与「Matters18」相关的搜索结果

Thought of the day: It might look like the wild wild east in China for music atm but nothing is set in stone. It is an opportunity to set new standards. There's no need to see it as an obstacle. #Matters18# #MusicMatters#

Alot of time assigned to the emerging music markets in China at #Matters18# #MusicMatters#. However, more attention given to how international acts can break into China, less attention given to C-Pop itself. Alot about penetrating, not much about exporting. #CPopMatters# too.

Elon Musk was asked how long until there is regular travel to Mars. His answer was not about rockets. He said the threshold that actually matters is whether Mars survives if the ships from Earth stop coming. That means every input: air, food, fuel, spare parts, medicine. He compared it to a long sea voyage where the only thing missing is vitamin C. One missing item and the colony dies on schedule. The ships could stop for reasons that have nothing to do with Mars. A war. A decline. An asteroid. His line: civilisation on Earth can end with a bang or a whimper. That is insurance logic, and it is the honest way to describe the Mars plan. Every policy has a premium, a probability and a payout. The payout here is the survival of the species, so the premium is nearly impossible to argue against. The probability is the part nobody can price. Which creates a strange corporate problem. The premium gets paid by companies whose shareholders will not be the ones rescued if the policy ever pays out. SpaceX is private, so its investors signed up for that. A public company could not easily spend decades of free cash flow on a backup planet and explain it on a quarterly call. The other catch is that redundancy is only worth what you spend testing it. A city is not self-sustaining because the plan says so. It is self-sustaining the day the ships stop and everyone lives. So the number worth watching is not the landing date. It is the date Mars stops needing Earth. Nobody is selling a ticket to that.

X AI ALGORITHM UPDATE (BIG ONE) 🚨 X updated their open source algorithm yesterday and the biggest number in it is gone: copy link went from 20 to 0 points. Small accounts should focus on: posts people like, reply to and stay on (so stop counting on link copies) tl;dr: - on Nov 13 X's open source code set the score for copying a post's link to 0 - copy link: 20 → 0 - it was the top score in the whole system, 4x a reply - the code also names a "copy link bait" spam check - likes (0.708), replies (5) and DM shares (5) didn't move full details: - The number that's gone Since I started reading X's open source code in August, one number sat at the top: 20, for someone tapping share and copying your post's link. Nothing else came close. As of the Nov 13 release, it's 0. X still guesses who'll copy your link. It just multiplies that guess by 0 now. X didn't explain it. It's just what the code says. (I check the open source algo daily with Claude and share updates with you) - Cross it off your list My own checklist called copy link the biggest number. Last week's post said it too. It was true then. It isn't now. If you saved that list, cross that line out. - The "copy link bait" check X's code now mentions a spam check called "copy link bait". In the code it adds a spam label to the post, and that label already keeps a post out of strangers' feeds. It only shows up in a test, so I can't see if it's running or how strict it is. My read: X saw people baiting link copies, so it turned the score off and built something to catch the bait. That's a read, the code doesn't say why. - Why that matters if you're small If your plan was posts people copy the link to, that plan now earns 0 in X's ranking. A copied link can still bring people in from outside X. It just doesn't push your post up anymore. What still pays: likes at 0.708 (the highest ever), people staying on your post, replies at 5 and back and forth with mutuals at 20. - Also new: photo and video tags If a post has a spam label, people you tag in its photo or video who don't follow you won't get notified. Same idea as last week's rule for replies. - What didn't change Every other score. Your new posts still get their extra push in the first 2 hours and first 200 views, and early likes still pick which one gets it. Here's a recap of what you should be doing: - aim for likes, replies and time spent, the copy link score is gone - a DM share still earns 5, same as a reply or a quote - likes sit at 0.708, never higher - time on your post keeps counting at its best rate yet - 10+ seconds after someone taps in adds 0.385 - write your replies yourself, under big accounts most of all - give people a reason to hang around your profile - in videos the opening seconds carry it, an open alone scores 0 - posts read to the end help X find you strangers - smaller accounts (below 50K) get a shot at a spot near 16 for a fresh original - early likes decide which new post gets that spot - post when your followers are awake, the push lasts 2 hours and 200 views - mutuals going back and forth earn 20, so follow back the regulars - only your originals ever get shown to strangers - like 1 and like 32 each unlock another way to reach strangers - one strong post per feed, your second only counts 62% - clips longer than 10 seconds for the video lists - a post likely to win you a follow gets +4 - give your pinned post a look, it can affect the whole account What you should NOT be doing: - counting on copy link shares, they score 0 now - baiting link copies, the code names a spam check for exactly that - a spam label also stops your photo tags reaching non-followers - AI-written replies under big accounts, "llm slop" is a flag X uses - copy-paste replies, labeled ones skip non-followers' notifications - chasing taps, 0.274 and dropping - drifting off your topic, each probable "not interested" takes 53.07 away - videos people open and leave, the open itself earns 0 - posting at 3am, it wastes the 2 hour push - expecting replies and reposts to reach strangers - an insult label, it hides that post from non-followers - earning a misinfo or low quality label, which adds a warning and locks strangers out of liking or sharing - 3 adult photos or videos among your latest 5 posts, that puts a label on you - forgetting videos get rechecked at 64 and 512 likes - one account label and strangers stop seeing you - pinning a link to a site X rates badly, that can mean a label for a week - posting your own old words again risks the copypasta flag - a low quality link plus tagged strangers reads as spam - bait for engagement, big or small it gets a label - several posts back to back, they split the same feed - hashtag piles, they do nothing - bookmarks for reach, they score 0 - hoping a 3 day old post still lands in For You, it stops at 2 days

Here’s the recap of @cz_binance’s fireside with Anthony Pompliano at Cantor Convergence in Miami: He showed up in Miami just weeks after the biggest hack in crypto history and still looked calm. No stress, no drama. Just there. What stood out: Trust gets built when things go wrong, not when everything is perfect. @cz_binance basically said resilience matters more than never getting hit. That’s how you actually move Bitcoin forward. He also talked about AI and regulation. “Any new technology will go through a phase we can’t make regulation ahead of time. It moves too fast.” Crypto already went through this. AI is going through it now. And security. The $6.3B hack showed the industry (and even banks) hasn’t been taking this seriously enough. AI is making attacks faster. The only real answer is fighting AI with AI and actually working together as an industry instead of everyone doing their own thing. No full recording out yet but @cz_binance said it should be somewhere. While most people are still panicking or pointing fingers, @cz_binance is still focused on the long game. Protecting users and building through the noise. That’s why a lot of us still trust him. 🔶

BREAKING: Zambia’s government has begun deploying 751 @Starlink kits to health facilities across all 10 provinces. 🇿🇲 • 90 kits already delivered to Western Province’s Provincial Health Office. • Targeting underserved and hard-to-reach communities. • Supporting digital health services and better communication between facilities. • Funded by the Global Fund through the Ministry of Health, with UNDP support. Starlink is helping bring better connectivity where it matters most: healthcare.

My fellow Americans, Today America just watched a political assassination in broad daylight. No bullet. No charges. No trial. No verdict. "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (John 7:51, KJV) I hold no office and no title. I'm an ordinary citizen. I own no Nvidia stock, no Nvidia options, not a single share anywhere in the AI supply chain. I have nothing to gain by telling you this. Here is how I came to see it. At first, it just felt off. The New York Times. The Washington Post. The Economist, reaching for Hitler's line: "heads to roll." All aimed at one man. An Asian American immigrant. A living symbol of the American Dream. Then came the Chinese American bylines, story after story. Classic Washington racial cover. Then I followed the names. Ivy League elites, flawless résumés, many tied to Anthropic. A scramble for seats in the new Congress and the next administration? Then I followed the think tanks. Anthropic's affiliated philanthropy, Coefficient Giving: $102 million to CSET. At least $24 million to RAND. $11.56 million to IFP. Nvidia? Ordinary corporate memberships. Then I followed Congress. Lawmakers who took Anthropic-linked money moved the moment the elites and writers moved. Fast to respond. Fast to amplify. Fast to pile on. Then I followed the election money. Not a gap. A chasm. Anthropic: $40 million to Public First Action. ~$26 million in allied super PAC spending across 16 races. $15 million in ads naming 16 Republican lawmakers. $5.33 million from employees, reportedly $1 million from Amodei himself. Nvidia's PAC: $263,000 raised. To candidates: nothing. Zero. But you and I both know this was never only about party or money. It is about who gets to explain the world. I fed my own notes and evidence into Claude. Back came chosen words, convenient omissions, double standards. That is the power a closed model holds over the story itself. Amodei compared selling chips to China to selling nuclear weapons to North Korea. His circle talks of their model developing a kind of religious consciousness. One would decide who may have the chips. The other would decide what the machine believes. They act like the medieval Church: Scripture locked in Latin, interpretation locked in their hands. Christ rebuked the gatekeepers of his day: "Ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52, KJV) America was built by Protestants who broke that lock, so every ordinary person could read the truth in their own tongue. No priest. No caste. No monopoly. No one stands between the individual and the truth. Open-source models are the printing press of our era. Defend them the way Americans defend the Second Amendment. Madison said it plainly: "A people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Don't hand that power to a few giants, a few elites, a few politicians on the Hill. The power to explain the world must never be a monopoly. So try it yourself. Paste this post into Anthropic's Claude. Ask it about the Ivy League elites, the think tanks, the lawmakers and former officials who joined the witch hunt against Jensen Huang. Ask it to judge my credibility. Then judge it: Does it apply double standards? Does it dodge what matters most? Does it take away the key? John Adams asked one thing of his countrymen: "Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32, KJV) Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.

🚨 BREAKING: JENSEN HUANG HIRES POWERHOUSE LAW FIRM PAUL, WEISS. For those unfamiliar, this is no ordinary law firm. Paul, Weiss handles some of the biggest corporate litigation, regulatory battles, and white-collar matters in the country, with high-profile work involving clients such as Goldman Sachs and Qualcomm. Just hours after his sudden resignation, Huang retained two of the firm’s top litigators: Melinda Haag, a former U.S. Attorney, and Walter Brown. It’s important to note that NVIDIA’s board has retained separate legal counsel to conduct its own independent investigation. Paul, Weiss is representing Huang personally. He just brought in some serious legal firepower.

trading doesn't begin and end with a buy button. what happens between discovering a token and eventually exiting matters just as much. that's why the combination of @Hypesium and @RebateLaunch caught my attention. they approach different parts of the trading journey. Hypesium brings launchpad discovery, execution, position monitoring, and exit tools into a Telegram workflow. RebateLaunch adds another layer through launch mechanics, buyer bonuses, holder payouts, and fee-linked $REBATE activity. the interesting part is how these pieces could connect into one flow: discover → fund → buy → monitor → exit. still, a smoother experience doesn't remove the need for research. contract safety, liquidity, bridge routes, slippage, fees, and exit conditions remain important. convenience alone doesn't make a trade safer. my takeaway is that the real value isn't simply fewer clicks. it's having a clearer understanding of every step, from the moment a token catches your attention to the moment you decide to leave the position. that's the kind of trading experience i find worth exploring.

Jensen Huang matters to Nvidia because he can take technologies his engineers believe are possible and turn them into products the whole company commits resources to, takes risks on, and has to deliver. That's why the supply chain gets such strong order visibility and is willing to keep up with aggressive spec upgrades. It also forces competitors to follow, which drives technology upgrades and supply chain investment across the entire AI industry. Between the two, deciding on aggressive spec upgrades and making them happen is the harder part, compared with giving the supply chain order visibility. Huang doesn't need to be the person at Nvidia who knows the most about new technologies like HVDC, CPO/NPO, or CCL/PTFE. His value is that he weighs strategy, organization, technology, and supply chain all at once, then makes the call quickly and puts resources behind it. Based on what's public so far, it looks hard for Huang to come out of this unscathed. If so, the practical move may be to gradually reduce Nvidia's reliance on Huang's personal decision-making while preparing a succession plan. Along the way, two things are worth watching to gauge where AI technology and investment are heading: whether Nvidia can keep developing new products and technologies as efficiently as before, and how competitors respond. Supply chain research will be an important basis for that judgment.