Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Alright. So when Ronald Comes back within a week, Here is my Atlanta Braves Lineup 1. DH Ronald Acuna JR 2. SS Tate Southisene 3. C dRAKE BaldHIM 4. 1B Matt Olson 5. 2b Ozhaino Jurdy Jiandro Albies 6. LF Eric Hartman 7. 3B Austin Riley 8. RF AJ...

72,896 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

⚾️9/4 MLB MOST Notables⚾️ If you appreciate what we do and want to show a little support, anything is appreciated!!!👇 Jazz Chisholm Jr. vs Walker Buehler: 6-10, 1 Double, 2 HRs💣💣 Jackson Merrill vs Max Fried: 4-7, 1 Triple, 1 HR💣 Jake Bauers vs Rhett Lowder: 5-8, 2 HRs💣💣 Lane Thomas vs Cristopher Sánchez: 8-14, 2 Doubles, 1 HR💣 Spencer Torkelson vs Logan Allen: 5-8, 2 Doubles, 2 HRs💣💣 Zach McKinstry vs Logan Allen: 1-3, 1 HR💣 Gleyber Torres vs Foster Griffin: 1-3, 1 HR💣 Travis Bazzana vs Keider Montero: 1-3, 1 HR💣 Keider Montero vs Current Guardians: 10-69, 9 K🔥 Sal Frelick vs Rhett Lowder: 4-8, 1 Double William Contreras vs Rhett Lowder: 4-8, 1 HR💣 Eugenio Suárez vs Shane Drohan: 2-4, 2 Doubles Matt Olson vs Cristopher Sánchez: 6-20, 2 Doubles, 2 HRs💣💣 Ronald Acuña Jr. vs Cristopher Sánchez: 4-13, 1 HR💣 Ozzie Albies vs Cristopher Sánchez: 8-15, 2 Doubles Austin Riley vs Cristopher Sánchez: 6-12, 1 HR💣 Trea Turner vs Chris Sale: 6-19, 2 Doubles Kyle Schwarber vs Chris Sale: 5-19, 1 Triple, 2 HRs💣💣 Shane Baz vs Current Red Sox: .198 BAA, 26.3% K-Rate🔥 Coby Mayo vs Ranger Suarez: 2-3, 1 HR💣 Erick Fedde vs Current Twins: .151 BAA, 25% K-Rate🔥 Drew Romo vs Zebby Matthews: 2-5, 1 HR💣 Zebby Matthews vs Current White Sox: .177 BAA, 19.3% K-Rate🔥 Joc Pederson vs Nick Martinez: 2-5, 2 HRs💣💣, 105.7 EV Elias Díaz vs Nick Martinez: 4-8, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Nolan Arenado vs Cristian Javier: 2-5, 2 HRs💣💣 Vladimir Guerrero Jr. vs Daniel Lynch IV: 4-8, 1 HR💣 Ernie Clement vs Daniel Lynch IV: 3-6, 1 HR💣 Bobby Witt Jr. vs Jameson Taillon: 2-3, 1 HR💣 Iván Herrera vs Ryan Feltner: 2-8, 1 HR💣 Fernando Tatis Jr. vs Max Fried: 5-10, 1 Double Austin Hays vs Max Fried: 5-9, 1 Double Zack Gelof vs Logan Gilbert: 3-8, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Carlos Cortes vs Logan Gilbert: 3-5, 100.0 EV 🍓Fresh Matchups (never faced): Andrew Sears vs CLE, Matt Wilkinson vs NYM, Jackson Kent vs LAD, Kade Morris vs SEA Who do YOU🫵 think adds to their notable history today/tonight?

