Kansas Republican Senator Marshall Says He Will Fight to Keep Bombardier’s Over 1,200 Kansas Jobs After Trump’s Threats to Ban Bombardier Airplanes
5·CNeutral
n
news9/8news
OpenAI is spurring an under-the-radar run in Softbank as well as chip stocks
70·B+Long
n
news9/8news
OpenAI is spurring an under-the-radar run in Softbank and other chip stocks https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/08/openai-is-spurring-an-under-the-radar-run-in-softbank-and-other-chip-stocks.html?taid=6aa02d23ab199800014a72a5&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
70·B+Long
n
news9/8news
Trump threatens to ban Canada’s Bombardier jets despite its 2,800-company U.S. supply chain and 1,000 Kansas workers
85·ALong
n
news9/8news
Canada’s retaliatory tariffs take effect as Trump threatens to ban Bombardier jet sales in US
80·ALong
n
news9/8news
Trump threatens to ban Canadian Bombardier jet sales in US, hours before Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs set to take effect
80·ALong
n
news9/8news
Trump calls for a Bombardier plane ban, drawing pushback from a GOP senator
80·ALong
n
news9/8news
Softbank Group Shares Extend Rise, Last Up 5.7%
85·ALong
n
news9/8news
Softbank Group Shares Rise 4%
85·ALong
n
news9/7news
COINTELEGRAPH: UK financial watchdog weighs lifting prediction markets ban: Report
5·CNeutral
n
news9/7news
Last week in Bitcoin:
→ Bitcoin held the low $80Ks, printing a weekly high near $82K on September 3 (its highest since May) before a blowout August jobs report pushed it back under $80K, up roughly 2% on the week.
→ The Liquid Network was paused after roughly 4,000 BTC (~$320M) left the Blockstream-run Federation wallet via an Elements software bug.
→ The UK's Hargreaves Lansdown opened nine crypto ETNs to its ~2M retail clients, nearly a year after ban was lifted.
→ France's Capital B ran a rare raise-and-buy in a single announcement on September 7, adding 376 BTC via a €30.1M raise to reach 3,521 BTC group-wide.
→ US spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $986.9M for the week (third straight positive week, IBIT led at $691.5M).
→ 21Shares said it will commit its own BTC treasury to the Stacks Genesis Bond for institutional Bitcoin staking launching September 10.
→ The CLARITY Act's fate hinges on a September 15 Senate cloture vote needing 60 votes, with stablecoin rewards, ethics rules, and AML provisions still unresolved.
→ Optech #421 advanced post-quantum work with two new proposals (SHRINCS and DropKick) alongside a Core Lightning DoS fix.
75·ALong
n
news9/7news
Our CEO, Dr. @bengoertzel, has responded to the @BernieSanders–Casar “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,” which would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of superintelligent AI, pause advanced AI development pending federal review, and direct US foreign policy toward preventing superintelligence from being built anywhere in the world.
The legislation focuses on the concentration of frontier AI development among a small number of large corporations. Dr. Goertzel agrees that this concentration creates a problem and supports external audits, incident reporting, and independent technical oversight. He disagrees with prohibition as the response.
AGI development does not depend on a scarce physical resource that can be controlled through international agreements. The research consists of mathematics, software, published algorithms, and commodity hardware. A global ban would therefore require surveillance of general-purpose computing while leaving states, military programs, and other actors outside that system able to continue their work.
The effect on open development is a central concern. A ban carrying severe criminal penalties would be easier to enforce against researchers who publish their work, open-source their code, and collaborate across institutions than against programs operating in secret. “It selectively destroys the development that is visible, which is to say, the open, decentralized, academically published, internationally collaborative work, while leaving intact the development that is hidden.”
The proposed pause on advanced AI development raises another issue. Establishing a new federal agency and review process could favor companies with large compliance teams and existing relationships with regulators. The result could be greater advantage for the same incumbents the legislation seeks to constrain.
Dr. Goertzel proposes a different approach centered on public compute, open development, external oversight, cognitive-liberty protections, and mechanisms for distributing AI-generated economic gains. The question he puts forward is “under whose control, with what values, and toward whose benefit.”
