Of course that's okay, but do recognize that most blockchain projects in general and DAOs and NFTs specifically have been considered frauds or at the very least pipe dreams by many on this site from the beginning. And wider in tech society from the moment the hype was gone.

> We don't need to prove to average Joe what we have.

Of course you don't need to prove anyone anything, but it really can't hurt and there doesn't seem to be much effort in addressing the main issues. Not having anyone write about you also just seems like bad marketing: as you clearly are not in stealth mode, an extremely verbose public website stands oddly against no external coverage.

> It's indeed teamwork to bring it into production

So is or isn't the NanoGalaxy an actually physical, working device ready for a demo? (which isn't necessarily production, but somewhat close)

The signs that this project is real are hard to verify:

- Angel investment by FinFET inventor Chenming Hu [1] seems a big vote of confidence, but there is no independent confirmation of this anywhere, except for two photo's in LinkedIn posts [2], which do look convincing.

- The NanoGalaxy PPMOCVD was presented at IEDM 2025 [3][4], but nobody seems to have written about it except the company itself. In this case, presenting means a poster presentation with a very vibrantly colored marketing picture.

- The NanoGalaxy PPMOCVD is built and in production, because you can "Witness a full 12-inch MoS₂ growth cycle on your own wafer lot" [5], but nobody has reported on this. A photo/video of the actual device would help a lot, but instead a very clean picture of what seems like a 3d-model is shown.

There are a few worrying signs:

- The submitter on HN presents itself as the founder. They have previously submitted other projects under the Phanta or PhantaField names [6]. Notably two hype cycle subjects: DAOs, NFTs and augmented reality, combined in a book that itself is rather 'out there' [7].

- The comments on HN by the founder are clearly AI generated with phrases like "honest caveat". The content seems to make sense (to a non-expert like me), but it's quite jarring.

- All the work except the NanoGalaxy seems to be theoretical for now, but written in very definitive language in extreme detail. For example "The die is built" with specific properties but then referencing three very experimental papers. This can of course be genuine (technical) marketing, but it's also very similar to AI psychosis work that I've encountered elsewhere. Although I must say in comparison this does look a lot more internally consistent and logical to me.

- I find it very hard to believe that the NanoGalaxy is actually existing and working hardware ready to "Witness a full 12-inch MoS₂ growth cycle on your own wafer lot". I would imagine you need a sizable team to produce such a new device, and that seems to be inconsistent with the way the company presents itself (a one man show of the founder). The absence of any verification or showcases of the device, or any evidence of a larger team make it suspect.

[1] https://www.phantafield.com/news/first-angel-investment-chen...

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7126002... and https://www.linkedin.com/posts/xuejunxie_its-a-great-honor-t...

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7404253323...

[4] https://www.phantafield.com/news/12-inch-ppmocvd-iedm-2025

[5] https://www.phantafield.com/product/ppmocvd

[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=minkowsky

[7] https://xcancel.com/thepantheonai

[1] https://pudding.cool/2026/06/menu-story/

Not necessarily the desired result, but until it's 'done', where the LLM itself is the judge on if the is the case according to the given criteria (often just an updated todo-list). One of those extremely simple 'harnesses' (if you can even call it that) was even named the 'Ralph Wiggum Loop' [1] to allude to the braindead-but-persistent tokenmaxxing it results in.

[1] https://awesomeclaude.ai/ralph-wiggum

Even if end-users can't run these models themselves at home, there are a lot more and varied options to choose from, especially considering privacy and data protection.

You can apparently also do GLM-5.2 at Q4_K_XL with 2x RTX 3090 and lots of RAM [1], but I don't think that counts as a potential frontier model.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48639186

This isn't about pausing anyone; it's about doing faster-than-realtime processing after a delay event. Humans can do that to some extent, and this is in fact done with some voice applications like Microsoft Teams, where after a network interruption the audio is sometimes played back really fast until the point that it becomes real-time again.

I hope it's an intentional design decision, because it works really well (for me). I can often perfectly keep track of a conversation in spite of the network delay. As much as I hate Teams, its meetings and voice implementation (also noise cancellation) works quite well, especially compared to current open source solutions like Jitsi or BigBlueButton.

It didn't directly give access to anything however. IIRC they heavily relied on other complex exploits they developed themselves, as well as relying on earlier exploits they could access by rolling back the firmware by indeed abusing the ECDSA implementation. At least, that turned out to be the path of least resistance. Without earlier exploits, there would be less known about the system to work with.

Their presentation [1] [2] is still a very interesting watch.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E0DkoQjCmI

[2] https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fahrplan/attach...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Resilience_Act

This isn't true at all. Yes, LLMs have made it dramatically easier to analyse, debug and circumvent. Both for people who didn't have the skill to do this, and for people who know how to but just cannot be bothered because it's often a grind. This specific device turned out to be barely protected against anything. No encrypted firmware, no signature checking, and built-in SSH access. This would be extremely doable for any medium skilled person without an LLM with good motivation and effort.

You're referring to George Hotz, which is known for releasing the first PS3 hypervisor exploit. The PS3 was / is fully secured against attackers, of which the mere existence of a hypervisor layer is proof of. Producing an exploit required voltage glitching on physical hardware using an FPGA [1]. Perhaps an LLM can assist with mounting such an attack, but as there's no complete feedback loop, it still would require a lot of human effort.

[1] https://rdist.root.org/2010/01/27/how-the-ps3-hypervisor-was...

However, the "13-20%" that you're quoting is a dishonest propaganda number itself. It's the false positive rate that a single small company (Yubo) reported. The reported false positive rates of other companies are between 0.32% and 1.5%, which is still a high error rate in absolute numbers.

Just to be clear: the report itself is full of uncertainty, convenient half truths and false causality. They for example completely rely on Big Tech platforms themselves to count false positives when a moderation decision was reversed. Microsoft apparently even claims that no user ever appealed against a decision ("No appeals reported"). There is no independent investigation into the effectiveness of the regulation at all, while it is in direct conflict with fundamental rights and required to be proportional to its goals.

The section about "children identified" is also a complete mess where most countries can't even report the most basic data, and it isn't clear if mass surveillance contributed anything to new cases at all. But somehow they still conclude "voluntary reporting in line with this Regulation appears to make a significant contribution to the protection of a large number of children", which seems extremely baseless.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...

- In 2021 the European Parliament voted in favor of a temporary regulation that allowed companies to (i.e. voluntarily) scan private communications. Let's call it Chat Control 1.0. They chose to enact this because US companies were already scanning private messages in violation of the ePrivacy Directive which had come into force in the previous year. Instead of enforcing this directive, they chose to (temporarily) legalize the scanning of private messages while preparing more permanent legislation.

- In 2024 Chat Control 1.0 was extended for another 2 years. An amendment was adopted that explicitly noted that after this time "[the regulation] shall lapse permanently".

- From 2022 to 2025 the European Commission (together with member states) has proposed mandatory scanning, later updated with a proposal for client-side scanning (defeating end to end encryption), AI classification of image and text content, age verification and a lot of other invasive measures. This is what is known as Chat Control 2.0. The European Parliament has again and again voted against this proposal.

- In 2025/2026 the European Commission finally (temporarily) backed down from Chat Control 2.0 and instead proposed to extend Chat Control 1.0 for another 2 years, but has completely failed to negotiate with parliament to adopt a text that explicitly puts fundamental rights up front, something that a majority of the European Parliament had asked for since 2021.

- In response to this, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament tabled amendments [1] that explicitly limits the regulation to the subject matter and prevents it from being used to weaken end-to-end encryption. Many of these amendments were adopted.

- Consequently, many conservative members of the European Parliament voted down the entire extension of the regulation. They apparently felt that it was better to let the regulation expire so that they gain more negotiation power to adopt a version of the regulation that the has less safeguards or contains measures like in Chat Control 2.0.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-784377...

(while hallucinating the events of the day in a very weird way; it would be fun to 'wake up' the agent in the middle of such a session and commit the 'dream' to a notebook again)

[1] https://github.com/enricoros/big-AGI (no affiliation)

Can you expand on this or source this? I'm quite interested in OpenCloud, and haven't heard anything about this. I searched for a few keywords (espionage, legal, lawsuit), which only lands your comment on top.

You're apparently missing the two points I made in the post you are replying to, or at the very least you're not responding to them. By which I don't mean to say they are necessarily valid points.