The address is live. 🔍 The GoPlus Growth Fund is officially co-established by @fourdotmemezh and @SafuSkill — backing quality builders in the OpenFour ecosystem. 📍 GoPlus Growth Fund: 0xf03d7e44f71abb9780c36704d5cab97fb731c153 As promised — disclosed before the first buy. Every move from here is public: → Every buy, every LP, every wallet — verifiable on BscScan → The fund holds forever. No exits. No trimming. No selling. → Allocations go to GitHub-verified builders with real momentum and real users. This is a joint commitment from and SafuSkill: an ecosystem fund built by a security company, backed by a launch infrastructure that's opening up to builders. Verifiable, not promised. Watch the address. Watch what we buy. 👀 #GoPlusGrowthFund# #SkillCoin# #OpenFour#

We’re putting money where the mechanism is. Introducing GoPlus Growth Fund — with $50K initial deployment to support quality projects in the @SafuSkill × @fourdotmemezh OpenFour ecosystem. Here’s what makes it different from every other “ecosystem fund”: 🔸 Not for profit. The fund doesn’t exit. Doesn’t trim. Doesn’t sell. Every position is held forever. 🔸 Fully on-chain. Independent address. Public dashboard. Every buy, every LP, every wallet — verifiable on BscScan. 🔸 Supports organic growth only. We allocate to projects with real momentum, verified builders, and real users — not artificial pumps. 🔸 Real builders only. GitHub-verified creators. No farming. No theater. After deep allocation, projects can choose: → Burn the tokens — deflationary signal → Or pair them as LP — liquidity for the long run. Either way, the fund never sells. This is what an ecosystem fund looks like when a security company builds it. Verifiable, not promised. Address disclosed before first buy. Stay tuned. 下一个时代的生态基金，长这样。 #GoPlusGrowthFund# #SkillCoin# #OpenFour#

👀 just announced OpenFour — a new engine for reward mechanisms behind every launch. We're the team building one of them out. @SafuSkill is now live on @fourdotmemezh OpenFour with Goplus SkillRoyalty. Every Skill Coin you launch shares its trade fees: → 70% to the verified creator (GitHub-authenticated) → 15% to real users (download + usage verified) → 15% to ecosystem Automatically. On-chain. Forever. Not a grant. Not a one-time reward. A continuous revenue stream tied to every single trade. Real creators. Real users. No sybil. No farming. Because GoPlus built it — and security is what we do. Skill Coin is how creators finally get paid for what people actually use. Built on OpenClaw + Hermes. Powered by @GoPlusSecurity. (Goplus Creator Incentives mode also accessible via SafuSkill — native integration coming soon.) 下一个时代的资产,长这样。 #SkillCoin# #SkillRoyalty# #OpenFour#

AI Skills Fest is live and it’s your chance to skill up for free. Swipe to find your AI skilling persona, choose your playlist, and start skilling. Finish an AI Skills Fest playlist by June 12 to earn a free Microsoft certification exam voucher and a Credly badge for LinkedIn.

CHEGG $CHGG Q2’26 EARNINGS HIGHLIGHTS 🔹 Revenue: $51.8M (Est. $49.5M) 🟢; -51% YoY 🔹 Adj. EPS: -$0.02 (Est. -$0.05) 🟢 🔹 EBITDA: $9.1M (Est. $5.5M) 🟢 🔹 Net Loss: $3.0M Q3 Guide: 🔹 Revenue: $43M-$44M (Est. $48.3M) 🔴 🔹 Gross Margin: 48%-49% 🔹 EBITDA: $1M-$2M (Est. $6M) 🔴 Segment Net Revenue: 🔹 Chegg Skilling: $17.5M; +2% YoY Other Q2 Metrics: 🔹 Gross Margin: 55% 🔹 Non-GAAP Gross Margin: 57% 🔹 Free Cash Flow: $6.4M 🔹 Cash & Investments: $72.3M Capital Return: 🔹 Share Repurchases: $1.7M 🔹 Remaining Authorization: $120.7M Comments: 🔸 “we outperformed our expectations on revenue, adjusted EBITDA, and cash”

Had an excellent meeting with Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, the Prime Minister of Mauritius. We met at the start of the year during the AI Summit and now we have the chance to meet in Seychelles. We discussed ways to strengthen the India-Mauritius partnership. The progress being made across every area of our Enhanced Strategic Partnership is a matter of satisfaction for us. A number of projects are being implemented under our Special Economic Package. We also discussed the way ahead with regard to sectors such as capacity building, skilling, defence, energy, cyber security and more. @Ramgoolam_Dr

Skills that leaders identify as key to long-term organizational performance—judgment, problem understanding, creative thinking, and more—are the ones that they consider most at risk due to AI. When this skill attrition occurs across thousands of people simultaneously, the business's collective intelligence quietly degrades. This is “distributed de-skilling”—a collective erosion of human skills that undermines organizational intelligence and resilience over time. Here are six strategies to mitigate de-skilling risk:

At Microsoft Build 2026, we’re introducing new ways for developers to learn and demonstrate skills in the tools they use every day. Today, we’re announcing: • Microsoft Pro Badge (private preview), a first-of-its-kind credential that sets a new standard for recognizing real-world skills and verified proficiency demonstrated through everyday work. • Co-authored skilling experiences with Anthropic in AI Skills Navigator. Learn in flow. Build across stacks. Get recognized for what you do. Then build further at AI Skills Fest, earn certification opportunities* and compete in an AI hackathon*. *Terms and conditions apply Learn more:

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.

Dario Amodei, anthropic's CEO, just answered the question everyone is asking. should you still learn to code: 1. coding is going away first. the AI models are doing it already. the broader task of software engineering takes longer but that's going too. if you're learning to code purely for job security, you're learning the wrong thing. 2. even at 5% of the task you're still valuable. if AI does 95% and you do 5%, you become 20 times more productive. comparative advantage is surprisingly powerful even when the gap is massive. 3. the professions with the most runway are human-centered ones. things that mix people, the physical world, and analytical skills together. he uses the radiologist example. the doctor who understands patients and context, not just reads scans. 4. critical thinking might be the most important skill of the next decade. when AI can generate anything, the ability to tell what's real from what's fake becomes rare and valuable. you don't want false beliefs. you don't want to get scammed. that's his actual advice to a 25 year old. 5. AI can make you stupider if you use it carelessly. anthropic ran studies on this. depending on how you use the model, de-skilling in coding is measurable and real. the tool doesn't cause it. carelessness does. 6. the semiconductor space is his pick for a capitalistic win in the next decade. physical world, traditional engineering, direct AI tailwind. not software but chips.