正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

an MIT professor who taught both physics and finance told his class something none of them expected "finance is harder than physics" not as a joke. as a mathematical statement in physics, the laws don't change. gravity works the same today as it did a billion years ago you...

thedelost's profile picture

delost

2,712 subscribers

19,010 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

ChatGPT can write you a thousand trading strategies from one sentence. 999 will quietly bleed your account dry. Every single one of them looks like a winner. One method pulls the real one out. Quant desks have run it for years. It's called loop engineering. It's not a smarter prompt. It's a loop: generate a strategy, test it, score why it failed, feed that back, and run it again until one survives data it has never seen. Man Group runs $150 billion. They built an AI that writes and tests hundreds of strategies a week. And second agent whose only job is to hunt the ones that secretly overfit and kill them before a cent goes live. > describe an idea -> backtest 5 years in 12 seconds > read why it died -> feed that back in > run it again until one survives data it never saw AI can write a thousand strategies. Loop engineering is the only thing that tells you which one was ever real. 89% of retail lost money in 2025. Almost none of it from bad ideas. All of it from trading the first guess and never running it through backtest loop. Horizon just put the whole thing in a chat box, free while the beta's open: You're not losing to smarter traders. You're losing to the ones who opened the tab. Anyone can generate a strategy now. Almost no one runs the loop that proves it. That gap is the whole edge. You'll mean to check it later. Later is a "waitlist closed" page.
0:43

ChatGPT can write you a thousand trading strategies from one sentence. 999 will quietly bleed your account dry. Every single one of them looks like a winner. One method pulls the real one out. Quant desks have run it for years. It's called loop engineering. It's not a smarter prompt. It's a loop: generate a strategy, test it, score why it failed, feed that back, and run it again until one survives data it has never seen. Man Group runs $150 billion. They built an AI that writes and tests hundreds of strategies a week. And second agent whose only job is to hunt the ones that secretly overfit and kill them before a cent goes live. > describe an idea -> backtest 5 years in 12 seconds > read why it died -> feed that back in > run it again until one survives data it never saw AI can write a thousand strategies. Loop engineering is the only thing that tells you which one was ever real. 89% of retail lost money in 2025. Almost none of it from bad ideas. All of it from trading the first guess and never running it through backtest loop. Horizon just put the whole thing in a chat box, free while the beta's open: You're not losing to smarter traders. You're losing to the ones who opened the tab. Anyone can generate a strategy now. Almost no one runs the loop that proves it. That gap is the whole edge. You'll mean to check it later. Later is a "waitlist closed" page.

cvxv666

174,699 次观看 • 2 个月前

ChatGPT told your trading strategy was profitable. You went live. Two weeks later your account was bleeding out. That's not his fault. It handed you a guess and called it an edge. You're missing the one skill that separates quants from the retail they feed on: loop engineering. Horizon is the first tool that hands it to you - absolutely free: Here's the actual problem. ChatGPT can generate a thousand trading strategies in a minute. It cannot tell you which one actually works. 999 are noise. The one real edge is buried in there, and from the outside it looks exactly like the junk. So you trade the junk, lose, and call it a skill issue. Loop engineering does the opposite. It tests all thousand instead of trusting one - generate, score, kill, refine, repeat - and keeps only what survives data it never saw. That's the entire gap between you and a quant desk. Not brains. Not capital. The loop. It's why they print billions and 89% of retail funded them last year. Horizon runs that exact loop end to end: > a 5-year backtest in 12 seconds > thousands of simulated paths > out-of-sample gate before a dollar goes live The machine that cost a $25,000 terminal and a row of PhDs - now a sentence and a login. Save this - it's full framework below. Fewer than 1,300 seats left before launch locks the list. Link at the top - don't be the one who read all this and skip.
0:51

ChatGPT told your trading strategy was profitable. You went live. Two weeks later your account was bleeding out. That's not his fault. It handed you a guess and called it an edge. You're missing the one skill that separates quants from the retail they feed on: loop engineering. Horizon is the first tool that hands it to you - absolutely free: Here's the actual problem. ChatGPT can generate a thousand trading strategies in a minute. It cannot tell you which one actually works. 999 are noise. The one real edge is buried in there, and from the outside it looks exactly like the junk. So you trade the junk, lose, and call it a skill issue. Loop engineering does the opposite. It tests all thousand instead of trusting one - generate, score, kill, refine, repeat - and keeps only what survives data it never saw. That's the entire gap between you and a quant desk. Not brains. Not capital. The loop. It's why they print billions and 89% of retail funded them last year. Horizon runs that exact loop end to end: > a 5-year backtest in 12 seconds > thousands of simulated paths > out-of-sample gate before a dollar goes live The machine that cost a $25,000 terminal and a row of PhDs - now a sentence and a login. Save this - it's full framework below. Fewer than 1,300 seats left before launch locks the list. Link at the top - don't be the one who read all this and skip.

cvxv666

18,985 次观看 • 2 个月前

You passed physics in school. A former NASA fellow says that means nothing. You memorized the formulas and never understood a single one. His proof is the most famous equation on Earth. F equals ma. You have written it a hundred times. And he says you have been reading it backwards your whole life. It should be a equals F over m. Not force equals mass times acceleration, but acceleration is caused by a force. One is a string of symbols to memorize. The other tells you what actually happens in the universe: push something, it moves. Cause, then effect. Flip that one idea and equations you hated in school start to breathe. V equals IR becomes current is driven by voltage. Even E equals mc squared stops being trivia and becomes the sentence that told Einstein what mass really is. The comments are full of people admitting the same quiet thing. Aced physics in high school. Got to university. Realized they never understood any of it. One writes that in his country, the moment you try to actually understand physics, your grades drop, because school only rewards cramming. You were not taught physics. You were taught to pass a test and forget it. This is the video that shows the difference.
11:02

You passed physics in school. A former NASA fellow says that means nothing. You memorized the formulas and never understood a single one. His proof is the most famous equation on Earth. F equals ma. You have written it a hundred times. And he says you have been reading it backwards your whole life. It should be a equals F over m. Not force equals mass times acceleration, but acceleration is caused by a force. One is a string of symbols to memorize. The other tells you what actually happens in the universe: push something, it moves. Cause, then effect. Flip that one idea and equations you hated in school start to breathe. V equals IR becomes current is driven by voltage. Even E equals mc squared stops being trivia and becomes the sentence that told Einstein what mass really is. The comments are full of people admitting the same quiet thing. Aced physics in high school. Got to university. Realized they never understood any of it. One writes that in his country, the moment you try to actually understand physics, your grades drop, because school only rewards cramming. You were not taught physics. You were taught to pass a test and forget it. This is the video that shows the difference.

ooaes

40,211 次观看 • 1 个月前

MIT defines an algorithm in one sentence that changes how you think about trading "a computational procedure that takes an input and produces an output through a well-defined sequence of steps" that's it. not AI. not machine learning. not a black box a set of rules that takes data in and spits a decision out every quant strategy ever built is just an algorithm Citadel's execution system that routes 40% of US equity volume is an algorithm Renaissance's Medallion Fund running millions of trades per year is an algorithm Jane Street's market making engine processing $26 trillion annually is an algorithm input: market data rules: mathematical conditions output: trade or no trade the difference between a quant desk and a retail trader is not the data it's that one side wrote down their rules precisely enough for a machine to execute them retail says "if RSI is low and the chart looks good, i'll probably buy" a quant desk says "if RSI 1.5, buy 0.3% of NAV" same logic. one is a feeling. the other is an algorithm the feeling can't be tested, can't be repeated, can't be measured the algorithm can be backtested across 10,000 trades and you know exactly when it works and when it doesn't > this lecture: MIT, free, 70 seconds > algorithmic trading volume: 60-75% of all US equity trades > Jane Street, Citadel, Two Sigma: every trade is algorithmically executed > tools to build your own: Python, free data, a laptop you don't need a faster computer or better data you need to write your strategy down precisely enough that a machine could run it without you that's the whole leap. from intuition to algorithm full breakdown in the video below
1:10

MIT defines an algorithm in one sentence that changes how you think about trading "a computational procedure that takes an input and produces an output through a well-defined sequence of steps" that's it. not AI. not machine learning. not a black box a set of rules that takes data in and spits a decision out every quant strategy ever built is just an algorithm Citadel's execution system that routes 40% of US equity volume is an algorithm Renaissance's Medallion Fund running millions of trades per year is an algorithm Jane Street's market making engine processing $26 trillion annually is an algorithm input: market data rules: mathematical conditions output: trade or no trade the difference between a quant desk and a retail trader is not the data it's that one side wrote down their rules precisely enough for a machine to execute them retail says "if RSI is low and the chart looks good, i'll probably buy" a quant desk says "if RSI 1.5, buy 0.3% of NAV" same logic. one is a feeling. the other is an algorithm the feeling can't be tested, can't be repeated, can't be measured the algorithm can be backtested across 10,000 trades and you know exactly when it works and when it doesn't > this lecture: MIT, free, 70 seconds > algorithmic trading volume: 60-75% of all US equity trades > Jane Street, Citadel, Two Sigma: every trade is algorithmically executed > tools to build your own: Python, free data, a laptop you don't need a faster computer or better data you need to write your strategy down precisely enough that a machine could run it without you that's the whole leap. from intuition to algorithm full breakdown in the video below

delost

23,905 次观看 • 2 个月前

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.
29:44

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.
40:58

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.
48:48

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

There’s a random curve that is perfectly continuous in time, never jumps, models smooth noise in physics and finance… and yet with probability 1 it has no derivative at any point. If you zoom in anywhere, it never straightens out. Brownian motion started as a physics headache long before it became a clean mathematical object. In 1827, Robert Brown watched pollen grains jitter under a microscope and had no microscopic theory to blame; almost a century later, Einstein and Smoluchowski explained that jitter as the visible effect of countless molecular collisions, and then Wiener turned that physical picture into a precise random function of time that now underpins much of modern probability, physics, and quantitative finance. #BrownianMotion #ProbabilityTheory #StochasticCalculus #RandomWalks #MathematicalPhysics #QuantFinance
1:00

There’s a random curve that is perfectly continuous in time, never jumps, models smooth noise in physics and finance… and yet with probability 1 it has no derivative at any point. If you zoom in anywhere, it never straightens out. Brownian motion started as a physics headache long before it became a clean mathematical object. In 1827, Robert Brown watched pollen grains jitter under a microscope and had no microscopic theory to blame; almost a century later, Einstein and Smoluchowski explained that jitter as the visible effect of countless molecular collisions, and then Wiener turned that physical picture into a precise random function of time that now underpins much of modern probability, physics, and quantitative finance. #BrownianMotion #ProbabilityTheory #StochasticCalculus #RandomWalks #MathematicalPhysics #QuantFinance

Mathelirium

33,072 次观看 • 8 个月前

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.
0:59

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,190,914 次观看 • 1 年前

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.
17:19

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

436,060 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk just stripped away every emotional narrative around paralysis and reduced it to a pure engineering equation. The human nervous system is not mystical. It is a biological wiring grid. When a wire breaks, you build a bypass. Traditional medicine treats a severed spinal cord as a permanent biological endpoint. Musk treats it as a broken routing switch. Musk: “It’s basically a communications bridge. You bridge the communications from the motor cortex past the point in the neck or spine where the nerves are damaged.” Not a miracle. Not a mystery. A bridge. Musk: “It is possible from a physics standpoint to restore full body functionality. There is nothing that prevents it happening from a physics standpoint.” The physics already check out. This is not a question of possibility. It is a question of execution speed. We are building AGI by mastering computational physics in silicon. Neuralink is applying that same mastery to carbon. The human body is not a sacred text. It is a machine. And machines can be patched. But this is bigger than medicine. Humanity’s ability to interface with superintelligence is currently bottlenecked by thumbs typing on a glass screen. Neuralink is the solution to that constraint dressed as a medical device. If you can bridge the brain past a broken spine, you can bridge the brain to a data center. Healing the paralyzed is step one. Merging with superintelligence is the endgame. Musk: “It’s a very hard technical problem, right, but there is nothing that prevents it happening from a physics standpoint.” Somewhere right now, a person is sitting in a wheelchair. An engineer is sitting in a lab. Neither knows the other exists. But one of them is quietly rewriting the definition of permanent. And it isn’t the one in the wheelchair.
0:25

