Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no...

2,104,448 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Elon Musk revealed why he keeps working despite of his $800 billion net worth: 1. As a teenager, Musk had a full existential crisis trying to figure out the meaning of life. Religious texts did not convince him. So he turned to philosophy. Reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as a depressed teenager, he says, was a terrible idea. 2. Then he read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and something shifted. Douglas Adams argued the real problem is not finding the answer to life. It is figuring out the right questions to ask in the first place. 3. In the book, Earth is a giant computer built to answer the meaning of life. It spends millions of years computing and delivers its answer. The answer is 42. The joke is that nobody knows what the question was. 4. That idea never left Musk. The universe is the answer. We just do not know what question it is answering. And to figure out the right question, you need a much bigger and more expansive consciousness than we currently have. 5. The more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, the better we can understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. 6. This is why he wants more humans. More digital intelligence. More biological and artificial consciousness working together. Not for economic growth. Not for power. To collectively get better at asking the right questions. 7. This is why Mars matters to him. Not for the adventure. Not for the achievement. A single planet species is a single point of failure for consciousness itself. If something wipes out Earth, the question never gets asked. 8. "The more we can expand consciousness, become a multi-planet species, ultimately a multi-stellar species, we have a chance of figuring out what the hell is going on." 9. Everything he is building, the rockets, the AI, the robots, comes back to this one idea. He is not trying to get rich. He is trying to keep the candle of consciousness alive long enough to understand why it exists. 10. With $800 billion he could stop tomorrow. He does not stop because to him stopping would mean giving up on the only question that ever actually mattered. What is this all for and what are we supposed to be asking?

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

105,413 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lex Fridman asked Jensen Huang if he is afraid of death. Huang did not flinch. Huang: “The outcome that I seek, that I hope for, is that I die on the job instantaneously.” That is not a figure of speech. That is a man telling you he has already decided how this ends. No retirement. No transition plan. No golden years on a beach somewhere tallying what he built. He wants to be mid-sentence in a meeting the moment his heart gives out. And when you understand why, it changes how you see everything Nvidia is doing. Huang: “This is not a once in a lifetime experience. This is a once in a humanity experience.” Once in a lifetime means others have lived through something comparable. He is saying no one has. Not Edison. Not Ford. Not anyone at Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. The deployment of artificial intelligence at this scale, at this speed, with this much consequence has no precedent in the history of the species. And Huang is sitting at the center of it. That is not ego. That is geography. Nvidia’s chips power virtually every major AI system on Earth right now. He knows what that means. And he treats it with a seriousness most people cannot even summon for their own lives, let alone the trajectory of civilization. Then Lex asked about succession planning. Huang’s answer should be framed on the wall of every founder alive. Huang: “I don’t believe in succession planning.” Not because he thinks he is immortal. Because he thinks it is the wrong question entirely. The right question is what are you doing today to make yourself unnecessary. Huang: “The most important thing you should do today is to pass on knowledge, information, insight, skills, experience as often and continuously as you can.” He does not wait until retirement to hand over what he knows. He does not save his best thinking for a memoir. The second he learns something, it is already moving to someone else on his team. Before he has even finished processing it himself. Huang: “Nothing I learn ever sits on my desk longer than a fraction of a second.” Most executives hoard knowledge. It is how they stay relevant. How they justify the title. How they make themselves impossible to replace. Huang does the opposite. He treats his own mind like a relay station. Information comes in, gets amplified, fires out to every node that needs it. Every meeting is a transfer. Every conversation is a download. The goal is not to be the smartest person in the building. The goal is to make the building smarter than any one person in it. That is why he does not need a succession plan. If you spend every day making the people around you capable of running without you, the org never notices the moment you are gone. Your fingerprints are in how they think. But he is not planning to leave. Huang: “I really don’t want to die. I have a great life. I have a great family. I have really important work.” No drama. No existential spiral. Just a man who looked at death and filed it under problems that can wait. There is still too much to build. The people planning their exit strategies are playing a different game than Jensen Huang. He is not building a company he can walk away from. He is building one that outlasts his heartbeat because every person inside it already thinks in patterns he installed. That is not a death wish. That is a man who found the only thing worth doing and refused to do anything else.

Dustin

25,617 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Naval Ravikant explains why "the meaning of life" is the wrong question: "It's a 'why' question. You can keep asking 'why' forever. Any answer I give you, you just ask 'why' again." Naval explains where every "why" question ends: "There's a thing called Agrippa's Trilemma. It says that any questioning like this will always end in one of three places. First is infinite regress: 'why?' 'because of this,' 'why?' and you just keep playing it. Second is circular reasoning: 'why A?' 'because of B,' 'why B?' 'because of A.' Third is an axiom. The most popular axiom is God. But it could be anything: math, science, the Big Bang, the simulation. These are all just stopping points. Saying 'we're in a simulation' or 'it's the Big Bang' is just another way of saying God. It's just that God's a dirty word now." He shares what this means: "So there is no answer. The real answer is 'because.' You get to make up your own answers. The beauty is, if there was a single answer, we would not be free. We would be trapped. We'd be Borg-like robots competing with each other to fulfill that single meaning. But luckily there is no answer. So you just do whatever you want." Naval addresses the fear of being insignificant: "All the great questions are paradoxes. You're asking, 'Do I matter?' On one hand, you're completely separate. No one will have your thoughts, your emotions, your experience. Your life is a single-player game. You're trapped inside your head. On the other hand, I cannot say the words 'Joe Rogan' without invoking the entire universe. What's Joe Rogan? A human. What's a human? A bipedal ape. What's an ape? On earth. What's earth? A planet. Where was the carbon made? Inside stars. I have to create the entire universe just to say the words 'Joe Rogan.'" He concludes: "So the answer to 'Do I matter?' is: I am nothing and I am everything. The answers to all great questions are paradoxes. It's pointless to pursue them for a trite answer, but the act of pursuing them brings a level of peace."

Jaynit

155,342 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten