Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Another legend and Euro first class pussy: Sandra Russo👠 that makes them cum💦quickly! #blowbang #gangbang #massivecocks #cocksucking #headlicking #cumshot #facial #cumshower

blowbangerman's profile picture

Spermia💦

8,678 subscribers

28,336 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#blowbang#gangbang#massivecocks#cocksucking#headlicking#cumshot#facial#cumshower
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Recap of Engfa‘s acceptance speech: 🐯: I hope you aren't all sleepy yet! First of all, I’d like to congratulate the Kazz Awards on their 20th anniversary. It's such a lovely magazine and media outlet; I hope it stays by the side of the Thai people for a long time. And thank you so much for this Superstar Award. Honestly, I feel like everything in my life has happened so quickly. It’s only been about 3 or 4 years since I first entered the entertainment industry. This award is another one that makes me feel truly valued within this industry. I promise to keep developing myself, whether it be in acting, singing, or any other field. I definitely won’t let you down. Another thing I’d like to say: thank you to all of my fan clubs across every fandom for the warm welcome and for supporting me so well throughout these past four years. I believe that behind Engfa’s "Superstar" status, it is all of them who are truly behind it. Thank you all so much. Thank you! //She’s definitely a Superstar, so deserved!🩵 ENGFA JOIN KAZZ 20TH #แคสอวอร์ด2026Xอิงล็อต #EngfaWaraha
1:19

Recap of Engfa‘s acceptance speech: 🐯: I hope you aren't all sleepy yet! First of all, I’d like to congratulate the Kazz Awards on their 20th anniversary. It's such a lovely magazine and media outlet; I hope it stays by the side of the Thai people for a long time. And thank you so much for this Superstar Award. Honestly, I feel like everything in my life has happened so quickly. It’s only been about 3 or 4 years since I first entered the entertainment industry. This award is another one that makes me feel truly valued within this industry. I promise to keep developing myself, whether it be in acting, singing, or any other field. I definitely won’t let you down. Another thing I’d like to say: thank you to all of my fan clubs across every fandom for the warm welcome and for supporting me so well throughout these past four years. I believe that behind Engfa’s "Superstar" status, it is all of them who are truly behind it. Thank you all so much. Thank you! //She’s definitely a Superstar, so deserved!🩵 ENGFA JOIN KAZZ 20TH #แคสอวอร์ด2026Xอิงล็อต #EngfaWaraha

Prol_x

19,679 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I’ve seen a lot of comments saying, “This is fake, just AI-generated.” I’ve been trying to understand the reasons behind that. One big reason is that humanoid robots still feel very far from everyday life. They’re not like the iPhone, which spread into everyone’s hands. Another factor is uneven development. In countries like China, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, or parts of Europe, humanoid robots have been introduced early on, with constant updates, big events, exhibitions, and media coverage. But in many other regions, people rarely encounter them. There’s also a deeper layer: some people simply don’t want to believe that humanoid robots are advancing so quickly. It’s a bit like when cars first appeared—the ones who felt the most fear and anxiety were those who raised horses or owned carriages. Their comments today can be seen as a form of cognitive adjustment or psychological defense. So I don’t blame them. The spread of technology always moves in waves, and the gap in perception just makes it harder for some people to understand, accept, or recognize what’s happening right now. But the wheel of technology keeps moving forward. Everyone will board this train eventually,it’s only a matter of time. What we can do is share more products and use cases of humanoid robots so that more people can see the progress of these things. This is a subtle process.
0:34

I’ve seen a lot of comments saying, “This is fake, just AI-generated.” I’ve been trying to understand the reasons behind that. One big reason is that humanoid robots still feel very far from everyday life. They’re not like the iPhone, which spread into everyone’s hands. Another factor is uneven development. In countries like China, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, or parts of Europe, humanoid robots have been introduced early on, with constant updates, big events, exhibitions, and media coverage. But in many other regions, people rarely encounter them. There’s also a deeper layer: some people simply don’t want to believe that humanoid robots are advancing so quickly. It’s a bit like when cars first appeared—the ones who felt the most fear and anxiety were those who raised horses or owned carriages. Their comments today can be seen as a form of cognitive adjustment or psychological defense. So I don’t blame them. The spread of technology always moves in waves, and the gap in perception just makes it harder for some people to understand, accept, or recognize what’s happening right now. But the wheel of technology keeps moving forward. Everyone will board this train eventually,it’s only a matter of time. What we can do is share more products and use cases of humanoid robots so that more people can see the progress of these things. This is a subtle process.

CyberRobo

106,888 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

After all the inquiries, all the reports, and all the survivors who spoke out, Jess Phillips still can’t say it plainly: it was Pakistani men that gang raped little White working-class girls. If this isn’t proof the cover-up continues, what is? _________ I am Raja Miah. It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs. Labour Party leaders tried everything to stop me from exposing what took place. They fabricated evidence and used Greater Manchester Police and Crown Prosecution Service to try and maliciously prosecute me. I spent over three years on bail as case after case collapsed in court. My mother died before I could clear my name. The truth is now undeniable: the Pakistani rape gangs are real, their victims number in the hundreds of thousands, and the cover-up continues. The National Inquiry we fought for is about to begin. This is our one chance to ensure it isn't another whitewash. But only if enough people know what really happened and are prepared to fight back against the next attempt at a cover up. Despite a mainstream media blackout of my work, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. Help me reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it more difficult to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised makes justice more likely. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year: 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. - Raja Miah MBE
15:25

After all the inquiries, all the reports, and all the survivors who spoke out, Jess Phillips still can’t say it plainly: it was Pakistani men that gang raped little White working-class girls. If this isn’t proof the cover-up continues, what is? _________ I am Raja Miah. It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs. Labour Party leaders tried everything to stop me from exposing what took place. They fabricated evidence and used Greater Manchester Police and Crown Prosecution Service to try and maliciously prosecute me. I spent over three years on bail as case after case collapsed in court. My mother died before I could clear my name. The truth is now undeniable: the Pakistani rape gangs are real, their victims number in the hundreds of thousands, and the cover-up continues. The National Inquiry we fought for is about to begin. This is our one chance to ensure it isn't another whitewash. But only if enough people know what really happened and are prepared to fight back against the next attempt at a cover up. Despite a mainstream media blackout of my work, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. Help me reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it more difficult to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised makes justice more likely. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year: 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

