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 guy built a guitar where the strings float on magnets. push the magnet sideways -> every note bends at once the first version was plastic. it collapsed under the string tension almost immediately so he rebuilt it in metal, and the thing actually worked what he found after... that is the part nobody expected: push the magnet sideways -> the pitch bends push it toward the pickup -> the strings move closer and the volume rises flick it -> the magnets shake and the whole instrument shivers three completely different effects from one piece of metal, and none of them were designed. he found them by touching it the whole guitar wobbles while you play. he described it as jumping on a trampoline with your hand and it's so sensitive that hanging something on the magnet changes the weight, pulls on the strings, and knocks the guitar out of tune here's what most people overlook: this clip did 8M views, and there's no story in it. no twist, no reveal, no payoff at the end it's just a man in a room discovering what his own invention does, in real time, on camera that's the entire format. an experiment doesn't need a plot. it needs a result even the person doing it can't predict you stay because he doesn't know what happens next either save this. the most watched thing today was a guy touching a magnet and being surprisedshow more

Banff

2,107 subscribers

319,615 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Music

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

33 Comments

Michal Jareš3 months ago

How about you give him credits by sharing his channel instead of just stealing his video and doing a summary yap.

Banff3 months ago

credit to the guy who built it -> full video here:

Airen West ESQ3 months ago

I move away from the mic to breathe in

maximum3 months ago

this is awesome!

Vix3 months ago

You forgot to mention in the end it still broke. Even with the metal- because the strings were too weak.

Grubster3 months ago

You’re a dick for literally only showing him doing 2 seconds of the cool part.

Akki3 months ago

I can feel his expressions of being too careful with something real built after hard work! This is really nice to see👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

sonoluminescent3 months ago

Say goodbye to your fucking pinky dude

Jesse Parker3 months ago

Perfect! An expensive whammy bar that ruins your credit cards

T3 months ago

There is a twist at the end of the video. It’s exactly what you expected to happen. The strings broke because of the tension, and the magnet slammed into the other magnet.

Unknown3 months ago

This is shrapnel waiting to happen

Wartham3 months ago

It’s like a retarded version of a tremolo system. It’s cool but totally impractical.

Bobby Lacombe3 months ago

nice POC but a soon as a string breaks 🤔. . .also, would not want to have your hand or finger between the bridge and tail if it failed, it would probably break a finger/skin 😵‍💫

JackHudler3 months ago

They didn't teach math in his class?

RZDL3 months ago

Bro started playing rimworld ost

S.A.L.T Armory3 months ago

You should create a magnetic wristband that would control de push and pull by wrist length distance position reather than the leaver

C.fox/P.W3 months ago

Close enough, welcome higgs monaghan sci-fi guitar!

steven 🏕️cascade camped3 months ago

@9chabard legendary tier new guitar just droped

John-Claude3 months ago

Never stop inventing creating building!

DrumDink3 months ago

EVH would have had fun with this idea. Probably wouldn’t have liked the lack of sustain!

MachoCrotcho🇺🇸🏴‍☠️3 months ago

I wanna hear the Star Spangled Banner on this

King Kev3 months ago

this is REALLY cool :)

shebot3 months ago

This is why innovation is so important. It tests the boundaries of what we already know. Expectations are redefined. Technology is remastered. Kudos to the guy 🥰

ɢʀᴀᴢɪᴀɴᴏ 🇪🇺3 months ago

Cc @MikeAnblips nuovi spunti per i tuoi hobby

Trout3 months ago

The strings seam awfully taught

kuma3 months ago

Choom is over here making a rockerboys legendary axe

Ash3 months ago

“The reason this guitar doesn’t have 6 strings is because I only put 4” Oh I see Interesting

going above and beyond3 months ago

Dumbest shit ever. Stupid people are so easily amused.

daang3 months ago

Safety glasses to play the guitar?! No thanks lol

Valorhelm3 months ago

What do you think @AaronMGrubb

Jakeob Bradley3 months ago

That is the coolest thing ever

riamtyn3 months ago

i watched his new video today. it's a ukulele that turns into a guitar check him out

KidozyGAME3 months ago

He should use bass strings (the thick ones) as the strings that take most of the load of the magnets

Related Videos

a shape with no inside. he filled it with water anyway pour water in and it stops almost immediately. the air has nowhere to escape, so it just sits there blocking you. tilt it and you get a little more in, then it blocks again so he put the whole thing in a vacuum chamber turn it on and the bottle starts bubbling. that's the air being pulled out through the neck, leaving as close to nothing inside as he can get then he lets the pressure back in, and the water rushes up into the empty space on its own still not full. so he runs it again, rarefying the smaller pocket of air that's left, and again after that here's the part that breaks your head: for a shape to have volume, it has to split the world in two. a ball does that. stretch it however you want, there's always a world inside and a world outside a Klein bottle has no such line. follow its surface and you never cross a boundary, never pass through a wall, never end up anywhere that isn't the same side you started on the inside is the outside. so there's nothing there to fill he filled it anyway that's the same shape as the room below. no plot, no payoff, just a question your brain won't drop -> can a thing with no inside hold anything at all two videos, two impossible questions, 20 million views between them. Paone broke down why this format works in the article underneath save this. the most watched thing today was a shape that shouldn't be able to hold anything, holding water