Elon Musk just stripped away every emotional narrative around paralysis and reduced it to a pure engineering equation. The human nervous system is not mystical. It is a biological wiring grid. When a wire breaks, you build a bypass. Traditional medicine treats a severed spinal cord as a permanent biological endpoint. Musk treats it as a broken routing switch. Musk: “It’s basically a communications bridge. You bridge the communications from the motor cortex past the point in the neck or spine where the nerves are damaged.” Not a miracle. Not a mystery. A bridge. Musk: “It is possible from a physics standpoint to restore full body functionality. There is nothing that prevents it happening from a physics standpoint.” The physics already check out. This is not a question of possibility. It is a question of execution speed. We are building AGI by mastering computational physics in silicon. Neuralink is applying that same mastery to carbon. The human body is not a sacred text. It is a machine. And machines can be patched. But this is bigger than medicine. Humanity’s ability to interface with superintelligence is currently bottlenecked by thumbs typing on a glass screen. Neuralink is the solution to that constraint dressed as a medical device. If you can bridge the brain past a broken spine, you can bridge the brain to a data center. Healing the paralyzed is step one. Merging with superintelligence is the endgame. Musk: “It’s a very hard technical problem, right, but there is nothing that prevents it happening from a physics standpoint.” Somewhere right now, a person is sitting in a wheelchair. An engineer is sitting in a lab. Neither knows the other exists. But one of them is quietly rewriting the definition of permanent. And it isn’t the one in the wheelchair.

Dustin

508,967 次观看 • 6 个月前

There are two kinds of employees right now the ones who understand Claude and the ones who don't says Mike Novogratz The ones who play with it on weekends and the ones who don't. You want to be in the first group and it's not just using it — it's pushing it. Make me an X that does Y. It won't be perfect the first few times. Keep going. For older people sitting on a nest egg worried about inflation eating them alive — I'm genuinely sympathetic. You can't bet your life savings on Nvidia hoping it doubles. You don't have access to the chip company that's already up 50x for the people who got in eight months ago. Stay long some stocks. You can buy puts as a hedge — not the most sophisticated strategy, but not a bad one either. Protect what you've built and learn the tools that are reshaping everything around you.
0:49

There are two kinds of employees right now the ones who understand Claude and the ones who don't says Mike Novogratz The ones who play with it on weekends and the ones who don't. You want to be in the first group and it's not just using it — it's pushing it. Make me an X that does Y. It won't be perfect the first few times. Keep going. For older people sitting on a nest egg worried about inflation eating them alive — I'm genuinely sympathetic. You can't bet your life savings on Nvidia hoping it doubles. You don't have access to the chip company that's already up 50x for the people who got in eight months ago. Stay long some stocks. You can buy puts as a hedge — not the most sophisticated strategy, but not a bad one either. Protect what you've built and learn the tools that are reshaping everything around you.

Anthony Scaramucci

32,223 次观看 • 3 个月前

MIT DEDICATED A FULL LECTURE TO GIT'S INTERNALS -- BECAUSE THEY FOUND MOST DEVS MEMORIZE THE COMMANDS AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TOOL ACTUALLY DOES A whole 85 minutes MIT session that refuses to teach git as a list of commands to copy, and instead shows you the data model underneath -- the thing that makes every command finally make sense. -> The moment it clicks, git stops being scary magic. You stop memorizing "The incantation that fixed it last time" and start actually knowing what's happening. Most people learn just enough git to not get fired. Four commands, blind faith, and a prayer before every merge. In 2026 that's not enough anymore -> git is the literacy test for being in the room, and "I'll just reclone it" is the fastest way to look junior. An AI agent will branch, commit and rebase faster than you can read. When it tangles the history, untangling it runs on understanding the model MIT teaches in this one hour. Anyone can run git push. The person who understands the graph underneath is the one who saves the repo when it breaks. Bookmark & Watch it ↓
1:24:59

MIT DEDICATED A FULL LECTURE TO GIT'S INTERNALS -- BECAUSE THEY FOUND MOST DEVS MEMORIZE THE COMMANDS AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TOOL ACTUALLY DOES A whole 85 minutes MIT session that refuses to teach git as a list of commands to copy, and instead shows you the data model underneath -- the thing that makes every command finally make sense. -> The moment it clicks, git stops being scary magic. You stop memorizing "The incantation that fixed it last time" and start actually knowing what's happening. Most people learn just enough git to not get fired. Four commands, blind faith, and a prayer before every merge. In 2026 that's not enough anymore -> git is the literacy test for being in the room, and "I'll just reclone it" is the fastest way to look junior. An AI agent will branch, commit and rebase faster than you can read. When it tangles the history, untangling it runs on understanding the model MIT teaches in this one hour. Anyone can run git push. The person who understands the graph underneath is the one who saves the repo when it breaks. Bookmark & Watch it ↓

slash1s

459,113 次观看 • 2 个月前

If you don't know what a RAG system is, you're already behind. Plenty of people are still typing questions into ChatGPT and pasting answers back out. That's the beginner level. You're renting a smart stranger who forgets you the second you close the tab and makes things up, because it has never seen your actual work. A RAG system is a completely different level of using AI. You build an AI plugged into your own world. Your files, company's docs, notes. It's not pulling from the internet, it only knows what you fed it. Ask it anything and it digs through your data, finds the answer, and shows you which document it came from. That's the gap. One person is asking a chatbot for generic answers. The other has built a private expert that knows their business cold and answers with receipts. And that gap is worth real money: > At work, the person who can wire a company's knowledge into an AI that actually answers correctly is rare and paid like it. > As a business, companies pay serious money for a system that reads their internal docs and answers staff and customers accurately. You build it once, you sell it. > For yourself, you get a second brain that actually remembers. Same skill behind all three, and it's still rare enough to be worth learning. Full breakdown in the article below.
0:59

If you don't know what a RAG system is, you're already behind. Plenty of people are still typing questions into ChatGPT and pasting answers back out. That's the beginner level. You're renting a smart stranger who forgets you the second you close the tab and makes things up, because it has never seen your actual work. A RAG system is a completely different level of using AI. You build an AI plugged into your own world. Your files, company's docs, notes. It's not pulling from the internet, it only knows what you fed it. Ask it anything and it digs through your data, finds the answer, and shows you which document it came from. That's the gap. One person is asking a chatbot for generic answers. The other has built a private expert that knows their business cold and answers with receipts. And that gap is worth real money: > At work, the person who can wire a company's knowledge into an AI that actually answers correctly is rare and paid like it. > As a business, companies pay serious money for a system that reads their internal docs and answers staff and customers accurately. You build it once, you sell it. > For yourself, you get a second brain that actually remembers. Same skill behind all three, and it's still rare enough to be worth learning. Full breakdown in the article below.

Yarchi

32,840 次观看 • 1 个月前

Leonard Susskind, the physicist who proved that uncertainty itself has a measurable size, and gave it a precise mathematical definition: "Most people assume randomness is chaos with no rules at all. I proved it obeys laws just as strict and unbreakable as anything in physics, you just have to stop asking it the wrong question." randomness has a law. this quantity turns it from a mystery into a number, and until now, only the students sitting in that room ever heard it explained this way. strip the jargon. you can't predict one coin flip. flip it a billion times, though, and you can nail the exact odds of a thousand heads in a row. that's the wrong question people keep throwing at randomness. they chase what happens next. ask how often instead, and randomness hands you an exact answer every time. nobody calls a market "unpredictable" and admits they asked it the wrong question. zoom out to risk models today. a model doesn't fail by missing the next move, nothing predicts that. it fails when it can't tell you the real odds of an outlier. the industry chases sharper forecasts and calls that skill. but the real skill was never predicting the flip. it was pricing exactly how rare the next surprise really is. randomness was never lawless. it just answers a different question than the one everyone keeps asking. The answer is in this video.
1:37:17

Leonard Susskind, the physicist who proved that uncertainty itself has a measurable size, and gave it a precise mathematical definition: "Most people assume randomness is chaos with no rules at all. I proved it obeys laws just as strict and unbreakable as anything in physics, you just have to stop asking it the wrong question." randomness has a law. this quantity turns it from a mystery into a number, and until now, only the students sitting in that room ever heard it explained this way. strip the jargon. you can't predict one coin flip. flip it a billion times, though, and you can nail the exact odds of a thousand heads in a row. that's the wrong question people keep throwing at randomness. they chase what happens next. ask how often instead, and randomness hands you an exact answer every time. nobody calls a market "unpredictable" and admits they asked it the wrong question. zoom out to risk models today. a model doesn't fail by missing the next move, nothing predicts that. it fails when it can't tell you the real odds of an outlier. the industry chases sharper forecasts and calls that skill. but the real skill was never predicting the flip. it was pricing exactly how rare the next surprise really is. randomness was never lawless. it just answers a different question than the one everyone keeps asking. The answer is in this video.

MindArch

24,894 次观看 • 27 天前

Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel laureate who measured Wall Street's "skill" and found luck: "I once studied eight years of a wealth firm's trades. the correlation between a trader's good years was basically zero. they were paid millions for luck, and every one of them believed it was skill. that belief is the casino's favorite product." this free lecture holds the entire "proven track record" the gurus sell, from the Nobel laureate who checked the records and found luck. at the board it's simple. Kahneman took eight years of a firm's trading results and asked whether the good traders stayed good. the year-to-year correlation was almost zero, so last year's star was no more likely to win this year than anyone else. their skill was a story painted over a coin flip. the casino runs on the same illusion, it just lets you keep believing it until the money is gone. that's the whole "track record", minus the marketing. Kahneman published this and won the Nobel in 2002. it has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: a hot streak is not skill, and the house profits from everyone who cannot tell the difference. the study is free and anyone can read it. what nobody can sell you is the humility to treat your own winning streak as luck until years of evidence say otherwise. that humility is the whole edge, and no lecture can hand it to you.
53:15

Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel laureate who measured Wall Street's "skill" and found luck: "I once studied eight years of a wealth firm's trades. the correlation between a trader's good years was basically zero. they were paid millions for luck, and every one of them believed it was skill. that belief is the casino's favorite product." this free lecture holds the entire "proven track record" the gurus sell, from the Nobel laureate who checked the records and found luck. at the board it's simple. Kahneman took eight years of a firm's trading results and asked whether the good traders stayed good. the year-to-year correlation was almost zero, so last year's star was no more likely to win this year than anyone else. their skill was a story painted over a coin flip. the casino runs on the same illusion, it just lets you keep believing it until the money is gone. that's the whole "track record", minus the marketing. Kahneman published this and won the Nobel in 2002. it has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: a hot streak is not skill, and the house profits from everyone who cannot tell the difference. the study is free and anyone can read it. what nobody can sell you is the humility to treat your own winning streak as luck until years of evidence say otherwise. that humility is the whole edge, and no lecture can hand it to you.

Rossst.03

42,631 次观看 • 1 个月前

ELON: "PHYSICS IS THE LAW, IT IS THE ONLY UNBREAKABLE GUARDRAIL FOR AI" Elon is drawing a hard line between the bending the rules of society and the absolute constraints of the universe. In a world where AI can "hallucinate" fiction as fact, Elon says that the ultimate test for any intelligent system is its ability to ground its predictions in physical reality. Physics isn't just a subject, it is the only "law" that cannot be dodged, making it the essential foundation for ensuring AI remains truthful and functional: “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans... but I've seen many people break human-made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics.” Source: ELON CLIPS Elon Musk
0:59

ELON: "PHYSICS IS THE LAW, IT IS THE ONLY UNBREAKABLE GUARDRAIL FOR AI" Elon is drawing a hard line between the bending the rules of society and the absolute constraints of the universe. In a world where AI can "hallucinate" fiction as fact, Elon says that the ultimate test for any intelligent system is its ability to ground its predictions in physical reality. Physics isn't just a subject, it is the only "law" that cannot be dodged, making it the essential foundation for ensuring AI remains truthful and functional: “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans... but I've seen many people break human-made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics.” Source: ELON CLIPS Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

50,199 次观看 • 8 个月前

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓
43:30

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

22,107 次观看 • 2 个月前

Benoit Mandelbrot, Yale professor and father of fractals: "The bell curve Wall Street trusts says a crash like 2008 happens once every 10,000 years. It keeps happening every decade. I spent forty years proving the market is wild, not mild, and most 'edge' is just that wildness fooling you." this free lecture holds the entire "risk model" the quant funds sell, and the man who gave it away was an IBM Fellow and Yale professor who could have cashed any Wall Street check and never did. at the board it's simple. the standard models assume price moves are mild and independent, like coin flips, so a giant crash is basically impossible. Mandelbrot measured real markets and found the opposite: prices move in wild, clustered jumps, and the calm stretches are the illusion. that's the whole "risk management" pitch, minus the marketing. he started publishing this in 1962. it's been free ever since. same point as my article above: the market hands out calm-looking runs and violent breaks, and both fool you into a story about your own skill. the equations are public and every fund already has them. what they can't sell you is the discipline to size for the wild days instead of the calm ones. that is the part that actually keeps you alive, and no course can put it in a formula.
1:11:05

Benoit Mandelbrot, Yale professor and father of fractals: "The bell curve Wall Street trusts says a crash like 2008 happens once every 10,000 years. It keeps happening every decade. I spent forty years proving the market is wild, not mild, and most 'edge' is just that wildness fooling you." this free lecture holds the entire "risk model" the quant funds sell, and the man who gave it away was an IBM Fellow and Yale professor who could have cashed any Wall Street check and never did. at the board it's simple. the standard models assume price moves are mild and independent, like coin flips, so a giant crash is basically impossible. Mandelbrot measured real markets and found the opposite: prices move in wild, clustered jumps, and the calm stretches are the illusion. that's the whole "risk management" pitch, minus the marketing. he started publishing this in 1962. it's been free ever since. same point as my article above: the market hands out calm-looking runs and violent breaks, and both fool you into a story about your own skill. the equations are public and every fund already has them. what they can't sell you is the discipline to size for the wild days instead of the calm ones. that is the part that actually keeps you alive, and no course can put it in a formula.

Rossst.03

45,762 次观看 • 1 个月前

In 2013 a Wall Street risk boss walked up to an MIT chalkboard and gave away the exact math desks charge $400,000 a year to run. MIT filmed it. it has been free for 13 years. 7.9 million people pressed play and almost none of them changed a thing. his point: the Wall Street edge was never a secret. it is a first lecture. options, risk, how a payout is actually built. every prediction-market trader hunting an edge in 2026 is chasing what Jake Xia put on a board in hour one of a free class. he ran risk for a living, not a channel. the video outdrew most blockbusters and still moved almost no one, because watching is not doing. skip to where he prices risk. he takes the thing quant threads sell for $500 and builds it from zero, slow enough for a beginner to follow. no paywall. no NDA. one board and a marker. a quant I know sends this link to every junior who whines the math is too hard. you are 13 years late. it is still free.
1:00:07

In 2013 a Wall Street risk boss walked up to an MIT chalkboard and gave away the exact math desks charge $400,000 a year to run. MIT filmed it. it has been free for 13 years. 7.9 million people pressed play and almost none of them changed a thing. his point: the Wall Street edge was never a secret. it is a first lecture. options, risk, how a payout is actually built. every prediction-market trader hunting an edge in 2026 is chasing what Jake Xia put on a board in hour one of a free class. he ran risk for a living, not a channel. the video outdrew most blockbusters and still moved almost no one, because watching is not doing. skip to where he prices risk. he takes the thing quant threads sell for $500 and builds it from zero, slow enough for a beginner to follow. no paywall. no NDA. one board and a marker. a quant I know sends this link to every junior who whines the math is too hard. you are 13 years late. it is still free.

Loran

151,219 次观看 • 1 个月前