Breaking

How the Sales and Purchase Agreement works Why Asia’s inflation scare may be overstated: a Morgan Stanley economist explains Nebal-Tibet disaster: Flood rescue operations resume after brief suspension APT28-Linked HOOKEDGE Backdoor Targets European Government and Diplomatic Organizations ‘Buying opportunity’: Sembcorp’s India unit IPO could lift group value by up to 10%PaperCut Zero-Day Exploited in Attacks, Affecting All NG and MF Versions Indonesian Stocks End Week Lower as Investors Await Fed Signals BNPB DSP, Health Ministry: Medical costs for NTT earthquake victims free Avaland posts 41% quarterly net profit rise after strong sales Indonesia urges community-led reconstruction for quake-hit NTT homes Belgian startup Any raises €10 million for production of LUV1 electric motorcycle Road accidents and injuries rise in first half of 2026 despite fewer deaths Mah Sing lifts 2Q net profit 9.8% as revenue jumps 16%Startup community gathers in New York on September 10 to debate AI-driven business models We need to decide if the given headline is already fluent natural English. The headline: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". This seems a bit odd: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". It reads like a response to Mark Zuckerberg? The phrase "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone" is somewhat awkward. Usually you'd say "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not yet for everyone" or "No, Mark Zuckerberg: the future is not (yet) for everyone". The parentheses around "yet" maybe okay. But the phrase "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone" is a bit unnatural. It could be interpreted as addressing Mark Zuckerberg: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". That is a direct address, but the comma after Zuckerberg is correct for direct address: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". Actually direct address: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone." That is grammatical: you Virtual power plant pilot in Malaysia serves fewer than 1,000 households after three years Malaysia Secures RM218.5 Billion Approved Investments in 1H 2026, Jobs Rise 8.4%Import tariff transmission in a production network | Makram Khalil, Pierre M. Rouillard, Felix Strobel Indonesia’s growth outlook holds despite global headwinds PSE wraps 2026 mid-year STAR investor briefing with 13 live presentations How the Sales and Purchase Agreement works Why Asia’s inflation scare may be overstated: a Morgan Stanley economist explains Nebal-Tibet disaster: Flood rescue operations resume after brief suspension APT28-Linked HOOKEDGE Backdoor Targets European Government and Diplomatic Organizations ‘Buying opportunity’: Sembcorp’s India unit IPO could lift group value by up to 10%PaperCut Zero-Day Exploited in Attacks, Affecting All NG and MF Versions Indonesian Stocks End Week Lower as Investors Await Fed Signals BNPB DSP, Health Ministry: Medical costs for NTT earthquake victims free Avaland posts 41% quarterly net profit rise after strong sales Indonesia urges community-led reconstruction for quake-hit NTT homes Belgian startup Any raises €10 million for production of LUV1 electric motorcycle Road accidents and injuries rise in first half of 2026 despite fewer deaths Mah Sing lifts 2Q net profit 9.8% as revenue jumps 16%Startup community gathers in New York on September 10 to debate AI-driven business models We need to decide if the given headline is already fluent natural English. The headline: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". This seems a bit odd: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". It reads like a response to Mark Zuckerberg? The phrase "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone" is somewhat awkward. Usually you'd say "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not yet for everyone" or "No, Mark Zuckerberg: the future is not (yet) for everyone". The parentheses around "yet" maybe okay. But the phrase "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone" is a bit unnatural. It could be interpreted as addressing Mark Zuckerberg: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". That is a direct address, but the comma after Zuckerberg is correct for direct address: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone". Actually direct address: "No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone." That is grammatical: you Virtual power plant pilot in Malaysia serves fewer than 1,000 households after three years Malaysia Secures RM218.5 Billion Approved Investments in 1H 2026, Jobs Rise 8.4%Import tariff transmission in a production network | Makram Khalil, Pierre M. Rouillard, Felix Strobel Indonesia’s growth outlook holds despite global headwinds PSE wraps 2026 mid-year STAR investor briefing with 13 live presentations

AI Edge

Startup community gathers in New York on September 10 to debate AI-driven business models

TechCrunch’s StrictlyVC returns to Manhattan’s West Village for an evening of debates on artificial intelligence, sports investing and reshored craftsmanship.

Source: TechCrunch · August 28, 2026 at 9:39 AM · AI-assisted report

NEW YORK, 28 AUGUST 2026 —

Listen to this article

DomainFork Audio · read aloud

Share

TechCrunch’s StrictlyVC returns to Manhattan’s West Village for an evening of debates on artificial intelligence, sports investing and reshored craftsmanship.

Market Impact

The boutique event on September 10 marks the first New York edition in two years, featuring discussions with Keith Rabois of Founders Fund, Craig Shapiro of Collaborative Fund, Tristan Walker of Heirloom Craft, Brynn Putnam of Board and Deven Parekh of Insight Partners.

Keith Rabois will open the night with a critique of founder over-funding and his 2019 $50 million seed bet on OpenAI when the startup lacked a clear revenue model, according to TechCrunch.

Collaborative Fund, Shapiro’s venture firm, is co-hosting the evening, underscoring the growing intersection of venture capital, sports economics and community-focused startups.

Craig Shapiro and Jason Levien, chief executive of D.C. United, will examine how sports franchises are now treated as venture-like assets amid the convergence of fandom, digital commerce and local policy.

Tristan Walker, whose Walker & Company Brands was sold to Procter & Gamble in 2018, will discuss Heirloom Craft, a venture that trains artisans and rebuilds U.S. supply chains for fine goods.

Brynn Putnam, whose Mirror connected-fitness firm was bought by Lululemon for $500 million in 2020, will outline Board, a new game venture that blends physical play with artificial-intelligence creation tools.

Deven Parekh of Insight Partners, which has managed more than $100 billion in assets for 25 years, will explain how mega-funds compete when capital itself has become a commodity but the best deals still command outsized returns.

Tickets and details are available via TechCrunch’s event page; the organisers expect drinks, hors d’oeuvres and networking before and after the sessions.

The event carries no direct impact on Malaysian markets, companies or policy.

Related: Keith Rabois · New York