a shape with no inside. he filled it with water anyway pour water in and it stops almost immediately. the air has nowhere to escape, so it just sits there blocking you. tilt it and you get a little more in, then it blocks again so he put the whole thing in a vacuum chamber turn it on and the bottle starts bubbling. that's the air being pulled out through the neck, leaving as close to nothing inside as he can get then he lets the pressure back in, and the water rushes up into the empty space on its own still not full. so he runs it again, rarefying the smaller pocket of air that's left, and again after that here's the part that breaks your head: for a shape to have volume, it has to split the world in two. a ball does that. stretch it however you want, there's always a world inside and a world outside a Klein bottle has no such line. follow its surface and you never cross a boundary, never pass through a wall, never end up anywhere that isn't the same side you started on the inside is the outside. so there's nothing there to fill he filled it anyway that's the same shape as the room below. no plot, no payoff, just a question your brain won't drop -> can a thing with no inside hold anything at all two videos, two impossible questions, 20 million views between them. Paone broke down why this format works in the article underneath save this. the most watched thing today was a shape that shouldn't be able to hold anything, holding water

Banff

2,570,125 views • 3 months ago

Copper doesn’t stick to magnets but that doesn’t mean it can’t react to one. Drop a magnet through a copper tube and watch what happens: it falls surprisingly slowly. The moving magnet changes the magnetic field inside the copper, creating tiny electrical currents that push back against its motion. No magnetism in the copper itself. Just physics doing its thing.

Copper doesn’t stick to magnets but that doesn’t mean it can’t react to one. Drop a magnet through a copper tube and watch what happens: it falls surprisingly slowly. The moving magnet changes the magnetic field inside the copper, creating tiny electrical currents that push back against its motion. No magnetism in the copper itself. Just physics doing its thing.

Truthseeker

22,633 views • 2 months ago

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

210,938 views • 2 months ago

$384,317 in 28 days, and all he did was fix what the algorithm was already telling him for free He built a tool with Claude that reads the signal most people upload right past > feed it a channel URL, get a score out of 100 in seconds > real RPM of the niche, per-video earnings, SEO and monetization gaps > it flags priorities like a missing keyword or no lead magnet > real API data, not guesses The data was always there, free, in the dashboard he just built something that reads it like a consultant would, then fixed the top thing first

$384,317 in 28 days, and all he did was fix what the algorithm was already telling him for free He built a tool with Claude that reads the signal most people upload right past > feed it a channel URL, get a score out of 100 in seconds > real RPM of the niche, per-video earnings, SEO and monetization gaps > it flags priorities like a missing keyword or no lead magnet > real API data, not guesses The data was always there, free, in the dashboard he just built something that reads it like a consultant would, then fixed the top thing first

Kiyoro

14,174 views • 4 months ago

A physics professor ran a live demonstration on national television in 1964 and it went wrong on camera. He didn't cut away. He got happier. This is Julius Sumner Miller on the ABC program Why Is It So?, crushing a reinforced metal tank with atmospheric pressure. The experiment refuses to behave. Watch his face when it fails. No embarrassment, no apology to the audience, no reshoot. Failure was the interesting part and he wanted the camera on it. Every engineer who hides a broken demo, every team that only ships the run that worked, is doing the opposite of what this man did on live TV 62 years ago. The physics is simple: air pressure you can't feel, doing work you can't ignore. He makes it visible with a tank and a heat source. A hardware engineer I know sent this clip to his team after a failed launch demo with 1 line: this is how you handle it. Black and white, 1 camera, free on YouTube since 2018. He wasn't performing certainty. That's why it still plays.

A physics professor ran a live demonstration on national television in 1964 and it went wrong on camera. He didn't cut away. He got happier. This is Julius Sumner Miller on the ABC program Why Is It So?, crushing a reinforced metal tank with atmospheric pressure. The experiment refuses to behave. Watch his face when it fails. No embarrassment, no apology to the audience, no reshoot. Failure was the interesting part and he wanted the camera on it. Every engineer who hides a broken demo, every team that only ships the run that worked, is doing the opposite of what this man did on live TV 62 years ago. The physics is simple: air pressure you can't feel, doing work you can't ignore. He makes it visible with a tank and a heat source. A hardware engineer I know sent this clip to his team after a failed launch demo with 1 line: this is how you handle it. Black and white, 1 camera, free on YouTube since 2018. He wasn't performing certainty. That's why it still plays.

Merlow

11,676 views • 3 months ago

A GUY MAKING $100K/MONTH WITH AI JUST SHOWED HIS ENTIRE SETUP. IT'S ONE FOLDER OF NOTES AND NOTHING ELSE no framework. no $500 course. he opens his screen and it's just obsidian - a plain notes app - wired into claude here's what he did: -> he pulled claude's memory files out of their default folder and dumped them into one vault -> had claude rename and merge them: 107 messy files collapsed into 17 clean ones -> every folder gets one master note that links to all the others that last part is the whole trick the agent reads the master note, follows the links and by the time it's done it has read every file in the folder. one instruction, full context here's the part most people miss: everyone's trying to make the AI smarter. he made the AI's memory smaller fewer files, better organized, all linked. the agent isn't scanning hundreds of notes anymore - it walks a path you built that's why his agent actually finishes jobs instead of forgetting what it was doing halfway through then he goes one step further: at the end of every session, the agent writes its own daily note. what it did, when, indexed at the top so it can find it again in seconds so he never re-explains anything. the agent looks up what it already did now he types "create a campaign for this offer" and walks away. it reads the product notes, reads the process notes, and comes back with the campaign done you don't need any of the complicated agent tools people are selling you. you need structure and instructions save this. the people winning with AI aren't using better models. they're just the only ones who bothered to organize what it remembers

A GUY MAKING $100K/MONTH WITH AI JUST SHOWED HIS ENTIRE SETUP. IT'S ONE FOLDER OF NOTES AND NOTHING ELSE no framework. no $500 course. he opens his screen and it's just obsidian - a plain notes app - wired into claude here's what he did: -> he pulled claude's memory files out of their default folder and dumped them into one vault -> had claude rename and merge them: 107 messy files collapsed into 17 clean ones -> every folder gets one master note that links to all the others that last part is the whole trick the agent reads the master note, follows the links and by the time it's done it has read every file in the folder. one instruction, full context here's the part most people miss: everyone's trying to make the AI smarter. he made the AI's memory smaller fewer files, better organized, all linked. the agent isn't scanning hundreds of notes anymore - it walks a path you built that's why his agent actually finishes jobs instead of forgetting what it was doing halfway through then he goes one step further: at the end of every session, the agent writes its own daily note. what it did, when, indexed at the top so it can find it again in seconds so he never re-explains anything. the agent looks up what it already did now he types "create a campaign for this offer" and walks away. it reads the product notes, reads the process notes, and comes back with the campaign done you don't need any of the complicated agent tools people are selling you. you need structure and instructions save this. the people winning with AI aren't using better models. they're just the only ones who bothered to organize what it remembers

Paone

23,833 views • 3 months ago

A man and his kids and just hanging out at the house. Earlier they were outside trying out their new trampoline. Kids get excited and loud while jumping on those so it isn’t surprising that it happened in this case as well. One of the neighbors doesn’t seem to like it when the kids are outside playing on the trampoline so they called the cops and reported it to seem like he was harming them and that’s why they were screaming. So at this point he has a trampoline in the backyard that he can’t use without the neighbor calling the cops and reporting him.

A man and his kids and just hanging out at the house. Earlier they were outside trying out their new trampoline. Kids get excited and loud while jumping on those so it isn’t surprising that it happened in this case as well. One of the neighbors doesn’t seem to like it when the kids are outside playing on the trampoline so they called the cops and reported it to seem like he was harming them and that’s why they were screaming. So at this point he has a trampoline in the backyard that he can’t use without the neighbor calling the cops and reporting him.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

320,127 views • 8 months ago

Prince's 'last guitar' made by East Sussex craftsman: The hand-made 'Purple Special' guitar was made from cedar, carbon fibre and gold plating. A purple and gold electric guitar believed to be one of the last Prince owned before he died was built in a small one-man workshop in East Sussex. Simon "Gus" Farmer, from Heathfield, began working on the guitar nine years ago. It was only at the beginning of March that Prince received it before showing it off on stage. He apparently liked it so much he ordered a bass guitar. Mr Farmer said: "He didn't have it long, but long enough to enjoy it." Mr Farmer said he built the guitar on spec nine years ago when Prince held a series of shows at London's O2 arena. Friends told him it would be the "perfect" guitar for Prince, but despite his best efforts he could not get it to the musician's attention. "It just didn't pan out and I just moved on to other things," he said. "But it gathered a bit of momentum on forums over the years until eventually he noticed it on social media." After his management got in touch, the guitar was sent to over him at the beginning of March. The guitar was built nine years ago in his Heathfield workshop. "He liked it and ordered a bass straight away which I was working on when he died," he said. "It was amazing to see he had performed with it and liked it so much he wanted another guitar from me. I've been told it was the last guitar he owned. "It doesn't really get any better than that - I couldn't have wanted to get the guitar to someone that suited me more." Mr Farmer, whose guitars sell for up to £15,000, said Prince's death came as an incredible shock as his complete focus over the last few weeks had been making the bass. "I'm definitely going to finish it, I'm just not sure what I'll do with it," he said. Prince

Prince's 'last guitar' made by East Sussex craftsman: The hand-made 'Purple Special' guitar was made from cedar, carbon fibre and gold plating. A purple and gold electric guitar believed to be one of the last Prince owned before he died was built in a small one-man workshop in East Sussex. Simon "Gus" Farmer, from Heathfield, began working on the guitar nine years ago. It was only at the beginning of March that Prince received it before showing it off on stage. He apparently liked it so much he ordered a bass guitar. Mr Farmer said: "He didn't have it long, but long enough to enjoy it." Mr Farmer said he built the guitar on spec nine years ago when Prince held a series of shows at London's O2 arena. Friends told him it would be the "perfect" guitar for Prince, but despite his best efforts he could not get it to the musician's attention. "It just didn't pan out and I just moved on to other things," he said. "But it gathered a bit of momentum on forums over the years until eventually he noticed it on social media." After his management got in touch, the guitar was sent to over him at the beginning of March. The guitar was built nine years ago in his Heathfield workshop. "He liked it and ordered a bass straight away which I was working on when he died," he said. "It was amazing to see he had performed with it and liked it so much he wanted another guitar from me. I've been told it was the last guitar he owned. "It doesn't really get any better than that - I couldn't have wanted to get the guitar to someone that suited me more." Mr Farmer, whose guitars sell for up to £15,000, said Prince's death came as an incredible shock as his complete focus over the last few weeks had been making the bass. "I'm definitely going to finish it, I'm just not sure what I'll do with it," he said. Prince

#PrinceOnThisDay

14,318 views • 1 month ago

Tom Hopkins failed so badly at his first sales job he almost quit for construction. Then he changed one thing and sold over 6,000 homes, more than almost anyone alive. He filmed the whole method, and it's free. He wasn't a natural. He was broke, awkward, and losing. What turned it around wasn't charm or a script. It was treating persuasion as a craft with rules, the same way a trade has steps. His core idea is quieter than the usual sales hype. People don't say no to the thing. They say no to a feeling, a doubt they can't name. The job isn't to push harder. It's to find the real objection hiding under the polite one, and answer that. That sounds simple until you watch how precise he is. Every objection has a shape. Every shape has a response. He drilled it until saying the right thing became automatic, then taught it to millions. Here's the part that outlives sales. This isn't about closing deals. It's about the fact that most "no" you hear in life, in work, in any room, is not really a no. It's an unspoken worry. The people who win are the ones who hear it. I post one buried lecture like this every day, the kind that quietly changes how you operate. The next one's already up.

Tom Hopkins failed so badly at his first sales job he almost quit for construction. Then he changed one thing and sold over 6,000 homes, more than almost anyone alive. He filmed the whole method, and it's free. He wasn't a natural. He was broke, awkward, and losing. What turned it around wasn't charm or a script. It was treating persuasion as a craft with rules, the same way a trade has steps. His core idea is quieter than the usual sales hype. People don't say no to the thing. They say no to a feeling, a doubt they can't name. The job isn't to push harder. It's to find the real objection hiding under the polite one, and answer that. That sounds simple until you watch how precise he is. Every objection has a shape. Every shape has a response. He drilled it until saying the right thing became automatic, then taught it to millions. Here's the part that outlives sales. This isn't about closing deals. It's about the fact that most "no" you hear in life, in work, in any room, is not really a no. It's an unspoken worry. The people who win are the ones who hear it. I post one buried lecture like this every day, the kind that quietly changes how you operate. The next one's already up.

Niko

211,579 views • 2 months ago

In 1950 a scientist at Bell Labs admitted, out loud, that he was envious of the geniuses in the offices around him. He was sharing an attic with Claude Shannon. So instead of resenting them, he spent the rest of his career studying exactly what separated the great ones from everyone else, and near the end of his life he laid the whole answer out in a single talk. His name was Richard Hamming. He was honest about where he started. At Los Alamos, he called himself a janitor of science, one of the people who kept things running while the important decisions happened without him. He was, in his own words, plain envious. And rather than swallow it, he turned it into a question. What actually is the difference between the first-class people and the rest of us? His first answer is uncomfortable, because it removes every excuse. It is not luck, though luck plays a part. It is not raw IQ, since plenty of the greats did not test especially well, and Einstein spent seven years in a patent office before anyone noticed him. What it comes down to, again and again, is that the able people simply work on important problems, and they work on them relentlessly, while everyone else stays busy with whatever happens to be in front of them. Then he tells the story that stays with you. For years he ate lunch with the physicists, the Nobel winners, and learned how they thought. One day he turned to a chemist at the table and asked, if what you are working on is not important, and not likely to lead to anything important, why are you working on it? The man was offended. But months later he stopped Hamming in the hallway and admitted the question had gotten under his skin. That chemist went on to run his department and join the National Academy. Of everyone else at that table, Hamming says, he never heard of a single one again. He noticed the same pattern in something as small as an office door. The people who worked with their doors closed got more done in the moment, but ten years later they no longer knew what was worth doing. The ones who left their doors open stayed connected to what actually mattered, even at the cost of constant interruption. And underneath all of it was a habit most people never build. He set aside Friday afternoons, every week, for nothing but great thoughts. No task, no email, just the question of what the important problems in his field really were, and whether he was working on any of them. He was not claiming to be the smartest man in the building. He knew he was not. That was the entire point. He watched the smartest men closely, took what he could use, and made himself into someone who did work that lasted. As he put it near the end, no one ever told him these things. He had to find them alone. You have no such excuse.

