Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have... skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.show more

Ethan Kho

20,082 subscribers

70,267 просмотров • 6 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Финансы Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Billionaire investor Howard Marks breaks down a fundamental market reality: risk stems almost entirely from human behavior. "If you have more money than you need to eat, the first purpose of your money should be to make you comfortable. It doesn't make any sense..." "Buffett says, 'Don't risk what you have and need, to get what you don't have and don't need.' It makes no sense for somebody with a surplus of money to make their daily life less pleasant by going into investments that put them under pressure." "But... On the other hand, the riskiest thing in the world is the belief that there's no risk. The risk in the markets does not come from the companies, the securities, or the institutions like the exchanges ...the risk in the markets comes from the behavior of people."

Billionaire investor Howard Marks breaks down a fundamental market reality: risk stems almost entirely from human behavior. "If you have more money than you need to eat, the first purpose of your money should be to make you comfortable. It doesn't make any sense..." "Buffett says, 'Don't risk what you have and need, to get what you don't have and don't need.' It makes no sense for somebody with a surplus of money to make their daily life less pleasant by going into investments that put them under pressure." "But... On the other hand, the riskiest thing in the world is the belief that there's no risk. The risk in the markets does not come from the companies, the securities, or the institutions like the exchanges ...the risk in the markets comes from the behavior of people."

3rdeye👁️🇪🇸

120,840 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

William got margin called and pledged over $1B of his own stock to fund Column. He explains why extreme personal risk is what makes great founders, and why we see less of it today: "I think that the good founders bet on themselves and take an extreme amount of risk to do that. The extreme amount of risk part is something that we no longer have. But when there's literally only one door in front of you. You don't have a choice, and that fear and innate desire creates another part of you. It creates creativity, it creates inspiration. It's extremely valuable part of the founder journey. And in many ways, Silicon Valley we've actually removed that. I don't know why we don't talk about it more. If you go back to pre 2008, you're on the edge of the knife. We don't create environments where a founder has to bet themselves. I think starting companies are just too f**king safe. It's caused a lot of companies to be super safe companies like, we're gonna pivot to AI...that's not bold, that's not ambitious. It's because we are attracting founders that actually want to be employees. They don't think if I don't pull this off, I'm going to become bankrupt. My life is over and I think that's pretty healthy. That's when you bring out the rawness of humanity and I don't see that very much anymore. The weird thing is an early stage employee takes way more risk than an early stage founder. And I don't think we should actually de-risk the early stage employee. I just think we need to increase the risk for founders. I think we need to make failure much more expensive."

William got margin called and pledged over $1B of his own stock to fund Column. He explains why extreme personal risk is what makes great founders, and why we see less of it today: "I think that the good founders bet on themselves and take an extreme amount of risk to do that. The extreme amount of risk part is something that we no longer have. But when there's literally only one door in front of you. You don't have a choice, and that fear and innate desire creates another part of you. It creates creativity, it creates inspiration. It's extremely valuable part of the founder journey. And in many ways, Silicon Valley we've actually removed that. I don't know why we don't talk about it more. If you go back to pre 2008, you're on the edge of the knife. We don't create environments where a founder has to bet themselves. I think starting companies are just too f**king safe. It's caused a lot of companies to be super safe companies like, we're gonna pivot to AI...that's not bold, that's not ambitious. It's because we are attracting founders that actually want to be employees. They don't think if I don't pull this off, I'm going to become bankrupt. My life is over and I think that's pretty healthy. That's when you bring out the rawness of humanity and I don't see that very much anymore. The weird thing is an early stage employee takes way more risk than an early stage founder. And I don't think we should actually de-risk the early stage employee. I just think we need to increase the risk for founders. I think we need to make failure much more expensive."

Patrick OShaughnessy

86,597 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Bret Weinstein discusses the fearful response to risk, exploration and frontiers in the context of Pa Ingalls and the Little House on the Prairie series. Bret Weinstein explains, "life proceeds by finding frontiers, and that those frontiers are an indication of great potential profit at risk. You can't separate those things. That's what the market is, risk versus reward. If there isn't much risk, there won't be much reward. That's a part of the emergent feature of nature. And so you are effectively looking at three and a half billion years of evolution that produced the miracle that is you, and asking, well, wasn't there a lot of risk involved there? Why'd you all do it? And it's like, well, stop it. Speak for humanity. Nobody's inviting you to the frontier because you'd be useless and you'd be a hazard. But don't tell other people don't go to the frontier and don't mock them if it goes wrong. People who go to the frontier, understanding that there is risk, don't always do okay. But the ones that do are the ones that make history."

Bret Weinstein discusses the fearful response to risk, exploration and frontiers in the context of Pa Ingalls and the Little House on the Prairie series. Bret Weinstein explains, "life proceeds by finding frontiers, and that those frontiers are an indication of great potential profit at risk. You can't separate those things. That's what the market is, risk versus reward. If there isn't much risk, there won't be much reward. That's a part of the emergent feature of nature. And so you are effectively looking at three and a half billion years of evolution that produced the miracle that is you, and asking, well, wasn't there a lot of risk involved there? Why'd you all do it? And it's like, well, stop it. Speak for humanity. Nobody's inviting you to the frontier because you'd be useless and you'd be a hazard. But don't tell other people don't go to the frontier and don't mock them if it goes wrong. People who go to the frontier, understanding that there is risk, don't always do okay. But the ones that do are the ones that make history."

The DarkHorse Podcast

19,711 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Lloyd Blankfein (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) on something most people get backwards about risk management: "you'd think a risk manager is always trying to repress people from taking risk." "sometimes a good risk manager has to promote the idea that people take risk. because that's what you're there for." "if you don't take risk, you don't move forward. there's no growth." "the alternative to never taking any risk will give you the comfort of not losing money for yourself or anybody else, but you also won't make progress." this is true inside Goldman Sachs and it's true in trading. after recovering a drawdown, the instinct can be to cut everything and take a break. sometimes the right risk management decision is the opposite, the system is working, the drawdown is normal, and pulling back is the actual mistake.

Lloyd Blankfein (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) on something most people get backwards about risk management: "you'd think a risk manager is always trying to repress people from taking risk." "sometimes a good risk manager has to promote the idea that people take risk. because that's what you're there for." "if you don't take risk, you don't move forward. there's no growth." "the alternative to never taking any risk will give you the comfort of not losing money for yourself or anybody else, but you also won't make progress." this is true inside Goldman Sachs and it's true in trading. after recovering a drawdown, the instinct can be to cut everything and take a break. sometimes the right risk management decision is the opposite, the system is working, the drawdown is normal, and pulling back is the actual mistake.

Goshawk Trades

20,832 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Arteta: “You want to be part of the noise or not? If not then go to do something else, be part of another different club. You want to be Arsenal and everybody's been demanding for 10 years, 15 years. We need to go back there. Now we are there and now what? “You don't want noise. Noise is part and the bullets are part of that. Try to deal with them in the right way and achieve what you are looking for.” On Man City having the Premier League title in their hands: “We have to do what we have to do, and nothing is going to change for anybody at the end. You're going to have to win the next match and if you do that, you're going to be in a much stronger position. That's the only thing.”

Arteta: “You want to be part of the noise or not? If not then go to do something else, be part of another different club. You want to be Arsenal and everybody's been demanding for 10 years, 15 years. We need to go back there. Now we are there and now what? “You don't want noise. Noise is part and the bullets are part of that. Try to deal with them in the right way and achieve what you are looking for.” On Man City having the Premier League title in their hands: “We have to do what we have to do, and nothing is going to change for anybody at the end. You're going to have to win the next match and if you do that, you're going to be in a much stronger position. That's the only thing.”

Connor Humm

103,333 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Casa is basically an AI-powered concierge for homeowners They work with you so that Casa knows the history of your house, all the maintenance you've done on it, etc. And when you have a job for the house, Casa uses the data to get the work done from start to finish CEO Michael York explains: "In the Casa app, you can book a handyman visit and say, 'I want these three things done.'" "We'll look at those tasks, we'll look at the history of your home, and all the information we have about it, to do that thing really well for you." "You might say, 'I want to hang up a bunch of family artwork in the hallway.' We'll come back to you and say, 'Do you already have the frames? Do you want us to find them for you? If you do, we'll come back to you with a bunch of options based on your past preferences.'" "And we'll actually have those frames ready for you, or in the hands of the handyman, before they even show up."

Casa is basically an AI-powered concierge for homeowners They work with you so that Casa knows the history of your house, all the maintenance you've done on it, etc. And when you have a job for the house, Casa uses the data to get the work done from start to finish CEO Michael York explains: "In the Casa app, you can book a handyman visit and say, 'I want these three things done.'" "We'll look at those tasks, we'll look at the history of your home, and all the information we have about it, to do that thing really well for you." "You might say, 'I want to hang up a bunch of family artwork in the hallway.' We'll come back to you and say, 'Do you already have the frames? Do you want us to find them for you? If you do, we'll come back to you with a bunch of options based on your past preferences.'" "And we'll actually have those frames ready for you, or in the hands of the handyman, before they even show up."

TBPN

22,210 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The best investment I ever made is in myself, to make the decision a long time ago to jump into entrepreneurship, to take the risk, to take the chance. Many people don't do it. Only about a third of the population ever tries it, and the other two-thirds end up working for the third that gave it a shot. That's basically what happens. It's a very tough thing to invest in yourself because you don't know the outcome. It's lots of risk. It's great to do it in your 20s because if you're successful, it'll redefine your life.

The best investment I ever made is in myself, to make the decision a long time ago to jump into entrepreneurship, to take the risk, to take the chance. Many people don't do it. Only about a third of the population ever tries it, and the other two-thirds end up working for the third that gave it a shot. That's basically what happens. It's a very tough thing to invest in yourself because you don't know the outcome. It's lots of risk. It's great to do it in your 20s because if you're successful, it'll redefine your life.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

43,695 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

"There are two types of coaches, those who do nothing and those who do a lot of damage. I prefer to be one of those who do nothing. The game belongs to the players, always ⚽. You can introduce them to a certain strategy that we have to implement, and they have to be convinced that they can do it. Then, there is the quality of the player, there is the attitude, the commitment. What a coach can do is make the players understand what teamwork is 🤝. Because we have the quality, Bayern Munich has it, Paris Saint Germain has it. Where is the difference? Where do you want to put this quality? If you want to put it in for yourself, it's not right ❌. If you put it in for the team, you can win 🏆."

"There are two types of coaches, those who do nothing and those who do a lot of damage. I prefer to be one of those who do nothing. The game belongs to the players, always ⚽. You can introduce them to a certain strategy that we have to implement, and they have to be convinced that they can do it. Then, there is the quality of the player, there is the attitude, the commitment. What a coach can do is make the players understand what teamwork is 🤝. Because we have the quality, Bayern Munich has it, Paris Saint Germain has it. Where is the difference? Where do you want to put this quality? If you want to put it in for yourself, it's not right ❌. If you put it in for the team, you can win 🏆."

Keepitonthedeck

22,374 просмотров • 1 год назад

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

Fireside Alpha

38,361 просмотров • 26 дней назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On study conducted on 5000 heart attack patients, Professor of Cardiology, GB Pant Hospital, Dr Mohit Gupta says, "... In India, a heart attack happens 10 years before the death of a person. It is more severe. Often, if you and I go to a doctor and ask what the risk of a heart attack is, to calculate that, we have risk scores... All the risk scores that we have are either using Western risk scores, which are made up of 6 or 7 risk scores. We believed that if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population, that is, what are the chances of a heart attack in 10 years, if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population. These risk scores should not be validated for us because when these scores were made, they were made on the Western population... When we used Western risk scores in Indian heart attack patients, we saw that 80% of the people were classified in low risk and moderate risk..." (2.4)

#WATCH | Delhi: On study conducted on 5000 heart attack patients, Professor of Cardiology, GB Pant Hospital, Dr Mohit Gupta says, "... In India, a heart attack happens 10 years before the death of a person. It is more severe. Often, if you and I go to a doctor and ask what the risk of a heart attack is, to calculate that, we have risk scores... All the risk scores that we have are either using Western risk scores, which are made up of 6 or 7 risk scores. We believed that if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population, that is, what are the chances of a heart attack in 10 years, if we apply these risk scores to the Indian population. These risk scores should not be validated for us because when these scores were made, they were made on the Western population... When we used Western risk scores in Indian heart attack patients, we saw that 80% of the people were classified in low risk and moderate risk..." (2.4)

ANI

410,723 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

The Onion Theory of Risk by Marc Andreessen: "I think the single biggest thing entrepreneurs are missing, both on fundraising and how they run their companies, is the relationship between risk and cash. The relationship between risk and raising cash, and then the relationship between risk and spending cash. So I've always been a fan of something that Andy Ratcliffe taught me years ago, which he called the onion theory of risk. Um, which basically is, you can think about a startup like on day one, um, as having every conceivable kind of risk, right? And you can basically just make a list of the risks. And so you've got, you know, founding team risk. You know, do the founders, are the founders gonna be able to work together? Do you have the right founders? You're gonna have product risk. You know, can you build a product? You'll have technical risk, right? Which is maybe you need a machine learning breakthrough or something to make it work. Are you gonna be able to do that? Um, you'll have, you know, launch risk. Will the launch go well? You'll have, you know, market acceptance risk. You'll have revenue risk. A big risk you get into in a lot of businesses that have a sales force is, can you actually sell the product for enough money to actually pay for the cost of sale? So you have the cost of sale risk. If you're a consumer product, you'll have a viral growth risk. Well, you get the thing of viral growth. And so, a startup at the very beginning is basically just this long list of risks. And then the way that I always think about running a startup is also the way I think about raising money, which is it's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go. And so you raise seed money in order to peel away the first two or three risks. The founding team risk, the product risk, and maybe the initial launch risk. You raise the A round to peel away the next level of product risk. Maybe you peel away some recruiting risk because you get your full engineering team built. Maybe you peel away some customer risk because you get your first five beta customers. And so basically the way to think about it is you're peeling away risk as you go. You're peeling away risk by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital. And so you come in, and you pitch somebody like us, and you say you're raising a B round. The best way to do that with us is you say, okay, I raised a seed round, I achieved these milestones, I eliminated these risks. I raised the A round, I achieved these milestones, and I eliminated these risks. Now I'm gonna raise a B round. Here are my milestones, here are my risks. And then by the time I go to raise a seed round, here's the state that I'll be in. And then you calibrate the amount of money that you raise to spend to the risks that you're pulling out of the business. And I go through all this, in a sense this sounds kind of obvious, but I go through all this because it's a systematic way to think about how the money gets raised and deployed. As compared to so much of what's happening, especially these days, which is just, my God, let me go raise as much money as I can. Let me go build the fancy offices, let me go hire as many people as I can, and just kind of hope for the best."

Founder Mode

106,909 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Founder Mode

32,290 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,619,840 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Watters: If we gerrymander and they gerrymander, we have a 20 seat advantage. We have a supreme court 6-3 majority. Just the way the geography is in the senate, you're always good to have more advantages for Republicans that way. If you can lock this in with what they are trying to do, the democratic party is screwed and that's what we've been trying to accomplish for the last three decades. That's what they have been trying to do to us

Watters: If we gerrymander and they gerrymander, we have a 20 seat advantage. We have a supreme court 6-3 majority. Just the way the geography is in the senate, you're always good to have more advantages for Republicans that way. If you can lock this in with what they are trying to do, the democratic party is screwed and that's what we've been trying to accomplish for the last three decades. That's what they have been trying to do to us

