Strasbourg is down 1-0 from the first leg. However they have been huge game flippers. Coming back from 2-0 first leg defeat against Mainz, with a 4-0 triumph in the second leg. Currently at 42 cent per share, with potential to flip straight after tonight’s game Going for a comeback for Strasbourg, with the victory sending them straight to Leipzig What your waiting for?

Why Generic Humanoid Robots Will Fail — And What's Next Imagine an alternate world where we never invented the car. In that world, a robotics engineer might reasonably conclude that robotic horses are the future — replace the living ones, keep the stables and saddles, ride them to work. Convenient, modern, and the roads stay free of manure. It sounds absurd only because you already know about cars. We keep making the same mistake with humanoid robots. Consider transportation. To finally make driving safe, we had two options: put a humanoid in the driver's seat, or embed sensing and compute directly into the vehicle. Waymo chose the latter. It has no steering wheel. It exists purely to move people efficiently from A to B. The humanoid was not needed. Consider a sock factory. Yes, you could replace workers with humanoid robots one-for-one on the assembly line — and gain maybe 2-3x efficiency. Or you could completely redesign the workflow around a purpose-built autonomous sewing system and eliminate most of the factory, the chairs, the cafeteria, the manual sewing machines, the HVAC, the doors, and the restrooms. The actual optimization is to side-step the previous human-imposed physical constraint. Look at Ukraine. The front lines aren't filling up with Terminator-style humanoids carrying rifles. Human soldiers are being replaced by heterogeneous swarms of purpose-specific drones: some for reconnaissance, some for logistics, some for delivering munitions. War is being restructured around the desired outcome (survival), not the soldier's shape. Consider a 1970's office. Want to move information through teams of people? We once used typists, paper, trucks to supply the paper, typewriters, and repair technicians. A linear improvement would have been to replace the human typist with a 10-fingered humanoid. What actually happened? The entire workflow — paper, printers, typewriter factories, delivery trucks, the desks, the offices — was obliterated. Email deleted the human clerk's entire universe. Consider cancer early detection by mammography. Today, getting a mammogram requires expensive hardware, logistics infrastructure, human nurses and doctors, a biopsy workflow, a human pathologist with a microscope (imported from Germany or Japan), a written finding, multiple physician reviews. Sure, you could replace the pathologist with a humanoid (the microscope focus knob requires finger dexterity) and get a modest efficiency gain (and faster responses at 2 am). Or — the far more likely future — we all swallow a cancer detection pill every few months, and 24 hours later a color-changing sticker on our arm turns red or green. No hardware. No hospital. No logistics. No pathologist. No office. No desk. No humanoid. The workflow isn't optimized by a literal drop-in swap of a human pathologist for a humanoid. The entire workflow simply ceases to exist. Consider life sciences research and drug development. We're seeing excitement about robot arms and humanoids pipetting water in research labs. Robot horses, episode 7. We don't design aircraft by crashing test planes — we simulate them entirely in software first. Biology will go the same way. The path to scalable drug discovery isn't robot arms in conventional wet labs demonstrating 10 fingered prowess in manipulating Eppendorf tubes filled with purple food coloring. Rather, we need in-silico biological models that evaluate billions of hypotheses computationally, with physical manipulation of atoms only at the very end. The clear pattern. Efficient automation doesn't try to replicate a 10-fingered human in a static context. Automation eliminates physical rate-limiting steps in their entirety. That's why "classical" humanoid robots, as a generic category, will largely fail. They're robotic horses. They assume the infrastructure and workflows stay fixed and only the 10-fingered human is swapped out. That's not how economic and technological pressure works. What actually matters? If humans continue to inhabit the physical world, then moving atoms will remain important, and that requires five things: atoms, energy, force generation and actuation, sensing, and compute. Everything else — form factor, number of limbs, type of end effector — is a variable to be optimized for the task. So if you are a pathologist, a robotics engineer, a teacher, a parent, a politician, or a sewing factory owner - please think different. Most obviously, we should all anticipate, and build for, a future in which robots exhibit extreme physical fluidity: Two arms or four. Wheels or legs. Tentacles or flippers. Three fingers or twelve, or none at all. Eyes at the front, side, or tip of a tentacle. At OpenMind, we don't care what you look like right now - we got you, in all your physical form factors. OM2 ships in July, for all machines. Let's build.

Inside bird eyes is a strange and mysterious structure called the pecten oculi. It looks like a pancake flipper, or maybe a radiator. Some 350 years after anatomists first described it, biologists finally figured out its purpose.

2nd place at @opencode Buildathon 🥈 @BansalRishit and I built - a pocket AI red teaming agent that scans nearby signals (Sub-1GHz, Bluetooth, WiFi, NFC, RFID, IR), finds/generate the right exploit modules via @opencode, and runs them in real time. Flipper Zero… but it thinks for itself. 👉 Join the waitlist: Huge shoutout to @GrowthX_Club, @opencode, @udayan_w, @nexxel and the entire team for hosting such an incredible event. Second win this weekend - we are working on building and shipping both these projects in the coming days! Stay tuned.💪