hello, world

31 years ago today, Command & Conquer was released. GDI vs. Nod. Tiberium fields. Base building. FMV mission briefings. And hours spent hearing “construction complete.” Command & Conquer didn’t just become a PC classic, it helped define what real-time strategy would become. One of the greatest eras of PC gaming was just getting started.

Latest prediction market app updates include: - @Kalshi replaces Perps with Combos in the bottom navigation - @Gemini launches Combos

Introducing Cashtag Partners for stocks and crypto 🚀 X is the best source of financial news for traders and investors, and we've made it easier than ever to connect financial conversations with the ability to trade.

Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon became a media superstar after going public with his AI fears. He insisted that he wasn’t working with any third party organizations. Familiar sources told us a different story: DEY., a PR firm representing many of the most prominent AI safetyists, was booking his interviews. One source, who had direct knowledge, even said DEY. preemptively booked Nate Soares, a prominent AI safety figure, for interviews that directly overlapped with Jacob going public. Jacob working with DEY. is notable for two reasons: first, as mentioned, he previously said he wasn’t working with third parties. Second, we are in the middle of a national conversation about the future of AI that is actively determining how we regulate the most powerful technology in the world, largely thanks to the panic stirred up by Jacob — and it’s in the public’s interest to know who, exactly, is behind it. Scoop from @huntryerson 👇

13,080 seconds until Thursday Night Football Green Bay: 70% → $1k pays $1,428 Atlana: 31% → $1k pays $3,225 Pick a side.

Researchers built an AI that doxes any "anonymous" reddit account in under a minutes for $2. eth zurich and anthropic published a terrifying paper proving that "practical anonymity" on the internet is officially dead. they built a fully autonomous ai pipeline that takes your pseudonymous posts, extracts your identity signals, searches the web, and figures out exactly who you are. no human investigator needed. the numbers are actually mindblowing.. - 67% of hacker news users identified correctly - when the system makes a guess, it is right 90% of the time - it even unmasked scientists whose interview transcripts were explicitly redacted for privacy the scariest part? even time doesn't protect you.. they tested users who took a full year break and changed their interests. the ai still matched their old and new profiles with 90% precision. it sees through your persona changes like they aren't even there. there is no defense against this. the agent splits the work into tiny, benign tasks like "summarizing a profile" or "ranking candidates." no api safety guardrail is going to flag it because no single step looks malicious.. every throwaway account. every "nobody will connect this to me" comment. it’s all just searchable micro-data now.

The Zcash Moment. @balajis , @tyler and @cameron (@Gemini) take the OKX Main Stage, with @0xMert_ of @Helius. Wed 7 Oct · 3:00 PM

The Zcash Moment. @balajis , @tyler and @cameron (@Gemini) take the OKX Main Stage, with @0xMert_ of @Helius. Wed 7 Oct · 3:00 PM

JUST IN: X partners with crypto and stock exchanges to allow trading from the timeline. • Gemini • Kraken • Moomoo • Coinbase • Interactive Brokers

🚨JUST NOW: Bitcoin hits $85,420

America’s corporate governance system is broken, and it’s killing public companies. Look no further than Cracker Barrel: Decades of brutal mismanagement have seen one incompetent CEO after another walk away with a massive paycheck while customers and actual shareholders take a beating. Why does this keep happening? Because proxy advisory firms like ISS are corrupt. They blindly rubber-stamp failing boards year after year, protecting the corporate elite while burning shareholder value to the ground. The root of the rot is index funds. There's no question that indexing one's money is a smart financial move for most people. But just because you passively index your investments doesn't mean your corporate votes should be handed over to the managers of your fund so they can play politics. Right now, passive funds hold massive, unchecked voting blocks while having zero skin in the game themselves. It is time for a simple rewrite of the rules: We need to index the votes of index fund investors. Passive index funds should be forced to automatically split their votes to proportionately mirror those of retail and active institutional shareholders — the people actually doing the research, risking their capital, and fighting for performance in the companies they hold shares in. No more rubber-stamping. A change like this will immediately strip corrupt gatekeepers like ISS of their toxic influence. True accountability happens when lazy, overpaid boards actually answer to the stakeholders they represent, rather than screwing them over. Actual, logic-driven governance when your money is passive happens when your vote passively follows the voting decisions of the actual market. We need to stop letting passive capital protect active incompetence. By stripping index funds of their arbitrary voting power and empowering engaged investors, we will finally torch corporate cronyism and usher American capital markets into a golden age of capitalism.

>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me

🚨 TODAY: The SEC issued an order granting temporary, conditional exemptive relief to Tokenized Securities Venues from the definition of “exchange” in the Exchange Act to trade tokenized NMS stock using innovative permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools.

BREAKING: X now lets US users trade stocks and crypto through Cashtags, with Gemini and Kraken as launch partners

The case against ZCG. 00:00 Intro 02:38 How ZCG works 03:11 Grantees elect the committee that funds them 04:41 8% of every block, zero coinholder say 05:30 Why nobody says no to an influential applicant 08:46 No consequences, and no one to blame 11:17 Baked into the protocol, so nothing can compete 15:06 Already 20+ years of runway 16:26 Credible neutrality

Trading on @X just got a lot more interesting X Cashtags now connects directly to Gemini for Stocks, plus $ZEC, $HYPE, $BTC, $ETH and $SOL Cashtag → trade → Gemini

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Paramount to leave California, according to the L.A. Mayor's office and the California Attorney General's office. What we know: tmz.com/2026/09/16/sources-s…