与「Number_i」相关的搜索结果

You know that feeling when you wake up from a beautiful dream and can't quite hold onto it? My next single, DRIFTING, began there. Produced by myself, Killian, and Diamond Duggal, featuring additional keyboards from the legendary David Frank from The System, and mixed at EastWest Studios in Hollywood. This week we're filming the music video in Los Angeles. More soon. The signal is getting stronger. Add your email and/or phone number in at for updates. It's coming......

Our latest @Android Drop helps you stay ahead of AI voice cloning attacks. Fake call detection now alerts you if a suspected scammer appears to call you from a phone number in your contacts — so you can spot impersonators and end the call fast.

Boris Cherny (Claude Code's creator): I deleted my IDE in November and hasn't opened it since. I writes more code than ever. his actual words on stage: I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops that are running. They're the ones prompting Claude. My job is to write loops. the progression he described: → a year ago: writing code by hand with autocomplete → then: running 5-10 Claudes in parallel, prompting each one → now: he doesn't prompt at all - he writes the loops that prompt Claude what it's already done inside Anthropic: • ~3x more code shipped per engineer (he says that number is already outdated and higher) • Cowork - a full product - built in ~8 days, 100% with Claude Code • designers, the finance guy, even the chief of staff now ship code his advice to founders: give everyone as many tokens as possible, and underfund every project on purpose - 2 engineers + a pile of tokens instead of 4. the roles are melting into one "builder." Watch this, than read the article below

Years ago, Elon Musk sat on a stage and pointed to the largest flying object humanity had ever conceived. And he called it a rowboat. Elon Musk: “The future spacecraft will make this look like a rowboat. The future spaceships will be truly enormous.” He wasn’t describing ambition. He was describing a unit of measurement. The interviewer asked what it could carry. Musk: “This can take a fully loaded 747 with maximum fuel, maximum passengers, maximum cargo… this can take it as cargo.” The 747 took decades and the full weight of Boeing’s engineering empire to perfect. Musk looked at it and saw a suitcase. Not a rival. Not a benchmark. A thing you put inside the real thing. That is not confidence. That is a completely different relationship with scale. Then came the timeline. The interviewer assumed twenty to thirty years. Musk said eight to ten. Nobody blinked. That is what dismissal looks like in real time. Not pushback. Just the quiet assumption that the number isn’t serious. Because the human brain is linear. We project the next decade by copying the last one. Musk was reading a manufacturing curve most people in that room didn’t know existed. The disbelief was not skepticism. It was a biological limitation. We just watched a 232-foot booster fall from space and land between a pair of mechanical arms on its first attempt. The rowboat is being built in real time. Most people misread the gap. It is not between dreamers and doers. Every founder “does.” The gap is between people who set a deadline and people who set a deadline and then wager everything they have that the laws of physics will cooperate with the calendar. Most visionaries paint the picture and wait for the world to catch up. Musk pours the concrete before the permits arrive. For a decade, the timeline was mocked. The physics were questioned. The ambition was called delusional. And step by step, fireball by fireball, the steel got taller. Every generation builds something it considers a miracle. And every generation that follows quietly loads that miracle into its cargo bay and barely notices the weight. That is how civilizations actually move. Not in straight lines. In phase shifts. And the people who trigger them always look insane right up until the moment they don’t. He told us exactly what he was going to build. Then he built it.

Today a crazy quantum story just got wilder. On March 31, the Google Quantum AI team published a landmark result on Shor's algorithm for elliptic curve cryptography. Technically, the paper was a bombshell: a dramatic 10x improvement over the state-of-the-art. As a stunt and wakeup call to the blockchain space, those optimisations were illustrated on secp256k1, the elliptic curve underlying Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures. But perhaps the most striking part of the paper was sociological, not technical. Instead of following standard academic process, the optimisations were kept secret, hidden behind a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. Google's accompanying blog post mentions they "engaged with the U.S. government". The ZK proof demonstrates the existence of algorithmic improvements without leaking details. Academic censorship with ZK, a historic first! As a co-author of the Google paper I witnessed some of the context surrounding this censorship. To be honest, multiple aspects of that context don't sit well with me. As much as I believe the general public ought to know more, I am limited in my ability to whistleblow. Though let me be clear about one thing: the Google team's professionalism has been absolutely exemplary, and they deserve nothing but praise. Censorship has a way of backfiring. The Streisand effect, where an attempt to bury something only draws more attention to it, is exactly what's unfolding today. First, Google's key optimisation has been rediscovered by the French. And in a thrilling turn of events, a collaborative Shor-at-home challenge just launched. The initiative, available at ecdsa[.]fail, breached a new Shor world record in a matter of hours. Let's start with the rediscovery. Just two months after Google's paper, French quantum expert André Schrottenloher cracks the main secret optimisation. His paper, titled "Optimized Point Addition Circuits for Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithms", landed on the arXiv today. Big congrats to André, who beat several other nerdsnipped experts to it. In a blog post also published today, Craig Gidney, the world expert on Shor optimisations, revealed that he'd been sitting on this very optimisation for a whole year under censorship pressure. Interestingly, André missed a handful of minor optimisations, both from Google's original publication and from improvements found since. It's plausible there's still plenty of juice left to squeeze out of Shor, and this is exactly what the ecdsa[.]fail challenge is about. The verifier program developed for the ZK proof does double duty, automatically filtering for valid submissions. Dozens of compounding small and micro improvements are rolling in. As of the time of writing there's an 8.4% improvement to Google's circuit, as measured by the product of logical qubit count and Toffoli gate count. Nice! The nerdsnipping ran deeper than anyone expected. Over the last few weeks it became clear it extended well beyond André and other quantum experts. Behind the scenes, a small army of amateurs quietly got to work. Inspired by Karpathy-style autoresearch, they turned AI on Shor. Ironically, the verifier program for the ZK proof makes an ideal reward function for AIs. The barrier to entry for this modern style of research is refreshingly low, with several non-experts, even a teenager, finding nice optimisations. Get in touch if you'd like to join a Telegram group with fellow autoresearchers :) Part 2: neutral atoms and qday The story doesn't end with Google. On the same day Google went public, a stealthy startup called Oratomic published its own Shor paper in a coordinated release. It made a splash, ultimately becoming the most upvoted paper on scirate[.]com, a website ranking arXiv papers. Oratomic's claim was wild. By building on Google's logical optimisations and applying custom physical optimisations for neutral atoms, they claimed just 10K physical qubits were sufficient to run Shor's algorithm on secp256k1. That number is mind-bogglingly low. Knowing essentially nothing about neutral atoms when Oratomic's paper landed, I was intrigued and decided to learn more about the tech. I fell straight down the rabbit hole and spent a couple hundred hours on the topic. I got a little obsessed and watched every YouTube video I could find and spoke to a bunch of experts. My conclusion? The tech is real, very real. Even Google recently decided to start a neutral atom lab, a notable pivot from their sole focus on superconducting qubits. If you care about qday, i.e. the day a quantum computer will break the first piece of cryptography in production, neutral atoms demand your attention. I shared some of my learnings on Shor and neutral atoms in a 30min talk at the ZKProof cryptography conference. You can find it on YouTube by searching "zkproof neutral atom". Here's an interesting observation about this duo of breakthrough papers: neither Google nor Oratomic say a word about what their results mean for qday. No timelines. Zero. Nada. That is especially baffling given that the whole point of whitehat quantum cryptanalysis is to inform qday estimations and help the general public make good decisions. So let me attempt to partially fill the silence, similarly to what Scott Aaronson did in his April 29 post. Given everything I know, including scary non-public information, I now put the odds of qday by 2032 at 50%. 10% by 2030. Anecdotally, the US government has its own date: 2035. Originating at the NSA and later adopted by NIST, it's when branches of the US government will be disallowed from using quantum-vulnerable cryptography. In plain language: with hindsight, that date is a joke and should be discounted entirely. I don't see how NIST avoids being forced to pull it forward by years. Part 3: post-quantum cryptography There are good reasons to sound the alarm today, but please do not panic. Rushing carelessly towards immature post-quantum cryptography is a recipe for disaster. IMO a good target date for migration is 2029, roughly 3.5 years out. 2029 happens to be the date selected by Google, Cloudflare, and the Ethereum Foundation. These days most of my time goes to safely migrating Ethereum towards post-quantum cryptography as part of the broader lean Ethereum effort. There's a lot to do. We need to rip out and replace BLS signatures at the consensus layer, KZG commitments at the data layer, and ECDSA signatures at the execution layer. The plan to get there is compelling, and is based on hash-based cryptography. Within the Ethereum Foundation we've developed a Swiss army knife called leanVM (github[.]com/leanEthereum/leanVM) powered by the magic of hash-based SNARKs. Thanks to truly exceptional work by Emile, Thomas, and others, its performance is derisked. Regarding security, leanVM is a jewel, a minimal zkVM crafted for end-to-end formal verification and maximum security. Want to help? There are two $1M initiatives. First, the Proximity Prize (proximityprize[.]org). Solve a long-standing mathematical conjecture in coding theory, improve hash-based SNARKs, and go home a millionaire. Second, the Poseidon Initiative (poseidon-initiative[.]info), offers $1M for breaking Poseidon, the SNARK-friendly hash function.

"You have a bunch of individuals in that locker room who work really hard... When their number is called... they're ready.” Jalen Brunson on New York's role players and next-man-up mentality as the @nyknicks move one win away from advancing to the NBA Finals 🔥 NYK (3-0) CLE, Game 4: Monday 8pm/et on ESPN

Japan’s Patent Office rejected Nintendo’s latest patent for monster-catching mechanics on touch-screen devices,The application number is 2026-019762. The patent covered common actions like tapping to move your character, throwing capture items at wild creatures, summoning caught monsters to battle, and tapping on-screen buttons for attacks and items. Officials said these rules are not new or special, they are just standard monster-catching gameplay already seen in games like Pokémon, with no real invention. This patent belongs to the same group Nintendo is using in its court case against Palworld developer Pocketpair. Nintendo changed the claims in February 2026, but the office still rejected it. They can try again, but the strong reasons given make it difficult. The lawsuit against Palworld continues, and Pocketpair has already made changes to avoid issues.

Everyone knows about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Almost nothing they know is the full story. Start with the number. There weren't 300 Greeks at that pass. There were around 7,000. Spartans, Thespians, Thebans, Phocians, Locrians, Arcadians, Corinthians. Citizen-soldiers from across Greece who marched north knowing they'd be facing the largest army the ancient world had ever assembled. The 300 is just the headline. The ones who stayed to the end. Now the men themselves. King Leonidas wasn't some chiseled 30-year-old. He was roughly 60 years old when he led that march. And the 300 he picked weren't his strongest warriors. They were specifically men who already had living sons. Spartan law demanded it. Leonidas wasn't choosing an army. He was choosing men whose bloodlines could survive their deaths. Every one of them knew what that meant before they ever saw a Persian. They marched anyway. And they didn't march alone in the way movies suggest. Each Spartan citizen-soldier was accompanied by helots, the enslaved underclass that propped up the entire Spartan economy, outnumbering their masters roughly seven to one. Hundreds of helots fought and died at Thermopylae too. They get no statues. No films. No name on the monument. The pass itself was barely 15 meters wide in 480 BC (it's silted up now and looks nothing like it did then). That bottleneck is the only reason a few thousand men could hold off a Persian force modern historians estimate at 70,000 to 300,000. Herodotus said 1.7 million. He was lying, or possibly counting cooks, slaves, and camp followers, but even the conservative number is staggering. For two days, they held. Wave after wave broken against bronze and discipline. Xerxes reportedly leapt from his throne three times in fury watching his men die. He sent in the Immortals, his elite personal guard, supposedly invincible. They weren't. Not in that pass. Then the Greeks were betrayed. A local man named Ephialtes, whose name still means "nightmare" in modern Greek, sold the Persians a goat path through the mountains that flanked the pass. The Phocians assigned to guard it scattered when the Immortals appeared in the dawn fog. Leonidas knew by morning he was surrounded. He dismissed most of the allied Greek forces. Saved their lives. But here's what almost nobody talks about: roughly 700 Thespians, led by a man named Demophilus, refused to leave. They were citizen-farmers from a small town that knew Persia was coming for them next no matter what. They chose to die beside the Spartans rather than run. About 400 Thebans stayed too, though their motives were murkier and many surrendered when the end came. So the "last stand of the 300" was actually closer to 1,500 men. The Thespians died to the last. Their town was burned to the ground by the Persians weeks later anyway. They're a footnote in a story that should bear their name. The final fight happened on a small hill called Kolonos. Spears shattered. Swords broken. Herodotus says they fought with hands and teeth at the end. Leonidas fell early, and the Spartans fought four times over his body to keep the Persians from taking it. They lost. Xerxes had Leonidas decapitated and his body crucified, a violation of Persian custom so extreme it tells you exactly how badly that old man had humiliated the king of kings. Forty years later, Sparta sent a delegation to recover his bones and bring him home. Two Spartans survived the battle. One, Aristodemus, had been sent away with an eye infection. He returned to Sparta and was treated as a coward, shunned, refused fire, refused conversation, until he threw himself into the front line at Plataea a year later and died seeking redemption. The other survivor, Pantites, was sent on a diplomatic errand and missed the fight. He hanged himself from the shame. That's the world they lived in. The epitaph carved at the site doesn't brag. It doesn't even mention victory, because there wasn't one. Roughly translated, it just asks the traveler to tell Sparta that her sons died here, obedient to her laws. A small group of farmers, an old king, an enslaved underclass written out of history, and a town that vanished from the map. Together, for three days in August of 480 BC, they did the math on freedom and decided the price was worth it. We remember 300 of them. There were always more.

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years 👏👏👏 Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: — Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. — The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. — Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation — where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) — Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. — New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. — Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). — An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. — Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... — You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... — Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. — Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. — Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). — For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. — Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday 💪 I'll be back with more news soon!!