In 1950 a scientist at Bell Labs admitted, out loud, that he was envious of the geniuses in the offices around him. He was sharing an attic with Claude Shannon. So instead of resenting them, he spent the rest of his career studying exactly what separated the great ones from everyone else, and near the end of his life he laid the whole answer out in a single talk. His name was Richard Hamming. He was honest about where he started. At Los Alamos, he called himself a janitor of science, one of the people who kept things running while the important decisions happened without him. He was, in his own words, plain envious. And rather than swallow it, he turned it into a question. What actually is the difference between the first-class people and the rest of us? His first answer is uncomfortable, because it removes every excuse. It is not luck, though luck plays a part. It is not raw IQ, since plenty of the greats did not test especially well, and Einstein spent seven years in a patent office before anyone noticed him. What it comes down to, again and again, is that the able people simply work on important problems, and they work on them relentlessly, while everyone else stays busy with whatever happens to be in front of them. Then he tells the story that stays with you. For years he ate lunch with the physicists, the Nobel winners, and learned how they thought. One day he turned to a chemist at the table and asked, if what you are working on is not important, and not likely to lead to anything important, why are you working on it? The man was offended. But months later he stopped Hamming in the hallway and admitted the question had gotten under his skin. That chemist went on to run his department and join the National Academy. Of everyone else at that table, Hamming says, he never heard of a single one again. He noticed the same pattern in something as small as an office door. The people who worked with their doors closed got more done in the moment, but ten years later they no longer knew what was worth doing. The ones who left their doors open stayed connected to what actually mattered, even at the cost of constant interruption. And underneath all of it was a habit most people never build. He set aside Friday afternoons, every week, for nothing but great thoughts. No task, no email, just the question of what the important problems in his field really were, and whether he was working on any of them. He was not claiming to be the smartest man in the building. He knew he was not. That was the entire point. He watched the smartest men closely, took what he could use, and made himself into someone who did work that lasted. As he put it near the end, no one ever told him these things. He had to find them alone. You have no such excuse.

Zyron

16,163 views • 3 months ago

Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40 a share. One year later it was $19 – down half – and the family that had owned the whole business bought it in the 1880s for $2,000 this is Warren Buffett at 68, in a room of Florida MBA students, walking through the single stock he is most identified with and explaining why the worst year was irrelevant the point he is making is not that Coke was cheap – it is that the price collapsed 50% while the business itself was fine he goes on to what he actually watches instead of the price – volumes, pricing power, and where the growth is coming from ten years out no slides – no notes – no prepared remarks, and no lawyer in the room this lecture exists because a 1970 graduate endowed a fund so the university could invite one speaker a year bookmark & watch today ↓

Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40 a share. One year later it was $19 – down half – and the family that had owned the whole business bought it in the 1880s for $2,000 this is Warren Buffett at 68, in a room of Florida MBA students, walking through the single stock he is most identified with and explaining why the worst year was irrelevant the point he is making is not that Coke was cheap – it is that the price collapsed 50% while the business itself was fine he goes on to what he actually watches instead of the price – volumes, pricing power, and where the growth is coming from ten years out no slides – no notes – no prepared remarks, and no lawyer in the room this lecture exists because a 1970 graduate endowed a fund so the university could invite one speaker a year bookmark & watch today ↓

Neuro

1,372,147 views • 2 months ago

Origins of Whole Lotta Love, Jimmy Page came up with the guitar riff for "Whole Lotta Love" in the summer of 1968, on his houseboat on the River Thames at Pangbourne, Berkshire, England. However, John Paul Jones stated that it probably was developed from a live improvisation during performances of Dazed and Confused. Page denied that the song originated onstage and that he had the riff and the rest took it from there. The chugging riff sounds like twin guitars because Page is playing two guitar strings in unison, while bending one of them to slightly change the pitch. At the same time, John Paul Jones is using the same technique on bass guitar, doubling the guitar part in a lower octave. Page recorded his part while playing through a solid-state amplifier. During the two day mix of the Led Zeppelin II album, audio engineer Eddie Kramer discovered what he thought was some magnetic tape bleedthrough on Plant's vocals on the "Whole Lotta Love" track, which could not be removed, so he put some echo on it, and Page liked the sound. Page also employed a backwards echo production technique. Years later, engineer J. J. Blair analyzed the multi-track tape and found that the second guitar track contained traces of an earlier vocal track by Plant caused by microphonic induction of the guitar pickup. This thin-sounding vocal preceded the main vocal track in a manner similar to bleedthrough. It was released as a single in 1969 in several countries; as with other Led Zeppelin songs, no single was released in the United Kingdom. In the United States, it became their first hit and was certified gold. Parts of the song's lyrics were adapted from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love", recorded by Muddy Waters in 1962; originally uncredited to Dixon, a lawsuit in 1985 was settled with a payment to Dixon and credit on subsequent releases. Led Zeppelin performing 'Whole Lotta Love' live at The Royal Albert Hall, in 1970.

