"quantum grifting" has hit the cryptocurrency space brutally.
Scammers can take an old defunct coin or create a new one, buy up/create supply, strap ML-DSA on to it, and pump their shitcoin claiming it's quantum safe, then they can unload.
Eventually low information retail will get wise to this, I honestly don't know who this even works on right now.
It seems like it would be highly demoralizing to US soldiers that they are prosecuted for betting on the outcomes of the battles they are risking their lives for but those insider trading commanding them aren't.
I just couldn't, in good conscience, keep bombing childrens schools under such demoralising conditions.
On the flip side: who if not me and my precision guided munitions, will protect America (and freedom) from the clear and present danger of 8 year old iranian girls.
"America will bomb you and 15 years later make a movie about how sad the soldiers are based on autobiographies of completely unrepentant sadists" remains true for another decade.
Imagine doing an easy tour in your air conditioned Kuwaiti logistics office and then getting blown to bits by a ballistic missile because no one bothered to tell you about the war that was being initiated which would cause such missiles in retaliation. Yeah, that's demoralizing too.
I would offer a small correction to your point: Instead of "ballistic missile", I would substitute "Shahed-type drones". It is much easier to detect (and shoot down) a ballistic missile than a Shahed-type drone.
I don't think this is true at all? A ballistic missile is way harder and more expensive to shutdown (they are flying at Mach 5-10 while you can outrun that type of drone with a mid tier car on the freeway)
Shahed is very primitive in general and not hard to shot down but because its extremely cheap it can be used to overwhelm any type of air defenses. Wasting $4 million to destroy a $50k drone doesn't scale at all.
> Imagine doing an easy tour in your air conditioned Kuwaiti logistics office and then getting blown to bits by a ballistic missile because no one bothered to tell you about the war that was being initiated which would cause such missiles in retaliation.
The purpose of my response wasn't about cost effectiveness; rather, it was about the lethality of a ballistic missile vs Shahed-type drone.
A ballistic missile is easily detected by a network of outer space satellites owned and operated by the US Space Force. Whether or not you can defend against it is a different question. There is sufficient time from the detected of ballistic missile launch to move to a hardened underground bunker. All US bases in the Middle East will have these. Soldiers will regularly train for incoming ballistic missile attacks and when/how to move to underground bunkers. As a result, it is very unlikely that soldiers in an "air conditioned Kuwaiti logistics office" would be killed by an incoming ballistic missile.
On the other hand, a Shahed-type drone (similar to a cruise missile) is much harder to detect because they fly very low and difficult to catch on rader until close to base. As a result, soldiers on base will have much less time to move to underground bunkers.
If you are in Kuwait you will find yourself under rockets whether you knew in advance or not
I think the worse aspect is if the news of an attack being leaked to the defender and you are being blown to bits as their ballistic missiles are not decimated in their preemptive strike.
They referred to soldiers that were killed by the start of the war. They thought the situation is normal, war was started without them knowing, got killed.
Soldiers can't catch a flight back home when war starts (or about to), and by the time the Iranians were able to attack back after the initial shock, all US soldiers knew there's a war going on
That's why I am having great difficulty following that argument
I mean, surely everyone in the middle east knew a war was on the horizon. Obviously not the exact plan or day, but it wasn't a secret that usa was gearing up for a war.
I imagine they were pissed. I dont think anyone likes being in the middle of a war. Nonetheless in the weeks leading up it was clear USA was moving massive amounts of naval assets into the region. It was on the news 24/7. I'm sure everyone in the military would have been able to read the tea leaves that something was going down soonish, even if they didn't know precisely what or when.
Sort of. Not saying that I think anyone should do this but just explaining for the sake of general knowledge.
I'm simplifying things quite a bit, but almost all military contracts are 8-year (typically split into a 4-year active and 4-year reserve period). If you leave on your own volition during this period, you typically have to repay the cost to the government to train you. And any contract that you're on where you received a signing bonus you have to pay back.
The actual mechanism for doing this is a different between officers and enlisted and they're some paperwork but functionally you can leave if you're really motivated to and for the most part people won't stop you (outside of a few conversations where people advise you against it).
The type of discharge you receive depends on the circumstances but generally there's a way to still get an honorable discharge (hardship, education, family, conscientious objector).
There's also the more practical quitting special forces vs leaving the military entirely. Tier 1 units only want people who want to be there and if you don't you can get transferred to some other job in the military in like a day if you really wanted to.
They get transferred to a different unit - one that is not part of "special forces". A big part of the selection process is to find the soldiers who just won't quit.
One rather famous example is of a BUD/S (usually called SEAL) selectee who drowned himself. When pulled out of the pool and resuscitated, he apologized and thought he failed out of the selection process. The instructor replied something like "heck no, you passed. We can always teach you how to swim. No one can teach you to never give up".
> It seems like it would be highly demoralizing to US soldiers that they are prosecuted for betting on the outcomes of the battles they are risking their lives for but those insider trading commanding them aren't.
Why? The enlisted military has never had any issue with similar double standards in the past. George 'AWOL' Bush handily swept the military vote, as did Donald 'Bone Spurs' Trump.
Likewise, veterans routinely and overwhelmingly vote for people who cut veteran support and benefits, over people who don't.
If they think those people are fit to lead them, who are we to tell them they aren't?
Veterans generally don’t need additional support or benefits. Disability is basically a second pension at this point. SCD for veterans under 45 has risen from 16% in 2008 to 39% in 2022 [0]. If you know any young veterans, then anecdotally you will see this is true. You can (and should) get partial disability for all kinds of aches and pains that in a normal career would go ignored.
Same but from the other side. The new phone (without SD, removable battery, or headphone jack) is already acquired and laying in my drawer, but I have yet to bite into the lemon and start making the switch. Too damn convenient compared to the abstract threat of software updates... I'm dreading the new situation so much
Are there any projects focused on getting 'creative' software to work well on Linux? Valve solved Linux gaming but it seems tools like DAWs and video/photo editing is still terrible on Linux.
It's deeply American how so many of these articles about Kalshi or Polymarket frame the issue as something that can be solved on the American end with the stroke of a pen, especially in a multipolar world where American sanctions increasingly fail.
These markets are global with global demand and many of the insiders are on the receiving end of American foreign policy. If an Iranian with a starlink sees a b-2 spirit fly over their house that information will find its way to somebody who will profit from that knowledge, it's just part of the new information economy.
> especially in a multipolar world where American sanctions increasingly fail
You're claiming the U.S. government is impotent against holding Polymarket to account?
> These markets are global
The trades in question are bets on Polymarket and Intercontinental Exchange Brent oil futures. These are well within the remit of American law enforcement.
>You're claiming the U.S. government is impotent against holding Polymarket to account?
Yes, if US regulators quash Polymarket their lunch will be eaten by a global competitor HQ'd in a country the US can't touch.
A lot of the insider weekend trading of oil is happening on hyperliquid, a DEX associated with developers in Singapore, what can the SEC or CFTC do to them?
> Why would the U.S. government want to sabotage prediction markets when the chief executive has a vested interest in keeping them legitimate?
"Solving" the problem of administration juniors compromising our military for profit doesn't require sabotaging anything. Just the exchanges turning over records.
By using these services, you're also exfiltrating your entire codebase to them, so you have to continuously use the best cyber capabilities providers offer in case a data breach allows somebody to obtain your codebase and an attacker uses a better vulnerability detector than what you were using.
There is a legal distinction between document retention, which is what OpenAI was ordered to do, versus re architecting to generate documents for logless providers.
OpenAI were already logging all the chats, it's just that if the end-user decided to delete their chat history - they would respect that at the time and also delete it server side (apparently). The court order mandated them keep the chat content even if the end-user wanted it deleted.
They were required to change the way their systems worked, to no longer respect a user's chat deletion request. That means a non-chat-logging company can of course be forced to change the way their system works, to instead log chats.
In the same way Apple can not only be forced to hand over back-doored access to UK users iCloud data (when Apple also hold a copy of the keys), they can also be forced to change the way their OS works to prevent the scenario where Apple don't hold the keys (preventing Advanced Data Protection from being enabled). The USA could force the same thing via the CLOUD Act.
"You have to make a change either way" is not the standard. Of course legislation can be passed or a settlement signed that mandates whatever, but there is well established civil procedure around document retention in the context of discovery for ongoing litigation that does not extend to demands to start generating business records that are not currently created.
The Lavabit case years ago was quite scandalous, things have only gotten worse. There should have been much harsher limits on what companies can be compelled to do.
Although a good lawyer can appeal a board order. What the courts will say is unknown, but there are real constitutional questions about ordering everything.
This sounded pretty good, a ~mullvad for LLM. Then:
> Strongwall.ai is led by Andrew Northwall, CEO and Bryce Nyeggen, CTO. Andrew has 20+ years in tech, former COO of Trump Media & Technology Group, architect behind the relaunch of Parler, and senior technologist for large-scale infrastructure and AI systems.
Nvidia restricts gamer cards in data centers through licensing, eventually they will probably release a cheaper consumer AI card to corner the local AI market that can't be used in data centers if they feel too much of a threat from Apple.
Imagine a future where Nvidia sells the exact same product at completely different prices, cheap for those using local models, and expensive for those deploying proprietary models in data centers.
[WSJ] sources expect.. first units in H1 2026, with GTC as the most likely unveiling stage.. NPU reportedly exceeds both Intel and AMD’s current neural processing units.. If the integrated GPU delivers RTX 5070-class performance in a thin laptop form factor, it would eliminate the need for a separate GPU die, fundamentally changing how gaming laptops are designed.
If they can get Valve/Steam for an OS that handles most games well that could in fact be huge if the pricepoint is a bit lower initially but with plenty of unified RAM (both for AI but also games).
That said, gaming laptops cooling issues are so often around the GPU so it'd also require a seasoned manufacturer to make it correctly.
Isn't that a streaming device+service? I'm more thinking in on lines that the DGX devices can run fairly moden games like Cyperpunk at good framerates, the Windows foothold has been games and enterprise, and an ARM device with a mainstream GPU together with the work Valve has done to make Steam devices.
There is Steamdeck and SteamMachine (That can double as a desktop and still X86 based), only real thing missing in that lineup is a laptop for factor machine and if NVidia can provide a bit cooler and fairly power efficient alternative (gaming laptops are still damn loud) it could very well be dang enticing for many.
> Nvidia restricts gamer cards in data centers through licensing
So does intel, so do a lot of companies.
but
The processor is only half of the equation, memory volume, type and bandwidth as also a big factor in cost. Sure consumer GPUs are cheaper, but they have less memory and (often) less bandwidth. The proc might be the same, or binned, but thats only part of the price.
The most important bit to me is that doing something like this would be entirely in-line with his personality.
Also, I think he truly believed there was a good chance he’d eventually be brought back. The most likely case in my mind is that he died with the private keys in his head, and that we’ll never get confirmation.
So I just searched the article for Finney to see why it claimed it wasn't him. It claims Satoshi was active after Finney had died?
What's that about? I used to be of the opinion that it was probably hal, but haven't paid too much attention. What's the counter evidence here? And why do we disregard that?
I am also not sure about Finney, but Hal saw his death coming so it is plausible he handed the reins to one more person he deeply trusted, and asked him to tie some knots but not to keep the show going.
Scammers can take an old defunct coin or create a new one, buy up/create supply, strap ML-DSA on to it, and pump their shitcoin claiming it's quantum safe, then they can unload.
Eventually low information retail will get wise to this, I honestly don't know who this even works on right now.
reply