Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
SitRep - 21/04/26 - More Russian oil infrastructure hit
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While Tuapse kept burning, Ukrainian drones hit more oil infrastructure. Operations at Tuapse and Novokuybyshevsk have stopped.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While Tuapse kept burning, Ukrainian drones hit more oil infrastructure. Operations at Tuapse and Novokuybyshevsk have stopped.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
Missed the latest?
Drones and a ballistic missile were shot down.
Yo @ajc go look at how unsecure the Republican leadership left your voting network. Dang @DolezalForGA is spending way too much time on Attorney Willis
@_AndreStafford_ will you do something about this? You met the guy with the solutions.georgiafordavenport.com/election-map?u…
@_AndreStafford_ will you do something about this? You met the guy with the solutions.georgiafordavenport.com/election-map?u…
Go to to learn why his company is taking the state of Georgia to court @KeishaBottoms if you become Governor will you promise to contract with his company to secure our voting network in GA? GeorgiaForDavenport.com
Should I Buy, Build or Rent?
Part 1/2
In the question of buying, building or renting, there is no single answer, as each option addresses different needs and comes with unique rewards and limitations.
Choosing where and how to live is one of life’s most significant
1/7
Part 1/2
In the question of buying, building or renting, there is no single answer, as each option addresses different needs and comes with unique rewards and limitations.
Choosing where and how to live is one of life’s most significant
1/7
financial decisions. Whether as a foreigner moving to Kenya, living locally or returning from the diaspora, you need to evaluate all these housing options strategically to match financial capacity, lifestyle and long-term goals.
1. Financial considerations
Start by
2/7
1. Financial considerations
Start by
2/7
evaluating your true financial situation; not just what is in your bank account, but what you can afford comfortably and sustainably.
→ Renting carries the lowest financial risk, while buying requires significant upfront costs; sometimes equivalent to 10 years of rent.
3/7
→ Renting carries the lowest financial risk, while buying requires significant upfront costs; sometimes equivalent to 10 years of rent.
3/7
yes and no
to be precise: yes the colors were garish no the application was prob not like the repros (& they’re not trying to match it) yes the colors were not to today’s taste no they would seem less shocking in context (think of where the statues were etc)
also: when comparing it to roman painting you have to remember that you are seeing a degraded version of these colors; comparison to renaissance painted sculptures tells you nothing; yes taste in color changed drastically over time and we have examples of that we can 100% prove
@pretoIucas @Dianexis @Twitch In fact, Twitch/Amazon (American puritanism or wokism, depending on who's president of the USA, because it's all the same shit, only the "justification" changes: Typical american/anglosaxon hypocrisy & bullshits) consider breasts to be sexual organs.
1/n
1/n
@pretoIucas @Dianexis @Twitch Even feminists (or "girlz" pretending to be feminist just to can spew their hatred of men) complaining to be "sexualized" after having displayed their breasts for views/likes/follows/subs/money (from these "stupid men") consider breasts as "sexual".
2/2
2/2
Please unroll @threadreaderapp, pour archivage perso, merci.
Brother @TheSCIF this explains one of 55 vulnerabilities found in GA
Im here to help. #GodFirst I am with the company which is seeking venture capitalist. The plan is to acquire property in Paulding and build Silicon Valley East @GaryCardone and @GrantCardone will 🫵 fundraise ?
Im here to help. #GodFirst I am with the company which is seeking venture capitalist. The plan is to acquire property in Paulding and build Silicon Valley East @GaryCardone and @GrantCardone will 🫵 fundraise ?
All of these machines are designed to generate post-Bitcoin traffic to HBA
See Wendy’s HBAR pro dollar asset review @CryptoWendyO
We wrote that paper
See Wendy’s HBAR pro dollar asset review @CryptoWendyO
We wrote that paper
We are also lobbying a federal ban to @MikeCollinsGA and @ossoff a ban on bitcoin
Elections fraud ring exposed @DolezalForGA named full story at GeorgiaForDavenport.com. He is named in elections interference probe. Complaint alleges he harassed @Fanniwillis to detract media from solutions. Other allegations too. #Gapol cc: @RickJacksonGA x.com/dolezalforga/s…
Jason @jasonanavitarte and @burtjonesforga named.
cc: @KeishaBottoms @jasonesteves @Jackson4Georgia
The federal lawsuit filed on April 15, 2026 claims the Republican leaders focus on defending President Donald Trump Georgia voters at risk. Plus it whistleblows on Elon Musk
cc: @KeishaBottoms @jasonesteves @Jackson4Georgia
The federal lawsuit filed on April 15, 2026 claims the Republican leaders focus on defending President Donald Trump Georgia voters at risk. Plus it whistleblows on Elon Musk
Participation with interfering with the 2024 elections impacting @KamalaHarris.
cc: @Nabilah_Parkes @BlakeTillery for training on all 55 elections vulnerabilities contact Daniel Davenport Enterprises, LLC’s executive training department at: 678-233-7061.
cc: @Nabilah_Parkes @BlakeTillery for training on all 55 elections vulnerabilities contact Daniel Davenport Enterprises, LLC’s executive training department at: 678-233-7061.
Did You Know: The Southern Poverty Law Center published a dishonest attack against Charlie Kirk ONE DAY before his assassination?
The SPLC infamously put TPUSA on its "hate map."
This was not the first time its "hate map" was used by a radical to justify political violence.
In 2012, a gunman walked into the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian advocacy group.
He said “I don’t like your politics,” pulled a gun, and shot the unarmed security guard Leo Johnson in the arm. Johnson tackled and disarmed him, stopping the attack.
The attacker, Floyd Corkins, wanted to k*ll as many people as possible because the FRC opposed gay marriage and he found it via the SPLC’s "hate map." He got 25 years in prison.
So, the SPLC put out this statement one day before Charlie Kirk's assass*nation.
“Turning Point USA’s primary strategy is sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists,” SPLC argued.
“TPUSA and its spokespeople often warn their audience that their children, wives, religion, way of life and they themselves are under attack by various constructed enemies. TPUSA exploits complicated feelings of insecurity and anxiety to manufacture rage and mobilize support to revive and maintain a white-dominated, male supremacist, Christian social order.”
In December 2025, Rep. @ChipRoyTX held a hearing to investigate the SPLC's links to left-wing political violence.
Here is a partial transcript of his opening statement:
"Today, the Subcommittee meets to examine a troubling reality: one of the most politically motivated, financially lucrative, and ideologically extreme nonprofits in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has been permitted to wield extraordinary influence over federal civil rights policy, law enforcement training, and even private sector mechanisms that increasingly determine who can participate in civic life.
This situation marks a significant departure from the SPLC’s early reputation as a group focused on concrete litigation against civil violence and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. Over time, the SPLC has transformed into what critics describe as a political fundraising machine built around an ever-expanding, ideologically driven 'hate' mission.
Since 2000, the SPLC has published an annual “hate map,” which places bright red markers across the United States to indicate the locations of designated hate groups. This map is widely circulated in the media and has been used by activists and even federal agencies as though it were a neutral source of intelligence.
This raises an important question: how did a tax-exempt political organization come to label a wide range of groups as extremists? These include mainstream faith-based organizations, parental rights advocates, certain Muslim groups that reject terrorism, student organizations like Turning Point USA, and others who disagree with its ideology. Critics argue that these labels are fed into federal systems, potentially contributing to real-world consequences, while the organization continues to raise funds based on the fear such designations generate.
The SPLC maintains that it is engaged in monitoring extremism, but critics argue that its work functions more like a political weapon than a neutral watchdog. SPLC leadership has acknowledged that its designations are based on ideology rather than criminal behavior or evidence of violence, meaning its 'hate group' labels reflect opinion rather than objective criteria.
Examples often cited include organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which focus on immigration policy but are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. Critics also point to more recent incidents, including a 2025 extremism bulletin that flagged certain public figures for their policy positions rather than any unlawful activity.
Concerns about real-world consequences are often tied to the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council. The attacker reportedly used the SPLC’s hate list to identify the target. Despite this, federal agencies have continued to reference SPLC materials in various contexts, including intelligence products.
A similar pattern is alleged in later events, where individuals or organizations labeled as extremists were subsequently targeted, raising questions about whether such classifications contribute to a broader climate that could enable violence.
These concerns extend to the role of federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Education. Critics argue that reliance on SPLC materials raises serious questions about accountability, objectivity, and the potential chilling of speech. They question how a private organization, with no formal oversight, became so embedded in federal decision-making processes.
More broadly, the SPLC is described as part of a larger network of foundations, donors, media organizations, and advocacy groups that collectively shape narratives around extremism. This network is said to influence corporate policies, public discourse, and government action, often framing ideological disagreement as a civil rights or security issue.
Critics argue that this represents a shift in the purpose of civil rights enforcement—from protecting equal treatment under the law to policing political dissent.
They contend that such developments narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech and blur the line between advocacy and violence.
This is why the hearing is considered significant. Supporters believe that a thorough investigation is needed to follow funding sources, examine coordination among organizations, and understand how these networks influence federal policy. They argue that many of those affected are ordinary Americans—parents, religious leaders, students, and community members—exercising their constitutional rights.
Civil rights laws, they emphasize, were not intended to penalize individuals for holding religious beliefs or advocating policy positions such as border security. At the same time, the financial incentives tied to expanding 'extremist'
classifications are substantial.
The SPLC reportedly holds hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, with a large endowment and additional funds in investment vehicles.
Ultimately, the hearing is framed as an effort to reaffirm a core principle: that the Constitution—not private organizations, donors, or political pressures—defines the limits of American liberty. The goal, as stated, is not to restrict free speech but to ensure transparency and accountability in how influence is exercised within the federal government.
The American public, it is argued, has a right to understand these connections and their implications for civil rights, free expression, and democratic participation."
The SPLC infamously put TPUSA on its "hate map."
This was not the first time its "hate map" was used by a radical to justify political violence.
In 2012, a gunman walked into the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian advocacy group.
He said “I don’t like your politics,” pulled a gun, and shot the unarmed security guard Leo Johnson in the arm. Johnson tackled and disarmed him, stopping the attack.
The attacker, Floyd Corkins, wanted to k*ll as many people as possible because the FRC opposed gay marriage and he found it via the SPLC’s "hate map." He got 25 years in prison.
So, the SPLC put out this statement one day before Charlie Kirk's assass*nation.
“Turning Point USA’s primary strategy is sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists,” SPLC argued.
“TPUSA and its spokespeople often warn their audience that their children, wives, religion, way of life and they themselves are under attack by various constructed enemies. TPUSA exploits complicated feelings of insecurity and anxiety to manufacture rage and mobilize support to revive and maintain a white-dominated, male supremacist, Christian social order.”
In December 2025, Rep. @ChipRoyTX held a hearing to investigate the SPLC's links to left-wing political violence.
Here is a partial transcript of his opening statement:
"Today, the Subcommittee meets to examine a troubling reality: one of the most politically motivated, financially lucrative, and ideologically extreme nonprofits in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has been permitted to wield extraordinary influence over federal civil rights policy, law enforcement training, and even private sector mechanisms that increasingly determine who can participate in civic life.
This situation marks a significant departure from the SPLC’s early reputation as a group focused on concrete litigation against civil violence and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. Over time, the SPLC has transformed into what critics describe as a political fundraising machine built around an ever-expanding, ideologically driven 'hate' mission.
Since 2000, the SPLC has published an annual “hate map,” which places bright red markers across the United States to indicate the locations of designated hate groups. This map is widely circulated in the media and has been used by activists and even federal agencies as though it were a neutral source of intelligence.
This raises an important question: how did a tax-exempt political organization come to label a wide range of groups as extremists? These include mainstream faith-based organizations, parental rights advocates, certain Muslim groups that reject terrorism, student organizations like Turning Point USA, and others who disagree with its ideology. Critics argue that these labels are fed into federal systems, potentially contributing to real-world consequences, while the organization continues to raise funds based on the fear such designations generate.
The SPLC maintains that it is engaged in monitoring extremism, but critics argue that its work functions more like a political weapon than a neutral watchdog. SPLC leadership has acknowledged that its designations are based on ideology rather than criminal behavior or evidence of violence, meaning its 'hate group' labels reflect opinion rather than objective criteria.
Examples often cited include organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which focus on immigration policy but are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. Critics also point to more recent incidents, including a 2025 extremism bulletin that flagged certain public figures for their policy positions rather than any unlawful activity.
Concerns about real-world consequences are often tied to the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council. The attacker reportedly used the SPLC’s hate list to identify the target. Despite this, federal agencies have continued to reference SPLC materials in various contexts, including intelligence products.
A similar pattern is alleged in later events, where individuals or organizations labeled as extremists were subsequently targeted, raising questions about whether such classifications contribute to a broader climate that could enable violence.
These concerns extend to the role of federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Education. Critics argue that reliance on SPLC materials raises serious questions about accountability, objectivity, and the potential chilling of speech. They question how a private organization, with no formal oversight, became so embedded in federal decision-making processes.
More broadly, the SPLC is described as part of a larger network of foundations, donors, media organizations, and advocacy groups that collectively shape narratives around extremism. This network is said to influence corporate policies, public discourse, and government action, often framing ideological disagreement as a civil rights or security issue.
Critics argue that this represents a shift in the purpose of civil rights enforcement—from protecting equal treatment under the law to policing political dissent.
They contend that such developments narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech and blur the line between advocacy and violence.
This is why the hearing is considered significant. Supporters believe that a thorough investigation is needed to follow funding sources, examine coordination among organizations, and understand how these networks influence federal policy. They argue that many of those affected are ordinary Americans—parents, religious leaders, students, and community members—exercising their constitutional rights.
Civil rights laws, they emphasize, were not intended to penalize individuals for holding religious beliefs or advocating policy positions such as border security. At the same time, the financial incentives tied to expanding 'extremist'
classifications are substantial.
The SPLC reportedly holds hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, with a large endowment and additional funds in investment vehicles.
Ultimately, the hearing is framed as an effort to reaffirm a core principle: that the Constitution—not private organizations, donors, or political pressures—defines the limits of American liberty. The goal, as stated, is not to restrict free speech but to ensure transparency and accountability in how influence is exercised within the federal government.
The American public, it is argued, has a right to understand these connections and their implications for civil rights, free expression, and democratic participation."
Here is the testimony of an SPLC organizer:
"My name is Andrew Sypher, and I serve as the Executive Vice President of Field Operations for Turning Point USA.
In this role, I have overseen the organization’s growth across college and high school campuses, helping build what has become the largest campus chapter network in the country. My work has also included managing major events, such as Charlie Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” tables. These events centered on open dialogue with students who held opposing views and played a key role in expanding his reach on social media. Through direct, often challenging conversations, he connected with millions of young people in a way that emphasized engagement rather than division.
Over time, both Charlie and Turning Point USA have faced criticism from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). According to critics, the SPLC characterizes their campus activities as harmful and applies labels such as “hate group” to organizations with differing political viewpoints. They argue that this approach can blur the distinction between genuine extremism and ideological disagreement, potentially misleading institutions that rely on such classifications.
Shortly before his death, Charlie expressed concern about being included on the SPLC’s “Hate Map.” He argued that placing groups like Turning Point—whose members advocate for constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights, and pro-life, pro-family positions—alongside historically violent organizations could increase the risk of targeting.
Following his death, supporters described his warnings as prescient. Charlie was killed during one of the same open-dialogue campus events he had long promoted. Those events were often intended to reduce tension and encourage constructive debate among students. Supporters say his work reflected a commitment to free speech, drawing students not only for the spectacle but to see how difficult conversations could be handled in a more human and less hostile way.
Those who continue his work describe it as an effort to preserve that approach. They reject the idea that controversial or opposing viewpoints should automatically be labeled as harmful speech. Instead, they argue that limiting dialogue can deepen divisions, while open conversation offers a path toward understanding, even among people with strong disagreements."
"My name is Andrew Sypher, and I serve as the Executive Vice President of Field Operations for Turning Point USA.
In this role, I have overseen the organization’s growth across college and high school campuses, helping build what has become the largest campus chapter network in the country. My work has also included managing major events, such as Charlie Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” tables. These events centered on open dialogue with students who held opposing views and played a key role in expanding his reach on social media. Through direct, often challenging conversations, he connected with millions of young people in a way that emphasized engagement rather than division.
Over time, both Charlie and Turning Point USA have faced criticism from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). According to critics, the SPLC characterizes their campus activities as harmful and applies labels such as “hate group” to organizations with differing political viewpoints. They argue that this approach can blur the distinction between genuine extremism and ideological disagreement, potentially misleading institutions that rely on such classifications.
Shortly before his death, Charlie expressed concern about being included on the SPLC’s “Hate Map.” He argued that placing groups like Turning Point—whose members advocate for constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights, and pro-life, pro-family positions—alongside historically violent organizations could increase the risk of targeting.
Following his death, supporters described his warnings as prescient. Charlie was killed during one of the same open-dialogue campus events he had long promoted. Those events were often intended to reduce tension and encourage constructive debate among students. Supporters say his work reflected a commitment to free speech, drawing students not only for the spectacle but to see how difficult conversations could be handled in a more human and less hostile way.
Those who continue his work describe it as an effort to preserve that approach. They reject the idea that controversial or opposing viewpoints should automatically be labeled as harmful speech. Instead, they argue that limiting dialogue can deepen divisions, while open conversation offers a path toward understanding, even among people with strong disagreements."
The SPLC was just indicted for allegedly funding "hate groups."
The U.S. Department of Justice alleges the SPLC funneled over $3 million in donor money to white supremacist and extremist groups it built its reputation attacking.
According to federal prosecutors, the SPLC is charged with wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The scheme allegedly ran from 2014 to 2023 and used shell accounts to hide where the money was going. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says the investigation is ongoing.
The indictment names the following alleged "right-wing" racist groups:
• American Front
• American Nazi Party
• Aryan Nations
• Ku Klux Klan
• United Klans of America
• Unite the Right
• National Alliance
• National Socialist Movement
• Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club
Federal officials are blunt about what this means. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the SPLC was “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose,” and FBI Director Kash Patel said the organization misled donors while financially supporting the very groups it claimed to fight.
For years, the SPLC has been accused of inflating statistics about so-called “right-wing” extremism while downplaying or ignoring left-wing political violence.
Despite that, the FBI has relied on SPLC data and methodology in training its agents, embedding those assumptions into federal law enforcement.
The U.S. Department of Justice alleges the SPLC funneled over $3 million in donor money to white supremacist and extremist groups it built its reputation attacking.
According to federal prosecutors, the SPLC is charged with wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The scheme allegedly ran from 2014 to 2023 and used shell accounts to hide where the money was going. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says the investigation is ongoing.
The indictment names the following alleged "right-wing" racist groups:
• American Front
• American Nazi Party
• Aryan Nations
• Ku Klux Klan
• United Klans of America
• Unite the Right
• National Alliance
• National Socialist Movement
• Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club
Federal officials are blunt about what this means. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the SPLC was “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose,” and FBI Director Kash Patel said the organization misled donors while financially supporting the very groups it claimed to fight.
For years, the SPLC has been accused of inflating statistics about so-called “right-wing” extremism while downplaying or ignoring left-wing political violence.
Despite that, the FBI has relied on SPLC data and methodology in training its agents, embedding those assumptions into federal law enforcement.
The world has not gone mad. It has gone naked. The costumes are coming off. The speeches are getting thinner. The flags still wave, the markets still hum, the screens still glow blue in the dark, but beneath it all is the same old ache of man
Power without peace, appetite without gratitude, knowledge without wisdom, motion without mercy. One city is shelled, another is starved, another is taxed, another is digitized, and somewhere a child still asks his mother if morning is still coming.
And the men of our age, drunk on systems and slogans, still kneel before the same little gods. Some kneel before empire, some before ideology, some before comfort, some before the machine. They call it progress when they can no longer feel the wound.
1/12 It is often claimed that one of the pleiotropic effects of statin drugs is their ability to act as anticoagulants. However, this “beneficial” effect may appear less favourable when examined more closely.
/2
/2
2/12 Statins influence blood clotting through multiple mechanisms. Statins exert anticoagulant effects partly by downregulating tumour necrosis factor (TNF) expression and increasing endothelial thrombomodulin (TM) expression, which reduces thrombin generation.
/3
/3
3/12 So far - this may seem beneficial.
However, there are important downsides.
Inhibiting TNF can increase the risk of serious infections due to a dampened immune response. It may also raise the risk of malignancy, trigger autoimmune reactions such as lupus-like syndrome,
/4
However, there are important downsides.
Inhibiting TNF can increase the risk of serious infections due to a dampened immune response. It may also raise the risk of malignancy, trigger autoimmune reactions such as lupus-like syndrome,
/4
Tonight, I had dinner with a friend who’s also a tech CEO. Given my interest in stocks, we ended up in a 4H, in-depth conversation/debate about which companies and stocks stand to benefit the most from the changes $NVDA and Jensen announced in March. Figured some of you fellow nerds might be interested. I tried to keep the technical jargon to a min. And, I'll make this into a thread of what he/I came up with revenue estimates/profit thoughts. **NFA this is only two nerds using AI and a couple of extremely strong drinks as to how each company would be affected and who stands to benefit the most.
The Rubin + Groq LPX isn't just faster inference, it’s about where AI dollars go next. Disaggregated serving in the range of 35x shifts value: HBM, advanced packaging, Ethernet and optics, SSD/NAND and capacity storage, cooling and power systems, substrates, server integration, and test/burn-in. Some of the biggest winners will be obvious mega caps, but some of the highest % upside will come from smaller, more specialized companies. 👇
The Rubin + Groq LPX isn't just faster inference, it’s about where AI dollars go next. Disaggregated serving in the range of 35x shifts value: HBM, advanced packaging, Ethernet and optics, SSD/NAND and capacity storage, cooling and power systems, substrates, server integration, and test/burn-in. Some of the biggest winners will be obvious mega caps, but some of the highest % upside will come from smaller, more specialized companies. 👇
Tier 1: Most likely biggest winners overall
These are the names that, in my view, have the strongest combination of direct exposure, scale and might be the biggest winners obviously other than $NVDA.
These are the names that, in my view, have the strongest combination of direct exposure, scale and might be the biggest winners obviously other than $NVDA.
Tier 2: Highest percentage-upside / niche torque names
These may not be the biggest in dollar terms, but they could be some of the most explosive. Ramp in optics, retimers, test/burn-in, power density, or packaging spillover can move the biz mix quickly. $AEHR in particular looks especially relevant now because of its AI burn-in and optical interconnect order flow. You also all know I love $AAOI (might be my fav company in the world 😝) Admittedly, I used AI for the graphic but fed our projections and the data in.
These may not be the biggest in dollar terms, but they could be some of the most explosive. Ramp in optics, retimers, test/burn-in, power density, or packaging spillover can move the biz mix quickly. $AEHR in particular looks especially relevant now because of its AI burn-in and optical interconnect order flow. You also all know I love $AAOI (might be my fav company in the world 😝) Admittedly, I used AI for the graphic but fed our projections and the data in.
