与「fit_dish」相关的搜索结果

時間がない時のお助けおうちご飯🍚 お味噌汁とご飯だけ用意して、あとは @fitdish_official のおかず定期便🥕🥩 これ本当に美味しくて、とても助かってる。 料理一品ずつ冷蔵パウチで届くのですが、診断から料理を自動でセレクトしてくれて、苦手なものやアレルギーは排除もできるのでとても良い！ 保存料や着色料もほとんど使われてないのに、冷蔵で約1ヶ月持ちます👏 夕食に一品足したい時、仕事が忙しくて料理する時間がない時、お弁当etc...FitDishを常備しておくだけで心に余裕ができる🫶 栄養バランス気になるので、ささっと一人ご飯の時にも🤤🍚 頑張りすぎて疲れるより、美味しくて素晴らしいものがあるんだから頼って楽しくいられる方が良い🤍 #PR# #fit_dish# #フィットディッシュ#

FAN SZN with @IPXExchange As a creator, do I ever hold the raised money directly? Only the part that's unlocked. The rest stays in escrow until its stage is approved. Picture a concert tour: Ticket sales sit in a box-office account the tour manager can't touch Each stage's installment opens only after that stage is signed off The tour manager takes one installment at a time, never the whole box at once Here's how it works, per IPX: 1. Raised capital never sits in a creator's wallet. It's held in a non-custodial smart contract escrow 2. Before the raise, the creator submits a line-by-line budget. IPX says its AI agent, Alfred, sets it up in a contract tied to milestones, and that CertiK audited it 3. After the project graduates, its budget moves into a separate escrow. A stage unlocks once the creator submits proof and the platform approves it, and then it's available for the creator to transfer My read: as a creator, I'd hold an installment only after I prove its stage, and never the whole raise up front. Real count, from IPX's text: it names 3 example stages: pre-production, filming and post-production. Made-up scenario, not a real project: a film uses those 3 stages. Pre-production is approved, so 1 of 3 installments is available to transfer. Filming and post-production stay in escrow until they pass their checks. My take: the first thing I'd ask is how long an approval takes. If a stage sits locked while I wait, that could hold up the whole shoot. What comes out the other end, per IPX? • Each stage's installment, after its milestone is approved • A record of every request, approval and release on IPX and Base, so supporters can follow along • What a creator pays, if anything: I didn't find it listed, so I'd check the project terms The honest part: • IPX says unlocks happen automatically with no human gatekeepers, and also says the platform approves each milestone. I couldn't find how those fit together or how long an approval takes • The Defiant labels the announcement "Presented by IPX," and I haven't seen anyone outside IPX confirm how it runs • I haven't seen it run on a live project yet So before I launch, I'd find out who approves each milestone and how long an approval takes. I'll want both answers before I confirm. Why this matters for creators and fans: → Creators know the payout path before they launch → Fans can see which stages are open and follow each release → Both sides work from the same milestones Source: IPX's router announcement and its KPI-Gated Escrow announcement Which would you check first: the budget lines or who approves each milestone?

Having multiple research tools is useful, but the experience becomes much better when users can access them without constantly switching between different platforms. Consider how a Solana trader researches a new token. They might start by checking its market activity, investigate the wallets involved, examine token distribution and look for possible risks before making a decision. Each step provides a different piece of information, but they all contribute to the same research process. This is where @StonkwatcherSF’s planned website restructure becomes interesting. The team is working on improving the website’s navigation and making its features easier to discover. The new landing page is also expected to showcase the broader Stonk Watcher ecosystem, including its products and mobile application. I think this is a meaningful direction because Stonk Watcher is aiming to bring different parts of crypto research closer together. Token discovery helps users find opportunities. Wallet tracing provides more context about the people and addresses behind transactions. Market analysis and risk indicators help users examine what is happening before deciding where to focus their attention. These tools become more useful when they fit into one connected workflow. The mobile app adds another layer by making research and safety features more accessible beyond the desktop experience. Of course, a redesigned website alone doesn’t guarantee a better product. Navigation needs to be intuitive, information needs to be reliable and the different features need to work smoothly together. That’s what will determine whether this restructure makes a real difference. I believe good product development is not just about adding more features. It’s also about making existing tools easier to find, understand and use. The goal should be simple: less friction, better access to information and a smoother research experience. That’s the progress I’ll be watching from @StonkwatcherSF. @StonkwatcherSF $STWC

Thinking about joining BNB Bangkok, but trying to figure out where you fit? Whether you have an idea, a live product or just want to attend Demo Night, here’s what you need to know before Nov 25 - 27 🧵 👇

The Suns are preparing to scour the trade market for an impact playmaker. Jalen Green hasn’t been a fit alongside Devin Booker being outscored by 15.3 points per 100 possessions. Domantas Sabonis and Dejounte Murray are two potential trade targets utilizing Green’s contract.

This is part of how Clear Signing works. ERC-7730 descriptors, which turn raw calldata into readable fields, are too large to fit on a Ledger signer, and most integrators don’t want to bundle the full metadata set. So the default context module in our signing kit resolves them from Ledger’s servers at signing time. That requires sending the transaction details needed to find the right descriptor. Ledger doesn’t store that data. It runs in the developer library that wallet apps use to talk to a Ledger signer, not in device firmware. Integrators control it and can supply their own context module to resolve metadata themselves: How the context module works: The descriptor registry is public:

We're still so small but I'm loving the team we've got at Superlogical. They're so talented and kind and love their craft. It's a different era of software development and our expectations and practices reflect that. I want to share a bit about how we work. First, everyone is trusted to push to main. We do machine-aided code review pre-push and human plus more machine-aided code review post-push. Limited to no PRs. Culturally, we've all agreed that if we ever hire someone who we DON'T trust to push directly to main, then they probably aren't the right fit for the team (so far, not an issue). Some common sense here: if someone is stepping outside their lane or comfort zone, we'll open PRs. For example, I'm pretty trash at macOS/iOS UI, so I'll open PRs for UI-affecting functionality and ask for eyeballs/help. But for business logic and internals, I push to main. Second, everyone can cut a release. Our release process is fully automated and when you start a release (for any platform) it triggers a Slack notification and a 15 minute countdown. The 15 minute warning is a final gate that allows people to review plus collaborate on a changelog. During that 15 minutes, anyone in the company can pause the release rollout. After 15 minutes, the train leaves the station. You can't override the 15 minutes (except to pause). It gives everyone a chance to step in. Third, we avoid synchronization through fast remediation rather than through planning. The server and clients on various platforms ship features as fast as they can. We use post-hoc human review and AI-assistance to identify feature mismatches across products ("Windows has support for X and Mac doesn't." or "Mac and Windows differ in their behaviors for Y in this way."). This avoids expensive "sync" meetings and coordination. We trust that producers of features are mindful of what they're producing and we trust that adjacent product lines will self-synchronize quickly. In practice, we see feature parity across platforms within 24 to 48 hours. All of this works on mutual trust. It ONLY works with mutual trust. Everyone at all times has to trust that they've got each others back: 1. Push to main only works if you fix your mess, or if you don't, that someone else will quickly but that you'd do the same (and generally in equal amounts). 2. Anyone can deploy only works if you trust everyone to cut at the right time, with the right changelog, and that people will respect the 15 minute timer. 3. Sync through fast remediation only works if you trust other teams will pick up and integrate your work quickly, which only works if you would too. It also only works if you are fairly producing mismatches (e.g. not constantly). We've got a great team. I know we're still small and that these practices will change in many ways as we scale. But this is already a markedly different practice than what I would've done 15 years ago. In general, we are building from day 1 on a foundation of mutual respect, excellence, and trust. And it's been awesome.