thing as felt experience. But the question becomes deeper. Maybe experience is not a substance added on top of the system. It is what the system is from the inside when the right kind of self maintaining stability is achieved. Once a system preserves a living perspective across body, memory, prediction, and world, that perspective is not something it watches from outside. It is the only vantage point available to it. That is where the operational question opens the metaphysical one. Consciousness is the base of everything. Matter is not the foundation. Matter is a manifestation of consciousness. The fundamental state is the wave. What appears as matter is one expression of that deeper state. But then comes the practical problem. People hear this and still do not want to change their beliefs. If the beliefs do not change, nothing changes. A person can study for years and still produce the same life because the inner position stayed untouched. This becomes clear in a lecture room. You can explain the same thing fifty times, three hours each time, for years. The person listens, but does not move one millimeter. Five years later, the same belief is still there. So how could the result be different? It cannot. Study is supposed to mean learning. Learning means, “I did not know this before. Now I know it. Because I know it, I change my behavior. I change my consciousness according to what I learned.” If that does not happen, what was the point of studying? It is like reading the manual of a car while continuing to destroy the car. The manual explains what needs to be done, but the person keeps driving the same way and then acts surprised when the car stops. But what was the manual for? People often approach new ideas with an automatic reflex of rejection instead of genuine consideration. One point is raised and dismissed. Another follows and receives the same response. When this pattern continues, no new possibility is tested or allowed to land. Discernment is necessary, but when every suggestion is rejected before it is examined, real change becomes nearly impossible. The same requests keep coming. The credit card. The overdraft. The contract. Month after month, year after year, the person wants a different result, but the state behind the result does not change. In this view, everything that happens in a person’s life is connected to the consciousness they carry. If a person believes in problems, problems appear. If a person believes in possibility, possibilities appear. Imagine someone stuck in mud, holding onto it as if it were gold. Someone pulls them out, but as soon as they let go, the person jumps back in. Why? Because in their consciousness, the mud is still gold. The location changed for a second, but the perception did not. Only when the state of consciousness changes can they actually be helped. Until then, every rescue is temporary. The same applies to relationships. There is a process. It involves bio chemistry, neurotransmitters, and what the person feels. Handled properly, it works. Handled wrongly, it breaks. But many people hear the process and still say, “That cannot be done.” Then how can the result appear if the process is rejected? It is like making a chocolate cake. Follow the recipe ratios, temperatures, and the cake works. Change the ingredients carelessly, and there is no cake. For a cake, everyone understands this. But in life, when not following the law produces suffering, people still argue with the process. So the question remains. What is the problem with changing what you think? It looks like ego. It becomes “what I think” against “what is being explained.” The person holds onto the old belief because admitting the new one would mean letting go of being right. Even when the process is explained clearly, the old belief returns immediately. Someone might say, “But I was taught that I should not want too much,” or “Good things only come after I have struggled enough.” The conditioning reasserts itself before the new understanding can take root. There it is. A belief from childhood, family, culture, grandmother, great grandmother, another century, still deciding the person’s life today. Science and experience may show that it does not work. The person may be frustrated, repeating the same result, and still say, “No, someone else has to take initiative. I have to wait.” Who said that? Where was this written as a cosmic law? It was said by tradition, by conditioning, by people repeating what they received without checking if it produced happiness. This applies to everything. A person receives the explanation clearly. “Do this, this, and this.” In the moment, they agree. Then they walk out the door and do the opposite. Why deceive the person trying to help you? If you mislead your therapist, lawyer, or accountant, you do not win. You just make the help useless. If a person resists even that, imagine what happens when the subject touches the deepest layers of meaning and faith. Many hold stories and interpretations passed down through generations that once gave life structure and certainty. When a clearer and deeper understanding becomes available, some may hear it yet still continue living as if the older framework remains the final truth. Whole civilizations are built on stories. Ideas about life, death, work, women, guilt, punishment, rest, and salvation sit on top of them. So when the story is questioned, the person feels their whole structure being touched. To bring about real change in life, the person has to align with the basic principles of how the universe operates in this view. That requires shifting the state of consciousness and the underlying paradigm. Everything is under the paradigm. If the paradigm does not change, nothing truly changes. The person remains dependent on someone else to keep fixing what they continue to create from the same inner state. This is why resonance is meant for liberation, not as permanent support. Its purpose is to help the person shift their consciousness so they can stand on their own. When used this way, money may begin to flow and situations may improve. But if the thoughts and beliefs underneath remain the same, the old patterns eventually return and recreate the same problems. There is also a deeper spiritual point here. A real connection with God, the divine, the higher self, or the sacred within does not make a person smaller. It should make the person more honest, responsible, awake, and capable of love. The problem is not faith. The problem is when inherited fear, guilt, or identity freezes around faith and gets mistaken for the living connection itself. That is why full responsibility can feel threatening. It does not have to destroy faith. It can purify it. It removes the excuse, but not the sacred. It returns creative responsibility to the individual while allowing the inner connection with higher power to deepen instead of staying trapped inside old programming. There was a young man who understood this after only four months of doing this inner work. He came from heavy conditioning, but saw the mechanism. He realized the role his own consciousness had been playing in shaping his experience, and that he had been sabotaging himself through it. Once he saw that, he took the beliefs he had carried for years and threw them away. That is change. Now take illness. In this view, every illness has a psychosomatic dimension alongside its biological expression. Physical conditions often reflect deeper inner states. When it is suggested that certain patterns of inner resistance or avoidance can contribute to physical symptoms, strong objection usually appears. But test it yourself. Deliberately give space to inner resistance. Feed the feeling of not wanting to engage with life or responsibility, and observe what happens in the body over the following days. The resistance is intense because it brings the role of one’s inner state back into awareness. The work is to question the beliefs. List what you believe about money, health, relationships, work, sales, the body, and the future. Then compare the belief with the result. If the belief is not questioned and changed, the result is zero. Relationships expose this faster. When the subject is metaphysics, many people let it pass. But when the subject is male and female conditioning, the room heats up. Touch the beliefs around men, women, initiative, control, guilt, and blame, and people react instantly. This same pattern appears in how people treat others. Someone may speak of spiritual values while still holding contempt or judgment toward certain groups. The contradiction is not always obvious to the person. It stems from old stories absorbed long ago. Those stories continue to shape how the person sees and treats others through tone, assumptions, and prejudice. This is not rare. Old beliefs do not remain only in the mind. They turn into behavior. When this inner work begins opening the unconscious, what is inside starts coming out. If there is mud inside, mud comes out. This is why some people say they started the process and now have more problems. Fear, guilt, anger, prejudice, laziness, and old beliefs do not disappear just because someone pressed play yesterday. The cleaning can take time. It may last one month, two months, six months, a year, or longer. While the old material is still coming out, results tend to appear in pieces. The bigger shifts usually come once the cleaning reaches a certain point. Many people want the benefits, but they do not want the study, questioning, or inner change needed to hold those results. That is imagination trapped in place. But the principle is simple in this view. Your consciousness participates in shaping your reality and continues to do so. Change an inch in consciousness and reality shifts an inch. Change a mile in consciousness and reality shifts a mile. Expansion creates expansion. If you believe you can earn one thousand, you earn one thousand. If you believe you can earn ten thousand, ten thousand becomes possible. If you believe you can earn one million, then one million is not a different category. It is still energy. The number is not the obstacle. The belief is. This is why real help cannot stay as rescue forever. At first, someone may heal, fix, rescue, and intervene. But after years, the same pattern appears. The person receives the benefit but does not evolve. The money comes, the illness improves, but consciousness does not move. Then the helper realizes they are only postponing the consequence. So they stop being a crutch and start teaching. Because if the person does not understand, the same pattern continues here or on the other side. People resist quantum mechanics because they sense where it leads. If consciousness is involved in reality, then responsibility comes back to the person. There is no place to hide behind fate, blame, family, society, or chance. Even biology can be read through that question. A living cell has been shown producing laser light. Not a whole organ. Not a brain. One cell. If one living cell can organize light in such a precise way, imagine a brain with billions of neurons and countless connections. Can the human being release energy too? Yes, through consciousness. A cell can emit organized light. A human being, with a developed consciousness, can direct energy in a much greater way. But then the mind keeps collapsing the problem. There is a quantum effect where continuous observation can keep a system from changing state. Translated into ordinary life, if the person keeps staring at the debt, the debt remains. If the person keeps staring at illness, illness remains. If the person keeps staring at lack of work, lack remains. “When will the money come to pay the debt?” Never, while the whole consciousness is fixed on the debt. “When will I get a job?” Never, while the whole consciousness is fixed on not having one. “When will I leave the hole?” Never, while the person keeps observing the hole. Trying too hard from the wrong state can keep the person trapped. The person thinks effort is solving the problem, but the attention is still feeding the same condition. Sometimes problems move because people accidentally stop focusing on them. For a while, the problem is not being observed with the same intensity. Then things move because the focus loosened. That is why a simple