Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Absolute barbarism. Cunt almost implodes on itself like a meat neutron star. Shoots out 2 eggs and almost forgets about the 3rd. #cunt #gape #prolapse #pussy #doggy #milf #spread #destroyed #bucketcunt #wrecked #extreme #birth #egg

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

The physics of communication. " Velocity is a vector. It has a magnitude and a direction. People talk a lot about magnitude. They don't talk about direction. [...] And so sometimes it feels like the metric is just quantity of yapping. And we're gonna go on all these podcasts and we're gonna deliver blog posts like I've seen inside a lot of comms teams or agencies where their metrics and their KPIs for the quarter are two op-eds, three podcasts, four town halls, and, and it's all about quantity, without talking about (the key point): Where are we trying to move the needle to? [...] But you don't want your comms to look like that, where you're just like doing things in a bunch of different directions. You actually want your comms to look kind of like a line that builds towards a destination. And if you don't have the direction in mind, then it's just a bunch of frantic activity and wasted motion, some of which cancels each other out. ... Don't worry so much about where you're going to say it, worry about, what are you gonna say. In none of these plans and strategies that lay out three town halls and four op-eds and whatever, I almost never see, here's the idea that we wanna spread; Here is the idea that we're gonna spread and everything needs to go in this direction and what makes this idea interesting and worthwhile? It's just, get the CEO out there, get this CEO out there, get him interviews, get him onto the Shane Parish podcast. What's he gonna say? Nobody knows. Just put him in the chair." Lulu Cheng Meservey x The Knowledge Project

Shane Parrish

60,856 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

"To hear what people were saying about me after 'Dune' (1984) could have completely destroyed my confidence and happiness, and you need to be happy to make stuff. I was almost dead. Almost dead!" --- David Lynch Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: In what sounds like a developing chaos, how hard was it to keep a fresh eye on the film — despite the daily disappointments? Lynch: That’s the hardest thing there is. The closer I get to finishing a movie, the more I start projecting my fears onto it. Not only have I seen it over and over, I start seeing where I’ve made mistakes. I see my fears double-exposed with the images on the screen. And it just keeps getting worse until I can’t stand being in the editing room. I can’t see it. I just see fear and horror. And I’m, like, insane now, at the end of the film, and I’m not even acknowledging my predicament. I’m doing a mental thing to be free from it. And so I really don’t even remember finishing the film. To hear what people were saying about me after 'Dune' could have completely destroyed my confidence and happiness, and you need to be happy to make stuff. I was almost dead. Almost dead! But because of 'The Elephant Man' (1980) they couldn’t discount me completely. If I’d just made 'Eraserhead' (1977) and 'Dune' (1984) I'd have been cooked! Dune took me off at the knees. Maybe a little higher. Interviewer: Did the necessity to compress the film give birth to the device of constantly hearing what people were thinking? Lynch: Well, a lot of it was meant to be in the film but, like, 40 per cent of it was added on to nail things that they thought people would not understand. It can be a beautiful thing — to hear thinking. It’s a nifty thing, but when it’s just for information, you smell a rat. Interviewer: There was so much material and room for development that it could have made a great TV series — like 'Twin Peaks'. Lynch: That would’ve been a great thing. You could’ve done it justice. There was a poetry to a lot of the stuff: the atmospheres, the rituals — sand. The water being saved down below in these places. And the thrill of the little water- drops, with certain sounds and a certain light. Those things are mesmerizing, but I got maybe one drop in before Dino was, you know, on me!" ('Lynch on Lynch', Edited by Chris Rodley, 1997)

DepressedBergman

78,484 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

One guy built this app in a month and now it makes him more than $1,000,000 a year. No team. No investors. No marketing department. One developer. One month. One clever idea. The app is a camera for events. In its first month it got 100,000 downloads and he did not spend a single dollar on ads. Here is how he did it because the most interesting part is the growth itself. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing itself. After that things kick in that almost nobody figures out. 1. You cannot use the app alone. For it to work the host has to pull every guest into it. Each install drags in dozens more right away. 2. One wedding is not one user but a whole crowd at once. 200 people scan one code in an evening and install the app. No ad brings that many for the same money and here the money is zero. 3. The guest becomes the host. He liked it at someone else's wedding and a month later he throws his own event and brings his own people. The loop spins itself and for free. 4. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift not some app forced on him. So they install it gladly and all of them do. 5. It all runs on emotion. A wedding. Memories. Shared shots. People film it and show their own people and a new wave comes in. Now let us count the money plain and honest. The subscription runs from 2 to 50 dollars. Say only every 20th person pays. That is 5,000 people out of 100,000. The average check a modest 20 dollars. 5,000 times 20 is 100,000 dollars a month. More than 3,000 a day. More than $1,000,000 a year. And all of this is one guy in a month without a single dollar on ads. He did not win on budget and not on a team. He won by sewing distribution into the very use of the product. You can lift almost any product this way. Could you build something like this on your own or is it just luck?

Blaze

10,703 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce