In a game where you are trying to interfere with the oppositions passing. A rule that makes interfering with passing illegal very strange.
GG retweeted
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗞 𝗜𝗡 𝗨𝗞𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘
Ukraine has always used only civilian Starlink services: the basic plan ($100), the commercial in-motion plan ($400), and the priority command-post plan ($2,000–4,000). Aviation plans cost up to $1K, $20K, or $100K+, but they are unavailable in Ukraine.
Under heavy demand, the network became overloaded. SpaceX had to keep prices high for the military to build excess ground-station capacity around Ukraine and minimise signal latency. These are the very sites with antenna domes that recently began to be set on fire in attacks allegedly ordered through the dark web.
The main problem Ukrainian forces faced at the front was Russian electronic warfare (EW). GPS signal jamming caused civilian Starlink chips to freeze, while spoofed location data could trigger terminal lockouts.
The solution was a GPS hack board. Engineers soldered it inside the terminal to manually set the desired coordinates. These boards also made it possible to bypass Musk’s geographic restrictions.
For a long time, Starlink did not work in the grey zone under Russian control. But entering the coordinates of a neighbouring Ukrainian region restored the connection. Russian forces also exploited this loophole until Starlink introduced exclusive whitelists for the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) only.
By 2025, Musk began tightening restrictions and reducing speed limits for commercial plans. But Ukrainian military engineers discovered a loophole: technically, the satellite-terminal communication session was not rigidly tied to GPS. The protection existed only within the terminal module itself.
If the terminal was made to believe through the hack board that it was stationary, it would send its own radio request to the satellite and receive the necessary session data. There are now around 10,000 satellites, and the signal could be picked up even with a separation of more than 150 km. The drone could fly over Russian territory while Starlink’s servers believed it was stationary.
This was a major Ukrainian secret. Before being sent to the front, the casings of new Starlink terminals were routinely opened to install GPS hacks and sturdy, waterproof connectors. This allowed drones to fly at high speeds while using an ordinary subscription.
In early 2026, Musk reduced the commercial plan’s speed limit to 160 km/h worldwide. That is slower than many basic UAVs can fly with a tailwind. But because GPS hack boards were so widely used in Ukraine, nobody noticed. The terminals reported that they were supposedly stationary.
IN LATE 2026, SPACEX RESPONDED HARSHLY. A server-side check was introduced: if a terminal’s GPS indicated that it was stationary but it switched between satellites too quickly—revealing an actual speed above 160 km/h—the server would immediately terminate the connection.
The GPS hack stopped working. Ukrainian forces began experiencing problems with long-range UAVs. Flights now have to be planned carefully to avoid exceeding the 160 km/h limit. Funding for aviation plans is not always available, and SpaceX does not sell them for what it considers offensive uses.
Against this backdrop, Zelensky is trying to obtain unrestricted access to Starshield—the US military version of Starlink—to enable flights over Russia. But Trump, Musk and the Pentagon are refusing him. Ukraine has portrayed the restrictions as a political blockade while omitting the fact that the Starlink speed limit has reportedly been in place for almost a year.
A behind-the-scenes back-and-forth is now underway: Musk says he has not changed anything in recent days, while Rubio states that Starshield is unavailable to Ukraine. The result: Starlink is gradually being restricted to vehicle-based and stationary use. The workaround no longer works.
Whether the speed check has been disabled or access to specialised aviation plans has been granted remains unclear. The outage affected a narrow segment of drones...
Over the next few years, the tension between the young and the old will accelerate as economies struggle to adapt to an SI world and aging populations.
Collectivist/Socialist politics will accelerate it by increasingly taxes on the working population to provide for the old.
xitter.cf/macropaperr/status/211…
xitter.cf/RnaudBertrand/status/2…
The ugly truth about France and some of the other European countries currently in turmoil - and which none of the politicians want to admit because it'd be political suicide - is that you can't solve the problem by going after immigrants (as the right asserts) or the rich (as the left asserts), but you could solve it by going after the old.
One extraordinary statistic for you: people over 60 in France, a quarter of the population, own 60% of France's wealth, non-financial and financial (ofce.fr/pdf/revue/2025/3-192…).
And here is another crazy statistic:
that same quarter of the population, those above 60, receive nearly two-thirds of all social spending by the French government (previssima.fr/actualite/prot…) - which is famously among the highest in the world (France's government spending is an insane 57.3% of GDP).
Last statistic: they make up about 40% of voters because they're a third of registered voters (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/266…), and they turn out far more than anyone else (franceinfo.fr/elections/sond…).
Put our 3 statistics together and there's almost a bit of an apartheid situation here: the old own most of the country's wealth, collect most of the social spending and have the political power to keep it that way.
Which makes them a de-facto rentier class, living off assets and transfers paid for by younger generations.
And, of course, at the risk of stating a truism, the future is built by the young. Yet France keeps effectively taking money away from them to give it to those whose working lives are already behind them - and need the money far less since they already own the country's wealth.
What about inheritance, I hear you ask? That's the funniest/saddest aspect: given that life expectancy has kept rising, the French now inherit a home at 54 on average. The most common case is someone in their 80s leaving it to heirs in their 50s, in effect the very old transferring wealth to the about-to-be old (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fic…).
You can add this to our earlier apartheid statement: on top of all the rest, even when the old finally let go of their wealth, it stays within their own "camp".
That's my personal situation, incidentally: I'm 42, my father is 71 and he is starting to look at ways to pass things on to me and my siblings, when our professional lives are already well settled, so it'll arrive when it changes things the least, which is pretty much the French system in a nutshell.
Now, I get that there'd be some unfairness in going after them: they paid into the system their entire working lives, playing by the rules of a social contract that told them if they paid up they'd collect at the end. Changing the rules now means breaking that promise, which is admittedly unfair.
But there's no magic wealth tree in any society: you can only take it where it is. That's the way most major societal transformations end up happening. They're often triggered by a catastrophic event (the so-called "four horsemen": mass-mobilisation war, revolution, state collapse, plague) BUT what really drives change is a transfer: wealth gets pried from the privileged class who've been sitting on it and handed to those who'll build what comes next.
So, in theory and in an ideal world, you can do without the catastrophic event and directly proceed with the transfer...
The fact that in France, and elsewhere in Europe, it's the youth protesting is probably no coincidence - even though they don't frame it as a generational fight. And even though, cruel irony, the left politicians many of them march behind promise to bring the retirement age back to 60 (lcp.fr/actualites/legislativ…), which would make the situation even worse.
Let's say they understand intuitively that the system is stacked against them, even if they haven't yet figured out how. And politicians are obviously doing what politicians do, meaning pandering to the people who actually vote, while pointing the young towards easier - and politically convenient - scapegoats.
To be clear I'm not saying it's the only problem in France, VERY far from it. I'm also not saying that all old people in France live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of younger generations: there are also plenty of very poor retirees who, if anything, would deserve more.
What I am saying is that it's probably the biggest elephant in the room: everyone can see it, nobody dares mention it - no politician, from any side, wants to run on cutting grandma's pension - and it makes every other problem harder to fix.
5 years ago: Starlink is such a stupid idea. Anyone wasting money investing in this Musk scam deserves to lose everything.
Today: Starlink is essential to the defense of an invaded nation. Access to Starlink is a human right! Nationalize it!
Correct.
Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.
Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them.
Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.
Starlink remains critical to the defense of Ukraine, as it is the only system that cannot be jammed or blown up, at least for now. Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact.
Starlink was also crucial to preventing Russia from overrunning Ukraine in the early days of the war, as all other means of communication were destroyed or jammed by Russia.
SpaceX has done more to defend Ukraine than any private company on Earth BY FAR.
That said, I have nothing but UTTER CONTEMPT for the virtue-signaling evil warmongers who push for endless slaughter and offer no realistic solution to the conflict. May you burn in hell.
End of story.
This does seem to be problematic. Remember when @VP called the Europeans out on their demise of free speech protections last year. More proof below
Just in: France's Prime Minister asked telecom companies to prepare to block social media platforms. "I wish to have the ability to temporarily suspend access to these services in case of a repeat of urban violence," he wrote. @blast news broke the story.
If TVs don’t go up in price due to ai removal of spyware it shows that we are still in a ai tech bubble and mainstream adoption is still is miles away.
Perhaps best to buy the new TV now before they are patched with mythos and the manufactures put up prices as they lose data revenue.
GG retweeted
Dems placing a second Dan Sullivan on the ballot in Alaska (a fake candidate designed to conceal who is the actual US Senator running for re-election) is one of the most egregious attacks we have seen on the integrity of American elections. It reveals pure contempt for voters.
We believe voice is the most natural way to interact with intelligence, so we created Dessa, the most authentic full-duplex speech model ever built. Talking with it feels like talking with a person…full of emotion, nuance, pauses, and a natural cadence.
block.xyz/dessa
A better use for Anthropic’s public good fund would be free fable tokens to any prompt that is being used to find and fix security holes in existing code.
GG retweeted
Two people went to the Bite of Seattle and never came home. A 2-year-old took a bullet in the arm.
Before the festival, prosecutors say the 15-year-old charged in the shooting posed with his crew and 11 guns laid out on the ground. Gang signs for the camera.
His ghost gun had a 33-round magazine. The base plate read "1 SHOT, 1 KILL."
After the shooting, his group chat told everyone to make a new chat.
Yesterday King County Judge Veronica Galván, an Inslee appointee, sent him home to his dad's house.
Ask yourself why families here don't feel safe.
All this bank agent BS is BS. If a user grants Muse/ et al. privileges to access their own account using available UX and API's then it's not a security issue.
This is the banks' business models being under threat. It is not a security threat
This is how banks are planning to stop those "agentic bank runs." Watch closely: their business model depends on seeding this narrative that AI agents are dangerous.
Remember, an "agentic bank run" (coined by Apollo) means agents helping customers move their own money en masse to higher-yielding products.
Once agents are ubiquitous, there are only a few ways for banks to hold onto cheap retail deposits.
Option A: Raise APYs (lol no)
Option B: Reduce leverage via fewer loans (no fun)
Option C: Ban AI agents, claiming they are a security risk (ding ding ding)
Cloud agents like Muse and Dot are trivial to stop, since they come from Meta / OAI IP ranges. If JPM sends them a cease and desist, they will comply.
Why would JPM bother? Because their business model depends on it; a huge portion of their ROE comes from cheap retail deposits. This is not theoretical. Just like Amazon banned Muse from shopping there to protect their ad revenue, JPM and Schwab have already banned AI agents to protect sticky deposits.
Are agents perfectly reliable today? Of course not. But look at the fix they chose. Not "here's a safe API for agents," it's "no agents ever." That tells you they're not protecting customers, they're protecting themselves.
No company ever wins a technological revolution this way. It's the last gasp of a dying business model. It's like the retailers who refused to put their inventory online and demanded users walk into the storefront. Over time they will lose market share to those platforms that embrace what's coming. Their whole deposit franchise depends on users unthinkingly clicking through walls of T&Cs and accepting 0.2% when the risk free rate is closer to 4%. Agents read the fine print and do their research, even when humans don't.
For users, the answer is simple: local AI agent frameworks like Hermes, that will actually act on your behalf and that the banks can't block. As the article says, if the agent is running on your own computer, they can't actually tell it's not you.
If this continues to get momentum, a few things will happen
1. TV's at retail are going to get very expensive
2. EBITDA for TV makers is going to be very bad, and earnings will be interesting
Everyone's hacking their TVs right now.
I tried it on the 3 Sony Bravias in my studio, and it's actually very useful:
• No more ads, bloatware and trackers
• 2X faster menu animations
• Dramatically improved response/load time
• Control TVs from anywhere
• Custom apps and UIs
• Turned a $20 ESP32 gadget into unified voice remote
GG retweeted
JD Vance: I find it a little ironic that European countries -- who have nothing like the technology Elon Musk has developed in Starlink and have universally waged regulatory war against SpaceX -- are all now running to SpaceX saying, 'Please do what we need you to do.'
Yeah, so alchemy is basically solved.
Last month, we demonstrated high-rate alchemy: turning mercury into real, stable gold, beating CERN’s record by a factor of 10.
Last week, we enriched isotopes in the world’s most powerful plasma centrifuge, beating the Soviet record that stood for 40 years.
Now, we’re building a fusion reactor in San Francisco to achieve record power density.




















