与「UNITシンクロチャレンジ」相关的搜索结果

「GOT7 ARENA SPECIAL 2018-2019 “Road 2 U”」UNITシンクロチャレンジ COLD(マーク&ベンベン)編が公開されました♪ぜひチェックしてみてください！ ▽FC ▽モバイル #GOT7# #Mark# #BamBam# #COLD# #Road2U# #UNITシンクロチャレンジ#

「GOT7 ARENA SPECIAL 2018-2019 “Road 2 U”」UNITシンクロチャレンジ 25(ジニョン&ユギョム)編が公開されました♪ぜひチェックしてみてください！ ▽FC ▽モバイル #GOT7# #Jinyoung# #Yugyeom# #Road2U# #UNITシンクロチャレンジ#

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.

At the top of my AGENTS.md: - NEVER write unit tests after you write code. - Highly prefer E2E tests as the sole testing mechanism. Use them to verify complex features work. At the end of E2E tests, produce a verifiable and repeatable artifact. - If you must test a system in isolation, FIRST write all the ways it could fail, THEN write the code.

孙宇晨真正的巨大漏洞，可能已经暴露了 我最近重新研究了一遍孙宇晨，越研究越觉得很多人研究错了方向。大家盯着他的花边新闻，政治关系、特朗普、各种争议，但这些可能都不是他真正的致命点。 孙宇晨最大的漏洞，是一个很反直觉的东西： 他建立了一个看起来非常去中心化的商业帝国，但这个帝国最重要的几个开关，其实掌握在别人手里。 而 2026 年发生的几件事，正在第一次同时触碰这些开关。 一、先把 SEC 放到一边 过去几年，很多人认为孙宇晨最大的风险是美国 SEC。这个判断现在已经过时了。 2026 年 3 月 5 日，SEC 提出与孙宇晨、TRON Foundation、BitTorrent Foundation、Rainberry 达成整体解决方案。Rainberry 就相关 wash trading 指控支付 1000 万美元民事罚款，其余针对孙宇晨以及相关 TRON 被告的诉求撤销，而且 settlement 是在不承认也不否认相关指控的条件下达成的。 换句话说，那个过去悬在孙宇晨头顶最显眼的美国监管炸弹，至少大幅降级了。 但几乎与此同时，另一个可能更危险的东西出现了：HTX。 二、英国首先动手 2026 年 5 月 26 日，英国把 HUOBI GLOBAL S.A. 正式列入俄罗斯制裁框架。 英国政府的 Statement of Reasons 提到了 A7 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 和 GARANTEX Europe OU，认为 Huobi Global S.A. 曾向相关实体提供金融服务、资金或经济资源，从而构成支持俄罗斯政府相关经济活动的依据。制裁措施包括资产冻结、支付处理限制、Correspondent Banking 限制、Trust Services 限制，甚至互联网服务限制。 真正关键的是随后英国 OFSI 专门增加了一条 FAQ： “对 Huobi Global S.A. 的制裁是否适用于 HTX cryptocurrency exchange？” 答案是：Yes。 OFSI 明确表示，它认为 HTX 因 Huobi 的所有权关系，同样受到英国金融制裁约束。 有意思的是，HTX 不认。HTX 随即发表公告称，Huobi Global S.A. 和线上 HTX 交易所是两个不同、相互独立的主体，制裁“不应、也不会”影响 HTX。 于是一个非常罕见的局面出现了： 监管机构说：你就是它。 HTX 说：我不是它。 这已经不仅仅是公关问题，而是一个法律实体边界问题。 三、然后欧盟来了 2026 年 7 月 23 日，欧盟公布 Regulation 2026/1848，Annex XLV 里面直接出现： HTX (HUOBI GLOBAL SA) 生效日期：2026 年 8 月 23 日。 