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#

A man deposited a fake junk mail check for $95,000 as a joke. The bank cleared it. Six lawyers told him it was legally his money. He gave it all back anyway. – Patrick Combs was 29, living in San Francisco in 1995 with $200 in his bank account when a junk mail letter arrived offering him a get-rich-quick scheme. – Inside was a promotional fake check made out in his name for $95,093.35. Printed across the front in clear letters: NOT NEGOTIABLE. – In a moment of dark humor he signed the back with a smiley face and deposited it at an ATM. – He expected the bank to call him laughing. They never called. – Ten days later he checked his balance. $101,217.34. The check had cleared. – The promotional check was so close in design to a real check that it legally qualified as one under banking law. – By the time the bank realized what had happened it was legally too late to recall the funds. – Combs called his brother who told him to move the money immediately. – He tried to withdraw $95,000 in cash. He learned three things. All the large safe deposit boxes were taken, $500 bills no longer existed, and $95,000 in $100 bills did not fit in a small box. – He got a cashier's check instead and locked it in a safe-deposit box. – When the bank finally came for the money a month later they accused him of fraud and threatened police. – He refused to return anything until they admitted in writing that they had made the mistake, not him. – Six different lawyers reviewed his case and told him the money was legally his to keep. – The bank and Combs went to war for five months. He gave interviews on television and in newspapers. The public loved him. – He eventually gave every dollar back. All he wanted in return was a signed letter clearing him of any wrongdoing and lunch with the bank president. He got the letter but not the lunch. – He turned the entire story into a one-man show called Man 1 Bank 0 and performed it 2,000 times across the world. A man deposited a fake check as a joke with a smiley face signature. The tenth-largest bank in America cleared it.

The Knicks’ long championship drought and famously rabid fan base help explain the euphoria. So does the fact that the team does not fit the caricature of New Yorkers (and of capitalists) as self-obsessed and indifferent to the wants of lesser mortals

Bitcoin used to be dismissed as an experiment. Now it’s compared to: 🔸Gold 🔸Stocks 🔸Real estate 🔸Bonds 🔸Cash So where does Bitcoin actually fit? Digital gold? Risk asset? New asset class entirely? Read the full article:

It is with a heavy heart that we announce we are winding down the Botanix network. This decision is the hardest one we have made in four years, and we want to share the reasoning openly because the people who backed us, built with us, and used what we shipped deserve more than a quiet shutdown notice. First off, an immediate practical consideration for the Botanix community: please withdraw your Bitcoin and other assets before July 9th, 2026. When we started in 2022, the pitch was simple enough to say in a sentence: bring real utility to Bitcoin. What that actually meant in practice, and what we have spent nearly four years building toward, was more ambitious than that sentence made it sound. We were trying to build a Bitcoin-based blockchain that could find genuine product-market fit as a platform for Bitcoin applications, without using token incentives to drive growth, manufacture users, or simulate utility. Almost every chain that has launched in the last cycle has reached for the same playbook (issue a token without PMF, engineer the incentive surface, point at the resulting metrics), and we did not believe this route is a viable strategy in the long term. We wanted to know whether a Bitcoin chain could earn its users on the strength of what was built on top of it, the value it brings in the market with Bitcoin itself as the only meaningful economic primitive in the system. And we built it. The Spiderchain went live and stayed live, a year of mainnet operation with one hundred percent uptime and zero security incidents on a genuinely novel cryptographic architecture. We built Dynafed, a dynamic federation that turned the Spiderchain from a static multisig set into a rotating, decentralized one, the technical milestone that most people in this space said could not be built on Bitcoin without compromising trust assumptions. Twenty-five million transactions, two hundred thousand wallets, and tens of millions of dollars in assets moved across the chain, every single number of that earned organically without a token, without airdrops, without points programs, or any of the manufactured-demand machinery. Chainlink, Morpho, GMX, Dolomite, Fireblocks, Alchemy, Galaxy, OKX Wallet, all integrated. We shipped a Bitcoin neobank with BINK on iOS and Android, with self-custodial email login for Bitcoin (something that had never existed before), native Bitcoin yield, and the lowest borrowing rates against Bitcoin anywhere in the world, all of it downstream of owning the infrastructure. The point of saying this is not to argue with our own conclusion. The protocol works, the product works, and our team and ecosystem worked in concert to do exceptional work. We have run this experiment in earnest, with a working protocol, real applications, and a serious team, for over a year on mainnet and nearly four years in total. The honest answer we have arrived at, after living inside it every day, is that it did not work, at least not in this market and not on this timeline. We want to share what we think we learned, with the caveat that some of this is conviction and some of this is still suspicion, and we would rather be transparent about the difference than pretend to have clarity we do not have. The first thing I've had to sit with is timing. Bitcoin utility, making Bitcoin programmable, productive, and integrated into real financial activity, isn't where the real world users sit right now. The conversation is still on Bitcoin as a reserve asset, on its monetary and political positioning, on base-layer conservatism. Those questions are upstream of the ones a Bitcoin L2 needs people to be asking. I still believe Bitcoin gets there, but belief in the destination is not the same as being able to predict when, and nobody can. It's also possible the destination never materialises at all, and that Bitcoin's role as a reserve asset is simply where it settles. If that's true, there will never be a market for what we were building, and no amount of time or capital would change that. The second is the token question. We intended to eventually launch a token. We saw it, and still see it, as a genuinely new form of equity, something closer to an IPO than an airdrop, to be done when you reach product market fit and the moment is right. That moment never came. What became clear over the last year is that the market largely stopped rewarding even the more considered versions of that playbook. Token launches across the board have broadly underperformed, and those that did go to market with tokens haven't seen the outcomes or PMF that the model is supposed to produce. The third lesson is about where DeFi demand on Bitcoin actually lives. For most use cases that exist today, lending, yield, leveraged exposure, WBTC on a mature general-purpose L2 is genuinely sufficient. Users have voted with their behaviour, and the verdict is that the trust assumptions of a wrapped representation on Ethereum are acceptable to almost everyone who wants Bitcoin-denominated DeFi. Decentralisation matters to people in principle and in conversation; in practice, when something cheaper and easier is in front of them, they use it. The security case for a dedicated Bitcoin L2 is real, but it only matters for a narrower band of applications than our thesis required, one of the clearer lessons this market has taught us. The fourth lesson is structural. The on-chain economy is consolidating around venues that own the user relationship: Hyperliquid, Robinhood, the major CEXes, and now TradFi participants absorbing an ever-larger share of attention, flow, and revenue. Convenience and institutional credibility win, every time, as soon as they're available. As retail participation thins, that concentration only deepens. We were, and still are, believers in decentralisation, but the current direction of on-chain growth is running through distribution, and any team building base-layer infrastructure today is rowing upstream against that current. We were no exception. The fifth lesson is the most concrete. Both of the above played out directly in our economics. The users we attracted were primarily using Bitcoin as a store of value for yield, a legitimate use case, but not the high-frequency transaction volume that drives fee revenue on a network like ours. BINK was our answer to that: a Bitcoin neobank designed to bring daily usage of BTC and stablecoins on-chain, driving the transaction volume the network needed. It was the right strategic instinct, and one we never got the chance to fully test. BINK only landed on both app stores in the last few weeks, a product that by its nature could only be built once the underlying infrastructure was proven and live. When users choose the convenient option and economic gravity pulls toward distribution, what's left on a decentralised infrastructure layer is a user base that costs more to serve than it generates. Infrastructure costs are what they are, and the fee income never came close to covering them. If you would like to see how we were imagining a Bitcoin future and what we have been working on since September, feel free to download BINK and give it a spin: it’s a full-fledged self-custodial Bitcoin Neobank with email login, one click borrowing, a Lightning integration and more. App store: Play store: This UX is where we think Bitcoin is ultimately heading towards although it feels too early. You can use invite code 1SD31R, but remember to remove your funds by July 9th. We could keep going. We have chosen not to, however, because continuing past the point where additional time stops producing additional learning is not conviction, it is something that looks like conviction from the outside while corroding into something else on the inside. We would rather stop now, with integrity intact and resources available to take care of the people who took a chance on us, than push the experiment past the point where it still has something to teach us. Reminder: Please withdraw all your assets by July 9th. After this, the federation will sweep the remaining Bitcoin. Any other assets or tokens on the network from then onwards will unfortunately be unrecoverable. After this, the federation will sweep the remaining Bitcoin. Any other assets or tokens on the network from then onwards will unfortunately be unrecoverable. To our investors, who backed a thesis that was harder to defend than it should have been, to our partners who built alongside us and bet pieces of their own roadmaps on ours, to the developers who deployed on Spiderchain, to our users and the BINK community who showed up for something experimental and stayed, and most of all to the Botanix team who shipped a genuinely novel system with rigour and care and who made every hard day worth the difficulty: Thank you, more than the words available here can carry.

Solana Summit Germany 🇩🇪 Hosted by SobiX #5# Last episode, with the CEO of @Arcium, @yrschrade. He is one of the main speakers at the Germany summit, known by many names: Mr. CEO of Privacy, Purple Man. It’s a real-life privilege to meet him, and if you make it to Berlin on June 13th for the summit, you can meet him in person. 📅 13th June, 2026 📍 Berlin, Germany 🇩🇪 🔗 Link : Highlights include: 00:12 - Introduction 02:36 - Can you decrypt yourself and how your obsession with privacy started? 05:48 - From reading 1984 as a kid to sitting with Tucker Carlson, when did this path become serious? 09:05 - How do you see the state of privacy in Web2? 11:23 - The double standards and paradox when people say they want privacy but act differently 14:23 - Let’s talk about June 13th in Berlin, many Arcium ecosystem teams are coming 16:32 - You built this from the ground up and are a @SuperteamDE member. How does it feel to walk into the summit as an ecosystem leader? 19:00 - Which areas do you want to see more teams build in? 20:20 - The summit this year is built around ICM. How does Arcium fit into this? 22:26 - Why did you build on @solana? 24:05 - What do you say to those who look up to you and want to be the next Yannik? 26:25 - Closing and asking for any alpha from Yannik

I have a hypothesis about the current 3D vs non-3D debate. Perhaps the endgame is that these two paths eventually merge. Non-3D approaches currently feel incredibly strong. Scale data, scale compute, scale parameters, and surprisingly quickly: 20 → 40 → 60 → 80. Realism improves. Motion improves. Benchmarks improve. But going from 80 → 100 feels fundamentally different. Physical correctness, multiview consistency, object permanence, contact dynamics, and long-horizon reasoning feel much harder. My intuition is that 0 → 80 is mostly a scaling problem, while 80 → 100 may be a world-state problem. Current large-scale data gives us enormous amounts of observations: pixels, videos, actions. But much less geometry, depth, pose, contact, physical constraints, or object state. As models become stronger, perhaps the bottleneck slowly shifts from “Can models fit the data?” to “Does the data contain enough world state?” This is why I think 3D matters—not necessarily as the final representation, but as data infrastructure. Multiview capture, simulation, synthetic interaction, counterfactual rollouts, state supervision. These systems don’t simply create more data; they create higher information density data. Which creates an interesting possibility: maybe non-3D systems win early because scaling observations is easy, while 3D systems catch up later because scaling world-state is harder. And eventually, perhaps the distinction disappears. Sufficiently strong non-3D systems may need to implicitly learn world structure, while sufficiently strong 3D systems must learn appearance, dynamics, and semantics. Perhaps the real question is not: 3D vs non-3D. But: How do we scale world states. Before the intelligence scale, the data engine needs to scale first.

🚨Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang just entered Korea through Gimpo Airport. He interviewed as below. “Robotics will be the next major industry here in Korea.”🇰🇷 “Korea is manufacturing, mechatronics, And it's very good at artificial intelligence.” “The convergence of all these technologies is a perfect fit for robotics.” “And you can also think of the robot industry, In other words, it has a very huge domestic industry that can support the development of robotics.“ ”So it's a good idea It is a great opportunity and a great future for South Korea to invest in AI.” “Great, and I look forward to meeting you in the next few days. Thank you.”