Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

An MIT professor fired a gun in a lecture hall to teach students one formula. The recording is online. The topic sounds boring on paper: velocity and acceleration. Then he pulls out a rifle. He wants the speed of a bullet. No modern sensors, just two wires and a... timer. He makes the room do the math first, counts down from three and shoots. The number on the screen settles it. After that he brings up Sherlock Holmes. A scene where a man falls on a marble floor and Holmes announces the skull is crushed. The professor explains why that moment is flawless physics, and why a bald head made it worse. You will never watch that scene the same way. There are also eggs and a tomato. They do not survive. Same physics as the skull. One gunshot, one detective, one dead tomato. All in the video.show more

ooaes

1,332 subscribers

47,612 views • 23 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

ooaes

28,543 views • 18 days ago

A Stanford neuroscientist has spent thirty years arguing that you have never made a decision. Not one. Every choice you are proud of and every mistake you still think about was the output of biology you did not pick and cannot see. He teaches an entire course on why, and it is free. The man is Robert Sapolsky, who spent decades in Kenya living among wild baboons. He opens with a man who woke up one morning as somebody else. Same brain, same family, same job. One gene had changed. He describes the case and leaves it unresolved, because the point is not the answer. The point is that you already reached for one. Then he goes after the way we reach. His argument is that every explanation you have ever heard for why a person did something is broken in the same way. It is genetic. It is cultural. It is hormones. It is childhood. Each of those is a bucket, and the buckets do not exist anywhere in nature. They exist because universities have separate departments and separate corridors, and the corridors decided what counts as an explanation. Nothing interesting happens inside a bucket. Everything interesting happens where two of them touch, and almost nobody is trained to look there. He asks the room about free will, about God, about evil, about whether biology explains who becomes religious, and whether things that happened before you were born shape your politics thirty years later. Then he refuses to answer any of it, and tells them what they will be able to judge for themselves in ten weeks. The lectures run through aggression, depression, language, schizophrenia, sexuality, and why any of it differs between two people at all. Twenty five hours. One lecture hall. Free.

A Stanford neuroscientist has spent thirty years arguing that you have never made a decision. Not one. Every choice you are proud of and every mistake you still think about was the output of biology you did not pick and cannot see. He teaches an entire course on why, and it is free. The man is Robert Sapolsky, who spent decades in Kenya living among wild baboons. He opens with a man who woke up one morning as somebody else. Same brain, same family, same job. One gene had changed. He describes the case and leaves it unresolved, because the point is not the answer. The point is that you already reached for one. Then he goes after the way we reach. His argument is that every explanation you have ever heard for why a person did something is broken in the same way. It is genetic. It is cultural. It is hormones. It is childhood. Each of those is a bucket, and the buckets do not exist anywhere in nature. They exist because universities have separate departments and separate corridors, and the corridors decided what counts as an explanation. Nothing interesting happens inside a bucket. Everything interesting happens where two of them touch, and almost nobody is trained to look there. He asks the room about free will, about God, about evil, about whether biology explains who becomes religious, and whether things that happened before you were born shape your politics thirty years later. Then he refuses to answer any of it, and tells them what they will be able to judge for themselves in ten weeks. The lectures run through aggression, depression, language, schizophrenia, sexuality, and why any of it differs between two people at all. Twenty five hours. One lecture hall. Free.

Stefan.

70,014 views • 8 days ago

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

Silverhand

75,978 views • 19 days ago

An MIT professor explained the one idea funds pay $500K for, and he does it in the first hour of freshman calculus. MIT put the whole lecture online. it has been free for twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: calculus is not a hundred formulas to memorize. it is one idea. take two points on a curve, slide them together until the gap vanishes, and the slope you are left with is the derivative. everything else is just consequences. he is David Jerison, and his 18.01 lectures have taught more people calculus than any room on earth. skip to the board, where the power rule, the product rule, the chain rule, the fifty things you were forced to memorize, all fall out of that one limit. no formula sheet. no tricks. one definition, reused. that same slope is velocity. it is marginal cost. it is the gradient that trains a neural network. one operation, hiding everywhere something moves. the math is free. what nobody can sell you is the patience to understand the one limit instead of cramming the fifty formulas that fall out of it. that hour is the foundation, and it is the only part that ever pays.

