与「SECOND_QUEST」相关的搜索结果

Kylie Minogue, Graham Norton and Ricky Gervais play a round of questions from Elizabeth’s Sex Board Game. And it’s absolute chaos 😂 Graham Norton: We’ve selected a few, questions from Elizabeth’s sex board game. Ricky Gervais: I'm already nervous. Elizabeth Banks: All right. So the question here say How do you signal to a partner that you want to have sex? Ricky Gervais: Unbelievable 😂 Ricky Gervais: Just the set-off of a buzzer. (buzzing noise) Elizabeth Bank: second question this one's called "The Name Game." What have you named your private parts? Rickey Gervais: Uhmm.. Pamela Elizabeth Banks: This is really nice one for you, Graham. Ready? Graham Norton: Yes. Elizabeth Banks: What song... what song always puts you in the mood? Graham Norton: Oh, S Club 7, Reach.

Introducing Council: free clinical AI for NPI-verified clinicians. Use it for notes, summaries, evidence checks, prior-auth drafts, and second-read clinical questions. Try it now:

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.

In October 1937, at the height of the Great Terror, Stalin's secret police was shooting roughly 1,500 Soviet citizens every day. That same month, the founders of the London School of Economics published the second edition of their two-volume defense of Stalin's regime, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization. The one thing they changed from the first edition was dropping the question mark. 🧵

ZERO ALPHA Research Preview | Reframing NVDA NVIDIA’s latest earnings report is the trigger event for a new round of deep research. A company already among the largest in the world just delivered 106% year-over-year revenue growth, with Data Center revenue up 117%. What is striking is not simply that NVIDIA beat expectations again, but that its core business has returned to a doubling growth rate from an already enormous base, even as AMD GPUs, hyperscaler-designed chips, and custom AI accelerators continue to enter the market. That prompted us to go back and re-examine NVIDIA’s full growth trajectory since 2023. When revenue growth, earnings growth, stock-price appreciation, and P/E are viewed together, a very different pattern begins to emerge. The first NVIDIA spring was largely top-down. The market recognized the potential of generative AI first, the stock price moved ahead, and earnings later caught up. The second spring now looks increasingly bottom-up. Revenue growth re-accelerated from: 56% → 62% → 73% → 85% → 106% while valuation multiples moved lower rather than higher. In simple terms: First Spring: P led E. Second Spring: E is beginning to lead P. This earnings report therefore may represent more than another earnings beat. It may be a signal that NVDA itself needs to be reframed. It also raises a broader question: What actually defines a true mega-cap growth stock? A high P/E alone does not define growth. The rarest structure may be a company that is already enormous, still grows its core business near 100%, generates earnings faster than its stock price rises, avoids excessive valuation expansion, and continues to create new TAM. Applying this framework to AMD, MU, SNDK, LITE, ALAB, DELL, and the hyperscalers makes the leadership hierarchy increasingly clear. Many of them have strong growth, but each still carries a weakness in valuation, cyclicality, pricing dependence, platform control, or growth durability. NVDA currently presents a more unusual combination. More importantly, at least four additional growth engines are still developing: Pricing Power Supply Efficiency Open Models Inference Specialization If these continue to develop, today’s NVIDIA may not yet represent the peak of this second growth cycle. And NVIDIA’s second spring may not belong to NVIDIA alone. Memory and storage, optical networking, and AI data-center operators could all benefit if another AI infrastructure expansion cycle is now beginning. ZERO ALPHA will therefore use this earnings report — a mega-cap company returning to 100%+ core growth — as the starting point for a six-part NVDA Research Note series: 1/6. NVDA: The Second Spring — From P Leading E to E Leading P 2/6. NVDA: What Defines a True Mega-Cap Growth Stock? 3/6. NVDA: Why It Is Still in Its Prime, Not Near the Peak 4/6. NVDA: Four New Growth Engines — How Far Can the Second Spring Go? 5/6. NVDA: Why Leaders Lose Leadership — Lessons from Intel, Tesla, and AMD 6/6. NVDA: Will the Second Spring Reignite the Entire AI Infrastructure Chain? Each note will focus on one independent question and can be read on its own. ZERO Insight The most important message from this earnings report may not be that NVIDIA beat expectations again. It may be this: When a company already this large returns to 100%+ core growth while trading at a much lower P/E than during its first AI explosion, what needs to be revalued may not be just NVDA’s stock price — but our entire understanding of mega-cap growth.

Stop thinking about the technology for a second and ask a simpler question: who owns your account and your data, and who controls what you get to see? Right now, usually the platform. Polkadot swings that needle back to you.

