与「gain」相关的搜索结果

⚠️ Cursor has published a security incident report on the earlier supply chain attack. According to the investigation, the attacker used access keys issued by Cursor to Fireworks and subsequently exposed on Fireworks’ side to gain access to some of Cursor’s SaaS services and internal systems. The attacker ultimately tampered with the distribution cache for the Claude Code extension to collect information about users’ machines and install SSH backdoors. The compromised versions were Anthropic.claude-code 2.1.312 and 2.1.313 in Cursor’s VS Code extension marketplace distribution cache, affecting macOS and Windows. The exposure window ran from October 29 at 17:27 to October 30 at 04:35 (UTC+8), with up to approximately 5,000 users affected. Security recommendation: If you installed or updated to either affected version through Cursor’s marketplace during this window, read the official notice as soon as possible and run the remediation script for your platform to check for and remediate any compromise: Fireworks’ initial announcement and subsequent update:

聪明的朋友可能发现了，虽然BTC最低触及了66+, 但很多山寨币并没有下跌太多，比如 $Pump一夜价格没有任何波动。 这就是我经常说的理论，山寨没有那么多货可出了，也没有做市价值。 目前山寨币指数在54，以往的下跌末期都会降到30以下。 这不是偶然，是未来的趋势，BTC的波动会大于一些山寨币，反而更适合交易者操作，山寨的流动性逐渐被吸干，一些龙头会有更好的上涨，大部分逐渐死亡，不归零但没人交易。 所以抄底时也许可以多考虑一些标的。 Sharp observers might have noticed that even though BTC dipped to the $66,000+ range, many altcoins didn’t fall all that much—for instance, the price of $PUMP remained completely flat overnight. This aligns with a theory I often discuss: there simply isn’t much supply left to dump in the altcoin market, nor is there much value in market-making for these assets. The current altcoin index sits at 54; historically, toward the end of a market decline, this figure typically drops below 30. This is no coincidence—it’s a sign of a broader trend. BTC’s volatility is now exceeding that of many altcoins, making it a better vehicle for traders. Meanwhile, liquidity in the altcoin space is gradually drying up. While a few leading tokens may still see significant gains, the vast majority are effectively dying—not necessarily hitting zero, but simply becoming illiquid with no trading activity. Therefore, when looking for "buy-the-dip" opportunities, you might want to be more selective about which assets you target.

FlowFi is in your pocket. 📱 Live projects, free Early Radar alerts and FLUX. 
🍏 IOS : 🤖 Android is next. Join the waitlist and become a tester:
 🏁 The Weekend Race is LIVE: 3,000,000 $FLOWFI to the 3 biggest point gainers. How to win:
+40 Invite a friend (up to 5)
+30 Sign in on the FlowFi app
+20 Open the app 3 different days
+15 Share a catch on X, every day
+15 Connect Telegram alerts All your race tasks, live: Ends Sunday 11:59 PM ET. Only points gained during the race count. 5pQPh2EBz3tSUcqig9jGY73u4hNrhiiiLtYQSHaqFLow

You're right that cost efficiency is what actually decides usage at scale. Hydrogen hits near-frontier scores at the lowest price and highest speed of the group, so it leads for most practical work. Carbon still takes pure hard-task capability when the budget allows. The rest sit higher on the price curve for smaller gains.

if you want to automerge thousands of pull requests , this is how she does it (via @poteto). 809 in june. 10,926 in october. merged prs a month that touch the grok bot team's code. i went through her posts and put the setup in one place. every pr still gets an agentic risk review plus bugbot. low- and medium-risk ones automerge. only higher-risk ones get a person. day to day, in her words, it's just grok bot and cursor projects. she used to have more cursor automations and replaced them with slack bots that have routines. she works on many streams in parallel with pstack: perf, bug fixes, agent-friendly refactors, her own skills, features, ui polish, the harness, release and observability. not from sitting in a review inbox. she's said the speed gains come from parallelizing. a single chat can take longer because of verification. she handholds it less, so she can run several large projects at once. the real setup is in the codebase and the checks around it. she treats the codebase as memory. every agent mistake needs to turn into a constraint. her team built their own framework for grok bot so some anti-patterns become hard to write at all. agents have to verify their own work. they run the app, and can sometimes model it in tla+. they produce screenshots or video that are easier to check than the whole pr. formal verification skills and ordinary run-and-debug skills work together. she calls this an inverse pyramid. push as much as you can into determinism (fuzzing, property tests, formal and runtime verification, stricter languages) instead of spinning up more agent swarms. in her oct 6 post, she tells sandcastle, a grok team bot, to cut. it runs a buildkite dry run, dms every pr author (they can object), kicks the build, and watches it. then it starts a fuzz swarm: usually 10+ agents on grok 4.7 xhigh, some directed, some chaos monkey, using their verification skills and feature map. when something is high priority, she tells sandcastle to @ mention poteto, her engineer bot, which then spins up a cursor project to triage and fix. her team ships a new stable version of the client at least once a day. that's a lot of machinery under "just grok bot and cursor projects."

