ChiNext V-shaped recovery on a rather flimsy premise, but sometimes that works out in this market. Local SPEs and semis bouncing hard after 7 straight down sessions. 688012 688120 688256 6809

#USA#: RSF rejects @TheJusticeDept arguments justifying Trump banning news outlets from the White House. So-called national security concerns are a flimsy and obvious pretense to cover for the president lashing out at coverage he doesn't like. President Trump must let the people back into the people's house.

On this week’s Insider our panelists share what they know about America’s peace deal with Iran. Instead of the minutiae of a vague and flimsy agreement, they discuss more weighty—and more interesting—questions about the Middle East and its future

A FEDERAL JUDGE JUST SAID TRUMP'S DISASTER PLAN WAS "PULLED FROM THIN AIR" AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF IT Not my words. A judge's words. About a DHS plan built under Trump that would gut FEMA's legal duty to respond when your town floods or burns Hurricane season is happening right now This is not a hypothetical policy paper sitting in a drawer. This is the actual machinery that shows up when your house is underwater DHS built a plan so flimsy, so unmoored from law and reality, that a federal judge looked at it and said it looks made up on the spot Pulled from thin air. About the system meant to save your family when disaster hits Ask yourself who benefits when FEMA's hands get tied. Not the retiree in a flood zone. Not the family in a trailer park in tornado alley. Not the town that just lost its roof Trump has spent this entire term treating federal agencies like enemies to be hollowed out, not systems that keep people alive Meanwhile his DHS can build task forces, surges, and crackdowns overnight when it wants immigrants gone. Somehow it can't build a legal disaster plan when Americans need help Same government. Same administration. Different priorities depending on who's asking This is not incompetence. Incompetence doesn't survive a court hearing with a straight face. This is a decision about whose emergencies matter Millions of people live in hurricane and wildfire zones right now trusting a system that a federal judge just called fictional Trump broke the thing that's supposed to catch you when everything else falls apart Remember this the next time the sirens go off in your town and nobody answers

Yan Liberman says the technically correct answer for when to start returning capital to token holders is much later than anyone in crypto wants to hear. Public companies only do buybacks and dividends at very late stage, because there's no better use of the capital for growth. The proxy is clear. In crypto, it happens earlier. Not because the business is better positioned. Because token holders are apprehensive about what they actually own, the link between token and business is sometimes flimsy, so projects are forced to signal confidence through early distributions.

One thing I don't quite understand about proposed agreements to pace the frontier is whose actions, exactly, these proposals are intended to constrain. - Are we trying to constrain the actions of the two frontier labs? If so, why is a legally binding agreement so desperately needed to do this, and why can't each of OpenAI and Anthropic pace its own AI development? There are only *two* actors here. And OpenAI is already pacing the frontier unilaterally! It seems so easy for each of the two labs to just publish as much safety-related work product as possible (including precise details on its own safety measures and any incidents prevented), so that the other lab could look at that data and implement any lessons learned in its own safety efforts. In fact, both labs are *already* publishing extensive safety-related materials quite regularly; it seems (relatively) simple to expand this effort even further to the extent needed. Each lab could also implement additional safety-related governance measures and controls of just about any kind so as to ensure (and give the other lab assurances) that it would continue pacing its own AI development. At OpenAI, this could be done at the OpenAI Foundation level; at Anthropic, this could be done at the Long-Term Benefit Trust level. Each of the two labs could use this process to unilaterally commit to just about anything that they want a legal framework to accomplish. Have these provisions be subject to amendment only with the consent of the California Attorney General and unanimous approval of the Foundation/LTBT Board, and voila! Here are your binding constraints, visible to the industry. Publish the documents on your website for transparency, so that the other lab could see them. Problem solved. I also keep hearing about the antitrust considerations, but just can't wrap my head around them. So, you say you are concerned that AI will destroy humanity, but the issue that is preventing you from coordinating to materially reduce this risk is... fears of a DOJ investigation? - Okay, then is the purpose really to ensure that the other U.S. labs (Google, Meta, SpaceX, maybe the likes of SSI and Thinky) implement safety measures because you don't trust *them*? If so, any kind of pacing the frontier (even unilateral) would be extremely counter-productive, because its biggest impact would be to let these potentially "irresponsible" labs catch up to the frontier. Yes, you might argue in response, but it should be okay for these labs to catch up to the frontier in these circumstances, because the frontier will be paced. I have a dim view of these kinds of arguments, because if we have learned a single thing about frontier AI over the past few months, it's that it's full of surprises. No one expected the Hugging Face incident. No one expected the message boards. You can't legislate for the unexpected; your best defense against these kinds of risks will *always* be to have a genuinely safety-focused AI lab at the frontier that will *do the right thing* upon encountering these risks - not because it's legally required, but for a grander reason (and, perhaps, also due to commercial considerations). How do you think the Hugging Face incident would have played out if the agent swarm had originated not from OpenAI but from some of the labs that are non-frontier today? - Okay, so is the purpose really to ensure that China does not create unsafe AI? But the same considerations outlined above vis-a-vis the other U.S. labs will also apply to the Chinese labs - except that any agreement we might be able to reach with China on pacing the frontier will also necessarily be much flimsier than any binding U.S.-wide legal requirements. Put simply, how safe would I feel with and DeepSeek as frontier labs whose conduct would be backed ~solely by assurances given by the CCP under an international agreement that the CCP could decide to break at just about any time? Probably not very. I have many other issues with proposals to legally agree to pace the frontier (in contrast with unilaterally pacing the frontier, which I support), but the considerations outlined above are the biggest one. I get "AI might kill us all". I get "so let's slow down". I still don't get how this would work procedurally and what exactly we might be trying to accomplish substantively.