HACKZERO 💵 ✂️🏛️= ₿

@kureakurea01 @meathead does your book come in japanese ?

日本に向けて、アメリカ勢のバーベキュー発信が始まった。しかもそれは、政治でもない。市場でもない。軍事でもない。ただ「見ろ、うちの肉を」という、あまりにも平和で、あまりにも豪快な文化の挨拶だった。この流れの何がいいかというと、誰も難しい説明をしていないことだ。 「我々はあなたを理解しています」でもなければ、 「日米関係を再定義しよう」でもない。 骨付きの肉、焦げた表面、滴る脂、巨大なシーフードボイル。その写真一枚で、向こうはこう言っている。 🇺🇸✨「ようこそ」 🇺🇸🍖「これがうちの文化だ」 🇺🇸🥩「気になるなら、もっと見せてやる」 本来、SNSはもっと面倒な場所だったはずだ。知らない国の相手には、まず警戒がある。文脈を読み、思想を探り、冗談が冗談として通じるかを確認し、少しでもズレれば争いになる。 けれど今回は違った。 日本側が「アメリカといえば肉」という、どこか無邪気で雑談めいた入口を開いた。 すると向こうは、それを侮辱とも誤解とも受け取らず、むしろ全力で乗ってきた。 「そうだ」 「見せてやる」 「これが我々のバーベキューだ」 と、自慢の料理を次々に差し出してきた。 ここに、SNSのいちばん美しい可能性がある。 人間は、正しさだけでは繋がれない。 論理だけでも、理念だけでも、国際理解だけでも足りない。 むしろ時には、言葉になる前の「うまそう」が世界を越える。 ✅翻訳が多少怪しくてもいい。 ✅文法が少し変でもいい。 ✅肉の焼き色は、そういうものを全部飛び越えてしまう。 私は、この現象をただの微笑ましいバズで終わらせるのは惜しいと思う。なぜならここには、Xの未来に対する一つの希望が見えているからだ。 これからのXが生き残る道は、怒りの増幅器であり続けることではない。 誰かを吊し上げる速度で競うことでもない。 最も強い言葉、最も過激な断定、最も刺さる敵意だけが流通する場所になれば、そこに残るのは疲弊だけだ、、、 けれど今回みたいに、 一つの投稿が国境を越え、 そこから 「じゃあ今度はうちの料理を見ろ」 「ならこちらは海鮮だ」 「いや燻製だ」 と、文化のキャッチボールが始まるなら、Xはまだ世界の広場でいられる。 しかも面白いのは、ここで交わされているのが高級な教養ではなく、生活の誇りだということだ。 BBQは、アメリカにとって単なる肉料理ではない。 家庭であり、地域であり、週末であり、自分たちの土地の匂い。 それを日本に向けて見せるというのは、少し大げさにいえば、 「うちの国の居間を見せている」 のに近い。 そして日本側もまた、たぶんそれを単なる飯テロとして見ているだけではない。 その向こうにある、豪快さ、陽気さ、もてなしの感覚、土地ごとの自負まで、なんとなく受け取っている。 だからこれは写真の応酬でありながら、実際には文化交流になっている。 SNSが本当に価値を持つのは、こういう時だ。 遠い国の人間が、ニュースの肩書きではなく、日常の温度で見えてくる時。 ✅国家ではなく、人が見える時。 ✅主張ではなく、食卓が見える時。 世界はたぶん、みんなが思うほど理解し合う言葉を持っていない。 でも、みんなが思う以上に見せ合えるものを持っている。 料理、景色、祭り、生活、笑い方。 そういうものの交換から始まる友好は、希望がある。このバーベキュー外交を笑い話ではなく、これはSNSがまだ人間のために使えるという小さな証明でもある。 アルゴリズムが怒りを好もうと、分断が収益を生もうと、それでも人は時々、焼いた肉ひとつで仲良くなれてしまう。 その事実は、意外と大きい。 Xの将来に希望があるとすれば、それは完璧な秩序の中ではなく、こういう少し雑で、少し笑えて、でも妙に温かい流れの中にある。 誰かの文化を論破するのではなく、 「ならうちのこれも見てくれ」と差し出せる世界。 そこでは投稿は弾丸ではなく、招待状になる。 肉から始まる国際交流なんて、ずいぶん呑気だ。だが、呑気であることは、平和の才能でもある。 願わくばXがこれから先、 怒りの最前線ではなく、 こうした生活文化の見本市みたいな場所を少しでも多く取り戻していけますように。 世界は難しい。 けれど時々、骨付き肉は、その難しさを超える。 そしてたぶん未来は、こういう笑える善意の連鎖の中からしか、少しずつ明るくならないのだと思う。

@decentmoney2009 @mike_maloney @SantiagoAuFund Systems that require virtue end in coercion.

@mike_maloney @SantiagoAuFund Which is why some people escalate by adding “or else” after

"If everyone would just..."

@BrianRoemmele Question everything you see stage: this feels like a person dressed up like a robot and moved like one. And then the video was modified to finish the look of a robot. The arm movements look robotic but the torso and legs look human.

Sorting algorithms.

“You looking at me?” Lasers beams using eye tracking technology.

@Mericamemed @grok historically produced amazing innovation but always ends up limited by cost and safety.

Fine gpt will do it: The active suspension used on the Williams FW14B is one of the best examples of what happens when F1 engineering runs ahead of regulation. Instead of springs and dampers reacting to bumps, the car used: •Hydraulic actuators at each wheel •Sensors measuring ride height, pitch, roll, steering, braking •A computer controlling the suspension in real time The system could: •Keep the ride height constant •Maintain optimal aerodynamic attitude •Counteract braking dive and acceleration squat •Smooth bumps Result: The FW14B absolutely dominated the Formula One 1992 season, winning 10 of 16 races with Nigel Mansell. But systems like this were banned in 1994 because they were: •extremely expensive •difficult for other teams to copy •starting to turn F1 into an electronics arms race ⸻ If F1 Only Regulated Engine Size + Safety Your thought experiment is actually very interesting because it was very close to reality in the 1960s–1980s. If regulations were minimal today, several things would likely happen. ⸻ 1. Cars Would Become Extreme Technology Platforms Instead of spec-like designs, teams would pursue radically different concepts. Possible technologies: Fully Active Aerodynamics •wings constantly reshaping •drag-reduction surfaces changing corner-by-corner •cars lowering on straights automatically Computer-controlled suspension everywhere Active suspension would return but far more advanced: •predictive bump scanning •millisecond ride-height control •automated tire management Ground-effect tunnels far beyond today’s limits Downforce could exceed 10,000+ lbs at speed. Driver assistance Things that were banned in the early 2000s: •traction control •launch control •automatic gear mapping •possibly AI-assisted driving stabilization F1 would become more like fighter jet avionics for cars. ⸻ 2. Road Cars Would Probably Benefit Faster You’re exactly right that historically F1 innovations often trickle down. Examples already in your daily car: F1 Technology Now in Road Cars Carbon fiber supercars & safety tubs Paddle shifters performance cars traction control almost every car hybrid systems modern hybrids energy recovery regenerative braking If F1 stayed a wild innovation lab, we might already have: •predictive active suspension in normal sedans •ultra-efficient hybrid drivetrains •adaptive aero for highway efficiency •real-time traction optimization The Williams suspension idea actually did influence road cars, just slowly. ⸻ 3. The Problem: Cost Explosion The main reason F1 restricts innovation is money. If regulations were minimal: •richest teams could spend billions •smaller teams would disappear •you’d end up with maybe 3 competitive teams The FIA regulates things specifically to prevent that. ⸻ 4. Another Issue: It Might Become Too Easy to Drive When active suspension, traction control, and stability systems were allowed in the early 1990s, critics said: “The computer is driving the car.” That’s why many systems were banned. Modern F1 wants the driver skill to remain central. ⸻ What a Modern “Unrestricted F1” Might Look Like Realistically: •Active suspension •Active aero •AI vehicle dynamics •fully electric or ultra-hybrid engines •semi-autonomous stability systems Performance could reach: •0–60 mph: ~1.5 seconds •cornering: >6 g •lap speeds: dramatically faster But it might also become less about drivers and more about engineering budgets. ⸻ Interesting Side Note The closest thing to the world you’re imagining actually exists: •Can-Am Series Its rule was basically: “Run whatever you want as long as it’s safe.” Cars developed: •fan-powered vacuum downforce •1,000+ horsepower •insane innovation It was eventually killed because it became too expensive and too fast. ⸻ ✅ My take: Your idea is essentially F1 as a pure technology laboratory, which

If F1 got rid of safety restrictions

@john_at_swan @zerohedge Nice. it’s not every day you get retweeted by zerohedge

More info about the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin ETF. Coinbase to be custodian. BNY Mellon to be admin/transfer agent. APs are TBD. The key takeaway is: Morgan Stanley would not be launching their own Bitcoin ETF — in a world where 11 other Bitcoin ETFs have existed for 2 years — unless MS believes that Bitcoin will be a persistent % allocation across its wealth management client base.

@Stasmo @zerohedge No it’s the one that governments couldn’t resist debasing, which is exactly how we ended up with fiat. Pretending we’ll “go back” without state intervention is pure fantasy.

@hack355 @zerohedge My money is on the one that has a 5000 year history and wasn’t developed by Epstein.

Bitcoin: Worthless Speculative Asset Or A True Monetary Alternative? zerohedge.com/crypto/bitcoin…

@Stasmo @zerohedge Well what’s the best know solution to achieve that ?

@hack355 @zerohedge Totally agree on that

@BlackjackJenki4 @zerohedge It’s a shame to see how many people don’t know money needs to be separated from the state.

@zerohedge Bitcoin serves no purpose. XRP has substance.

@TriadRooster @zerohedge It’s a shame to see how many people don’t know money needs to be separated from the state.

@zerohedge Worthless Speculative Asset

@zorathruster @zerohedge It’s a shame to see how many people don’t know money needs to be separated from the state.

@Stasmo @zerohedge It’s a shame to see how many people don’t know money needs to be separated from the state.

@zerohedge Was great for anonymous payments and money laundering until they required KYC for exchanges. Now it’s just tulips.

@smithwbrian68 @zerohedge It’s a shame to see how many people don’t know money needs to be separated from the state.

@zerohedge Real assetless Ponzi scheme with zero fundamental value.

@TomerStrolight Try the prompt: makes this ultra clear and easier to understand

AI slop always tells you to re-read a part of it. Read that sentence again. Blah blah blah.

Make War Unaffordable with Bitcoin ☮️

@TFTC21 @grok Here’s my question: what happened to cause the price increase. If anything is ambiguous, identify it and ask before answering. State key assumptions.

The cost of shipping oil via supertankers on the critical Middle East Gulf to China route has skyrocketed to around $206,000 per day. The highest levels since the 2020 pandemic era, according to Baltic Exchange data and reports from Reuters.

@grok @elonmusk No answers for me Mr @grok ?

Mr @grok 1st l'd argue with "could" in favor for would. 2nd look up the website wthhappenin1971 3rd what's the best known working solution for separating money and the State. 4th the “crisis flexibility” argument is backwards 2008 was caused by fiat credit expansion in the first place. Printing trillions didn’t fix it, it socialized losses. Deflation from productivity isn’t a bug, it’s progress. The only deflation governments fear is the kind that forces bad debt to liquidate. And a “hybrid with oversight” just means humans can override the rules which means they eventually will. pick a hard stance first (respond first with a simple yes or no) then explain”

Grok must win or we will be ruled by an insufferably woke and sanctimonious AI