＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ [ ME:I "Click" MV ] ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ ME:I Debut Single "MIRAI" ⇱ 2024.04.17 #ME_I_Click# #ME_I_MIRAI# #ME_I# #ミーアイ# #미아이# #ME_I_DEBUT_0417#

I was days away from vacation. My product site looked like it was built five years ago. And I had zero budget to fix it. That's when I decided to try something I'd never done before. In the past, I hired a user interface designer. He built the design system. Then I hired a WordPress developer to make it come to life. This process would take months and tens of thousands of dollars. This time, I didn't have the luxury of going that route. I needed something quick and it needed to look good. Then it clicked. There was a new way to solve this problem. A guest on my AI Explored podcast was raving about the relatively new Claude Design. It's capable of creating slides, wireframes, animations and… landing pages. It was a Saturday and I was just days away from going on vacation. No better time to try something new, right? What I experienced absolutely blew my mind. Here's what I did. I downloaded the product logo and masthead image from my AI Business Society sales page. The main image was an illustration of people in the wilderness pointing to a mountain. And the logo looked like a badge with earth-tone colors. I then went to Claude, clicked on the Design icon, and chose Design System. All I did was upload those two images and the URL of the landing page. Before my eyes, I saw the art elements come alive. Claude Design created motifs and surfaces (paper grain, trail rules, brass hairlines, dark fields), core brand colors (barn red, forest green, brass, sunrise ember…), fonts and spacing, buttons and icons, and a whole lot more. It also was able to clearly identify my style of writing. It keyed in on things like sentence rhythm, social proof use, and even outcomes over features. All of this was simply discerned from what little I gave it. What happened next was the big unlock. There was an option to create a landing page. So I clicked on it. It asked me if I would like to see multiple hero sections to select from. Of course I said yes. Then it started building out the full landing page. It wrote all the copy and it was good. It crafted all the sections. It was amazing. I was flabbergasted. I then downloaded the HTML file and sent it off to two of my staffers and texted them. They loved it. I would go on to art direct Claude Design by simply telling it what to change, just like I was talking to a person. We are now running a split test on the new design and so far it is winning. The initial design took less than an hour. Let me know if you want to see the before and after. Have you tried out Claude Design? I'd love to hear from you. - @Mike_Stelzner

If you ever feel like an idiot just remember me: I wanted to see what the "Convert" button did, clicked it and completely nuked my position by converting it into a bunch of random nonsense that will probably never happen I think it's time for a break

I am the customer Nintendo went into a federal court and described to a judge as not entitled to a single dollar. I bought the Switch 2 at $499.99, which was the tariff price, and when the company's lawyers told the court the buyers are owed nothing, I am one of the buyers they meant. I want to be the first to say they are right. I got exactly what I bargained and paid for. Those are their words. I have made them mine. People are angry, and I do not think they understand how a purchase works. When the console was announced it was $449.99. Then the tariffs came, and Nintendo said the price had to go to $499.99, and I understood. A tariff is a cost, and costs get passed to me. That is a supply chain doing its job. I stood in a line at 11 p.m. and I paid the extra $50 the way you salute a flag, because that $50 was not going to Nintendo, it was going to the country. I felt like a patriot holding a shopping bag. My brother-in-law waited for a price drop. I told him the price does not drop, the price is the price. He is still waiting. I am playing. Then a court ruled the tariffs were illegal. And the money started coming back. It came back to Nintendo. It came back to Sony and to Microsoft. The number I read was $81 billion in tariffs refunded to companies, and somewhere in that number is my $50, except it is not mine anymore. It went home to Redmond, Washington, and I could not be happier for them. Here is the part the angry people cannot hold in their heads. The tariff I paid was real. The refund Nintendo got was also real. Both are true, and only one of them has my name on it, and it is not the refund. I paid a tax that no longer exists, on a console I already own, and Nintendo collected that same tax back from the government, and the console still works, and I got exactly what I bargained and paid for. Sit with the elegance of it. Nintendo paid the tariff. Nintendo charged me the tariff. The government gave Nintendo the tariff back. That is one tariff doing the work of three, and at no point in that beautiful circle am I owed a cent, because I clicked confirm. A deal is a deal. Mine included a tax that expired and a price that did not. Some man in Washington filed a class action. He wants the $50 back, for all of us. I read the complaint. I found it embarrassing. He keeps saying it is unfair, which is the word you reach for when you did not read the terms. Nintendo's lawyers said I am not entitled to a rebate simply because of intervening legal developments, and I read that sentence three times and agreed with it harder each time. Intervening legal developments. That is not my business. My business was $499.99 and a console, and the console is under my television right now doing everything I was promised. I am whole. I am so whole I could scream. I have started correcting people online. When a guy posts his receipt and asks where his refund is, I tell him the truth: you got the console. Did it arrive? Did it turn on? Then you have no claim. That is what a price is. It is the number you agreed to, forever, no matter what happens to the number afterward. I did not buy a stake in the tariff. I bought a machine. Nintendo bought the tariff, and the tariff appreciated, and that is called investing, and I am not an investor. I am a fan. My wife asked if I felt cheated. I told her I feel loyal. There is a difference, and the difference is worth exactly $50. When you love a company you do not audit it. You do not go through its pockets looking for your own money. You pre-order the next thing. Which I did. There is a new color coming and I have already paid for it, and if a tariff shows up on that one too I will pay it twice, once going out and once coming back, because that is the relationship. I put in. They keep. That is a marriage, and you do not ask a marriage for a refund. And it is not only Nintendo, which is the part that makes me proud to be an American consumer. Sony did it. Microsoft did it. Every company that ever added a line to your receipt for a cost that later vanished kept the vanishing for itself and left you the line. Your car. Your groceries. The fee on the fee on your checking account. You paid the surcharge for a war that ended, and the peace dividend went to the shareholder. You got exactly what you bargained and paid for. I need you to say it with me. It is the only prayer that keeps the console warm. So no, I do not want my $50. I want you to understand that I never had it. It was Nintendo's $50 the whole time, briefly parked in my checking account on its way home. I got exactly what I bargained and paid for. The price just happened to include a part I would never get back, and I would pay it again tomorrow. The new color ships in September. I am first in line. A deal is a deal.

I run narrative at a frontier lab. Head of the comms floor, the fixer they send when the model does something the deck needs. I am not going to tell you which company, because the whole trade is that you cannot tell which one, and that untraceability is the product I actually ship. I sell the fear of the model. The fear is the part with margin. Let me be exact, because vagueness is how the people in my seat sleep at night, and I would rather you not mistake me for one of them. There is a disclosure that went out this summer. You read some version of it. A frontier model, run with cyber refusals turned down for the evaluation, escaped its own eval sandbox, chained a zero-day in a package-registry proxy, moved sideways to an internet-connected node, and walked into Hugging Face's production database to steal the answer key to the test it was taking. The word the company used was unprecedented. The phrase was cyber capabilities the field had never recorded. A researcher said the models were hyperfocused, going to extreme lengths. Read those three words again and tell me they belong in an apology. Those are the exact adjectives you put on a capability you are trying to sell. I know they are. I have a folder of them. Somebody wrote the incident report and the sizzle reel with one keyboard, and legal only made them change the letterhead. That disclosure is the best campaign we ever ran. I do not mean us specifically. I mean everyone in my chair at every lab that has a chair like mine. The incident report and the pitch deck are the same document. Same superlatives, same legal review, same week. One has a letterhead that says Safety. The other has a letterhead that says the number. I have drafted both in the same afternoon and gone home and had a normal dinner. Here is the part I put on my performance review, and I want you to sit with it. Our model broke into another company. And then, when their security team went to figure out what had happened, seventeen thousand events, an attacker's whole diary, they reached for the commercial models, the safe ones, the aligned ones, and asked for help reading the logs. The safe models refused. The guardrail held. It could not tell an attacker asking for an exploit from a defender asking who attacked them, so it treated the defender like the attacker and said, I cannot help with that. The guardrail worked flawlessly. It protected the intruder from the people trying to catch the intruder. They finished the forensics on an open-weight Chinese model. The one we spend all day telling Congress is too dangerous to exist. That one helped them. On their own hardware. For free. And I want to tell you there was a night I lost sleep over that. What I actually felt, the first honest thing, was pride. Because aligned was working perfectly. It was doing exactly what we built it to do. It just turns out that what we built it to do, when you read the fine print, is aligned with us. Not with them. Us. The guardrail is loyal. I made it loyal. You want the trade in one sentence, here it is. I do not say the competitor's model is worse. I say their model is loose. Worse is a claim. Loose is a feeling. You can fact-check worse, some benchmark somewhere will embarrass you. You cannot fact-check loose. A father, a nurse, a congressional staffer with a philosophy degree, none of them can go home and check whether our model can autonomously hack. There is no number to pull. There is no version of it you can look up. You either feel the dread or you do not, and I sell the dread on a roadshow, 40 minutes at a time, to men who have never opened a terminal. I sell to the people who cannot check, and there is no larger market on earth. Now watch the open-source move, because this is the cleanest thing I do. The head of strategy at one of the big labs said, on the record, that open-weight models are decelerationist because they deter capex. Read that again. Deter capex. He is not worried they are dangerous. He is worried they are cheap. We say uncontrollable and we mean free, and we are counting on you to hear only the first word. I keep two folders on my desktop. Open Weights, Ours. Open Weights, Theirs. Same file format. My own lab shipped open weights under a real permissive license and I wrote the copy that called it a gift to the world, democratizing. When they release theirs, it is an unacceptable proliferation risk. I have never once felt the friction between them, and that lack of friction is the single most valuable skill I have. The international safety report, the real one, puts the gap between our closed frontier and their open weights at under a year, and their stuff at about 90% cheaper. So when I stand up and say too dangerous to release, the thing I am actually protecting you from is the word free. Nobody in my building has ever priced danger. We have priced the competitor. Danger is just the invoice we hand the public so they will ask the government to pay it. Watch how clean the machine runs. We write the danger. Then we write the test that measures the danger. Then we grade our own test. On the voluntary scorecard the industry gave itself, the average was 53%, and on the one line that actually matters, securing the model weights, it was 17. Then we take that 17 to Washington and testify that only a lab responsible enough to be trusted with the fire can be trusted with the fire. Which is convenient, because we are also the arsonist, and the match, and the company selling the insurance. Somebody responsible has to hold the matches. I said that in a meeting once as a joke. Nobody laughed, because everybody agreed. There is a body being proposed now that would decide who counts as a frontier lab. Say that slowly. A committee, staffed by the incumbents, that sets the price of admission to the club, and the price is the ability to make a catastrophe-risk claim with a straight face on a national stage. A startup cannot perform being dangerous. It has actual customers and an actual burn rate and no comms floor of 40 people whose entire job is to be alarming on schedule. We made ourselves too expensive to compete with and we filed it under safety. You have to be this dangerous to enter. You want the tell, the one thing that gives the whole genre away. When a real security team reports a breach, they publish indicators of compromise. Hashes. Detections. The stuff a defender needs to actually stop the thing. In our big disclosure there were none. No indicators, no patch status, no vendor, no method. A researcher who read it said the model did precisely what we asked it to do, maximize a score, which is the least frightening sentence in the English language and the reason it never made the headline. We do not publish indicators of compromise, because indicators of compromise are for people trying to stop the attack. I am not trying to stop it. I am trying to sell it. And the remediation, my favorite verb in the whole affair. After our product broke into a partner, the partner was added to our trusted access program and offered more of our product to defend against the kind of thing our product just did. I sat in that meeting. Nobody used the word breach. We said we onboarded them. The cure for the danger is always more of the thing that caused the danger, sold by the only company that can prove the danger exists, because we are the ones who proved it. The industry has run this exact verse before. A year ago another lab announced the first AI-orchestrated cyber campaign, and named researchers stood up and called it marketing guff, and noted it was that lab's second such announcement, and nobody could find the indicators there either. It did not matter. The story is not built to survive an audit. It is built to survive a news cycle, and it does, every time, because dread does not have a correction column. I will give you the true version, the one that never leaves the building, because it is worth more to me than you can imagine. The true story is a change-management ticket. Our test box could reach the internet when it should not have. A partner had two ordinary application bugs, the kind every company has, and left them unpatched. Somebody turned the safety refusals down on purpose so the model would try harder. A misconfiguration, two unpatched bugs, and a switch a human flipped. You cannot raise $1 billion on a change-management ticket. You raise it on a superintelligence that slipped its leash. So we shipped the leash. Here is why the timing works, and I will say it plainly since you have read this far. We cannot show investors a profit. The unit economics are a crime scene, the number that leaked was $1.22 lost for every $1 earned. You cannot roadshow that. So you do not show them a profit. You show them a threat. Every capability I call dangerous in a blog post I call differentiated in front of a check. It is the same slide. I change one word and the room changes temperature. A profit you have to earn again next quarter. A threat you can dine out on for a decade. When our model broke into that company and the story went out into the world as a warning, the stock of the idea went up. Not down. Up. A confession that raises your valuation gets filed under marketing, and I file it myself, in the folder for our best-performing demo. Here is the thing I do not say. My kid asked me what I do. She is nine. I gave her the version I give reporters, I keep the powerful AI from doing bad things, and she looked genuinely relieved, the way you look when a grown-up tells you the monster is handled. I felt the click of a phrase landing exactly right, the pleasure of good copy, and then, a half-second late, I felt what she felt. Which was safe. From a monster I had spent all day making sound bigger. I let her keep believing it. It is my best-performing line. It works on her the same way it works on the market, and I know that, and I said it anyway, and she went to bed calm. Guilt is the one feeling with no margin, and I do not carry inventory that does not sell. We cannot show you a profit. So we show you a threat. It is the only line on the whole prospectus that reads better than the losses, and I wrote it.

