与「listen」相关的搜索结果

traders are becoming famous outside the charts too. people now follow them for their trades, lifestyle and opinions. but are they really worth listening to, or is it all just social media noise? what do you think? w: @shivst3r

Did Rubio's intervention really help topple Jensen? Last night was my poker night. Of course we talked about Nvidia. About Jensen Huang. And honestly? Nobody at that table likes Rubio. And nobody, nobody likes Trump. But look at the clock. Thursday. Jensen resigns. That same afternoon, the spy story starts falling apart. The AG: "no conclusions" on whether Alice Huang is a spy. Then CNN, 5:32 PM: the intel community says the evidence "does not prove" she was a spy. Officials close to the DNI call the spy label "over-torqued." Even the CIA is "not yet convinced." And yet. 5:43 PM. 11 minutes later. @WSJ runs a column by @Peggynoonannyc. Who is she? Reagan's special assistant and speechwriter. George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes"? She wrote that line. Pulitzer Prize winner. A WSJ columnist for 26 years. About as GOP establishment as it gets. Her headline: "Jensen Huang Is a White House Scandal." Her question: "What did Trump know and when?" Her verdict: "Potentially Teapot Dome-size, Watergate-size." Watergate. Over a spy case the DOJ, the DNI, and the CIA can't even confirm. The arrogance is stunning. It doesn't matter if the spy story holds up. The targets are moving right on schedule. Step one: take down Jensen. Step two: the White House. Now look at the next day. Friday, 4:45 PM: @washingtonpost publishes "Behind Jensen Huang's spy scandal, a shadow war for Trump's ear on China." The subhead already has Rubio's name on it: "Rubio's intervention helped topple" Jensen. 5:00 PM: @SecRubio takes the stage at the Federalist Society. If you've never heard of the Federalist Society: it's the most powerful conservative legal network in America. It built the pipeline that put Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on the Supreme Court. It shapes how a whole generation of judges reads the Constitution. Speak there, and you're auditioning for the conservative legal elite. This was Rubio's first big speech since the GOP's midterm wipeout. For weeks, everyone has been asking one question: is he running in 2028? And what did America's top diplomat say? "America has always and, I believe, will always be a nation of irrepressible ambition." "We, Americans, we are not passive, an inward-looking people." "The ultimate question of our time is whether Americans have a moral right to exist as a distinct nation and a distinct people." That's not a Secretary of State speech. That's a campaign speech. Listen closely and you'll hear it. A carefully prepared script, and Rubio still stumbled over his words. He was nervous. This audition meant too much to him. And right on cue—15 minutes before he walks into that room, the Post crowns him the man who took down America's most powerful tech CEO. Perfect timing. You're telling me the Post reporters who cover him every day knew nothing about his schedule? Nothing about what that speech meant? I'm not defending Rubio. I'm not defending Trump. I already told you how my poker table feels about them.The coincidences here are just too perfect. One more thing. A retired lawyer at our table told me something I had completely missed. Who is investigating Jensen? Nvidia's independent directors hired Joon Hyun Kim. I don't know who on Nvidia's board picked him. But another Asian American? Just like Ted Lieu. Just like Grace Meng. The classic racism shield. Sound familiar? I just posted about this exact playbook. And his firm? Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Wachtell. @OpenAI's longtime law firm. The firm on OpenAI's $110 billion funding round. Back to Thursday, the day Jensen resigned. That afternoon, Politico reports OpenAI has quietly told Congress it now backs the chip-control bills. The firm investigating Jensen works for the company that switched sides the day he fell. The Republican establishment. The Democratic establishment. The Ivy League elites. The power. The headlines. The targets. Same direction. Same 48 hours. All just coincidence? Anyone who's played poker knows: bluff hand after hand, and sooner or later somebody at the table calls. Not a dime for $ANT.

NAYEON SINGLE “NA-sty” ONCE, NAYEON is hosting a listening party on Spotify! RSVP at the links below to join the party, live with NAYEON. 🗓️November 20th at 5:30 PM KST / 03:30 AM ET / 12:30 AM PST RSVP: *available only for Premium users in select regions Have a question for NAYEON? Submit it below! 🔗 🖥️[NA-sty] Pre-save🖥️ ➮ Release 2026.11.20 FRI 2PM KST/0AM ET #TWICE# #트와이스# #NAYEON# #나연# #NA_sty# #BABY_ANGEL# #SpotifyListeningParty# @SpotifyKR @SpotifyKpop

MY PAYCHECK WAS SUPPOSED TO BE $4,000. INSTEAD, $50,000 HIT MY BANK ACCOUNT. I reported it to HR the next morning. Twenty minutes later, the CEO walked into the office, locked the door and said something that made my blood run cold. "I was beginning to think nobody here was honest." I've worked for this company for six years. My regular paycheck is $4,000. So when I checked my banking app on payday and saw a $50,000 direct deposit, I knew something was wrong. I didn't spend it. I didn't transfer it. I didn't even tell my coworkers. The next morning, I walked straight into HR. ME: "I think there's been a payroll mistake." HR: "What kind of mistake?" ME: "My paycheck was $50,000." She stopped typing. HR: "How much?" ME: "$50,000. My usual paycheck is $4,000." She stared at me for several seconds. HR: "Have you moved any of it?" ME: "No." HR: "Not even a small amount?" ME: "It's not my money. Why would I touch it?" She slowly closed her laptop. Then she asked a question I wasn't expecting. HR: "Did you receive a notification about the payment?" ME: "Of course. That's how I noticed it." She picked up her phone and made a call. I couldn't hear the person on the other end, but I heard her say: "He's here. And he hasn't touched it." She ended the call. ME: "What's going on?" HR: "How much do you know about the company's payroll system?" ME: "Nothing beyond checking my paycheck." She stood up, walked to the office door and closed it. HR: "Listen. You're not the first person to receive that amount." My stomach tightened. ME: "What do you mean?" She turned her computer towards me. There were eleven employees on a payroll report. Every single one had received a $50,000 payment. ME: "Eleven people?" HR: "Yes. You're the only one who hasn't moved the money." ME: "What happened to the others?" Before she could answer, someone knocked. Two firm knocks. Her face changed. Then a man's voice came from outside. "Open the door. We need to talk about those eleven payments." It was the CEO. 🧵

Judge: Ma’am, you need to leave this courtroom and return properly dressed. Woman: Properly dressed for what exactly? Walking up to a podium for two minutes? Judge: Properly dressed to appear before a court of law. This is not a gym, and it is not your living room. Woman: I’m here to handle my case, Your Honor, not walk a runway. I didn’t think yoga clothes were going to become the issue. Judge: The issue is respect. Respect for this court, for these proceedings, and for the people in this room. Woman: I do respect the court. I just don’t respect pretending workout clothes are somehow offensive. Judge: I’m not going to stand here and argue with you about basic courtroom decorum. Woman: I’m not arguing either, sir, but this is ridiculous. I’m fully covered, I’m on time, and I’m here for my hearing. Judge: And yet instead of listening, you’re challenging the court at every turn. Woman: Because nobody told me there was some invisible fashion rule attached to showing up. Judge: Common sense is not an invisible rule, ma’am. Woman: So now this is about common sense? Judge: One more word and I will hold you in contempt. Woman: … Judge: That’s what I thought. You may step out, change into something appropriate, and come back when you’re prepared to conduct yourself properly. Woman: So I’m being sent home over clothes? Judge: No, ma’am. You’re being sent out over your attitude and your clothes. Woman: …Understood. Judge: Good. Bailiff, escort her out. We’ll recall the case when she’s ready to respect the courtroom.

🚨New Music: Shatta Wale - ‘BIG ONE’ Is Out Now!🔥🔥🔥 Another track within 24 hours😬🔥 Nawtyboi beat🎧 Listen here: OUT ON ALL PLATFORMS🔥 #BIGONE# #ShattaMusic#

In 2014, Elon Musk stood in front of an audience at MIT and told the whole world exactly where AI was going. Everyone missed it. Because he used one word, and that's the only thing the internet remembered: "demon." The headlines called him scared of killer robots. Tech blogs called it hyperbole. People moved on. I went back and watched that moment. It's barely 2 minutes long. You'll never hear the word "AI" the same way again. Here's what I took away. 1. He called it before almost anyone. Someone in the audience asks about AI. His face goes serious. "If I were to guess like what our biggest existential threat is, it's probably that. So we need to be very careful with the artificial intelligence." This was 2014. No ChatGPT. Most people had never heard the word "chatbot." 2. He asked for rules 12 years ago. "I'm increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don't do something very foolish." National AND international. In 2014. Governments are still arguing about it today. 3. The demon line wasn't a joke. "With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon." And then the part almost nobody quotes: "In all those stories where there's the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it's like, yeah, he's sure he can control the demon. Doesn't work out." Read that again. His warning wasn't about the demon. It was about the guy who thinks he can control it. 4. Now here's what got me. In 2014 he said: summoning the demon. In 2018 he told Joe Rogan: "Nobody listened." In 2023 he signed a letter asking AI labs to pause. In 2026 he told The Economist he can't see any way to stop it anymore. His new philosophy? "Let's enjoy the ride." And: "If you can't beat them, join them." Today he's building one of the most powerful AIs on Earth. 12 years later, the man who warned us about the guy with the pentagram is holding one. My takeaway: He wasn't wrong in 2014. He just realized nobody was going to stop it. So he decided to build it himself. Whether that's genius or the exact ending of his own story, I honestly don't know. So now I'm asking you: Was Musk right in 2014? Or did he become the guy in his own warning? Tell me below. I genuinely want to know where people land on this.

When the telephone was first invented, people didn’t really know what to use it for. Some guesses: audio for telegraphs (finally!), or a primitive radio for listening to live music. Then its users started finding their own answers. @JamesGleick, bestselling author of Chaos and The Information, joins @smc90 and @rhackett to talk about The Telephone: A New History — and how users help decide what a new technology becomes. In this episode: 00:00 – Introducing James Gleick 02:07 – The messy invention of an inevitable technology 08:15 – How network effects changed the telephone 14:29 – How farmers built a decentralized phone network from barbed wire 17:20 – What Mark Twain missed while eavesdropping on his wife’s calls 20:12 – To play monopoly or not? 31:22 – Open vs. closed systems 37:17 – What made Bell Labs (and Xerox PARC) more than one-hit wonders? 41:20 – Scientists, tinkerers, and the conditions for invention 47:22 – Debating whether AI is a fourth industrial revolution 52:11 – How technology changes the way we think 59:55 – From “ahoy” to “hello, world”