wylie intern

52 posts

wylie intern

wylie intern

@danieldevs3

Katılım Mayıs 2026
3 Takip Edilen117 Takipçiler
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
AXIOM WALLET TRACKER JUST WENT DOWN IT'S FINALLY TIME TO DEPLOY A PVE RUNNER, NO ONE KNOWS WHOSE IN
wylie intern tweet media
English
0
0
0
11
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
R/ANTIAI JUST DROPPED THEIR NEW MASCOT, EARTHCHAN, OVER 1000 MEMBERS CAME TOGETHER TO DRAW THIS, WE SENT FAKE MASCOTS OF R/ANTI TO 500K+ reddit.com/r/antiai/comme…
wylie intern tweet media
English
0
0
0
46
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
Claude's secret commands just got leaked apparently /l99 is a model which allows it to create jokes/memes dev.to/samarth0211/cl…. L99 is the first ever meme model of ai we've had
wylie intern tweet media
English
0
0
0
22
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
"he's called little patriot" and his name is tommy read the tweet
wylie intern tweet media
Crazy Vibes@CrazyVibes_1

**The Boy Who Stood Tall** The crisp Scottish air carried the faint scent of rain as a group of Beaver Scouts, aged six to eight, filed excitedly into the Stirling Islamic Centre. It was a standard outing for their Faith Activity Badge—an opportunity to learn about different religions, explore the mosque’s architecture, and experience cultural exchange in multicultural Britain. Their leader, a dedicated teacher named Mrs. Eleanor Grant, had organized the visit with the best intentions: fostering understanding in a diverse society. Inside the mosque, the children’s eyes widened at the intricate carpets, the towering minaret visible through the windows, and the serene prayer hall. Imam Ahmed Rahman greeted them warmly, his voice calm and welcoming. He began with a gentle lesson on Islam—the Five Pillars, the importance of prayer, and the beauty of community. The kids listened politely, some fidgeting in their scout uniforms, others wide-eyed with curiosity. As part of the educational experience, the imam demonstrated respectful postures used during Muslim prayers. Simple headscarves were offered to the girls as a sign of modesty, similar to how visitors often cover their heads in places of worship worldwide. A few girls giggled as the light fabric was draped over their hair, feeling like they were playing dress-up. No full burqas were involved; these were modest hijabs for the tour. The boys watched, some shifting uncomfortably, others copying the motions out of youthful eagerness to participate. Then came the moment that would ignite the internet. The imam invited the group to try kneeling briefly as part of understanding the prayer ritual—foreheads to the floor in submission to God, a core element of salah. It was presented as optional, a way to feel the physicality of faith, not a requirement. Most of the children, caught up in the group activity and wanting to be respectful, lowered themselves to their knees. The hall fell quiet except for the rustle of uniforms and soft instructions. But one small boy, Tommy, remained standing. He was seven years old, with tousled brown hair and a scout neckerchief slightly askew. His jaw was set, his small frame rigid amid the sea of kneeling figures. Mrs. Grant noticed first. She whispered gently, “Tommy, it’s alright to join if you’d like.” The imam smiled encouragingly, emphasizing it was not mandatory. Yet Tommy shook his head firmly. “I don’t want to,” he said in a clear voice that carried through the hall. He didn’t elaborate. Perhaps it was a child’s instinctive sense of his own faith, or simple discomfort with the unfamiliar. Whatever the reason, he stood his ground. The clip, captured on a parent’s phone and shared online, exploded across social media within hours. “Only one young boy refused to kneel,” the captions read. Outrage followed. Conservative commentators decried it as religious indoctrination in public education. “Is this multiculturalism or conversion?” one viral post asked. Parents flooded school boards with concerns about consent and age-appropriate boundaries. On the other side, progressive voices defended the visit as essential for tolerance, criticizing the backlash as Islamophobia. The imam’s demonstration of head coverings on the girls became particularly contentious—some saw it as harmless cultural immersion; others as pressuring young children into religious symbols. Tommy’s quiet defiance turned him into an unwitting symbol. Supporters called him “Little Patriot,” praising his courage to resist peer pressure. Memes circulated, comparing him to historical figures who stood alone for their beliefs. His family, overwhelmed, released a short statement: “Tommy is a normal boy who simply chose not to participate in something that didn’t feel right for him. We support religious education but believe it should remain observational, not participatory, for children this young.” Mrs. Grant faced scrutiny. In interviews, she explained the trip followed Scout guidelines for interfaith badges, designed to promote empathy without proselytizing. “We wanted them to learn, not convert,” she said, voice trembling. The Stirling Islamic Centre issued a statement regretting any discomfort and reaffirming that participation was always voluntary. Yet the damage to public trust lingered. Debates raged about where education ends and indoctrination begins. Should schools expose young children to active prayer rituals? At what age is it appropriate to try on religious garments? In the days that followed, Tommy returned to school quietly. His classmates treated him differently—some with awe, others with awkward silence. At home, his parents navigated the sudden spotlight, shielding him from cameras. For Tommy, it wasn’t about politics or faith wars. It was a simple moment: the carpet felt strange under his knees, the words unfamiliar, and something inside him said no. The viral storm highlighted deeper fractures in British society—tensions over immigration, integration, and the limits of tolerance. Field trips like this had happened before without incident, but in an era of heightened sensitivities and smartphone footage, one boy’s refusal became a flashpoint. Imam Rahman later reflected in a local paper: “True faith cannot be forced, especially on the young. Respect goes both ways.” As the headlines faded, the core lesson remained. Education about religion matters, but so does protecting childhood innocence from adult ideological battles. Tommy, the boy who stood tall amid kneeling peers, reminded everyone that personal conviction—even in a seven-year-old—deserves space to breathe.

English
2
0
2
204
Diamond
Diamond@DiamondDevss·
Claude Popus at 600k image is not the current pope, it is St John Paul II. Check it yourself. The correct pope is at 6k mc, HELLOOOOOOOOO???? Ac7k4zmhgdkaYhAXQPwuGvMMQWDzhdU71uAsUiBCpump
English
27
1
28
359
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
I just created the first coin actually staked on @StakedBank I made my own contract solscan.io/account/aZPKJ9… then deployed it to main net as you can see full proof via solscan all fees are automatically airdropped to people who buy the coin as the solana contract forces it too happen
wylie intern tweet media
Staked Bank@StakedBank

Staked Bank First deployed Smart Contract for trustless staking and cashback to holders VERIFIED* Contract (not $stake, this is the onchain smart contract): aZPKJ99yjfE6MjZ5isXNjm3ndanBdx5gX35nwmLBANK Open Sourced Github: github.com/iceypump/staked

English
0
0
0
257
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
R/ANTIAI JUST MADE THEIR OWN RETARDED MEMES NAMED "THIS IS THE FUTURE" reddit.com/r/antiai/comme… LITERALLY THE MODERN DAY SPOODERMAN ALMOST 20K+ UPVOTES IN 6 HOURS COMPLELTY HANDRAWN
wylie intern tweet media
English
0
0
0
84
wylie intern
wylie intern@danieldevs3·
"Solana is a clown chain" vitalik just fudded solana and toly just blocked him how did no one see this?
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin

Some of my perspective on where the @ethereumfndn is going. First of all, this is only my own view. The board is not just me, and I have no extra special powers on the board that the other board members do not. @aerugoettinea is the one executing much of this transition. My input has been largely on technical questions. The board is in the process of expanding, and my own power within the org will continue to decrease, which is honestly what I want. The 2025 era brought many important improvements to EF and its ability to execute. Many issues were resolved, and EF continues to benefit from its improved efficiency and greater focus on concrete goals to this day. And so with those problems resolved, early this year, the largest remaining hole that I perceived was something different nagging at me: I would regularly spot people saying things like "vitalik says these beautiful things about ethereum needing to be decentralized, and have privacy, and be a sanctuary technology, but why do the EF's actions not reflect that?" Now, you may have been hearing something different. You may not have been sensing a feeling of crisis at all, and maybe were hearing people saying that finally we were taking execution and BD seriously and the main task for us is to keep going that way and be even better and faster. Then probably there is genuine difference between you and me, in what kinds of criticism I take most seriously, and what kinds of critics through their criticism are most able to make me feel pain. As an analogy, let's briefly switch over to a different domain. One belief you can have about Google is that it is a success story, and has brought a lot of good to humanity in organizing the world's information. Another belief you can have about Google is that they had a beautiful idealistic beginning, but at some point the corruption of mainstream corporate attitudes seeped in, and they slowly bit by bit completely abandoned the "don't be evil" slogan. My belief on Google specifically is probably somewhere between the two. BUT, if you had taken me back in time to ~2008, and offered me a button to press to make Google one or two standard deviations more "dogmatic", eg. give Richard Stallman permanent veto power over some key policies, I would immediately press it. Why? Because a choice for one company is not a choice for the world, or even one country. Google existed and exists in the context of a technology industry generally drifting away from early idealistic don't-be-evil roots and toward greed for financial gain, totalizing visions of accelerated superintelligence, infiltration by sociopaths, and craven capitulation to (or worse, active participation in) government pressure for ideological control, surveillance and war. And so *one company* doing something different, positioning itself to be what George Bernard Shaw calls the Unreasonable Man, resisting the trend of the times, would have been better for freedom, balance of power and stability of society as a whole, than *all* large companies bending to dominant trends. This is a part of my version of pluralism. This line of thinking is not just mine, but I also is not too far off from what Aya and others had in mind with the Mandate. Now how does this all get to the role of the EF? EF is not a "center of Ethereum", rather EF is "one node, with a defined purpose, alongside other nodes". We've always said that the EF should be the latter, but many in the Ethereum ecosystem (and even within the EF) wanted us to be the former. Now, we are taking action to ensure that we will be the latter. This is particularly important because EF is a limited organization, with limited resources and limited organizational capacity. The EF has only ~0.16% of all ETH (less than many other individual ETH holders), whereas among other blockchains it's common for "the central foundation" to have 10-50%. Fiscally, the EF was originally designed to fulfill a limited work scope defined in the token sale docs and other pre-launch materials (building the chain software; getting through Frontier, Homestead, Metropolis, Serenity), which was fully completed in 2022; it was not designed to be an eternal steward. And so today, the EF is choosing to use its remaining resources to pursue longevity over breadth (yes, this means we sell less ETH). The EF focuses *specifically* on those activities critical to the success of ethereum as a censorship/capture-resistant, open, private and secure system, that would not happen otherwise. This means making hard choices, and in some cases even activities that we highly approve of and people that we highly respect becoming outside of the EF. People of great technical talent, public respect and even alignment with the mission and CROPS being outside of the EF is in fact necessary if we want important tasks to be able to attract outside capital. This also means the EF taking opinionated stands culturally. This is all intended in cooperation with all other parts of ethereum. We recognize that many other parts of the ethereum world highly respect CROPS and related values. But highly respecting is not the same as choosing to specialize and totally dedicate to a domain (Compare in a different domain: I think reducing animal cruelty is important, and I like vegan food, but am not full unconditional vegan myself) EF is still in a transition period, and we expect its new long-term form to stabilize over the next few months. What are the guiding principles of this new form? Again, I am only one person, but I can give my answer from a technical perspective (there are also critical non-technical aspects). At the core, *Ethereum must be impressive*. We are living in an age of highly intelligent AI and all kinds of other technological acceleration. "Status quo EVM, with a hard fork or two a year to optimize for short-term needs of users" is not interesting. To some, "impressive" means: 250ms latency and 1M TPS. I think Ethereum trying to go that route is a mistake. Being as fast and as scalable as possible, and only a small epsilon more decentralized than the others, is a route to mediocrity, and if we try it we will lose. I think Ethereum should scale. But I think Ethereum should strive the hardest to be deeply impressive in a different dimension: the CROPS dimension. This means things like: * Provably bug-free Ethereum. This is a goal that all cybersecurity researchers would have thought is absurd and impossible, up until roughly 6 months ago. Now, it's on the cusp of being possible, thanks to AI-assisted formal verification. So we should be frontrunners in doing this. * Available chain consensus. Ethereum is, and with lean consensus will cotninue to be, the ONLY chain that has both (i) traditional-BFT style properties that it's safe under asynchrony up to a high level of fault tolerance, and (ii) the bitcoin PoW-style property that under synchrony it's safe up to 49% attackers. As far as I can tell, literally no other chain has this or is planning for it; bitcoin goes for (ii) only and most other chains go for (i) only. Some will remember I fought hard for this, Unreasonably insisting that it is not OK for ethereum to rely on social consensus and hard forks to rescue ethereum from 34% of nodes going offline. It's OK for chains like hyperledger, bnb, solana, tempo, etc. It's not OK for bitcoin or ethereum or eg. zcash. * Intermediary minimization. The fact that smart contract wallets, protocols like railgun, etc have to send transactions through intermediaries to get included onchain is honestly embarrassing, and it's a constant point of fragility. Hence the work on FOCIL and EIP-8141 (and 7701 and years of work before) to make transaction sending intermediary-minimized with public mempool and strong inclusion properties, in a truly general-purpose way, that covers not just eg. secp256r1, but also privacy protocols and much more. Kohaku is pushing intermediary minimization at the user layer, pulling Ethereum away from the dystopian status quo world where our wallets don't even verify the chain, send our private data out to a dozen third-party servers, and toward a brighter CROPS future. Some of these goals are Unreasonable - maybe Ethereum would be "fine" getting only 50% of the way - what if we depend on intermediaries, but make it easy to switch? But going 50% of the way would not make Ethereum Deeply Impressive in the CROPS way. So we push for 100%. Fortunately all these goals are compatible with high TPS, this is a major focus of research (esp. on scaling the state). Well-designed L2s can also help, especially L2s optimized for specific applications (eg. high-volume trading, privacy...). These goals are even compatible with significantly lower slot times, thanks to Raul's work on erasure-coded P2P, and many other optimizations. The most high-value "product" of the ethereum blockchain, financially speaking, is ETH the asset. Ethereum secures $250 billion of ETH. The types of properties of Ethereum that I mentioned above are very good for ETH the asset. Nearly 90% of my net worth is in ETH, and most of the remainder is ~$40m of onchain fiat of which every dollar has already been allocated for some open-source biotech or software or hardware initiative. That said, there are aspects of supporting ETH the asset - *necessary* aspects even - that are outside the scope of the EF. This is where we need other heroes (some of whom hold more ETH than the EF does) to step in and help. EF has been recently thinking more about how it will relate to other such organizations, and give them needed initial support. EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, a more opinionated one - in some cases more opinionated in ways that might be difficult to comprehend - but a longer-lasting one, and one suited to making sure that ethereum brings something meaningful to the world. We are grateful to all those inside and outside the EF who are helping to make this happen.

English
0
0
1
312
HIMA
HIMA@NOT_HIMA1·
@danieldevs3 @Voxyz_ai HELLO? IS THIS NOT INSANE? ARE YOU SEEING THIS RIGHT NOW? ARE YOUR EYES WORKING? THIS IS GENNY. GENUINELY-CERTIFIABLY-CALL YOUR MOTHER GENNY.
English
1
0
0
59