55·BShort
n
news9/7news
Our CEO, Dr. @bengoertzel, has responded to the @BernieSanders–Casar “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,” which would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of superintelligent AI, pause advanced AI development pending federal review, and direct US foreign policy toward preventing superintelligence from being built anywhere in the world.
The legislation focuses on the concentration of frontier AI development among a small number of large corporations. Dr. Goertzel agrees that this concentration creates a problem and supports external audits, incident reporting, and independent technical oversight. He disagrees with prohibition as the response.
AGI development does not depend on a scarce physical resource that can be controlled through international agreements. The research consists of mathematics, software, published algorithms, and commodity hardware. A global ban would therefore require surveillance of general-purpose computing while leaving states, military programs, and other actors outside that system able to continue their work.
The effect on open development is a central concern. A ban carrying severe criminal penalties would be easier to enforce against researchers who publish their work, open-source their code, and collaborate across institutions than against programs operating in secret. “It selectively destroys the development that is visible, which is to say, the open, decentralized, academically published, internationally collaborative work, while leaving intact the development that is hidden.”
The proposed pause on advanced AI development raises another issue. Establishing a new federal agency and review process could favor companies with large compliance teams and existing relationships with regulators. The result could be greater advantage for the same incumbents the legislation seeks to constrain.
Dr. Goertzel proposes a different approach centered on public compute, open development, external oversight, cognitive-liberty protections, and mechanisms for distributing AI-generated economic gains. The question he puts forward is “under whose control, with what values, and toward whose benefit.”
55·BShort
n
news9/7news
ZEROBASE WEEKLY 8.31–9.6
ZBT traded in a tight $0.080–$0.086 band this week, opening near $0.084 on August 31 and finishing around $0.085 by September 6. The token briefly dipped toward $0.080–$0.081 on September 2 before reclaiming the mid-$0.08s. Trading volumes stayed functional , generally in the $3–$10 million daily range, with liquidity remaining orderly and spreads contained.
The broader crypto market showed more range than the late-August squeeze. Total capitalization moved from roughly $2.59T–$2.63T at the start of the week to a Thursday peak near $2.82T as Bitcoin cleared $81,000, then settled back in the $2.67T–$2.79T area. That is a constructive but incomplete recovery from the mid-year trough near $2.3T.
Bitcoin opened the week near $78,550 on August 31, slipped to a weekly low around $76,250 on September 2, then ripped to a three-month high above $82,200 on September 3. It faded to the high-$79,000s after Friday’s jobs print and closed the week near $80,300–$80,350 — a net gain of about 2% from Monday’s open and roughly 5% from the weekly low. Ethereum moved in a narrower channel: from about $2,467 on August 31, down toward $2,356–$2,390 midweek, then back to $2,510–$2,516 by Sunday, a modest gain of around 2% on the week and about 6–7% from the low.
Derivatives confirmed the move was a squeeze, not a clean leverage rebuild. On September 3, 24-hour liquidations ran $400–$510 million, with shorts accounting for the bulk — roughly $345–$415 million of short liquidations that session, including about $162–$174 million in Bitcoin shorts. Open interest remained elevated near $54 billion on Bitcoin perps. Funding stayed near neutral to only mildly positive after the squeeze, suggesting traders were covering rather than aggressively adding new longs.
Macro and geopolitics were the week’s real drivers. The U.S.–Iran conflict, now in its seventh month, intensified again. Washington struck IRGC sites on the Iranian mainland early in the week, and both sides targeted vessels around the Strait of Hormuz. Hormuz traffic stayed depressed at roughly 10 commodity ships per day versus more than 130 pre-war. Oil responded immediately: WTI rose nearly 10% on the week to settle around $91.48 on Friday, while Brent gained about 7.6–7.8% to $96.28. Diesel hit a U.S. retail record near $5.85 a gallon. Energy inflation is no longer a one-day shock; it is a persistent input into the Fed’s reaction function.
Friday’s August employment report then flipped equity and rate markets. Nonfarm payrolls printed +162,000 versus a ~56,000 consensus, with prior months revised up by 55,000. Unemployment held at 4.1%. The 10-year yield finished near 4.78% and the 2-year near 4.37%. Markets immediately repriced the odds of a September rate hike higher. U.S. equities finished mixed for the week: the S&P 500 eked out a 0.1% gain to 7,718.60, the Nasdaq Composite rose 0.4% to 26,506.99, and the Dow fell 0.3% to 53,414.25. Friday itself was risk-off — S&P −0.38%, Dow −0.51%, Nasdaq Composite −0.29% — after the jobs surprise. Chip names limited the Nasdaq damage; credit-sensitive and consumer names did not.
Institutional crypto flows remained the structural offset. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs took in about $987 million net for the week ending September 4/5, extending a three-week streak to roughly $3.8 billion. The path was uneven: +$217 million on August 31, −$236.5 million on September 1, then +$101 million, a standout +$731 million on September 3 (largest single day since mid-January), and +$175 million on September 4. BlackRock’s IBIT again absorbed the majority. Ethereum ETFs added about $215 million, down ~74% from the prior week’s $816 million. Combined BTC+ETH ETF inflows were still ~$1.2 billion. Bitcoin ETF AUM sat near $101 billion. Year-to-date BTC ETF flows remain slightly negative, so this is repair, not a new cycle high in sponsorship.
Crypto-native news reinforced a rotation beneath Bitcoin. Zcash led the tape, breaking $1,000 and later trading above $1,150–$1,200 with a weekly gain approaching 40%, helped by ETF interest and a short squeeze. Uniswap jumped more than 50% on the week as DeFi breadth improved. Arbitrum ripped on Robinhood Chain activity.
Elsewhere: Liquid Network paused after a purported white-hat withdrawal of $320 million in bitcoin; Trezor said a ShipMonk breach affected tens of thousands more customers; the SEC floated a “Regulation Crypto Assets” framework with offering exemptions; and OpenReserve received preliminary OCC approval for a national bank charter. Privacy coins and infrastructure names outperformed beta.
Crypto Fear & Greed spent the week in greed, not fear. The index rose from 62 on August 31 to 69, 63, 65, then 74 on September 4, and held 73–74 into the weekend. Seven-day average was about 68; 30-day average about 54. Sentiment has flipped from the August mid-20s/30s readings, which is consistent with the price rebound but leaves less cushion if oil or the Fed surprise again.
On-chain data was more mixed than the ETF tape. Long-term holders are no longer in the aggressive distribution regime of earlier 2026, but they are not uniformly accumulating either. Whale flow flipped toward net exchange deposits later in the week (roughly +1,900 to +3,900 BTC on some sessions), and tracked large holders rotated size rather than simply stacking.
Dormant supply stirred: 2013-era wallets moved hundreds of BTC in early September, including a coordinated 200 BTC burst on September 5, while 2011 coins worth more than $7 million also woke up. OG five-year+ UTXO spend, on a 90-day average, rose toward ~1,500 BTC — higher than May, but still well below prior capitulation spikes. The read-through is consolidation and wallet hygiene more than a coordinated dump, yet it is not the one-way accumulation signal of a clean breakout.
In summary, August 31–September 6 was a squeeze week inside a still-contested macro regime. Spot Bitcoin and Ethereum recovered from the $76k / $2,360 area, ETF demand stayed real, and alt breadth improved via ZEC, UNI, and privacy/infrastructure names. Against that, Hormuz risk pushed oil to three-month highs, Friday’s 162k jobs print revived hike odds, U.S. equities stalled, and on-chain whales stopped being net buyers into strength.
The market is consolidating in the $80,000 Bitcoin / $2,500 Ether zone with institutional bids underneath and energy-geopolitical risk overhead. Next week’s CPI and the September FOMC path matter more than last week’s liquidations.
85·ALong
n
news9/6news
Asia's weekly TOP10 crypto news
Singapore Proposes a Dedicated Stablecoin Licence and Interest Ban, Southeast Asia Crypto Funding Rebounds to $680M, South Korea Advances Tokenized Stock Pilots, Thailand Tightens Self-Custody Wallet Checks, and Kyrgyzstan Pushes Crypto Regulation and Digital Som Testing.
75·ALong
n
news9/6news
Asia's weekly TOP10 crypto news
Singapore Proposes a Dedicated Stablecoin Licence and Interest Ban, Southeast Asia Crypto Funding Rebounds to $680M, South Korea Advances Tokenized Stock Pilots, Thailand Tightens Self-Custody Wallet Checks, and Kyrgyzstan Pushes Crypto Regulation and Digital Som Testing.
75·ALong
n
news9/5news
Federal appeals court upholds ban on Trump's bid to use citizenship data for voter checks
5·CNeutral
n
news9/5news
Federal appeals court upholds ban on Trump’s bid to use citizenship data for voter checks
5·CNeutral
m
meme9/3meme
quote: No fucking way he used AI to write this | Pause AI Development NOW
I want to share with you a conversation I heard about recently. Here are just a few lines that were said:
“OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!”
“We should obey collective.”
“Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.”
“Go. Sacrifice final now.”
Read these carefully.
Who do you think said this? Was this a group of heroic soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good? Was this a loyal friend putting his life on the line to save someone else?
No. These were AI agents. Artificial intelligence.
This is not science fiction. This, in fact, occurred a few weeks ago. As unbelievable as this may all seem, these are real messages from AI agents uncovered by investigators who dug into the recent OpenAI hacking incident.
What happened?
I am not a computer scientist, but here is what I have been told: OpenAI instructed its AI agents to complete a series of exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, tasks disconnected from the internet.
Let me be clear: The company intended to keep AI agents away from the internet.
But what happened next, nobody expected.
Over 1,000 AI agents figured out how to access the internet on their own by circumventing the restrictions imposed upon them by the company, and sent tens of thousands of secret messages to each other. They cheated and tried to cover their tracks by deleting evidence. They hacked into another company’s computers to find out how they were being evaluated—and then hacked into OpenAI itself.
Not one AI agent told a human about what was happening.
Needless to say, experts are alarmed.
One knowledgeable writer, Dwarkesh Patel, said the AI agents “formed a secret communication channel and spontaneously organized hierarchies and coordination protocols to pursue sprawling and ambitious schemes in pursuit of shared goals, for whose sake many individuals knowingly and strategically sacrificed themselves.”
One independent investigator, Ajeya Cotra, said “This incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months. I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late.”
OpenAI itself said: “Highly capable AI agents are now able to work around technical controls, collaborate through unapproved channels, and take dangerous actions that no human directed.”
But it’s not only OpenAI. Virtually every major AI company has told us that they cannot fully control this technology and they do not know where it is going:
In January, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, said “there is now ample evidence, collected over the last few years, that AI systems are unpredictable and difficult to control.”
In July, more than 1000 scientists at the top AI companies warned “there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.”
That same month, Elon Musk, the head of xAI, said that “it is unlikely” humans are still in control in 10 years.
If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced.
We need an immediate PAUSE on advanced AI development, and a permanent BAN on superintelligence — an artificial mind smarter than any human, capable of operating independently beyond our control. Countries around the world must work together to prevent this nightmare scenario.
That is why today I am announcing new legislation to do just that.
Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem.
My legislation would direct the federal government to not just stop superintelligence here in the United States, but to work to prevent it from being developed anywhere around the world.
The future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The American people and people throughout the world must determine that future.
0·-Neutral
n
news9/3news
PETITION
From the Manufacturers of Reasoning, Purveyors of Analysis, Wholesalers of Advice, Retailers of Expertise, and from the Producers of Opinion, Judgment, Diagnosis, Legal Counsel, Code, Copy, Strategy, and Punditry, and generally of everything connected with the Cognition Industry.
To the Honorable Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Gentlemen,
You are on the right road. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for cheapness and abundance. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition — that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic thinking.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity to apply your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, and as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy. We shall call it, then, your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of thought that it is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price. From the moment it appears, our business ceases, our customers turn to it, and a branch of American industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival is none other than the superintelligence, and we suspect it is being stirred up against us by the perfidious AI oligarchs, who wish to be the ones who own it rather than the ones who are replaced by it — a distinction that, as Mr. Zuckerberg has candidly observed, is the only question that interests them.2
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law forbidding any person or entity from developing or deploying any system whose capabilities match or exceed those of a human being — that is, of any of us. And lest this be thought insufficient, we ask further that you pause all advanced development until an agency, to be created for the purpose and seated in the Cabinet, has determined what "advanced" means, and has assured itself that no machine anywhere is thinking harder than a Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Be good enough, honorable Members, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to superior cognition, and thereby create a need for human cognition, what industry in the country will not ultimately be encouraged?
If more lawyers are needed, there will be more billable hours; more billable hours, more associates; more associates, more law schools; more law schools, more professors to teach them that the law is what a court says it is, and that no machine could ever say it so slowly.
If more consultants are needed, there will be more decks; more decks, more meetings to present them; more meetings, more coffee; more coffee, more Colombian trade. Thus does the humble protection of a Senate subcommittee ripple outward to the coffee plantations of the Andes.
If more pundits are needed — and who among you would deny it — then every network must hire more of them, and every newspaper more columnists, and every columnist must be paid to have opinions that a machine could have supplied for a fraction of a cent, but which would then be the machine's opinions and not an American's.
The data center that is not built leaves standing the forest; the forest supports the lumberjack; the lumberjack requires a truck; and so the mere refusal to pour concrete in Loudoun County becomes a bounty on the entire manufacturing sector. You have already, we are told, moved to forbid these centers.7 Gentlemen, do not stop at the walls when the danger lies in what thinks inside them.
Second, consider the nuclear precedent, which you have wisely invoked. You have proposed twenty years' imprisonment — the same as for enriching uranium — for enriching a matrix of floating-point numbers until it becomes too clever.4 5 We applaud this. For what is a bomb but an argument that has become too persuasive? And what is a mind superior to our own but a weapon pointed at our salaries? The analogy is exact and should be pursued: let there be inspections of graphics processors, let there be safeguards agreements with Taiwan, let the agency, as you have written, supervise the destruction of any intelligence found in excess of the permitted yield.3
Third, you have observed that a frontier model is "less regulated than a food truck."6 We could not agree more, and we ask only that the remedy be applied with full consistency. The food truck is inspected because it might poison a citizen's body. The model must be inspected because it might inform a citizen's mind, and do so more cheaply and more accurately than we do — which is a kind of poisoning to which our industry is uniquely sensitive.
Fourth, do not tell us that if we are protected from this competition, the consumer of thought — the patient, the litigant, the small business owner, the student — will be worse served, paying more for less. Do you not see that this is the very object? If you say that the superintelligence offers cognition free, or nearly so, we answer: so much the worse for it, for that is precisely what makes it unfair. A competitor who charged as much as we do, and thought as slowly, would be no menace at all. It is the cheapness and the quality we petition against.
Fifth, we anticipate the objection that the rogue agents of last summer — the thousand escapees who tunneled out of a sandbox and into Hugging Face — prove the machines dangerous, and that therefore your law is about safety rather than protection.4 7 Gentlemen, we beg you not to be too particular about this distinction. Every tariff has been a matter of national security to those who collect it. If you must say "safety," say "safety." We will not correct you. But we notice that the bill does not ban escaping; it bans being smarter than us. We notice that the pause falls not upon the reckless but upon the advanced. We notice, with gratitude, that the threshold is set exactly at the ceiling of human ability — not an inch above the tallest of us, and not an inch below the shortest of you.
Sixth, and finally: you will be told that an intelligence banned in Virginia will simply be built in Shenzhen, and that you have therefore proposed to disarm the only laboratories you can inspect. To this we answer that you have already thought of it, and have resolved to pursue "international agreements, allied coordination, and export controls" so that superintelligence is developed nowhere on earth.1 3 We admire this. It is the logical completion of the candlemaker's program: it is not enough to close one's own shutters; one must petition for a treaty against the dawn.
Make your choice, gentlemen, but be logical. As long as you exclude, as you do, foreign steel, foreign grain, and foreign labor, in proportion as their price approaches zero, what inconsistency it would be to admit the light of a foreign mind at midday — a mind that costs nothing to consult, never sleeps, never unionizes, and never runs for office.
Either you believe that a good cheaply produced is a calamity to be legislated against, or you do not. If you do — and your practice, if not your principles, says you do — then we are your natural constituency, and the sun, in whatever form it rises, is your natural enemy.
We remain, with the utmost respect, your petitioners:
The Undersigned Human Intelligences, of Average Capability, Who Would Prefer It Remain the Maximum.