Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

25+ films with 25 different directors.🎬 Blockbusters: Paiyaa, Siruthai, Theeran Adhigaaram Ondru, Kaithi,Paruthiveeran🔥 Hits : Madras ,Komban ,Viruman ,Sardar💫 Not a single smoking scene in his entire career.👏 #19YearsOfKarthism #Karthi

Sekar 𝕏

18,520 subscribers

38,792 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

#19YearsOfKarthism #Karthi

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

India's undisputed Navel Queen…😮‍💨 Name : Tamannaah Bhatia Date of Birth : December 21, 1989 Age : 36 years 😮‍💨 Height : 5’5” (165 cm) Figure Measurements : 34–26–34 🔥 Birthplace : Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 🇮🇳 Nationality : Indian 🇮🇳 Profession : Actress | Model | Dancer | Pan-India Star 🎬✨ Years Active : 2005–Present Career Highlights : Debut with Chand Sa Roshan Chehra 🎬 Rose to fame in Telugu & Tamil industries 💥 Global fame with Baahubali: The Beginning & Baahubali 2: The Conclusion 🌍🔥 Hits like Paiyaa & 100% Love 💫 Special Tag : Not just beauty… she’s pure screen fire 😮‍💨🔥 From elegance to glam — she dominates every frame 👗⚡ Net Worth : $15M+ 💰 Income : Films 💸 | Brand Deals 💸 | OTT 💸 | Events 💸

South Matinee

14,233 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

At 70, Megastar Chiranjeevi continues to work with the hunger and enthusiasm of a debutant, driven by renewed passion. Naveen Polishetty carries a similar fire. He is a rare newcomer who approaches every film with the single-minded goal of turning it into a blockbuster - and he’s willing to go to any lengths to make that happen. He clearly understands that success is not handed over easily; it has to be earned. That belief reflects in the way he gives nothing less than his absolute best every single time. Every film of his has emerged a blockbuster, with #AnaganagaOkaRaju standing tall as the biggest milestone of his career so far. For Megastar Chiranjeevi to openly appreciate him is truly special. It’s no small feat for an actor with no industry background to enter films and deliver four consecutive blockbusters as a hero - without a single flop. Naveen Polishetty is a perfect example of hard work meeting talent and sharp judgment. If he continues with the same passion and doesn’t get carried away by hefty remunerations or restrictive timelines, he is undoubtedly on the path to becoming a HUGE STAR 🔥

At 70, Megastar Chiranjeevi continues to work with the hunger and enthusiasm of a debutant, driven by renewed passion. Naveen Polishetty carries a similar fire. He is a rare newcomer who approaches every film with the single-minded goal of turning it into a blockbuster - and he’s willing to go to any lengths to make that happen. He clearly understands that success is not handed over easily; it has to be earned. That belief reflects in the way he gives nothing less than his absolute best every single time. Every film of his has emerged a blockbuster, with #AnaganagaOkaRaju standing tall as the biggest milestone of his career so far. For Megastar Chiranjeevi to openly appreciate him is truly special. It’s no small feat for an actor with no industry background to enter films and deliver four consecutive blockbusters as a hero - without a single flop. Naveen Polishetty is a perfect example of hard work meeting talent and sharp judgment. If he continues with the same passion and doesn’t get carried away by hefty remunerations or restrictive timelines, he is undoubtedly on the path to becoming a HUGE STAR 🔥

idlebrain jeevi

88,213 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

google flow + claude + gpt image is actually f*cking cracked i figured out how to lock one AI character across an entire video. same face, same voice, same outfit, every single shot. zero drift. everyone making AI video right now hits the same wall. the character looks different in every clip so you can never tell an actual story. you get 5 second clips, not films. the fix isn't better prompting. it's building the character ONCE before you ever touch video, then referencing it everywhere. here's the workflow: > build the character inside Flow's character section, not a per-clip prompt > design the voice + personality one time and reuse it across every clip > generate a full turnaround sheet (Claude writes the prompt, GPT image renders the angles) > pull the character into any scene with a single @ tag > ingredients vs frames: when to let a shot float vs lock it to your source image > the end-frame loop that chains 4-10 sec clips into one seamless scene > stitch + trim in the timeline editor and export the whole thing as one film i packaged the entire thing. every prompt, the exact tool order, the character sheet template, and the continuity loop nobody actually explains. RT + reply "FLOW" and i'll send it over (must be following so i can dm)

google flow + claude + gpt image is actually f*cking cracked i figured out how to lock one AI character across an entire video. same face, same voice, same outfit, every single shot. zero drift. everyone making AI video right now hits the same wall. the character looks different in every clip so you can never tell an actual story. you get 5 second clips, not films. the fix isn't better prompting. it's building the character ONCE before you ever touch video, then referencing it everywhere. here's the workflow: > build the character inside Flow's character section, not a per-clip prompt > design the voice + personality one time and reuse it across every clip > generate a full turnaround sheet (Claude writes the prompt, GPT image renders the angles) > pull the character into any scene with a single @ tag > ingredients vs frames: when to let a shot float vs lock it to your source image > the end-frame loop that chains 4-10 sec clips into one seamless scene > stitch + trim in the timeline editor and export the whole thing as one film i packaged the entire thing. every prompt, the exact tool order, the character sheet template, and the continuity loop nobody actually explains. RT + reply "FLOW" and i'll send it over (must be following so i can dm)

Sulfur

35,672 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Rossst.03

77,501 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

A community college professor named Marty Lobdell taught the same study skills lecture for 30 years. The video quietly became one of the most watched educational recordings online, with over 10 million views. He spent his career watching students fail not because they were lazy, but because no one had taught them how their brain actually works when learning something difficult. The lecture, “Study Less Study Smart,” contains a powerful framework. Your brain cannot sustain focus the way most people believe. Studies show the average learner hits a wall between 25 and 30 minutes. After that, efficiency collapses. You’re still sitting there, but almost nothing is being absorbed. Lobdell told the story of a student who planned to study 6 hours a night, 5 nights a week. Thirty hours total. She failed every class. She was not lacking effort. She was confusing time near books with actual learning. The fix is simple: when focus drops, stop, take a 5 minute rewarding break, then return. That reset makes a massive difference. He also destroyed the myth of highlighting and re reading. Recognition is not the same as recall. To prove it, he read 13 random letters. Almost no one remembered them. Then he turned them into “Happy Thursday.” The entire room recalled them instantly. The brain stores meaning, not repetition. This is why elaborative encoding works so well. Finally, he shared the most important principle: 80 percent of study time should be active recitation. Close the book and explain the material in your own words. Teach it to someone else or an empty chair. Retrieval is where real learning happens. His closing line stuck with me: If this information does not change your behaviour, you have not actually learned it. The best students do not study more hours. They stop confusing the feeling of studying with the reality of learning.

A community college professor named Marty Lobdell taught the same study skills lecture for 30 years. The video quietly became one of the most watched educational recordings online, with over 10 million views. He spent his career watching students fail not because they were lazy, but because no one had taught them how their brain actually works when learning something difficult. The lecture, “Study Less Study Smart,” contains a powerful framework. Your brain cannot sustain focus the way most people believe. Studies show the average learner hits a wall between 25 and 30 minutes. After that, efficiency collapses. You’re still sitting there, but almost nothing is being absorbed. Lobdell told the story of a student who planned to study 6 hours a night, 5 nights a week. Thirty hours total. She failed every class. She was not lacking effort. She was confusing time near books with actual learning. The fix is simple: when focus drops, stop, take a 5 minute rewarding break, then return. That reset makes a massive difference. He also destroyed the myth of highlighting and re reading. Recognition is not the same as recall. To prove it, he read 13 random letters. Almost no one remembered them. Then he turned them into “Happy Thursday.” The entire room recalled them instantly. The brain stores meaning, not repetition. This is why elaborative encoding works so well. Finally, he shared the most important principle: 80 percent of study time should be active recitation. Close the book and explain the material in your own words. Teach it to someone else or an empty chair. Retrieval is where real learning happens. His closing line stuck with me: If this information does not change your behaviour, you have not actually learned it. The best students do not study more hours. They stop confusing the feeling of studying with the reality of learning.

Kyronis

685,481 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Watched #Skanda as usual it’s a no logic less typical #BoyapatiSreenu Oora Mass Kummudu 💥 RAm POthineni as the title itself Skanda The Attacker is here with #RAmPOthineni What a transformation you have did truly the cult mode is on that’s it. Your screen presence is terrific and career best intro 🤯 no doubt in that. literally he gave his outstanding performance 🔥😎 especially Climax is purely Rampage 💥 Sreeleela limited screen space and only fitted to songs like #Gandarabai & #NeeChuttuChuttu dance numbers are highlighted the movie with her grace and style 😍 definitely a good one. Saiee M Manjrekar after #Major it’s good to see you again, small space but yet good role. Looking forward to see you as lead actress in many more movies rather than side roles. thaman S you blasted 💥as you said earlier theatres lo speakers jagratha 🤯 em duty Anna nuvvu chesindhi mental vachindhi literally. Especially climax ayithey Rampage 🔥 hatsoff 🫡 small disappointment with songs but #Gandarabai, #NeeChuttuChuttu and #CultMama sounds a different vibe in theatre 😎 entire movie maddddddd BGM blast. Underestimating your work is definitely a bad idea for everyone 😎 Thaman on Duty. @SantoshDetake cinematography and stun shiva goosebumps action blogs are next level. SRIKANTH MEKA sir, you lived it, fantastic. On the whole, #Skanda is a mass action entertainer that offers a solid performance by #RAmPOthineni energetic action scenes and dance worth watching. While fans and the masses will enjoy this high-voltage entertainer, the films simple story, illogical action sequences and a sluggish second half might not appeal to others. If you are fine with these aspects you may give this movie one time watch weekend. Pros: fights, Ram acting and his transformation, literally he gave his career best performance. Climax never before rampage 🤯💥 BGM & visuals. Cons: routine boyapati story, second half lags too much, no title justification and easy predicable storyline. Congratulations to entire team RAm POthineni #BoyapataiSreenu Sreeleela Saiee M Manjrekar thaman S Srinivasaa Silver Screen

Watched #Skanda as usual it’s a no logic less typical #BoyapatiSreenu Oora Mass Kummudu 💥 RAm POthineni as the title itself Skanda The Attacker is here with #RAmPOthineni What a transformation you have did truly the cult mode is on that’s it. Your screen presence is terrific and career best intro 🤯 no doubt in that. literally he gave his outstanding performance 🔥😎 especially Climax is purely Rampage 💥 Sreeleela limited screen space and only fitted to songs like #Gandarabai & #NeeChuttuChuttu dance numbers are highlighted the movie with her grace and style 😍 definitely a good one. Saiee M Manjrekar after #Major it’s good to see you again, small space but yet good role. Looking forward to see you as lead actress in many more movies rather than side roles. thaman S you blasted 💥as you said earlier theatres lo speakers jagratha 🤯 em duty Anna nuvvu chesindhi mental vachindhi literally. Especially climax ayithey Rampage 🔥 hatsoff 🫡 small disappointment with songs but #Gandarabai, #NeeChuttuChuttu and #CultMama sounds a different vibe in theatre 😎 entire movie maddddddd BGM blast. Underestimating your work is definitely a bad idea for everyone 😎 Thaman on Duty. @SantoshDetake cinematography and stun shiva goosebumps action blogs are next level. SRIKANTH MEKA sir, you lived it, fantastic. On the whole, #Skanda is a mass action entertainer that offers a solid performance by #RAmPOthineni energetic action scenes and dance worth watching. While fans and the masses will enjoy this high-voltage entertainer, the films simple story, illogical action sequences and a sluggish second half might not appeal to others. If you are fine with these aspects you may give this movie one time watch weekend. Pros: fights, Ram acting and his transformation, literally he gave his career best performance. Climax never before rampage 🤯💥 BGM & visuals. Cons: routine boyapati story, second half lags too much, no title justification and easy predicable storyline. Congratulations to entire team RAm POthineni #BoyapataiSreenu Sreeleela Saiee M Manjrekar thaman S Srinivasaa Silver Screen

J SOLUTIONS MEDIA®️

30,644 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

“Can you just imagine WWE if every single guy came out wearing the exact same thing?” In April 2022, Big Ben Rothwell announced on Ariel Helwani’s show that after 13 years with the UFC, his request for release was granted. After receiving offers from Bellator, PFL, and BKFC, Rothwell ultimately signed with BKFC, citing a great deal and the desire for creative freedom that had been stifled during the UFC’s Reebok era. Rothwell recalled an incident where he wore his iconic “cloak” backstage, only for the UFC to demand he take it off. Another time, Rothwell offered to let the UFC keep the $10,000 Reebok money so he could wear the cloak. Their response? “We’ll stop the whole show and take your entire purse if you wear it.” Rothwell drew inspiration from Francis Ngannou crossing over to boxing and Conor McGregor’s ventures into the same space, but his main desire was simple: to fight in front of live crowds again. “The Apex is not for me,” he said bluntly. He also spoke about his comfort fighting bare-knuckle, revealing that during his UFC days, he often waived the requirement for hand wraps. If anything happened to his hands, he’d accept the consequences. The first time he did this was in his fight against Brendan Schaub—though no, he didn’t head to P.F. Chang’s afterward to celebrate. Less than three years later, Rothwell is crowned BKFC champion, winning the belt in just 36 seconds in front of a record-breaking crowd at the Wells Fargo Center. He called it the “craziest” crowd he’s ever fought in front of during his 25-year career. To make the moment even more surreal, McGregor—one of Rothwell’s inspirations to make the crossover—was in the ring as a part-owner of BKFC. Few could have imagined this back in 2022 when Rothwell first announced his move to BKFC. Big Ben Rothwell / Ariel Helwani Bare Knuckle FC / Conor McGregor

“Can you just imagine WWE if every single guy came out wearing the exact same thing?” In April 2022, Big Ben Rothwell announced on Ariel Helwani’s show that after 13 years with the UFC, his request for release was granted. After receiving offers from Bellator, PFL, and BKFC, Rothwell ultimately signed with BKFC, citing a great deal and the desire for creative freedom that had been stifled during the UFC’s Reebok era. Rothwell recalled an incident where he wore his iconic “cloak” backstage, only for the UFC to demand he take it off. Another time, Rothwell offered to let the UFC keep the $10,000 Reebok money so he could wear the cloak. Their response? “We’ll stop the whole show and take your entire purse if you wear it.” Rothwell drew inspiration from Francis Ngannou crossing over to boxing and Conor McGregor’s ventures into the same space, but his main desire was simple: to fight in front of live crowds again. “The Apex is not for me,” he said bluntly. He also spoke about his comfort fighting bare-knuckle, revealing that during his UFC days, he often waived the requirement for hand wraps. If anything happened to his hands, he’d accept the consequences. The first time he did this was in his fight against Brendan Schaub—though no, he didn’t head to P.F. Chang’s afterward to celebrate. Less than three years later, Rothwell is crowned BKFC champion, winning the belt in just 36 seconds in front of a record-breaking crowd at the Wells Fargo Center. He called it the “craziest” crowd he’s ever fought in front of during his 25-year career. To make the moment even more surreal, McGregor—one of Rothwell’s inspirations to make the crossover—was in the ring as a part-owner of BKFC. Few could have imagined this back in 2022 when Rothwell first announced his move to BKFC. Big Ben Rothwell / Ariel Helwani Bare Knuckle FC / Conor McGregor

AFeldmanMMA

39,416 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Fernando Tatis Jr is hitting .242 with a 3.5° average launch angle and a career-low 20% pull rate. Everyone has ideas and analysis on how to fix Fernando Tatis Jr’s swing. It’s pretty awful and I can’t take anymore of this, I have to say something because I haven’t seen a single person give the right answer. I’ve seen multiple people talk about timing mechanisms like toe tap, stride, and leg lift in his swing mechanics that have absolutely nothing to do with his problem. That reverting to past timing mechanisms would somehow help him. THEY ARE ALL WRONG Because they’re all looking in the wrong place. This isn’t a stride problem or timing problem. It’s a tilt problem. Stride, leg lift, and toe tap are timing mechanisms. They control WHEN the hips fire not HOW the bat moves through the zone. A hitter with a Sosa leg kick and a no-stride Ichiro stance can produce identical launch angles.Timing has no lever that touches the bat at contact. What actually sets launch angle is attack angle or the vertical direction the bat is traveling at the moment it meets the ball. Swing up through the zone = ball lifts Swing flat = grounders Swing down = choppers Attack angle is the only mechanical input that matters for elevation and attack angle isn’t random. It’s a direct output of shoulder tilt. When the trail shoulder drops below the lead shoulder at contact, the entire swing axis tilts. The bat is now forced to travel upward through the zone. More tilt > steeper attack angle > higher launch angle. Period. Tatis’s attack angle tells the entire story: 2023: +12° attack angle, +1° pull-side direction/25 HRs 2024 : +10° attack angle. -2° oppo direction 21HRs in 104 games 2025: +8° attack angle, 0° direction/25 HRs, healthy 2026: +5° attack angle, −5° oppo direction His swing has flattened AND drifted away from his pull side. Both are tilt collapse. That −5° oppo attack direction is the giveaway. When you lose tilt, your bat doesn’t just flatten it also gets steered toward the opposite field, because a level swing naturally pushes the barrel away from your pull side. He’s not late. He’s not under-striding. His axis collapsed Over the last few years and it’s worse than ever this year. This explains the 20% pull air rate too. Pulling the ball in the air requires positive attack angle AND a contact point out front. (Ramon Laureanos 2025 attack Angle was +14) If you tinker with timing on a flat swing, an earlier contact point just produces a pull-side grounder. The direction changes. The launch angle does not. Let me break it down for you: Stride > Weight Shift > Hip Rotation >TILT > ATTACK ANGLE > BAT PATH > Contact > Launch Angle Stride is four steps upstream. Tilt is the gate. Attack angle is the output that actually moves the ball. So now we know what’s wrong, how do we fix him? Souza and the Padres staff need to focus on the following; 1.Restore 8–12° rear-high shoulder tilt 2.Get attack angle back to +10° to +12° with neutral or +1° pull direction 3.THEN evaluate timing tweaks 4. If someone is telling him to flatten out his swing or to let the ball travel more PLEASE STOP DOING THAT. That doesn’t work for him You cannot time your way to elevation. Fix the tilt. Attack angle returns. Pull air follows. Please watch the video to see how his swing has gotten worse and flatter. We only have bat path data starting in 2023

Fernando Tatis Jr is hitting .242 with a 3.5° average launch angle and a career-low 20% pull rate. Everyone has ideas and analysis on how to fix Fernando Tatis Jr’s swing. It’s pretty awful and I can’t take anymore of this, I have to say something because I haven’t seen a single person give the right answer. I’ve seen multiple people talk about timing mechanisms like toe tap, stride, and leg lift in his swing mechanics that have absolutely nothing to do with his problem. That reverting to past timing mechanisms would somehow help him. THEY ARE ALL WRONG Because they’re all looking in the wrong place. This isn’t a stride problem or timing problem. It’s a tilt problem. Stride, leg lift, and toe tap are timing mechanisms. They control WHEN the hips fire not HOW the bat moves through the zone. A hitter with a Sosa leg kick and a no-stride Ichiro stance can produce identical launch angles.Timing has no lever that touches the bat at contact. What actually sets launch angle is attack angle or the vertical direction the bat is traveling at the moment it meets the ball. Swing up through the zone = ball lifts Swing flat = grounders Swing down = choppers Attack angle is the only mechanical input that matters for elevation and attack angle isn’t random. It’s a direct output of shoulder tilt. When the trail shoulder drops below the lead shoulder at contact, the entire swing axis tilts. The bat is now forced to travel upward through the zone. More tilt > steeper attack angle > higher launch angle. Period. Tatis’s attack angle tells the entire story: 2023: +12° attack angle, +1° pull-side direction/25 HRs 2024 : +10° attack angle. -2° oppo direction 21HRs in 104 games 2025: +8° attack angle, 0° direction/25 HRs, healthy 2026: +5° attack angle, −5° oppo direction His swing has flattened AND drifted away from his pull side. Both are tilt collapse. That −5° oppo attack direction is the giveaway. When you lose tilt, your bat doesn’t just flatten it also gets steered toward the opposite field, because a level swing naturally pushes the barrel away from your pull side. He’s not late. He’s not under-striding. His axis collapsed Over the last few years and it’s worse than ever this year. This explains the 20% pull air rate too. Pulling the ball in the air requires positive attack angle AND a contact point out front. (Ramon Laureanos 2025 attack Angle was +14) If you tinker with timing on a flat swing, an earlier contact point just produces a pull-side grounder. The direction changes. The launch angle does not. Let me break it down for you: Stride > Weight Shift > Hip Rotation >TILT > ATTACK ANGLE > BAT PATH > Contact > Launch Angle Stride is four steps upstream. Tilt is the gate. Attack angle is the output that actually moves the ball. So now we know what’s wrong, how do we fix him? Souza and the Padres staff need to focus on the following; 1.Restore 8–12° rear-high shoulder tilt 2.Get attack angle back to +10° to +12° with neutral or +1° pull direction 3.THEN evaluate timing tweaks 4. If someone is telling him to flatten out his swing or to let the ball travel more PLEASE STOP DOING THAT. That doesn’t work for him You cannot time your way to elevation. Fix the tilt. Attack angle returns. Pull air follows. Please watch the video to see how his swing has gotten worse and flatter. We only have bat path data starting in 2023

Mission Valley Mafia

160,950 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🎤: normally, how many minutes does it take sky to finish a single plate of food? 🐱: i've never actually timed it, but probably around... 🎤: just give a rough estimate 🐱: ...5 minutes 🐶: huhh?! 😲 🎤: *mimics sky speed eating* 🐱: no–! 🐶: what am I, a pop ghost?! (//in thai folklore, 'pop' is a spirit/ghost known for having an insatiable appetite and devouring everything) 🎤: (like he's in a rush) to continue filming (the series) 🐱: it's because the plate is small and he's in a rush! yeah! 🎤: right, right, he's in a rush 🐱: it's a small plates, a small plate! he– 🎤: maybe... maybe (5 mins) is a bit too fast 🐱: he only eats the meat! he doesn't really eat the rice. he only eats a tiny bit of rice so that's why it's so quick! 🎤: ohh you were counting the rice? (//ข้าว "khao" means "rice" but also "food/meal") 🐱: yes! he– he– 🎤: then is this answer (on my card) even correct? because he's only counting the rice? he's not counting the dishes on the plate! 🐶: ah, try asking it again 🎤: don't count it as a separate thing! it has to be the entire 1 meal altogether 🐱: 1 entire meal? 🎤: yes, including water/drink, meat and vegetables. not just eating rice– I mean the entire meal, the entire food 🐱: hmmm~ then it probably takes quite a while. because it takes so long for them to come out and serve each dish, it's slow 👥: 😂 🐱: like it takes a long time! It takes a long time to finish an entire meal 🎤: well, that actually makes sense 😂 🐶: try again, try again! ask again, ask again! (ask for) just the actual eating time! 🎤: just the duration of the eating process 🐱: the duration... 🎤: we are completely cutting out the (food) serving part. the timer starts the exact moment the food hits the table– beep! the timer starts! 🐶: *points to 🎤* your question wasn't clear in the first place! (😭🥹) 🎤: honestly, that was a mistake on the show's part, our apologies, our sincere apologies! 🐱: timing it... so if it's one plate, right? just– just the food...? 🐶: one plate! rice, water/drink and dessert! 😂 🎤: why are there so many problems with this?! 🎤: is it just the rice? is serving time included? is it just a single dish? he might have side dishes too right? (//the questions nani was asking😂) 🐱: and is he in a hurry to go to work or not? (//ngl a very valid question 🤣) 👥: euhhhhh!!!! 🐶: change it, skip it, skip it, skip it! 😂 🎤: let's say it's a scenario where he's not in a hurry to go to work 🐱: then i'd say about 3– eui! 25 minutes, because he's definitely going to look at his phone while eating 🎤: ohhh, he's eating and then (on the phone a clip goes) "brain!" (//watching clips on tiktok while eating lol) 🐱: yes! and what if he's like "eui! i accidentally ate the wrong thing, i don't want this, let me spit it out" 🎤: 😂 🐶: what the heck, do you actually know me well or what?! 🐱: 😂 🎤: (the timing) is close! it's close! it's close, close 🐱: 20 minutes! 🎤: eui that's correct!! 👥🐱🐶: 👏👏👏 🎤: man, this is so fun~ //laughed my friggin arse out 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 naniiiiiiiiii why are you so hilarious omg 😂 also don't forget, according to sky, nani is always right 🙂‍↕️🙂‍↔️ SKYNANI KATANYU WU NIGHT #KatanyuTonightxWUTheSeries #skynani #สกายนานิ

🎤: normally, how many minutes does it take sky to finish a single plate of food? 🐱: i've never actually timed it, but probably around... 🎤: just give a rough estimate 🐱: ...5 minutes 🐶: huhh?! 😲 🎤: mimics sky speed eating 🐱: no–! 🐶: what am I, a pop ghost?! (//in thai folklore, 'pop' is a spirit/ghost known for having an insatiable appetite and devouring everything) 🎤: (like he's in a rush) to continue filming (the series) 🐱: it's because the plate is small and he's in a rush! yeah! 🎤: right, right, he's in a rush 🐱: it's a small plates, a small plate! he– 🎤: maybe... maybe (5 mins) is a bit too fast 🐱: he only eats the meat! he doesn't really eat the rice. he only eats a tiny bit of rice so that's why it's so quick! 🎤: ohh you were counting the rice? (//ข้าว "khao" means "rice" but also "food/meal") 🐱: yes! he– he– 🎤: then is this answer (on my card) even correct? because he's only counting the rice? he's not counting the dishes on the plate! 🐶: ah, try asking it again 🎤: don't count it as a separate thing! it has to be the entire 1 meal altogether 🐱: 1 entire meal? 🎤: yes, including water/drink, meat and vegetables. not just eating rice– I mean the entire meal, the entire food 🐱: hmmm~ then it probably takes quite a while. because it takes so long for them to come out and serve each dish, it's slow 👥: 😂 🐱: like it takes a long time! It takes a long time to finish an entire meal 🎤: well, that actually makes sense 😂 🐶: try again, try again! ask again, ask again! (ask for) just the actual eating time! 🎤: just the duration of the eating process 🐱: the duration... 🎤: we are completely cutting out the (food) serving part. the timer starts the exact moment the food hits the table– beep! the timer starts! 🐶: points to 🎤 your question wasn't clear in the first place! (😭🥹) 🎤: honestly, that was a mistake on the show's part, our apologies, our sincere apologies! 🐱: timing it... so if it's one plate, right? just– just the food...? 🐶: one plate! rice, water/drink and dessert! 😂 🎤: why are there so many problems with this?! 🎤: is it just the rice? is serving time included? is it just a single dish? he might have side dishes too right? (//the questions nani was asking😂) 🐱: and is he in a hurry to go to work or not? (//ngl a very valid question 🤣) 👥: euhhhhh!!!! 🐶: change it, skip it, skip it, skip it! 😂 🎤: let's say it's a scenario where he's not in a hurry to go to work 🐱: then i'd say about 3– eui! 25 minutes, because he's definitely going to look at his phone while eating 🎤: ohhh, he's eating and then (on the phone a clip goes) "brain!" (//watching clips on tiktok while eating lol) 🐱: yes! and what if he's like "eui! i accidentally ate the wrong thing, i don't want this, let me spit it out" 🎤: 😂 🐶: what the heck, do you actually know me well or what?! 🐱: 😂 🎤: (the timing) is close! it's close! it's close, close 🐱: 20 minutes! 🎤: eui that's correct!! 👥🐱🐶: 👏👏👏 🎤: man, this is so fun~ //laughed my friggin arse out 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 naniiiiiiiiii why are you so hilarious omg 😂 also don't forget, according to sky, nani is always right 🙂‍↕️🙂‍↔️ SKYNANI KATANYU WU NIGHT #KatanyuTonightxWUTheSeries #skynani #สกายนานิ

𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙤 ✧

25,419 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

In 1991 a Xerox regional office in Atlanta had a problem. Their top salesperson was doing $4.2 million a year. Their second best was doing $800,000. Everyone else was below $400,000. Same products. Same territory split. Same commission structure. Same manager. The VP of sales flew in and spent three days trying to understand what the top performer was doing differently. He watched him make calls. Sat in on meetings. Reviewed his pipeline. He couldn't find it. The guy didn't seem to work harder. Didn't seem smarter. Didn't have better accounts. Then he watched him walk into a cold meeting with a procurement director who had already said no twice. He didn't pitch. He didn't present. He sat down, opened a notebook, and said one sentence. Before I show you anything, I'd like to ask you a few questions about what's actually slowing your team down. Forty minutes later he had a $340,000 deal. The VP flew home and hired Brian Tracy. Tracy had spent 25 years studying exactly what that salesperson did instinctively. He had walked into rooms where every single person on straight commission was making over a quarter million dollars a year. Most of them were making over a million. He interviewed them all. Studied every pattern. Spent thousands of hours finding what separated the top 10% from everyone else. His conclusion was not what most people expected. 80% of sales success is psychological. 20% is technical. Most companies do only technical training. 70% of companies do no sales training at all. They hand people a brochure and say good luck. The Xerox salesperson in Atlanta was not smarter. He had simply figured out one thing that most salespeople never figure out. He did not see himself as a salesperson. Do customers like salespeople? No. Because salespeople represent someone who is going to fast-talk and maneuver and sell them something they don't need with money they don't have. Do customers like consultants? Always. Because a consultant walks in with one question. What is your problem and how can I help you solve it. Within 30 seconds of meeting a prospect the prospect knows which one they're dealing with. Tracy said there is no way to fake this. The way you see yourself determines how you walk, talk, ask questions and listen. The customer feels it before you open your mouth. Top salespeople also see themselves as doctors of selling. Doctors never skip steps. Examination. Diagnosis. Prescription. In that order. Every time. A doctor who prescribes before diagnosing is committing malpractice. A salesperson who presents before understanding the problem is committing exactly the same thing. Except the customer just calls it a reason not to buy. The new model of selling is an upside-down triangle. 40% of the sale is building trust. 30% is identifying the problem. 20% is presenting the solution. 10% is closing. The old model had it reversed. 40% closing. That's why it stopped working. He asked thousands of customers across his career to describe their favorite salespeople in one word. The number one answer across every industry was the same. Nice. Not smart. Not aggressive. Not persuasive. Nice. When he asked what they meant they said positive, easy to talk to, trustworthy. I like them. I feel good when they walk in. He said everything you do with a customer adds to or takes away from that feeling. Nothing is neutral. Everything counts. The Xerox salesperson in Atlanta retired at 51. The VP who hired Tracy said it was the best $40,000 the company ever spent. Tracy recorded the full seminar in the early 1990s. Free on YouTube. Just over an hour. Almost nobody outside of professional sales has watched it as a complete explanation of why two people in the same office with the same product end up in completely different income brackets for their entire careers.

In 1991 a Xerox regional office in Atlanta had a problem. Their top salesperson was doing $4.2 million a year. Their second best was doing $800,000. Everyone else was below $400,000. Same products. Same territory split. Same commission structure. Same manager. The VP of sales flew in and spent three days trying to understand what the top performer was doing differently. He watched him make calls. Sat in on meetings. Reviewed his pipeline. He couldn't find it. The guy didn't seem to work harder. Didn't seem smarter. Didn't have better accounts. Then he watched him walk into a cold meeting with a procurement director who had already said no twice. He didn't pitch. He didn't present. He sat down, opened a notebook, and said one sentence. Before I show you anything, I'd like to ask you a few questions about what's actually slowing your team down. Forty minutes later he had a $340,000 deal. The VP flew home and hired Brian Tracy. Tracy had spent 25 years studying exactly what that salesperson did instinctively. He had walked into rooms where every single person on straight commission was making over a quarter million dollars a year. Most of them were making over a million. He interviewed them all. Studied every pattern. Spent thousands of hours finding what separated the top 10% from everyone else. His conclusion was not what most people expected. 80% of sales success is psychological. 20% is technical. Most companies do only technical training. 70% of companies do no sales training at all. They hand people a brochure and say good luck. The Xerox salesperson in Atlanta was not smarter. He had simply figured out one thing that most salespeople never figure out. He did not see himself as a salesperson. Do customers like salespeople? No. Because salespeople represent someone who is going to fast-talk and maneuver and sell them something they don't need with money they don't have. Do customers like consultants? Always. Because a consultant walks in with one question. What is your problem and how can I help you solve it. Within 30 seconds of meeting a prospect the prospect knows which one they're dealing with. Tracy said there is no way to fake this. The way you see yourself determines how you walk, talk, ask questions and listen. The customer feels it before you open your mouth. Top salespeople also see themselves as doctors of selling. Doctors never skip steps. Examination. Diagnosis. Prescription. In that order. Every time. A doctor who prescribes before diagnosing is committing malpractice. A salesperson who presents before understanding the problem is committing exactly the same thing. Except the customer just calls it a reason not to buy. The new model of selling is an upside-down triangle. 40% of the sale is building trust. 30% is identifying the problem. 20% is presenting the solution. 10% is closing. The old model had it reversed. 40% closing. That's why it stopped working. He asked thousands of customers across his career to describe their favorite salespeople in one word. The number one answer across every industry was the same. Nice. Not smart. Not aggressive. Not persuasive. Nice. When he asked what they meant they said positive, easy to talk to, trustworthy. I like them. I feel good when they walk in. He said everything you do with a customer adds to or takes away from that feeling. Nothing is neutral. Everything counts. The Xerox salesperson in Atlanta retired at 51. The VP who hired Tracy said it was the best $40,000 the company ever spent. Tracy recorded the full seminar in the early 1990s. Free on YouTube. Just over an hour. Almost nobody outside of professional sales has watched it as a complete explanation of why two people in the same office with the same product end up in completely different income brackets for their entire careers.

Abyzon

1,503,266 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

OPENAI IS GOING TO TAKE THIS ENTIRE MARKET DOWN WITH IT And you don't have to own a single share to get hurt. What I'm about to explain should worry anybody who thinks they're diversified: OpenAI is a LOAD-BEARING company. Pull it out and the whole structure comes down. They spent $17.2 billion on Microsoft Azure in calendar 2025, which is 69% of Microsoft's entire year-over-year growth. Take that one customer out and Azure grew 8%, which barely beats inflation. Now look at what Microsoft just reported: The backlog everyone is celebrating came in at $678 billion, up 84%, and the stock ripped. Sounds fantastic until you realize that when you exclude OpenAI the backlog grew only 25%. Back in January, when that number was $625 billion, roughly $281 billion of it was owed by one private company nobody can audit. And Oracle is in even WORSE shape. Something like $300 billion of its backlog, more than half, rides on the same counterparty. So you think you own Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, CoreWeave, Nvidia and SoftBank? What you actually own is the same trade 6 different ways, and every leg of it runs back to one company that burns cash and still cannot go public. The people with real money are already backing out. Julien Garran pointed out that Masayoshi Son could not get a $10 billion bridge loan against his own OpenAI shares. Think about that for a second, because nobody says no to that man. Blue Owl walked away from a $10 billion Oracle financing. Three months ago the banks were dancing near the door and now they are walking through it. Then there is Julien's depreciation work, which makes this even worse: Run the capex schedule out and hyperscaler net income falls 98% by 2033. To break even they would need to build 20 killer apps inside 6 years. Another Google Search. Another YouTube. Another Office. They have not built ONE. If OpenAI cannot go public in the next 8 months, they are dead. Whenever you see hubris and debt in the same room, run, don't walk.

OPENAI IS GOING TO TAKE THIS ENTIRE MARKET DOWN WITH IT And you don't have to own a single share to get hurt. What I'm about to explain should worry anybody who thinks they're diversified: OpenAI is a LOAD-BEARING company. Pull it out and the whole structure comes down. They spent $17.2 billion on Microsoft Azure in calendar 2025, which is 69% of Microsoft's entire year-over-year growth. Take that one customer out and Azure grew 8%, which barely beats inflation. Now look at what Microsoft just reported: The backlog everyone is celebrating came in at $678 billion, up 84%, and the stock ripped. Sounds fantastic until you realize that when you exclude OpenAI the backlog grew only 25%. Back in January, when that number was $625 billion, roughly $281 billion of it was owed by one private company nobody can audit. And Oracle is in even WORSE shape. Something like $300 billion of its backlog, more than half, rides on the same counterparty. So you think you own Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, CoreWeave, Nvidia and SoftBank? What you actually own is the same trade 6 different ways, and every leg of it runs back to one company that burns cash and still cannot go public. The people with real money are already backing out. Julien Garran pointed out that Masayoshi Son could not get a $10 billion bridge loan against his own OpenAI shares. Think about that for a second, because nobody says no to that man. Blue Owl walked away from a $10 billion Oracle financing. Three months ago the banks were dancing near the door and now they are walking through it. Then there is Julien's depreciation work, which makes this even worse: Run the capex schedule out and hyperscaler net income falls 98% by 2033. To break even they would need to build 20 killer apps inside 6 years. Another Google Search. Another YouTube. Another Office. They have not built ONE. If OpenAI cannot go public in the next 8 months, they are dead. Whenever you see hubris and debt in the same room, run, don't walk.

George Noble

294,408 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Gina Gershon explains why she didn't like Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" (1995) at first, but learnt to appreciate it over the years: "I couldn't watch "Showgirls" (1995) for years 'cause I was like, I was too, a little bit of PTSD, I think, in a very slight way, no disrespect to real PTSD, but I would get very tense and anxious when I thought about certain things and stories, and so I never really watched it again, and I would kind of use the excuse of like, 'Well,' and it was a real excuse, like, 'I can't deal with my accent, 'cause I had to lie about my accent. I thought the movie would be closer to one of [Verhoeven's] Dutch films, which are a little bit seedier, a little bit darker, and I think his American films, now that I've kind of studied it and I've stepped out of it, I mean, they're really interesting comments on America and fascism. Going 30 years later, 25 years later, a friend of mine, a writer friend, she said, 'No, you don't understand how great Showgirls is.' I'm like, 'I guess I really don't,' but when I saw it from afar, not being in it, and all of a sudden I'm like, 'Oh my god.' It was really a comment on ugly America and on capitalism and power struggles and dynamics and all those things. That r*** scene has to be there. It's the grossest thing in there and the powerful men, they're all protected and, you know, so that's why it's exciting when she kicks the guy's a$$. I thought it was gonna be a different movie than it was, but you know what? It's also an interesting lesson in, you know, when you get to the set or any situation really, you know, in your mind, you think what it is, but when you go there and it's not, then you have to assess and... You gotta make it make sense, but then I just changed my approach to the whole character, so that was kind of interesting. It was a good lesson." ("Gina Gershon Says Watching Her Performance in Showgirls Left Her Feeling 'Tense and Anxious': 'Like a Little Bit of PTSD'", Virginia Chamlee, People, 2026) P.S: Happy 64th birthday, Gina Gershon!

Gina Gershon explains why she didn't like Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" (1995) at first, but learnt to appreciate it over the years: "I couldn't watch "Showgirls" (1995) for years 'cause I was like, I was too, a little bit of PTSD, I think, in a very slight way, no disrespect to real PTSD, but I would get very tense and anxious when I thought about certain things and stories, and so I never really watched it again, and I would kind of use the excuse of like, 'Well,' and it was a real excuse, like, 'I can't deal with my accent, 'cause I had to lie about my accent. I thought the movie would be closer to one of [Verhoeven's] Dutch films, which are a little bit seedier, a little bit darker, and I think his American films, now that I've kind of studied it and I've stepped out of it, I mean, they're really interesting comments on America and fascism. Going 30 years later, 25 years later, a friend of mine, a writer friend, she said, 'No, you don't understand how great Showgirls is.' I'm like, 'I guess I really don't,' but when I saw it from afar, not being in it, and all of a sudden I'm like, 'Oh my god.' It was really a comment on ugly America and on capitalism and power struggles and dynamics and all those things. That r*** scene has to be there. It's the grossest thing in there and the powerful men, they're all protected and, you know, so that's why it's exciting when she kicks the guy's a$$. I thought it was gonna be a different movie than it was, but you know what? It's also an interesting lesson in, you know, when you get to the set or any situation really, you know, in your mind, you think what it is, but when you go there and it's not, then you have to assess and... You gotta make it make sense, but then I just changed my approach to the whole character, so that was kind of interesting. It was a good lesson." ("Gina Gershon Says Watching Her Performance in Showgirls Left Her Feeling 'Tense and Anxious': 'Like a Little Bit of PTSD'", Virginia Chamlee, People, 2026) P.S: Happy 64th birthday, Gina Gershon!

DepressedBergman

865,196 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A community college professor taught the same study skills lecture for 30 years, and the video quietly became one of the most watched educational recordings on the internet. His name is Marty Lobdell. He spent his career as a psychology professor watching students fail not because they were lazy, but because nobody had ever taught them how their brain actually works under the pressure of learning something hard. The lecture is called "Study Less Study Smart." Over 10 million views. Passed around in Reddit threads, Discord servers, and university study groups for over a decade. And the core insight buried inside it has been sitting in cognitive psychology research for years, waiting for someone to explain it in plain language. Here is the framework that completely changed how I think about effort. Your brain does not sustain focus the way you think it does. Studies tracking real students found that the average learner hits a wall somewhere between 25 and 30 minutes. After that, efficiency doesn't just decline. It collapses. You're still sitting at your desk, still looking at the page, but almost nothing is going in. Lobdell illustrated this with a student he knew personally. She set a goal of studying 6 hours a night, 5 nights a week, to pull herself out of academic probation. Thirty hours of studying per week. She failed every single class that quarter. She wasn't failing because she lacked effort. She was failing because she had confused time spent near books with time spent actually learning. The 25-minute crash hit her at 6:30pm every night. She spent the next five and a half hours sitting in the wreckage of her own focus and calling it studying. The fix sounds almost too simple. The moment you feel the slide, stop. Take five minutes. Do something that actually gives you a small reward. Then go back. That five-minute reset returns you to near full efficiency. Across a six-hour window, the difference is not marginal. It is the difference between thirty minutes of real learning and five and a half hours of it. The second thing he taught destroyed something I had believed about how memory actually works. Highlighting feels productive. Going back over your notes and recognizing everything feels like knowing. But recognition and recollection are two completely different cognitive processes, and your brain is very good at making you confuse them. You can see something you've read before and feel completely certain you understand it, even when you couldn't reconstruct a single sentence from memory if the page were blank. He proved this live in the room. He read 13 random letters to his audience. Almost nobody could recall them. Then he rearranged the same 13 letters into two words: Happy Thursday. The whole room got all 13 without effort. Same letters. Same count. The only thing that changed was meaning. The brain stores meaning. Not repetition. The moment new information connects to something you already understand, the retention changes entirely. This is what the cognitive psychology literature calls elaborative encoding, and it is the mechanism underneath every effective study technique. The third principle was the one that hit me hardest, and the one almost nobody applies. Lobdell cited research showing that 80 percent of your study time should be spent in active recitation, not passive reading. Close the material. Say it back in your own words. Teach it to someone else, or to an empty chair if no one is around. The struggle of retrieval is where the actual learning happens. Reading your notes again is watching someone else do the work. His parting line has stayed with me longer than almost anything else I have read about learning. He told the room that if what he shared didn't change their behavior, they hadn't actually learned it. It would just live in their heads as something they had heard once and felt good about. He was right. And most people leave every lecture exactly like that. The students who remember everything aren't putting in more hours. They stopped confusing the feeling of studying with the fact of it.

A community college professor taught the same study skills lecture for 30 years, and the video quietly became one of the most watched educational recordings on the internet. His name is Marty Lobdell. He spent his career as a psychology professor watching students fail not because they were lazy, but because nobody had ever taught them how their brain actually works under the pressure of learning something hard. The lecture is called "Study Less Study Smart." Over 10 million views. Passed around in Reddit threads, Discord servers, and university study groups for over a decade. And the core insight buried inside it has been sitting in cognitive psychology research for years, waiting for someone to explain it in plain language. Here is the framework that completely changed how I think about effort. Your brain does not sustain focus the way you think it does. Studies tracking real students found that the average learner hits a wall somewhere between 25 and 30 minutes. After that, efficiency doesn't just decline. It collapses. You're still sitting at your desk, still looking at the page, but almost nothing is going in. Lobdell illustrated this with a student he knew personally. She set a goal of studying 6 hours a night, 5 nights a week, to pull herself out of academic probation. Thirty hours of studying per week. She failed every single class that quarter. She wasn't failing because she lacked effort. She was failing because she had confused time spent near books with time spent actually learning. The 25-minute crash hit her at 6:30pm every night. She spent the next five and a half hours sitting in the wreckage of her own focus and calling it studying. The fix sounds almost too simple. The moment you feel the slide, stop. Take five minutes. Do something that actually gives you a small reward. Then go back. That five-minute reset returns you to near full efficiency. Across a six-hour window, the difference is not marginal. It is the difference between thirty minutes of real learning and five and a half hours of it. The second thing he taught destroyed something I had believed about how memory actually works. Highlighting feels productive. Going back over your notes and recognizing everything feels like knowing. But recognition and recollection are two completely different cognitive processes, and your brain is very good at making you confuse them. You can see something you've read before and feel completely certain you understand it, even when you couldn't reconstruct a single sentence from memory if the page were blank. He proved this live in the room. He read 13 random letters to his audience. Almost nobody could recall them. Then he rearranged the same 13 letters into two words: Happy Thursday. The whole room got all 13 without effort. Same letters. Same count. The only thing that changed was meaning. The brain stores meaning. Not repetition. The moment new information connects to something you already understand, the retention changes entirely. This is what the cognitive psychology literature calls elaborative encoding, and it is the mechanism underneath every effective study technique. The third principle was the one that hit me hardest, and the one almost nobody applies. Lobdell cited research showing that 80 percent of your study time should be spent in active recitation, not passive reading. Close the material. Say it back in your own words. Teach it to someone else, or to an empty chair if no one is around. The struggle of retrieval is where the actual learning happens. Reading your notes again is watching someone else do the work. His parting line has stayed with me longer than almost anything else I have read about learning. He told the room that if what he shared didn't change their behavior, they hadn't actually learned it. It would just live in their heads as something they had heard once and felt good about. He was right. And most people leave every lecture exactly like that. The students who remember everything aren't putting in more hours. They stopped confusing the feeling of studying with the fact of it.

Ihtesham Ali

1,914,410 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

An OpenAI researcher sat down next to me at a coffee shop in Mission District I had my terminal open. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was reading something on his laptop. Glanced over. Stopped reading. "That's not a dashboard. That's a live scoring engine. What model is running that" I told him. Claude Code. Four repos. $25 a month. He closed his laptop. "I work at OpenAI. We benchmarked Claude internally last month. You're using it to trade prediction markets?" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. The entire Polymarket history since day one. "This is public? We quoted a seven-figure budget to reconstruct this kind of dataset from on-chain data. The project is still in review" I told him Claude Code connects directly. It reads the whole dataset. Finds the wallets that win. Then finds WHY they win. Then copies the pattern. He pulled his chair closer. "Walk me through the exit logic" Top wallets exit before resolution 91% of the time. They capture 86% of the move and cut losers at 12%. Everyone else holds to 58%. Same entries. Completely different exits. My bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever hits first. "Who gave you that threshold" Claude Code found it in poly_data. In about 20 minutes. "We had a team of nine working on this exact problem for six months. They never shipped it. You did it in a weekend with a competitor's model" I opened another link. Three commands. 500+ markets. No API key. Claude scores them in 20 minutes. "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us six months and you built it on a Saturday" My setup: Claude API - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 19 days. 4 agents. 74% win rate. +$9,400. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo, every command, every dollar. He read it for five minutes. Then looked up. "You just published what we presented to Sam last quarter. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next morning. "My director found your thread. Take it down" Too late.

An OpenAI researcher sat down next to me at a coffee shop in Mission District I had my terminal open. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was reading something on his laptop. Glanced over. Stopped reading. "That's not a dashboard. That's a live scoring engine. What model is running that" I told him. Claude Code. Four repos. $25 a month. He closed his laptop. "I work at OpenAI. We benchmarked Claude internally last month. You're using it to trade prediction markets?" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. The entire Polymarket history since day one. "This is public? We quoted a seven-figure budget to reconstruct this kind of dataset from on-chain data. The project is still in review" I told him Claude Code connects directly. It reads the whole dataset. Finds the wallets that win. Then finds WHY they win. Then copies the pattern. He pulled his chair closer. "Walk me through the exit logic" Top wallets exit before resolution 91% of the time. They capture 86% of the move and cut losers at 12%. Everyone else holds to 58%. Same entries. Completely different exits. My bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever hits first. "Who gave you that threshold" Claude Code found it in poly_data. In about 20 minutes. "We had a team of nine working on this exact problem for six months. They never shipped it. You did it in a weekend with a competitor's model" I opened another link. Three commands. 500+ markets. No API key. Claude scores them in 20 minutes. "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us six months and you built it on a Saturday" My setup: Claude API - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 19 days. 4 agents. 74% win rate. +$9,400. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo, every command, every dollar. He read it for five minutes. Then looked up. "You just published what we presented to Sam last quarter. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next morning. "My director found your thread. Take it down" Too late.

Lunar

159,690 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 BOMBSHELL: Stock Photo PROVES The FBI FAKED Their Entire Case Against Tyler Robinson- It Was Physically IMPOSSIBLE for Tyler's Dad to Recognize the Gun on TV.🧐🍴 Are we really just going to sit around and ignore the glaring reality staring us right in the face? Because I'm not. The FBI got sloppy, and we just caught them in a massive, undeniable lie that proves they have faked this entire case against Tyler Robinson. There is exactly one indisputable fact buried in the timeline, and this single detail completely obliterates the state's manufactured narrative. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the alleged text messages are 100% fabricated, and it proves the official story about Tyler's parents recognizing the murder weapon and turning him in is an absolute, manufactured lie. TPUSA and the mainstream media have been aggressively pushing a very specific story: They claim Tyler’s father, Matt Robinson, was watching the news, saw a picture of the rifle the Feds released, instantly recognized it as their "very unique" family heirloom, and began frantically texting and calling Tyler to prove he hadn't used the weapon to shoot Charlie Kirk. To back up this Hollywood-style narrative, the Feds leaked a highly convenient transcript of a supposed text exchange between Tyler and his furry boyfriend, Lance Twiggs. THE FAKE TEXT MESSAGES: According to the FBI's leaked transcript, Tyler allegedly texted: "My dad wants photos of the rifle. He says Grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He's calling me right now. I'm not answering." Read that text again carefully. Tyler supposedly wrote: "The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique." There is just one massive, glaring, impossible problem with that text message: The Feds NEVER released a picture of the actual rifle. The weapon allegedly recovered at the scene was an antique, highly distinct World War 1-era Mauser. But the image actually released by the media during the manhunt was a generic, random STOCK PHOTO of a standard bolt-action .30-06. It looked like five or six other generic rifles on the market. There was absolutely NOTHING "unique" about the photo shown on the news, and it looked nothing like the actual Mauser. Let’s apply basic logic. How could Matt Robinson sit in his living room, look at a generic stock photo of a completely different gun, and instantly recognize it as his family's highly unique, antique Mauser? HE COULDN'T. It is physically impossible. That event never happened. And if that event never happened, then Tyler Robinson could never have sent a text message reacting to it. This proves that the leaked text messages are completely fabricated. No 20-something kid writes like a bad Hollywood script. The Feds, likely using ChatGPT or a sloppy operative, manufactured this entire text exchange to FRAME Tyler and create a fake motive for his surrender. The official story is dead. The texts are fake. The "his dad turned him in" narrative is a manufactured lie. This is a STATE-SPONSORED frame job, and the syndicate is officially out of cards to play. 🃏🗑️ FOLLOW 🔥Jesse ON FIRE🔥 and go watch his FULL video linked below.👇

🚨 BOMBSHELL: Stock Photo PROVES The FBI FAKED Their Entire Case Against Tyler Robinson- It Was Physically IMPOSSIBLE for Tyler's Dad to Recognize the Gun on TV.🧐🍴 Are we really just going to sit around and ignore the glaring reality staring us right in the face? Because I'm not. The FBI got sloppy, and we just caught them in a massive, undeniable lie that proves they have faked this entire case against Tyler Robinson. There is exactly one indisputable fact buried in the timeline, and this single detail completely obliterates the state's manufactured narrative. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the alleged text messages are 100% fabricated, and it proves the official story about Tyler's parents recognizing the murder weapon and turning him in is an absolute, manufactured lie. TPUSA and the mainstream media have been aggressively pushing a very specific story: They claim Tyler’s father, Matt Robinson, was watching the news, saw a picture of the rifle the Feds released, instantly recognized it as their "very unique" family heirloom, and began frantically texting and calling Tyler to prove he hadn't used the weapon to shoot Charlie Kirk. To back up this Hollywood-style narrative, the Feds leaked a highly convenient transcript of a supposed text exchange between Tyler and his furry boyfriend, Lance Twiggs. THE FAKE TEXT MESSAGES: According to the FBI's leaked transcript, Tyler allegedly texted: "My dad wants photos of the rifle. He says Grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He's calling me right now. I'm not answering." Read that text again carefully. Tyler supposedly wrote: "The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique." There is just one massive, glaring, impossible problem with that text message: The Feds NEVER released a picture of the actual rifle. The weapon allegedly recovered at the scene was an antique, highly distinct World War 1-era Mauser. But the image actually released by the media during the manhunt was a generic, random STOCK PHOTO of a standard bolt-action .30-06. It looked like five or six other generic rifles on the market. There was absolutely NOTHING "unique" about the photo shown on the news, and it looked nothing like the actual Mauser. Let’s apply basic logic. How could Matt Robinson sit in his living room, look at a generic stock photo of a completely different gun, and instantly recognize it as his family's highly unique, antique Mauser? HE COULDN'T. It is physically impossible. That event never happened. And if that event never happened, then Tyler Robinson could never have sent a text message reacting to it. This proves that the leaked text messages are completely fabricated. No 20-something kid writes like a bad Hollywood script. The Feds, likely using ChatGPT or a sloppy operative, manufactured this entire text exchange to FRAME Tyler and create a fake motive for his surrender. The official story is dead. The texts are fake. The "his dad turned him in" narrative is a manufactured lie. This is a STATE-SPONSORED frame job, and the syndicate is officially out of cards to play. 🃏🗑️ FOLLOW 🔥Jesse ON FIRE🔥 and go watch his FULL video linked below.👇

Project Constitution

156,574 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$Tom Crawshaw has been building automations for 9 years with $25 million in client revenue to his name. He just walked me through his Claude Code content system that's generating millions of views and tens of thousands of followers. Here's what I learned: 1. Skills beat Projects in Claude. Projects load every context file on every message and burn your token window. Skills work like a book where the LLM reads the table of contents and pulls only the chapter it needs for the job. Same context, fraction of the tokens. 2. He has a /content-create slash command that runs the entire pipeline. Voice profile, copywriting principles, hook generation, image direction. One command. He doesn't write anything from scratch anymore. 3. His voice profile auto-updates weekly. He wrote a script that hits the X API every 7 days, pulls his top-performing posts by engagement, and rewrites his voice profile based on what's actually working. The profile evolves on its own. 4. He distilled a master copywriter's entire body of work into a single markdown file. Grabbed every Alen Sultanic post he could find, dropped it into Claude, asked for the core principles, fed it into the skill. Now every post he writes runs through those principles automatically. 5. The hook generator scores 16 hooks per post against 7 criteria. Curiosity loops, specificity, sensory, credibility, voice match, and a couple of others. He never picks the #1 by default. Sometimes he splices the first line of one hook with the body of another. The taste is still his. 6. /insights is a native Claude Code command nobody talks about. It analyzes every session you've ever run and produces a full report on your usage patterns, where things break down, and prompts you can paste back into Claude to fix them. I had never heard of it. I'm running it tonight. 7. He spends most of his time on hooks and images. If those two suck, the body copy doesn't matter. Nobody reads it. 8. Image generation is never one-shot. He keeps a folder of reference images that have worked before and feeds them into Nano Banana/GPT Image 2 every time. Then he takes the 80-90% output and finishes it in Canva using "magic grab" to move logos and clean up text. Last mile is human every time. 9. The humanizer step is non-negotiable. Strip em dashes. Kill the "it's not X, it's Y" pattern. Cut the triple negatives. Cut "no fluff." He still has to remind Claude mid-session because it drifts. If you're not auditing for AI tells, you're shipping slop. 10. Wisprflow is the most important tool in his stack. Not a content tool. An everything tool. His test for whether you should be using it: do you talk faster than you type? You do. Everyone does. Bonus fact he dropped: QWERTY was designed 200 years ago to slow typing down so old typewriters wouldn't jam. We've been carrying that forward ever since. Voice is finally undoing it. This was an inside look at how a serious operator Tom is using Claude Code to run a content engine. The good, the bad, the iteration, all of it. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did. Go watch it.$

Tom Crawshaw has been building automations for 9 years with $25 million in client revenue to his name. He just walked me through his Claude Code content system that's generating millions of views and tens of thousands of followers. Here's what I learned: 1. Skills beat Projects in Claude. Projects load every context file on every message and burn your token window. Skills work like a book where the LLM reads the table of contents and pulls only the chapter it needs for the job. Same context, fraction of the tokens. 2. He has a /content-create slash command that runs the entire pipeline. Voice profile, copywriting principles, hook generation, image direction. One command. He doesn't write anything from scratch anymore. 3. His voice profile auto-updates weekly. He wrote a script that hits the X API every 7 days, pulls his top-performing posts by engagement, and rewrites his voice profile based on what's actually working. The profile evolves on its own. 4. He distilled a master copywriter's entire body of work into a single markdown file. Grabbed every Alen Sultanic post he could find, dropped it into Claude, asked for the core principles, fed it into the skill. Now every post he writes runs through those principles automatically. 5. The hook generator scores 16 hooks per post against 7 criteria. Curiosity loops, specificity, sensory, credibility, voice match, and a couple of others. He never picks the #1 by default. Sometimes he splices the first line of one hook with the body of another. The taste is still his. 6. /insights is a native Claude Code command nobody talks about. It analyzes every session you've ever run and produces a full report on your usage patterns, where things break down, and prompts you can paste back into Claude to fix them. I had never heard of it. I'm running it tonight. 7. He spends most of his time on hooks and images. If those two suck, the body copy doesn't matter. Nobody reads it. 8. Image generation is never one-shot. He keeps a folder of reference images that have worked before and feeds them into Nano Banana/GPT Image 2 every time. Then he takes the 80-90% output and finishes it in Canva using "magic grab" to move logos and clean up text. Last mile is human every time. 9. The humanizer step is non-negotiable. Strip em dashes. Kill the "it's not X, it's Y" pattern. Cut the triple negatives. Cut "no fluff." He still has to remind Claude mid-session because it drifts. If you're not auditing for AI tells, you're shipping slop. 10. Wisprflow is the most important tool in his stack. Not a content tool. An everything tool. His test for whether you should be using it: do you talk faster than you type? You do. Everyone does. Bonus fact he dropped: QWERTY was designed 200 years ago to slow typing down so old typewriters wouldn't jam. We've been carrying that forward ever since. Voice is finally undoing it. This was an inside look at how a serious operator Tom is using Claude Code to run a content engine. The good, the bad, the iteration, all of it. I hope you enjoy this one as much as I did. Go watch it.

Corey Ganim

36,120 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

UPDATE FROM JAKE- I went to show support at Chud the Builder's $1. 25 million bond hearing and was arrested and thrown (in the maximum he could sentence me to) of 10 days of solitary confinement by the judge!!!! Here's how it happened. I was sitting next to Chud's wonderful and soft-spoken fiancee when she whispered, “I love you” to Chud, and was kicked out of the courtroom!!! Moments later, I was nodding my head in agreement to a video of Chud during an interview when the bailiff demanded that I leave the courtroom as well! I stood up and calmly exited and said in a normal speaking tone “This is two-tiered justice!” I am now inside of Montgomery County Jail STARVING for two days because they are refusing to give me a Kosher Diet!! I was also told by Sergeant Hawley today that my request for Kosher Diet was denied and that he would be put on suicide watch if I refuse to eat, which is basically naked torture in a cell alone for 10 days. They also are saying they're going to move me in with a roommate in solitary tonight, but would not give me any other details on who they would be putting me with!!! I showed up to Chud's hearing because I know what it's like to turn around in a courtroom where your life is on the line and see nobody but your mother and father. I wanted to make sure Chud did not go through the same pain I had to for four years and six days as a January sixth political prisoner. I stood up and said something because that's what righteous men do. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Not me. As for me in my house, we shall serve the LORD. Free chud. SECOND UPDATE- As I was on the phone with Jake yesterday getting this message from him, he was yelling in his cell begging to be fed and saying how hungry he was. Seconds later Supervisor Black and another man went in his cell, said he’s coming with them, put him in handcuffs and took him away. I have now not heard from Jake for over 24 hours because they have taken away his phone privileges simply for begging for FOOD!!!!! I have the entire thing on recording. It is disturbing and sickening. I have called the jail dozens of times yesterday and today and they refuse to tell me where he was taken and will not let him speak to me. Every single lieutenant, supervisor, etc I have spoken to yesterday and today have all given me different stories than the other and continuously lie to cover up what they are doing. These people are EVIL AND SICK!!!! I have all of those calls recorded and documented also. I have spent three days calling every lawyer and law firm in Clarksville Tennessee and NOT ONE lawyer is willing to help Jake because Jake was arrested at Chuds court hearing and these SPINELESS COWARDS are all to scared to put their name anywhere associated with Chud. Between the INSANE POWER HUNGRY LUNATIC JUDGE, the WEAK PATHETIC lawyers and the EVIL SCUM at the Montgomery county jail, it has been an absolute nightmare. Lord, save us.

UPDATE FROM JAKE- I went to show support at Chud the Builder's $1. 25 million bond hearing and was arrested and thrown (in the maximum he could sentence me to) of 10 days of solitary confinement by the judge!!!! Here's how it happened. I was sitting next to Chud's wonderful and soft-spoken fiancee when she whispered, “I love you” to Chud, and was kicked out of the courtroom!!! Moments later, I was nodding my head in agreement to a video of Chud during an interview when the bailiff demanded that I leave the courtroom as well! I stood up and calmly exited and said in a normal speaking tone “This is two-tiered justice!” I am now inside of Montgomery County Jail STARVING for two days because they are refusing to give me a Kosher Diet!! I was also told by Sergeant Hawley today that my request for Kosher Diet was denied and that he would be put on suicide watch if I refuse to eat, which is basically naked torture in a cell alone for 10 days. They also are saying they're going to move me in with a roommate in solitary tonight, but would not give me any other details on who they would be putting me with!!! I showed up to Chud's hearing because I know what it's like to turn around in a courtroom where your life is on the line and see nobody but your mother and father. I wanted to make sure Chud did not go through the same pain I had to for four years and six days as a January sixth political prisoner. I stood up and said something because that's what righteous men do. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Not me. As for me in my house, we shall serve the LORD. Free chud. SECOND UPDATE- As I was on the phone with Jake yesterday getting this message from him, he was yelling in his cell begging to be fed and saying how hungry he was. Seconds later Supervisor Black and another man went in his cell, said he’s coming with them, put him in handcuffs and took him away. I have now not heard from Jake for over 24 hours because they have taken away his phone privileges simply for begging for FOOD!!!!! I have the entire thing on recording. It is disturbing and sickening. I have called the jail dozens of times yesterday and today and they refuse to tell me where he was taken and will not let him speak to me. Every single lieutenant, supervisor, etc I have spoken to yesterday and today have all given me different stories than the other and continuously lie to cover up what they are doing. These people are EVIL AND SICK!!!! I have all of those calls recorded and documented also. I have spent three days calling every lawyer and law firm in Clarksville Tennessee and NOT ONE lawyer is willing to help Jake because Jake was arrested at Chuds court hearing and these SPINELESS COWARDS are all to scared to put their name anywhere associated with Chud. Between the INSANE POWER HUNGRY LUNATIC JUDGE, the WEAK PATHETIC lawyers and the EVIL SCUM at the Montgomery county jail, it has been an absolute nightmare. Lord, save us.

Jake Lang - January 6 Political Prisoner 🇺🇸

779,840 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The year is 2000. Two men walk into Blockbuster's Dallas headquarters in shorts & sandals. Their company was in $50 Million debt. They asked this mammoth($6B company) to buy them. Blockbuster laughs at their ask of $50 Million. That laugh wiped their existence off the planet. Here's how: Blockbuster had $6 billion in revenue, 9,000 stores worldwide, and 60,000 employees. Netflix had $5 million in revenue, 150 people, and $50 million in debt. But still, this ant(Netlix) was able to eat this elephant(Blockbuster). It started with a phone call at a dude ranch. Marc Randolph, co-founder of Netflix, was on a corporate retreat at Alisal Ranch, deep in the mountains outside Santa Barbara. Horses. Dirt roads. No reason to dress up. He was in shorts, a t-shirt, and thong sandals. That's when Blockbuster called. "We'd like to see you. Tomorrow. In Dallas." Randolph turned to Reed Hastings and said there was no way. Different time zones. No direct flight. Impossible. Then they remembered they were $50 million in debt and had been trying to get this meeting for months. They chartered a private jet. The next morning, they walked into the 27th floor of a glass and steel skyscraper in Dallas. Enormous conference room. A hardwood table the size of a small country. Blockbuster executives in suits filing in from one side. Marc Randolph standing there in sandals. He made the pitch anyway. "Combine forces. You run the stores. We run the online business. Build a blended model. Our research shows it's a game changer." The executives leaned in. Questions were flowing. Things felt good. Then came the big question. "How much?" Randolph had rehearsed this on the plane. They were $50 million in the hole. The number was $50 million. Silence filled the room. He watched their faces carefully, trying to read the reaction. Then it hit him. They were trying not to laugh. This tiny company, drowning in debt, at the lowest point of the dot-com meltdown, had just asked to be bought for $50 million. To the people running a $6 billion empire, it was almost comical. The meeting ended shortly after. Quiet cab ride to the airport. Quieter flight back to Santa Barbara. Randolph sat with his head down the entire way, thinking one thing: They are not going to save us. They are going to compete with us. What happened next is where the story gets interesting. Most people assume Netflix simply outworked Blockbuster. Built a better product. Won on merit. The truth is messier and far more human. When Blockbuster finally decided to take Netflix seriously, they nearly destroyed them. They built exactly what Randolph had pitched years earlier. The blended model. Rent online. Return by mail. Or return in-store. Or pick up in-store. It was everything Netflix could not offer because Netflix had no physical locations. Randolph admits it plainly. They could not compete with that. Blockbuster came frighteningly close to taking Netflix down entirely. So why didn't they? Here is where a single human decision changed everything. Blockbuster had been targeted by corporate raiders. Investors who bought large chunks of stock, took seats on the board, and began pushing for short-term profits over long-term survival. John Antioco was the CEO driving the fight against Netflix. He understood the threat. He had pulled a team out of the building, funded them properly, and told them to go after Netflix with everything they had. Then the board denied him his contractually promised bonus. He said: then I quit. And he did. The replacement CEO came from retail and convenience stores. His vision for Blockbuster was not winning the streaming war. It was asking why their 9,000 stores were not selling gum and clothing. The online operation was abandoned. Randolph describes it using a scene from an old Spielberg student film. A robot chases someone, getting closer and closer, almost close enough to grab their ankle. Then a cost calculation hits break-even and the robot just stops, turns, and walks away. One second before victory. That is what Blockbuster did. Netflix scampered to safety. On why Blockbuster never moved fast enough: Imagine you are the CEO sitting on $6 billion in annual revenue. Someone walks in and says let's build an online component. You ask how much it will make in year one. They say $2 million. Do you pull your best engineers off working products and bet them on a $2 million experiment? Of course not. So the B team gets it. Then the C team. Each time underpowered. Each time failing. Meanwhile Netflix was not a movie company. It was a software company built in Silicon Valley with people who had spent their entire careers writing software. Even Blockbuster's A team would have struggled to compete. By the time Blockbuster committed fully, it was almost too late. And then one bonus dispute ended it. Blockbuster did not lose because Netflix was inevitable. They lost because changing a $6 billion business model requires a kind of courage that is nearly impossible to find inside a company that is still winning. They lost because the person with the will to change things was replaced by someone who did not believe change was necessary. They lost because they were one grab away from winning and walked away anyway. Netflix did not kill Blockbuster. Blockbuster killed Blockbuster. Netflix just showed up to the funeral.

The year is 2000. Two men walk into Blockbuster's Dallas headquarters in shorts & sandals. Their company was in $50 Million debt. They asked this mammoth($6B company) to buy them. Blockbuster laughs at their ask of $50 Million. That laugh wiped their existence off the planet. Here's how: Blockbuster had $6 billion in revenue, 9,000 stores worldwide, and 60,000 employees. Netflix had $5 million in revenue, 150 people, and $50 million in debt. But still, this ant(Netlix) was able to eat this elephant(Blockbuster). It started with a phone call at a dude ranch. Marc Randolph, co-founder of Netflix, was on a corporate retreat at Alisal Ranch, deep in the mountains outside Santa Barbara. Horses. Dirt roads. No reason to dress up. He was in shorts, a t-shirt, and thong sandals. That's when Blockbuster called. "We'd like to see you. Tomorrow. In Dallas." Randolph turned to Reed Hastings and said there was no way. Different time zones. No direct flight. Impossible. Then they remembered they were $50 million in debt and had been trying to get this meeting for months. They chartered a private jet. The next morning, they walked into the 27th floor of a glass and steel skyscraper in Dallas. Enormous conference room. A hardwood table the size of a small country. Blockbuster executives in suits filing in from one side. Marc Randolph standing there in sandals. He made the pitch anyway. "Combine forces. You run the stores. We run the online business. Build a blended model. Our research shows it's a game changer." The executives leaned in. Questions were flowing. Things felt good. Then came the big question. "How much?" Randolph had rehearsed this on the plane. They were $50 million in the hole. The number was $50 million. Silence filled the room. He watched their faces carefully, trying to read the reaction. Then it hit him. They were trying not to laugh. This tiny company, drowning in debt, at the lowest point of the dot-com meltdown, had just asked to be bought for $50 million. To the people running a $6 billion empire, it was almost comical. The meeting ended shortly after. Quiet cab ride to the airport. Quieter flight back to Santa Barbara. Randolph sat with his head down the entire way, thinking one thing: They are not going to save us. They are going to compete with us. What happened next is where the story gets interesting. Most people assume Netflix simply outworked Blockbuster. Built a better product. Won on merit. The truth is messier and far more human. When Blockbuster finally decided to take Netflix seriously, they nearly destroyed them. They built exactly what Randolph had pitched years earlier. The blended model. Rent online. Return by mail. Or return in-store. Or pick up in-store. It was everything Netflix could not offer because Netflix had no physical locations. Randolph admits it plainly. They could not compete with that. Blockbuster came frighteningly close to taking Netflix down entirely. So why didn't they? Here is where a single human decision changed everything. Blockbuster had been targeted by corporate raiders. Investors who bought large chunks of stock, took seats on the board, and began pushing for short-term profits over long-term survival. John Antioco was the CEO driving the fight against Netflix. He understood the threat. He had pulled a team out of the building, funded them properly, and told them to go after Netflix with everything they had. Then the board denied him his contractually promised bonus. He said: then I quit. And he did. The replacement CEO came from retail and convenience stores. His vision for Blockbuster was not winning the streaming war. It was asking why their 9,000 stores were not selling gum and clothing. The online operation was abandoned. Randolph describes it using a scene from an old Spielberg student film. A robot chases someone, getting closer and closer, almost close enough to grab their ankle. Then a cost calculation hits break-even and the robot just stops, turns, and walks away. One second before victory. That is what Blockbuster did. Netflix scampered to safety. On why Blockbuster never moved fast enough: Imagine you are the CEO sitting on $6 billion in annual revenue. Someone walks in and says let's build an online component. You ask how much it will make in year one. They say $2 million. Do you pull your best engineers off working products and bet them on a $2 million experiment? Of course not. So the B team gets it. Then the C team. Each time underpowered. Each time failing. Meanwhile Netflix was not a movie company. It was a software company built in Silicon Valley with people who had spent their entire careers writing software. Even Blockbuster's A team would have struggled to compete. By the time Blockbuster committed fully, it was almost too late. And then one bonus dispute ended it. Blockbuster did not lose because Netflix was inevitable. They lost because changing a $6 billion business model requires a kind of courage that is nearly impossible to find inside a company that is still winning. They lost because the person with the will to change things was replaced by someone who did not believe change was necessary. They lost because they were one grab away from winning and walked away anyway. Netflix did not kill Blockbuster. Blockbuster killed Blockbuster. Netflix just showed up to the funeral.

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

492,302 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten