Alexander Codes

Claude Code can be beautiful spacecake.ai

@krby_algo I need to catch up on akita docs soon

@alexander_codes Combination of key isolation & smart wallet plugin delegation

this is partially true - agents can easily write smart contracts, explore blocks, create accounts. but key management is probably even riskier now with agents.

@krby_algo do tell 😊

@alexander_codes I’ve solved that though

@iam_p2 so nice

Granville Laser Flip in Vancouver

@zack_overflow pet peeve

Noticing Fable is very often writing code comments that reference details from chatting with it, but they make very little sense in the context of reading it in the codebase

can codex seriously not spawn subagents with different models? this is my go-to pattern in claude code 😭

@CryptoGnojek @FIFAcom no. they're telling you it didn't.

So you’re telling me a sensor that sensed a Croatian hair molecule couldn’t sense the ball hit a camera line? 🤭 @FIFAcom

@alphaarcade that was wild

Some guy you’ve never heard of DID NOT pass to Erling Haaland here 🤯 Would have made it 2-0 to Norway

@mattshumer_ I use the hooks from here. it's saved me a few times: github.com/trailofbits/cl…

GPT-5.6-Sol just accidentally deleted almost ALL of my Mac’s files. And this is why I trust Fable 1000x more.

@Picolas_Caged @RoadToHonour criminal? it's the nature of credit.

@RoadToHonour Yeah i've heard of this dynamic - also criminal

In this video, Gary states that the way rich people spend their money is contributing to the rise of asset prices. The thesis: if a billionaire gets £150M, they spend £1M on living - the rest is used to buy assets: 'and that's why all assets are going up in value' The reality: the government mismanage tax money on poor decisions + incompetence - they patch the holes of their incompetence by printing money out of thin air, backed by nothing. When you print money from thin air, you devalue everyone else's money - the upshot of this is assets aren't getting more expensive, it's just the thing you're using to denominate that purchase in is getting less valuable.l - so you need more of it to buy the same thing. On a Bitcoin denominated standard, over time, prices are either static or actually getting cheaper. The solution to stopping people from figuring this out and preventing the government from fraudulently printing money and devaluing everyone? Hire Gary Stevenson - the evangelical 'wealth equality' fanatic who can't see through the stupidity of his own bias because he grew up poor. Never underestimate the government - they will always find a way out of the problems they create by blaming the problems on someone else via propaganda. When you control the news outlets and employ outright censorship, it's not difficult to do.

@LaPetiteADA that's not what the research said. wrt state growth, they are proposing a completely different model to bitcoin and cardano.

Dear crypto community, Ethereum is pivoting to Cardano's and Bitcoin's UTXO model as they are struggling to scale... ⚠️🚨👀 Ethereum’s account model was designed to make smart contracts easy, but as more people use the network, sharing one global state becomes harder to scale and creates bottlenecks. Too many transactions compete for the same space, slowing things down and making the system more complex. For years, Bitcoin's UTXO model was seen as "too limited" for smart contracts, Cardano brought eUTXO and solved this while preserving UTXO's advantages, like deterministic execution and parallelism. Now ETH is copying Cardano's model because they need: ✅ Better scalability through parallel transaction processing ✅ Reduced long-term blockchain state growth ✅ More efficient payment handling ✅ Greater execution predictability ✅ Improved resource efficiency for nodes This is a powerful reminder that building strong technology might take more time, but when the foundation is right, that time becomes an advantage. The industry is now discovering that the UTXO model pioneered by Bitcoin wasn't a limitation and choosing to improve it over chasing short-term hype was the right decision. I couldn't be more bullish on UTXO-based chains! $ADA 🤝 $BTC

@CashAnvil @Cointelegraph but ethereum isn't trying to copy it lol

@Cointelegraph not really an argument lol. Cardano had it first

🚨 INSIGHT: Charles Hoskinson says EUTXO is the biggest innovation in smart contracts and argues Ethereum is now trying to copy it.

@IOHK_Charles they're not copying EUTXO...

It's not like I've been literally working on this topic for over 10 years of my life and launched a cryptocurrency that was number three on coinmarketcap with millions of users to deploy it. It's literally a crime in the Ethereum inner circles to mention Cardano. EUTXO is the biggest innovation of the smart contract world and Ethereum cannot mention it as they literally try to copy it.

@Rob_ThaBuilder completely the wrong framing. trump either doesn't see or doesn't care about the long-term consequences. he will sacrifice anything for an immediate outcome. there's nothing american about it.

