与「latte」相关的搜索结果

📌 VI. Trigger Matrix (V2.0 – Observation Status Log) Observation Item Current Value Threshold Status Consecutive Days/Trend Super-Capital Concentration Risk 9.3 8.0 ESCALATION ↑ 1 day (new) AI Governance Risk 8.8 8.0 ESCALATION ↑ 1 day (new) Resilience Ratio 0.63 0.70 ESCALATION ↑ 4 days US-Iran Deal Signing Status 接近 Formal Signing WATCH — Brent Crude Oil Price 3-mo low — THRESHOLD_CROSSED 1 day New Ebola Health Zone (DRC) Confirmed spread — THRESHOLD_CROSSED 3 days EU Accession Talks Launched — THRESHOLD_CROSSED 1 day Items Near Threshold (Elevated Observation): Observation Item Current Value Threshold Current Status • Formal signing of US-Iran deal 接近 Formal Signing ALERT • SpaceX market cap stability Above $2T Drop below $2T WATCH • OpenAI probe scope expands Multi-state Federal involvement ALERT • G7 Summit statements on AI & trade 即将 held Substantive regulatory共识 WATCH • Cross-border Ebola spread Risk rising First邻国 confirmed case ALERT • Clustered cases in fan zones No reports Confirmed cluster transmission WATCH --- 📅 VII. Key Observation List for the Next 72 Hours Grade A Observations (High Impact): Observation Item Potential Impact if Triggered 1. Formal signing of US-Iran MOU Geopolitical entropy pressure declines further, but execution risk仍需 assessed. 2. SpaceX market cap stability above $2T Test of sustainability for super-capital concentration narrative. 3. OpenAI probe expands to federal level Potential further upgrade to AI governance risk level. 4. G7 Summit statements on AI & trade First collective test of institutional response capacity. Grade B Observations (Medium Impact): Observation Item 1. Expansion of Ebola outbreak zone in DRC 2. Subsequent日程 for EU accession negotiations 3. Public health data during FIFA World Cup --- 📜 VIII. CRI Calculation Summary (V1.6) Variable Weight Risk Score Weighted Contribution V_capital 20% 9.3 1.86 V_tech 18% 8.8 1.58 V_inst 18% 8.1 1.46 V_geo 15% 7.5 1.13 V_human 10% 7.6 0.76 V_expansion 8% 7.9 0.63 V_market 6% 7.2 0.43 V_energy_price 5% 6.5 0.33 Total 100% CRI = 8.2 Calibration Notes: Added V_capital variable (weight 20%) to reflect super-capital concentration as a new structural risk dimension. V_tech上调 to 8.8 (AI governance race launch). V_geo下调 to 7.5 (US-Iran deal接近, declining war risk). --- 📌 IX. Structural Conclusion On June 13, 2026, the global civilizational system's Resilience Ratio remains below the 0.70警戒线 for the fourth consecutive day. What is most worth recording today is not war – but the first time in human civilization that private wealth approaches the GDP of a中等发达国家. When a single entrepreneur owns a satellite network, rocket system, AI platform, energy network, financial capital, and global data流入口, civilization is entering a new organizational form: Transitioning from nation-state-led civilization to platform-infrastructure-led civilization. If the core question of the 20th century was "How to constrain state power?", then the core question of the latter half of the 21st century may well become "How to govern super-platform power."

The West Point Glee Club performed “Onward Christian Soldiers” on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1954 I’m glad they weren’t asked to sing “Onward Christian Soldiers, Excluding Latter-day Saints” The Pentagon shouldn’t disparage the beliefs of Americans willing to die for their country

เช้านี้ฟรินมากกก ป้ากด Starbucks เมนูสุดเลิ้บ Pure Matcha Latte ใน Grab แล้วใช้โค้ดน้องเกล top กับโค้ดอื่นๆ ได้มาในราคา 40 บาท คือปึ้งง

$ETH market cap $256B. The stablecoins running on it = $322B up 10x in 5 years, headed to $2T by 2030. The tokenized real world assets settling on it are $65B, which are up 245x since 2020, headed to $10T by 2030. The infrastructure is worth less than what runs on it. Also the ETH/BTC ratio is at a 5 year low. Either the thesis is wrong or the price is. I am betting on the latter. Any strong opinions out there based on existing/projected data/facts? $ETH

Some of my perspective on where the @ethereumfndn is going. First of all, this is only my own view. The board is not just me, and I have no extra special powers on the board that the other board members do not. @aerugoettinea is the one executing much of this transition. My input has been largely on technical questions. The board is in the process of expanding, and my own power within the org will continue to decrease, which is honestly what I want. The 2025 era brought many important improvements to EF and its ability to execute. Many issues were resolved, and EF continues to benefit from its improved efficiency and greater focus on concrete goals to this day. And so with those problems resolved, early this year, the largest remaining hole that I perceived was something different nagging at me: I would regularly spot people saying things like "vitalik says these beautiful things about ethereum needing to be decentralized, and have privacy, and be a sanctuary technology, but why do the EF's actions not reflect that?" Now, you may have been hearing something different. You may not have been sensing a feeling of crisis at all, and maybe were hearing people saying that finally we were taking execution and BD seriously and the main task for us is to keep going that way and be even better and faster. Then probably there is genuine difference between you and me, in what kinds of criticism I take most seriously, and what kinds of critics through their criticism are most able to make me feel pain. As an analogy, let's briefly switch over to a different domain. One belief you can have about Google is that it is a success story, and has brought a lot of good to humanity in organizing the world's information. Another belief you can have about Google is that they had a beautiful idealistic beginning, but at some point the corruption of mainstream corporate attitudes seeped in, and they slowly bit by bit completely abandoned the "don't be evil" slogan. My belief on Google specifically is probably somewhere between the two. BUT, if you had taken me back in time to ~2008, and offered me a button to press to make Google one or two standard deviations more "dogmatic", eg. give Richard Stallman permanent veto power over some key policies, I would immediately press it. Why? Because a choice for one company is not a choice for the world, or even one country. Google existed and exists in the context of a technology industry generally drifting away from early idealistic don't-be-evil roots and toward greed for financial gain, totalizing visions of accelerated superintelligence, infiltration by sociopaths, and craven capitulation to (or worse, active participation in) government pressure for ideological control, surveillance and war. And so *one company* doing something different, positioning itself to be what George Bernard Shaw calls the Unreasonable Man, resisting the trend of the times, would have been better for freedom, balance of power and stability of society as a whole, than *all* large companies bending to dominant trends. This is a part of my version of pluralism. This line of thinking is not just mine, but I also is not too far off from what Aya and others had in mind with the Mandate. Now how does this all get to the role of the EF? EF is not a "center of Ethereum", rather EF is "one node, with a defined purpose, alongside other nodes". We've always said that the EF should be the latter, but many in the Ethereum ecosystem (and even within the EF) wanted us to be the former. Now, we are taking action to ensure that we will be the latter. This is particularly important because EF is a limited organization, with limited resources and limited organizational capacity. The EF has only ~0.16% of all ETH (less than many other individual ETH holders), whereas among other blockchains it's common for "the central foundation" to have 10-50%. Fiscally, the EF was originally designed to fulfill a limited work scope defined in the token sale docs and other pre-launch materials (building the chain software; getting through Frontier, Homestead, Metropolis, Serenity), which was fully completed in 2022; it was not designed to be an eternal steward. And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH). The EF focuses *specifically* on those activities critical to the success of ethereum as a censorship/capture-resistant, open, private and secure system, that would not happen otherwise. This means making hard choices, and in some cases even activities that we highly approve of and people that we highly respect becoming outside of the EF. People of great technical talent, public respect and even alignment with the mission and CROPS being outside of the EF is in fact necessary if we want important tasks to be able to attract outside capital. This also means the EF taking opinionated stands culturally. This is all intended in cooperation with all other parts of ethereum. We recognize that