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 genius idea to solve a problem nobody even noticed existed! 😲 Sometimes the smartest solutions are not about creating something completely new, but about looking at an everyday problem from a completely different angle. What looks simple at first can actually be a brilliant piece of thinking. The... show more

XLadyGlow

10,594 subscribers

608,833 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

14 Comments

David Howarth2 days ago

Excellent solution but I'm not sure how he leaves a 25mm gap between the inlet pipes and the plasic bucket then when the bucket is removed, the concrere is conveniently 25mm the other side of the inlets.

XLadyGlow2 days ago

That’s actually the part that caught my attention too! 😳 The idea is brilliant, but the 25mm clearance around the inlet pipes seems almost too perfectly calculated. Unless he used some kind of spacer or temporary guide inside the bucket, I’m wondering how that exact gap was maintained after the plastic bucket was removed. 🤔 Very clever construction, but that little detail deserves an explanation! 👏🔥

vinny nogaro2 days ago

This does not solve anything... This is retarded

Sr. Dakington2 days ago

That video is so fake poor AI slop at best

XLadyGlow2 days ago

It’s AI generated video, you have problems with that?

Ideal Lady3 days ago

I admire this innovation, he must have tried so many things before discovering this

XLadyGlow2 days ago

Based on the professionalism, we don’t have to try many times before we get it right!

Gerard Moore2 days ago

What I would like to know is how are the pipes sticking out of the cement when they were not inside the bucket and the paper was sticking out when it was poured? 🤔

Chlooe💖2 days ago

all that engineering and the bucket still gets stuck every single time. the 25mm gap commenter clocked it immediately thats the part nobody wants to admit.

XLadyGlow2 days ago

😂 That 25mm point is definitely the detail worth questioning. The whole design can look impressive, but if the clearance isn’t actually maintained, the bucket sticking is a practical problem, not just a cosmetic detail. Until the creator explains how that gap is achieved consistently, I’d say the commenter has raised a very valid engineering question. 👀🔧

Teemama2 days ago

I love ideas like this 😲👏 The best inventions are sometimes the ones that make you look at them and think, “Wait… why haven’t we been doing this all along?” 😂

XLadyGlow2 days ago

Experience came later on 🤣

RYOD.squared2 days ago

I call bullshit. How did those 4 pvc pipes go through the 5 gallon bucket.?.

Roberto el 12 days ago

Los 4 caños son de drenaje. por donde se va el agua? Cuando desborda 😵‍💫🤣😂

Related Videos

Fuentes goes deep into the significance of looksmaxxing. “This is an arms race where nobody wins. This is a race to the bottom where actually nobody wins. And what we really get is a loveless society that is completely vain, completely superficial, based in contempt.”

Fuentes goes deep into the significance of looksmaxxing. “This is an arms race where nobody wins. This is a race to the bottom where actually nobody wins. And what we really get is a loveless society that is completely vain, completely superficial, based in contempt.”

Fuentes Updates

180,906 views • 7 months ago

SK Hynix's Hoshik Kim admits high bandwidth memory "is not the answer" to the memory-wall problem, and SK is working on different solutions to solve the bottleneck. "No, actually, I kind of agree with Pat. So HBM is not the answer." [SK Hynix is admitting that HBM is a bad memory?] "Nothing is a bad memory. It's a good memory, but it's not the final answer. So actually, HBM will not solve the memory-wall problem. Memory-wall problem is an inherent AI problem, which you cannot avoid." "So we try our best to provide higher bandwidth with this memory, with HBM technology even though it has some limitation, as Pat already mentioned, with thermal, IOs, cost, a lot of stuff. "But that's the only thing we got right now to help ease this memory-wall problem, memory-bottleneck problem. But at the same time, we are working in different directions to solve this memory-wall problem with different solutions."

SK Hynix's Hoshik Kim admits high bandwidth memory "is not the answer" to the memory-wall problem, and SK is working on different solutions to solve the bottleneck. "No, actually, I kind of agree with Pat. So HBM is not the answer." [SK Hynix is admitting that HBM is a bad memory?] "Nothing is a bad memory. It's a good memory, but it's not the final answer. So actually, HBM will not solve the memory-wall problem. Memory-wall problem is an inherent AI problem, which you cannot avoid." "So we try our best to provide higher bandwidth with this memory, with HBM technology even though it has some limitation, as Pat already mentioned, with thermal, IOs, cost, a lot of stuff. "But that's the only thing we got right now to help ease this memory-wall problem, memory-bottleneck problem. But at the same time, we are working in different directions to solve this memory-wall problem with different solutions."

Fireside Alpha

140,571 views • 2 months ago

This is something that is actually a problem in the Tamil film industry and needs to be talked about more..

This is something that is actually a problem in the Tamil film industry and needs to be talked about more..

۟

135,255 views • 4 months ago

Ever noticed how some things can seem really important to a guy, while a girl looks at it and pretty much couldn't care less? 😂😂😂 Sometimes it's hilarious isn't it? A guy can spend twenty minutes talking about who knows what. Meanwhile, the woman listening might be thinking, “That's nice,” while having absolutely no idea why this is apparently such a big deal. This absolutely goes both ways by the way. Sometimes the woman will be talking about something the man isn't at all interested in. It's for sure a two way street. At times, neither side will necessarily understand why the other cares so much about certain things. That's part of what makes men and women different, and sometimes those differences can be entertaining. Men often get excited about accomplishing something, competing, building something, fixing something, or becoming better at a particular skill. Women may notice and care about entirely different things. Of course, everyone is different, but there are some pretty obvious patterns if you've spent enough time around both. The important thing is not expecting everyone to care about exactly what you care about. Sometimes you just laugh, listen, and let the other person have their thing. Maybe part of having good relationships is learning to appreciate the things that matter to someone else, even when you personally don't understand the excitement. What is something you absolutely love talking about that the opposite sex seems completely uninterested in?

Ever noticed how some things can seem really important to a guy, while a girl looks at it and pretty much couldn't care less? 😂😂😂 Sometimes it's hilarious isn't it? A guy can spend twenty minutes talking about who knows what. Meanwhile, the woman listening might be thinking, “That's nice,” while having absolutely no idea why this is apparently such a big deal. This absolutely goes both ways by the way. Sometimes the woman will be talking about something the man isn't at all interested in. It's for sure a two way street. At times, neither side will necessarily understand why the other cares so much about certain things. That's part of what makes men and women different, and sometimes those differences can be entertaining. Men often get excited about accomplishing something, competing, building something, fixing something, or becoming better at a particular skill. Women may notice and care about entirely different things. Of course, everyone is different, but there are some pretty obvious patterns if you've spent enough time around both. The important thing is not expecting everyone to care about exactly what you care about. Sometimes you just laugh, listen, and let the other person have their thing. Maybe part of having good relationships is learning to appreciate the things that matter to someone else, even when you personally don't understand the excitement. What is something you absolutely love talking about that the opposite sex seems completely uninterested in?

Declaration of Memes

22,481 views • 2 days ago

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 views • 8 months ago

Sometimes you watch something so simple that teaches you a huge amount. This is one of those videos. It about the current hot topic….the Moon, and it puts everything into perspective. This video makes clear something I didn’t know and demonstrates it in a simplistic but brilliant way that we can all relate to. The takeaway from it……space is beyond vast and we’re not even at step 1 of starting to explore it. #space #moon

Sometimes you watch something so simple that teaches you a huge amount. This is one of those videos. It about the current hot topic….the Moon, and it puts everything into perspective. This video makes clear something I didn’t know and demonstrates it in a simplistic but brilliant way that we can all relate to. The takeaway from it……space is beyond vast and we’re not even at step 1 of starting to explore it. #space #moon

John Hannam

15,466 views • 6 months ago

The reporter asks Trump that, according to his information, Russia may be helping Iran launch attacks on American targets. But Trump interrupted him and even publicly reprimanded him: "This is a simple problem compared to what we're doing here... What a stupid question! We're talking about something completely different." - Condottiero

The reporter asks Trump that, according to his information, Russia may be helping Iran launch attacks on American targets. But Trump interrupted him and even publicly reprimanded him: "This is a simple problem compared to what we're doing here... What a stupid question! We're talking about something completely different." - Condottiero

Zlatti71

15,284 views • 7 months ago

James Simons, the mathematician who built a multi billion hedge fund that averaged 66 percent annual returns for thirty straight years: "There's one specific way of thinking about randomness that made my fund more money than any hedge fund in history, and it started as a piece of pure math I never once thought would matter to anyone." this is the exact pattern explaining why some of the most valuable discoveries look completely useless the moment they're actually made. cut through the physics and the timeline is the whole story. the math came first, built purely because it was elegant, with zero application in mind. it sat untouched, cited by almost nobody, for close to twenty years. then an entirely separate field, studying a completely different set of physical questions, needed exactly that structure to describe something they'd just started observing, and the old, dormant result turned out to be the missing piece the whole time. nobody could have connected the two fields at the moment the math was first written down. the connection only became visible once the second field had developed far enough to even ask the right question. most people evaluating a piece of research ask whether it has an obvious application right now, never suspecting that the most valuable results are often the ones that look completely useless for years before the right problem finally catches up to them. zoom out to how this plays out sitting on a dormant statistical result that doesn't obviously connect to markets yet on a desk today. a piece of pure mathematics or an old, forgotten result from an unrelated field can sit completely dormant for years, looking like nothing more than an academic curiosity, until the right market structure or the right dataset finally emerges to make it suddenly, urgently relevant. this is exactly what "this doesn't have any practical use" dismissals skip. having no visible application today and having no value at all are different claims, and the entire history of this specific result is proof of exactly how large that gap can be. the math was never useless. it just hadn't met the problem it was actually going to solve yet. Bookmark this alpha and follow MindArch for more gems.

James Simons, the mathematician who built a multi billion hedge fund that averaged 66 percent annual returns for thirty straight years: "There's one specific way of thinking about randomness that made my fund more money than any hedge fund in history, and it started as a piece of pure math I never once thought would matter to anyone." this is the exact pattern explaining why some of the most valuable discoveries look completely useless the moment they're actually made. cut through the physics and the timeline is the whole story. the math came first, built purely because it was elegant, with zero application in mind. it sat untouched, cited by almost nobody, for close to twenty years. then an entirely separate field, studying a completely different set of physical questions, needed exactly that structure to describe something they'd just started observing, and the old, dormant result turned out to be the missing piece the whole time. nobody could have connected the two fields at the moment the math was first written down. the connection only became visible once the second field had developed far enough to even ask the right question. most people evaluating a piece of research ask whether it has an obvious application right now, never suspecting that the most valuable results are often the ones that look completely useless for years before the right problem finally catches up to them. zoom out to how this plays out sitting on a dormant statistical result that doesn't obviously connect to markets yet on a desk today. a piece of pure mathematics or an old, forgotten result from an unrelated field can sit completely dormant for years, looking like nothing more than an academic curiosity, until the right market structure or the right dataset finally emerges to make it suddenly, urgently relevant. this is exactly what "this doesn't have any practical use" dismissals skip. having no visible application today and having no value at all are different claims, and the entire history of this specific result is proof of exactly how large that gap can be. the math was never useless. it just hadn't met the problem it was actually going to solve yet. Bookmark this alpha and follow MindArch for more gems.

MindArch

118,165 views • 2 months ago

When an industry optimizes for one metric, it often breaks everything else. In factory farming, this creates compounding suffering. Lewis Bollard explains how trying to solve pig boredom opens a spiral of unintended consequences. “At each step, there is a new solution that can’t solve the fundamental underlying parts of the problem. And sometimes just makes it worse.”

When an industry optimizes for one metric, it often breaks everything else. In factory farming, this creates compounding suffering. Lewis Bollard explains how trying to solve pig boredom opens a spiral of unintended consequences. “At each step, there is a new solution that can’t solve the fundamental underlying parts of the problem. And sometimes just makes it worse.”