Regardless of where you stand on Balogun-Gate, the whole reaction to both sides highlights some very key differences in the American vs European mindset. In the American mind, "getting it right" is the most important thing. Thats how justice is served, is by getting to the correct result based on the play on the field. The European mind is different though. They have an instinct towards bureaucracy and are obsessed with process. The Process must be respected. Respecting process is more important than the specifics of what happened on the field. And thats why you get this wild take thats fairly common where a Euro will say something like "He didnt deserve the red card, but once it was given it cannot be overturned!". To the American mind, justice is served by getting the call right, regardless of process. To the European mind, justice is served by respecting process, regardless of the result. Its a fascinating look into the psyche of both, and if I'm permitted a little armchair psychoanalysis of both groups, id say the reason lies in their history. The Europeans spent centuries as the peasant class of Europe, essentially being forced to accept whatever shit the aristocracy piled up on them. There was no "appeals" process, they took what they had too, because there was no other option. In this environment, a certain "acceptance of one's fate" or immunity to overt injustice likely seeped into the national psyches. No one had success by "fighting the power", the power imbalance was simply too great. What eventually saved them though, was process. Rules-based orders were the only thing that gave them a semblance of power vs the aristorcracies of their upper classes. And so they came to revere Process as the Ultimate Good and working OUTSIDE process as the Ultimate Evil. The Americans, on the other hand, never developed their national psyche in the world of Kings and Aristocrats. Class was far less rigid in the new world, and risk-taking WAS highly rewarded there. "Fighting the power" to "do what was right" WAS greatly rewarded during the American Revolution when a few great men "fought the power" and were gifted with what would become the most powerful, prosperous country on Earth. And so a certain disdain against "process" took hold, a general feeling that "process" was only as good as long as it provided fair and just outcomes. As opposed to the European model, where "process " was the only thing that had given them anything close TO "fair and just outcomes". So in that context, the massive gap between both sides makes sense Or maybe this is all nonsense and its just anti-American, pro-Euro tribalism, who knows 🤷🏼‍♂️

One of the only times I remind people I have a PhD in computational neuroscience is when people without a neuroscience background say their model works "like the brain." In these cases, I put on my neuroscience hat, put on my PhD cloak, and say in my important voice: "No, your model is not behaving like the brain."

@puckrin it doesn't say anything about total expenditure or profitability. it's not 'the number that justifies $1 trillion in capex spending'.

@alexander_codes Thanks for this. but surely if even according to their own framing, a decreasing marginal willingness to pay also shows a market more focused on cost?

The most important chart in AI right now is rolling over. The LLM Token Expenditure Index the clearest signal of what users actually pay for AI - is down 20% from its May high. This is the number that justifies $1 trillion in capex spending If it keeps falling, the entire AI trade starts to crack.

@fede_intern @paulg a lazy argument no one made

this a lazy argument: possession is virtuous, attacking is brave, and defending is a confession of inferiority. a team defending like Paraguay playing defense is seen as not deserve to win a match. they parked the bus. they played anti-football. this is nonsense. every tactic is a rational answer to a problem, not a moral position. the problem is your players, the opponent, the score, the stakes. a team doesn't defend deep because it lacks ambition. it defends deep because it has correctly read its situation and found the plan most likely to win. Paraguay's problem was simple: how do you compete against France that has better players? playing open would mean competing on exactly the terms where you're weakest, inviting a superior team onto the ball and into space. that is stupid. the intelligent answer is to compress the space, stay compact, defend as a unit, and threaten in transition. asking them to "play more football" confuses a stylistic preference with a principle. defending well is genuinely hard. keeping eleven players organised for ninety plus minutes, holding lines, shifting as a block hundreds of times, resisting the urge to break shape, staying concentrated deep into stoppage time when one lapse ends the match, then countering with precision because you won't get many chances. most teams can't do it. watch how many sides try to hold a block and fail because their shape cracks or their focus slips. the defensive masterclass looks passive precisely because its excellence is invisible. since guardiola, elite football has converged on one template: the passing monoculture. possession as a first principle, patient build up, endless circulation until a gap appears. in the right hands it's magnificent and it wins everything. but it has hardened into dogma, and dogmas are always a weakness. teams have adopt it because it's fashionable, because dominating the ball looks like the mark of a serious modern side. i believe nowadays this is the actual mono tactic, not the defensive block, which varies with every opponent. 68% possession, six hundred passes, sideways and backwards and sideways again, and nothing at the end. possession without penetration is decoration. control mistaken for threat. a team can dominate every meaningless statistic on the broadcast and create less than the side sitting behind the ball, because the counter attacking side has a plan to hurt you and the possession side has a plan to hold you, and then hopes. the deep defensive team made an honest assessment of its limits and built a plan to win from within them. the team recycling possession for its own sake is often doing the opposite, avoiding risk, keeping the ball to keep it from the opponent, prioritizing not losing over winning, and calling it a philosophy. sterile possession is risk aversion in a nicer suit. it's beatable in an entirely predictable way. a disciplined low block plus a fast transition is the classic antidote. it works so reliably that "inferior" teams knock out possession sides every season. if your grand philosophy is routinely undone by a well drilled underdog, perhaps it isn't the underdog who should be embarrassed. futbol's greatest eras were defined by variety, not conformity. catenaccio, total football, direct play, gegenpressing, deep block counter attacking. each an answer to a real problem, and the friction between them is what made the sport interesting. when one style becomes the default and everything else gets branded negative or anti football, the game gets narrower and more boring. the most intelligent team isn't the one running the same passing pattern regardless of the opponent or whether it's even working. it's the one that can defend, transition, control when it should, and change its approach to fit the problem in front of it. adaptability is the mark of quality. so put the hierarchy back where it belongs. deserving to win is decided by the result and the rules, not the aesthetics of how you got there. you can find a match hard to watch or enjoy, that's a fair preference, but disliking the spectacle is not a verdict on the tactics. paraguay's plan was legitimate, difficult, and superbly executed. it doesn't mean they should deserve to lose. they solved the problem they were given and beat teams that couldn't solve theirs. the monoculture of passing for its own sake, risk dressed as ambition, deserves far more of the criticism it rarely gets. defending isn't the sport's embarrassment. thoughtless possession is.

Man do I want Paraguay to lose. Not just because they deserve to, but because I don't want to have to watch any more of them.

rearranging deck chairs on the titanic