Origins of Whole Lotta Love, Jimmy Page came up with the guitar riff for "Whole Lotta Love" in the summer of 1968, on his houseboat on the River Thames at Pangbourne, Berkshire, England. However, John Paul Jones stated that it probably was developed from a live improvisation during performances of Dazed and Confused. Page denied that the song originated onstage and that he had the riff and the rest took it from there. The chugging riff sounds like twin guitars because Page is playing two guitar strings in unison, while bending one of them to slightly change the pitch. At the same time, John Paul Jones is using the same technique on bass guitar, doubling the guitar part in a lower octave. Page recorded his part while playing through a solid-state amplifier. During the two day mix of the Led Zeppelin II album, audio engineer Eddie Kramer discovered what he thought was some magnetic tape bleedthrough on Plant's vocals on the "Whole Lotta Love" track, which could not be removed, so he put some echo on it, and Page liked the sound. Page also employed a backwards echo production technique. Years later, engineer J. J. Blair analyzed the multi-track tape and found that the second guitar track contained traces of an earlier vocal track by Plant caused by microphonic induction of the guitar pickup. This thin-sounding vocal preceded the main vocal track in a manner similar to bleedthrough. It was released as a single in 1969 in several countries; as with other Led Zeppelin songs, no single was released in the United Kingdom. In the United States, it became their first hit and was certified gold. Parts of the song's lyrics were adapted from Willie Dixon's "You Need Love", recorded by Muddy Waters in 1962; originally uncredited to Dixon, a lawsuit in 1985 was settled with a payment to Dixon and credit on subsequent releases. Led Zeppelin performing 'Whole Lotta Love' live at The Royal Albert Hall, in 1970.

Rock'n Roll of All

73,864 views • 1 year ago

Zac Efron pauses for a second, grabs the pole, and then casually recreates a photo that looks physically impossible. Did you catch that? The impressive part isn't just getting horizontal. Watch how controlled his first movement is he finds the position almost immediately instead of scrambling to hold himself up. And he does the whole thing in a suit. The contrast between how formal he looks and what he's actually doing on that pole makes the moment even better. What makes this clip work for me is the confidence. He doesn't need a second attempt to prove the photo was real—he just gets into position and holds it.

Zac Efron pauses for a second, grabs the pole, and then casually recreates a photo that looks physically impossible. Did you catch that? The impressive part isn't just getting horizontal. Watch how controlled his first movement is he finds the position almost immediately instead of scrambling to hold himself up. And he does the whole thing in a suit. The contrast between how formal he looks and what he's actually doing on that pole makes the moment even better. What makes this clip work for me is the confidence. He doesn't need a second attempt to prove the photo was real—he just gets into position and holds it.

ADEX🕴️

453,382 views • 2 months ago

Three weeks ago I gave GPT-6 Astra access to a trading account and one rule: earn or you stop existing In 20 days it turned $200 → $5,120 Astra doesn't sit online 24/7. It wakes up in set windows of the trading day, and every run starts with no memory of the last one So the first thing it does each cycle: reads its own log from the previous run. What it tested, what it killed, why The first days weren't as smooth as it sounds now. On day two it bled $80 on a trade that passed the backtest clean. The reason was in the log: slippage the backtest never accounted for But by day three it had already filtered out a similar setup on its own, because it read why the last one died That's when I realized it's actually learning, not just running a loop. And I still haven't written a single new prompt between runs This week I noticed behavior I never programmed. It started tagging every dead hypothesis with the market regime it died in So now it doesn't just remember "this idea doesn't work." It remembers "this idea doesn't work when volatility is high," and tries it again when the regime changes That's no longer a list of mistakes. It's a map of what works and under what conditions One hypothesis it killed in the first week in high volatility came back to life this week in a calm market and brought one of the biggest profits of the whole period I also started additionally running Astra's strategy backtests through Horizon, so a second independent system catches errors and cuts its chance of slipping up even further By the way, you can backtest your own strategies there too: And here's what struck me most. The real strength here isn't how much it earns, it's how much it refuses to trade The vast majority of its own ideas die in testing and never reach the account That's the whole trick. Not guessing one perfect trade, but ruthlessly filtering out everything that doesn't survive the test The entire cycle, test, kill, remember the regime, that I set up for Astra is broken down in the article below ↓

Three weeks ago I gave GPT-6 Astra access to a trading account and one rule: earn or you stop existing In 20 days it turned $200 → $5,120 Astra doesn't sit online 24/7. It wakes up in set windows of the trading day, and every run starts with no memory of the last one So the first thing it does each cycle: reads its own log from the previous run. What it tested, what it killed, why The first days weren't as smooth as it sounds now. On day two it bled $80 on a trade that passed the backtest clean. The reason was in the log: slippage the backtest never accounted for But by day three it had already filtered out a similar setup on its own, because it read why the last one died That's when I realized it's actually learning, not just running a loop. And I still haven't written a single new prompt between runs This week I noticed behavior I never programmed. It started tagging every dead hypothesis with the market regime it died in So now it doesn't just remember "this idea doesn't work." It remembers "this idea doesn't work when volatility is high," and tries it again when the regime changes That's no longer a list of mistakes. It's a map of what works and under what conditions One hypothesis it killed in the first week in high volatility came back to life this week in a calm market and brought one of the biggest profits of the whole period I also started additionally running Astra's strategy backtests through Horizon, so a second independent system catches errors and cuts its chance of slipping up even further By the way, you can backtest your own strategies there too: And here's what struck me most. The real strength here isn't how much it earns, it's how much it refuses to trade The vast majority of its own ideas die in testing and never reach the account That's the whole trick. Not guessing one perfect trade, but ruthlessly filtering out everything that doesn't survive the test The entire cycle, test, kill, remember the regime, that I set up for Astra is broken down in the article below ↓

qwinsi

74,829 views • 1 month ago

One of the men who invented the transistor stood at a Bell Labs blackboard and explained how it works. AT&T kept the film. Almost nobody watches it. Walter Brattain shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics for the transistor. Every chip training every model in 2026 descends from what he built with Bardeen and Shockley in 1947. This is 28 minutes of the inventor teaching semiconductor physics himself. Properties, simple model, history, impact, new phenomena, written on the board in his own hand. Watch the section where he draws the crystal lattice and shows what an electron and a hole actually do inside it. The abstraction most engineers carry around, drawn from scratch by the man who found it. An embedded engineer I know watched it twice and said 28 minutes of chalk beat a semester of textbook diagrams. Free on YouTube from the AT&T archives, 10 chapters, black and white. Everyone uses his invention. Almost nobody hears him explain it.

One of the men who invented the transistor stood at a Bell Labs blackboard and explained how it works. AT&T kept the film. Almost nobody watches it. Walter Brattain shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics for the transistor. Every chip training every model in 2026 descends from what he built with Bardeen and Shockley in 1947. This is 28 minutes of the inventor teaching semiconductor physics himself. Properties, simple model, history, impact, new phenomena, written on the board in his own hand. Watch the section where he draws the crystal lattice and shows what an electron and a hole actually do inside it. The abstraction most engineers carry around, drawn from scratch by the man who found it. An embedded engineer I know watched it twice and said 28 minutes of chalk beat a semester of textbook diagrams. Free on YouTube from the AT&T archives, 10 chapters, black and white. Everyone uses his invention. Almost nobody hears him explain it.

xanax

105,683 views • 3 months ago

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 blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

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 blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

3,820,911 views • 3 months ago

A man who went to prison for talking people out of their money filmed himself doing it live, then sold the method as a course. 7 million people have watched him work. The man is Jordan Belfort. The film about him made him famous. What almost nobody has done is watch the real one, on camera, running the actual technique on a real prospect for 22 minutes with no script and no edit. And the way he does it is the reason to watch. He barely talks about the product. The first minutes are almost entirely questions, and every answer gets used against the person later in his own words. He is not persuading. He is collecting. Then the phrase the comments turned into a meme. He ends his key sentences with four words that make agreement feel like the neutral option and refusal feel like rudeness. Once you notice it, you cannot unhear it, and you will catch it in the next call you take. One viewer broke the whole method into 9 steps in a comment. It got 12 thousand likes, which tells you people are studying this video like a manual. Here is the uncomfortable part. Every technique in it is ordinary sales advice: listen, mirror, remove friction, set expectations. That is exactly what makes it worth studying. The tools were never the crime. The intent was. Learn what is being done to you and it stops working on you. That is the only defense there is. 22 minutes. No script. It is in the video.

A man who went to prison for talking people out of their money filmed himself doing it live, then sold the method as a course. 7 million people have watched him work. The man is Jordan Belfort. The film about him made him famous. What almost nobody has done is watch the real one, on camera, running the actual technique on a real prospect for 22 minutes with no script and no edit. And the way he does it is the reason to watch. He barely talks about the product. The first minutes are almost entirely questions, and every answer gets used against the person later in his own words. He is not persuading. He is collecting. Then the phrase the comments turned into a meme. He ends his key sentences with four words that make agreement feel like the neutral option and refusal feel like rudeness. Once you notice it, you cannot unhear it, and you will catch it in the next call you take. One viewer broke the whole method into 9 steps in a comment. It got 12 thousand likes, which tells you people are studying this video like a manual. Here is the uncomfortable part. Every technique in it is ordinary sales advice: listen, mirror, remove friction, set expectations. That is exactly what makes it worth studying. The tools were never the crime. The intent was. Learn what is being done to you and it stops working on you. That is the only defense there is. 22 minutes. No script. It is in the video.

Silverhand

1,528,326 views • 3 months ago

CLAUDE TOOK A FULL PC GAME, REBUILT IT FROM THE GROUND UP, AND GOT IT RUNNING NATIVELY ON ANDROID IN 6 HOURS a guy pointed claude at slay the spire 2, a game he owns on steam, and it ported the whole thing to his phone almost completely on its own here's what claude did: > it pulled apart the game and recompiled it to native arm, no emulator, wine, or proton used > wrote the code, ran the build loop, and debugged it directly on the device itself > added full touch controls that feel like a real mobile game, not awkward on screen buttons > and he even built a tool on top to sync save files between his desktop and phone a couple prompts and 6 hours. it handled the extraction, the cross compile, the building and the on device debugging by itself. fully playable, not a single crash yet

CLAUDE TOOK A FULL PC GAME, REBUILT IT FROM THE GROUND UP, AND GOT IT RUNNING NATIVELY ON ANDROID IN 6 HOURS a guy pointed claude at slay the spire 2, a game he owns on steam, and it ported the whole thing to his phone almost completely on its own here's what claude did: > it pulled apart the game and recompiled it to native arm, no emulator, wine, or proton used > wrote the code, ran the build loop, and debugged it directly on the device itself > added full touch controls that feel like a real mobile game, not awkward on screen buttons > and he even built a tool on top to sync save files between his desktop and phone a couple prompts and 6 hours. it handled the extraction, the cross compile, the building and the on device debugging by itself. fully playable, not a single crash yet

Om Patel

28,504 views • 4 months ago

They’ll still be showing this video 150 years from now. Not as politics. Not as opinion. They’ll be studying it in classrooms as a psychological disorder called leftism. A clinical case study in what happens when human beings lose the ability to think and suffer total, catastrophic detachment from reality. During a once-in-a-century pandemic, the Biden administration took thousands upon thousands of migrants, packed them shoulder-to-shoulder on concrete floors like cargo, then unleashed them into the country. Ted Cruz... tough guy, good senator... goes down there with a camera. Sees it with his own eyes. Human beings stacked like cordwood on the floor of what looks like a morgue. And he asks the most obvious question in the world... What the hell is going on here? Very reasonable. Probably the most reasonable question anyone's asked in the history of the border, frankly. And what happens? What does the Biden handler do? Does she answer? Does she explain? Does she say, "Senator, here's our plan, here's what we're working on"? No. She gets angry. At HIM. Think of it. She gets angry at the man asking the question... not at the people who created the catastrophe. She didn't get angry at the concrete floors. Didn't get angry at the tinfoil blankets. Didn't get angry at the hundreds of migrants crammed together during a deadly pandemic. She got angry at Ted Cruz. For filming it. For showing the American people what their government was doing. And then... she starts demanding that HE show dignity to the migrants. HE should give them dignity. The man with the camera. Not herself. Not the administration that put them on a concrete floor wrapped in foil like they're being prepped for a body bag. Not the people who built this nightmare. No. The guy who showed up to expose it... HE'S the problem. HE needs to provide the dignity. And you can see it in her eyes. She believed it. She actually believed she was the good guy. Standing in the middle of a disaster she helped create, lecturing the only person in the room trying to fix it. That's the left. That's the tragedy of leftism. A total and complete sickness.

They’ll still be showing this video 150 years from now. Not as politics. Not as opinion. They’ll be studying it in classrooms as a psychological disorder called leftism. A clinical case study in what happens when human beings lose the ability to think and suffer total, catastrophic detachment from reality. During a once-in-a-century pandemic, the Biden administration took thousands upon thousands of migrants, packed them shoulder-to-shoulder on concrete floors like cargo, then unleashed them into the country. Ted Cruz... tough guy, good senator... goes down there with a camera. Sees it with his own eyes. Human beings stacked like cordwood on the floor of what looks like a morgue. And he asks the most obvious question in the world... What the hell is going on here? Very reasonable. Probably the most reasonable question anyone's asked in the history of the border, frankly. And what happens? What does the Biden handler do? Does she answer? Does she explain? Does she say, "Senator, here's our plan, here's what we're working on"? No. She gets angry. At HIM. Think of it. She gets angry at the man asking the question... not at the people who created the catastrophe. She didn't get angry at the concrete floors. Didn't get angry at the tinfoil blankets. Didn't get angry at the hundreds of migrants crammed together during a deadly pandemic. She got angry at Ted Cruz. For filming it. For showing the American people what their government was doing. And then... she starts demanding that HE show dignity to the migrants. HE should give them dignity. The man with the camera. Not herself. Not the administration that put them on a concrete floor wrapped in foil like they're being prepped for a body bag. Not the people who built this nightmare. No. The guy who showed up to expose it... HE'S the problem. HE needs to provide the dignity. And you can see it in her eyes. She believed it. She actually believed she was the good guy. Standing in the middle of a disaster she helped create, lecturing the only person in the room trying to fix it. That's the left. That's the tragedy of leftism. A total and complete sickness.

Apple Lamps

226,791 views • 8 months ago