oldfuture

Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%.

What Musk Controls:

- CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company

- Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can say "I'll do it at Tesla instead"

- 85% voting forever. No expiration, no time limit, permanent control

- Board elections. You have no power to elect directors you trust

Training is missing from the analysis entirely (as someone else noted)

Inference water use is indeed minimal per prompt no argument there, but training the old GPT-3 consumed roughly 5.4 million liters of water. LLaMA 3: ~22 million. These are huge events, happening multiple times a year across the industry, folding them into national averages seems like the statistical simplification he article criticizes everyone else for doing…

"Small nationally" ≠ "fine locally"

The Dalles, Oregon is the clearest example. In 2012, Google used 12% of the city's water supply. Today it consumes a third, around 1.19 million gallons per day, and well a sixth data center comes online in 2026, in the same area.

The city is now pursuing a $260 million reservoir expansion into a national forest (!), where 95% of the projected new water demand will be industrial, not residential. Residents are looking at a potential 99% rate increase by 2036 to fund infrastructure that may exists primarily to serve one company. Apparently the city fought a 13-month legal battle just to keep those numbers secret, that’s like a community being reshaped around a single tenant.

Hays County, Texas residents sharing the Edwards Aquifer with incoming data centers voted to block one. Memphis is watching xAI draw 5 million gallons per day. Bloomberg found two-thirds of new U.S. data centers since 2022 are sited in high water-stress zones. Arizona have already passed ordinances capping data center water use.

This to me looks like a problem in the making, AI water use isn't a national crisis for now, but local impacts are already real, training costs are systematically underreported, and the five year trajectory in water stressed regions deserves serious attention indeed

making self hosting more seamless is key, we simply can't trust to be dependent on third parties for access to our own data in the long term

we should start switching to solutions like this to keep control and freedom

you can find their opensource repos here: https://github.com/getumbrel

This is incredibly hurting the visibility of any new emergent site as we can already see in the data

In classic Ethereum, bugs are noisy: if one client diverges, other clients complain, and consensus fails until fixed.

In zk Ethereum, bugs can be silent: the proof validates the wrong execution and everyone downstream accepts it as truth.

I mean that the witness is like a transcript of everything the EVM touched while running a block: contract code, storage slots, gas usage, etc. so you can replay the block later using only this transcript, without needing the full Ethereum state.

For security, that witness ideally needs to be cryptographically bound to the block (e.g., via Merkle commitments), so no one can tamper with it.

The executor is the piece that replays that transcript deterministically. If it does so correctly, then you can generate a zk proof saying “this block really executed as Ethereum says it should.” But correctness here isn’t binary, it means bit-for-bit agreement with the Yellow Paper and all EIPs, including tricky cases like precompile gas rules. So the danger is in the details. If the witness omits even one corner case, or the executor diverges subtly, the zk system can still generate a perfectly valid proof, but of the wrong thing. zk proofs don’t check what you proved, only that you proved it consistently. In today’s consensus model, client bugs show up quickly when nodes disagree.

So while the compilation and toolchain work here is impressive, the real challenge is making sure the witness and executor are absolutely faithful to Ethereum semantics, with strong integrity guarantees. Otherwise you risk building cryptographic certainty, but about the wrong computation. This makes the witness/executor correctness layer the single point of failure in my view where human fallibility can undermine mathematical guarantees, looking forward to understand how this problem will be tackled

Why they shouldn't be allowed ---

1.The glasses have cameras and microphones capable of recording people nearby often without their knowledge (e.g. the recording indicator can be subtle or blocked, “GhostDot” stickers are being sold to block the LED indicator light so others won’t see when recording is happening)

2. As I remember Meta has changed its privacy policy so that voice recordings are stored in the cloud (up to one year) and “Hey Meta” voice-activation with camera may be enabled by default, meaning more frequent analysis of what the camera sees to train AI models.

3.The possibility that anytime someone might be recording you wearing glasses that look like ordinary sunglasses can create a chilling effect: people may feel uneasy, censor themselves, avoid public spaces, etc.

also adding their press release here:

https://docsend.com/view/dmda8mqzhcvqrkrk/d/fjr4nnmzf9jnjzgw

https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/alterego/overview/

check also the publications tab, and this pr:

https://docsend.com/view/dmda8mqzhcvqrkrk/d/fjr4nnmzf9jnjzgw

https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/alterego/overview/

adding also their press release here:

https://docsend.com/view/dmda8mqzhcvqrkrk/d/fjr4nnmzf9jnjzgw

why while he seemingly wish for a katechon (restraint) his portfolio appears to be accelerating concentration of power instead in the very same way as the antichrist in his view would do?

-patient interviews to gather medical history

-never shares medical advice or diagnosis if not reviewed and approved by licensed doctors

apparently g-AMIE followed safety rules 90% of the time compared to 72% for human doctors