Tablesetters: A Baseball Podcast

47,149 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

⚾️6/3 MLB MOST Notables⚾️ José Ramírez vs Gerrit Cole: 12-36, 3 Doubles, 1 Triple, 2 HRs💣💣 Ronald Acuña Jr vs Patrick Corbin: 11-34, 2 Doubles, 1 HR💣 Austin Riley vs Patrick Corbin: 9-35, 3 Doubles, 3 HRs💣💣💣 Ozzie Albies vs Patrick Corbin: 14-32, 3 Doubles, 1 Triple, 3 HRs💣💣💣 Jo Adell vs Michael Lorenzen: 6-11, 2 HRs💣💣 Fernando Tatis Jr vs Cristopher Sanchez: 7-14, 1 HR💣 Bryce Harper vs Walker Buehler: 4-8, 3 Doubles, 1 HR💣 Wilyer Abreu vs Chris Bassitt: 6-14, 2 Doubles, 1 HR💣 Jacob Young vs Max Meyer: 2-2, 1 Double Keibert Ruiz vs Max Meyer: 3-3, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Riley Greene vs Nick Martinez: 2-4, 2 HRs💣💣 Edgar Quero vs Taj Bradley: 3-6, 1 Double Colson Montgomery vs Taj Bradley: 2-5, 2 HRs💣💣 Bo Bichette vs George Kirby: 2-7, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Juan Soto vs George Kirby: 3-4 Freddy Peralta vs Current Mariners: .149 BAA, 34.5% K-Rate🔥 Freddy Fermin vs Cristopher Sanchez: 2-4, 2 HRs💣💣 Masataka Yoshida vs Chris Bassitt: 6-16, 1 Double Austin Wells vs Gavin Williams: 2-6, 1 HR💣 Jesús Sánchez vs Grant Holmes: 2-7, 2 Doubles Matt Olson vs Patrick Corbin: 6-14, 2 Doubles Ha-Seong Kim vs Patrick Corbin: 6-17, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Mauricio Dubón vs Patrick Corbin: 2-6, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Dominic Smith vs Patrick Corbin: 3-4, 2 Doubles Brice Turang vs Logan Webb: 4-9, 1 Triple💨 Masyn Winn vs Mackenzie Gore: 5-11, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Brent Rooker vs Colin Rea: 3-5, 1 Double, 1 HR💣 Michael Conforto vs Jeffrey Springs: 3-5, 3 Doubles Ian Happ vs Jeffrey Springs: 3-4 Brandon Lowe vs Spencer Arrighetti: 2-3, 1 Double Paul Skenes vs Current Astros: 3-31, 7 K🔥 Mookie Betts vs Zac Gallen: 8-31, 2 Doubles, 1 HR💣 Kyle Tucker vs Zac Gallen: 6-20, 2 Doubles, 1 Triple💨 Miguel Rojas vs Zac Gallen: 5-10, 1 Double Andy Pages vs Zac Gallen: 3-9, 1 HR💣 Pavin Smith vs Shohei Ohtani: 2-3, 1 Double 🍓Fresh Matchups (never faced): Chase Burns vs KC, Walbert Ureña vs COL Who do you think adds to their notable history today/tonight?

Tablesetters: A Baseball Podcast

104,592 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

My personal top 20 OF prospects! 1. Walker Jenkins, MIN, AA, CF, 20 2. Edward Florentino, PIT, A, RF, 18 🎦 3. Eduardo Quintero, LAD, A, CF, 19 4. Lazaro Montes, SEA, A+, RF, 20 5. Max Clark, DET, A+, CF, 20 6. Spencer Jones, NYY, AAA, CF, 24 7. Zyhir Hope, LAD, A+, RF, 20 8. Owen Caissie, CHC, AAA, RF, 22 9. Emmanuel Rodriguez, MIN, AAA, CF, 22 10. Josue De Paula, LAD, A+, LF, 20 11. Justin Crawford, PHI, AAA, CF, 21 12. Mike Sirota, LAD, A+, CF, 22 13. Carson Benge, NYM, AA, CF, 22 14. Héctor Rodriguez, CIN, AAA, LF 21 15. Jhostynxon Garcia, BOS, AAA, CF, 22 16. Gabriel Gonzalez, MIN, AA, LF, 21 17. Braylon Payne, MIL, A, CF, 18 18. Theo Gillen, TBR, A, CF, 19 19. Nate George, BAL, A, CF, 19 20. A.J. Ewing, NYM A+, CF, 20 Other outfielders to know! Carlos Gutierrez, SFG Robert Calaz, COL Juneiker Caceres, CLE Braden Montgomery, CHW Slade Caldwell, ARI Chase DeLauter, CLE Jonny Farmelo, SEA Yeremi Cabrera, TEX Robert Arias, CLE Juan Ortuno, MIL Rece Hinds, CIN Dylan Beavers, BAL Edward Lantigua, NYM Andrew Salas, MIA Jaison Chourio, CLE Cole Carrigg, COL Ryan Waldschmidt, ARI Alfonsin Rosario, CLE Joseph Sullivan, HOU Owen Carey, ATL Nelson Rada, LAA Asbel Gonzalez, KCR Elis Cuevas, BAL Aidan Smith, TBR Jose Anderson, MIL Carson Benge, NYM Brailer Guerrero, TBR Henry Bolte, OAK Hayden Alvarez, LAA Notes: -Non-debuted only -LOADED position -I meant to relist Condon as a 1B this month but missed him. He would rank #6 at 1B and #13 here. -I continue to be high on Jenkins as I think there is more power there, question how much injuries have sapped it, and applaud him for his effectiveness despite that. Am I wrong? Tell me why! 👇

Ross Jensen

49,437 просмотров • 1 год назад

Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) by hand ✍️ ~ 9 steps walkthrough below The Gen in GenAI came from this landmark paper by Ian Goodfellow et al., 12 years ago. The paper showed that a neural network can not only classify but also turn upside down to generate realistic looking images. The secret? We pit two of them against each other: a Generator turns noise into fake data, and a Discriminator learns to tell fake from real, pushing the Generator to keep doing better. One runs upside down, the other right way up. I drew and calculated one entirely by hand. Goal: generate realistic 4D data out of 2D noise, filling in every cell yourself. = 1. Given = Four noise vectors in 2D, and four real data vectors in 4D. = 2. Generator, first layer = Let us multiply the noise by weights and biases to get new features. = 3. ReLU = We apply the activation, and -1 and -2 are crossed out and set to 0. = 4. Generator, second layer = Let us multiply again. ReLU applies here too, but every value is already positive, so nothing changes. What comes out is the fake data F, made by a two-layer generator out of nothing but noise. = 5. Discriminator, first layer = We feed it both, the four fakes and the four real vectors, through the same weights. It never learns which is which from the layout, only from the numbers. = 6. Discriminator, second layer = Let us reduce each data vector to a single feature Z. Eight vectors in, eight numbers out. = 7. Sigmoid = We turn each Z into a probability Y. A 1 means the discriminator is certain the data is real, a 0 means certain it is fake. = 8. Training the Discriminator = Let us take the gradients as Y minus YD, where YD is what the discriminator should have said: 0 for the four fakes, 1 for the four real. Why so simple? Because pairing sigmoid with binary cross entropy loss makes the math collapse to exactly this subtraction. Its loss uses both halves of the page. = 9. Training the Generator = We do it again, as Y minus YG, and YG is [1, 1, 1, 1]: the generator wants the discriminator to call every fake real. Same predictions, different target, opposite goal. Its loss uses only the fakes. The outputs: Fake data F = [1, 2, 3, 1], [1, 1, 2, 1], [2, 2, 4, 2], [1, 0, 1, 1] Predictions on fakes = [.7, .5, .9, .3] Predictions on real = [.7, .9, .9, 1] Discriminator gradients = [.7, .5, .9, .3] and [-.3, -.1, -.1, 0] Generator gradients = [-.3, -.5, -.1, -.7] The takeaway: the adversarial part is one subtraction done twice. The same eight predictions, scored against two opposite targets, send one set of gradients back through the blue weights and another back through the green ones. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

16,752 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨🚨🚨A Stark Warning 🚨🚨🚨 🚨Europe is losing its mind. 🚨Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 🚨Russia could wipe us out in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 🚨Does anyone think that if Russia is massively attacked within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? Pedro Baños Retired Spanish Army Colonel: 📑 That Mrs. von der Leyen is going to give Ukraine another 3.3 BILLONES euros another because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? Because she says that everything Ukraine has already received isn't enough, right? 0:08 Exactly, the problem is that they've made a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:09 a huge bet on Ukraine, and it has gone badly for them 0:12 and now, how do they backtrack, 0:13 how do they admit that this has been a mistake 0:14 from the very start, that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:17 that they've led an entire people to destruction, 0:18 that already two generations of Ukrainians have died, 0:20 those who haven't fled the country, 0:22 which is a total disaster. 0:23 We only have the casualty exchange numbers between Russia and Ukraine, 0:27 between Russia and Ukraine, and the figures are staggering. 0:30 We can provide them later, right? 0:32 But what's going on? 0:34 As you said, that increase ... 0:36 look, in Spain's case, 0:37 it means multiplying the Defence budget by five, 0:41 Because of course, since the United States first asked for 2%. 0:44 Since we agreed, they said, "Hey, then 3.5%.." 0:47 Since we also agreed, they said, "Well, 5%." 0:49 These people are fools, so let's go, let's ask them for more, right? 0:52 In the end, they are going to buy almost everything from me, 0:54 which I really need. 0:55 But what is the problem, Ambassador? 0:56 When you manufacture weapons, 0:59 there is only one way for that system not to fail you, 1:02 and that is to use the weapons you've produced. 1:05 Because look, 1:06 you manufacture—imagine, it's true, there was a deficit here, 1:08 for example, of artillery shells, 1:10 one hundred fifty-five, or shells for, 1:12 cannons, or, or, or tank shells. 1:15 Fine, that's all well and good, whatever we want. 1:17 You've already produced that one million, five million shells. 1:21 And once you've produced them, what do you do? 1:22 That factory you set up with public money, with subsidies, do you shut it down? 1:28 Or you have the other option, 1:30 which is to go to war to use up that ammunition 1:32 and keep producing more. 1:33 And as it happens, in Europe, 1:35 especially in the main countries, 1:37 the economy is a total mess, 1:39 it's in free fall, 1:43 they desperately need, 1:45 as they can no longer make cars, like in Germany, 1:48 to start making tanks or ammunition instead. 1:51 But France is in the same situation. 1:52 A France that has been expelled from Africa, 1:56 where what the franc meant for them, the CFA. 2:00 And not only that, but also all the resources 2:02 they extracted under more than favorable conditions from these countries, 2:06 starting with uranium from Niger, 2:08 they've run out of it. 2:09 France is having a very hard time, 2:11 with an absolutely brutal social crisis. 2:15 And now we see all this coming together 2:16 with skyrocketing energy prices, 2:19 we can already see that the price of fuels 2:21 in Germany has already surpassed 2.5 euro— 2:24 euros per liter, which is truly outrageous. 2:27 We're talking about, and we saw the news, 2:29 that filling a standard tank 2:32 of an average vehicle now means 200 euros, 2:35 200 euros, which is absolutely insane. 2:38 And what does that mean? 2:39 That they only have one solution, indeed, 2:42 which is to go to war. 2:43 And remember there's something that, 2:45 we studied it in the Command and Staff course 2:47 and when you tell people about it, 2:48 they treat it as little more than a joke too, 2:50 that there is something called the relaxing wars. 2:53 The relaxing wars that have been used throughout 2:55 history 2:57 to get rid of part of the population or to get out of an economic chaos. 3:02 And that's ... 3:03 right now it would be very convenient for them to, 3:04 on one hand, get rid of some of the population, 3:07 that is, get rid of this problem they say they won't be able to pay pensions, 3:10 because all of this increase, besides the cost, don't forget, military, 3:15 means a clear and tangible reduction of the welfare state, 3:20 of the four pillars of the welfare state. 3:22 Some of the more honest politicians, the few there are, 3:25 tell you this openly, others still keep it hidden. 3:28 But, of course, what happens? 3:29 That, in fact, it would be very convenient for them to camouflage the dire situation, 3:33 regrettable, that they have within their own country. 3:35 We see and we can talk about Macron's statements today, 3:39 where he said that we should just about go 3:41 to war because Russia is waging a hybrid war against us 3:43 which is unacceptable and that we have to be prepared. 3:46 Macron said it, as well as some of his top ministers. 3:48 Of course, but the thing is, France is in a very, 3:51 very delicate, extremely delicate situation. 3:53 And also in a France 3:55 where people are not as patient as the Spanish, 3:57 over there, as soon as people get a little heated, 3:59 they take to the streets and burn down half the streets. 4:02 But we've talked about it, the way things are in Germany, 4:04 the way things are in Sweden, the way things are in Finland, 4:07 which, ever since it joined NATO, 4:09 has completely come apart, with unemployment even higher than in Spain, 4:14 a sunken economy. 4:16 And then some only see the way out as the United Kingdom, 4:19 which now even wants to break apart, 4:21 there are already, there are small populations that are asking for independence 4:25 within the United Kingdom, even on the verge, 4:28 as many predict, of an internal civil confrontation. 4:32 And of course, what do they always find? 4:33 Well, we already know that to unite the people, 4:36 to cover up internal chaos, 4:40 you know, create an external enemy 4:42 and declare that you have to go to war against them. 4:43 The problem with all that, Ambassador, 4:44 is that when, and you know this perfectly well, 4:46 you have even much more experience than I do, 4:49 you say, you know that the problem with all this is 4:50 that when you get yourself involved in this war context, 4:53 you are making the population get used to it every day. 4:56 We just have to look at a some newspaper, 4:59 a Spanish one that every day, every single day without exception, 5:02 publishes some story to accuse Russia of anything, 5:05 or to convince the population 5:07 that we must go to war against Russia. 5:09 So, when you already have the, the, the atmosphere, the context, the narrative, 5:13 and you've already created it, all that's left is the incident. 5:15 And we're seeing incidents like these every day. 5:17 Like—now, it's a Danish helicopter, 5:20 or a frigate getting close to a Russian ship, 5:23 or the Russian ship fires a grenade, or some warning flares, 5:27 which is nonsense. 5:28 A flare is—what's even happening— 5:29 what range could it have? 300 meters. 5:31 And that's not going to bring down any helicopter. 5:34 But of course, it must be because the helicopter had come closer precisely 5:38 to the Russian warship in international waters. 5:42 But they're searching, they're only looking for the incident that will make all this blow up completely, 5:46 when, on top of that, they're deceiving us every day with the whole drone issue, 5:50 about Russian drones in the middle of Germany, 5:52 about not knowing, knowing where they came from and they just appear out of nowhere, 5:55 almost as if in, in a space-time shortcut. 5:58 And, and it's like that all the time. And we have loads of information. 6:01 But look, but the thing is there is a fact right now that strikes me as devastating 6:04 to show us how they're speeding this up by the minute, Ambassador, 6:09 Today's news 6:10 that Ukraine has launched drones 6:13 against a Russian nuclear power plant inside Russia. 6:17 Because remember that every so often, he launches strikes on Zaporizhia and 6:19 on top of that, they accuse the Russians of being the ones 6:22 launching drones at their own nuclear plant, 6:24 because they currently have it in their possession. 6:27 No, no, we're talking about inside, inside Russia, 6:31 at a nuclear power plant, Ukraine has launched drones. 6:34 In other words, what they're looking for now is for 6:36 Russia to blow up, 6:38 I mean, for them to say, look, this is where we draw the line, 6:41 I've had enough of you. 6:42 And, and, and on top of that, so that we Europeans can play the victim, see? 6:45 We had already warned you that Russia could attack us at any moment. 6:48 If they're provoking them with the, 6:51 the ones living in the Baltic states, 6:54 whose civil rights have been taken away, 6:55 who have been banned from speaking Russian. 6:57 In other words, they're constantly provoking it so that Russia finally snaps, 7:01 and specifically, 7:02 so that it's the one to take the first step in this war, 7:05 and today's statements from everyone, from Donald Tusk, 7:08 from Macron, from Merz they're honestly chilling. 7:13 That is, they're already openly talking to us about war, 7:16 they're openly talking to us about war. 7:18 And besides, the case of Poland, 7:20 which we'll discuss later too and give the exact data, 7:25 but what's happening with Poland is, is also spectacular. 7:27 And by the way, Trump, 7:30 who used to say he was going to leave Europe, 7:31 and now says no, that he's going to create a massive mega-base in Poland, 7:36 which is a plan that's already been in motion for some time. 7:39 But later, since he said he was going to leave Europe, 7:40 What is going to leave Europe? 7:41 And what we're talking about is quite the opposite, 7:43 about an absolutely warmongering Europe, 7:46 with reckless warmongering. 7:48 Because also, as you were saying, from a military point of view, 7:52 this is madness. 7:53 Where are we going up against a nuclear power? 7:56 They could wipe us out 7:58 in a matter of minutes, 8:00 in a matter of minutes, they could wipe out all of Europe. 8:02 But where are we going? 8:03 Does anyone think 8:05 that if Russia is massively attacked 8:09 within its territory, it will just sit back and do nothing? 8:12 Obviously not. So, what are we trying to achieve? 8:14 That they'll get really tired and launch two or three, 8:18 nuclear bombs on some of the main European capitals? 8:21 What are they trying to do? 8:22 I really don't know. 8:24 And you say, "But let's see." 8:25 Also, here no one, absolutely no one, is talking about diplomacy. 8:29 No one is talking... And you are a diplomat, an ambassador. 8:32 You know how important, vital, essential diplomacy is. 8:35 And let's not forget that the First World War, 8:38 which today is more than proven, was a failure of diplomacy. 8:42 It was a failure of diplomacy in entering the First World War. 8:45 So, what are they trying to do? 8:47 No one, no one speaks of negotiation, no one speaks of, of peace, 8:50 no one speaks of diplomacy, starting with the Kaja Kallas, 8:52 who is the head of European diplomacy. 8:54 So, it's a situation that's not, no, not, truly tremendously delicate, 8:58 and we're not paying enough attention to it. 9:00 But those of us who know something about these issues, 9:02 in your case as a diplomat, in my case as a soldier, 9:05 since we've traveled a lot around the world, 9:07 we know how populations are prepared psychologically for war. 9:12 And that's what they've been preparing us for, for some time now, 9:14 but right now, in an absolutely accelerated way. 9:17 That preparation is blatant now, absolutely blatant, 9:21 how they're preparing us for, 9:23 of course, because you have to convince people how positive war was. 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:27 We've already done many programs on this topic, 9:30 about how, yes, how the adversary is demonized 9:33 so that in the end, people are convinced 9:35 that it's even, even good, 9:37 even logical, even "Christian," to, to attack, to attack the enemy 9:42 because he's so bad, so bad, truly evil, that he deserves to be attacked, right? 9:45 Without us realizing, the ones who suffer the consequences are us. 9:49 Mrs. von der Leyen, the president of the Commission, 9:52 has already said that none of her seven children will go to war, 9:54 because they're not prepared for that. 9:56 It will be the children of the poor, right, who go to war, 9:59 they're the ones who get sent. 10:00 So, of course, the, concern is immense, Ambassador. 10:04 But look, today itself, for example, the statements 10:07 from, we can talk about here, 10:10 from Figaro, it says here Macron says, 10:14 he says, "The president of the Republic's alert regarding the Russian threat." 10:19 It would be a mistake by Russia to continue 10:22 acting like this toward Europeans." 10:23 You say, "But look, you're the ones pressuring Russia." 10:26 Or the same thing, here on BFM, 10:29 it says, Macron says: 10:30 "The Russian hybrid threat towards Europeans and France has intensified." 10:36 Well, now they don't even know what to make up. 10:37 Or actually, here too, the EFE News Agency, which says: 10:40 "Macron warns of a shift in Russian aggression and threats in Europe." 10:46 In other words, they are preparing the ground, Ambassador, 10:48 they are preparing the ground. 10:50 When they haven't been able to prove anything 10:52 about these threats, not even the helicopter with the flares, 10:55 nor the drone issue. 10:57 In fact, there's information saying it's all staged. 10:59 There are no videos, no clear images, no remains of those drones. 11:04 And the only piece that exists, one from Poland, 11:06 seems to be all staged, 11:07 it's a shame I can't show the image, 11:10 but we'll talk about it later. 11:11 That is to say, but this really worries me, 11:13 knowing how wars are prepared, 11:15 knowing how populations are prepared, 11:17 specifically so they go to those wars gladly 11:21 and without understanding the goals behind them, 11:23 which certainly have nothing to do 11:25 with the evilness of Russia, 11:26 nor that Russia is out to kill us all, 11:28 they have been feeding us this story, 11:29 since when, Ambassador, for the past four years, 11:32 when they told us that Russia at any moment 11:33 was going to invade all of Europe. 11:35 Anyway, in any case, I find this issue absolutely extremely serious, Ambassador. *Pedro Baños Bajo is a retired Spanish Army colonel, writer, and prominent geopolitical analyst specializing in defense, intelligence, and international relations.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

36,945 просмотров • 19 дней назад

My app just hit $7.8k/m in revenue. This is how I'm running ads for mobile apps. To hit 10k/m before I quit my job & fly to Vietnam 🇻🇳 Part One: Apple Ads (First $1k/m). • Repeated this a lot so to summarise: 1. $100 free ad credits, ez mode. 2. Run strict keywords on competitor names. 3. Split into tiers for countries & scale the max bid. 4. Use RevenueCat or Superwall for attribution. 5. Give ad spend & transactions to claude: find winners. 6. Measure the onboarding: tighten funnel. 7. Daily budget can be low at first, like $20. 8. The max bid is the important variable here. 9. This will get you to $1k/m. Part Two: TikSl0p Ads ($1k to $10k) • This is much harder to make profit. • But when you do, it's exponential. • Read Open Book's guide on this first. 1. Make ~6 formats, ~12 creatives. 2. Leave campaign targeting super broad. 3. I do $70/day of campaign budget spend. 4. No demographic or interest settings. 5. Let the algorithm find your perfect user. 6. Give each creative $50 of ad spend. 7. After $50, if (close to) profitable then scale. 8. If no profit, then stop the posts. 9. Use realised LTV to begin with. 10. Simple: revenue / paid customers. 11. 400 IQ chad: aim for profit on initial transaction. 12. Ask Rico for unrealised LTV. Can be hard to calculate. 13. Expect to burn a few hundred $$ to find profit. Notes: If you none of your creatives are profitable, then go back to the drawing board and try again. You're taking $50 gambles each time. When you find a winner, it'll repay the initial investments 100x! This is a game of pain tolerance. You need to be able to stomach losing hundreds of $$$ without seeing any returns. Part Three: Scaling. 1. If you're consistently getting > 2x ROAS. 2. Up your campaign budget by 15%. 3. Do NOT increase more than 30%. 4. Otherwise I will be very very cross with you. 5. You'll kill performance. 6. Performance can be volatile. • Measure ROAS over weeks, not days Notes: When you've found a winning creative, create multiple variations of it. We're talking 100 different kinds. I'm being lazy and need to do this more!! Part Four: Experimental Ad Spend ($10k +). • This is the next level: I've gone 0-1. • I've not seen much sauce on X about scaling past this. • So, this is where I'm at now. I'll share it with all of you. My current position is: 1. Trying out other platforms: Meta, IG, etc 2. Continue reinvesting the profits from previous ads. 3. I'm trying multiple new avenues right now: • Paid influencers, UGC, slideshowmaxxing, etc. Keep pushing, we're all gonna win.

Frederick James

17,553 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

NEW: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary declares the U.S. has sunk to the level of a banana republic, warns of a financial "exodus." The comments by O'Leary were made in a piece with the Daily Mail. Here is what he said: 1. "The American brand has been dragged through the mud, sunk to the level of a banana republic where rulers take their political enemies out to the jungle to disappear." 2. "This great nation now stands diminished in the eyes of international investors. And the economic consequences for ordinary Americans could be dire." 3. Powerful business owners are closely watching the Trump persecution, knowing "they too could stand trial on purely political grounds." 4. O'Leary is losing sleep over the verdict, considering moving his money: "I, like so many others with sizeable investments, managed just two hours sleep Thursday night. For now I have to seriously consider: Do I move my money?" 5. "The trial has wounded New York's once sterling reputation as the safest and most attractive finance capital of the world." 6. The exodus is coming: "High-earners and their families are moving, too – from the likes of New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts to Texas, Florida, Tennessee and other low-tax havens." 7. O'Leary has faith Trump's verdict will make its way to the Supreme Court. 8. A final message of hope: "Once this travesty is correctly checked and this corrupt prosecution scrutinized, investors will feel less spooked." "The US is still the No.1 economy on Earth. It is still the place where most capital comes to invest. Let's hope that doesn't change."

Collin Rugg

2,600,424 просмотров • 2 лет назад

A Harvard professor asked 1 question 4 different ways - and got 4 contradicting answers His name is Michael Sandel. He teaches Justice. He opens the entire course with a hypothetical that takes 30 seconds to state and takes the rest of the hour to unravel. His entire framework fits on a napkin. You're driving a trolley. The brakes fail. 5 workers are on the track ahead. A side track has 1 worker. You can steer. Ask a room of students what they'd do, and the vast majority say the same thing: turn. Better 1 dies than 5. Here is where it falls apart. Change nothing about the math. Change only the mechanism. Now you're standing on a bridge, watching the same runaway trolley bear down on the same 5 workers. Next to you stands a heavy man. Push him off the bridge, his body stops the trolley, 5 live and 1 dies - the exact same trade as before. Almost nobody pushes him. Same numbers. Same outcome. Completely different answer. Sandel doesn't tell the room they're wrong. He asks them to explain the difference, and the room can't agree on one. 1 student argues the fat man never chose to be involved, unlike the worker already standing on the side track - except the worker never chose it either. Another argues that steering a wheel is a "split-second" reaction while pushing a man is deliberate murder - except both require an active, conscious decision to kill 1 person you weren't otherwise going to kill. Every explanation the room offers gets challenged by another student within seconds. Then Sandel tightens the trap further. You're an ER doctor. 5 patients need moderate care, 1 needs intensive care, you can't save all 6. Nearly everyone chooses the 5 - consistent with the trolley. Then: you're a transplant surgeon. 5 patients need 5 different organs. A healthy stranger naps in the next room. You could harvest his organs and save all 5. Almost nobody says yes. Same math, every single time. 1 life against 5. The answer keeps flipping, and the room keeps struggling to explain why. Sandel closes the lecture with a real case from 1884 - the shipwreck of the Mignonette. 4 sailors adrift with no food or water. After 19 days, the captain killed the weakest of them, a 17-year-old crew member, so the other 3 could survive by eating his body. All 3 survivors were rescued. 2 of them stood trial for murder back in England. The room splits immediately. Does it matter that the boy had no family waiting, while the others had wives and children? Is killing 1 to save 3 different in a lifeboat than on a bridge? Is murder wrong regardless of the outcome it produces, or only wrong when the math doesn't justify it? Here is what the lecture is really about. Sandel isn't teaching students the right answer to any of these cases. He's showing them that their own moral intuitions contradict each other within the same hour, under questioning they can't escape - and that noticing the contradiction is the actual beginning of moral philosophy. He teaches this to students who will spend careers making decisions that quietly involve this exact tradeoff - policy, medicine, law, business. Half of them will never examine the framework they're using. The other half will remember the moment their own logic broke in front of a room of strangers. The lecture is free. Harvard has taught it publicly for decades. The barrier was never access. The barrier is sitting with the contradiction long enough to admit you don't actually have a consistent principle - you have a set of feelings that change depending on how the question is asked. The napkin costs nothing. Realizing your moral intuitions contradict each other is the entire edge.

vladuah

30,142 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад