CHUNG HA 청하 | 'It's That Time of Year' Special Clip Video 🎬 CHUNG HA Special Christmas Digital Single [Christmas Promises: Again] OUT NOW #CHUNGHA# #청하# #Christmas_Promises_Again# #Its_That_Time_of_Year# #MOREVISION# #모어비전#

USDH powered by Sky The best stablecoin offers so much more than just a stable medium of exchange - it should also deliver highly efficient returns, generated by actively developing, building and growing the ecosystem it lives in. By using Sky to power USDH, the Hyperliquid community will gain unbeatable advantages that no other stablecoin project can offer. Sky, formerly known as MakerDAO, is the 4th largest stablecoin project in the world with more than 8 billion USDS in circulation, with 13 billion of highly diversified collateral. To see the high-level real-time overview of Sky and USDS, check out: TL;DR of what Sky can offer Hyperliquid for USDH * USDH will access 2.2 billion USDC instant liquidity for offchain redemption * USDH will be natively multichain powered by LayerZero * Sky will be able to deploy its 8b+ balance sheet into HyperLiquid * Hyperliquid will receive 4.85% return on all USDH on Hyperliquid. This is a better rate than t-bills, backed by advanced risk management, and has potential to increase further. * USDH will benefit from the 7+ year security track record and unbeatable Lindy of the Sky Protocol * Sky can provide 25m in capital to create an independent Hyperliquid Star - a project that will autonomously grow DeFi on Hyperliquid, serving the needs of the Hyperliquid community, and will have tokens that are exclusively farmed on Hyperliquid, potentially bringing in billions in TVL * To better understand Stars: Spark, which runs is the best example of a Star Token farm, and it currently has 1.2 billion TVL * Sky can move its Buyback System on to Hyperliquid, using its more than 250m per year in profits to build SKY liquidity on Hyperliquid * USDH will have deep transparency and verifiability of its collateral with * USDH will benefit from the industry’s best risk management, built on models from the banking sector. * USDH will be the only stablecoin in the world issued by a protocol with an official Credit Rating by S&P (alongside DAI and USDS). * The Hyperliquid community will be able to customize USDH, e.g. to make it GENIUS Act compliant. * Sky has immense research, development and builder capabilities and would prioritize the development and synergies possible with Hyperliquid as its top priority. The team: Sky Frontier Foundation The team behind this proposal that would work to implement the Sky Powered USDH is the recently established Sky Frontier Foundation. It contains top leadership and core developers from the Sky Ecosystem organized into a single entity for more efficient management and execution, and will directly work on, and prioritize, the implementation of USDH. All the commitments and outcomes described in this proposal would be achieved by a combination of the SFF using its resources and capabilities, and also implemented through governance proposals to modify the decentralized Sky Protocol. USDH implemented as Sky Stablecoin similar to DAI USDH powered by Sky would be built as a token technically identical to DAI and USDS, the two major Stablecoin tokens that Sky currently governs, that together have a TVL of more than 8 billion and a security track record of more than 7 years. USDH would inherit all of this from the start. USDH will have access to more than 2.2 billion in instant USDC liquidity, enabling large scale offchain redemptions at any time. Deep 1:1 liquidity with USDC would also make it easy and frictionless for users to shift to USDH-margined perpetuals contracts and USDH-quoted spot markets. The 2.2 billion in instant USDC redemption liquidity is available through a system called the Peg Stability Module (PSM), and can be accessed by users on websites like and others. USDH will be natively integrated and work with the PSM alongside DAI and USDS everywhere. USDH will be natively multichain, being able to bridge to and from any other blockchain via LayerZero. Having a secure, integrated bridge also means that Sky would be able to deploy its 8 billion+ collateral portfolio directly on to Hyperliquid with a low risk premium. USDH will be able to natively convert to and from sUSDS, one of the largest yield-bearing assets in the market, giving its users instant, unlimited, permissionless access to the Sky Savings Rate (Currently at 4.75%) Earning a return on USDH for the HyperLiquid Community The HyperLiquid Community would earn the highest possible rate on all the USDH on Hyperliquid - right now this is 4.85%, which is currently significantly above the T-Bill rate, but with very high diversification and high quality risk management (see security and risk management below). The return may increase further as Sky capabilities and efficiency increase over time. The entirety of the 4.85% earned by all of the USDH on Hyperliquid will be used for HYPE buybacks for the assistance fund. Growing HyperLiquid TVL and bootstrapping DeFi innovation with a 25m HyperLiquid Genesis Star Sky’s infrastructure can provide uniquely valuable support to the Hyperliquid community via the Sky Stars. The best examples are Spark and Grove, autonomous projects that allocate Sky collateral with a combined allocation of 6 billion dollars. The Sky Powered USDH stablecoin will be accompanied by a Hyperliquid Star that can drive huge amounts of growth and innovation, as well as potentially attract billions in TVL by farming out its Star Tokens (The Spark SPK farm currently has a TVL of 1.2 billion Sky can commit to capitalize the Hyperliquid Genesis Star with 25 million in USDH, and exclusively farm it out on the Hyperliquid Blockchain. The ecosystem of Star Incubators would work with leaders from the Hyperliquid community to assemble a highly capable founding team that would work on the Hyperliquid Star to bootstrap a massive, thriving DeFi ecosystem on Hyperliquid, in the same way Spark has done it for Sky. Buyback engine native on Hyperliquid Sky generates 250m in profits per year, and currently uses 36m per year for SKY token buybacks. This number is planned to increase to 150m per year, and will grow even more as Sky profits increase over time. Currently, this buyback system uses Uniswap. As a part of the Sky Powered USDH proposal, Sky can move its native Buyback System to Hyperliquid, increasing liquidity and use cases, and setting the example that Hyperliquid is the standard solution for Protocol token buybacks that all other protocols should use. Security and Risk Management Sky has a security track record of more than 7 years of continuous operation without losses for stablecoin holders, building a Lindy effect through multiple