Precipio, Inc. (@PrecipioDx ) (@Nasdaq : $PRPO ) reported revenue of $7.0 million for the second quarter ended June 30, 2026, the highest quarterly revenue in the company’s history and an increase of 22% from $5.7 million in the second quarter of 2025. The specialty cancer diagnostics company validates its technologies clinically in its own laboratory before commercializing them for the global laboratory community. Precipio, Inc. is a B2i Digital (@b2idigital )Featured Company. See the company’s in-depth profile at: Both sides of the business contributed, with pathology services and diagnostic products each growing sequentially: • Revenue surpassed $7 million for the first time in company history, rising from $6.7 million in the first quarter • Product revenue reached $0.9 million, an increase of 21% over the previous high of $750,000 in the fourth quarter of 2025, and pathology revenue reached $6.1 million • Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure the company reconciles in the release, was positive at $0.4 million for the quarter • Cash flow from operations was $0.7 million, and cash ended the quarter above $3 million against $1.1 million a year earlier • Management will discuss the quarter on a shareholder call on August 17, 2026 at 5 p.m. ET, followed by a moderated question and answer session The conference call may be accessed by calling 646.307.1865. All callers should ask for the Precipio Inc. conference call. Regarding the cash balance, Ilan Danieli, Chief Executive Officer of Precipio, stated: “We’ve achieved this level of cash without a financing event, demonstrating the strength of our operations. We’re encouraged by the progress we’ve made and believe we are well positioned to continue building on this momentum.” Read the full release: Precipio is a healthcare biotechnology company focused on cancer diagnostics. Its mission is to address the pervasive problem of cancer misdiagnoses by developing solutions in the form of diagnostic products and services that deliver higher accuracy, improved laboratory workflow, and better patient outcomes, which reduce healthcare expenses. Precipio develops innovative technologies in its laboratory where it designs, tests, validates, and uses these products clinically, then commercializes them as proprietary products that serve the global laboratory community. More information is available at Discover more emerging growth Featured Companies, Featured Experts, and upcoming Featured Conferences at B2i Digital is not a broker-dealer or investment adviser. This post is informational and not an offer or solicitation regarding any security. See the complete Disclosure at

Every API call gives you a choice: wait for the result now, or collect it later. Agentic Document Extraction (ADE) works both ways when you run a Parse or Extract. The first way is synchronous. You send the request and wait on the line until the result comes back. Simple, and right when someone needs the answer immediately. The second is asynchronous. You submit the work, get a ticket, and pick up the result once it is done. Nothing sits waiting on an open line. The result is identical either way. Same Markdown from Parse, same fields from Extract. You are only choosing how long you wait. So why ever hand it off? Two reasons. Big jobs need it. A single asynchronous Parse Job takes files up to 1 GB or 6,000 pages, far more than one live request can hold. It also costs less. Waiting on the line runs at the top rate, since something is blocked on it. Hand the job off and you drop to a cheaper tier for the same result. The rule of thumb is one question. If a person or an agent is waiting on the answer, run it synchronously. If nothing is waiting, submit a job and pay less. Full breakdown, plus the service tier companion, in the comments.

Hot take… isn’t it kinda crazy that nobody is really using AI Agents? I don’t mean software engineers or AI early adopters. I mean “college friends talking about it in group chat,” the feeling you got when everyone started using Instagram or TikTok. These frontier AI models are *insane* (as are the harnesses & tool calls & the like). And every large tech co has an AI agents platform, not to mention all the YC startups doing vertical agents. Yet all of your friends and family outside of tech — who spend all day staring at their iPhones and get paid to work in browser tabs — don’t really care or find themselves using any AI agents yet. Yes ChatGPT, Claude, etc. are extremely popular… but if you look at the engagement data the vast majority of people are still using these aI chat tools like a glorified Google + Grammarly. That’s why the AGI labs are all pushing desktop apps for Codex, Cowork, etc. so hard to non-technical ppl. And yes exceptions for lawyers and customer service but even those have some asterisks and exceptions to rule. Look I’m not saying the ChatGPT moment for AI Agents is not coming… it most definitely is! Remember we pivoted from Arc to Dia precisely because we believe computing is going to be radically reimagined around these AI primitives. No doubt. But that’s my point: it’s just so surprising it hasn’t happened yet because all of the tech you’d need is there. Again if you stop for a second and think about it… for all the press and money and hype and models and crazy ARR numbers… this “AI Agent” moment does not *feel* like the other breakthrough tech moments we’ve lived through (e.g. think the shift to Stories via Snapchat & Instagram, or shift to on-demand via Uber/Airbnb/Doordash). Which is a long way of saying: if you can figure out the answer to “why” most people don’t care about AI agents yet (and have no enduring interest in using them) — especially since the models and harnesses are here and ready — the answer to that question will allow you to capture a lot of marketshare and make a lot of money in 2027. Theoretically, the tech is ready for AI Agents to totally transform how we work and live our lives… but alas the general public dgaf… that’s the generational puzzle to solve for the next 12 months for anyone not working on the models themselves.