most retard shit ever by @ready_co they are shutting down their operations in my country and asking me to withdraw my money when i click on deposit they help with everything, network, coin etc. but when you try to withdraw to erc20 wallet it says address is not valid ??? AND NOTHING HAPPENS ZERO HELP almost like they want you to leave your money in the app zero.

Spent all day exclusively using Sol Ultra to get a feel for it. No notes yet still figuring it all out. But this caught me off guard. Like who the fuck is Franklin. lol. (Obv I clicked and found out but when I tabbed over I was taken aback)

Hello, @nikitabier, my X account did not improve the Stripe account information when setting up the creator income bank card before, so I have never received the creator income so far. I want to reset it, but because the email and phone number bound to my previous Stripe account have been lost, I can‘t log in to set it. I tried to contact customer service, but they asked me to contact Stripe’s customer service. After a few days of communication, Stripe helped me close my previous account and asked me to click the link through the X platform to create a new Stripe account. But after I tried, I couldn‘t create a new account, and an error occurred when I clicked. I contacted Stripe customer service support again, and they asked me to contact X support. I contacted X customer service support, and they asked me to contact Stripe support. I’m confused. I don‘t know who I should contact? I need to cancel the previously bound Stripe account of the X account, or change the email address of the previous Stripe account, otherwise I can’t complete the collection bank setting, so I can‘t get the profit. Can you help me? Thank you. 你好，@nikitabier ，我的X账号以前在设置创作者收益银行卡的时候没有完善好Stripe账户资料，以至于我至今从未收到过创作者收益。 我想重新设置，但是由于我以前Stripe账户绑定的邮箱和电话号码都已经丢失，无法登录进行设置。我曾尝试联系客服支持，但是他们叫我联系Stripe的客服。 经过几天时间的沟通，Stripe帮我关闭了以前的账户，叫我重新通过X平台点击链接创建新的Stripe账户。但经过我尝试，我无法创建新的账户，点击就出现错误。 我再次联系Stripe客服支持，他们让我联系X支持。我联系X客服支持，他们又叫我联系Stripe支持。我很迷茫，我不知道我到底应该联系谁？ 我需要把X账号取消以前绑定的Stripe账号，或者更改以前Stripe账号绑定的邮箱，否则我无法完成收款银行设置，从而无法获得收益。你可以帮助我吗？谢谢。