Holding a major political conference in Chinhoyi carries deep historical significance. The city is closely associated with the Chinhoyi Battle of 28 April 1966, remembered as a defining early episode of Zimbabwe’s armed liberation struggle. Choosing Chinhoyi for a national political gathering therefore places the event against a backdrop of sacrifice, remembrance and Zimbabwe’s journey to independence, connecting contemporary political activity with an important chapter of the country’s liberation history. @zanupf_patriots@Varakashi4ED@ZBCNewsonline@NewsHawksLive
@habibullahx24 Converting real assets into digital shares is the future of investing, allowing you to invest anywhere in the world without intermediaries
I see some $ORCL shorts pushing a story this weekend:
Larry Ellison cancelled his plan because OpenAI delayed its IPO.
It's fake.
He cancelled because the price is too low compared to last September ($345).
OpenAI never had a 2026 date.
Their own statement in June said the timing was undecided, and the NYT reported that same month they were leaning toward 2027.
Altman on Saturday said "not 2026".
That's June's base case, out loud.
And think about the logic for a second.
If your biggest customer is in trouble, you sell faster.
You don't cancel the sale, keep all 1.16B shares and say you have no other plans to sell.
The contract starts in 2027 either way.
Listed or not.
If you want something real in that interview, it's Altman talking about labs agreeing to slow frontier development.
That's a question for Oracle.
The IPO date isn't.
Read the interview, not the shorts.
I'm long $ORCL.
This is not financial advice.
Do your own research.
Elon Musk, Dario Amodei and Sam Altman aren't simply asking for an AI pause.
They're asking for a framework that would make a pause possible.
Because all three know the basic constraint:
The US is unlikely to slow frontier AI development if China keeps accelerating.
You don't pause a technological cold war with a 3,800-word essay.
So look at what Anthropic is actually asking Washington to do:
➡️ Grant a narrow antitrust waiver so frontier labs can coordinate on safety and the pace of development.
➡️ Create national testing requirements, with the ability to stop frontier models that fail safety thresholds.
➡️ Tighten restrictions on advanced AI chips reaching China.
Each proposal has a defensible safety rationale.
But each also has a competitive consequence.
➡️ Coordination rules could let the largest labs manage the pace of competition.
➡️ Expensive compliance regimes could favor companies with billions in capital and dedicated policy teams.
➡️ Stronger chip controls could widen the gap between US labs and Chinese competitors.
That doesn't prove the safety concerns are insincere.
It doesn't have to.
The interesting question is whether AI safety policy is also becoming industrial policy.
➡️ OpenAI has already raised enormous amounts of capital.
➡️ Anthropic is assembling similarly deep financial resources.
Washington is already willing to intervene in how frontier models are released.
So the emerging bargain may look something like this:
➡️ The labs accept more oversight.
➡️ The government helps coordinate the rules of the race.
➡️ China gets constrained.
The companies already at the frontier become much harder to displace.
Call it safety regulation.
Call it national security.
But if the result is that today's leaders become tomorrow's licensed incumbents, it also looks a lot like a federally reinforced moat.
Sharing my #interview from the #exhibition "Dialogue of the Ages: Masters of the Past Meet the Avant-Garde", held at the stunning historic Villa am Kaiserweg (MOCAMAG) in Persenbeug. Thank you to curator and #museum director Heinz Playner for this opportunity
#Art