many other parts of the ethereum world highly respect CROPS and related values. But highly respecting is not the same as choosing to specialize and totally dedicate to a domain (Compare in a different domain: I think reducing animal cruelty is important, and I like vegan food, but am not full unconditional vegan myself) EF is still in a transition period, and we expect its new long-term form to stabilize over the next few months. What are the guiding principles of this new form? Again, I am only one person, but I can give my answer from a technical perspective (there are also critical non-technical aspects). At the core, *Ethereum must be impressive*. We are living in an age of highly intelligent AI and all kinds of other technological acceleration. "Status quo EVM, with a hard fork or two a year to optimize for short-term needs of users" is not interesting. To some, "impressive" means: 250ms latency and 1M TPS. I think Ethereum trying to go that route is a mistake. Being as fast and as scalable as possible, and only a small epsilon more decentralized than the others, is a route to mediocrity, and if we try it we will lose. I think Ethereum should scale. But I think Ethereum should strive the hardest to be deeply impressive in a different dimension: the CROPS dimension. This means things like: * Provably bug-free Ethereum. This is a goal that all cybersecurity researchers would have thought is absurd and impossible, up until roughly 6 months ago. Now, it's on the cusp of being possible, thanks to AI-assisted formal verification. So we should be frontrunners in doing this. * Available chain consensus. Ethereum is, and with lean consensus will cotninue to be, the ONLY chain that has both (i) traditional-BFT style properties that it's safe under asynchrony up to a high level of fault tolerance, and (ii) the bitcoin PoW-style property that under synchrony it's safe up to 49% attackers. As far as I can tell, literally no other chain has this or is planning for it; bitcoin goes for (ii) only and most other chains go for (i) only. Some will remember I fought hard for this, Unreasonably insisting that it is not OK for ethereum to rely on social consensus and hard forks to rescue ethereum from 34% of nodes going offline. It's OK for chains like hyperledger, bnb, solana, tempo, etc. It's not OK for bitcoin or ethereum or eg. zcash. * Intermediary minimization. The fact that smart contract wallets, protocols like railgun, etc have to send transactions through intermediaries to get included onchain is honestly embarrassing, and it's a constant point of fragility. Hence the work on FOCIL and EIP-8141 (and 7701 and years of work before) to make transaction sending intermediary-minimized with public mempool and strong inclusion properties, in a truly general-purpose way, that covers not just eg. secp256r1, but also privacy protocols and much more. Kohaku is pushing intermediary minimization at the user layer, pulling Ethereum away from the dystopian status quo world where our wallets don't even verify the chain, send our private data out to a dozen third-party servers, and toward a brighter CROPS future. Some of these goals are Unreasonable - maybe Ethereum would be "fine" getting only 50% of the way - what if we depend on intermediaries, but make it easy to switch? But going 50% of the way would not make Ethereum Deeply Impressive in the CROPS way. So we push for 100%. Fortunately all these goals are compatible with high TPS, this is a major focus of research (esp. on scaling the state). Well-designed L2s can also help, especially L2s optimized for specific applications (eg. high-volume trading, privacy...). These goals are even compatible with significantly lower slot times, thanks to Raul's work on erasure-coded P2P, and many other optimizations. The most high-value "product" of the ethereum blockchain, financially speaking, is ETH the asset. Ethereum secures $250 billion of ETH. The types of properties of Ethereum that I mentioned above are very good for ETH the asset. Nearly 90% of my net worth is in ETH, and most of the remainder is ~$40m of onchain fiat of which every dollar has already been allocated for some open-source biotech or software or hardware initiative. That said, there are aspects of supporting ETH the asset - *necessary* aspects even - that are outside the scope of the EF. This is where we need other heroes (some of whom hold more ETH than the EF does) to step in and help. EF has been recently thinking more about how it will relate to other such organizations, and give them needed initial support. EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, a more opinionated one - in some cases more opinionated in ways that might be difficult to comprehend - but a longer-lasting one, and one suited to making sure that ethereum brings something meaningful to the world. We are grateful to all those inside and outside the EF who are helping to make this happen.

The other thing I noticed with writing and readership is if you do the routine recurring boring work or exhausting deep dives (which most of time doesn't get a lot of hits, the odds increase of getting struck with killer idea that you bang out in an hour (which tends to crush w/ reads). But it's really hard to have the latter without the former.

Just hit a stand-up show! The crowd laughed so hard at my bit about confusing coffee orders, I swear half the room ordered lattes mid-set. （刚结束一场脱口秀演出！我那关于搞混咖啡订单的段子让全场笑到一半人演出中途都点了拿铁。）

I explained the Chinese real estate & debt crisis in much detail in 2024 on my Substack. Nothing has changed since. China is in what we call "the largest balance-sheet recession the world has ever seen". And it will take years to get out of it and assuming the CCP's investment-led growth model does not dig the next hole in the meantime - a likely. The FT published added some colour to it two days ago: "Housing is important to every economy. But to China, it’s extra important. According to the PBoC, 96% of urban households own a home, and 41% own at least two. The average household owns 1.5 properties. And as such, property constitutes around 70% of China’s private wealth. The comparable figure for the US is around 30%. So when Chinese property prices fall, the authors make a pretty compelling case that this has all sorts of particularly bad economic spillovers. And fall they have. The negative wealth effect is substantial, and “effects are amplified by elevated household debt, much of which consists of mortgage obligations”. This — and the weaker income expectations that the falls generate — goes some way to suppressing consumption. Moreover, declining land-sale revenues constrain local government budgets, “limiting their capacity to finance developmental projects and maintain existing public infrastructure”. And this is even before any credit impacts from rising non-performing loans and mortgages on bank balance sheets are considered. Tl;dr: bad bad bad. Of course, China isn’t the first soon-to-be-global-economic-hegemon-East-Asian-power staring down demographic oblivion to have piled its savings into a property boom. Back in 1991, the world was fretting over the rise and rise of Japan. And the Japanese were buying Japanese residential real estate at outlandish prices. Japan’s house prices peaked back in 1991 and spent the next 30 years on a downward trajectory. We’re only a few years into the Chinese property bust, and its ultimate trajectory is both unknown and unknowable. But Rogoff and Yang have pulled together some cool data they kindly shared with Alphaville, allowing us to make this chart below. So far, it looks like prices in Chinese cities are falling at around the same pace as they did over the first five-to-10 years of Japan’s bust. Japan’s property crash is associated with a lost decade (or two) of economic growth. In the 10 years leading up to 1991, Japanese real annual GDP growth averaged 4.4%. In the subsequent 10 years it averaged only 0.9% per annum. The same numbers for China, with 2021 marking its property zenith, are 7.0% per year and 4.6% per year (so far). If the IMF’s forecasts turn out right, this latter number will fall to around 4.0% per annum. While the levels are different, the before-and-after drop looks comparable. Was it housing wot dun it? Rogoff and Yang reckon that a 40% decline in house prices translates into a total consumption loss of 2-4% of GDP. Not nothing, but not a single answer explaining life, the universe and wiggles in the decadal pace of real economic growth. To get here, they construct a historical dataset comprising subnational data across 47 prefectures, and input and output data at granular industry levels. They then use this to examine the macroeconomic implications of Japan’s real estate bust. And the authors argue that: a housing bust can generate substantial adverse effects on the economy via real channels. . . . overbuilding during the boom can trigger a demand-driven recession with limited reallocation and low output. Unlike financial channels, which amplify shocks through leverage, bank balance sheets, credit constraints, or fire sales, real channels operate directly through investment, consumption, labour markets, or productivity. In Japan’s case, the housing market collapse depressed activity through three key real channels: investment, consumption, and sentiment. This is all pretty intuitive. But using city-level and household-level Chinese data plus some whizzy maths, they put meat on the bone for these three channels. They find that Chinese cities that overbuilt housing the most are less keen on new building, suppressing investment. Sounds legit. Chinese household consumption is estimated to be more responsive to house price changes than it was in either Japan or the US given its outsized role in private wealth. And it looks to the authors like people have scrambled to rebuild precautionary savings they thought they had amassed in property. Understandable. Then, on the sentiment side, Rogoff and Yang use an LLM to gauge market perceptions of the housing market. And by incorporating city-specific perceptions, they double the estimated effect of house price changes on consumption. Huh. While China is not Japan, 1991 was not 2021, and a *lot* of other things are/were going on, it’s interesting to see that the overall magnitude and pace of property price falls — as well as the aggregate drop in the pace of headline GDP growth — has (so far) been spookily similar. And as for the big question — are we there yet? "If China’s adjustment unfolds in a similar way as Japan’s, it would mean China has not gone half way through the transition. By contrast, if China’s path is eventually comparable to the United States, it appears to have already covered roughly two-thirds of the adjustment before reaching the bottom." So more to come.

@KeZhang2020 @ChooLucia 是的，这是假的。Starbucks 不会用标着“Vanilla Latte”的大型油罐车运输成品咖啡，这属于夸张的讽刺 meme/AI 视频。现实中没有 I-95（或西雅图）发生这种卡车翻车后人群抢咖啡的事件，纯属搞笑 hoax。😂