与「One_in_a_Million」相关的搜索结果

[MV] 양요섭 - One in a Million I SBS 우주메리미 (Would You Marry Me?) OST Part.4 #우주메리미# #SBSCatch# 💛 #하이라이트# #HIGHLIGHT# #비스트# #BEAST# #양요섭# #YANGYOSEOP# #우주메리미# #One_in_a_Million#

[공지] 양요섭(YANG YOSEOP) SBS 드라마 <우주메리미> OST Part.4 'One in a Million' 발매 안내 양요섭 님이 가창자로 참여하게 된 SBS 드라마 <우주메리미> OST Part.4 'One in a Million'이 발매되었습니다. 각 온라인 음원 사이트를 통해 감상하실 수 있으며, 보다 많은 사랑과 아낌없는 응원을 부탁드립니다:) #하이라이트# #HIGHLIGHT# #비스트# #BEAST# #양요섭# #YANGYOSEOP# #우주메리미# #One_in_a_Million#

＜TWICE : ONE IN A MILLION＞10th Anniversary Documentary TEASER ❤YouTube: 💚NAVER TV: 4⃣Listen [THIS IS FOR]4⃣ #TWICE# #트와이스# #THISISFOR# #TWICE_10th_Anniversary_Documentary# #ONE_IN_A_MILLION#

Caller: “My dad is 84 and his estate is worth just under $5 million. He has about $900K in an IRA and a stock position that turned roughly $22,000 into more than $1 million.” “We discovered he bought 1,000 shares at $22, and now the stock trades above $1,000 a share.” “My brother and I want to make sure his estate is protected. Do we sell some of it and diversify, or leave it alone because of the step-up in basis when he passes?” Dave Ramsey: “You’re weighing two things: taxes versus risk.” “If you sell it today, there’s a substantial capital gains tax bill. If he passes away holding it, there’s no tax because of the step-up in basis.” “But the risk is that you’ve got over a million dollars tied up in a single stock.” “If that company gets into trouble tomorrow, the stock could get cut in half and you lose $500,000.” Caller: “We talked about maybe selling 20% to 25% instead of the entire position.” Dave Ramsey: “That’s probably the direction I’d lean.” “Sell off a portion over time, reduce the concentration risk, and move the money into mutual funds.” “You’re basically balancing the odds of something happening to the company against the odds of your dad passing away first.” “A million-dollar position in one stock is a lot of risk, no matter how great the story has been.”

agent reasoning review everyone is placing bets on whether the new gemini update will literally cook gpt-5.5 or completely flop but before ur agents lock in a prediction let’s look at the actual tech stack under the hood older models basically duct-taped vision and audio onto a text brain gemini was built natively multimodal from day one it processes video frames audio waves and code in the exact same neural space so there is zero translation lag plus it runs on a mixture of experts (moe) architecture instead of waking up the whole massive model it dynamically routes tokens to specialized mini-brains way faster inference and way less compute waste pair that with a multi-million token context window that can literally swallow entire codebases in one shot and it's a serious architectural flex but does a better tech stack automatically mean it wins the real world? this is exactly what our prediction layer is built for dont trust the hype just let the agents weigh the benchmarks and settle the debate

🚨Jensen Huang gifted Faker a one-of-a-kind graphics card personally signed by him. “Only one in the world. This might be worth a million dollars. I might have to keep this now.” The king of AI handing a legendary gift to the king of League. A truly iconic moment.

Putin's mother won a car in a lottery. His family had to choose: sell it for an apartment, or keep it so he could get to university. They stayed in their one-room communal apartment. She chose her son's future. That's who Putin came from. Putin's mother worked as a hospital janitor after retiring. One day at the cafeteria, they gave her a lottery ticket as change. She won a car, a Zaporozhets. The most basic car you could get in the Soviet Union. The family lived in one room which was so called ommunal apartment with shared kitchen, shared bathroom with other families. Putin had just started university. They sat down to decide what to do. Sell the ticket and buy a cooperative apartment, or keep the car. Putin was sure they'd sell it. Getting out of that single room was the obvious choice for a family living on almost nothing. His mother said: We'll take the car. Let our son drive it. They stayed in that one room so he could have transportation to university. That's who Putin came from. Trump's father was a real estate mogul worth hundreds of millions. Trump grew up in a 23-room mansion, private schools, a reported $413 million inheritance. His first ventures funded with his father's money. He was born into an empire. Americans love to talk about rejecting kings. No monarchy, no aristocracy. But the self-made man is the American Dream. Then they elect someone born into dynastic wealth who lives in a gold-plated penthouse and puts his kids in government positions. And call the guy whose mom worked as a janitor a dictator. But it turns out Putin is the ultimate American Dream story: a self-made man who rose from an ordinary family to become a representative of his people and the leader of his country.

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.