Acyn

861,637 просмотров • 1 год назад

French economist Thomas Piketty explains to Zack Polanski that how a local wealth tax should Include an exit tax, adding rich should pay their fair share in proportion: "Let me make very clear that individual countries like Britain or France can very well have uh, uh, progressive wealth tax and billionaire on their own right away." "They don't need to ask the permission of their neighbors or the United Nation, or they don't need to wait for world unanimity." "The only thing they need to do when they do wealth tax on their own is to make clear that if you have made your wealth in, in Britain for many decades by benefiting from the public services in Britain, by the legal system of Britain, because creating wealth, accumulating wealth is always the outcome, uh, of a collective process where you use institution, the legal system, the education system, the health system, the transportation system, the road system." "If you have benefited from this during many decades, you cannot simply walk away at age 50 or 60 or whatever and say, okay now, bye bye, I don't pay tax anymore." "So the first, the only important thing you need to do when you set up a wealth tax, say in Britain, is to say even if you go away, you keep paying." "The way the Americans do it, is by saying as long as you keep U.S. citizenship, you pay even if you're in Switzerland, wherever you want." "I don't think this is the best way." "I think a better way would be to make people pay in proportion to the years of, of residents that they have spent in the country." "So if you have spent your first 50 years in Britain, you move at age 51, well that's fine, do that." "But you know, you keep paying 50, 51st of the tax that you would have paid." "So the fiscal cost for the treasury is quite limited." "Yes, so that's the important point." "And once you have said that, I think all the arguments about tax evasion sort of fall down almost immediately." "Now people will tell you, oh, but you cannot do that." "Of course you can." "The problem is that we have put ourselves in a situation to think that the very specific treaties about capital flows, what we have come to call free capital flows that were set up in the 80s and 90s, are sort of law of nature." "The idea that you have a sacralized right to benefit from the public services legal system in a country as much as you want, and then you push on a button and you can transfer your assets wherever you want and nobody can follow you and nobody can make you pay." "And it's a sort of new sacralized right." "But look, this is a uh, completely crazy system." "This is a machinery to make normal people middle class and lower class people hate globalization." "And if you tell people there's nothing you can change about this." "There's nothing you can change about inequality, about economic policy." "We see the only thing government can do is to control their border for, uh, migrants." "And then of course, 20 years, 30 years later, the entire political conversation is about border control and identity." "But that's because you close the discussion entirely about, uh, uh, economic and fiscal policy." "So we have to reopen the discussion." "And the first thing to do that is to question free capital flows in the sense that you don't have the freedom to escape taxation after you have benefited from the public services and public institution of a country during so long." "So if you address this directly and make clear that you will keep paying in proportion to the number of years you have stayed in Britain, then um, um, I mean, you can also combine that with rules about the location of the assets themselves." "As long as the assets are located in Britain, of course you can make people pay." "But it's important to, to have also the number of years you've spent in the country so that even if you move your assets away, you keep paying and you don't have the choice otherwise your assets can be taken away from you if some of them are in Britain, if you return to Britain and you've not paid your tax, well, you will be subject to the sanction which anybody not paying your tax." "So that's the first big thing, is that you don't need to have a world wealth tax." "You can do a lot at the level of Britain." "And we should not use this global wealth tax idea as an excuse not to do at, uh, the country level what national governments can do at their own level."

