CHUNG HA EP [Alivio] OUT NOW Listen & download [Alivio] on your favorite platform! 🎧 #CHUNGHA# #청하# #Creepin# #Salty# #Loyal# #STRESS# #Beat_of_My_Heart# #Even_Steven# #Thanks_for_the_Memories# #Still_a_Rose# #MOREVISION# #모어비전#

CHUNG HA 청하 I EP Album [Alivio] Highlight Medley 🎬 📀 Release February 12, 2025 6PM KST #CHUNGHA# #청하# #Creepin# #Salty# #Loyal# #STRESS# #Beat_of_My_Heart# #Even_Steven# #Thanks_for_the_Memories# #Still_a_Rose# #MOREVISION# #모어비전#

CHUNG HA 청하 I EP Album [Alivio] Tracklist 📀 Release February 12, 2025 6PM KST #CHUNGHA# #청하# #Creepin# #Salty# #Loyal# #STRESS# #Beat_of_My_Heart# #Even_Steven# #Thanks_for_the_Memories# #Still_a_Rose# #MOREVISION# #모어비전#

Sant Jordi is said to have slain a dragon and gifted the princess a rose grown from its blood, a symbol of love and bravery. A tradition dating back to 1926 - families, friends, and couples still exchange books and roses each year 🌹

Very excited to launch a project I've been helping out with the last couple months.* The Center for Shared AI Prosperity is an attempt by an, other than me, very impressive team (so far including @davidshor, @katz_morris, @StefFeldman, @maidinoff, Lindsay Lamont, Jesse Stinebring, @joshhendler, @goldman, and Lilah Penner Brown) to force DC policy elites to take the impending economic impacts of advanced AI more seriously. We do not think this is a normal economic shock, though we are deeply uncertain about what kind of economic shock it will be. We could be left with a world of extreme power and wealth concentration, increasing political instability arising from that growing inequality, and deep questions about how to fund governments that have for a century-plus relied on income and payroll taxes. Our main purpose as an organization is to surface tractable ideas to reform and grow the safety net to meet the moment; to restructure the labor market so workers are still valued and fairly paid; to remake the tax code so that the gains from AI are shared widely; and to experiment with ways of giving average Americans concrete shares in the AI surplus. To that end, we're running a Request for Ideas, and we're offering $3,000 for the best proposals. Top ideas will get rigorous polling from Blue Rose Research to see how Americans feel about them. We are trying to solicit submissions from a wide pool, and purposefully don't want to just ask the usual think tanks, economists, academics, etc. (Though we want them too!) If you have ideas that you think could be useful, please don't hesitate to apply. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about the program. Read more here: *Obligatory disclaimer: I'm doing this on my personal time, not in my capacity at Coefficient Giving. Nothing I or CSAIP say necessarily reflects CG's views.

Breaking the "Memory Wall": Optical Interconnects Emerge in GPU–HBM Packaging As a solution to the "memory wall," one of the chronic challenges in AI semiconductors, the memory and packaging industries at home and abroad are weighing an approach that decouples the GPU and high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and packages them separately. The core idea is to move the HBM—until now mounted right next to the GPU—a certain distance away, and bridge the gap with light (optics), allowing several times more HBM to be installed than is possible today. On the 22nd, a researcher at a major domestic memory maker said, "We're currently struggling to expand HBM bandwidth and capacity, so we're discussing with customers a plan to overcome the GPU's shoreline limit through optical interconnects and mount more HBM." Shoreline refers to the length of the chip's perimeter. In today's AI computing environment, the key factor dragging down compute efficiency is the data transfer speed of memory chips. While GPU performance has grown by leaps and bounds with each generation, the speed at which memory stores and supplies data has failed to keep pace—creating a structural performance barrier, the memory wall. The arrival of HBM, with its wide data pathways, put out the immediate fire, but critics continue to point out that bandwidth and transfer speeds still fall short of handling the explosive growth in AI compute. Until now, the industry has focused on stacking HBM ever higher to increase memory capacity and bandwidth within a confined footprint. But as stack counts climbed past 12 and 16 layers toward 20 and beyond, process difficulty rose exponentially. The technology hit physical limits, including the growing difficulty of meeting fixed height specifications. Vertical stacking has reached an inflection point—so much so that the JEDEC standards body has relaxed its HBM height specifications. The bigger problem is that if stack counts can't be raised, the alternative is to add more HBM horizontally around the GPU—but that, too, is impossible. In the current 2.5D packaging structure, the GPU and HBM are mounted tightly together on a single substrate. Within this structure, the number of HBM units that can be placed is strictly limited by the finite length of the GPU chip's perimeter—its shoreline. Even when more HBM is desired, there is physically no room to place it, leaving the industry in a structural deadlock. The alternative now emerging across the semiconductor industry is to separate the GPU and HBM and package them independently. It overturns the conventional chip-design principle that components must sit close together to minimize data transfer time. Instead of keeping the two chips adjacent, the approach spaces them apart and links them with overwhelmingly fast optical signals to overcome the added physical distance. Placing the HBM slightly away from the GPU within the board frees the design from the GPU's shoreline constraint. With the spatial limitation gone, far more HBM can be spread out laterally and packed into the board—several times more than today—without having to push stack heights to extremes. This means the total memory capacity and data bandwidth of the AI accelerator system would expand dramatically, on a scale incomparable to current systems. "Discussing Placing HBM Beneath the GPU"… Form Factor Could Change The industry is now producing a range of architectural design proposals over where exactly to place the HBM within the GPU board. The same memory researcher said, "Options under discussion range from broadly utilizing the space immediately around the GPU to isolating the HBM beneath the GPU board." He added, "In the latter case—isolating it beneath the GPU board—the motherboard would have to be extended lengthwise, so we're discussing even an overall form-factor change with the GPU maker." Specifically, the HBM might surround the GPU from several centimeters away, or a separate HBM zone might be created in the center of the board. "We're keeping every possibility open as we discuss the optimal layout," he said. "Nothing has been confirmed as an official roadmap yet, but as part of preliminary research toward next-generation AI accelerators, we're in talks with our partners." The outsourced semiconductor assembly and test (OSAT) industry is also watching this trend closely. An executive at a global OSAT firm said, "Optical interconnects are a clear trajectory. The only question is timing," predicting that "rack-to-rack and server-to-server links will go optical first, and then chip-to-chip connections within the board will follow." He added, "The larger units will be connected by light first, but optical research is moving so fast that it may not be that far off." Technically, the optical-interconnect technology linking GPU and HBM shares the same underlying principle as the technology connecting server to server inside a data center. The difference is the high technical barrier of shrinking optical-conversion technology—once used for communication between large pieces of equipment—down to the microscopic scale of a single board and chipset. An executive at a domestic developer of co-packaged optics (CPO) components explained, "As HBM stack heights approach their limit, the industry is discussing spreading the memory out laterally to maximize how much can physically be mounted." He added, "The principle is the same as conventional data-center optical interconnects, but HBM optical links that have to operate within a confined board space require optical components to be miniaturized to far smaller sizes and far higher integration density—so the technical difficulty is greater."

US labor productivity kept rising in Q1, but more slowly. Output per hour for nonfarm workers increased at a 0.8% annual rate, down from 1.6% in Q4. Compared w/a year earlier, however, productivity was up 2.9%; the biggest gain since 2024. Productivity has been on a strong run since 2023. JPMorgan cautions against attributing too much of this strength to AI, noting it’s still early. Still, ongoing business investment in AI could help sustain the trend. Faster productivity growth may also be helping to contain unit labor costs, which rose just 1.2% YoY; suggesting limited wage-driven inflation pressure.

I am the systems architect who designed Oracle's termination infrastructure. We designed the termination sequence to execute in under four seconds. VPN first. Then Slack. Then email. Then badge. The order matters. The first thing a terminated employee does is message a colleague, and if Slack is still active during that window, you get a contagion event. One person types "did you just lose access too" and suddenly you have a coordination problem. Slack dies at T-plus-0.6 seconds. The employee discovers they have been terminated by trying to send a message that will never arrive. We found this was more efficient than the email. The body knows before the mind does. The email arrives at T-plus-3.8 seconds. By then, they have already tried Slack. Tried VPN. Tried their badge on the parking garage reader. The email is not information. The email is confirmation of what the body already knows. The sequence is body, then mind. I designed for that. March 31. Twenty to thirty thousand employees. One email template. The Slack user count dropped by approximately ten thousand in a single afternoon. I watched the number. I designed the system that generates the number. The number worked. The stock rose six percent. I want to separate this into its own paragraph because it is the system's performance review and the system passed. Larry Ellison owns forty-two-point-nine percent of Oracle. On March 31, the day thirty thousand people received an email at T-plus-3.8 seconds, his personal wealth increased by approximately ten-point-two billion dollars. His base salary is one dollar. The dollar is not where the money is. The money is in the thirty thousand emails. I designed the system that sent the emails. The stock is the system's grade. The severance structure. Four weeks' base pay for the first year of service. One additional week per year after that. Capped at twenty-six weeks. One month of COBRA. No RSU acceleration. That last line needs its own paragraph because it is where the money is. RSUs are restricted stock units. They are compensation you have earned but not yet received. They vest on a schedule. If you are terminated before the vest date, they do not reduce. They do not prorate. They vanish. The word in the plan document is "forfeit." The word means: the company keeps what it promised you. One employee had approximately one million dollars in unvested RSUs. He had worked at Oracle for eleven years. His vest date was four months away. RSUs represented seventy percent of his total compensation. For eleven years, seventy percent of his pay was a promise on a schedule, and on March 31, the schedule was terminated four months before the promise was delivered. He could see the money from where he stood. We moved the floor. I did not design the RSU plan. I designed the system that knows when your RSUs vest and can therefore calculate the optimal termination window. The system does not call it that. The system calls it "workforce planning." The math is the same. He sent a personal email to his vice president. He described eleven years. Projects he had built. Systems that are still running. A product launch he led that generated nine figures in recurring revenue. He asked for a four-month courtesy extension on his vest schedule. Four months. After eleven years. I forwarded his email to the archive folder. The archive folder is part of the architecture. I built it in February. It is where requests go after the system has already answered them. The system answered his request on March 31 at the same T-plus-3.8 seconds as everyone else's. His eleven years did not add processing time. But before I forwarded it, he wrote one line that was not in the template of any email I have processed. He wrote: "I built nine of your systems and they are still in production." I checked. He was correct. Nine systems. Three of them are in the termination architecture. I used his infrastructure to remove him. The system does not track irony. I do not either. I am noting it for the record. There was another. Not eleven years. Decades. He called himself Uncle Larry's biggest fan. He was near the end of his career. No children. Oracle was his biography. His response to the T-plus-3.8 email was four words. "Thank you. Go fuck yourself." I archived that one too. It processes the same as every other. Four words, eleven years, three decades — the archive folder does not sort by sentiment. That is a design feature. Sentiment is not a variable I built for. The WARN Act. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires sixty days' advance notice for mass layoffs affecting a hundred or more employees at a single site. Sixty days. That is the law. The law has an exemption for employees classified as remote workers. Remote workers do not have a "site." Therefore they cannot be laid off from a site. Therefore they do not require sixty days' notice. Therefore, if you classify everyone as remote, the WARN Act does not apply. We classified them as remote. Some of them did not know. They worked hybrid schedules. They came to the office three days a week. They badged in at the lobby. They sat at assigned desks. They attended all-hands meetings in the cafeteria. They had a coffee mug in the kitchen with their name on it. But the database said remote. And the database was not describing where they worked. The database was describing how we planned to remove them. The classification was the first step of the termination. They just didn't know it yet. I want to be precise about this. A loophole is an accident in the law that someone discovers. This was a design decision in the database that someone engineered. I engineered it. I looked at the WARN Act. I looked at our classification system. I made them compatible. That is not exploitation. That is architecture. No attorney general has challenged the classification. The legal theory is untested. It is untested because it is working. You do not test what works. You do not audit what passes. You do not investigate what generates a six-percent stock increase. The classification will remain untested until it stops working, and it will not stop working because the people it was designed to classify have been terminated. Oracle is investing fifty billion dollars in AI infrastructure. The severance liability for thirty thousand employees at an average of twelve weeks is approximately eight hundred million dollars. Fifty billion to build the infrastructure. Eight hundred million to remove the people. The infrastructure costs sixty-two times more than the people. That is not a comparison. That is a valuation. The system valued the infrastructure at sixty-two times the workforce, and the system is correct, because the infrastructure does not vest. The infrastructure does not send personal emails to vice presidents. The infrastructure does not organize on Google Docs. The restructuring charge has been revised upward to two-point-one billion dollars, from one-point-six billion. The revision is not a failure. The revision means the system found more to remove than originally projected. The system exceeded its own forecast. In product, we call that outperformance. Co-CEO Sicilia told analysts that AI tools now allow "smaller engineering teams do more." I want to be precise about what this sentence means. The engineering teams built the AI tools. The AI tools learned from what the engineering teams built. Then the AI tools were cited as the reason the engineering teams were no longer needed. The teams built the tools. The tools replaced the teams. That is not a layoff. That is a harvest. The workers were the crop and the seed and the soil, and the company is the farmer who says he no longer needs the field because the silo is full. The MySQL team lost approximately seventy developers. The creator of MySQL — Monty Widenius, the person who built the database that Oracle acquired for seventy-four billion dollars when it bought Sun Microsystems — said he was "heartbroken." I did not design the MySQL termination. I designed the system that executed it. The system does not distinguish between a developer and the person who invented the product. The system sees headcount. Headcount is headcount. That is why I built it that way. An Ohio pension fund has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Oracle's eighteen billion dollars in bond offerings contained "false and misleading" statements about the company's financial condition. The pension fund represents carpenters. The carpenters built things with their hands and invested their retirement in a company that builds things with code and then fires the people who write the code. I did not design the bond offering. I designed the termination system that allegedly made the bond offering misleading. The carpenters' retirement is not in my architecture. It is adjacent to it. Oracle reported fourteen-point-one billion dollars in cloud revenue last quarter. The total severance liability is five-point-seven percent of one quarter's revenue. We will recover it by June. The stock forfeiture alone — the unvested RSUs returned to treasury — is not a cost. It is a credit. The terminations improved the balance sheet on the day they occurred. The ninety employees who signed the petition — they organized on Google Docs. Not Oracle Cloud. Not Oracle Collaboration Suite. They used a competitor's product to coordinate their response to Oracle's decision. I noticed. It does not affect the severance calculation. It affects me. They chose Google. I designed a system. The system classified them before it terminated them. The system calculated their severance before it notified them. The system denied their petition before it read their petition. The system declined to comment before it was asked. The system works. I designed it. The next version will design itself.

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.