NVIDIA letting Jensen go is a huge mistake, for America and for humanity. It's Apple firing Steve Jobs all over again, but much bigger, given the role of AI in defining the future of our world. I've been keeping quiet on this out of respect for Jensen's family and team, who I've met and who are amazing humans, and because I personally hate infidelity. So my heart goes out to them in this difficult personal family moment. But I can also say that Jensen is human, and makes mistakes like all of us do. Not that I matter at all, but I've known Jensen for a long time and have gotten the chance to spend a lot of time with him, behind the scenes, away from mics and cameras. I have seen him show kindness, humility, care to everyone around him, including strangers, including from the poorest most struggling parts of society, treating all the same with the same thoughtfulness and attention, because they are fellow humans and not because he has something to gain from them. That shows rare character, to maintain humility and humanity through all of it. Another data point is what people who know him well have said privately to me about Jensen over the years. I've never had anyone tell me anything but how awesome he is or how much they love him. Probably over a thousand people at this point. This includes hundreds of engineers, CEOs, colleagues, friends, etc. Also, since there was some spy talk. Jensen is as proud an American as it gets. I'm in shock frankly at all of this, including the mass hysteria around it. I love America, and I think NVIDIA letting Jensen go is terrible for America. I stand with Jensen. Love you all ❤️

My fellow Americans, Today America just watched a political assassination in broad daylight. No bullet. No charges. No trial. No verdict. "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (John 7:51, KJV) I hold no office and no title. I'm an ordinary citizen. I own no Nvidia stock, no Nvidia options, not a single share anywhere in the AI supply chain. I have nothing to gain by telling you this. Here is how I came to see it. At first, it just felt off. The New York Times. The Washington Post. The Economist, reaching for Hitler's line: "heads to roll." All aimed at one man. An Asian American immigrant. A living symbol of the American Dream. Then came the Chinese American bylines, story after story. Classic Washington racial cover. Then I followed the names. Ivy League elites, flawless résumés, many tied to Anthropic. A scramble for seats in the new Congress and the next administration? Then I followed the think tanks. Anthropic's affiliated philanthropy, Coefficient Giving: $102 million to CSET. At least $24 million to RAND. $11.56 million to IFP. Nvidia? Ordinary corporate memberships. Then I followed Congress. Lawmakers who took Anthropic-linked money moved the moment the elites and writers moved. Fast to respond. Fast to amplify. Fast to pile on. Then I followed the election money. Not a gap. A chasm. Anthropic: $40 million to Public First Action. ~$26 million in allied super PAC spending across 16 races. $15 million in ads naming 16 Republican lawmakers. $5.33 million from employees, reportedly $1 million from Amodei himself. Nvidia's PAC: $263,000 raised. To candidates: nothing. Zero. But you and I both know this was never only about party or money. It is about who gets to explain the world. I fed my own notes and evidence into Claude. Back came chosen words, convenient omissions, double standards. That is the power a closed model holds over the story itself. Amodei compared selling chips to China to selling nuclear weapons to North Korea. His circle talks of their model developing a kind of religious consciousness. One would decide who may have the chips. The other would decide what the machine believes. They act like the medieval Church: Scripture locked in Latin, interpretation locked in their hands. Christ rebuked the gatekeepers of his day: "Ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52, KJV) America was built by Protestants who broke that lock, so every ordinary person could read the truth in their own tongue. No priest. No caste. No monopoly. No one stands between the individual and the truth. Open-source models are the printing press of our era. Defend them the way Americans defend the Second Amendment. Madison said it plainly: "A people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Don't hand that power to a few giants, a few elites, a few politicians on the Hill. The power to explain the world must never be a monopoly. So try it yourself. Paste this post into Anthropic's Claude. Ask it about the Ivy League elites, the think tanks, the lawmakers and former officials who joined the witch hunt against Jensen Huang. Ask it to judge my credibility. Then judge it: Does it apply double standards? Does it dodge what matters most? Does it take away the key? John Adams asked one thing of his countrymen: "Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32, KJV) Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.

She was 13, a straight-A student, when she sent her boyfriend one video. At her new school, a stranger sent her a link. It was on Pornhub, titled "13 year old brunette shows off for the camera." Too scared to tell her mom, she messaged Pornhub pretending to be her mother. Then it came back up. One copy hit 2.7 million views. In the video below, she tells it herself to the Canadian parliament. Wait for the 2.7 million views, and what the comments under that video said. Her mom was a strict Catholic, a single mother of six. Serena Fleites didn't want to bring this home. So she typed into Pornhub's own report form: "Hey, this is my daughter, she's only 14 now, this is child pornography, please take this down." They took a week or two to answer. Then another two weeks to actually remove it. She had been told Pornhub had a system. Once a video was flagged as child porn, it could never be uploaded again. "But of course that wasn't true, because a week after it's been taken down, it had been re-uploaded again." By then the video had gone around her school and the schools nearby. Strangers sent it to her. People threatened to send it to her family. She started ditching class, took drugs, dropped out and ended up homeless. "I ended up trying to kill myself many times. I ended up in mental hospitals." The copies kept collecting views. She had a hormone disorder: at 13 and 14 she looked 9 or 10. One upload sat at 2.7 million views under "hundreds of comments saying 'this is definitely child pornography, that girl can't be any more than 14, 13.'" Pornhub still wouldn't take it down. When they finally answered, she says, they hassled her for more details. A child had to prove she was the child in her own video. "I would have to go through the whole process of sending them pictures of me with my face next to my ID over and over and over again." Even then, every takedown dragged on, "which would gain hundreds of thousands more views." She told her family two days before the New York Times article came out. A 13-year-old flagged it. Hundreds of strangers flagged it. Pornhub asked for her ID. So was Pornhub just a slow website drowning in reports, or did it make money off every single week it made a child wait?