An MIT professor explained the one idea funds pay $500K for, and he does it in the first hour of freshman calculus. MIT put the whole lecture online. it has been free for twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: calculus is not a hundred formulas to memorize. it is one idea. take two points on a curve, slide them together until the gap vanishes, and the slope you are left with is the derivative. everything else is just consequences. he is David Jerison, and his 18.01 lectures have taught more people calculus than any room on earth. skip to the board, where the power rule, the product rule, the chain rule, the fifty things you were forced to memorize, all fall out of that one limit. no formula sheet. no tricks. one definition, reused. that same slope is velocity. it is marginal cost. it is the gradient that trains a neural network. one operation, hiding everywhere something moves. the math is free. what nobody can sell you is the patience to understand the one limit instead of cramming the fifty formulas that fall out of it. that hour is the foundation, and it is the only part that ever pays.

Loran

1,072,205 views • 19 days ago

A man who turned 7 million dollars into 500 million in 10 years sat on a desk in a classroom and taught the method to 30 students. The man is Joel Greenblatt. He ran Gotham Capital from 1985 to 1994 at roughly 50% a year, then returned all outside capital in 1995 and kept running his own money. Almost nobody sustains that number over a decade. A Columbia classroom in 2005. Chalkboard, blue plastic chairs, a camera at the back of the room recording for the students who missed it. He sits on the edge of the desk with a stack of paper. He does not teach a screen or a formula. He teaches situations most funds cannot touch, the corners of the market where the usual buyers are structurally forced to sell regardless of price. The first lecture is where he sets up why those corners exist at all, and why they keep existing after everybody knows about them. The uncomfortable turn is what he says about diversification and about how few positions he actually held. It runs directly against everything the same school teaches two floors down. It matters more now. Every screener is free, every filing is searchable, and the constraint was never information. Free on YouTube, filmed from the back row, audio uneven, students blocking the frame. He gave away 50% a year to a room of 30 people. The tape has been public for years. One classroom. 1 camera. It is in the video.

A man who turned 7 million dollars into 500 million in 10 years sat on a desk in a classroom and taught the method to 30 students. The man is Joel Greenblatt. He ran Gotham Capital from 1985 to 1994 at roughly 50% a year, then returned all outside capital in 1995 and kept running his own money. Almost nobody sustains that number over a decade. A Columbia classroom in 2005. Chalkboard, blue plastic chairs, a camera at the back of the room recording for the students who missed it. He sits on the edge of the desk with a stack of paper. He does not teach a screen or a formula. He teaches situations most funds cannot touch, the corners of the market where the usual buyers are structurally forced to sell regardless of price. The first lecture is where he sets up why those corners exist at all, and why they keep existing after everybody knows about them. The uncomfortable turn is what he says about diversification and about how few positions he actually held. It runs directly against everything the same school teaches two floors down. It matters more now. Every screener is free, every filing is searchable, and the constraint was never information. Free on YouTube, filmed from the back row, audio uneven, students blocking the frame. He gave away 50% a year to a room of 30 people. The tape has been public for years. One classroom. 1 camera. It is in the video.

Merlow

185,154 views • 13 days ago

A NASA fellow claims 5 equations explain 99 percent of the physics that actually runs your world. Understand them deeply and you are set for life. His words. And the way he does it is what makes the video worth it. He does not teach the five as a list. He tells them as one story, where each equation is born from the one before it. F equals ma leads into gravity. Gravity rhymes with the law of electric charge, the exact same shape. That connects to magnetism. Magnetism folds into the wave. And the wave quietly opens the door to relativity and quantum physics. By the end, all of physics feels like a single sentence written by one hand, not a pile of formulas you were forced to memorize. The move that stays with you comes first. He says F equals ma is written the wrong way around, and rewrites it. One tiny flip, and the most famous equation on Earth suddenly means something school never told you. His point for why this matters now: in the age of AI, the people who understand reality itself stay in demand. Everyone else is just memorizing. Five equations. One thread. It is in the video.

A NASA fellow claims 5 equations explain 99 percent of the physics that actually runs your world. Understand them deeply and you are set for life. His words. And the way he does it is what makes the video worth it. He does not teach the five as a list. He tells them as one story, where each equation is born from the one before it. F equals ma leads into gravity. Gravity rhymes with the law of electric charge, the exact same shape. That connects to magnetism. Magnetism folds into the wave. And the wave quietly opens the door to relativity and quantum physics. By the end, all of physics feels like a single sentence written by one hand, not a pile of formulas you were forced to memorize. The move that stays with you comes first. He says F equals ma is written the wrong way around, and rewrites it. One tiny flip, and the most famous equation on Earth suddenly means something school never told you. His point for why this matters now: in the age of AI, the people who understand reality itself stay in demand. Everyone else is just memorizing. Five equations. One thread. It is in the video.

ooaes

433,688 views • 20 days ago

There's a physics lecture with over a million views' worth of value and almost no views. No slides. No notes. Just a green chalkboard and a man who clearly doesn't need one. The professor is V. Balakrishnan, IIT Madras. The course is Classical Physics, recorded for NPTEL — India's free national lecture archive — and quietly sitting on YouTube since 2009. What makes lecture one worth your time isn't production value. It's the opposite. It's a full subject held in one person's head, delivered in order, with nothing between him and the material. He opens with the actual boundary of the field: what classical mechanics can explain, and the precise point where it hands off to quantum theory. No hedging, no filler — every sentence finished before the next one starts. A friend who works in physics told me he went through the entire series and ranks it above courses he paid thousands of dollars for. It's been online for 17 years. Low resolution, zero marketing, still one of the best physics courses on the internet. Sometimes the best teaching in the world was never behind a paywall — it just wasn't in English-language algorithms' way of finding it.

There's a physics lecture with over a million views' worth of value and almost no views. No slides. No notes. Just a green chalkboard and a man who clearly doesn't need one. The professor is V. Balakrishnan, IIT Madras. The course is Classical Physics, recorded for NPTEL — India's free national lecture archive — and quietly sitting on YouTube since 2009. What makes lecture one worth your time isn't production value. It's the opposite. It's a full subject held in one person's head, delivered in order, with nothing between him and the material. He opens with the actual boundary of the field: what classical mechanics can explain, and the precise point where it hands off to quantum theory. No hedging, no filler — every sentence finished before the next one starts. A friend who works in physics told me he went through the entire series and ranks it above courses he paid thousands of dollars for. It's been online for 17 years. Low resolution, zero marketing, still one of the best physics courses on the internet. Sometimes the best teaching in the world was never behind a paywall — it just wasn't in English-language algorithms' way of finding it.

Nainsi Dwivedi

12,346 views • 20 days ago

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

slash1s

100,138 views • 1 month ago

$In 2008 a Stanford professor stood at a podium and proved, for free, that information and money grow by the exact same equation. it was filmed. it has been free for 18 years. 7,000 people watched it. Thomas Cover died four years later and took the fame with him. his life's work: Shannon's information theory and Kelly's betting formula are one thing. how much to bet is just how much you know. every quant sizing a trade in 2026 is standing on Cover, whether they know the name or not. he wrote the book every information theorist trains on. the lecture that ties it all to money sits on YouTube with fewer views than a cat clip. skip to where he turns a horse race into a stock market. same math. a bit of information, a fraction of your bankroll, one growth rate. no fund. no signal. one professor and one equation. a quant I know says this hour is the missing chapter behind every book on position sizing he owns. you are 18 years late. it is still free.$

In 2008 a Stanford professor stood at a podium and proved, for free, that information and money grow by the exact same equation. it was filmed. it has been free for 18 years. 7,000 people watched it. Thomas Cover died four years later and took the fame with him. his life's work: Shannon's information theory and Kelly's betting formula are one thing. how much to bet is just how much you know. every quant sizing a trade in 2026 is standing on Cover, whether they know the name or not. he wrote the book every information theorist trains on. the lecture that ties it all to money sits on YouTube with fewer views than a cat clip. skip to where he turns a horse race into a stock market. same math. a bit of information, a fraction of your bankroll, one growth rate. no fund. no signal. one professor and one equation. a quant I know says this hour is the missing chapter behind every book on position sizing he owns. you are 18 years late. it is still free.

Loran

33,640 views • 15 days ago

Tom Hanks reveals the one moment in Cast Away he cannot watch because he wasn't there “There is a moment in Cast Away in which I am back and Chuck is back in Kelly's house, and he gives her her watch back. And there's a moment where I just think, I'm not there.” “I do this gesture that I just think is false and is me and is not Chuck. If the movie is on, I will get up and leave the room before that scene comes on.”

Tom Hanks reveals the one moment in Cast Away he cannot watch because he wasn't there “There is a moment in Cast Away in which I am back and Chuck is back in Kelly's house, and he gives her her watch back. And there's a moment where I just think, I'm not there.” “I do this gesture that I just think is false and is me and is not Chuck. If the movie is on, I will get up and leave the room before that scene comes on.”

Hribi

996,564 views • 1 month ago

CEO of Citadel: "no one is more wrong than I am today", he built the most profitable hedge fund in history in this interview he explains why he hired a Russian rocket scientist, why being the smartest in the room is a mistake, and why being right 54% of the time made $90 billion Bookmark & watch it. Then read the article below - The 77-year-old formula that explains why a small edge is all you need ↓

CEO of Citadel: "no one is more wrong than I am today", he built the most profitable hedge fund in history in this interview he explains why he hired a Russian rocket scientist, why being the smartest in the room is a mistake, and why being right 54% of the time made $90 billion Bookmark & watch it. Then read the article below - The 77-year-old formula that explains why a small edge is all you need ↓

Сarm1ne

4,245,352 views • 3 months ago

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."

Jaynit

112,414 views • 24 days ago

“Bobi Wine is not at the same level as the President. He is on the same level as Bebe Cool and Jose Chameleone — he is a musician and will always be one. That is why members of the opposition are struggling. They are suffering because they have refused to accept the reality that they are dealing with an artist, not a politician.” — Bebe Cool (🎥: Rising Star)

“Bobi Wine is not at the same level as the President. He is on the same level as Bebe Cool and Jose Chameleone — he is a musician and will always be one. That is why members of the opposition are struggling. They are suffering because they have refused to accept the reality that they are dealing with an artist, not a politician.” — Bebe Cool (🎥: Rising Star)

Patro Uganda

96,665 views • 6 months ago

Gilbert Strang, a quiet MIT professor, picked up a piece of chalk and explained the one skill standing between you and every account you have ever blown. MIT put the entire course online. it has been free for over twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. His point: the market never pays in certainties. it pays in probabilities, and a human gut can barely hold one straight. the math that holds ten thousand at once, weighs them, and collapses them into a single call is linear algebra. it is the branch Citadel and OpenAI both pay $400K to hire for. he is not a trading guru. his 18.06 lectures are the most watched math class on the planet. Skip to where he turns a wall of numbers into one vector. a single object carrying a thousand odds at once, in notation a beginner can follow. No slides. no jargon. one piece of chalk. a quant I know rewatches lecture one every year before he sizes a single position. You do not have a strategy problem. you have a math problem. the fix has been free for two decades, and you are still guessing.

Gilbert Strang, a quiet MIT professor, picked up a piece of chalk and explained the one skill standing between you and every account you have ever blown. MIT put the entire course online. it has been free for over twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. His point: the market never pays in certainties. it pays in probabilities, and a human gut can barely hold one straight. the math that holds ten thousand at once, weighs them, and collapses them into a single call is linear algebra. it is the branch Citadel and OpenAI both pay $400K to hire for. he is not a trading guru. his 18.06 lectures are the most watched math class on the planet. Skip to where he turns a wall of numbers into one vector. a single object carrying a thousand odds at once, in notation a beginner can follow. No slides. no jargon. one piece of chalk. a quant I know rewatches lecture one every year before he sizes a single position. You do not have a strategy problem. you have a math problem. the fix has been free for two decades, and you are still guessing.

Loran

47,412 views • 20 days ago

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

High Signal AI

31,085 views • 2 months ago

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

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

Stefan.

2,705,502 views • 17 days ago

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

Stefan.

632,077 views • 7 days ago

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

281,905 views • 1 month ago

Lost Highway has the scariest party scene ever filmed, and the real story behind it is worse. A pale man with no eyebrows tells Fred they have met before, at his house, and that he is there right now. Then he hands over a phone and answers it. The truth: a stranger really did speak into Lynch's home intercom saying Dick Laurent is dead, and no one was outside. He shot the film in that same house. It is impenetrable by design and that will frustrate some, but nothing else feels like this

Lost Highway has the scariest party scene ever filmed, and the real story behind it is worse. A pale man with no eyebrows tells Fred they have met before, at his house, and that he is there right now. Then he hands over a phone and answers it. The truth: a stranger really did speak into Lynch's home intercom saying Dick Laurent is dead, and no one was outside. He shot the film in that same house. It is impenetrable by design and that will frustrate some, but nothing else feels like this

Foreign Horror Movies 🌍🔪

19,199 views • 1 month ago

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM

MLB Scoring Changes

118,748 views • 4 months ago