Frank Ricard

According to the New York Times, citing U.S. officials, Iranian forces exercised a level of battlefield adaptability, not previously attributed to their military. Per the report, possibly by liaising with their Russian counterparts, Iranian forces were able to learn U.S. flight tactics and better employ air defenses against U.S. aircraft, as officials told the New York Times that they believed American air tactics had become somewhat predictable.

Very interesting conversation where Jensen Huang and Michael Dell explain how AI is structurally changing the memory industry 💾👇 $NVDA $DELL $MU $HXSCL

BREAKING: 🔴 U.S. President Donald Trump: "I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP."

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

The comments below this post are worse than feared. I honestly thought you knew we were in a bubble and understood what parabolic moves mean when the market is in Wave 5. There is a 100% guarantee that all parabolic moves like on the $MU chart below will trigger a decline of at least -50%. That is a certainty. It can still run higher in the short term but the crash will come. Bookmark this because I will be referencing this a lot

$MU Honestly, we are in living in a time where people think this is normal And FOMO'ing that they did not chase this. This is as parabolic as you'll see and this is a $817 BILLION MARKET CAP company Yes we are in a bubble, yes they will all collapse and yes this time IT IS NOT DIFFERENT.