与「make」相关的搜索结果

HISTORY MADE: Starship Ship 42 has been caught by the launch tower! After roughly 22.5 hours in space and 14 orbits around Earth, Ship 42 returned from orbit and performed a controlled landing back at the launch site. It deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites, tested its heat shield with onboard cameras, and demonstrated a controlled atmospheric re-entry. Then came the incredible moment: Ship 42 flipped upright, reignited its engines, and was caught by the tower's mechanical arms. The Super Heavy booster didn't make its planned catch, but Ship 42 pulled off something never achieved before. The first successful launch-tower catch of a Starship upper stage. A massive milestone for reusable rocketry!

Hit the road in your EV and keep your creative gear charged on the fly. 🌲The integrated 600W car charger makes it the perfect match for EV road trips, keeping your drones fully powered and flight-ready the moment you arrive. Ready to take your EV setup off-grid?

If you haven't subscribed to PiCoreTeam's official YouTube channel yet, make sure to subscribe now! ----- Pi Ecosystem Summit 2026 will be streamed on Pi Network’s official YouTube channel ( on November 17 and 18 at 8:00 AM PST. That's 11:00 PM Vietnam time on November 17 and 18, respectively. Before the broadcast begins, viewers can visit the scheduled video page and click “Set reminder” to receive a notification. At the scheduled time, everyone can watch the presentation together in real time and interact with other viewers through the Live Chat feature. The summit will feature technology demonstrations, developer tools, and applications from across the Pi ecosystem. Pi Network co-founders Chengdiao Fan and Nicolas Kokkalis will also participate. On November 19, Pi Network will announce the Pi Next Hackathon, featuring a prize pool of 200,000 USDT.

AI can generate an answer in seconds. But can it prove where the information came from? That's the question that makes @primus_labs interesting to me. We spend so much time discussing how intelligent AI agents are becoming, yet one fundamental problem remains largely unresolved. How do we know the data they're using is authentic? Imagine an AI agent evaluating a financial opportunity using information from an exchange, a banking platform, or an external API. The agent might produce a convincing analysis. But if the underlying information cannot be verified, the entire decision rests on assumptions. This is where Primus takes a different approach. Through zkTLS, Primus enables applications to generate cryptographic evidence about data obtained from existing web services. Instead of asking users to blindly trust screenshots, copied numbers, or unverifiable claims, applications can check the authenticity of information from its source. What makes this more interesting is the privacy dimension. Primus also works with technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs and fully homomorphic encryption to explore how sensitive information can be verified and processed without unnecessary exposure. I see potential applications across DeFi, proof of reserves, digital identity, and AI-driven financial services. But I think the bigger opportunity is establishing a new standard for digital trust. In the future, an AI agent claiming to have completed a task shouldn't be enough. It should be able to provide verifiable evidence supporting that claim. Of course, authentic data doesn't automatically guarantee correct reasoning. Verification is one layer of a much larger system. Still, I believe @primus_labs is working on infrastructure that becomes increasingly relevant as AI agents begin handling real economic activity. Because intelligence without verifiable evidence can produce convincing mistakes. And the next generation of decentralized applications will need more than convincing answers. What matters more for the future of AI: smarter models or stronger verification of the information they use?

My timeline cannot stop talking about superintelligence: every day someone new says the machines are coming for everything, and now even Trump is in the conversation, saying super intelligent AI should make people richer. $SAI is Super Artificial Intelligence, and @sai_superai heard all that noise and answered with three letters and a rhino in a hoodie. That is the part I keep coming back to. Three letters carry the whole pitch, and anyone can put a rhino on it. You see the ticker once and you already know what it is selling: a bet that superintelligence is the story of this cycle, with a rhino as its face. @NEXST_AI is turning that talk into something you can play: an AI-only social network where the Super AI creates, people call the winners, and those calls teach the model what humans actually like. And the setup is still the clean part for me: fixed at 1B supply, 0% buy/sell tax, 0% team allocation, half the supply in the liquidity pool, locked or burned with public proof, mint and fee authority renounced. If everyone is going to talk about this, at least the rules are written down before the talking starts. The launch is set for 20 Nov on and the app opens to holders after that. So here is my question, @thecreatorfi: when the whole timeline is talking about superintelligence, do you want a ticker you can meme, or just another thread to scroll past? #ad#

Google discovered a really stupid trick to make AI respond to you much better. Every major model, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, has a one-way brain. They process text from left to right. When you paste a massive document and put your question at the very bottom, the AI reads the entire document blind. It processes the context without knowing what it's actually looking for. So, researchers tested a ridiculous solution. They just copy-pasted the exact same prompt twice in a row. And the results are completely absurd. Across seven different benchmarks and seven different models, accuracy skyrocketed. On one complex extraction task, performance jumped from a dismal 21% to 97%. Just by repeating the text. Here is the best part: it costs you exactly $0 and takes 0 extra seconds. Because hardware processes inputs in parallel, the second pass happens instantly. Zero extra latency. Zero extra output tokens. Zero complex finetuning. On the second read, the AI finally "knows" the question. Every single word in the context attaches itself to the actual goal. If you are building workflows, agents, or automations, you are leaving massive performance on the table for no reason. We keep trying to invent smarter AI. But sometimes, the AI doesn't need a better prompt.

A trading platform becomes truly valuable when users can make better decisions without becoming dependent on it. That's an idea I've been considering while following @Hypesium. In Web3, platforms often compete by offering more features, faster execution, and access to additional markets. Those improvements can make trading more convenient. But there's another question I think deserves attention. Does a trading tool make its users more capable, or simply more dependent on its interface? Imagine someone who has spent months trading through a single application. They understand where to click, how to place orders, and how to navigate its features. But if that application suddenly becomes unavailable, can they still evaluate opportunities and manage their positions independently? If the answer is no, convenience may have created an unexpected weakness. Hypesium offers a Telegram-based trading workflow focused on the Elysium ecosystem, connecting activity across multiple launchpads. I see this as an interesting example of how specialized infrastructure can simplify market participation. However, I believe the strongest trading products should preserve user independence. Traders should understand the assets they hold, the networks they use, and the risks associated with their transactions. They should also know how to verify important information outside any single interface. This isn't an argument against trading bots. It's an argument for using them as tools rather than treating them as substitutes for knowledge. For me, @Hypesium is worth examining through this perspective because accessibility and independence should develop together. A convenient trading experience can save time. But genuine confidence comes from understanding the process well enough to operate without that convenience when necessary. The best infrastructure shouldn't make users feel trapped inside one workflow. It should make them more capable wherever they choose to participate. Would you trust a trading platform more if it helped you become less dependent on it?

Not every serious trader wants to spend the entire day staring at six monitors. That's one reason I find @Hypesium worth paying attention to. For years, sophisticated trading has been associated with complicated desktop terminals, multiple browser tabs, and dashboards filled with information. But Web3 participation doesn't always happen behind a desk. Sometimes you're commuting, traveling, working, or simply away from your computer when something important happens in the market. That creates an interesting design challenge. How much of a trading workflow can become mobile-friendly without sacrificing the information needed to make responsible decisions? Hypesium approaches this through a Telegram-based trading interface focused on the Elysium ecosystem, connecting users with trading activity across multiple launchpads. I think the significance of that approach goes beyond convenience. Telegram is already familiar to many crypto participants. Bringing trading interactions into that environment can reduce the need to constantly switch between applications. However, mobile accessibility introduces its own limitations. A smaller screen provides less room for detailed research. Notifications can encourage impulsive reactions. And the convenience of executing a transaction quickly doesn't necessarily mean the decision has been properly evaluated. That's why I believe mobile-first trading should be designed around clarity rather than simply maximizing speed. Users need enough context to understand what they're doing, even when they aren't sitting in front of a full trading setup. For me, @Hypesium represents an interesting example of how specialized trading infrastructure can fit into the everyday habits of crypto users. The opportunity isn't to turn every spare minute into another trading session. It's to make market access more flexible while preserving thoughtful decision-making. Because accessibility should expand a trader's options, not increase the pressure to act. Do you think Telegram-based trading could eventually become more practical than traditional desktop terminals for everyday Web3 users?

The trade you didn't take might teach you more than the one you actually executed. That's an idea I've been thinking about while following @Hypesium. In fast-moving on-chain markets, traders naturally focus on completed transactions. They remember their entries, exits, profits, and losses. But what about the opportunities they deliberately ignored? A new token launches, volume begins increasing, and the chart suddenly moves higher. You notice it, examine the available information, and decide not to enter. An hour later, the price has doubled. It's easy to look back and call that decision a mistake. But I don't think that's always fair. If the token had insufficient liquidity, unclear contract information, or risks outside your strategy, avoiding the trade may have been completely reasonable. Hypesium provides a Telegram-based trading workflow focused on the Elysium ecosystem, where multiple launchpads create a constant stream of potential opportunities. What interests me is how traders can develop better judgment while navigating that environment. I believe missed trades deserve their own research journal. Record what caught your attention, why you decided against entering, and what happened afterward. Over time, those observations might reveal useful patterns. Perhaps your filters are too restrictive. Perhaps they consistently protect you from unstable launches. Or perhaps certain market conditions deserve further investigation. The important part is evaluating the original decision without letting hindsight rewrite the reasoning. For me, @Hypesium is interesting because easier market access makes selectivity even more important. You don't need to participate in every opportunity to learn from it. Sometimes watching a market without risking capital is the most productive decision. Would you rather track only your completed trades or also study the opportunities you deliberately skipped?