Annex XLV 列的是欧盟认定显著挫败俄罗斯制裁目的的境外金融机构、加密资产服务商和支付服务商。相关 Article 5ad 原则上禁止欧盟主体直接或者间接与名单中的机构发生交易。 这意味着事情已经完成一次重要升级： 英国不是孤立事件，现在是英国 + 欧盟。 四、真正值得看的，不是“HTX 被制裁” 而是制裁发生之后，HTX 的 Proof of Reserves 发生了什么。 HTX 一直公布 PoR，而且从它自己的公开数据看，目前主要资产 reserve ratio 仍然在 100% 或以上。所以必须先说清楚： 目前没有公开证据证明 HTX 资不抵债。 但 2026 年 6 月的 PoR 出现了一个以前没有那么显眼的分类： ThirdParty。 Protos 根据 HTX 的 PoR 数据统计，约 13 亿美元储备进入了这个类别，涉及 BTC、ETH、USDT、USDC 等资产。 HTX 自己的 PoR 页面也明确写着，Custodial Wallet 中的资产由 third-party custodians 保管；如果想验证这些余额： “please directly contact the third-party custodians.” 问题来了：谁是 custodian？ HTX 的公开 PoR 页面没有直接告诉你。 于是产生了一个很奇怪的结构：HTX 告诉用户，钱在那里，第三方替我们保管，你可以找第三方验证；但是第三方是谁，并没有在这个页面上清楚披露。 这不是证明“钱没了”，但它明显降低了外部验证能力。而在一家交易所刚刚遭遇英国制裁、随后又进入欧盟名单的情况下： 储备可验证性下降，本身就是一个值得高度关注的风险信号。 五、链上又出现了一条更有意思的线索 Protos 后来继续追踪 HTX 过去披露的 PoR 钱包。其中一个地址曾持有大约 71,853 stETH。 5 月 30 日，也就是新的 June PoR 快照前不久，这些资产开始转移，最终部分资金进入了 Etherscan 标记为： Poloniex 7 Poloniex 10 的地址。 这件事情必须谨慎解释。它不能证明 13 亿美元 ThirdParty 全部在 Poloniex，更不能证明 HTX 挪用了客户资产。 但它提出了一个非常重要的问题： HTX 的储备、Poloniex 的钱包以及孙宇晨关联生态之间，到底是什么关系？ 这是我认为真正应该做链上法证的地方。 六、为什么这个问题可能比 SEC 案件严重得多？ 因为中心化交易所真正害怕的，从来不是资产价格下跌，而是： liquidity mismatch。 100 亿美元资产，不等于随时可以兑付 100 亿美元负债。 这正是 FTX 给整个行业留下最重要的一课。一个交易所可能在账面上拥有足够多的“资产”，但你必须继续问： 这些资产是什么？谁托管？能否立即转移？是否被质押？是否存在锁仓？是否属于关联方？是否同时被其他平台计算为储备？有没有借贷关系？有没有抵押关系？有没有制裁导致的冻结风险？ 所以单纯看到： Reserve Ratio > 100% 远远不够。 七、这里出现了孙宇晨真正的结构性漏洞 把地图继续往外拉，你会看到一个很奇怪的系统： TRON、HTX、Poloniex、TRX、USDD、JustLend、stUSDT、USDT，以及孙宇晨本人。 它们法律上并不是同一个东西，资产负债表也不是同一张，但资本市场会把它们看成一个： Sun Ecosystem。 这意味着孙宇晨本人实际上成为了一种特殊的金融资产： Reputation Collateral。 当市场相信孙宇晨时，TRX、HTX、TRON DeFi 甚至相关项目都会获得某种隐性信用溢价。但如果有一天市场开始怀疑其中一个关键节点，传播方向也可能反过来： HTX 出现问题 → 用户提现 → 关联资产流动性下降 → TRX 等生态资产承压 → 抵押品价值下降 → DeFi 清算增加 → 市场进一步怀疑 HTX 储备质量 → 继续提现 这才是真正值得担心的： Reflexivity，反身性死亡循环。 目前没有证据证明这个循环正在发生，但这是最应该压力测试的场景。 八、而孙宇晨还有一个更大的外部依赖：Tether 今天 TRON 最大的护城河其实不是 TRX，甚至不是所谓 Web3 应用生态，而是： USDT。 目前 TRON 上稳定币规模约 938 亿美元，其中 USDT 大约 919 亿美元，占比接近 98%。 这意味着 TRON 已经成为全球最重要的 USDT settlement rails 之一。 这是孙宇晨最大的成功，但也是一个非常漂亮的单点故障。 因为： Tether 不是孙宇晨控制的。 USDT 也不是去中心化资产。Tether 可以冻结地址，可以调整合规政策，可以调整某条链上的发行策略，也可以改变不同司法辖区的风险控制。 于是出现一个极其反直觉的结论： TRON 越成功地成为全球 USDT 网络，它就越依赖一个自己无法控制的中心化发行商。 孙宇晨控制 TRON，但孙宇晨并不控制美元。 甚至不控制 TRON 上最重要的“美元”。 九、这才是孙宇晨商业模式最深的悖论 TRON 为什么成功？因为便宜、快、USDT 流动性巨大、银行体系覆盖弱的地方也能转账。 这让 TRON 在亚洲、拉美、中东、非洲以及大量 OTC 场景拥有极强生命力。 但同样的特征，也让它成为非法资金喜欢使用的基础设施之一。 TRM Labs 的研究显示，2024 年，在其识别出的主要公链非法交易量中，TRON 占 58%。 但是另一面也应该写出来：TRON 当年的非法交易规模大约减少了 60 亿美元，是主要公链中下降最多的。TRON、Tether 和 TRM 后来还共同成立了 T3 Financial Crime Unit，冻结了超过 1.3 亿美元相关非法资金。 于是又出现一个悖论： TRON 越开放，它越有竞争力；TRON 越合规，它越容易失去“特殊性”。 它必须永远停留在一个非常狭窄的位置： 足够开放，所以全世界愿意用；足够合规，所以美国和欧洲允许它继续存在。 这是一场长期走钢丝。 十、甚至“政治关系”也不是最终保险 孙宇晨曾经成为特朗普家族 World Liberty Financial 最重要的公开支持者之一，很多人因此把他的政治投资理解成一种保险。 但 2026 年发生了一件非常讽刺的事情：孙宇晨把 World Liberty 告了，原因之一是他的 WLFI Token 被冻结。 Reuters 报道涉及 Token 当时价值约 3.2 亿美元。World Liberty 否认孙宇晨的指控，并反过来起诉他。 这里最值得注意的不是特朗普，而是一个更简单的事实： 即使像孙宇晨这样的人，即使投资数千万美元，即使拥有如此高级别的人脉，当别人控制智能合约权限和资产冻结权时： 别人仍然可以按下按钮。 最后解决问题的地方还是法院。 这给孙宇晨整个商业哲学划出了一条非常清晰的边界： 关系不是产权。 十一、所以孙宇晨真正的漏洞，不是一个秘密钱包，而是一种架构 他的系统看起来极其分散： TRON 是 blockchain，USDT 是 stablecoin，HTX 是 exchange，Poloniex 是另一个 exchange，JustLend 是 DeFi，USDD 是 stablecoin，各种项目分别存在。 但当我们把资金流、抵押品、托管、稳定币和信誉重新画到一张图上，你会发现： 它们可能共享同一组风险因子。 孙宇晨、TRX、流动性、Tether、托管商、监管。 这意味着： 法律上的分散，不一定等于风险上的分散。 这才是我认为真正值得研究孙宇晨的地方。 十二、如果让我用 FTX 的方法审计孙宇晨，我只查五件事情 第一，HTX 那 13 亿美元 ThirdParty 到底由谁托管？ 第二，HTX 与 Poloniex 之间到底有多少资产交叉？ 第三，HTX、Poloniex、JustLend、USDD 等体系有没有重复计算同一批资产或者循环抵押？ 第四，如果 Tether 对 TRON 或 HTX 风险政策发生变化，24 小时、72 小时、7 天分别会发生什么？ 第五，也是最重要的： 如果 HTX 出现 20%、40%、60% 用户集中提现，真正能够立即兑付的高质量流动资产究竟有多少？ 但如果其中任何两个同时出现问题，那就不是某个 Token 跌 30% 的故事了，而可能变成： 制裁 × 托管 × 流动性 × 抵押品 × 信用 五个系统同时反馈。 所以，我现在对孙宇晨的判断不是： “他是不是下一个 SBF？” 这种问题太低级。 真正值得问的是： 孙宇晨究竟建立了一个真正分散风险的加密帝国，还是建立了一个表面上有很多独立节点、实际上共享少数几个单点故障的巨大金融网络？ 现在还没有足够证据回答。 但 2026 年正在给我们第一次真正的压力测试。 英国已经按下了一个开关。 欧盟又按下了一个。 孙哥自己写小作文按下了关键的一个 现在要看的，不是孙宇晨还能不能制造新闻，而是： 资金会怎么走。 因为金融帝国最后不会死于新闻。 它只会死于负债到期时，资产不能变成现金。 注：文中关于循环抵押、流动性传染和死亡循环的部分属于风险情景分析，不代表这些情况已经发生；截至目前，公开资料不足以证明 HTX 存在资不抵债或挪用用户资产。

Claude fixed my unit economics in a week. it can take your website link, find people who need your product, email them and book the calls? since when?? i've been doing this by hand for a YEAR. ok. testing it: $30 free 👇

Cognitive reward shapes in sports and career Sports are amazing environments to learn. When you play a sport for thousands of hours, you start to see the world through that sport. It is a simple fact—your biological neural network is being conditioned to respond to the behavior incentivized by the rules of the sport. The funny thing is that most people choose their sports for accidental reasons such as parents, geography, or school programs. People rarely think about how the particular sport you play influences how your brain thinks more generally. Going a step further, playing the right sport may even benefit your career. My two favorite sports are tennis and soccer. Tennis is one of the best sports for teaching consistency. In tennis, there are hundreds of points in a match, and each point is worth exactly one unit, regardless of whether your opponent made an unforced error or if you constructed the most beautiful point ending with a winner. Tennis is low-variance optimization—you win by reducing unforced errors, playing percentages, and grinding out small advantages. Tennis is also an individual sport, which teaches you to rely on yourself consistently. Tennis has a similar cognitive reward shape to professions like being a surgeon or a pilot. Surgery and aviation require consistency, self-accountability, and deep focus. And similar to how you can only win one point at a time in tennis no matter how spectacular it was, there is no extra credit for the best appendectomy or the smoothest SFO-JFK flight. Your craft is to provide consistency with very low tolerance for error. On the other hand, the tennis mindset transfers relatively little to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a high-variance, team game where failure is tolerated and occasional creativity gets rewarded exponentially. Minimizing unforced errors in tennis is a totally different mindset from deciding whether to make a moonshot business move that will likely fail but could potentially net a billion dollars. Obviously I am not saying that tennis players cannot be great entrepreneurs, but I do think it is a totally different cognitive reward shape. Being a forward in soccer has a much closer reward shape for entrepreneurship. What a forward in soccer learns is to create many small chances. It is a fact that most of the game, you are not scoring—even if you look at all the times that Mbappe got on the ball in one of his best games, most of those led to nothing! But all that matters is creating enough chances to score once (or a few times) and win the game. If you break down a 90-minute game for a forward, almost all the time is failure or noise, a few minutes will be leverage, and a few seconds will determine the fate of the game. I have not played soccer for thousands of hours, but I can imagine that being a lifetime forward in soccer would teach you to be comfortable with failure and asymmetric returns. In summary, I am claiming that there can be substantial value when the cognitive reward shape of your sport mirrors that of your career. I’ll admit that I’ve done some cherry-picking for illustration purposes—entrepreneurship also requires consistency and error avoidance; and goalies in soccer have reward shapes that are very different from strikers. But I think the point stands. If sports shape how we perceive risk, effort, and reward, then we should choose them wisely.

The world’s largest impulse hydropower unit completed its rotor hoisting at the Datang Zala Hydropower Station on Aug. 11, marking a major step toward commissioning. The project will generate nearly 4 billion kWh of high-altitude clean electricity annually after COD.

BMW just put the first humanoid robot on a real car production line. A black figure walks the floor at the Albany plant. Doors open. Arms reach. Parts move. No human operator in the cell. Orange industrial arms keep welding in the background. The humanoid simply steps into the same space and works. This is not a demo booth. It is the first time a car company has put a bipedal robot into actual manufacturing flow. Now run the numbers. One unit at $30,000. 1,000 units = $30 million. 10,000 units = $300 million. 100,000 units = $3 billion. The body is only the first invoice. Software licenses. Spare actuators. Battery packs. Face and voice packs. Continuous model updates. Every factory that buys the robot becomes a recurring revenue account. Today the machine still draws a crowd of engineers who stop to watch it walk. Tomorrow the same form factor can run material handling, quality checks, or overnight shift work that no one wants to staff. The real leap is not making the robot look more human. It is driving the unit cost low enough that every plant manager treats it like another piece of capital equipment. Once a humanoid costs less than a mid-size sedan, it stops being a science project and becomes a line item.