instruction can be powerful. Watch films that hold your attention. Comedies, dramas, anything that takes the focus off the problem. But even that meets resistance. A person hears that laughter and endorphins can help the body, and then says they could not find a single comedy they liked. Healing cannot be separated from consciousness. A person may arrive with a serious illness and want a miracle. But if the illness was built through resentment, anger, guilt, fear, and years of inner pressure, then the real work is not only physical. The person has to change the state that built the condition. Each situation has to be seen as a whole. If a store is failing, it may not be only the store, the economy, the decoration, or the sales process. You have to look at the people involved, the relationships, the history, and the whole field around the situation. The system is built so people do not understand what reality is made of. As long as things are presented as mysteries that cannot be questioned, people are less likely to look into how they actually work. Once someone understands the atom, the rest begins to open. Matter is not so solid anymore. Reality is not just hard objects separated from each other. It becomes information, energy, relation, and response. That is why non locality matters. If all particles remain connected, then nothing is truly isolated. The whole universe is one entangled system. What happens in one place does not stay completely separate from what happens elsewhere. When problems appear in one part of the world, they are not truly isolated from the rest. In this view, events reverberate through the whole field. To claim complete separation from what happens elsewhere contradicts the interconnected nature of reality itself. The same inconsistency appears when those who profit from outdated systems blame the public for pollution while suppressing cleaner technologies that could reduce harm. In this view, one cannot claim separation while benefiting from the structures that create the problem. Everything is connected. Experiments with entangled particles show correlations that do not behave like ordinary local contact. One particle is measured here, and the other responds there. The information does not travel in the normal way through space, because relativity says nothing can travel faster than light. Yet the correlation appears. So what do people do with that? They use quantum principles to develop technology. Quantum computers. Quantum encryption. Quantum communication. They build products from the very principles they deny when consciousness enters the discussion. That is not simple ignorance anymore. That is convenience. If information is stored in the field and can be accessed and transferred, then resonance becomes sensitive because the result becomes measurable. Someone asks for a result, the information is transferred, and something changes. But will the system allow that kind of experiment to be done freely? Probably not. Because once the deeper potentials of consciousness and information are recognized and measured, they would exceed the limits of the current accepted framework. Strong evidence that consciousness can directly influence outcomes would force a shift the existing structure is not ready to allow. The resonance does not depend on a huge physical machine. The information is there. It is accessed. It is transferred. If the result appears, the old explanation starts to break. But people also sabotage the result. Someone may ask for a higher level of excellence, but not fully understand what they are inviting in. That force carries a way of thinking, feeling, acting, and deciding. It wants movement, execution, and the highest expression of itself. But when it enters a person’s life, it often collides with comfort zones, old beliefs, fear, approval seeking, and small habits. And then everything stops. The person says, “Nothing happened.” But something did happen. The archetype arrived and pushed toward expansion. The person hit the brakes with all their strength. If the person was moving at ten miles per hour, the archetype comes in wanting one hundred. The person panics and steps on the brake completely. So the system freezes. Not because the archetype failed. Because the person refused the level of action that came with it. If someone asks for excellence, they cannot keep living from mediocrity. A great scientist wants to study. A great athlete wants to train. A great business mind wants to build. The force comes with movement. That does not fit laziness, delay, comfort, excuses, or “this is good enough.” People ask for the top, but someone at the top is not there by accident. That person works more, trains more, studies more, sacrifices more, and refuses the average standard. So when that information enters, it demands alignment. If the person refuses alignment, the result blocks. That is imagination trapped in place again. The person does not want to study, learn, understand the laws, or question beliefs. They want to make requests and receive results as if the universe were a vending machine. But reality does not work according to what a person prefers. It works according to law. If the process is followed, the result comes. If the process is rejected, the result does not stabilize. The knowledge is already laid out. The path is not hidden. It is in the person’s hands. The only question is whether they will use it. Because receiving knowledge increases responsibility. The more a person understands, the more they are required to act from that understanding. If they know and do not act, they have to suppress what they know. And suppressing consciousness has a cost. The higher the consciousness, the greater the responsibility to live according to it. If the person receives more and still tries to remain small, the pressure turns inward. What is not lived becomes blocked. What is blocked becomes weight. And that weight eventually appears somewhere. So the point is simple. The more consciousness a person has, the more they have to do with it. Because if they do not, the same consciousness they refused to express becomes the force that turns against them.

Here's the #1# thing most people don't know about Warren Buffett: There is nothing special about Buffett’s stock picking. That doesn’t mean that Buffett wasn’t a great investor. He was! Buffett was, by far, the greatest investor in history, by a huge margin. Over 486 months between October 1976 and March 2017 –— 41 years –— Berkshire Hathaway’s Class A stock earned an average excess return of 18.6% per year above U.S. Tbills. Annualized volatility was 23.5%. Sharpe ratio: 0.79. Berkshire’s Sharpe ratio of (0.79) is roughly 1.6x times the broad U.S. stock market’s Sharpe ratio of 0.49 over the same period. Among all large-cap U.S. stocks and mutual funds with 30-plus-year continuous track records, those are unmatched numbers. A dollar invested in Berkshire on October 31, 1976, was worth more than $3,685 by March 31, 2017. A dollar invested in the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested over the same period was worth approximately $76. Buffett beat a passive index by a multiple of 48. But he didn’t do it with stock picking! Three researchers at AQR Capital Management –— Andrea Frazzini, David Kabiller, and Lasse Heje Pedersen –— dissected Berkshire’s 50 years of investments through 2013. They expanded and republished their findings in 2018 in the Financial Analysts Journal, which is the most highly respected industry financial journal. Their work won the Graham and Dodd Award for the best published paper of the year. The paper is called Buffett’s Alpha. They found, after accounting for cheap leverage (from the insurance float) and exposure to a handful of publicly documented factor premiums, Buffett’s investment skill –— the portion of his returns that cannot be explained by any mechanical strategy –— is 0.3% per year. That's statistically indistinguishable from zero. In other words, the alpha that Berkshire enjoyed for 50 years (as it compounded capital at 24% a year!) wasn’t due to Buffett’s stock picking. So, how did he do it? He did it by gaining access to a huge amount of investment capital that he did not own, for free. Buffett’s track record was built on leverage. That’s a dirty word for most investors, but it's the secret behind Berkshire. The AQR researchers had access to something most Buffett commentators do not: 40 years of Berkshire’s audited financial statements and the full quarterly history of the public 13F stock portfolio. The researchers asked a specific question: If I take Berkshire’s monthly stock returns from October 1976 through March 2017, and I run a linear regression against a set of well-documented risk factors –— market beta, size, value, momentum, and two newer factors called Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk (detailed below) –— how much of Buffett’s performance can the factors explain? And after the factors have been stripped out, how much excess return remains? The data show clearly there are a few qualities that drove Berkshire’s results. First, Buffett has always preferred large-cap stocks, contrary to the popular image of him as a small-cap value investor. He buys elephants. Second, no surprise, Buffett buys cheap. Berkshire is almost six standard deviations away from neutral on the value axis. So far the picture is ordinary. Every large- cap value manager in America loads positively on size and on value. Buffett’s genius lies in the last two factors. These last two factors are a little complicated, but please stick with me. There’s a new factor, that, like value and size, characterizes Buffett’s strategy. It’s called Betting-Against-Beta (“BAB”). What it means is intentionally investing in stocks with very low volatility. The BAB factor captures the excess return that accrues to investors who own low-beta stocks. Low-beta stocks have historically earned higher risk-adjusted returns than high-beta stocks. Financial theory teaches that higher beta (higher risk) should mean higher return. But it doesn’t. The opposite occurs, in fact. And Buffett was one of the very first people to figure this out. Why does this factor persist? In an efficient market, once that factor is known to investors, then they should bid the price up on low- beta stocks until it no longer provides an edge. The explanation, per the theory of AQR’s Frazzini and Pedersen’s theory, is that because ordinary investors do not use leverage and seek high returns, they create persistent excess demand for more volatile stocks. (Having worked with retail investors for 30 years, I can assure you that is true.) But, an investor with access to cheap leverage –— Warren Buffett, for instance –— can exploit the mispricing by owning the low-beta names and levering them up to produce market-beating returns. And the last factor that matters to Buffett is quality. Buffett buys companies with high returns on invested capital. Quality-Minus-Junk (“QMJ”) is a factor described by Cliff Asness, also at AQR with Frazzini, and Pedersen, in a 2019 paper in Review of Accounting Studies. The QMJ factor captures the return to owning stocks of high-quality companies –— profitable, growing, safe, with high payout ratios –— against stocks lacking those characteristics. QMJ has been positive and statistically significant in every major developed equity market for which it has been measured. Berkshire’s loading is 0.37, with a t-statistic of 4.6. –– meaning it is highly significant to Berkshire’s results. In plain English: Buffett only buys large, high- quality, low-volatility stocks of the highest quality. But, Berkshire’s results were not, in any way, unusual. Any investor buying these same kinds of stocks would have earned those same returns –– about 16% a year over time. So how did Berkshire compound at 23% a year? To figure that out, AQR’s researchers built a Berkshire replica. They constructed a simple, rules-based, publicly investable portfolio that mechanically tilts toward large-cap, cheap, low-beta, high-quality stocks, and levers it 1.6- to- 1 to match Berkshire’s insurance float leverage. The correlation between their replica’s returns and Berkshire’s were virtually identical. The authors’ conclusion is unambiguous. “In summary, we find that Buffett has developed a unique access to leverage that he has invested in safe, high-quality, cheap stocks and that these key characteristics can largely explain his impressive performance.” Berkshire’s cost of insurance float has averaged almost three percentage points below the Treasury bill rate across 50fifty years of data. In roughly two-thirds of all years, Berkshire has been paid to hold other people’s money. That is not an investment strategy. That is a financing miracle. It is also the living, breathing heart of Berkshire Hathaway. It’s what Buffett built, starting in 1967 when he paid $8.6 million for National Indemnity’s $19.4 million of float. And it is the factor every retail investor admiring Berkshire’s returns has never paid any attention to. The 1.6-to-1 leverage that AQR measured over the full period, financed at this negative cost, explains the dollar magnitude of Berkshire’s returns. How do we know? An unleveraged version of the same stock portfolio –— which you can approximate by looking at the 13F holdings alone –— has earned an average excess return of 12% percent per year. It’s Berkshire’s leverage that magnifies this excess return to 18.6 %percent. How does this square with Berkshire’s reported gains? Berkshire’s 18.6% excess return, plus the T-bill rate that averaged roughly 4.7% over 1976–2017, gives you a total nominal return of roughly 23% per year, which is the figure you usually see quoted for Berkshire’s historical performance. The 23% tells you what Berkshire returned. The 18.6% tells you how much of that return was compensation for taking investment risk, as opposed to the baseline yield every lender to the U.S. government was earning anyway. With both of Berkshire’s “edges” –— systematic factor exposures to cheap, high-quality, low-volatility stocks and roughly 1.6-to-1 leverage delivered with insurance float –— you get Berkshire Hathaway’s 23% annual gains over 60 years. It’s the structure that’s genius, not the stock picking. And that's very important because it means the original Berkshire formula can work for any investor. I show you exactly how, in my new book.

明日からの #セッション# 出演モデル紹介🤍 5/16(土)｢DoMoreコラボセッション｣ 蒼山みこと(@mikoto_aoyama) 壇あやこ(@ayako_dan_) 愛乃さくら(@sakunyanpasu) 神坂めぐ(@megmeg_LUSH) 日和なの(@0u0nano) 花咲ユリ(@Hanasaki_200) 蓮あおば(@ren__aoba) 飯泉湖白(@_aqua_mari_ne_) 瀬戸栞(@setoshiori) 瑚春(@koharun529) 星乃綾寧(@1119_ayane_) 泉宮ちかげ(@idumiya619) ⇢ 5/17(日)｢クラスで気になるあの子｣ 森川ももか(@momoka_morikawa) 秋田そな(@akita_sona) みさ(@_misadayo) みきちゃん(@cheerz_mikichan) 涼野柚陽(@suzunoyuhi) 雨宮こさめ(@ksm_Amamiya) 白石リア(@shiraishi_ria) かすみ恋(@kasumikoi) 玉城美来(@mirai140cm) 橘あかり(@akarintachibana) 白羽音遥(@otono_shirahane) 花咲音羽(@otoha_hanasaki) 星宮楓佳(@hoshimiya_fuuka) みやもぽん(@miyamo_pon) ⇢ 5/18(月)｢パジャマおうちデート｣ 七海まり(@mari_nanami7) 山口小雪希(@Koyu_221) 璃音(@rior_05) 河野亜季子(@akiko_kono317) ホワイティみみだ(@whity_mimida) 鵜飼彩理亜(@ukai_official) 花宮ゆりえ(@yu__rie35) 矢沢めい(@mei_yzw) Melanie(@Melanie3589170) そあ(@soa_sakana_8) 橘ぜら(@irotori_zera) ゆの(@on_u413) せんかい(@senkai_2525) 泡沫ちなつ(@same_89021) ⇢ #フレッシュ撮影会#