Dwarkesh Podcast

16,492 views • 1 year ago

Michael Seibel on how to get and test startup ideas As the former CEO of Y Combinator puts it in the clip below: “There’s a common misconception that your idea has to be great to start a company, and the first thing I want to do is destroy that misconception.” Michael was one of the cofounders of JustinTV, which later become Twitch and sold to Amazon for almost $1B. Their original idea was to create an online reality TV show—very different from where Twitch eventually ended up. Rather than falling for the trap of thinking that your initial startup idea has to be great, Michael advises founders to start with a problem: “Starting with ideas is tricky because people immediately want to grade your idea. It’s a lot easier to start with a problem and think about how you grade a problem.” Ideally the problem you set out to solve is one you've experienced personally or have some sort of connection to. You should ask yourself: “why am I uniquely qualified to work on this problem?” Is there some unique angle or approach you're taking to the problem that you understand but you don't believe others understand? Peter Thiel argues that “great companies have secrets: specific reasons for success that other people don’t see." After identifying a problem, you’ll want to start thinking about your MVP. What's the first solution you're going to build and release to see if you can help your initial users solve this problem? But don’t fall in love with your MVP. As Michael puts it: “A lot of people fall in love with their product and are not in love with their problem or their customer. I advise the opposite. Be in love with your problem. Be in love with your customer. And treat your product in a way that can change, develop, and improve.” And once you have an MVP, you should have a strong opinion about who your initial customer is and handpick all of your initial users. The goal with an MVP is not to see how many people want to use your product. It's to see if your solution actually solves the problem for your initial target customers. “The best startups very heavily filter the people who are able to use the initial product and make sure that they’re the right type of initial customer.”

Michael Seibel on how to get and test startup ideas As the former CEO of Y Combinator puts it in the clip below: “There’s a common misconception that your idea has to be great to start a company, and the first thing I want to do is destroy that misconception.” Michael was one of the cofounders of JustinTV, which later become Twitch and sold to Amazon for almost $1B. Their original idea was to create an online reality TV show—very different from where Twitch eventually ended up. Rather than falling for the trap of thinking that your initial startup idea has to be great, Michael advises founders to start with a problem: “Starting with ideas is tricky because people immediately want to grade your idea. It’s a lot easier to start with a problem and think about how you grade a problem.” Ideally the problem you set out to solve is one you've experienced personally or have some sort of connection to. You should ask yourself: “why am I uniquely qualified to work on this problem?” Is there some unique angle or approach you're taking to the problem that you understand but you don't believe others understand? Peter Thiel argues that “great companies have secrets: specific reasons for success that other people don’t see." After identifying a problem, you’ll want to start thinking about your MVP. What's the first solution you're going to build and release to see if you can help your initial users solve this problem? But don’t fall in love with your MVP. As Michael puts it: “A lot of people fall in love with their product and are not in love with their problem or their customer. I advise the opposite. Be in love with your problem. Be in love with your customer. And treat your product in a way that can change, develop, and improve.” And once you have an MVP, you should have a strong opinion about who your initial customer is and handpick all of your initial users. The goal with an MVP is not to see how many people want to use your product. It's to see if your solution actually solves the problem for your initial target customers. “The best startups very heavily filter the people who are able to use the initial product and make sure that they’re the right type of initial customer.”

Startup Archive

101,033 views • 2 years ago

“An opinion is not an observation. An observation is an opening–an opening of the eyes–while an opinion is a closing. It's blinding. In this world, because nobody ever forgets anything anybody says, an opinion ends up being something you have to defend, when actually you should be interrogating it all the time.” -Louis C.K.

“An opinion is not an observation. An observation is an opening–an opening of the eyes–while an opinion is a closing. It's blinding. In this world, because nobody ever forgets anything anybody says, an opinion ends up being something you have to defend, when actually you should be interrogating it all the time.” -Louis C.K.

Tetragrammaton

75,497 views • 3 months ago

IQ as a measure simply doesn't work for women the way it does for men (totally serious point that Lukas (computer) 🔺 is making partly as a joke) IQ is a direct measure of "how good is this this person's brain at solving logical puzzles" Turns out that this is a great proxy measure for a lot of things because the world provides all kinds of logical puzzles to solve; this is not a great proxy measure for women across a bunch of areas since women have an entirely different set of solutions open to them Classic example of this here 👉 "Why *think* about this and maybe get it wrong when 'make a lot of noise and let a man figure it out' is an option?" This is the same reason why it's difficult to compare the intelligence of wolves and dogs by seeing how well they do when presented with a problem - wolves will attempt to solve the problem to the best of their ability, dogs will attempt to figure out what the nearest person wants the dog to do Especially in matters involving sex (and almost everything with women in our society involves sex) women are adapted to an environment where the outcome of their actions isn't about what would logically happen but about what people would decide for her when she acted that way

IQ as a measure simply doesn't work for women the way it does for men (totally serious point that Lukas (computer) 🔺 is making partly as a joke) IQ is a direct measure of "how good is this this person's brain at solving logical puzzles" Turns out that this is a great proxy measure for a lot of things because the world provides all kinds of logical puzzles to solve; this is not a great proxy measure for women across a bunch of areas since women have an entirely different set of solutions open to them Classic example of this here 👉 "Why think about this and maybe get it wrong when 'make a lot of noise and let a man figure it out' is an option?" This is the same reason why it's difficult to compare the intelligence of wolves and dogs by seeing how well they do when presented with a problem - wolves will attempt to solve the problem to the best of their ability, dogs will attempt to figure out what the nearest person wants the dog to do Especially in matters involving sex (and almost everything with women in our society involves sex) women are adapted to an environment where the outcome of their actions isn't about what would logically happen but about what people would decide for her when she acted that way

Covfefe Anon

57,078 views • 1 year ago

People at the bottom of the pyramid are often the ones who deny reality. They keep telling themselves that everything is fine, even when the signs are clear that it is not. Sadly, they become casualties of the very reality they refuse to accept. Their problem is not always a lack of knowledge. Sometimes, it is pride. The inability to see what is clearly in front of you is not always a knowledge problem. Sometimes, it is simply the refusal to accept the truth.

People at the bottom of the pyramid are often the ones who deny reality. They keep telling themselves that everything is fine, even when the signs are clear that it is not. Sadly, they become casualties of the very reality they refuse to accept. Their problem is not always a lack of knowledge. Sometimes, it is pride. The inability to see what is clearly in front of you is not always a knowledge problem. Sometimes, it is simply the refusal to accept the truth.

iNspiritextra

16,917 views • 28 days ago

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 views • 5 months ago

To Save College Sports, we must solve a business problem: Fix a system that is fully professionalized on the cost side but only semi-professionalized on the revenue side. This problem CAN be solved. The solutions are common business sense and proven by decades of solid, clear data. I talked about these problems and the solutions at a CNBC event last week.

To Save College Sports, we must solve a business problem: Fix a system that is fully professionalized on the cost side but only semi-professionalized on the revenue side. This problem CAN be solved. The solutions are common business sense and proven by decades of solid, clear data. I talked about these problems and the solutions at a CNBC event last week.

Cody Campbell

899,299 views • 1 year ago

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

The All-In Podcast

910,450 views • 1 year ago

Lukas says OnlyFans doesn't solve any problems in society "Prostitution actually does solve the problem that men have a sexual need that needs to be filled. There’s no need that a man has biologically for a picture of a woman’s a$$hole" "It’s not real. The whole idea of you’re going to sell any sort of digital porn is antisocial. It just launders money from one group to another" "This has to be destroyed. This is the dumbest use of capital ever"

Sensitive content

Lukas says OnlyFans doesn't solve any problems in society "Prostitution actually does solve the problem that men have a sexual need that needs to be filled. There’s no need that a man has biologically for a picture of a woman’s a$$hole" "It’s not real. The whole idea of you’re going to sell any sort of digital porn is antisocial. It just launders money from one group to another" "This has to be destroyed. This is the dumbest use of capital ever"

cpt dank

78,324 views • 5 months ago

That was… Uncomfortable. lol President Trump pointed right at the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai and said, “You have no idea who the hell these people are, this guy is a MONSTER, and nobody knows. What a great life. To be a MONSTER and not have to go through this. All you have to know is his name is Sundar.”

That was… Uncomfortable. lol President Trump pointed right at the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai and said, “You have no idea who the hell these people are, this guy is a MONSTER, and nobody knows. What a great life. To be a MONSTER and not have to go through this. All you have to know is his name is Sundar.”

MJTruthUltra

265,066 views • 6 days ago