dm @dm557

.@elonmusk, what if we took @SpaceX public by merging it with Pershing Square SPARC Holdings, Ltd. (SPARC) a new form of acquisition company that was approved by the @SECGov. We could distribute SPARC special purpose acquisition rights (SPARs) to @Tesla shareholders so that all Tesla shareholders would have the right to invest in the SpaceX IPO, or they could choose to sell their SPARs to someone else. This would reward loyal Tesla shareholders with the opportunity to invest in SpaceX (or with cash for their SPARs), while totally democratizing the IPO process. In addition to receiving common stock in SpaceX, exercising SPAR holders would also receive Pershing Square SPARC Holdings II SPARs, which we could use to take @xai public at the time of your choosing. Pershing Square would due diligence on behalf of all shareholders and would commit $4 billion of capital to the IPO at a fixed price per share. SPARC has no underwriting fees, founder stock or shareholder warrants, and we would waive our right to receive SPARC sponsor warrants. The result would be an IPO without any underwriting fees or dilutive securities issued. @SpaceX would go public with a 100% common stock capital structure and it would not incur any transaction costs other than modest legal fees which SPARC would pay from its cash on hand. We could raise whatever amount of capital you would like by adjusting the exercise price of the SPARs. Assuming we issue 0.5 SPARs for each share of Tesla, there would be 1.723 billion SPARs outstanding including the 61.1 million SPARs that are already outstanding. Since one SPAR would be exercisable for two shares of SpaceX, the SPARs would be exercisable for 3.446 billion total SpaceX shares. So, if we set the SPAR exercise price at $11.03, SpaceX would raise $42.0 billion, $38 billion from the exercise of SPARs and $4 billion from Pershing Square, or if we set the SPAR exercise price at $42.0, SpaceX would raise $148.7 billion, $144.7 billion from the SPAR exercise and $4 billion from us. SPARC is indifferent to how much of the shares are primary versus secondary shares giving the company maximum flexibility. We could do due diligence and enter into a definitive agreement committing to the transaction within 45 days, at which point it would be certain that SpaceX would go public at a fixed valuation subject only to SEC approval of the merger proxy/registration statement. Our commitment to the transaction would not be subject to market conditions. We could start work right away and announce the transaction by mid- February. It only seems appropriate that the most innovative and efficient rocket company in the world should go public in the most innovative, efficient, and fairest-to-Tesla-shareholders manner possible. To Mars and beyond! What do you say?

stonks

@CathieDWood !!

@janxin 没注意😅

Can confirmed its true. 🤣

大趙 @zhongwen2005

2 years ago

Wow X app is live on Apple China Store, this is amazing, how many registered users will X add?😳😳 Huge... @elonmusk

60 40 512 73K 15

part 1 on solanas ledger/blockstore is out! 🥳

Syndica @syndica

2 years ago

1/ Today, we are excited to present: Sig Engineering - Part 4 - Solana's Ledger and Blockstore In this thread and blog post, we’ll explore design, dissect components like blocks and shreds, and see how the ledger powers the blockchain. blog.syndica.io/sig-engineerin…

2 12 29 5K 12

Ledger Nano S的私钥可以被导出（需要接触硬件），快跑…… 不过，跑哪去呢……

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Black Myth: Wukong has sold 10 million copies across all platforms. (Data as of 21:00 Beijing time, August 23, 2024) Thanks to all players worldwide for your support and love. Have a great gaming weekend! #BlackMythWukong

Programming is changing so fast... I'm trying VS Code Cursor + Sonnet 3.5 instead of GitHub Copilot again and I think it's now a net win. Just empirically, over the last few days most of my "programming" is now writing English (prompting and then reviewing and editing the generated diffs), and doing a bit of "half-coding" where you write the first chunk of the code you'd like, maybe comment it a bit so the LLM knows what the plan is, and then tab tab tab through completions. Sometimes you get a 100-line diff to your code that nails it, which could have taken 10+ minutes before. I still don't think I got sufficiently used to all the features. It's a bit like learning to code all over again but I basically can't imagine going back to "unassisted" coding at this point, which was the only possibility just ~3 years ago.

Both Tesla shareholder resolutions are currently passing by wide margins! ♥️♥️ Thanks for your support!! ♥️♥️

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Thanks Jensen! @nvidia

Sawyer Merritt @SawyerMerritt

2 years ago

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told Yahoo Finance today: "@Tesla is far ahead in self-driving cars; Every single car, someday we will have to have autonomous capability." finance.yahoo.com/news/demand-is…

171 726 6K 22.0M 356

@vincent13031925 I miss old time @elonmusk too.

@TeslaSg this is bottom sign.

@arpitingle C and Python were made perfect. The others… *ducks*

The slides and demo of my talk "Decrypting Crypto PoS" github.com/hhj4ck/CryptoP…

Dune? Fremen?

大趙 @zhongwen2005

2 years ago

😢😢

2 0 4 3K 0

Trying to be useful lately!

[gif] me trying to read tinygrad code earlier :D I think the LOC requirements (which are only a proxy for simplicity) led to too great compression. You wouldn't brag about your .min.js code being 1 LOC. Imo it would be a lot more simple if the code was given room to breathe and some comments. The optimization should be: minimize LOC subject to constraint that the code is clean. Nothing that can't be fixed, too. RE code using (aside from reading), happy to consider it and work with it as a baseline on the side of PyTorch when it reaches 1.0. I've used PyTorch for many years so it's easy to go to for a strong baseline. Btw based on some comments it's worth clarifying that llm.c repo and TinyGrad repo are very different kinds of pokemons. We both want to train LLMs fast. TinyGrad wants to be an actual compiler (think: gcc) - take high-level descriptions of arbitrary networks and compile them to run fast on different backends. llm.c is more like a direct, assembly-level program, written by hand, for a very specific, narrow program (GPT-2 training loop). Unlike your typical assembly program though, you get something low level but still readable. Compilers will struggle to produce this, even if they may match or surpass the running time. It's not usually a goal of a compiler to produce readable code. So there are two ways to generate really fast code: 1) write a better compiler 2) write a better assembly-level program At the end of the day it can be both. (2) is really fun to write and you're in complete control. And any optimizations that get done by hand can help improve and challenge (1) to emit them as a special case when appropriate. Also, (1) may find and emit optimizations that could be extremely tedious to do by hand. And of course the moment you want to do something different, you'll have a lot easier time with (1) over (2). One more radical and possibly under-appreciated thought that may turn out to be wrong but I think has a decent chance to be right. I think LLMs are going to become very good "compilers" and will be capable of directly emitting excellent assembly-level programs. Code like llm.c (and descendants) could one day be a part of a few-shot prompt, to help the LLM compile the n+1 program.

@TeslaSg 🤣🤣🤣

⚠️solana打新的用户请注意⚠️ 不要使用这个仓库： 👇👇👇 solana-sniper-bot

Greysign @greysign1

2 years ago

作者刚刚不久前提交了checkrug.py 打开可以看到是二进制，而且是加密文件

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

6 13 64 73K 26