French economist Thomas Piketty explains to Zack Polanski that how a local wealth tax should Include an exit tax, adding rich should pay their fair share in proportion: "Let me make very clear that individual countries like Britain or France can very well have uh, uh, progressive wealth tax and billionaire on their own right away." "They don't need to ask the permission of their neighbors or the United Nation, or they don't need to wait for world unanimity." "The only thing they need to do when they do wealth tax on their own is to make clear that if you have made your wealth in, in Britain for many decades by benefiting from the public services in Britain, by the legal system of Britain, because creating wealth, accumulating wealth is always the outcome, uh, of a collective process where you use institution, the legal system, the education system, the health system, the transportation system, the road system." "If you have benefited from this during many decades, you cannot simply walk away at age 50 or 60 or whatever and say, okay now, bye bye, I don't pay tax anymore." "So the first, the only important thing you need to do when you set up a wealth tax, say in Britain, is to say even if you go away, you keep paying." "The way the Americans do it, is by saying as long as you keep U.S. citizenship, you pay even if you're in Switzerland, wherever you want." "I don't think this is the best way." "I think a better way would be to make people pay in proportion to the years of, of residents that they have spent in the country." "So if you have spent your first 50 years in Britain, you move at age 51, well that's fine, do that." "But you know, you keep paying 50, 51st of the tax that you would have paid." "So the fiscal cost for the treasury is quite limited." "Yes, so that's the important point." "And once you have said that, I think all the arguments about tax evasion sort of fall down almost immediately." "Now people will tell you, oh, but you cannot do that." "Of course you can." "The problem is that we have put ourselves in a situation to think that the very specific treaties about capital flows, what we have come to call free capital flows that were set up in the 80s and 90s, are sort of law of nature." "The idea that you have a sacralized right to benefit from the public services legal system in a country as much as you want, and then you push on a button and you can transfer your assets wherever you want and nobody can follow you and nobody can make you pay." "And it's a sort of new sacralized right." "But look, this is a uh, completely crazy system." "This is a machinery to make normal people middle class and lower class people hate globalization." "And if you tell people there's nothing you can change about this." "There's nothing you can change about inequality, about economic policy." "We see the only thing government can do is to control their border for, uh, migrants." "And then of course, 20 years, 30 years later, the entire political conversation is about border control and identity." "But that's because you close the discussion entirely about, uh, uh, economic and fiscal policy." "So we have to reopen the discussion." "And the first thing to do that is to question free capital flows in the sense that you don't have the freedom to escape taxation after you have benefited from the public services and public institution of a country during so long." "So if you address this directly and make clear that you will keep paying in proportion to the number of years you have stayed in Britain, then um, um, I mean, you can also combine that with rules about the location of the assets themselves." "As long as the assets are located in Britain, of course you can make people pay." "But it's important to, to have also the number of years you've spent in the country so that even if you move your assets away, you keep paying and you don't have the choice otherwise your assets can be taken away from you if some of them are in Britain, if you return to Britain and you've not paid your tax, well, you will be subject to the sanction which anybody not paying your tax." "So that's the first big thing, is that you don't need to have a world wealth tax." "You can do a lot at the level of Britain." "And we should not use this global wealth tax idea as an excuse not to do at, uh, the country level what national governments can do at their own level."

Farrukh

215,533 просмотров • 1 день назад

Bartiromo: What can you do to offset the job cuts that will, no doubt, come as a result of A.I. Efficiency? Trump: One thing, very simple, bring more companies in, more jobs. You know, the truth is we done have enough people to take care of these jobs. So it's perfect timing. We don't have enough people. You know, my biggest problem is they're coming in and they have to hire thousands and thousands of workers. This is perfect if timing. We don't have enough people. If AI is so good, which I hear it is and there's a lot of money being spent by very smart people. I'll tell you, we are dominating A.I., that's the the other thing. And they all said, well, we'd have a problem because of electricity, we don't make enough electricity. We would have to double our electric power, can you believe that? And you know what I did, I had an idea, I said, when you build your plant, you're going to become an electric utility. You're not going to take it from an old grid that's been here for a hundred years. You're going to take it right from a new facility, and they said, they actually looked at me and they said, you'd do that? Of course I would. It's a national emergency. I'm going to approve everything, and you'll have your approval in two weeks.

Bartiromo: What can you do to offset the job cuts that will, no doubt, come as a result of A.I. Efficiency? Trump: One thing, very simple, bring more companies in, more jobs. You know, the truth is we done have enough people to take care of these jobs. So it's perfect timing. We don't have enough people. You know, my biggest problem is they're coming in and they have to hire thousands and thousands of workers. This is perfect if timing. We don't have enough people. If AI is so good, which I hear it is and there's a lot of money being spent by very smart people. I'll tell you, we are dominating A.I., that's the the other thing. And they all said, well, we'd have a problem because of electricity, we don't make enough electricity. We would have to double our electric power, can you believe that? And you know what I did, I had an idea, I said, when you build your plant, you're going to become an electric utility. You're not going to take it from an old grid that's been here for a hundred years. You're going to take it right from a new facility, and they said, they actually looked at me and they said, you'd do that? Of course I would. It's a national emergency. I'm going to approve everything, and you'll have your approval in two weeks.

