与「Silly」相关的搜索结果

No, quantum computers are not about to destroy the security of encryption systems. I have been seeing loads of noise about that, and it’s not true. To break encryption systems, you need to be able to factor numbers with thousands of digits to break cryptography and we have been stuck with quantum computers being able to factor two digits for 25 years now. 21 is the largest number ever cleanly factored by a quantum computer, and you can do that in your head in a moment, it’s 3 times 7. This graph is on a log scale (linear in digits), but it would be pretty much the same silly flat line on a linear scale. You need to be able to handle 1200 digits, but I will settle for being interested again when someone can factor 91 with a quantum computer. Now, a schoolchild can factor 91, it’s 7 x 13, but it would at least represent progress over the current record, which as I said is 21. (And yes, for the pedants out there, elliptic curve systems are a bit different but it’s the same principle.)

Growing up in China, then moving to the States, I get asked about Superapps constantly by international friends. It sounds grand and obvious. My answer is always the same: it's not that easy! Every superapp starts as one genuinely indispensable app. Let’s use WeChat as an example: 2011: Messaging (core chat) 2012: Moments (social timeline) 2013: WeChat Pay (payments) 2014: Red Packets (红包), arguably the single most important product moment in WeChat's history. Launched during Chinese New Year, it went viral overnight and onboarded hundreds of millions of users onto WeChat Pay in weeks. Tencent later called it a "Pearl Harbor attack" on Alibaba's Alipay dominance. 2015: WeChat Pay expanded into offline retail broadly. 2016: Enterprise WeChat 2017: Mini Programs, which allowed third-party apps to run natively inside WeChat without users downloading anything. 2020: Channels (short video, direct response to Douyin/TikTok's dominance.) 2022+: Deeper Channels integration, live commerce, search ambitions It's the heaviest app on my phone and i'm forever grateful that it exists so i can send silly photos to my parents when I was roaming around the world. Never forget that building the initial core product sets the foundation for everything that comes after

🐸 To @OpenAI's and @AnthropicAI's leadership teams, boards included, I say this personally and with deep gratitude: your remarkable lack of philosophical seriousness has led OpenAI to stand up a $4 BILLION "deployment company" and Anthropic helped stand up a $1.5 BILLION enterprise services venture for poorly documented synthetic systems you continue to market as so-called "AI". But your strategies now show: @ChatGPTapp and @claudeai are not "AI". You've made a market category error. You're now marketing so-called “AI” while building $5.5B in deployment layers around the HUMAN expertise required to make your "AI" accountable to reality. What is synthetic "intelligence" without accountability? 🤔 These ventures validate the HUMAN as necessary for synthetic output to become accountable system-level action. Thus, your new ventures do not compete with advisory firms but with the "AI" sales pitch itself. 🤡 The market can now see orgs should expect to pay intelligent HUMANS to make synthetic outputs accountable. Though that was already true. To meet you in the middle: most "consultants" are economically unjustifiable LARPers. Most "consultancies" are behind the times in ways which will look absurd in retrospect. Hard agree. But the so-called "AI" thing is getting very silly now, isn't it? I'll rephrase: you're telling the public your products are "intelligent" while setting the practical standard that enterprise customers should still pay HUMANS to implement and operate YOUR MACHINES. I appreciate the indirect shoutout, but...that's just a machine. Not "AI". And this is just a first-order inference, on yours truly—pro bono. History has caught up with you, it seems. Listen: in mature industries, labeling actually matters. Intended use actually matters. Post-market stewardship actually matters. Claims about what a product does actually matter. And in MedTech, we figure out pretty quick who are the leaders and who just has an expired badge. The leaders I choose to serve in regulated industries don't get to hand-wave their burdens away with two letters. They have skin in the game. They have GxP regs to follow, and labeling and filing ecosystems to manage. Their products must succeed on technical and ethical merit. And yet, I see them demonstrate, weekly, good faith accountability. As for OpenAI's and Anthropic's leadership, you are not operating at the standard my clients already meet. So, because your customers deserve better, and because serious investors and consultants—myself among them—will earn serious money to close the accountability gap your strategies just made visible, I had to write this down. But I am not the only serious person who will make this inference. I am just the first to confess it. OpenAI receipt: $4B deployment company Anthropic receipt: $1.5B services venture This is only the beginning. It is not "AI." 🐸

Notice how everyone else has wine besides Trump! He doesn't drink or do drugs and never has. This may sound silly, but that really does give you a major advantage. I know because I don't either and have experienced the almost superhuman clarity of mind that comes from it!