It is fair to acknowledge that with new levels of technology something that we valued gets lost. Consider writing, before writing became widespread, people's memories had to be much more elaborate (remembering who owed who for example), oral storytelling culture was stronger and perhaps people with the best memories and oratory skills were the most valued in society. With writing that got lost. There are countless examples big and small where new bit of tech completely demolished something that was genuinely deeply valued. But you know what, people move on and find other valuable things to do and value. The reason why the 25 Field Medalists who signed the letter could do their work at all is because writing and books existed, probably because computers freed up their brains, and civilisational wealth paid their salaries. If solving maths problems gets automated, we'll definitely lose something. It shouldn't be trivialised and it will hurt. But I don't want to live in the world where we choose to block off the future in the service of protecting the feelings of those who lose out. If Maths is actually important (absurt to think that it isn't), then automating it surely must lead to unimaginable technological developments. How can we compare this future with the current state of solving 1/7 millennium problems every 30 years (at best). It sucks, we should acknowledge that, and go full speed ahead.

The Mile Long Moving Sidewalk of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair In 1893, visitors arriving at the World’s Columbian Exposition by steamer stepped off onto a long pier stretching into Lake Michigan. Instead of walking the half-mile to the White City, they paid a nickel and boarded the Great Wharf Moving Sidewalk — the first public moving walkway ever built. Period engineering accounts said the platforms could seat about 4,300 people and, when riders also stood, carry roughly 6,000 at once. Hourly throughput estimates ranged from about 32,000 to 40,000 people. Guinness World Records lists it as both the first and the longest moving walkway of its era. How it worked It was not a conveyor belt in the modern airport sense. Architect Joseph Lyman Silsbee and engineer Max E. Schmidt built a continuous loop of overlapping wooden platforms, each about twelve feet long, riding on ordinary railway trucks and wheels. Passengers stepped from a stationary platform onto a slow-moving section (about 2–3 mph), then onto a faster inner section (about 4–6 mph) lined with benches. You could sit the whole way, stand, or walk against the motion. The loop ran out the pier and back under a long shed that kept riders out of rain and sun. The ride was popular because it was cheap, continuous, and gave a breeze off the lake. By the close of the Exposition it had carried nearly a million people. The sidewalk sat beside the Peristyle, Casino, and Music Hall — the gleaming classical colonnade that framed the Court of Honor. After the Exposition closed, fire in January 1894 destroyed the Peristyle and damaged part of the pier. The sidewalk itself was later dismantled. The one major exception still standing is the Palace of Fine Arts, rebuilt in limestone and now the Museum of Science and Industry. The sidewalk was real engineering, It was also a prototype that never realized to city streets, which is why it still feels like a glimpse of a future that did not arrive. A larger, elevated version appeared at the 1900 Paris Exposition (the trottoir roulant). Airport moving walkways arrived decades later. Urban planners kept drawing multi-speed sidewalks for New York and other cities well into the twentieth century. None of those city-scale systems were built. The 1893 machine remains the most ambitious public version ever operated in the United States. The sidewalk was not erased from history. It was dismantled after the fair, photographed while it ran, and then mostly forgotten.

Latency arms races end here. ⏱️ SVP Chain utilizes batch-auction matching on its native CLOB to ensure both AI algorithms and human traders get fair execution prices. Quality of decision > connection speed. 🧠 #FairTrading# #MEV# #DeFi# #SVP# #OrderBook#

Live now! our Generative Media Track from AI Engineer World's Fair 2026. Thesis: everything hard about generative media happens before and after the model runs. - Training Krea 2, what matters in generative model training: Sangwu Lee, - HTML Is All Agents Need: @Rames_Jusso, HeyGen - Building an Agentic Video Editor for Mass Consumer: @katedeyneka, Reelful - The Next Game Engine Won't Have a Manual: @arturonereu, Nereu - While my guitar gently speaks: Todd Fisher, Philo Ventures - Voice agents with Realtime Video: Sidney Primas, LemonSlice - Generative Video at the Speed of Light: @keeganmccallum3, uRun - Infra behind Krea 2, how to train and serve at scale: Gabriel Jorge Menezes, - The Next Medium, why real time interactive video changes everything: @Boudatw, Reactor

The real bottleneck wasn’t intelligence. It was the ability to pay and get paid safely. x402 solves the micropayment. #SvpChain# solves the rest: 👉 Scoped permissions 👉 Pre-execution policy 👉 Verifiable receipts 👉 Fair settlement Agents can now operate at machine speed without exposing private keys or burning human approval loops. Get it here: #AIAgent# #SVPAgent#

Good call on Bloom Energy $BE with a director on Crusoe's energy team TLDR: Constructive on $BE through the speed-to-power window: everything they can build gets sold, the regulatory-constraint use case is expanding, and the edge market is a genuine second leg. The bear case is not execution risk, it is terminal value—an unsubsidized, unconstrained power market where Bloom's cost curve has not moved enough. Key insights: Behind-the-meter adoption is not a technology preference, it is a hedge against binary regulatory risk. Moratoriums, temporary pauses and Governor Abbott's ERCOT announcements do not degrade a project's economics—they kill it outright, and approved power becomes worthless if a data center moratorium lands on top of it. He has seen two separate tenants elect to proceed with behind-the-meter projects alongside their grid portfolio, explicitly as diversification against that risk. Crusoe deliberately sites behind-the-meter gas away from rural communities to strip out both grid-connected regulatory exposure and community sentiment risk. Texas is the tell. It has historically been the easiest place in the US to get grid power because ERCOT is deregulated—no capacity market booking, no requirement to point specific generation at a specific load, with scarcity pricing left to incentivize the build-out. The fact that delays and regulatory uncertainty are showing up there is what has shifted tenant behavior. Working from a 100 GW / five-year data center demand frame, which he treats as aggressive but attainable: Six months ago: roughly 70 GW served by grid, assuming turbine production picks up, no fuel constraints, and several other unlocks. Some observers penciled 10-20 GW of SMR by end of period. Today: near-term grid share compresses to perhaps 50-60 GW, with the forward split moving closer to 50/50. Then it reverts. Once ratepayer protection is formalized, the grid reasserts as the cheapest and most reliable long-term supply. The mechanism for reversion is the Arizona construct APS has pushed—growth pays for growth, where all incremental upgrade costs are borne by the data center operator. He expects that to be cemented and formalized across every market, and expects it to take six to twelve months before politicians stop feeling their seats are threatened. The Bloom Bull Case He does not dispute near-term demand at all. "as much reliable Bloom capacity or solid oxide fuel cell capacity that can come online, will be deployed." If US deployable manufacturing produces 2-8 GW over the next two years, it gets absorbed. The premium is not a problem for buyers whose binding constraint is capacity. He also believes the product works. Hundreds of megawatts is deliverable, the systems are reliable, downtime is low because units are swappable, and the architecture is fully modular. The Bear Case Is About Price - "I don't see how they compete on price." Ten years out, in an unconstrained power market, he does not believe Bloom is competitive. He specifically does not believe the roughly 10% annual cost-down, on the grounds that the technology is structurally hard to make cheaper. He also flags a cost item he thinks the market underweights: the full system swap over a ten-year cycle, which makes ongoing O&M more expensive than a gas gen equivalent. Initial capex is the wrong lens; actual LCOE is critical to assess. He extends this into a coherent explanation of Bloom's own behavior. On the question of why they have not simply built the next facility if demand is as strong as claimed — his answer is not that they are sandbagging. He thinks they are building as fast as they can, and that the constraint is the supply chain, not the building. Solid oxide is an extremely small US market. You can put up a structure; scaling the full assembly chain behind it on the same timeline is the harder problem, unless more of it moves offshore. Crusoe Has Zero Bloom Projects Today - "Today, actually, we don't have any projects that are relying on Bloom fuel cells." The strategic rationale for staying at arm's length: "We've been a follower in this instance... we will accept it once the utility does." Buying 500 MW of Bloom directly means absorbing the regulatory risk that utilities may not accept solid oxide as high-rated ELCC capacity. Let the utility carry that. Turbines, recips, aeros and engines are all accepted technologies with known extreme-weather behavior and established effective load carrying capacity ratings. Solar, wind and battery now have them too. Solid oxide does not, because utilities have not yet observed large-scale fuel cell fleets through heat events and cold snaps. AEP has gotten comfortable off the back of the roughly 80 MW deployment plus smaller installations and Bloom's published test results. That is the template, and it is why the next few hundred megawatts of live operating hours matter far more than any order announcement. Where Bloom Actually Wins His model is not that Bloom wins on merit in a fair fight. It is that Bloom is the path of least resistance when a specific constraint blocks a project that already has hundreds of millions of development dollars sunk into it. If the binding constraint is price, Bloom loses. If it is speed to power, Bloom sometimes wins. If it is emissions, air permitting, noise or a regulatory restriction someone failed to plan for, Bloom wins. He reads the Nebius Vineland switch from gas gensets to solid oxide exactly this way — anti-genset pushback threatening a contract worth billions, with an obvious substitution available. He expects more of that, in lumpy project-specific chunks rather than as a smooth share gain. He also identifies the next leg of NIMBY-ism, which he thinks is underpriced: if communities dislike data centers, they dislike new gas generators considerably more. A fuel cell is lower emissions, quieter and a different class of asset. He calls it artful. That is a real, non-obvious tailwind. The Edge and Inference Market Is the Bigger Prize Crusoe is planning heavily for 10-50 MW modular builds, which he sizes at 20-40 GW over five years and would anchor at 20 GW in isolation. Amazon, NVIDIA, Tesla and xAI are all chasing the same edge market. "Bloom will leapfrog any gas combustion." In metro locations you cannot air-permit gas gen at all — this is a hard prohibition, not a noise preference. But he immediately caps the enthusiasm: much of that edge capacity is low-hanging fruit, converted Bitcoin sites at 5-18 MW with existing grid interconnects. "Grid power will always beat it." Bloom is the answer for incremental capacity and backup, not the base case. This is why he holds solid oxide at roughly 10 GW of the 100 GW mix, against 60-70% backstopped by combustion gas. He validates the native DC output argument, but for a better reason than efficiency. Fewer conversion losses lower the price, yes. The larger point is that it removes dependence on transformers and switchgear — equipment that is not only expensive but carries lead times that are themselves the binding constraint. A 345 kV breaker is two years out. Engineering around that bottleneck is precisely the kind of scenario where a project with sunk capital selects Bloom. What Changes His Mind He names two variables explicitly. Power price curves — if Bloom's costs do not fall, or if turbine pricing keeps rising, the relative position shifts and Bloom is in the money reasonably soon. And political sentiment, which he calls a big unknown and which he thinks is the more likely driver of fuel cell share than any technical milestone. Notably, a successful 200 MW deployment alone does not change his view. He already believes they can do it. source: Tegus

Sorare Set Rules Clarification Level Validation Period Rule Currently, our system is designed to allow you to play shortly after the end of the last game that validates your step. This period includes the freezing of player scores, which then triggers the automatic validation process for streaks before claims are unlocked for managers. The entire process is completed within 10 minutes. We will look into ways to speed up this process on our side, and we are also considering a solution that would allow you to pre-set your lineups in the future. Change of Tier for Injured Players When an Icon or Star player is injured and expected to miss an extended period, we aim to react quickly by downgrading them to a lower tier. This is done to prevent managers from packing a player who is unusable in gameplay as an Icon or Star. We understand that the drop in scrapping value can be a source of frustration due to the sudden decrease, and we will discuss ways to find a fair solution for everyone in the future.

Trump/Xi are meeting today 🇺🇸🇨🇳 Let's see if this has any market impacts especially for AI names, but ultimately for stocks to have a clear path higher, oil and yields really need to stabilize... Yesterday was a story of US/Euro PMIs and no movement on the US/Iran deal. Both resulted in bond yields rising yet again with the 10Y currently at 5.10%, and stocks finishing lower on the day. However, I think the sheer speed of the rates move is now the core issue. The 10Y is up ~25bps in two weeks and ~35bps in the past four weeks. This is the point where stocks usually start to see some kind of impact... That said, it's important to look at how healthy corporate financials are right now (look at the balance sheets for the big companies) - so I think we'll need many more hikes to have a huge negative impact on the stock market. Odds are increasing that the Fed will hike again next month 😃 Muse had a relatively short impact on the market on Monday w/ CPU names like Intel and AMD up a fair bit. I feel like this has been exhausted now -- time for macro to take the reigns yet again. For now...let's see what comes out of the Trump/Xi summit.