与「SECOND_QUEST」相关的搜索结果

Chart said $SOL at $116 is just price correction, down about 3.8% today. I wanted to know how traders were actually positioned behind that move, so I opened the Perps data in @tryquantio instead of just staring at the price movement. Funding sits at the neutral floor, about 0.03% a day. Longs aren't overpaying and shorts aren't pressing. Open interest is $661M against $245M in daily volume, which tells me a lot of capital is parked, not scalping. That's a coiled market, not a crowded one. Second question: is this move backed by positioning or is the market overcrowded? Verdict: not overcrowded. The drop from $120 came with no liquidation cascade and funding never turned negative. That reads as spot-led rebalancing, not panic. It's a coiled market, not a crowded one. Third question: what risk should I watch before taking the trade? Lose $109 on a daily close and the $661M in open interest turns vulnerable. Forced long liquidations could drag price toward $100 to $104. Reclaim $124.50 and trapped shorts fuel a squeeze toward $135 to $140. Other risks: chop between $112 and $118 can whip out tight stops, heavy supply sits at $120 and $124.50, and SOL still follows BTC. One BTC pullback can wipe out local support. What changed my view: the chart looked weak, but the positioning says patience, not panic. My plan: 2x to 5x leverage max, hard stop under $109, and partial profits at $124.50. Want to understand what's happening behind the chart? Check the Perps market inside Quant AI. @tryquantio #QuantAIPioneers#

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:

It took two weeks to end the career of the most successful Asian American in history. Jensen washed dishes at Denny‘s as a teenager, and by this year he was running the world’s most valuable company. This week a lot of Asian people on my timeline decided that story is over. That no matter how high you climb, a face like ours gets a different set of rules at the top. After Elizabeth Holmes, female founders spent years getting asked some version of “how do we know you’re not the next Holmes?“ One woman‘s fraud turned into a question every woman had to answer. I’m Chinese Canadian, I grew up in Vancouver, and now I live in the Bay Area. I already know what my version of that question is going to be and it‘s pathetic. Jensen was born in Taiwan and spent over thirty years building an American company. The second the word ”China“ landed next to his name, none of that counted. This country has done this before. In 1882 it banned Chinese immigrants. In 1942 it locked up 120,000 Japanese Americans, most of them citizens. In 1982 two Detroit autoworkers who blamed Japan for their jobs beat Vincent Chin to death with a baseball bat. He was Chinese. His killers never spent a day in prison. Yellow peril never checked which Asian you were, and that’s a big part of why “Asian American“ became one word. If they were going to lump us together anyway, we might as well stand together. Now look at Jensen‘s timeline. Oct 29, the spy story breaks. The next day Singapore’s government says it never said what the Wall Street Journal claimed. Nov 8, he admits an affair. Nov 12, he‘s gone. The spy part is still unproven. Two weeks start to finish, right before what could be the biggest IPO in AI. You can call that a coincidence. I don’t buy it. Meanwhile the powerful people who raped CHILDREN in the Epstein files are mostly still living their best life Jensen had an affair with an adult woman. That’s the only thing of what‘s actually been proven. So what exactly did Jensen do that was worse than them? Nothing. He was the best, he was Asian, and he was on the wrong side of the political fight. He did everything right. He built the company America needed most and showed up to every dinner in Washington. On Sunday night the president himself stood up for him and called him “an honorable guy.” It didn’t matter. By Thursday he was gone. If you can take down the president‘s favorite CEO in four days while the president is defending him, think about who that message was really for. They’ll use you for thirty years and still never count you as one of them. That’s what a political weapon is. You’re a tool while you’re useful. When the game gets serious, you’re the knife. And when it’s over, nobody comes back for the knife. Jensen was the best one they had. That's exactly why he made such a good "kitchenware".

Dans 50 ans, les livres d'histoire diront qu'Elon Musk a gagné une guerre que personne ne savait qu'on était en train de perdre. Une guerre commencée il y a 100 ans, dans une cellule de prison italienne. En 1926, Mussolini fait arrêter un intellectuel sarde de 35 ans. Au procès, le procureur aurait dit : « Nous devons empêcher ce cerveau de fonctionner pendant vingt ans. » Il s'appelait Antonio Gramsci. Son cerveau n'a jamais cessé de fonctionner. En prison, il a rempli des milliers de pages qui sont devenues l'un des textes politiques les plus influents du XXe siècle. Je pense qu'on est en train de vivre le moment où sa théorie s'effondre. Laissez-moi vous expliquer. Gramsci se posait une question simple. Pourquoi la révolution communiste a-t-elle réussi en Russie mais échoué partout en Occident ? Sa réponse : en Occident, le pouvoir ne tient pas seulement par l'État, la police et l'armée. Il tient par la culture. Par ce que les gens trouvent normal, évident, « de bon sens ». Il appelle ça l'hégémonie culturelle. Donc, pour prendre le pouvoir, il ne faut pas d'abord prendre le palais. Il faut d'abord prendre les esprits. Les écoles. Les universités. Les journaux. Le théâtre. L'édition. Les tribunaux. C'est la « guerre de position » : une conquête lente, institution par institution. Quand la culture a basculé, la politique suit toute seule. Quarante ans plus tard, l'activiste allemand Rudi Dutschke en fera un slogan : la longue marche à travers les institutions. Pendant des décennies, on a vécu avec une énigme que personne n'arrivait vraiment à expliquer. Pourquoi presque tous les artistes sont-ils de gauche ? Les acteurs, les chanteurs, les profs, les journalistes, une bonne partie de la magistrature. Pourquoi un pays pouvait voter à droite élection après élection et voir quand même sa culture parler d'une seule voix ? On nous répondait : « c'est parce que les gens éduqués sont de gauche. » Je crois que la réponse est plus simple. Gramsci avait écrit la recette, et elle a été appliquée. Quand tu contrôles qui obtient la subvention, le poste, la bonne critique, le prix, l'invitation sur le plateau, tu contrôles ce qui devient « la culture ». La même énigme existait à l'échelle du monde. Pourquoi tant de pays en développement, notamment en Amérique latine, revotaient-ils encore et encore pour des gouvernements socialistes ou de gauche radicale ? Venezuela, Bolivie, Nicaragua, l'Argentine des Kirchner, la Colombie de Petro. L'économie s'effondrait, les cartels prospéraient, le chaos s'installait. Et pourtant le même vote revenait. Ma conviction : la pauvreté n'était pas un accident du système. C'était un électorat. Et autour, il y avait tout un écosystème d'ONG, de médias « indépendants » et de programmes de « société civile », financé en grande partie par l'argent occidental. Puis, début 2025, il s'est passé quelque chose que personne n'avait jamais osé faire. Elon et DOGE ont ouvert les livres de USAID. Une agence quasi intouchable depuis 1961, des dizaines de milliards de dollars par an. La grande majorité des programmes ont été coupés, et l'agence a été absorbée par le Département d'État. Le robinet a été fermé. Et regardez ce qui s'est passé depuis. Bolivie : le MAS perd le pouvoir après presque vingt ans. Équateur : Noboa réélu. Honduras : la droite reprend le pays. Chili : Kast élu. Argentine : Milei remporte largement les élections de mi-mandat. Et il y a deux jours, le Brésil. Jair Bolsonaro est inéligible, condamné à 27 ans de prison. La gauche pensait avoir refermé le chapitre. Lula, 80 ans, briguait un quatrième mandat face à un pays qu'on disait acquis. Dimanche, son fils Flávio est arrivé en tête du premier tour. Plus de 47 % contre près de 45 % pour Lula. Lula lui-même a reconnu un résultat « inattendu ». Le plus grand pays d'Amérique latine est à un second tour de basculer. Le plus grand virage à droite du continent depuis des décennies. Coïncidence ? Je ne crois pas. Quand le financement disparaît, le récit perd ses haut-parleurs. Il reste un dernier vrai bastion. L'Europe. Bruxelles finance ses propres réseaux d'ONG, avec une opacité que même la Cour des comptes européenne a pointée. Les grandes fondations comme l'Open Society de Soros. Les entités supranationales qui produisent de la norme sans jamais passer devant un électeur. C'est la dernière forteresse de l'hégémonie culturelle. Et elle commence à se fissurer. Je suis convaincu que tout ça va s'effondrer, et plus vite qu'on ne le pense. Gramsci avait raison sur un point essentiel : la culture précède la politique. Mais il avait oublié que ça marche dans les deux sens. Quand une culture artificielle perd ses perfusions, ce qu'il y a de vrai en dessous remonte à la surface. Ce qui vient après, je crois que c'est une renaissance. Une culture qui recommence à aimer la beauté, l'ambition, la science, la civilisation qui l'a fait naître. Et dans les livres d'histoire, on se souviendra que tout a commencé quand un homme a décidé de regarder les comptes. Il fallait quelqu'un d'assez riche pour ne dépendre de personne, d'assez fou pour s'y attaquer et d'assez libre pour encaisser la haine qui allait suivre. Merci Elon.

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.