Acyn

92,623 просмотров • 1 год назад

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 просмотров • 1 год назад

Kareem believes capitalism rewards risk more than hard work or skill. He has a really unique way of defining risk and explains why most people never actually take any: "Capitalism rewards risk more than anything else. A lot of people think it's a meritocracy, but there are a lot of people working really hard and not making a lot of money. It doesn't just reward skill either. You can be eating a sword and not making as much as someone doing a YouTube video. A lot of people think they're taking risks, but aren't taking real risks. I talked to one founder who went to a good school, then YC, and he was telling me about his company. He said, 'We serve sales, and we serve recruiting.' I said, 'You have to pick one.' That's where you're actually providing value –– in committing yourself to serving some group of people in some specific way. My definition of risk is you need to genuinely not know what's going to happen, so you're going to discover something new. And it needs to be coupled with a high potential for shame. That's when you can take real risk. When you couple risk and courage, the next part is commitment. You actually need to follow through to see what ends up happening. You can't just quit in the beginning."

Kareem believes capitalism rewards risk more than hard work or skill. He has a really unique way of defining risk and explains why most people never actually take any: "Capitalism rewards risk more than anything else. A lot of people think it's a meritocracy, but there are a lot of people working really hard and not making a lot of money. It doesn't just reward skill either. You can be eating a sword and not making as much as someone doing a YouTube video. A lot of people think they're taking risks, but aren't taking real risks. I talked to one founder who went to a good school, then YC, and he was telling me about his company. He said, 'We serve sales, and we serve recruiting.' I said, 'You have to pick one.' That's where you're actually providing value –– in committing yourself to serving some group of people in some specific way. My definition of risk is you need to genuinely not know what's going to happen, so you're going to discover something new. And it needs to be coupled with a high potential for shame. That's when you can take real risk. When you couple risk and courage, the next part is commitment. You actually need to follow through to see what ends up happening. You can't just quit in the beginning."

Patrick OShaughnessy

96,049 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Donald Trump announces America will take full control of Venezuela and run the country “We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition. We don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years. So we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition, and it has to be judicious because that's what we're all about. We want peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela”

Donald Trump announces America will take full control of Venezuela and run the country “We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition. We don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years. So we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition, and it has to be judicious because that's what we're all about. We want peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela”

Wall Street Apes

29,984 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

George answer question from maria, a Mercedes fan from Spain. 🗣️: What something that you have to do before the race? GR: "I tell my girlfriend I love her, she gets upset if I don't, so that's more for her sake and gives peace of mind. I think for us as well on that note, you know, we're doing what we love. We know the dangers, but when the helmet's on you feel that you're sort of in control of that destiny, whereas for your fans or family or loved ones who are watching, you know, they can't control anything, and I guess that is a nerve-wracking time. But no, for me, I don't really have any major superstitions, to be honest. We always weigh ourselves before the session to make sure we're not going to be too heavy or too light, because I know quite well you can get disqualified if your car is too light, but I don't have any major superstitions, no."

George answer question from maria, a Mercedes fan from Spain. 🗣️: What something that you have to do before the race? GR: "I tell my girlfriend I love her, she gets upset if I don't, so that's more for her sake and gives peace of mind. I think for us as well on that note, you know, we're doing what we love. We know the dangers, but when the helmet's on you feel that you're sort of in control of that destiny, whereas for your fans or family or loved ones who are watching, you know, they can't control anything, and I guess that is a nerve-wracking time. But no, for me, I don't really have any major superstitions, to be honest. We always weigh ourselves before the session to make sure we're not going to be too heavy or too light, because I know quite well you can get disqualified if your car is too light, but I don't have any major superstitions, no."

stas⁶³🏎️

182,833 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад