OS
OneStream, Inc. Class A Common Stock
stock NASDAQ

Why are you referring to it as a tech company?
It makes money from printer cartridges and laptops that are mostly bought by tier 3 companies that can't afford a MacBook for their employees.
There is no margin in the laptop business because the components and OS are not proprietary.
They are a hardware seller according to me

#1 and #2 website in the entire world. #1 in AI, #1 in self-driving. #1 mobile OS in the world.
Google cloud is on track to overtake AWS someday. Every single person that has used gsuite vs Microsoft is full on gsuite.
There’s just too many wins and nothing comes close at all in competition.

Thanks for the update.
Putting Watchlist in both the Widget for iOS and Mac OS (to display on Desktop) would be epic!

Exactly - I see google Androiding Waymo - where Waymo becomes default autonomous driving OS that other car manufacturers can use

Just had the same thing. I have no idea how they can spoof the Binance email address do-not-reply@ses.binance.com
Here's the post I wrote about it earlier....
---------------------------------------
Hi.
I received an email from do-not-reply@ses.binance.com saying:
'Dear user,
You are trying to reset the password linked with your Binance account.
|| || |Device: Safari 16.6.1 (Mac OS X) IP Location: Bucharest Romania IP: 178.132.108.236|
etc etc etc'
I am from England.
A short time later a youngish male with a southern English accent called 'Ryan' rang from a Private Number saying he was from Binance support and that my account had been hacked. He referred me to the email. Now the email is definitely from do-not-reply@ses.binance.com (I viewed the raw source of the email to check, see below) so I decided to go along with it but not give anything away. His explanation of how I was hacked was not very convincing especially as I could see I still had access to the account and the balance was still the same. He said he was compiling a report for Binance and to pass it on to other exchanges I had accounts with. He asked me if I had other accounts. I was very dubious about telling him this so said I would if he rang me back in half an hour.
I only have one other account on a different exchange so went there and changed password, removed old devices, secured it as much as it was possible to do and locked it with a Master Lock facility.
He rang back. I told him the name of the Exchange. He left with a number for the Report he was passing on to the other Exchange. 30 minutes later I get a call from a woman with a London accent, again on a Private Number. She says she is from the other Exchange and asks me for the number. I am now 100% sure it's a scam so tell her I will contact the Exchange directly and close the call.
I am a bit rattled. The scammers had my name, email address and phone number. I thought I was pretty savvy to this stuff but the fact the email *is* from a server within the binance.com domain had me fooled. I did not think it was possible to do that.
So, big question: How can a scammer possibly send an email from do-not-reply@ses.binance.com ??
And here's part of the source of the email to prove I'm not going mad:
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
dkim=pass header.i=@ses.binance.com header.s=gxhqvjfn7nxg45wwesxakydswcc4dbhb header.b=MwlDvzaH;
dkim=pass header.i=@amazonses.com header.s=ihchhvubuqgjsxyuhssfvqohv7z3u4hn header.b=UFDqYrmY;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of 0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com designates 76.223.149.163 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com;
dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ses.binance.com
Return-Path: 0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com
Received: from c149-163.smtp-out.eu-west-1.amazonses.com (c149-163.smtp-out.eu-west-1.amazonses.com. [76.223.149.163])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5b1f17b1804b1-47930ca6365si13442465e9.74.2025.12.04.11.35.20
for me@me.me
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Any input would be appreciated (apart from any calling me a fool. I know that already).

Hi.
I received an email from [do-not-reply@ses.binance.com](mailto:do-not-reply@ses.binance.com) saying:
Dear user,
You are trying to reset the password linked with your Binance account.
||
||
|Device: Safari 16.6.1 (Mac OS X) IP Location: Bucharest Romania IP: [178.132.108.236](http://178.132.108.236)|
etc etc etc
I am from England.

A short time later a youngish male with a southern English accent called 'Ryan' rang from a Private Number saying he was from Binance support and that my account had been hacked. He referred me to the email. Now the email is definitely from [do-not-reply@ses.binance.com](mailto:do-not-reply@ses.binance.com) (I viewed the raw source of the email to check) so I decided to go along with it but not give anything away. His explanation of how I was hacked was not very convincing especially as I could see I still had access to the account and the balance was still the same. He said he was compiling a report for Binance and to pass it on to other exchanges I had accounts with. He asked me if I had other accounts. I was very dubious about telling him this so said I would if he rang me back in half an hour.
I only have one other account on a different exchange so went there and changed password, removed old devices and secured it as much as it was possible to do.
He rang back. I told him the name of the Exchange. He left with a number for the Report he was passing on to the other Exchange. 30 minutes later I get a call from a woman with a London accent, again on a Private Number. She says she is from the other Exchange and asks me for the number. I am now 100% sure it's a scam so tell her I will contact the Exchange directly and close the call.
I am a bit rattled as I thought I was pretty savvy to this stuff but the fact the email \*is\* from a server within the [binance.com](http://binance.com) domain had me fooled. I did not think it was possible to do that.
So, big question: How can a scammer possibly send an email from [do-not-reply@ses.binance.com](mailto:do-not-reply@ses.binance.com) ??
And here's part of the source of the email to prove I'm not going mad:
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; [mx.google.com](http://mx.google.com);
dkim=pass [header.i=@ses.binance.com](mailto:header.i=@ses.binance.com) header.s=gxhqvjfn7nxg45wwesxakydswcc4dbhb header.b=MwlDvzaH;
dkim=pass [header.i=@amazonses.com](mailto:header.i=@amazonses.com) header.s=ihchhvubuqgjsxyuhssfvqohv7z3u4hn header.b=UFDqYrmY;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of 0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com designates 76.223.149.163 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com;
dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) [header.from=ses.binance.com](http://header.from=ses.binance.com)
Return-Path: <0102019aeadca385-cd44d6a7-a0e5-4c3c-b15e-5b758a55c132-000000@aws.ses.binance.com>
Received: from c149-163.smtp-out.eu-west-1.amazonses.com (c149-163.smtp-out.eu-west-1.amazonses.com. \[76.223.149.163\])
by [mx.google.com](http://mx.google.com) with ESMTPS id 5b1f17b1804b1-47930ca6365si13442465e9.74.2025.12.04.11.35.20
for <me@me.me>
(version=TLS1\_3 cipher=TLS\_AES\_128\_GCM\_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Any input would be appreciated (apart from any calling me a fool. I know that already).

|Aspect|Details|Implications|Why It Matters|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Core Technology|Horizon Journey 6 SoC integrated with QNX SDP 8.0 and QNX OS for Safety 8.0 (RTOS)|Combines high-performance AI compute with TÜV Rheinland-certified ISO 26262 ASIL D real-time OS, ensuring top-tier functional safety essential for autonomous driving systems.|Ensures the platform can run complex autonomous applications reliably while meeting stringent safety regulations, reducing risk for OEMs and system integrators.|
|Safety Certification|TÜV Rheinland-certified to ISO 26262 ASIL D|Provides highest-level functional safety assurance, crucial for mission-critical ADAS and autonomous functions, reducing certification risks and accelerating development.|Achieving ASIL D certification is a major barrier in automotive safety; having it pre-certified enables faster deployment and market acceptance.|
|Market Scope|Global deployment; key projects in China and international markets via partners like ZF and Bosch|Addresses massive, fast-growing Chinese ADAS/NOA market demands and enables global expansion, enhancing competitiveness and scalability.|China is the largest and fastest-growing ADAS market; international partnerships extend reach and adoption, driving volume and ecosystem growth.|
|Scalability|Covers active safety to full urban navigation on autopilot (NOA)|Offers automakers a unified, scalable platform adaptable from entry-level to premium vehicles, simplifying integration and reducing development cycles.|Scalability reduces cost and complexity for automakers by allowing one architecture to span diverse vehicle models and feature sets.|
|Mass Production|Scheduled rollout in 2026|Signals strong commercial readiness, accelerating SDV rollout and strengthening Horizon's position in automotive AI and safety ecosystems.|Timely mass production demonstrates maturity and market validation, accelerating customer adoption and competitive positioning.|

So I was citing INTERpath-009 which is the NSCLC trial, as I mainly focus on NSCLC and I'm more familiar with that space. The other comments here are more likely regarding the adjuvant melanoma trial. I think the last data they released on that one was at ASCO 2024 ([Individualized neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab in resected melanoma: 3-year update from the mRNA-4157-P201 (KEYNOTE-942) trial. | Journal of Clinical Oncology](https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2024.42.17_suppl.LBA9512)).
I think what I would look for in an additional data cut is to see if the RFS benefit was maintained, but more importantly if the hazard ratio tightened because it was very wide in that publication HR=0.51 \[0.288-0.906\] with a nominal p=0.019. Basically if the HR crosses 1, then actually it is not statistically significant. In addition, the nominal p is a p-value that is not adjusted for multiplicity, and we could go into a whole stats convo here, but there is a possibility that after adjustment, it becomes not statistically significant which means the trial would fail. I also don't like how they stated that "OS favored combo vs pembro alone; 2.5-y OS rate was 96.0% vs 90.2% (HR \[95% CI\], 0.425 \[0.114–1.584\])". You can see here that the HR CI crossed 1 so it's not statistically significant. Language like that is not what I would consider scientifically professional and can be deceptive.

Again, people need to understand that having a drug approved is only the beginning of the process. You still need to commercialize it and gain access to insurance companies and get oncologists to use the treatment by getting it incorporated into oncology guidelines or pathways. Until pembro becomes a biosim (supposedly 2028, but let's be real, I've seen Abbvie extend the Humira patent for years with law suits), this is actually a 2 branded drug combination which means incredible amounts of money to utilize. I absolutely see insurance companies being fairly unwilling to pay for it unless the data is absolutely spectacular.

$CAPS is showing signs of being locked up even after the recent "selling [the news](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3f1ImGNg64)." We could very well be looking at a Walmart/Amazon type of business model. High-risk, high-reward. Let's get 🪨stoned🪨...
They're building "a national platform of building products distribution businesses" as remodeling is predicted to increase over the next year(s). This looks like it'll fall right in line with $OPEN. $CAPS' market cap *is* a joke but the more you look, you could argue that the stock is drastically undervaluing the company.
The Stock:
* Institutional Ownership Up 477% MRQ
* Beneficial Ownership: 3.7M
* 14-Day RSI: 40.96
* High (\~500k)/Verified Retail Ownership Just On Stocktwits
* Volume Nonexistent (No Selling)
* Public Float Obviously Low
The Company/Stock:
* Bringing Tech To A Techless Sector: AI Assistant, Visualizer
* Increasing Footprint, Virtually All of North America
* \~$60M Revenue, $3.75/Share Assuming 16M Shares OS (High)
* Fragmented Sector With Room to Consolidate
* Strategic Position/Access To Capital Markets
* Converting Debt To Equity Cleans the Balance Sheet
* Clean Website, Solid (Video) Marketing, LinkedIn Presence
The Market:
* Rate Cuts Favor Lending/Remodeling/Home Improvement
* Housing Shortage & Popularity of Modular Housing
* Movement Toward Sustainable/Cost-Effective Materials

I have this same issue. Happened about an hour after the upgrade. I then upgraded the OS and Prysm, and it went away until I went to bed. Woke up to hours and hours of missed attestations. Restarted again, its working again... just waiting for it to fail again.
Its been a Prysm error both times.
I additionally get "Fallen behind peers; reverting to initial sync to catch up". Pretty generic error that I suppose could be related to network, time sync, disk space, etc, etc. But I'm pretty comfortable it is not, given this all began an hour post-upgrade!
edit: I acknowledge I have a Lighthouse+Nethermind flair. But I also run a geth/prysm instance! BTW Nethermind had its own problems pre-upgrade after I upgraded the exec and cons clients!

Neither OS nor browser choice affect the reuslts: bad data every time.

Bad AI shoved into a software suite that gets worse with every update that runs in an OS that is still not out of beta.
Down 3%, you don't say.
----
Actually I think they are pretty lucky. I think they are doing pretty good by proxy to the better players aka chatGTP and google. If they weren't already the biggest game in town when they tried their whole enshittification process these last 6 years, they would have been beaten up by the market so bad they'd be forced to actually change course already and make better software like they used to.

Which OS level memory are you talking about?
Android memory address space is completely separate from the TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) memory area. Even if Android OS is compromised, it has no physical access to the TEE memory space.
Moreover, the TEE has its own dedicated processor and firmware on a separate subsystem, distinct from the processor that the Android OS runs on.

IBM did exactly that. They refused to modernize the company for decades and kept leaning on their mainframes, after they screwed their PC market opportunities, hence why the company is mostly out of the picture today. They fumbled the PC market by not securing exclusivity clauses with Intel and Microsoft, allowing other companies to reverse engineer their bios and release their own PCs with the windows OS and x86 Intel chips for a fraction of the cost. IBM literally handed Microsoft perpetual dominance in operating systems, and did the same for Intel with the x86 architecture, both being the only widely supported platform to this day, while destroying their own opportunities.
I agree with their take on the infrastructure costs of AI, and at one point or another, depreciation will crush some of these companies, and capital will get pulled out from underneath the startups, but that’s not to say that IBM is a well managed company. IBM should be part of the big tech world, but they aren’t because management screwed themselves over horrendously. They still live today because of their former dominance giving them a strong cushion, not because they’ve made particularly great decisions or navigated hurdles well.

Sorry, but nothing you said is correct. The only specific thing is that the trojan has to detect that it's a Seeker. Everything else can be automated specifically for any Seeker phone, because they're all the same thing. It's like any malware that hits Windows and succeeds in gaining admin permissions. That's all it needs to wreak havoc on the whole computer to the point where it's pointless to do anything but wipe the OS and start over. It didn't need "targeting" or whatever. It just needs to know what OS it's. And in Seeker's case, it only needs to know what smartphone brand and model it's. Easy. Once it knows it's Seeker, "call that function to sign all transactions we need from that very, very secure element", like any legit app would, of course after having bypassed Android permissions due to the vulnerability.

All good. I get where you’re coming from. Just to be clear for anyone reading: the filings + ownership tables say ~5.69M OS and ~5.3–5.7M free float with only a small single‑digit % held by insiders, so the documented float is multi‑million, even if the tape feels thinner because a lot of holders are inactive at any given moment. Microcaps can absolutely trade like that with a multi‑million float, so I’m comfortable anchoring to the hard numbers and letting the market sort out whose conviction pays.

In the general sense, I don't disagree that it's a hot wallet. But that's not the core of my contention with your argument on why this device is just a joke.
Let me make the security argument why you're wrong. A year from now, with no updates to Seeker, which is more secure for a hot wallet?
1. Seeker smartphone
2. A regular unrooted smartphone, like Pixel Pro, with latest security updates?
The answer is definitely 2. I would agree with your argument IF there were regular security updates to the Seeker. But without security updates, depending on the vulnerabilities that are publicly disclosed, hacking the secure element and getting it to sign transactions will be very bad. In fact, I can argue that the regular smartphone is more secure because its guarantees (data isolation, permissions, etc) are still intact, EVEN with a malware present that needs to nag the user to get things like full-disk access, which Google doesn't grant easily anymore on Play Store and is constantly banning apps from it that ask for it (see the drama on Syncthing for reference and why it was removed from the app store).
So, no. I don't think your argument makes sense. Without security updates, all bets are off and your claims on Seeker security are broken because OS permissions won't work anymore.

Yes, I was still on Ubuntu 20.04LTS until a couple of weeks ago when I discovered (the same way you did: errors) I needed to update my OS. I was not a happy chappy that day, and the net result was I ended up doing a full resync which took almost 5 days on my aged hardware!

you OS shall have some usability features to help with that ... worst case install some browser plugins

|Aspect|Description|
|:-|:-|
|Core Functions & Shift-left Benefits|Cloud simulation supports runtime telemetry/OTA and early development testing, enabling OEMs to find \~90% of bugs before hardware, accelerating design cycles globally with scalable, identical cloud environments.|
|Validation Coverage & Fidelity|Enables \~80% of cockpit features (UI, graphics, integration) validated with Level 3+ fidelity via QNX Hypervisor 8.0 on AWS, supporting multiple guest OSes (Android, Linux) and VirtIO virtual devices for near-binary identical software-in-the-loop simulation.|
|QNX Hypervisor & Safety Integration|Offers mixed-criticality virtualization with ISO 26262 ASIL-D certified QNX OS/hypervisor stack identical to production vehicles; tightly integrated into NVIDIA DRIVE AGX Thor, Orin, and Jetson platforms for mission-critical automotive and robotics compute.|
|Cloud-to-Vehicle Compatibility & Ecosystem|Same certified QNX software stack in cloud and vehicles ensures minimal rework, supporting open virtualization standards, aarch64 parity, and GPU/audio virtualization. Enables seamless transfer of validated cockpit software into production hardware with full safety compliance.|
|Software-First Paradigm & Collaboration|OEMs design and validate cockpit software first in the cloud, then virtually optimize hardware architectures, fostering unified, cross-functional collaboration across design, engineering, and safety teams on a single vehicle baseline to reduce silos and improve time-to-market.|