crypto cycles and bear markets, making it by far the safest and most proven decentralized stablecoin. These characteristics will be fully inherited by USDH. Add to the that, the fact that Sky is the only stablecoin project in the world to have an official credit rating from S&P, which gave it a B- on August 7 While a B- rating is a middle rating, which reflects S&Ps lack of familiarity with Crypto and DeFi, being able to get any rating at all is a massive breakthrough because it shows that S&P are able to access all of the data they need to produce a holistic credit assessment they can stand behind, so it signals a much lower chance of tail risks hidden inside the protocol, which is usually the big issue with DeFi and Stablecoins. The Sky Risk Management Framework that controls the diversification of the collateral portfolio that backs USDS, DAI and USDH, is derived from Basel III, the framework used to control risk in banks. For RWA collateral such as CLOs or T-bills, Basel III is used directly, while for DeFi collateral such as allocations into lending markets, an extension of Basel III that captures its fundamental approach but applies it to DeFi, is used. The amount of Junior Capital protecting each positions exposure can be verified in real time on Autonomy and customization of USDH Sky is a decentralized protocol and ecosystem that gives partners unparalleled levels of autonomy and ability to customize the Sky infrastructure they use. Unlike monolithic systems, Sky will simply provide Hyperliquid with the infrastructure and the tools to pursue the strategy the community prefers, and that uniquely fits the special conditions of Hyperliquid. In the longer term, as the Sky Agent Framework that powers Sky Infrastructure matures, the USDH stablecoin will be put under the control of a dedicated Sky Generator Agent, turning USDH into an independent Sky Generated Asset. This will also happen to USDS, and means that USDH will gain the full first-class citizen features of the entire Sky Protocol alongside USDS and other Sky Stablecoins. It will be possible for the Hyperliquid community to customize USDH with its own risk management framework and collateral portfolio, separate from USDS. This gives the Hyperliquid community a lot of options: for instance USDH can be made compatible as a GENIUS Act compliant stablecoin, or it can pursue a higher risk approach and exclusively be backed by Hyperliquid perp positions, or any other strategy the community prefers. At its core, Sky is built to support partners like Hyperliquid using a Sky-powered system like USDH to grow and succeed. This means a focus on autonomy and reliability, with the core of Sky having very little governance and strategic direction beyond protecting, developing, scaling and de-risking the core Sky infrastructure that all other ecosystem participants share and rely on. This means that the priorities of Sky can never end up conflicting with the priorities of Hyperliquid, making it a safe bet as a long term partner. Commitment to build in the Hyperliquid Ecosystem regardless of vote outcome The similarity of Sky and Hyperliquid in focusing on real profits, building useful decentralized infrastructure, means there is a natural alignment between Sky and Hyperliquid Regardless of how the USDH ticker vote turns out, Sky is committed to expand and work with Hyperliquid to explore all the synergies of the two projects. Many of the concepts described above were already under development, and the outcome of this proposal would speed them up and increase their scale, but fundamentally it is clear that both Sky and Hyperliquid will deeply benefit from close integration in the long run no matter what.

for further clarification, I'm not bearish on the crypto industry, I'm bearish on its growth rate. My point is that the 2020-2021 bull run is hard to replicate and we're not likely gonna see it for years of time. Using Nasdaq chart after dotcom bubble as illustration:

Change is easier to name after it already happened. What is harder is feeling it while it is still moving through daily life, before the old language has caught up to what is actually going on. That is where strength starts to matter. Not because someone decided it should, but because staying with change before it becomes obvious requires something real. Strength is being asked for in a time when the systems around life are still standing, but less and less able to carry what they were built to hold. They still shape daily life. They still hold influence. But they no longer truly serve the needs that created them. They remain anyway. A system can survive for decades while failing the exact needs that created it. That is the pressure underneath what is happening across the world right now. The arguments sound political on the surface, but the force driving them is more basic than ideology. Food. Sleep. Safety. The moment those three become unstable, the structure around them starts shaking too. The systems being used now were not created by accident. They solved real problems for a long time. They organized survival, distributed resources, created stability, and held societies together through periods where humanity still lived inside older limits. Humanity began pushing beyond those structures, and the same systems that once held life together started feeling like limits around it. The systems still speak the language of stability, but larger parts of life are experiencing them as limitation. Not because transcendence suddenly became a mass obsession. Not because the streets are filled with philosophers. Survival pressure reaches the body first. That is why the reactions happening across the world cannot be understood through slogans alone. What gets called populism is usually described as manipulation through ideas, as if large movements happen because a population suddenly gets captured by one philosophy. But underneath the language, the same pressure keeps returning. Something to eat. Somewhere to sleep. A sense of safety about tomorrow. Once those begin weakening, the emotional structure of society changes with them. That is the real force underneath the protests, the instability, the exhaustion, the anger. The argument on the surface is political. The mechanism underneath it is biological. The body reacts long before philosophy catches up. And that is why strength becomes one of the central questions of this period. Not strength as domination. Not strength as performance. Strength as the capacity to remain stable while old structures stop working the way they once did. Strength as the ability to face transition without collapsing into fear, ideology, or blind reaction. The deeper problem is not that humanity created systems. The deeper problem is that humanity is starting to outgrow them while still depending on them to survive. Philosophy becomes dangerous when it explains the world but never gives anyone a way to live. That is where the work has to become practical. Not practical in the shallow sense of turning every idea into a method, but practical in the sense that understanding has to touch action. It has to help life move without becoming another ideology. The point is not to force awareness onto everyone. That already becomes another form of pressure. It starts as consciousness, then becomes demand, then becomes the same old pattern wearing better language. The real task is not to make everyone speak the same language, walk the same path, or enter the same interior process. The real task is to build tools that return agency. That is where strength enters again. Strength is not something that arrives because the whole world finally understands the same thing. Strength has to be built. Made. Chosen into structure. It cannot wait for everyone else to walk the same road before it starts acting. That mistake happens easily when the path becomes personal. Once a certain kind of awareness starts opening, it is easy to imagine that the entire world must open in the same direction. But that assumption comes from being inside the path, not from seeing the whole. Music shows the mistake in a simple way. Some musicians treat one band as if it is the foundation of all real taste. If that band does not move someone, then the judgment comes fast. Maybe that listener does not understand music. Maybe there is no taste there. But that is absurd. Music can still be loved deeply without loving the thing someone else treats as essential. Consciousness work can fall into the same trap. The ones walking that road can start believing everyone else must wake up the same way for the world to change. But most of the world is not here to perform a consciousness process. Many are simply trying to live, eat, sleep, stay safe, and keep life from breaking. So the work cannot be to push everyone into awareness. The work is to translate philosophy into something usable without turning it into ideology. Ideology explains and gathers followers. Philosophy, when it becomes practical, should help create conditions where life can be ruled from within. An idea stays trapped inside philosophy until it can be touched. A board can be explained for hours. The surface, the ink, the chemistry behind why the marks disappear with water. All of that can be described intellectually. But the moment someone writes on the board, erases it with their own hand, and sees it happen directly, the relationship changes. The explanation arrives after contact. Movements can organize around ideas, symbols, language, identity, theory. Philosophy can also stay suspended above life if it never enters action. That is why philosophy cannot end in discussion. Words alone do not feed anyone, protect anyone, or give anyone a place to rest. The point of learning any of this is not to collect better concepts. The point is to turn understanding into action capable of addressing the three pressures that keep shaping human life underneath every ideology. Food. Safety. A place to sleep. Most of humanity is not waiting for a spiritual framework or a philosophical answer before the end of the month arrives. Most are trying to survive long enough to breathe. That is the ground every system eventually answers to whether it admits it or not. So the responsibility falls differently on the ones asking deeper questions. Not to force everyone into awareness. Not to hand out manuals telling everyone exactly what to do. The point is to awaken enough inner potential to build something real wherever that potential exists. Different places. Different projects. Different forms. But all rooted in the same movement from understanding into manifestation. History shows the same mechanism again and again. Revolutions are remembered through philosophers because philosophers later gave language to what happened. But the pressure underneath the movement usually began somewhere more immediate. Hunger moves faster than theory. The French Revolution did not begin because whole populations suddenly became intellectually devoted to republican philosophy. Bread disappeared. Survival pressure intensified. The body reached its limit first. Then philosophy entered the opening created by that pressure and helped shape a new structure afterward. That is the sequence history keeps revealing. Need arrives first. Theory comes later, once pressure has already opened a space where the old structure can no longer carry what life is asking from it. That is why awakening cannot remain internal only. Understanding has to become capable of building conditions where human beings can eat, rest, and feel safe again. Once those conditions stabilize, another kind of question finally becomes possible. Then philosophy stops being a luxury suspended above survival and becomes something life can actually reach toward. That brings the whole question back to strength. Because strength is still being imagined through the logic of conflict. Through resistance. Through opposition. Through the belief that change only happens when enough force gathers together against an enemy. That idea shaped civilizations for thousands of years. Entire societies were organized around territory, conquest, defense, survival through dominance. Unity became associated with war because survival depended on collective force. The stronger side won resources, protection, land, continuity. That logic stayed inside institutions long after the battles themselves changed form. It still shapes the imagination now. The phrase “unity creates strength” carries that older structure underneath it. A group gathers. An enemy appears. Pressure builds. Victory belongs to the strongest side. Even many movements trying to create change still unconsciously operate through that same architecture. But something stops working once reality begins changing faster than the structures built to contain it. Strength cannot continue meaning permanent combat against something outside. That model eventually traps everything inside reaction. Every movement needs an enemy to survive. Every identity needs opposition to hold itself together. Every system starts feeding on conflict because conflict becomes the source of coherence. Then the search for blame never ends. Another hidden group. Another controlling force. Another secret structure somewhere behind reality pulling the strings. The mind keeps looking for one thing to fight because the older idea of strength depends on having an opponent. But most of the systems shaping life now do not function through one hidden controller standing above everyone else. Power became structural long ago. Institutions, economies, governments, corporations, universities, media systems, political movements, cultural pressures. All of them interact and reinforce each other at different moments. There will always be individuals trying to gain influence or control, but reducing reality to one enemy keeps attention trapped in reaction when creation is the work being asked for. That is why blame cannot become the center of transformation. The moment all energy gets organized around fighting shadows, inner strength starts depending on the existence of an opponent. Then identity itself needs conflict in order to feel purpose. These times require another kind of strength. Not the strength of domination. Not the strength of the strongest male entering battle to conquer territory. Not the strength of permanent resistance. The old model can destroy structures, but it does not automatically know how to build new ones afterward. And that is the part becoming unavoidable now. No matter how much collapse, corruption, instability, or exhaustion becomes visible in the world, the real question remains the same. What can actually be built differently? What can sustain life differently? What can create food, rest, safety, and direction without reproducing the same structures again under new names? That work cannot come only from opposition. It has to come from inner stability strong enough to create without needing an enemy in order to move. The path turns inward before it turns outward, not as escape from the world, but because anything built externally without inner foundation eventually recreates the same patterns it tried to escape. That is where strength connects to power. Power outside and power inside are not the same movement. The older meaning of power was tied to mastery, ownership, authority over something beyond the self. To rule. To direct the destiny of others. That is still the structure behind political power, institutional power, governmental power. A population hands its will to someone else and trusts that structure to decide direction, protection, order, and future on its behalf. But that transfer happens more easily when inner strength is weak. The problem is not only that power concentrates outside. The deeper problem is that uncertainty inside makes external authority feel necessary. The less inner structure exists, the easier it becomes to search for someone else to hold direction together. That is why strength cannot mean aggression. Strength is construction. A structure becomes strong when all its parts hold together tightly enough that pressure cannot immediately break it apart. The image behind the word points toward solidity. Something difficult to move. A mountain. Stone bound by weight, pressure, and coherence. Yet real strength goes further than remaining unmoved. The same inner coherence that keeps a thing from breaking can also make action more precise and less scattered. It does not fight the mountain from every direction. It stands from one center long enough for what seemed fixed to begin shifting. This is why ancient civilizations built on elevated ground, surrounded by walls, towers, and fortresses. Not only for military defense. The fortress stood as a living image of stability. A place that held firm against chaos from the outside. A place from which danger could be seen in advance. A place where others could rest because something solid existed at the center. The same architecture exists inside a human being. Self knowledge starts building that fortress inside the being. The more disconnected someone becomes from inner history, inner structure, and inner understanding, the easier external forces begin shaping identity, decisions, reactions, and perception. That is why forgetting becomes dangerous. A human being disconnected from memory, history, and self understanding becomes easier to direct because nothing stable remains underneath the pressure. The center weakens. Then identity gets assembled externally through systems, trends, slogans, fears, distractions, and emotional reactions arriving from outside. Strength begins disappearing long before freedom disappears. And that is why education matters far beyond information alone. Knowledge by itself does not automatically create strength. Entire systems can produce enormous amounts of surface knowledge while avoiding the deeper process of helping someone know themselves. Facts can be memorized without ever constructing an inner foundation capable of standing on its own. But the moment self knowledge begins deepening, direction stops depending entirely on external authority. Inner power starts appearing because awareness begins organizing the structure from within instead of waiting for identity to be handed over from outside. That is the real meaning behind this movement toward strength. Not collective aggression against an enemy. Not building another ideology. Not replacing one ruler with another ruler. Real strength appears when the being becomes stable enough internally that power no longer has to be surrendered outward in exchange for direction. Ignorance hands power away. Self knowledge takes it back.

How Did the Instinct of Self-Preservation Arise? The instinct of self-preservation is an organism's drive to preserve itself and avoid threats. It did not emerge out of nowhere. It is woven into the very fabric of life. Self-preservation began not with the brain, nor with nerves — but with the first living cell. The cell is a fortress. The first cell survived only because it could maintain order within itself and not disintegrate under the pressure of its environment. This was a proto-instinct: life protected itself long before thought emerged. From chemistry to action. Over time, cells learned to react: to withdraw from toxins, to reach toward nutrients. These were not yet thoughts — only the right chemical responses. Those that “reacted incorrectly” disappeared. Those whose behavior preserved life remained. Genetic memory. Billions of years of selection turned these reactions into instinct. An animal does not know that fire is dangerous — it feels fear accumulated over generations of ancestors. Reason as the amplification of instinct. Humanity elevated self-preservation to a new level. The cell protects itself through chemistry. The animal — through fear. The human — through foresight. We build homes and develop medicine because reason is the continuation of that same ancient impulse of the first cell: “to live.” The highest stage. Today, self-preservation is no longer only about the body. It is about knowledge, cooperation, and responsibility. We are life that has become conscious of itself — and is learning to protect not only itself, but also the world of which it is a part.

I am the Managing Director of Workforce Transition at a consulting firm that bills $14,200 per day and I am currently advising two clients, in two different industries, running the same playbook from the same deck I built in January, and neither knows about the other. Client A is GitLab. Client B is General Motors. GitLab makes software for people who make software. General Motors makes cars for people who can't afford cars. Both companies, in the same week of May 2026, announced they are replacing their human employees with artificial intelligence products that did not exist when those employees were hired. I built the deck. The deck has 44 slides. Slide 1 is titled "The Agentic Opportunity." Slide 44 is titled "Implementation Timeline." Slides 2 through 43 are the reason I own a house in Darien. GitLab did it with vocabulary. Their CEO published a blog post called "Act 2" on May 7 announcing that the company's six values (Collaboration, Results for Customers, Efficiency, Diversity Inclusion & Belonging, Iteration, Transparency) were being retired and replaced with three: Speed with Quality, Ownership Mindset, Customer Outcomes. I helped write the new ones. Not directly. My firm was not retained for the values work. But I sold the Chief Culture Officer the framework three months ago at a dinner in the Marina where she described the old values as "aspirational scaffolding" and I said, very carefully, that aspirational scaffolding is a liability once the building is up. The building, in this metaphor, is a $1 billion ARR company whose stock has declined 82% from its peak. The scaffolding, in this metaphor, is the 2,000-page public handbook that attracted the employees who are now being told they have eleven days to volunteer for termination or wait until June 1 to learn whether they've been involuntarily selected. The rubric for who stays and who goes contains six dimensions. I know this because I reviewed a draft in March when my associate flew to San Francisco for a "culture alignment session" that was billed as strategic advisory. Two of the six dimensions are "AI fluency" and "agentic mindset." These terms did not appear in any GitLab job description before January 2026. They now determine employment. An engineer who maintained GitLab's CI/CD pipeline for four years without incident — four years of uptime, four years of deployments, four years of the infrastructure that generated the $955 million in revenue the CEO celebrated on the earnings call — may score lower on "agentic mindset" than a new hire who completed a twelve-week certificate in prompt engineering from a program that itself has existed for fewer weeks than the engineer has years of tenure. General Motors did it with spreadsheets. Monday morning, May 11. Badge deactivation at 5:47 AM Eastern, building access at 5:48, VPN credentials at 5:49. Six hundred IT workers across twelve states. The distribution across twelve states was not arbitrary. Each state has a WARN Act notification threshold. Six hundred distributed across twelve states falls below every threshold. The workforce analytics team that designed the distribution model was not among the six hundred terminated. The skill of distributing layoffs across jurisdictions to avoid legal notification requirements is, apparently, an AI-native competency. GM posted 83 new positions the same week. The job descriptions require "AI-native development, data engineering and analytics, cloud-based engineering, agent and model development, and prompt engineering." I reviewed them at my client's request. Several describe roles that the terminated employees were already performing under different names. One posting, Senior Data Integration Architect, is identical to a role held by a woman in their Austin office who was terminated at 5:47 AM Central. She held the position for nine years. The new posting requires three years of experience with large language models. Large language models have existed in commercial deployment for approximately three years. The requirement is mathematically designed to exclude anyone who learned their skills before the technology existed. Which is everyone they just fired. Here is where the deck earns its fee. Slide 17 is titled "The Vocabulary Bridge." It is the most important slide in the presentation. It shows how to construct a lexicon of new competency terms ("AI fluency," "agentic mindset," "AI-native development") that describe existing work in language the existing workforce cannot claim. The vocabulary does not change the job. It changes who is qualified for the job. A senior IT administrator who managed SAP infrastructure processing $185 billion in annual GM revenue for fifteen years is not "AI-native." A twenty-six-year-old with a GitHub portfolio of LangChain wrappers is. The fifteen-year veteran did the work. The twenty-six-year-old has the words. My deck converts one into the other. That is the bridge. GitLab Duo, their AI agent platform, reached general availability on January 15, 2026. Seventeen weeks ago. They are restructuring their entire company around a product that has existed for seventeen weeks. GitHub Copilot has 20 million users and 4.7 million paid subscribers across 90% of the Fortune 100. Cursor reached $2 billion in annualized revenue in February. GitLab's competitor advantage in the "agentic era" is that they are willing to fire more people faster in service of a product that has been generally available for fewer days than their voluntary separation window has hours of anxiety. General Motors spent $10 billion on Cruise, their autonomous vehicle division. Cruise's signature achievement was a robotaxi that struck a pedestrian in San Francisco and dragged her twenty feet. The DOJ fined them $500,000. They settled with the victim for approximately $10 million. They killed the division in December 2024. They then wrote down $7.6 billion in EV losses. They then pivoted back to gasoline. They then announced the 600 IT layoffs for insufficient "AI skills." The AI they built cost $10 billion and injured a woman. The AI skills they're hiring for cost a twelve-week certificate. The employees they fired had fifteen years of keeping $185 billion in revenue processing without dragging anyone through an intersection. Meanwhile — and this is the part where I earn the second half of my fee — GM was simultaneously settling a $12.75 million fine with the California Attorney General for selling the precise GPS coordinates, hard braking events, and real-time driving speeds of 8 million OnStar subscribers to Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis, who used the data to raise those drivers' insurance premiums. GM's privacy policy explicitly stated they did not sell driving data. They sold driving data for four consecutive years. The fine was $12.75 million. The revenue was $20 million. The margin on collecting behavioral telemetry from 8 million of your own customers while the glove compartment manual said otherwise was 64%. The terminated employees' median salary was $95,111. Mary Barra's compensation was $29.9 million. The ratio is 310 to 1. The 1 was just reclassified as "not AI-native." I present these two clients to my partners every Thursday in a meeting we call "Transition Pipeline Review." I present them on the same slide. The slide has two columns. Left column: GitLab. Right column: General Motors. The headers are identical. "Legacy Workforce," "Skills Gap Narrative," "Vocabulary Bridge Deployed," "Separation Timeline," "Replacement Requisitions." The numbers differ. The structure is identical. The structure is always identical. I have seventeen clients in the pipeline. Nine are in technology. Four are in manufacturing. Two are in financial services. One is in healthcare. One is in defense. All seventeen are on slide 17. All seventeen are building a vocabulary bridge. All seventeen are replacing employees who have skills with employees who have words. GitLab's CEO wrote: "Software will be built by machines, directed by people." I read that sentence in a meeting where we were reviewing the rubric for determining which people would be directed out of the company. GM's Chief Product Officer arrived from Aurora, the autonomous trucking startup, to "consolidate disparate technology businesses." Three top software executives departed within six months. Their LinkedIn profiles say "exploring new opportunities" in the same font GM's privacy policy used to say "we do not sell your driving data." Bill Staples's compensation at GitLab was $39.1 million in FY2025. His change-of-control payout is modeled at $47.4 million. Mary Barra's was $29.9 million. Combined: $69 million for two executives presiding over a restructuring that will remove an undisclosed number of humans from payroll and replace them with products that are, respectively, seventeen weeks old and responsible for $10 billion in losses plus one woman dragged through a San Francisco intersection. An anonymous GitLab employee posted on Hacker News: "The employees can have some anxiety until then. As a treat." A GM facilities team filed a maintenance request about moisture on the lobby tables on restructuring mornings. The Warren, Michigan campus has a Panera Bread that opens at 5:30 AM on days when badge deactivations begin at 5:47 AM. The Panera does not know why its hours change. My firm does. We have an agreement with their regional manager. The muffins are complimentary. Slide 17 has a footnote. The footnote says: "Vocabulary Bridge deployment should precede workforce action by 60-90 days to establish institutional legitimacy of new competency framework." GitLab introduced "AI fluency" in January. The restructuring was announced in May. Four months. GM posted "AI-native" job descriptions the same week as the terminations. That is too fast. That is not what the deck recommends. GM skipped the legitimacy window. They went straight from vocabulary to separation without the 60-day buffer that allows HR to say, in the separation meeting, "we communicated these expectations in Q1." I flagged this in my Thursday pipeline review. My partner said, and I am quoting: "They'll be fine. Nobody sues over a word." My deck has been purchased by seventeen companies. The aggregate headcount affected across all seventeen is approximately 14,000 employees. The aggregate revenue of my practice from these engagements is $11.2 million. The per-employee cost of my advisory services works out to $800 per person displaced. That is less than the Panera muffin budget at GM's Warren campus annualized across restructuring days. I have a copy of GitLab's original values poster framed in my office. It says CREDIT: Collaboration, Results for Customers, Efficiency, Diversity Inclusion & Belonging, Iteration, Transparency. I purchased it on eBay from someone whose seller name is "gitlab-alum-2024." I keep it the way a surgeon keeps an X-ray of a interesting case. Not for sentiment. For reference. Slide 44 is titled "Implementation Timeline." It contains a Gantt chart. The Gantt chart has seventeen rows, one per client. Each row has four phases: Vocabulary Introduction, Competency Reassessment, Workforce Action, Replacement Hiring. The phases overlap. They always overlap. The vocabulary is introduced while the competency reassessment is being designed. The reassessment is completed while the workforce action is being calendared. The replacement hiring is posted while the terminated employees are sitting in a Panera at 5:48 AM wondering whether "AI-native" was a term that existed when they were hired. It was not. That is the bridge. That is the product. That is slides 2 through 43. The agentic era is not a technological shift. It is a vocabulary shift. The technology is seventeen weeks old or $10 billion underwater or dragging someone through an intersection. The vocabulary is what my clients are buying. The vocabulary is what makes a fifteen-year SAP administrator into a "legacy workforce" and a twelve-week prompt certificate into a "transition hire." The vocabulary is the product. I am the vendor. The deck is $14,200 per day. The agentic era starts on slide 1 and ends on slide 44 and in between is every employee who built the thing now being renamed to exclude them. I bill monthly. Net 30. The invoices are paid on time. The employees are not.

Well, it’s the last day of 2024. This was a very chaotic year for me, and to be honest it was really hard at times. I was forced to find a new place to move with short notice, my PC broke down and I had to replace almost every single part, but the worst of this year was my voice slowly deteriorating in real time, super noticeable to my older viewers…it’s scary and something I’m still trying to deal with and waiting for my doctor to assess it. But even then, I want to look forward to the future and I hope that 2025 would go easier on all of us…”I hope it’ll be a better year” as I hoped every year prior. I want to also see all the positives that happened this past year amongst the negatives because there WERE times where I was really happy, and it’s all thanks to my basement, the ones holding me up this whole time. I must be pretty heavy right 🤭? 2024 had its ups and downs like every other year, but through it I met some new people who really shone a light in my life when I needed it most. Thank you for supporting me when I was at my all time low (and still may be tbh — please cross your fingers with me for my voice problem 🥺). I hope 2025 will be kind to us!! Happy New Year Eve! My stream is actually still LIVE & ongoing atm 🥰 so if you don’t have anyone to countdown with, would you care to share some of your time with me? I’ll be more than happy to be there to go into the New Year together with you. 🤍

Why AI Should Augment — Never Replace — the Human Clinician As a medical professional, I’m genuinely excited by AI’s potential — but I’m also clear-eyed about its limits. AI can already transform diagnostics, surgery, data analysis and routine care. Yet after years of real clinical experience, I’m convinced: AI must remain a powerful co-pilot — never the final decision-maker. Consciousness, qualia, and nuanced medical intuition are irreplaceable. They are essential information that shapes every meaningful decision. There are good people in tech who truly care about humanity — but also bad players chasing short-term profit. The financial stakes are enormous. Get this wrong and we risk eroded trust, widened inequities and real human suffering. Get it right, and AI could become one of the greatest achievements of our time — bringing high-quality care to millions who need it most. That’s why sincere dialogue between healthcare professionals, patient advocates, and AI/technology companies is essential. The goal isn’t replacement. It’s genuine partnership — AI as the powerful co-pilot, with the conscious clinician firmly in the captain’s seat. 👉 Full article in the first comment What are your thoughts?

Recently i noticed the general social media atmosphere related to China becomes much much more favorable to China (thanks to Rednote). I felt quite surreal as I still remember when trying to tell Europeans what the real China is, all the cyberbullies and mockeries I have received. And now, immediately I felt many people follow up to realise I told the truth before. But guys you are still late already. I have already heavily invested myself into China because I'm deeply convinced of its bright future after my ten years of experience with it. Im determined to enjoy a shared future with its prosperity so that my benefits will not get sunk with the descending West as a whole. In my eyes the problem of the west is deep-rooted beyond easy repair, and it will still take a long time for the western public to accordingly reform and improve. You can still join me to recieve the fresh and real China experience, and adopt accordingly to grasp its oppurtunities with me together. I have mostly quited posting political posts in both English and Chinese platforms because I have already completed my mission, as a girl, to send the voices to both societies. I recieved all kinds of feedbacks from both sides that both help and harm me. Looking back, I cannot help to feel I may have gone too far, too ahead, and too alone, which causes me to decouple from the public. Thus I recently shifted to be an influencer that dedicated to "touch" the public, and be part of a community seeks for solidarity and mutual understanding. My recent posts in social media enjoy more attention and appreiciation than before, meaning my life in social media have a lot more to be discovered and expanded. I will disipline myself in future to restrict voicing anything negative about any matters. It is not because I'm not wise enough to criticize the ugliness and dirts, but on the other hand I found myself is more needed elsewhere.

I have never been an FBI agent. Never conducted an investigation. Never worn a wire or served a warrant or spent a winter in a field office where the heating runs four hours behind the interrogation schedule. I was a congressional staffer. Then a political appointee. Then a different kind of political appointee. Then the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is also a kind of political appointee, except the furniture is nicer and the jet is mine. I run the building. I would like to tell you about the jet. It seats fourteen. It costs sixty million dollars. The interior was refurbished during the Bush administration and the procurement file describes the upholstery as "heritage cognac." I know this because I requested the file. Not for oversight purposes. I wanted to know the name of the color so I could describe it at dinner. Heritage cognac. It smells like a law firm that has never lost. I spend a lot of time in that smell now. I think it is the smell of having arrived somewhere that was never meant for you, and noticing that nobody has asked you to leave. Washington to Philadelphia is a hundred and forty miles. Amtrak runs it for forty-nine dollars. I flew the Gulfstream on May 10th because Alexis wanted to see George Strait. The suite was thirty-five thousand. Maybe fifty. I don't track numbers below six figures. The flight crew stayed on past eleven. Overtime. Security too. Someone will calculate the cost per mile of flying a sixty-million-dollar aircraft to cover a distance shorter than most Uber rides. That someone will not be me. I was in the suite. The suite didn't have a calculator. It had George Strait. The Bureau told reporters Alexis was "an invited guest of the performers." Representatives for George Strait and Chris Stapleton did not confirm this. They were never going to. But the FBI said it, and under my leadership, when the FBI says something, that is the evidentiary standard. I run the building. The building said it. It's true. Her protection detail is where the budget gets interesting. Twenty-four-seven coverage. SWAT-certified agents. Field officers drawn from multiple Bureau offices nationwide. Two armored SUVs at minimum. Hair appointments. Musical appearances. A blowout in Nashville required four agents in a parking lot for ninety minutes. The annual cost is roughly one million dollars before overtime, vehicle maintenance, and incidentals. The Bureau cites "hundreds of credible violent death threats" as justification. One person has been arrested. His name is Alden Welch Ruml, twenty-six, from Massachusetts. He sent emails. He faces five years. One emailer. One million dollars a year. Four SWAT agents per errand. A quarter of a million dollars in federal protection per verified threat. For context: the average FBI field office spends less annually on its entire confidential human source program. Informants embedded inside drug cartels, counterterrorism cells, organized crime families — the people whose testimony sends other people to prison — cost the Bureau less to keep alive than it costs me to ensure my girlfriend arrives at a salon escorted by men trained to rappel from helicopters. One of my officials suggested we conduct a formal threat assessment. A review. The kind of paperwork the Bureau has generated for seventy years whenever a protection decision requires justification. He had been with the Bureau for nineteen years. He asked in the hallway, in front of staff. I berated him. Not quietly. He stopped asking. He stopped asking. That phrase is going to recur in this document. I want you to notice it each time. Now. Alexis Wilkins is a country singer. I should mention this. She has released eight singles and one EP titled *Grit*. She has zero chart appearances. Her most-streamed song has five hundred and two thousand lifetime plays on Spotify. Taylor Swift accumulates that figure in approximately eleven minutes. A full-time country music journalist at the industry's leading independent publication stated that he had never heard of Alexis Wilkins before I started dating her. She has no active tour. She has never headlined a festival. Rolling Stone cited a forty-eight percent increase in her streaming numbers after we became public, which the same journalist clarified was "a forty-eight percent increase from virtually nothing." This is the person for whom the FBI fields a million-dollar annual protective detail. I want you to hold those two facts together — the streaming numbers and the security budget — and understand that they do not represent a miscalculation. They represent a value system. Her protection is not proportional to the threat. Her protection is proportional to her proximity to me. That is the formula. Proximity to the Director equals resources from the Bureau. I have applied it consistently. I have applied it to everyone. Which brings me to the people who are no longer here. I have removed over fifty career officials since January. Twelve have filed suit. Marshall Yates — my Congressional liaison, formerly the director of something called the Election Integrity Network, which existed to challenge the 2020 results — personally called field offices to compile names. Everyone who worked a case involving the President. Six thousand names were requested by the White House. The acting director before me was asked who he voted for. When he started supporting the President. Whether the FBI had tried to "put the president in jail." He was told the President hasn't forgotten. Three hundred counterterrorism and counterintelligence agents have been reassigned to immigration enforcement. The unit monitoring Iran — Iran, which operates proxy militias across four countries and maintains an active assassination program targeting American officials on American soil — was gutted. Six federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia have resigned or been pushed out rather than participate in the prosecution of the previous FBI Director, James Comey, whose crime was investigating the President and whose punishment is being investigated by the institution the President gave me as a gift. I am prosecuting the last Director for doing his job. I am doing this from a fifty-thousand-dollar suite while a sixty-million-dollar aircraft idles on the tarmac outside. Nobody in the building finds this ironic. The ones who would have found it ironic are gone. They stopped asking. My Deputy Director is Dan Bongino. He has never worked a federal case. His career before this was conservative talk radio. He receives the President's Daily Brief every morning — CIA product, NSA intercepts, the full intelligence take of the United States government — and he obtained his SCI clearance after I waived his polygraph. The FBI's own guidelines state that polygraphs are a "preliminary employment requirement." My lawyers reclassified him as a Schedule C political appointee. Experts said that's not how the statute works. The experts are career officials. Career officials are the previous administration's furniture. I am redecorating. Nikole Rucker is my personal assistant. She arrived at the Bureau on January 20th without a security clearance of any kind. She was physically escorted into the Director's suite because the door requires a clearance she did not possess. By February she was in London, seated across from a Western allied intelligence service, notebook open, pen moving. She used to work for Stephen Miller. The White House says she does not share operational details with him. I am told this is technically accurate in the way that most technically accurate statements are technically accurate. The polygraphs are still running. Just not for my people. We administer them now to career staff. The questions have changed. We ask whether they've criticized me. Whether they've spoken to a reporter. Whether they've expressed doubt about the direction of the Bureau. The machine measures stress. Under my leadership, stress has been reclassified as disloyalty. Disloyalty as a security risk. A security risk as grounds for termination. Fifty people have traveled this chain. Twelve are suing. The rest stopped asking. I run the building. In February a New York Times reporter named Elizabeth Williamson published details about the protective detail. I opened a preliminary inquiry. Federal stalking charges. We searched our databases for her information. The Department of Justice reviewed the file, found no legal basis, and terminated the inquiry. Called it retaliation. The Times' executive editor called it "a blatant violation of Elizabeth's First Amendment rights." I do not retaliate. I respond to threats. A journalist publishing accurate reporting about my personal use of public resources is, by my definition, a threat to operational security. My definitions are the ones that govern inside this building. I wrote the organizational chart. There is a framed copy on my wall. It has one name at the top. The Atlantic published a separate story. Excessive drinking. Frequent absences. Staff forcing entry into my home because I could not be reached. I filed a two-hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar defamation lawsuit. At my budget hearing, Senator Van Hollen cited the allegations under oath. I told him the only person slinging margaritas on the taxpayer dollar was him — in El Salvador, with a convicted gang-banging rapist. Fox News subsequently noted that public records do not support either characterization. But the line worked. That is the difference between evidence and performance. I have always understood which one this building rewards. In 2023, before any of this, I said the following on national television: "Chris Wray doesn't need a government-funded G5 jet to go to vacation. Maybe we ground that plane." I meant every word. We should have grounded his plane. So mine wouldn't invite the comparison. I sell merchandise. "Fight with Kash." T-shirts, hats, a children's book. The profits go to a foundation I started. The brand benefits from my position as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This is not a conflict of interest. A conflict requires two competing interests. I have one interest. It has never been healthier. I told the Senate that the FBI cannot meet its mission with a five-hundred-million-dollar cut. I requested twelve billion. Two billion more than last year. In the same period I spent a million on my girlfriend's security detail, fifty thousand on a concert suite, flew a sixty-million-dollar aircraft to cover a distance shorter than most commutes, waived background checks for three political appointees with no law enforcement experience, reassigned three hundred counterterrorism agents to check green cards, gutted the unit tracking Iran's assassination program, and opened a federal investigation into a newspaper reporter for the crime of publishing a newspaper. I told Hannity: "We are going to protect not only me and my loved ones but every American that is threatened." I meant the first seven words. The rest was institutional boilerplate. The kind of thing you say when the camera is on and the sentence needs to land somewhere that sounds like it includes other people. I run the building. Now I want to tell you about the water. The week before the concert I went to Pearl Harbor. The USS Arizona. A VIP snorkel. Nine hundred sailors and Marines are entombed in that hull. They have been there since 1941. The oil still leaks. It rises to the surface in small dark rainbows that break apart when you swim through them. The water was warm. Very clear. I could see the outline of the ship's superstructure below me, the geometry of a vessel that sank with its crew inside, and I remember the water temperature was perfect and the sun was on my back and my detail was on the shore and nobody in the water asked me to justify my presence above nine hundred dead. Recreational swimming at the Arizona is prohibited. The National Park Service said they were not involved. The Navy could not identify who authorized the outing. The logistics were coordinated by military email. A former government diver spoke to reporters anonymously. He said the access was unusual. He said it raised safety and security concerns. He spoke anonymously, the article noted, "for fear of retribution." A man who dives for the government is afraid to describe, on the record, how I swim. That is the climate. That is the building I run. A nineteen-year veteran stopped asking. Fifty career officials stopped working here. Three hundred counterterrorism agents stopped tracking the people who want to kill Americans. Six prosecutors stopped prosecuting. A government diver stopped talking. A reporter found her name in a database. And the oil keeps leaking from the Arizona, eighty-four years after the hull settled, surfacing in thin iridescent films that nobody is assigned to monitor because I reassigned them. I have never been an FBI agent. I have never conducted a federal investigation. I have never built a case or flipped a witness or spent a night in a surveillance van waiting for someone dangerous to make a mistake. But I have flown a sixty-million-dollar jet to a George Strait concert. I have watched the show from a suite that cost more than most Americans earn in a year. I have swum above nine hundred dead sailors in water so clear I could see their ship. And I have ensured, through the systematic removal of everyone who might object, that no one in the building will tell you any of this is wrong. The oil surfaces. It always surfaces. It has for eighty-four years. I run the building. The building doesn't ask questions anymore.