Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

A DEVELOPER STOOD UP AT A CONFERENCE AND APOLOGIZED TO THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY FOR ONE LINE OF CODE HE WROTE IN 1965. THAT SINGLE DECISION HAS SINCE CAUSED CRASHES, BREACHES AND ROUGHLY A BILLION DOLLARS OF DAMAGE AND YOU HIT IT EVERY SINGLE DAY 61 minutes from Tony Hoare... -- the man who invented quicksort, won the Turing Award, and passed away in early 2026, leaving this as one of his most honest talks. -> His confession: he added the null reference, letting any variable secretly mean "nothing", simply because it was easy to implement. That one shortcut became the null pointer, the undefined, the None -- the crash waiting inside almost every program ever written. He calls it his billion-dollar mistake, and he is not exaggerating. Whole classes of bugs and security holes trace straight back to it. And this is the deeper lesson under the AI rush: the easy shortcut you ship today becomes the landmine everyone steps on for the next 40 years. You thought null was just part of how code works. This is the talk where the man who made it tells you it never had to be. Bookmark & Watch this one. You'll never type null the same way ↓show more

slash1s

13,258 subscribers

282,239 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

20 Comments

monokern2 months ago

software engineering is full of tradeoffs that outlive their creators

Yarchi2 months ago

he is a real legend of the computer science

Kupra Kapto2 months ago

The beauty of AI is that, it can rewrite a whole bunch of code in short periods of time, as long as you keep the interface fixed, and have created proper testsuites to test the interface. This is the key to AI software development.

Recogard2 months ago

Such a useful material, must watch for everyone

Gipp 🦅2 months ago

the whole ai rush probably hides a lot more shortcuts like this that'll haunt us later

wladwtf2 months ago

null pointer references still breaking things 60 years later is kind of wild

Adel Bucetta2 months ago

that's a small symptom of a larger issue: we've been relying on band-aid fixes for decades, never questioning the underlying architecture that lets bad code slip through

Alberto Legra2 months ago

so basically we're all just one line or code away from being the villain of tech history

lagerskoy2 months ago

the real lesson is that one convenient abstraction can become everyone else’s production incident for decades

delost2 months ago

one shortcut can haunt generations of developers

0xbobaa2 months ago

I think no one would have remembered this if he hadn't said so

rari2 months ago

null is the kind of shortcut that became infrastructure

Lunar2 months ago

thank for lecture, bookmarked

0xSlyth2 months ago

insane

Nekt02 months ago

thanks for your opinion

Reed Fawell2 months ago

I suggest this is obvious. One question is why do people not want to see it? Why are they so willing to suspend their belief? Is it a yearning for God?

Hanako2 months ago

some shortcuts cost decades to undo

shmidt2 months ago

good lecture

Ridark2 months ago

This video really needs to be rewatched

Bitchin’ Groyper2 months ago

He gets stoked talking about hacking…

Related Videos

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓

slash1s

434,785 views • 3 months ago

In one afternoon in 1992, a single trader forced the Bank of England to surrender and walked away with a billion dollars. The British government spent billions of pounds of public money in one day trying to stop him. It failed by nightfall. His name is George Soros. The footage is on YouTube. The day is September 16, 1992. The British press still calls it Black Wednesday. For weeks Soros's Quantum Fund had been building a bet that the pound was priced too high and that Britain could not afford to keep defending it inside Europe's fixed exchange-rate system. His partner Stanley Druckenmiller found the trade. Soros's contribution was one sentence. If you are this sure, why are you betting small. Go for the jugular. They levered the position up toward ten billion dollars and shorted the pound with both hands. That morning the Bank of England fought back the only way it could. It raised interest rates from 10 percent to 12 percent, then announced 15 percent, all within hours, and spent billions buying its own currency. None of it held. By that evening Britain crashed out of the exchange-rate mechanism, the pound collapsed, and Soros had made around one billion dollars in a single day. The papers named him the man who broke the Bank of England. It was not a gamble. This is not really a story about currencies. It is about a specific way of betting. Soros did not try to be right often. He waited, sometimes for years, for a setup where the downside was small and the upside was enormous, and then he bet with a size that looked insane to everyone who had not done the math. The rest of the time he did almost nothing. His signature line, from fifty years of this: "It's not whether you're right or wrong that matters, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong." He is not paid to predict. He is paid to size. Small when the odds are ordinary, enormous when they are lopsided, and never more than he can survive. Quantum compounded at roughly 30 percent a year for three decades, one of the greatest records ever recorded. Not by being right more often than you. By being big only when it was almost safe to be. The edge was never the forecast. It was the asymmetry. Bet tiny when the world is uncertain. Bet everything when it can barely hurt you. Almost nobody has the patience to wait for that, which is exactly why it still works. The tape is free. The lesson is in every trade. Most people will only remember the billion.

In one afternoon in 1992, a single trader forced the Bank of England to surrender and walked away with a billion dollars. The British government spent billions of pounds of public money in one day trying to stop him. It failed by nightfall. His name is George Soros. The footage is on YouTube. The day is September 16, 1992. The British press still calls it Black Wednesday. For weeks Soros's Quantum Fund had been building a bet that the pound was priced too high and that Britain could not afford to keep defending it inside Europe's fixed exchange-rate system. His partner Stanley Druckenmiller found the trade. Soros's contribution was one sentence. If you are this sure, why are you betting small. Go for the jugular. They levered the position up toward ten billion dollars and shorted the pound with both hands. That morning the Bank of England fought back the only way it could. It raised interest rates from 10 percent to 12 percent, then announced 15 percent, all within hours, and spent billions buying its own currency. None of it held. By that evening Britain crashed out of the exchange-rate mechanism, the pound collapsed, and Soros had made around one billion dollars in a single day. The papers named him the man who broke the Bank of England. It was not a gamble. This is not really a story about currencies. It is about a specific way of betting. Soros did not try to be right often. He waited, sometimes for years, for a setup where the downside was small and the upside was enormous, and then he bet with a size that looked insane to everyone who had not done the math. The rest of the time he did almost nothing. His signature line, from fifty years of this: "It's not whether you're right or wrong that matters, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong." He is not paid to predict. He is paid to size. Small when the odds are ordinary, enormous when they are lopsided, and never more than he can survive. Quantum compounded at roughly 30 percent a year for three decades, one of the greatest records ever recorded. Not by being right more often than you. By being big only when it was almost safe to be. The edge was never the forecast. It was the asymmetry. Bet tiny when the world is uncertain. Bet everything when it can barely hurt you. Almost nobody has the patience to wait for that, which is exactly why it still works. The tape is free. The lesson is in every trade. Most people will only remember the billion.

Voltex

68,409 views • 2 months ago

He broke the Bank of England, made $1 billion in a single day, ran a $12 billion fund for 30 years, and never had one losing year this is him sitting down with Bloomberg to explain why he just put most of his portfolio into one AI stock and why a guy who shorted entire currencies just put most of his portfolio into one AI stock bookmark & watch it today ↓

He broke the Bank of England, made $1 billion in a single day, ran a $12 billion fund for 30 years, and never had one losing year this is him sitting down with Bloomberg to explain why he just put most of his portfolio into one AI stock and why a guy who shorted entire currencies just put most of his portfolio into one AI stock bookmark & watch it today ↓

slash1s

225,314 views • 3 months ago

Gilbert Strang, MIT professor: "Anthropic pays $500,000 for one skill: linear algebra. a professor who gave 66 years to MIT taught all of it in his final lecture, for free." the article above hands you an AI that prints trading models on demand. strip the wrapper off any of them and one object is left. a matrix. Strang spent his whole career on that one thing, and this was the last time he ever wrote it on a chalkboard. look at what he puts up. A x = 0. the null space. it is every mix of your signals that cancels to nothing. an AI will hand you a thousand factors and half of them live right there, pure risk, zero return. a model is a covariance matrix, a set of eigenvectors, one projection. that is the entire machine. no magic, no black box. he was 88, and this was his last class ever. the recording sits free on YouTube while people pay for a worse version of what he gave away. the AI builds the matrix. Strang teaches you to read it. only one of those two skills holds its price.

Gilbert Strang, MIT professor: "Anthropic pays $500,000 for one skill: linear algebra. a professor who gave 66 years to MIT taught all of it in his final lecture, for free." the article above hands you an AI that prints trading models on demand. strip the wrapper off any of them and one object is left. a matrix. Strang spent his whole career on that one thing, and this was the last time he ever wrote it on a chalkboard. look at what he puts up. A x = 0. the null space. it is every mix of your signals that cancels to nothing. an AI will hand you a thousand factors and half of them live right there, pure risk, zero return. a model is a covariance matrix, a set of eigenvectors, one projection. that is the entire machine. no magic, no black box. he was 88, and this was his last class ever. the recording sits free on YouTube while people pay for a worse version of what he gave away. the AI builds the matrix. Strang teaches you to read it. only one of those two skills holds its price.

Rossst.03

68,576 views • 10 days ago

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

22,107 views • 3 months ago

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

slash1s

100,138 views • 2 months ago

A DEVELOPER WALKED ON STAGE DRESSED AS A 1973 ENGINEER AND "PREDICTED" THE FUTURE OF PROGRAMMING. THE TWIST: EVERYTHING HE DESCRIBED WAS ALREADY INVENTED 40 YEARS EARLIER AND WE STILL REFUSE TO USE IT. 32 minutes from Bret Victor, doing the most quietly savage talk on our entire industry. -> The idea that lands: we write code as step-by-step text instructions and call that "Just how programming is". He shows four better ways -- all discovered in the 60s and 70s, all abandoned. Manipulate the data directly instead of typing blind code. Tell the machine your goal instead of every tiny step. We saw all this, then walked away. Why? The moment you're sure you know what programming is, you stop seeing anything better. That certainty is the cage. And now AI is dragging us back to exactly what he begged for -- you describe the goal in plain words, the machine works out the how. The future he mourned is arriving anyway. You thought text files were just how code works. This is the talk that shows it was a choice, and maybe the wrong one. Watch this one. It'll ruin how you see your job ↓

A DEVELOPER WALKED ON STAGE DRESSED AS A 1973 ENGINEER AND "PREDICTED" THE FUTURE OF PROGRAMMING. THE TWIST: EVERYTHING HE DESCRIBED WAS ALREADY INVENTED 40 YEARS EARLIER AND WE STILL REFUSE TO USE IT. 32 minutes from Bret Victor, doing the most quietly savage talk on our entire industry. -> The idea that lands: we write code as step-by-step text instructions and call that "Just how programming is". He shows four better ways -- all discovered in the 60s and 70s, all abandoned. Manipulate the data directly instead of typing blind code. Tell the machine your goal instead of every tiny step. We saw all this, then walked away. Why? The moment you're sure you know what programming is, you stop seeing anything better. That certainty is the cage. And now AI is dragging us back to exactly what he begged for -- you describe the goal in plain words, the machine works out the how. The future he mourned is arriving anyway. You thought text files were just how code works. This is the talk that shows it was a choice, and maybe the wrong one. Watch this one. It'll ruin how you see your job ↓

slash1s

687,654 views • 2 months ago

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE LANGUAGE RUNNING EVERY WEBSITE YOU USE IS A MINEFIELD AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WAS EVER TAUGHT WHICH PARTS ARE SAFE An hour from Douglas Crockford, the man who invented JSON, on the good parts of JavaScript buried under a pile of blunders nobody warned you about. -> The moment it lands, every weird bug makes sense. The language never had time to be polished. It went global in months, bad parts and all, and you inherited every one of them. Global variables. Silent semicolon insertion. eval. Coercion that turns a simple comparison into a coin flip. Most people never learned to avoid them -- they just lose hours and blame themselves. Writing JavaScript that runs was never the skill -> knowing which half of it to never touch is. And when an AI agent happily generates the bad parts at scale, the person who knows the safe subset is the one who catches it before it ships. Everyone writes JavaScript. Almost no one was shown the line between the parts that save you and the parts that quietly burn you. Bookmark and Watch it ↓

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE LANGUAGE RUNNING EVERY WEBSITE YOU USE IS A MINEFIELD AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WAS EVER TAUGHT WHICH PARTS ARE SAFE An hour from Douglas Crockford, the man who invented JSON, on the good parts of JavaScript buried under a pile of blunders nobody warned you about. -> The moment it lands, every weird bug makes sense. The language never had time to be polished. It went global in months, bad parts and all, and you inherited every one of them. Global variables. Silent semicolon insertion. eval. Coercion that turns a simple comparison into a coin flip. Most people never learned to avoid them -- they just lose hours and blame themselves. Writing JavaScript that runs was never the skill -> knowing which half of it to never touch is. And when an AI agent happily generates the bad parts at scale, the person who knows the safe subset is the one who catches it before it ships. Everyone writes JavaScript. Almost no one was shown the line between the parts that save you and the parts that quietly burn you. Bookmark and Watch it ↓

slash1s

13,073 views • 3 months ago

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Dustin

17,133 views • 1 month ago

A Stanford neuroscientist has spent thirty years arguing that you have never made a decision. Not one. Every choice you are proud of and every mistake you still think about was the output of biology you did not pick and cannot see. He teaches an entire course on why, and it is free. The man is Robert Sapolsky, who spent decades in Kenya living among wild baboons. He opens with a man who woke up one morning as somebody else. Same brain, same family, same job. One gene had changed. He describes the case and leaves it unresolved, because the point is not the answer. The point is that you already reached for one. Then he goes after the way we reach. His argument is that every explanation you have ever heard for why a person did something is broken in the same way. It is genetic. It is cultural. It is hormones. It is childhood. Each of those is a bucket, and the buckets do not exist anywhere in nature. They exist because universities have separate departments and separate corridors, and the corridors decided what counts as an explanation. Nothing interesting happens inside a bucket. Everything interesting happens where two of them touch, and almost nobody is trained to look there. He asks the room about free will, about God, about evil, about whether biology explains who becomes religious, and whether things that happened before you were born shape your politics thirty years later. Then he refuses to answer any of it, and tells them what they will be able to judge for themselves in ten weeks. The lectures run through aggression, depression, language, schizophrenia, sexuality, and why any of it differs between two people at all. Twenty five hours. One lecture hall. Free.

A Stanford neuroscientist has spent thirty years arguing that you have never made a decision. Not one. Every choice you are proud of and every mistake you still think about was the output of biology you did not pick and cannot see. He teaches an entire course on why, and it is free. The man is Robert Sapolsky, who spent decades in Kenya living among wild baboons. He opens with a man who woke up one morning as somebody else. Same brain, same family, same job. One gene had changed. He describes the case and leaves it unresolved, because the point is not the answer. The point is that you already reached for one. Then he goes after the way we reach. His argument is that every explanation you have ever heard for why a person did something is broken in the same way. It is genetic. It is cultural. It is hormones. It is childhood. Each of those is a bucket, and the buckets do not exist anywhere in nature. They exist because universities have separate departments and separate corridors, and the corridors decided what counts as an explanation. Nothing interesting happens inside a bucket. Everything interesting happens where two of them touch, and almost nobody is trained to look there. He asks the room about free will, about God, about evil, about whether biology explains who becomes religious, and whether things that happened before you were born shape your politics thirty years later. Then he refuses to answer any of it, and tells them what they will be able to judge for themselves in ten weeks. The lectures run through aggression, depression, language, schizophrenia, sexuality, and why any of it differs between two people at all. Twenty five hours. One lecture hall. Free.

Stefan.

71,712 views • 1 month ago

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

ooaes

28,543 views • 1 month ago

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.

Veles

48,073 views • 1 month ago

this is f*cking insane. Matthew Gallagher is the first one-man billion-dollar company. He built it SOLO with AI. $20,000 and two months to start. $401 million in year one, on track for $1.8 billion. Hims & Hers does the same business with 2,000 employees. Not a smaller team. No team. The AI writes the code. It answers the patients. It takes his calls in a clone of his voice. That is the whole org chart. Bookmark this before your feed buries it. Read the full guide below.

this is f*cking insane. Matthew Gallagher is the first one-man billion-dollar company. He built it SOLO with AI. $20,000 and two months to start. $401 million in year one, on track for $1.8 billion. Hims & Hers does the same business with 2,000 employees. Not a smaller team. No team. The AI writes the code. It answers the patients. It takes his calls in a clone of his voice. That is the whole org chart. Bookmark this before your feed buries it. Read the full guide below.

Jey

146,194 views • 1 month ago

There was a parent who lost a child to the needle. Not lost to death, which at least lets you grieve and one day stop. Lost to the street. To the years of disappearing, the phone that stops being answered, the front door left unlocked every single night for a decade on the chance the child might finally come through it. And the parent never stopped. Did not move on. Did not decide the child was too far gone. Drove to the worst parts of town to scan the faces under the overpass. Searched for years, going gray with it, burying the hope a hundred times and digging it back up every morning, because a parent does not get to stop loving a child just because the child is lost. And then came the day it finally happened. The child, hollowed out, certain they were beyond all loving, looked up, and there was the parent's face. And neither of them could speak. They just held on, and they wept, the kind of weeping that has years of grief and years of longing pouring out of it at once, the child sobbing the only word they could find, sorry, sorry, and the parent saying the only word that mattered, which was not "where have you been" and not "do you know what you did to me," but only, over and over into their hair, you're home, you're home, you're home. Now understand. That is not just a real story about a parent and a child. That is God, and that is humanity. No one is forgotten by the Father. He did not fold His arms and wait at home for you to crawl back and prove you were worth it. The moment you were lost, He came after you. And the cost He paid to reach the very bottom of your pit was not patience, and it was not effort. It was His Son, sent down below all of it, so there would be no depth where His face was not already waiting for you to find it. So hear this, wherever it finds you. You were never forgotten, not for one second, not in the worst of it. The door has been unlocked every night since the day you left. He is still driving the worst parts of town. He is still scanning the faces under the overpass. He is still weeping over the ones who are certain they have fallen too far to ever come back. And the moment you turn around, you will not hear "where have you been." You will only hear, said over and over into your hair, the one thing that has been true since before the foundation of the world: you're home, you're home, you're home. Stop running. Come home.

There was a parent who lost a child to the needle. Not lost to death, which at least lets you grieve and one day stop. Lost to the street. To the years of disappearing, the phone that stops being answered, the front door left unlocked every single night for a decade on the chance the child might finally come through it. And the parent never stopped. Did not move on. Did not decide the child was too far gone. Drove to the worst parts of town to scan the faces under the overpass. Searched for years, going gray with it, burying the hope a hundred times and digging it back up every morning, because a parent does not get to stop loving a child just because the child is lost. And then came the day it finally happened. The child, hollowed out, certain they were beyond all loving, looked up, and there was the parent's face. And neither of them could speak. They just held on, and they wept, the kind of weeping that has years of grief and years of longing pouring out of it at once, the child sobbing the only word they could find, sorry, sorry, and the parent saying the only word that mattered, which was not "where have you been" and not "do you know what you did to me," but only, over and over into their hair, you're home, you're home, you're home. Now understand. That is not just a real story about a parent and a child. That is God, and that is humanity. No one is forgotten by the Father. He did not fold His arms and wait at home for you to crawl back and prove you were worth it. The moment you were lost, He came after you. And the cost He paid to reach the very bottom of your pit was not patience, and it was not effort. It was His Son, sent down below all of it, so there would be no depth where His face was not already waiting for you to find it. So hear this, wherever it finds you. You were never forgotten, not for one second, not in the worst of it. The door has been unlocked every night since the day you left. He is still driving the worst parts of town. He is still scanning the faces under the overpass. He is still weeping over the ones who are certain they have fallen too far to ever come back. And the moment you turn around, you will not hear "where have you been." You will only hear, said over and over into your hair, the one thing that has been true since before the foundation of the world: you're home, you're home, you're home. Stop running. Come home.

Kirk Rollins

21,168 views • 3 months ago

When the market gets boring and quiet and everyone turns bearish, I like to come back to the story of how I fucked it all up. And I fucked it up a lot of ways, because crypto is genuinely hard. People think the cycles just repeat. They don't. Every one has a different texture, a different context, and it is so easy to get it wrong. I got in back in 2013. Wrote the first ever macro piece on Bitcoin, and bought at $200, straight into a peak right before it slammed down and I felt like an idiot. But I had a thesis. And the mistake was never the thesis. It was letting the noise talk me out of it... selling, trading around it, being clever, when the only thing that ever worked was holding. That is the whole lesson, and it is the one that matters most at times like this. Crypto is one of the only real secular trends that lets you build wealth against the debasement of your salary. And as the Exponential Age accelerates, it matters more, not less. So when the market gets depressing, I do the same thing every time. I go back to the thesis, and I accumulate. Zoom out.

When the market gets boring and quiet and everyone turns bearish, I like to come back to the story of how I fucked it all up. And I fucked it up a lot of ways, because crypto is genuinely hard. People think the cycles just repeat. They don't. Every one has a different texture, a different context, and it is so easy to get it wrong. I got in back in 2013. Wrote the first ever macro piece on Bitcoin, and bought at $200, straight into a peak right before it slammed down and I felt like an idiot. But I had a thesis. And the mistake was never the thesis. It was letting the noise talk me out of it... selling, trading around it, being clever, when the only thing that ever worked was holding. That is the whole lesson, and it is the one that matters most at times like this. Crypto is one of the only real secular trends that lets you build wealth against the debasement of your salary. And as the Exponential Age accelerates, it matters more, not less. So when the market gets depressing, I do the same thing every time. I go back to the thesis, and I accumulate. Zoom out.

Raoul Pal

187,494 views • 2 months ago

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE CLASSES YOU WRITE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLASSES AT ALL 27 minutes from Jack Diederich, a Python core developer, on how much of your code is just a function wearing a costume. -> The moment it lands, the rule is brutal: if a class has two methods and one is __init__, you meant to write a function. Most people add structure to feel like real engineers. It just adds weight no one ever needed. Writing more code was never the skill -> writing less of it is. And when an AI agent happily generates ten classes for a job that needed three lines, the person who knows what to delete is the one who ships something clean. Anyone can add abstraction. Knowing when not to is the whole job. Bookmark it and Watch ↓

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE CLASSES YOU WRITE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLASSES AT ALL 27 minutes from Jack Diederich, a Python core developer, on how much of your code is just a function wearing a costume. -> The moment it lands, the rule is brutal: if a class has two methods and one is init, you meant to write a function. Most people add structure to feel like real engineers. It just adds weight no one ever needed. Writing more code was never the skill -> writing less of it is. And when an AI agent happily generates ten classes for a job that needed three lines, the person who knows what to delete is the one who ships something clean. Anyone can add abstraction. Knowing when not to is the whole job. Bookmark it and Watch ↓

slash1s

269,515 views • 3 months ago

One of the best pieces of UAP footage shows two orbs creating a crop circle in the late 1990s. This footage was never debunked. A local man claimed that he made it, and it reached national news, leading everyone to assume it was fake. The most ridiculous part is that they never showed how he created the footage, and the man looked like he had never touched a computer in his life, let alone created something like this in the 1990s. But the bar for people claiming that they have debunked it or created the footage is very low and almost never put to scrutiny.

One of the best pieces of UAP footage shows two orbs creating a crop circle in the late 1990s. This footage was never debunked. A local man claimed that he made it, and it reached national news, leading everyone to assume it was fake. The most ridiculous part is that they never showed how he created the footage, and the man looked like he had never touched a computer in his life, let alone created something like this in the 1990s. But the bar for people claiming that they have debunked it or created the footage is very low and almost never put to scrutiny.

Open Minded Approach

172,255 views • 11 months ago

One day, a man noticed a little squirrel trapped in a snare in his backyard. He carefully freed it, and the frightened squirrel quickly disappeared. He thought that was the end of it. But the very next day, the squirrel came back… and this time, it brought a tiny piece of food with it, almost like a little thank-you gift. After that, it started visiting the yard every day. The man would leave out food, and slowly, the squirrel became comfortable around him. Before long, it seemed to decide that this backyard was home. It happily accepted the food, sometimes carrying extra pieces away to save for later. With plenty to eat and a safe place to stay, the little squirrel grew healthier and noticeably chubbier. Then one day, while taking food from the man, it looked up at him for a moment. That’s when he realized something sweet… maybe this squirrel had been saying thank you all along, in its own little way.

One day, a man noticed a little squirrel trapped in a snare in his backyard. He carefully freed it, and the frightened squirrel quickly disappeared. He thought that was the end of it. But the very next day, the squirrel came back… and this time, it brought a tiny piece of food with it, almost like a little thank-you gift. After that, it started visiting the yard every day. The man would leave out food, and slowly, the squirrel became comfortable around him. Before long, it seemed to decide that this backyard was home. It happily accepted the food, sometimes carrying extra pieces away to save for later. With plenty to eat and a safe place to stay, the little squirrel grew healthier and noticeably chubbier. Then one day, while taking food from the man, it looked up at him for a moment. That’s when he realized something sweet… maybe this squirrel had been saying thank you all along, in its own little way.

Rescue Hearts

29,387 views • 1 month ago

This man bought a lottery ticket on his way out of the grocery store, as he scratched it off he couldn’t believe his luck he just won $300. The ticket was a $30 ticket and he made all of his money back. He walked over to customer service who took the ticket and claimed he scanned it and put a post it on the ticket and put it in the drawer. He then tries to hand the man $5 as the prize and claims that’s what the ticket says he won. The man know you can’t win $5 on a $30 high prize ticket. He asks the man to scan it again and he refuses and claims $5 is what it shows. The man escalates it further and asks for a manager. The customer service rep finally scans it again and it showed $300 and the man finally gets his money he won. Do you really believe the ticket scanned as a $5 winner or was the customer service rep trying to finesse him out of his money?

This man bought a lottery ticket on his way out of the grocery store, as he scratched it off he couldn’t believe his luck he just won $300. The ticket was a $30 ticket and he made all of his money back. He walked over to customer service who took the ticket and claimed he scanned it and put a post it on the ticket and put it in the drawer. He then tries to hand the man $5 as the prize and claims that’s what the ticket says he won. The man know you can’t win $5 on a $30 high prize ticket. He asks the man to scan it again and he refuses and claims $5 is what it shows. The man escalates it further and asks for a manager. The customer service rep finally scans it again and it showed $300 and the man finally gets his money he won. Do you really believe the ticket scanned as a $5 winner or was the customer service rep trying to finesse him out of his money?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

6,192,984 views • 5 months ago