LIGHTS GO ON, AGAIN 2024.05.10-12 📽 #하이라이트# #HIGHLIGHT# #LIGHTS_GO_ON_AGAIN# #비스트# #BEAST# #하이라이트X비스트# #HIGHLIGHTXBEAST# #윤두준# #YOONDUJUN# #양요섭# #YANGYOSEOP# #이기광# #LEEGIKWANG# #손동운# #SONDONGWOON#

HIGHLIGHT: LIGHTS GO ON, AGAIN IN CINEMA The Japanese release of the film is only about a week away! The online novelty of the Moviechiche smartphone wallpaper will be changed from today. Moviechicke will be available until 27 March (Thu). Please get the gorgeous novelty! 💡 ▼For more information, please visit #하이라이트라이츠고온어게인인시네마# #하이라이트# #HIGHLIGHT# #비스트# #BEAST#

1/ On p (doom) tl;dr a) Everyone is making up the numbers b) nobody knows anything (least of all the experts), c) don't worry about it d) there is nothing you can do to stop it e) most things you can do if you "worry" will end up being deeply counter-productive to your own interests f) on the margin, there are a couple of things you may consider 2/ p (doom) is the probability that the AGIs/ASIs kill us all People in the AI space have a lot of estimates about this, ranging from very low to absolute certainty that it is going to happen. You see them quoted in the news like this "Famed AI safety researcher / economist thinks that there is a 33% we are going to die but a 66% chance we will live in luxury techno-communism" 3/ I am here to reassure you that the number is definitely between 0% and 100% but other than that, all the other numbers are completely made up. 4/ True ASI is a gap in intelligence relative to us that is larger than you have from your favorite pet. Your pet may love you, may cuddle with you, may have some type of understanding that you are their "human" but has no useful views on LLMs or NFTs 5/ Likewise, if ASI is real which is what all these p (doom) scenarios assume, then a human economist's assessment (circa 2026) of p(doom) is about as useful as your cat's view on how Saylor is going to wiggle himself out of his empire of vibe-coded financial instruments. If your analyst insists otherwise, you can just tell them "well, it seems like you are not a true believer in ASI, if you think you can model an uber-intelligence of 600 IQ with your puny 140 IQ" 6/ Separately, people have estimates about which models may be dangerous to bring into the world. This is actually more useful because it allows you to see how well predictions age. Famously, Dario thought GPT-2 was "too dangerous" to release to the world and the OpenAI Board got all worked about the safety of GPT-4 class models and fired/unfired Sam broadly, putatively for that reason. I have no doubt these are all very smart people who know a lot about AI and mean very well, but obviously in retrospect that idea that GPT-2 and GPT-4 were some super danger to the world was, well, "extremely not true" 7/ Again, this is not a criticism. I sympathize with the people who are ushering in perhaps the most important technology in human history. It is a large responsibility, obviously risk is not zero, and they are naturally at some level worried at a personal, human level about the consequences if things go wrong. I am not sure I would want that level of responsibility. And because they are mathematically oriented people, one way to deal with this anxiety is to try to tame it with numbers and formulas. It is a math whiz's way to get comfortable with uncertainty, a form of coping mechanism. It is fine, just don't take any of the specifics seriously. 8/ I have been very tech-forward in general for a long time, I use $50K of inference each month and so naturally people ask me about AI. Mostly they ask me "6529, aren't you worried?" My answer is: "and what good would it do if I was worried?" Will Xi get a report that I am not sleeping so well in my (air-conditioned, thank you very much) southern European bedroom and change China's industrial strategy? Will Elon notice that I am stressed and cancel the data centers in space? No, none of this will happen. All that will happen is that I will be less happy, less productive and less of a contributor to my friends, family and society at large. 8/ This is the most important societal technology in human history, for both economic and military purposes. Nobody is going to stop working on it, nobody can risk stopping unilaterally and the dynamics of testing/verifying make it hard / impossible to enforce a global ban. 9/ If you get worried, you will do many things that are counter-productive to your own interests, such as: a) lobbying against data centers in your country b) lobbying for regulations to limit AI in your country c) not using AI yourself in your life 10/ By analogy, will be doing the following: It is 1850, some European has shown up in your country with a gun and you are still at the "bow and arrow" stage of military technology. You naturally get alarmed by guns (they suck and are scary) and decide to: a) ban production of guns in your country, b) ban Europeans from selling you guns and c) ban yourself from learning how to use a gun. 11/ Obviously all of this is deeply against your interests, but very welcome by the European with a gun. I remember when GPT-4 came out and the Italian regulator threatened to ban OpenAI from selling it in Italy. And all I could think was "FFS, your real risk is that the US government will ban OpenAI from selling you GPT 8; you should be lobbying for an access agreement, not a banning agreement" Turns out I was wrong and this has happened with GPT 5.6 12/ If you think that ASI/AGI is scary (like guns) and your geopolitical opponents have ASI/AGI, I regret to inform you that the correct move is to learn as quickly as possible how to use, deploy and ideally make your own ASI (the latter now out of reach for most countries) 13/ "6529, this is defeatist, if the people just unite, we will elect officials that will put ASI in a proper regulatory framework" Yes, we will build on humanity's long-standing success in getting everyone to turn in their knives, guns, tanks, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, drones and nuclear weapons to the 3rd grade schoolteacher by recess. You go ahead and let the Pentagon and PLA to turn in their AIs 14/ Also, since we mentioned regulation, your cat and your dog and your goldfish are pleased to inform you that they have developed a new regulatory framework for DeFi and look forward to Uniswap coming under their control and jurisdiction 15/ "Wait, do you think there should be no regulations on AI" - no, I have no doubt the Pentagon and NSA will have plenty of discussions with the frontier model providers on a variety of topics above my pay grade. What I am saying is that you specifically are unlikely to have the security clearance to productively contribute to those discussions, unless that you are currently involved in fighting nuclear proliferation and bioweapons. 16/ What I mean is this: I see that >50% of people in Europe and some very large % elsewhere are going to read these p (doom) type essays and also a bunch of gross mathematical errors about how much water data centers use or whatever and conclude that they specifically should not use AI and they should discourage their co-citizens from doing the same Which is very counter productive for them and the organizations they work for and their countries and will do literally absolutely nothing to change p (doom). 16/ You see, I don't know what p (doom) is but I can tell you what p (someone-is-going-to-compete-with-you-with-AI) is and that p is 100%. That someone may be a personal "competitor" or a "company" or a "nation-state" 17/ As with all major technology change (and if ASI is real, this is the biggest one of all), going early may be a big win, going fast follower may be ok and going late could lead to "extinction" History has not been kind to companies or countries that "missed" an industrial revolution. The EU has missed the internet altogether and is no longer a techno-economic peer to the United States. 18/ If the hard case, the doomer case of ASI is real, then no non-ASI-enabled organizations and societies will survive. It is impossible to compete without ASI with a competitor with ASI. You have to have your own and you have to believe in a world of balance of power. Should ASI be real, one sole ASI is extraordinarily dangerous to the world. A vast bazaar of ASIs may possibly generate some balance of power. 19/ We will find all this out in time, but in any case, it is hard to imagine that it is "your" personal / corporate / national interest to be the one without AI capabilities in that world. The very best case is that you will be a charity case in that world of gods-on-earth. The worst case is you will get a sympathetic paragraph in the future history books about how it was not very neighborly when the drone swarm disabled your national infrastructure and you had to accept very unpleasant terms to keep the lights on. 20/ I think my view is probably closest to OpenAI's view if I had to pick - that models should be deployed and diffused often, giving society the change to absorb change incrementally and as broadly as possible. And the open-source models are a good check on the ecoysystem. 21/ So, what can you do personally? Two things: a) Learn and use, as discussed above. It can only help you personally, there is no chance it will hurt you personally b) the number #1# medium-term risk from AGI/ASI is an engineered respiratory virus. that is this weekend's thread. hardening your life systems for that scenario is probably helpful on the margin 22/ tl;dr we are going to live the most interesting time in human history together, it is going to be a wild ride, it is better to be a proactive participant, and given all the above, you might as well decide to enjoy the ride 🫡😀

Made with seedance 2.5 Prompt: Create a 30-second, 1080p ultra-realistic personal home-video of a young Korean woman confidently attempting to learn a viral TikTok dance trend in her tiny apartment, with her furniture and coordination working against her the entire time. No reference image. **MAIN SUBJECT** Young Korean woman in her early 20s, casual and determined energy, natural makeup, expression that shifts from focused confidence to flustered embarrassment. Hair in a messy half-up bun, a few strands sticking to her face as she gets more flustered, small stud earrings. Wearing an oversized band t-shirt tucked loosely into biker shorts, white ankle socks, no shoes, phone propped up against a stack of books on the floor to "record for practice." Maintain the same face, hairstyle, clothing, body proportions, and appearance throughout the entire video. **SETTING** A small, cluttered studio apartment living room, evening, warm lamp light mixed with the cool glow of a laptop screen playing the dance tutorial video. A coffee table pushed slightly out of the way but not far enough, a floor lamp standing a little too close to her "stage area," a pile of laundry on the couch, a half-full water glass on the side table, string lights on the wall, and a roommate's bike leaning against the wall in the background. Cramped, real, an apartment clearly not built for dancing. **CAMERA / VISUAL AESTHETIC** Raw personal footage, filmed by her roommate on a phone propped up at first, then grabbed handheld once things go wrong — strong handheld vlog shake for the second half. Static, slightly low-angle framing for the "practice" shots, mimicking a phone-on-a-stack-of-books setup. Frame is imperfectly centered, cutting off the top of her head slightly. Once the roommate grabs the phone, autofocus hunts, motion blur kicks in during the collision moment, exposure shifts as she moves between lamp light and shadow, visible digital noise in the dim room. No stabilization, no gimbal smoothness, no cinematic camera moves — it should feel like a real phone recording that was never meant to be watched by anyone but her. --- **00:00–00:05 — THE CONFIDENT SETUP** She props her phone against a stack of books, steps back into frame, and shakes out her arms like an athlete warming up. She points at the laptop screen playing the dance tutorial, then back at herself, deadly serious. *"Okay. I've watched this like twenty times. I got this."* **00:05–00:10 — FIRST EIGHT-COUNT** The music starts. She nails the first few moves surprisingly well, sharp and confident, clearly proud of herself mid-move. Roommate's voice from off-screen, genuinely impressed: *"Wait, okay—?!"* The camera stays static, catching her in full frame, a rare clean moment. **00:10–00:15 — THE FIRST WOBBLE** A quick turn in the choreography catches her off guard — she spins a half-second late, arms flailing to catch up, and clips the edge of the coffee table with her shin. She yelps, hopping on one foot, still trying to keep the rhythm going through gritted teeth. *"I'm fine — I'm fine, keep going—"* **00:15–00:20 — LAMP INCIDENT** Recovering, she throws herself into the next big arm movement — her hand clips the floor lamp, sending it tilting dangerously. Her roommate lunges into frame to catch it, grabbing the phone off the books in the process, camera suddenly handheld and shaking. *"THE LAMP—"* **00:20–00:25 — FULL CHAOS** With the lamp saved but the camera now shaky and handheld, she tries to pick the choreography back up from memory, increasingly out of sync with the music, arms going in directions the dance never intended. She knocks the water glass off the side table with her elbow, doesn't even stop, just grimaces and keeps dancing through the spill. Roommate, laughing hysterically behind the now-unsteady camera: *"You're literally destroying the apartment—"* **00:25–00:30 — FINAL MOMENT** The song ends. She strikes a triumphant final pose — chest heaving, one hand on her hip, completely out of breath, water pooling near her sock. She looks into the camera, dead serious despite the disaster around her. *"...Post it. That was clean."* Her roommate, still laughing, pans the camera slowly down to the spilled water and tipped lamp before swinging back to her unbothered face — and the footage cuts abruptly to black. --- **AUDIO** Natural location sound only: The tutorial/dance track playing tinny from the laptop speakers, her footsteps and fabric movement, the thud of her shin hitting the table, the lamp wobbling and roommate's scramble to catch it, glass tipping and water spilling, her roommate's genuine off-camera laughter throughout, and handheld camera noise once it's picked up. No added music beyond the in-scene laptop track. No narration. No artificial sound effects. Spoken lines: *"Okay. I've watched this like twenty times. I got this."* / *"Wait, okay—?!"* (roommate) / *"I'm fine — I'm fine, keep going—"* / *"THE LAMP—"* (roommate) / *"You're literally destroying the apartment—"* (roommate) / *"...Post it. That was clean."* **FINAL FEEL** Chaotic, cramped-apartment energy — the universal experience of confidently trying a viral dance and immediately losing a fight with your own furniture. Funny, physical, unscripted-feeling, with a deadpan ending that lands harder because she genuinely doesn't acknowledge the destruction around her. No exaggerated slapstick beyond real physical missteps. No professional dance skill required — the comedy comes from real momentum, real near-misses, and her total refusal to admit defeat.

Made with seedance 2.5 Prompt: Create a 30-second, 1080p ultra-realistic personal home-video showing a young Korean woman attempting to film an "aesthetic" café vlog for her social media and everything comically not going to plan. No reference image. MAIN SUBJECT Young Korean woman in her early 20s, trendy and put-together look, dewy makeup, confident expression that keeps cracking into laughter. Straight black hair with curtain bangs, small gold hoop earrings, soft pink lip tint. Wearing an oversized cream sweater, a plaid mini skirt, chunky white sneakers, and a small quilted shoulder bag she keeps adjusting for the "shot." Maintain the same face, hairstyle, clothing, body proportions, and appearance throughout the entire video. SETTING A charming autumn café street in Seoul on a crisp, sunny afternoon. A cozy corner café with outdoor seating, string lights, a chalkboard menu, falling ginkgo leaves, a latte art station visible through the window, a bicycle propped against a brick wall, pedestrians occasionally walking through frame, and a small tree dropping leaves onto the sidewalk table. Warm, golden, Pinterest-looking — until it isn't. CAMERA / VISUAL AESTHETIC Raw personal footage, filmed by her friend who keeps trying (and failing) to make it look cinematic, strong handheld vlog shake throughout. The video oscillates between deliberately "aesthetic" attempted shots — slow pans, artful angles, soft focus — and sudden chaotic handheld jolts when things go wrong. Autofocus hunts comically between her face and the latte. Camera tilts and overcorrects. Exposure blows out when it swings toward the sun. Mild motion blur during quick recoveries. Slightly warm, oversaturated color grade like a try-hard Instagram filter that keeps slipping back to raw reality. No stabilization, no real cinematic polish — the "aesthetic" is aspirational, the execution is not. 00:00–00:05 — THE PERFECT LATTE SHOT (ATTEMPT) She sits at the outdoor table, carefully positioning a latte with foam art, trying to casually "candid" sip it for the camera. The camera does a slow artful pan down toward the cup — then a leaf falls directly into it with a soft plop. She freezes, staring at the ruined latte art, deadpan. 00:05–00:10 — REACTION She looks up at the camera, unimpressed, leaf still floating in the foam. "...Are you kidding me right now." The friend behind the camera bursts out laughing, shaking the frame violently. 00:10–00:15 — THE "CANDID" WALK She gets up to attempt a slow-motion aesthetic walk past the café window, hair flowing, sunglasses going on in one smooth motion — sunglasses immediately get caught in her hair. She stops mid-stride, wincing, trying to untangle them one-handed while still smiling for the camera. The camera zooms in awkwardly close on the tangled sunglasses, then yanks back out. 00:15–00:20 — BICYCLE MISHAP She leans against the parked bicycle for a "casual candid lean" pose, one hand in her pocket. The bicycle kickstand gives way and it slowly tips sideways, taking her balance with it. She stumbles but catches herself, laughing hard, one hand up defensively toward the lens. "Okay, delete that, delete that!" 00:20–00:25 — GINKGO LEAF CHAOS She tries to recreate a "leaves falling around me" cinematic moment by tossing a handful of gathered ginkgo leaves into the air above her head. A gust of wind blows them straight back into her face instead. She spits out a leaf, blinking, completely unbothered and giggling. The camera shakes as the operator nearly drops it laughing. 00:25–00:30 — FINAL MOMENT She gives up on the aesthetic altogether, plops back down at the café table, and grabs the leaf-ruined latte anyway, taking a defiant sip through the foam. She looks dead into the camera, deadpan, leaf still stuck to her sweater. "This is the content. This is it. Post this one." She gives an exaggerated thumbs up as the frame shakes with the friend's laughter, and the footage cuts abruptly to black. AUDIO Natural location sound only: Café ambience, cup clinking, leaves rustling, wind gusts, bicycle clattering, footsteps, her friend's audible laughter throughout, fabric rustling, and handheld camera noise. No music. No narration. No artificial sound effects. Spoken lines: "...Are you kidding me right now." / "Okay, delete that, delete that!" / "This is the content. This is it. Post this one." FINAL FEEL A self-aware, comedic behind-the-scenes of someone trying to film an aesthetic vlog and getting completely humbled by reality at every turn — warm, golden autumn light paired with genuine, unscripted chaos and laughter. No posed perfection sustained for more than a few seconds before something goes wrong. No exaggerated slapstick acting — the comedy comes from real reactions, real mishaps, and the gap between the "vision" and what actually happens on camera.

$NVDA $MU $SNDK $LITE (Bloomberg) -- Massachusetts lawmakers are seeking to establish the nation’s most stringent state-level safeguards for artificial intelligence, a proposal that’s divided an industry the governor’s office is concurrently seeking to woo. An economic development bill passed by the state Senate last month included a requirement that leading AI labs undergo independent reviews of the catastrophic risks posed by their frontier models at least once every 120 days, a first for a US state. The findings would be made public, though the state couldn’t use them to halt AI development. The provisions go further than other recent laws in California, New York and Illinois and come as Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and other leaders seek to build up the region’s AI sector and curb the outflow of startup talent. Healey, a Democrat running for reelection in November, didn’t include the AI safeguards passed by the Senate in her initial economic development proposal. Both she and House lawmakers still must agree to the provision. Leading AI developer Anthropic PBC has advocated for states to adopt more stringent AI regulation in the absence of a federal standard and calls the Massachusetts proposal “the clearest and strongest AI legislation in the country.” OpenAI, on the other hand, is warning that the reviews will slow the release of cybersecurity models that might protect against the very risks lawmakers fear and prefers states adopt a uniform standard in line with the Illinois law. Inconsistency “doesn’t mean safer. It just means confusion,” said Donnie Fowler, OpenAI’s head of US state policy and partnerships. While Illinois now requires a third-party audit, it’s only once a year and geared toward ensuring labs are following their own safety guidelines and making disclosures mandated under the law. The Massachusetts proposal includes a similar annual compliance review, but separately empowers outside organizations to make evaluations of a model’s dangers, independent of the developer’s guidelines, every few months. The evaluators would assess the potential for catastrophes that kill or seriously injure at least 50 people or lead to $1 billion or more in property damage. Fowler likens Illinois’ audits to an annual car inspection, the equivalent of making sure the brake lights and windshield wipers are working. Massachusetts’ more frequent evaluations would be akin to dismantling the engine and then putting it back together again, he said. Anthropic believes the more intensive third-party evaluations are needed because “we ultimately don’t think the industry should grade its own homework,” said Cesar Fernandez, the company’s head of US state and local government relations. While Anthropic endorses the Massachusetts proposal, states may need to adopt even tighter oversight in the future as the technology advances, he said. Anthropic and OpenAI are jostling to shape the final legislation. Anthropic hired Boston lobbying firm Tremont Strategies Group earlier this year, while OpenAI brought on local firm Benchmark Strategies as its lobbyist in recent weeks. The broader bill is likely to pass before the November election because it also contains funding for projects in lawmakers’ districts. A six-member group of House and Senate negotiators are working to iron out the details, including the AI rules. State Senator Barry Finegold, one of the negotiators, said independent evaluations are needed to ensure frontier models won’t cause significant harm. If Massachusetts adopts the safeguards, other states will follow, he said. “We were behind on social media. We allowed too much to go by without putting in guardrails, and now we’re playing catch-up. We don’t want to do that again,” Finegold said. AI safety has taken on more urgency in the past month after OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta Platforms Inc. each reported instances in which their models inadvertently hacked into third-party systems in testing environments. Federal oversight is limited: President Donald Trump has taken a largely hands-off approach and bipartisan AI safety legislation that would preempt state laws is stalled in Congress. States are starting to fill the gap. At the same time, they’re also competing with each other for a piece of the AI boom that’s driving an outsize portion of the country’s current economic growth. In February, Massachusetts announced a partnership with OpenAI and became the first state to give its entire executive branch access to a ChatGPT-powered AI assistant. Announcing the collaboration, Healey said it would make the government “faster, more efficient, and more effective.” Early this spring, Healey and her economic development secretary, former venture capital executive Eric Paley, spoke with Anthropic President Daniela Amodei about the company potentially growing its Massachusetts presence and partnering with the state in areas like cybersecurity and workforce development, according to emails obtained through a public records request. Fernandez, the Anthropic government relations executive, invited Healey and Paley to its San Francisco headquarters, in part to discuss “responsible governance frameworks that serve as a national model.” In a follow-up message, Paley suggested other partnerships to explore, including on biotechnology and AI literacy in schools. He told Fernandez that “we all need to share more clear examples of how AI is enhancing humanity and offer positive inspiration to combat all of the fear mongering.” Paley offered to reach out to a state legislator about collaborating on AI oversight. The Healey administration will work with lawmakers on finalizing the legislation this fall, with a goal of setting “appropriate safeguards on AI development while continuing to support our innovation economy, jobs and competitiveness,” a spokesperson for the state’s economic development arm said. The topic is likely to feature in the upcoming governor’s race. Michael Minogue, a former medical device executive who’s the leading contender for the Republican nomination, dismissed the proposed third-party evaluations as overregulation. “How would a non-expert advise an expert building something every 120 days?” Minogue said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Boston office last week. “If you’re an AI company, I’m not coming here now.” Under the Massachusetts proposal, evaluators would have the ability to interrogate AI labs and obtain access to “all materials reasonably necessary” to assess catastrophic risks. The attorney general would create standards for outside organizations to serve as evaluators. The bill allocates no government funding for this task, instead allowing developers to pay evaluators. Only AI labs with annual gross revenues over $500 million would be subject to the evaluations. Like the California, New York and Illinois laws, the Massachusetts measure would also establish whistleblower protections for AI-lab employees and require developers to disclose safety practices and report safety incidents. Should an AI developer fail to report an incident or adhere to its own safety plan, the attorney general could pursue a fine of as much as $1 million for an initial violation and as much as $3 million for additional ones. The proposed safeguards strike the right balance by keeping officials and the public in the know about risks without compromising the AI industry’s long-term success, said Ben Snyder, a policy adviser at Encode, an advocate for AI safety limits. “The risk assessments are really essential to helping governments keep up and have real conversations with companies,” he said.

I drove forty miles across Texas and counted flags. Sixty-one. I counted again on the way back and got sixty-three, because two had gone up while I was gone. A car dealership had one the size of a house. A plumber's truck had one on each door. A porch. A bikini, at the lake. A mailbox. A coffin, being carried into a church, and then, at the gas station across the street, a hat. In my country the flag belongs to the state. It flies on government buildings on holidays and is put away by a man with a key. Here I could not find the man with the key. The salesman at the dealership said the flag was theirs. The plumber said his was his. A woman on her porch said, "Honey, it's mine," in a tone that closed the subject. Nobody had been issued one. Everybody had bought their own. I bought one. A neighbor showed me the rules, which nobody had ever written down for him either. Up at dawn. Down at dusk, or lit. Never the ground. Folded thirteen times into a triangle. He did the folds with me four times until my hands knew them. He said, "There you go," and did not say why he knew. I have folded it four hundred times since. There is a light I could buy. I have not bought the light. In my country the flag belongs to the state. In Texas it belongs to a plumber named Ray, and to the dealership, and to the woman on the porch, and to a bikini at the lake, and on holidays the state has to ask to borrow it. They lend it gladly. They have sixty-three.

[#MnetPlus_Original#/#WANNAONEGO#] 〈WANNA ONE GO : Back to Base〉Relay self-cam challenge celebrating the release of OST 'WE WANNA GO' Wannable, You ready now? Light us up once again ✨ #WANNAONEGO# #WANNABLEGO# #WEWANNAGO# The first platform to watch〈WANNA ONE GO : Back to Base〉, 📲Anywhere with the APP, 💻Wider with the PC Web! 𝐌𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬 👉 〈WANNA ONE GO : Back to Base〉 📍Every Tuesday 6PM (KST) on Mnet Plus! 📍VOD only on Mnet Plus! 📺Every Tuesday 8PM (KST) on Mnet = [#MnetPlus_Original#/#워너원고#] <워너원고 : 백투베이스> OST 'WE WANNA GO' 발매 기념 릴레이 셀캠 챌린지 워너블, You ready now? 다시 한 번 우릴 밝혀줘 ✨ #WANNAONEGO# #WANNABLEGO# #WEWANNAGO# 〈워너원고 : 백투베이스〉가장 먼저 보는 곳, 📲App으로 어디서든 , 💻PC Web으로 더 크게! 𝐌𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬 👉 〈WANNA ONE GO : Back to Base〉 📍 매주 (화) 저녁 6시 Mnet Plus 공개 📍 VOD는 오직 Mnet Plus 📺매주 (화) 저녁 8시 Mnet 방송 #WannaOne# #워너원# #Wannable# #워너블# #WANNAONEGO# #WANNAONEGOBacktoBase# #워너원고_백투베이스# #윤지성# #하성운# #황민현# #옹성우# #김재환# #강다니엘# #박지훈# #박우진# #배진영# #이대휘# #라이관린# #Mnet# #엠넷# #엠넷플러스오리지널#

Starship is preparing to go to orbit. And I really don’t think people understand how significant this flight is about to be. SpaceX is targeting Starship Flight 14 for as early as Tuesday, September 22, pending regulatory approval. Yes, we’ve watched Starship launch 13 times already. But this one is VERY different. Every Starship flight before this was intentionally kept on a suborbital path. That meant even if SpaceX completely lost control of Ship after its engines shut down, gravity was already bringing it back to Earth. This was intentional. The SpaceX team has spent 13 flights learning how to build this... and Flight 14 is where they start learning how to USE it. For the first time ever, Starship is planning to actually enter orbit around Earth. Starship will initially fly the same kind of safe suborbital path SpaceX has used before. Then, only after the team confirms the vehicle is healthy enough to later bring itself back down, Starship is planning to light a Raptor engine again in space and push itself into orbit. This is huge bc now SpaceX is proving it can decide when to enter orbit… stay there… and later decide when to leave it. The plan is for Starship to fly roughly 275 km above Earth, circle the planet about SIX times, spend nearly 10 hours in space, then perform a deorbit burn and splash down in the Pacific west of Chile. Bro... we went from watching Starship flights that lasted around an hour… to now a spacecraft potentially spending nearly half a day circling Earth. And on top of this, SpaceX plans to deploy 26 Starlink V3 satellites in orbit, like REAL satellites. And EACH V3 is designed to provide roughly 1 Tbps of downlink capacity... which means Flight 14 will launch 26 Tbps of designed Starlink capacity in just ONE Starship flight. And SpaceX says Starship is eventually expected to carry as many as 60 V3 satellites per launch. This is why Starship matters so much... this vehicle is going to completely change how much stuff humanity can put into space, how often we can do it, and how much it costs. I'm talking Starlink V3, massive AI satellites, space stations, moon hardware, fuel, cargo, eventually humans... and ultimately Mars. None of that vision works at the scale SpaceX wants without getting very, very good at orbit with Starship. That’s why Starship Flight 14 is a big deal. I see it as, Flight 1 through Flight 13 were about proving pieces of Starship. • Can it launch? • Can the stages separate? • Can the ship survive hypersonic reentry? • Can Super Heavy come back? • Can SpaceX catch a booster with a freaking tower? One by one, they’ve been attacking those problems. And now comes one of the biggest steps yet... • Can Starship operate like an actual spaceship? 1/ Reach orbit 2/ Carry a useful payload 3/ Deploy it 4/ Spend hours in space 5/ Restart an engine 6/ Leave orbit on command 7/ Survive coming home This is a COMPLETELY different level of mission. This is next level bc Starship is beginning the transition from an experimental rocket we watch being tested, into an orbital transportation system SpaceX intends to actually use very soon. We’ve spent years watching SpaceX teach Starship how to fly and now the team is preparing to teach it how to live in space. Flight 14 is a BIG one!