34,211 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

CVS just settled its latest fraud case, and for once the fine was big enough to actually hurt. It cost them $440 million, and as a bonus it bankrupted the guilty subsidiary and forced CVS to sell it off. The company was Omnicare, a pharmacy that supplies medications to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. CVS bought it in 2015. That same year, a former Omnicare pharmacist filed a whistleblower lawsuit, and the Justice Department joined the case in 2019. The scheme was simple and it ran for years. Omnicare kept dispensing drugs on stale, expired prescriptions and billing the government for them over and over. From 2010 to 2018 that added up to more than 3.3 million false claims and about $135.6 million in overpayments from taxpayers. A federal jury reached its verdict in April 2025. The judge did not mince words, calling it deliberate, egregious, and a very big fraud on the government. Then came the math that made it sting. Under the False Claims Act, damages get tripled. So that $135.6 million ballooned to $406.8 million, and the government asked for another $542 million in penalties on top. The court entered a total judgment of about $948.8 million. CVS ultimately agreed to pay $440 million to resolve it, with the first chunk due almost immediately. Here is the part that makes this different from every other settlement. The penalty was not a rounding error the company could shrug off as the cost of doing business. It broke the unit that did the fraud. Omnicare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2025, and earlier this year CVS announced it is selling Omnicare to a company called GenieRx. So a business CVS bought in 2015 is now being sold off in the wreckage of its own fraud case. That is the lesson. It is actually possible to make a fine big enough to change behavior instead of just becoming a line item. Now we just have to scale that up. But honestly, why wait on fines at all? There is already a faster tool sitting right there. When an individual violates the False Claims Act, they can lose the privilege of participating in federal programs like Medicare. Imagine how quickly the fraud would vanish if that same exclusion got applied to the giant repeat offenders who keep doing this. Kick them off the program and watch how fast the behavior changes. While we wait for that day, here is my pitch. We built a pharmacy where it is literally impossible to pull this kind of thing, because you see the price before you pay it. No hidden claims, no secret markups, no middleman in a position to overbill anyone. Just the real number, up front. Imagine that.
1:53

CVS just settled its latest fraud case, and for once the fine was big enough to actually hurt. It cost them $440 million, and as a bonus it bankrupted the guilty subsidiary and forced CVS to sell it off. The company was Omnicare, a pharmacy that supplies medications to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. CVS bought it in 2015. That same year, a former Omnicare pharmacist filed a whistleblower lawsuit, and the Justice Department joined the case in 2019. The scheme was simple and it ran for years. Omnicare kept dispensing drugs on stale, expired prescriptions and billing the government for them over and over. From 2010 to 2018 that added up to more than 3.3 million false claims and about $135.6 million in overpayments from taxpayers. A federal jury reached its verdict in April 2025. The judge did not mince words, calling it deliberate, egregious, and a very big fraud on the government. Then came the math that made it sting. Under the False Claims Act, damages get tripled. So that $135.6 million ballooned to $406.8 million, and the government asked for another $542 million in penalties on top. The court entered a total judgment of about $948.8 million. CVS ultimately agreed to pay $440 million to resolve it, with the first chunk due almost immediately. Here is the part that makes this different from every other settlement. The penalty was not a rounding error the company could shrug off as the cost of doing business. It broke the unit that did the fraud. Omnicare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2025, and earlier this year CVS announced it is selling Omnicare to a company called GenieRx. So a business CVS bought in 2015 is now being sold off in the wreckage of its own fraud case. That is the lesson. It is actually possible to make a fine big enough to change behavior instead of just becoming a line item. Now we just have to scale that up. But honestly, why wait on fines at all? There is already a faster tool sitting right there. When an individual violates the False Claims Act, they can lose the privilege of participating in federal programs like Medicare. Imagine how quickly the fraud would vanish if that same exclusion got applied to the giant repeat offenders who keep doing this. Kick them off the program and watch how fast the behavior changes. While we wait for that day, here is my pitch. We built a pharmacy where it is literally impossible to pull this kind of thing, because you see the price before you pay it. No hidden claims, no secret markups, no middleman in a position to overbill anyone. Just the real number, up front. Imagine that.

Forest Park Pharmacy

23,110 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

Thought for today…. I would like to thank Alexander Isak for his behaviour and forcing to leave Newcastle. I would also like to thank Liverpool for the duplicitous way they unsettled him. Why FFS you may ask? Hear me out… 1. The bloke is not a team player as he showed last season with his performances at the start and end of last season and we only want fully committed players at our club. 2. At some point due to the corrupt PSR rules we were going to have to sell a big player to enable us to move to the next level. It might as well be one with the lack of character and morality that he has shown. 3. Isak and Liverpool have handed us a massive windfall that has the potential to transform the club over the next few seasons. Without this we would not be able to move forward as quickly and we would all be waiting for the axe to fall on another star player. That is less likely now. 4. We now, potentially,have the strongest squad in my living memory (with the possible exception of Keegan’s Entertainers but who knows they may surpass even them) 5. The new CEO and Sporting Director (both of whom are top class if reports are correct) will be walking into a club that is united from top to bottom and in a very strong financial position. A club that has qualified for the Champions League in two of the last 3 season and won its first domestic trophy in 70 years. A club that is clearly on the up. 6. PIF will hopefully have learned lessons from what happened this summer and even though it was a little late they acted in the last few weeks and made sure the end to they transfer window could be deemed a big success despite the circumstances (next up get the CEO and Sporting Director in and announce a new stadium) 7. Eddie Howe, Andy Howe, Jamie Reuben and Steve Nickson have cemented their reputations. In particular Eddie’s handling of the whole Isak affair has been a masterclass in diplomacy, hard work, and man management - we truly have an absolute gem and a gentleman leading the team. 8. In summary we have a club that is united from top to bottom, in a healthy financial position, a much stronger squad with players committed to the club, new top class senior personnel to be added very shortly, a second Champions League season to look forward to and hopefully more silverware. Thanks Isak (you are still a rat) and Liverpool (your £135m will move us to the next level head of time) HWTL 🖤🤍🖤🤍
0:27

Thought for today…. I would like to thank Alexander Isak for his behaviour and forcing to leave Newcastle. I would also like to thank Liverpool for the duplicitous way they unsettled him. Why FFS you may ask? Hear me out… 1. The bloke is not a team player as he showed last season with his performances at the start and end of last season and we only want fully committed players at our club. 2. At some point due to the corrupt PSR rules we were going to have to sell a big player to enable us to move to the next level. It might as well be one with the lack of character and morality that he has shown. 3. Isak and Liverpool have handed us a massive windfall that has the potential to transform the club over the next few seasons. Without this we would not be able to move forward as quickly and we would all be waiting for the axe to fall on another star player. That is less likely now. 4. We now, potentially,have the strongest squad in my living memory (with the possible exception of Keegan’s Entertainers but who knows they may surpass even them) 5. The new CEO and Sporting Director (both of whom are top class if reports are correct) will be walking into a club that is united from top to bottom and in a very strong financial position. A club that has qualified for the Champions League in two of the last 3 season and won its first domestic trophy in 70 years. A club that is clearly on the up. 6. PIF will hopefully have learned lessons from what happened this summer and even though it was a little late they acted in the last few weeks and made sure the end to they transfer window could be deemed a big success despite the circumstances (next up get the CEO and Sporting Director in and announce a new stadium) 7. Eddie Howe, Andy Howe, Jamie Reuben and Steve Nickson have cemented their reputations. In particular Eddie’s handling of the whole Isak affair has been a masterclass in diplomacy, hard work, and man management - we truly have an absolute gem and a gentleman leading the team. 8. In summary we have a club that is united from top to bottom, in a healthy financial position, a much stronger squad with players committed to the club, new top class senior personnel to be added very shortly, a second Champions League season to look forward to and hopefully more silverware. Thanks Isak (you are still a rat) and Liverpool (your £135m will move us to the next level head of time) HWTL 🖤🤍🖤🤍

Toontalk News

156,412 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

The Reckoning Resumes Forget everything they have told you. The truth is far worse than anything shared so far. Those in power fear me because of my unprecedented campaigning to expose Britain's most shameful failure: the industrial scale gang rape of the nation's children. While authorities destroyed evidence, councillors sold children for votes, and community leaders maintained dangerous silences, over 100,000 working-class White girls paid the ultimate price. The evidence has always been there - scattered across official inquiries, court records, survivor testimonies, and leaked documents. What's been missing is someone willing to piece it together and show you what it really means. For the first time, I am connecting these fragments into a single, devastating picture. What emerges is not a series of unfortunate failures, but a deliberate system of institutional betrayal whose true scale has been deliberately obscured. The cover-up continues because the reality is too damning to acknowledge. The Network of Negligence - The senior officers who shredded files, the social workers who ignored screaming children, and the prosecutors who refused to press charges The Politics of Silence - Which MPs threatened whistleblowers, how Home Office officials buried reports, and why careers mattered more than rape victims The Bloc Vote Betrayal - The backroom deals that sacrificed girls for electoral advantage, and the community leaders who sold out children for political access The Feminist Paradox - How women's rights organisations turned their backs on working-class victims while defending the ideology that enabled their abuse The Reckoning – The prosecutions that should happen, the resignations that must come, and the institutional reforms that could prevent this horror from repeating Each revelation draws on documented evidence, court testimony, and the voices of those who tried to sound the alarm. This is not speculation or sensationalism - it is the methodical assembly of facts that have been kept deliberately separate to prevent you from seeing the full horror of what was allowed to happen. The truth has been buried beneath layers of institutional cowardice and political calculation. Survivors and their families have waited long enough. Britain has waited long enough. By now, we all know, that given the chance, Keir Starmer's The Labour Party will continue the cover up and the National Inquiry go the way as all other previous inquiries. Help stop him. It is long past time that politicians went to prison for what they did. _________ I am Raja Miah. It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs. The Labour Party leaders tried everything to stop me - they fabricated evidence and used Greater Manchester Police to try and maliciously prosecute me. I spent over three years on bail as case after case collapsed in court. My mother died before I could clear my name. The truth is now undeniable: the Pakistani rape gangs are real, their victims number in the hundreds of thousands, and the cover-up continues. The National Inquiry we fought for is about to begin. This is our one chance to ensure it isn't another whitewash. But only if enough people know what really happened and are prepared to fight back against the next attempt at a cover up. Despite a mainstream media blackout of my work, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. Help me reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it more difficult to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised makes justice more likely. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year: 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. - Raja Miah MBE
0:55

The Reckoning Resumes Forget everything they have told you. The truth is far worse than anything shared so far. Those in power fear me because of my unprecedented campaigning to expose Britain's most shameful failure: the industrial scale gang rape of the nation's children. While authorities destroyed evidence, councillors sold children for votes, and community leaders maintained dangerous silences, over 100,000 working-class White girls paid the ultimate price. The evidence has always been there - scattered across official inquiries, court records, survivor testimonies, and leaked documents. What's been missing is someone willing to piece it together and show you what it really means. For the first time, I am connecting these fragments into a single, devastating picture. What emerges is not a series of unfortunate failures, but a deliberate system of institutional betrayal whose true scale has been deliberately obscured. The cover-up continues because the reality is too damning to acknowledge. The Network of Negligence - The senior officers who shredded files, the social workers who ignored screaming children, and the prosecutors who refused to press charges The Politics of Silence - Which MPs threatened whistleblowers, how Home Office officials buried reports, and why careers mattered more than rape victims The Bloc Vote Betrayal - The backroom deals that sacrificed girls for electoral advantage, and the community leaders who sold out children for political access The Feminist Paradox - How women's rights organisations turned their backs on working-class victims while defending the ideology that enabled their abuse The Reckoning – The prosecutions that should happen, the resignations that must come, and the institutional reforms that could prevent this horror from repeating Each revelation draws on documented evidence, court testimony, and the voices of those who tried to sound the alarm. This is not speculation or sensationalism - it is the methodical assembly of facts that have been kept deliberately separate to prevent you from seeing the full horror of what was allowed to happen. The truth has been buried beneath layers of institutional cowardice and political calculation. Survivors and their families have waited long enough. Britain has waited long enough. By now, we all know, that given the chance, Keir Starmer's The Labour Party will continue the cover up and the National Inquiry go the way as all other previous inquiries. Help stop him. It is long past time that politicians went to prison for what they did. _________ I am Raja Miah. It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs. The Labour Party leaders tried everything to stop me - they fabricated evidence and used Greater Manchester Police to try and maliciously prosecute me. I spent over three years on bail as case after case collapsed in court. My mother died before I could clear my name. The truth is now undeniable: the Pakistani rape gangs are real, their victims number in the hundreds of thousands, and the cover-up continues. The National Inquiry we fought for is about to begin. This is our one chance to ensure it isn't another whitewash. But only if enough people know what really happened and are prepared to fight back against the next attempt at a cover up. Despite a mainstream media blackout of my work, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. Help me reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it more difficult to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised makes justice more likely. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year: 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

95,338 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.
0:40

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.

Devon Eriksen

126,518 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

MJ 👑 JK When I first watched #JUNGKOOK's "Standing Next to You" mv, I felt I was witnessing something far greater than just another release. It was a moment of history. With every movement, with every glance, I saw the spirit of the great Michael Jackson - not as an imitation, but as the natural continuation of his genius. Jungkook drew on elements forever etched into the legacy of the world stage: the iconic forward lean, the daring hip thrust, the mesmerizing fluidity of motion. But he did not repeat them mechanically - he breathed into them his own strength, his own energy, his own life. And in that moment, it became clear - he was not copying, he was speaking to the world in the same universal language of artistry that Michael once commanded. There are performers who simply sing songs. And then there are those who make time stand still. Jungkook belongs to the latter. His stage is a universe where everything bends to one law - you cannot look away. In that, he is akin to Michael Jackson. The same magic, the same charisma, the same ability to transform music into a living miracle. And yet, Jungkook is Jungkook. He does not try to be the "new Michael." He forges his own path, shaping the image of a 21st-century artist. In his gestures, one feels the respect for the legend, but in every step shines his own story, his own era. If Michael was the "King of Pop", then Jungkook is the heir who not only preserves the memory but also opens a new chapter in the history of global music. To me, there is a unique beauty in this. A legend never disappears - it flows, like a river, into those who are destined to carry it forward. And today, Jungkook is that river, where the echoes of a great past meet the birth of music’s future. There are many artists who can sing well. There are many who can dance. But there are very few who burn with fire on stage, whose eyes blaze with searing passion. Few can make your heart stop for a second and then race again as if possessed. This is a rare gift, one that Michael Jackson had. This is a rare gift Jungkook possesses today. And it is this gift that makes artists not just talented singers, but Legends of their time - those who leave an indelible mark on the history of humanity. STANDING NEXT TO JUNGKOOK💙
0:35

MJ 👑 JK When I first watched #JUNGKOOK's "Standing Next to You" mv, I felt I was witnessing something far greater than just another release. It was a moment of history. With every movement, with every glance, I saw the spirit of the great Michael Jackson - not as an imitation, but as the natural continuation of his genius. Jungkook drew on elements forever etched into the legacy of the world stage: the iconic forward lean, the daring hip thrust, the mesmerizing fluidity of motion. But he did not repeat them mechanically - he breathed into them his own strength, his own energy, his own life. And in that moment, it became clear - he was not copying, he was speaking to the world in the same universal language of artistry that Michael once commanded. There are performers who simply sing songs. And then there are those who make time stand still. Jungkook belongs to the latter. His stage is a universe where everything bends to one law - you cannot look away. In that, he is akin to Michael Jackson. The same magic, the same charisma, the same ability to transform music into a living miracle. And yet, Jungkook is Jungkook. He does not try to be the "new Michael." He forges his own path, shaping the image of a 21st-century artist. In his gestures, one feels the respect for the legend, but in every step shines his own story, his own era. If Michael was the "King of Pop", then Jungkook is the heir who not only preserves the memory but also opens a new chapter in the history of global music. To me, there is a unique beauty in this. A legend never disappears - it flows, like a river, into those who are destined to carry it forward. And today, Jungkook is that river, where the echoes of a great past meet the birth of music’s future. There are many artists who can sing well. There are many who can dance. But there are very few who burn with fire on stage, whose eyes blaze with searing passion. Few can make your heart stop for a second and then race again as if possessed. This is a rare gift, one that Michael Jackson had. This is a rare gift Jungkook possesses today. And it is this gift that makes artists not just talented singers, but Legends of their time - those who leave an indelible mark on the history of humanity. STANDING NEXT TO JUNGKOOK💙

𝕁𝕌ℕ𝔾𝕂𝕆𝕆𝕂 __ ℂℍ𝔸ℕℕ𝔼𝕃 • ℂ𝕀𝕊

10,451 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

She was a woman my brother loved and protected with everything he had. On the 20th of December, she got married while heavily pregnant—about eight months along. We didn’t hear this from her directly; we found out on TikTok. When my brother passed away in November, she brought the children to us in January, saying she wanted to pursue her master’s degree and continue her education. At the time, my mother felt sad that she seemed to move on quickly, but I told my mum that life doesn’t stop completely just because someone has passed. However, finding out later that she was already far along in another pregnancy broke my heart deeply. It meant she became pregnant just a few months after my brother’s passing. That realization was very painful for me. What makes it harder is remembering what happened shortly before my brother died. I visited them two days before his passing and was meant to stay for a week. Her car had broken down that day, and my brother took her to work. After work, she called him to come and pick her up. My brother asked her to take a ride instead because he was busy with me at the time. She refused and insisted he must come. At that period, my brother was on leave and had planned to stay home, which was why he invited me over. She continued insisting. When my brother hesitated, she became upset and accused him of causing tension at home. I suggested that I go pick her up since I could drive. My brother even handed me the car keys because he was already getting frustrated. But once she heard that I was coming instead, she insisted that only my brother should come for her. After a long back-and-forth, my brother finally decided to go. On his way, there was a serious accident involving a large vehicle, and my brother lost his life. I didn’t immediately understand the seriousness. She was the one who called me, saying she couldn’t reach him and that people said he had been in an accident. I only realized the reality when I got there. It was devastating. I was angry because the entire situation happened right in front of me. My brother did not want to go out that day, but he went because he was pressured. I understand that death is something no one can control. But moving on so quickly after such a loss feels deeply hurtful. My brother stood by this woman completely. He supported her education, protected her, and never allowed anyone to disrespect her. We all respected her because of him. Seeing how things turned out is painful. It doesn’t feel fair, and it hurts deeply. At first, we didn’t interfere with any property matters. But now, I feel that whatever my brother left behind should be preserved for his two sons, to be accessed when they are adults. None of us wants his property—we are all doing fine—but we want to protect his children’s future. I’m not writing this out of bitterness. I’m writing because I’m hurting. I wish my brother hadn’t gone out that day. I wish things had turned out differently. Life can be very unfair, and this pain is something I’m still trying to understand. ●Miss Favour
0:24

She was a woman my brother loved and protected with everything he had. On the 20th of December, she got married while heavily pregnant—about eight months along. We didn’t hear this from her directly; we found out on TikTok. When my brother passed away in November, she brought the children to us in January, saying she wanted to pursue her master’s degree and continue her education. At the time, my mother felt sad that she seemed to move on quickly, but I told my mum that life doesn’t stop completely just because someone has passed. However, finding out later that she was already far along in another pregnancy broke my heart deeply. It meant she became pregnant just a few months after my brother’s passing. That realization was very painful for me. What makes it harder is remembering what happened shortly before my brother died. I visited them two days before his passing and was meant to stay for a week. Her car had broken down that day, and my brother took her to work. After work, she called him to come and pick her up. My brother asked her to take a ride instead because he was busy with me at the time. She refused and insisted he must come. At that period, my brother was on leave and had planned to stay home, which was why he invited me over. She continued insisting. When my brother hesitated, she became upset and accused him of causing tension at home. I suggested that I go pick her up since I could drive. My brother even handed me the car keys because he was already getting frustrated. But once she heard that I was coming instead, she insisted that only my brother should come for her. After a long back-and-forth, my brother finally decided to go. On his way, there was a serious accident involving a large vehicle, and my brother lost his life. I didn’t immediately understand the seriousness. She was the one who called me, saying she couldn’t reach him and that people said he had been in an accident. I only realized the reality when I got there. It was devastating. I was angry because the entire situation happened right in front of me. My brother did not want to go out that day, but he went because he was pressured. I understand that death is something no one can control. But moving on so quickly after such a loss feels deeply hurtful. My brother stood by this woman completely. He supported her education, protected her, and never allowed anyone to disrespect her. We all respected her because of him. Seeing how things turned out is painful. It doesn’t feel fair, and it hurts deeply. At first, we didn’t interfere with any property matters. But now, I feel that whatever my brother left behind should be preserved for his two sons, to be accessed when they are adults. None of us wants his property—we are all doing fine—but we want to protect his children’s future. I’m not writing this out of bitterness. I’m writing because I’m hurting. I wish my brother hadn’t gone out that day. I wish things had turned out differently. Life can be very unfair, and this pain is something I’m still trying to understand. ●Miss Favour

Senior Pst Okezie James Atañi.

40,849 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

This was not accidental. It was orchestrated. First, a Pakistani MP, elected on an Islamist support base, stands up in Parliament and tries to deflect from the undeniable fact. Pakistani men are vastly over-represented in grooming gangs and their victims were overwhelmingly working-class White girls. Then, the very Minister for Safeguarding Girls takes the floor. Instead of standing with victims, Jess Phillips claims that in her constituency it was Pakistanis who had been the “most fervent truth seekers.” An insult to survivors who fought alone for decades to be heard. And she didn’t stop there. Jess Phillips doubled down by deflecting again. This time from the racial motivation and the religious justification behind the industrial-scale gang rape of Britain’s children. This is how it works. One politician distracts. Another distorts. Together, they prepare the ground to rewrite history. If left unchallenged, their version will become the official record. The truth will be buried. The victims will once again be erased. And there will never be justice. _________ I have 3 questions I would like you to consider. 1. Do you believe the government would have voluntarily agreed to a National Inquiry without years of relentless sacrifice from survivors and campaigners who refused to be silenced? 2. Do you believe the Inquiry will actually hold public officials, police officers, and politicians accountable for enabling the industrial-scale gang rape of children? 3. Do you trust Shabana Mahmood MP and Jess Phillips to deliver justice? If your answer to these questions is No, then you already know why my work must continue. _________ I am Raja Miah. Seven years ago I began exposing how politicians protected the rape gangs. The truth can no longer be buried. The Pakistani rape gangs are real. Their victims number in the hundreds of thousands. And the cover up is still ongoing. Now the National Inquiry is about to begin. This is our one chance to stop another whitewash. But that will only happen if enough people know the truth and are willing to fight back. Despite the media blackout, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. I need your help to reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it harder to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised brings justice closer. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. – Raja Miah MBE
2:09

This was not accidental. It was orchestrated. First, a Pakistani MP, elected on an Islamist support base, stands up in Parliament and tries to deflect from the undeniable fact. Pakistani men are vastly over-represented in grooming gangs and their victims were overwhelmingly working-class White girls. Then, the very Minister for Safeguarding Girls takes the floor. Instead of standing with victims, Jess Phillips claims that in her constituency it was Pakistanis who had been the “most fervent truth seekers.” An insult to survivors who fought alone for decades to be heard. And she didn’t stop there. Jess Phillips doubled down by deflecting again. This time from the racial motivation and the religious justification behind the industrial-scale gang rape of Britain’s children. This is how it works. One politician distracts. Another distorts. Together, they prepare the ground to rewrite history. If left unchallenged, their version will become the official record. The truth will be buried. The victims will once again be erased. And there will never be justice. _________ I have 3 questions I would like you to consider. 1. Do you believe the government would have voluntarily agreed to a National Inquiry without years of relentless sacrifice from survivors and campaigners who refused to be silenced? 2. Do you believe the Inquiry will actually hold public officials, police officers, and politicians accountable for enabling the industrial-scale gang rape of children? 3. Do you trust Shabana Mahmood MP and Jess Phillips to deliver justice? If your answer to these questions is No, then you already know why my work must continue. _________ I am Raja Miah. Seven years ago I began exposing how politicians protected the rape gangs. The truth can no longer be buried. The Pakistani rape gangs are real. Their victims number in the hundreds of thousands. And the cover up is still ongoing. Now the National Inquiry is about to begin. This is our one chance to stop another whitewash. But that will only happen if enough people know the truth and are willing to fight back. Despite the media blackout, Red Wall and the Rabble has grown to over 6,000 subscribers. I need your help to reach 10,000 before the inquiry begins. Every new subscriber makes it harder for them to bury this story. Every share makes it harder to dismiss the evidence. Every voice raised brings justice closer. 🔴 Subscribe for free or support the work for just 75p a week or £30 for the full year 👉 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another. – Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

146,122 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Jeff Bezos explains what it means to disagree and commit “Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.” Jeff Bezos begins. “In society, and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms we use to resolve disputes. And a lot of them are really bad. An example of a really bad way of coming to an agreement is compromise.” He continues: “The advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it’s low energy, but it doesn’t lead to truth… You shouldn’t allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.” Another bad resolution mechanism is the more stubborn person winning: “You have two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition. And whichever one gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other one. Again you haven’t arrived at truth and it’s very demoralizing.” Jeff tells people on his team to never get to a point where you’re resolving something by who gets exhausted first: “Escalate that. I’ll help you make the decision.” When making decisions, you want to get as close to the truth as possible: “Exhausting the other person is not truth-seeking. And compromise is not truth-seeking.” But there are a lot of cases where no one knows the real truth and that’s where “disagree and commit” comes in: “Escalation is better than war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say ‘we can’t agree on this. We like each other and respect each other, but we strongly disagree with each other and need you to make a decision so we can move forward.’ Decisiveness and moving forward on decisions as quickly as you responsibly can is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions.” Companies tend to organize hierarchically in which the more senior person ultimately makes the decision. But as Jeff explains, that wasn’t always the case—he would often be the one to disagree and commit: “I would often say: ‘You know what, I don’t think you’re right. But I’m going to gamble with you and you’re closer to the ground truth than I am. I’ve known you for 20 years—you have great judgement. I don’t know that I’m right either—all of these decisions are complicated. Let’s do it your way.’ But at least then you’ve made a decision, and I’m agreeing to commit to that decision. I’m not going to be second guessing it. I’m not going to be sniping at it. I’m not going to be saying ‘I told you so.’ I’m going to actively try to make sure it works. That’s a really important teammate behavior.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)
4:55

Jeff Bezos explains what it means to disagree and commit “Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.” Jeff Bezos begins. “In society, and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms we use to resolve disputes. And a lot of them are really bad. An example of a really bad way of coming to an agreement is compromise.” He continues: “The advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it’s low energy, but it doesn’t lead to truth… You shouldn’t allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.” Another bad resolution mechanism is the more stubborn person winning: “You have two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition. And whichever one gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other one. Again you haven’t arrived at truth and it’s very demoralizing.” Jeff tells people on his team to never get to a point where you’re resolving something by who gets exhausted first: “Escalate that. I’ll help you make the decision.” When making decisions, you want to get as close to the truth as possible: “Exhausting the other person is not truth-seeking. And compromise is not truth-seeking.” But there are a lot of cases where no one knows the real truth and that’s where “disagree and commit” comes in: “Escalation is better than war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say ‘we can’t agree on this. We like each other and respect each other, but we strongly disagree with each other and need you to make a decision so we can move forward.’ Decisiveness and moving forward on decisions as quickly as you responsibly can is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions.” Companies tend to organize hierarchically in which the more senior person ultimately makes the decision. But as Jeff explains, that wasn’t always the case—he would often be the one to disagree and commit: “I would often say: ‘You know what, I don’t think you’re right. But I’m going to gamble with you and you’re closer to the ground truth than I am. I’ve known you for 20 years—you have great judgement. I don’t know that I’m right either—all of these decisions are complicated. Let’s do it your way.’ But at least then you’ve made a decision, and I’m agreeing to commit to that decision. I’m not going to be second guessing it. I’m not going to be sniping at it. I’m not going to be saying ‘I told you so.’ I’m going to actively try to make sure it works. That’s a really important teammate behavior.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)

Startup Archive

70,743 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Jeff Bezos explains what it means to disagree and commit “Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.” There will be disagreements in any endeavor in life where you have teammates. “In society, and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms we use to resolve disputes. And a lot of them are really bad. An example of a really bad way of coming to an agreement is compromise.” He continues: “The advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it’s low energy, but it doesn’t lead to truth… You shouldn’t allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.” Another bad resolution mechanism is the more stubborn person winning: “You have two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition. And whichever one gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other one. Again you haven’t arrived at truth and it’s very demoralizing.” Jeff tells people on his team to never get to a point where you’re resolving something by who gets exhausted first: “Escalate that. I’ll help you make the decision.” When making decisions, you want to get as close to the truth as possible: “Exhausting the other person is not truth-seeking. And compromise is not truth-seeking.” But there are a lot of cases where no one knows the real truth and that’s where “disagree and commit” comes in: “Escalation is better than war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say ‘we can’t agree on this. We like each other and respect each other, but we strongly disagree with each other and need you to make a decision so we can move forward.’ Decisiveness and moving forward on decisions as quickly as you responsibly can is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions.” Companies tend to organize hierarchically in which the more senior person ultimately makes the decision. But as Jeff explains in the clip below, that wasn’t always the case—he would often be the one to disagree and commit: “I would often say: ‘You know what, I don’t think you’re right. But I’m going to gamble with you and you’re closer to the ground truth than I am. I’ve known you for 20 years—you have great judgement. I don’t know that I’m right either—all of these decisions are complicated. Let’s do it your way.’ But at least then you’ve made a decision, and I’m agreeing to commit to that decision. I’m not going to be second guessing it. I’m not going to be sniping at it. I’m not going to be saying ‘I told you so.’ I’m going to actively try to make sure it works. That’s a really important teammate behavior.”
4:55

Jeff Bezos explains what it means to disagree and commit “Disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.” There will be disagreements in any endeavor in life where you have teammates. “In society, and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms we use to resolve disputes. And a lot of them are really bad. An example of a really bad way of coming to an agreement is compromise.” He continues: “The advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it’s low energy, but it doesn’t lead to truth… You shouldn’t allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.” Another bad resolution mechanism is the more stubborn person winning: “You have two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition. And whichever one gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other one. Again you haven’t arrived at truth and it’s very demoralizing.” Jeff tells people on his team to never get to a point where you’re resolving something by who gets exhausted first: “Escalate that. I’ll help you make the decision.” When making decisions, you want to get as close to the truth as possible: “Exhausting the other person is not truth-seeking. And compromise is not truth-seeking.” But there are a lot of cases where no one knows the real truth and that’s where “disagree and commit” comes in: “Escalation is better than war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say ‘we can’t agree on this. We like each other and respect each other, but we strongly disagree with each other and need you to make a decision so we can move forward.’ Decisiveness and moving forward on decisions as quickly as you responsibly can is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions.” Companies tend to organize hierarchically in which the more senior person ultimately makes the decision. But as Jeff explains in the clip below, that wasn’t always the case—he would often be the one to disagree and commit: “I would often say: ‘You know what, I don’t think you’re right. But I’m going to gamble with you and you’re closer to the ground truth than I am. I’ve known you for 20 years—you have great judgement. I don’t know that I’m right either—all of these decisions are complicated. Let’s do it your way.’ But at least then you’ve made a decision, and I’m agreeing to commit to that decision. I’m not going to be second guessing it. I’m not going to be sniping at it. I’m not going to be saying ‘I told you so.’ I’m going to actively try to make sure it works. That’s a really important teammate behavior.”

Startup Archive

1,036,144 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Engineers discover a new class of materials that passively harvest water from air | University of Pennsylvania A serendipitous observation in a Chemical Engineering lab at Penn Engineering has led to a surprising discovery: a new class of nanostructured materials that can pull water from the air, collect it in pores and release it onto surfaces without the need for any external energy. The research, published in Science Advances, was conducted by an interdisciplinary team, including Daeyeon Lee, Russell Pearce and Elizabeth Crimian Heuer Professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (CBE), Amish Patel, Professor in CBE, Baekmin Kim, a postdoctoral scholar in Lee's lab and first author, and Stefan Guldin, Professor in Complex Soft Matter at the Technical University of Munich. Their work describes a material that could open the door to new ways to collect water from the air in arid regions and devices that cool electronics or buildings using the power of evaporation. "We weren't even trying to collect water," says Lee. "We were working on another project testing the combination of hydrophilic nanopores and hydrophobic polymers when Bharath Venkatesh, a former Ph.D. student in our lab, noticed water droplets appearing on a material we were testing. It didn't make sense. That's when we started asking questions." Those questions led to an in-depth study of a new type of amphiphilic nanoporous material: one that blends water-loving (hydrophilic) and water-repelling (hydrophobic) components in a unique nanoscale structure. The result is a material that both captures moisture from air and simultaneously pushes that moisture out as droplets. Water-Collecting Nanopores When water condenses on surfaces, it usually requires either a drop in temperature or very high humidity levels. Conventional water harvesting methods rely on these principles, often requiring energy input to chill surfaces or a dense fog to form to collect water passively from humid environments. But Lee and Patel's system works differently. Instead of cooling, their material relies on capillary condensation, a process where water vapor condenses inside tiny pores even at lower humidity. This is not new. What is new is that in their system, the water doesn't just stay trapped inside the pores, as it usually does in these types of materials. "In typical nanoporous materials, once the water enters the pores, it stays there," explains Patel. "But in our material, the water moves, first condensing inside the pores, then emerging onto the surface as droplets. That's never been seen before in a system like this, and at first we doubted our observations." A Material That Defies Physics Before they understood what was happening, the researchers first thought that water was simply condensing onto the surface of the material due to an artifact of their experimental setup, such as a temperature gradient in the lab. To rule that out, they increased the thickness of the material to see if the amount of water collected on the surface would change. "If what we were observing was due to surface condensation alone, the thickness of the material wouldn't change the amount of water present," explains Lee. But, the total amount of water collected increased as the film's thickness increased, proving that the water droplets forming on the surface came from inside the material. Even more surprising: the droplets didn't evaporate quickly, as thermodynamics would predict. "According to the curvature and size of the droplets, they should have been evaporating," says Patel. "But they were not; they remained stable for extended periods." With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics on their hands, Lee and Patel sent their design off to a collaborator to see if their results were replicable. "We study porous films under a wide range of conditions, using subtle changes in light polarization to probe complex nanoscale phenomena," says Guldin. "But we've never seen anything like this. It's absolutely fascinating and will clearly spark new and exciting research." A Stabilized Cycle of Condensation and Release It turns out that they had created a material with just the right balance of water-attracting nanoparticles and water-repelling plastic -- polyethylene -- to create a nanoparticle film with this special property. "We accidentally hit the sweet spot," says Lee. "The droplets are connected to hidden reservoirs in the pores below. These reservoirs are continuously replenished from water vapor in the air, creating a feedback loop made possible by this perfect balance of water-loving and water-repelling materials." A Platform for Passive Water Harvesting and More Beyond the physics-defying behavior, the materials' simplicity is part of what makes them so promising. Made from common polymers and nanoparticles using scalable fabrication methods, these films could be integrated into passive water harvesting devices for arid regions, surfaces for cooling electronics or smart coatings that respond to ambient humidity. "We're still uncovering the mechanisms at play," says Patel. "But the potential is exciting. We're learning from biology -- how cells and proteins manage water in complex environments -- and applying that to design better materials." "This is exactly what Penn does best, bringing together expertise in chemical engineering, materials science, chemistry and biology to solve big problems," adds Lee. The next steps include studying how to optimize the balance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic components, scale the material for real-world use and investigating how to make the collected droplets roll off surfaces efficiently. Ultimately, the researchers hope this discovery will lead to technologies that offer clean water in dry climates or more sustainable cooling methods using only the water vapor already in the air. Read more:
0:20

Engineers discover a new class of materials that passively harvest water from air | University of Pennsylvania A serendipitous observation in a Chemical Engineering lab at Penn Engineering has led to a surprising discovery: a new class of nanostructured materials that can pull water from the air, collect it in pores and release it onto surfaces without the need for any external energy. The research, published in Science Advances, was conducted by an interdisciplinary team, including Daeyeon Lee, Russell Pearce and Elizabeth Crimian Heuer Professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (CBE), Amish Patel, Professor in CBE, Baekmin Kim, a postdoctoral scholar in Lee's lab and first author, and Stefan Guldin, Professor in Complex Soft Matter at the Technical University of Munich. Their work describes a material that could open the door to new ways to collect water from the air in arid regions and devices that cool electronics or buildings using the power of evaporation. "We weren't even trying to collect water," says Lee. "We were working on another project testing the combination of hydrophilic nanopores and hydrophobic polymers when Bharath Venkatesh, a former Ph.D. student in our lab, noticed water droplets appearing on a material we were testing. It didn't make sense. That's when we started asking questions." Those questions led to an in-depth study of a new type of amphiphilic nanoporous material: one that blends water-loving (hydrophilic) and water-repelling (hydrophobic) components in a unique nanoscale structure. The result is a material that both captures moisture from air and simultaneously pushes that moisture out as droplets. Water-Collecting Nanopores When water condenses on surfaces, it usually requires either a drop in temperature or very high humidity levels. Conventional water harvesting methods rely on these principles, often requiring energy input to chill surfaces or a dense fog to form to collect water passively from humid environments. But Lee and Patel's system works differently. Instead of cooling, their material relies on capillary condensation, a process where water vapor condenses inside tiny pores even at lower humidity. This is not new. What is new is that in their system, the water doesn't just stay trapped inside the pores, as it usually does in these types of materials. "In typical nanoporous materials, once the water enters the pores, it stays there," explains Patel. "But in our material, the water moves, first condensing inside the pores, then emerging onto the surface as droplets. That's never been seen before in a system like this, and at first we doubted our observations." A Material That Defies Physics Before they understood what was happening, the researchers first thought that water was simply condensing onto the surface of the material due to an artifact of their experimental setup, such as a temperature gradient in the lab. To rule that out, they increased the thickness of the material to see if the amount of water collected on the surface would change. "If what we were observing was due to surface condensation alone, the thickness of the material wouldn't change the amount of water present," explains Lee. But, the total amount of water collected increased as the film's thickness increased, proving that the water droplets forming on the surface came from inside the material. Even more surprising: the droplets didn't evaporate quickly, as thermodynamics would predict. "According to the curvature and size of the droplets, they should have been evaporating," says Patel. "But they were not; they remained stable for extended periods." With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics on their hands, Lee and Patel sent their design off to a collaborator to see if their results were replicable. "We study porous films under a wide range of conditions, using subtle changes in light polarization to probe complex nanoscale phenomena," says Guldin. "But we've never seen anything like this. It's absolutely fascinating and will clearly spark new and exciting research." A Stabilized Cycle of Condensation and Release It turns out that they had created a material with just the right balance of water-attracting nanoparticles and water-repelling plastic -- polyethylene -- to create a nanoparticle film with this special property. "We accidentally hit the sweet spot," says Lee. "The droplets are connected to hidden reservoirs in the pores below. These reservoirs are continuously replenished from water vapor in the air, creating a feedback loop made possible by this perfect balance of water-loving and water-repelling materials." A Platform for Passive Water Harvesting and More Beyond the physics-defying behavior, the materials' simplicity is part of what makes them so promising. Made from common polymers and nanoparticles using scalable fabrication methods, these films could be integrated into passive water harvesting devices for arid regions, surfaces for cooling electronics or smart coatings that respond to ambient humidity. "We're still uncovering the mechanisms at play," says Patel. "But the potential is exciting. We're learning from biology -- how cells and proteins manage water in complex environments -- and applying that to design better materials." "This is exactly what Penn does best, bringing together expertise in chemical engineering, materials science, chemistry and biology to solve big problems," adds Lee. The next steps include studying how to optimize the balance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic components, scale the material for real-world use and investigating how to make the collected droplets roll off surfaces efficiently. Ultimately, the researchers hope this discovery will lead to technologies that offer clean water in dry climates or more sustainable cooling methods using only the water vapor already in the air. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

137,919 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Day 1: Late comer. I have always been late. And sadly, not fashionably so. I didn’t grow breasts nor start my period till I was in my first year at the university. In fact, emptying my bag first day in year one- Wande Olumekun (now Awojobi) my friend helping me arrange my locker, asked me if I forgot to buy some. The pads I mean, not the breast. 😁 I didn’t forget, I just didn’t need them. But I needed the breasts and they blossomed 2nd semester, 😁 now, my boobs are way past Double Ds. Way past! My mum used to always tell stories of how as a baby, I didn’t walk on time, or talk on time. I also didn’t start reading on time until I discovered that you can time travel & get lost in books. Pure Magic! There a lot of things that I didn’t get to on time. A lot! The most obvious (not certain by whose calendar though), is that I didn’t get married on time, although in retrospect, I firmly believe no one should get married before 33. (Another story, another time.) I was 40 give or take some months 😊 when I got married, but I married someone that is really into me, ridiculously so, that I still get heart giggles thinking about it. 🥰 and it makes up for all the “lateness.” So, first of all, introduction, I am a 40+ recently married perpetual late comer woman, who still can’t drive a car or swim. Building a business from scratch. (Again!) this time in a new country. And now that we have established where I am, these stories will make a lot more sense to you. You see I decided to tell my “why stories” in a series called “Lived forwards, understood backwards” as proof that every decision, every lesson, every action we take has a ripple effect, that impacts on our lives somehow in the future. When I was 17, I asked my mum to teach me how to drive, she said I should wait for my husband, her own husband taught her how to drive. So I waited. Been waiting Dike 🌚 When I was 8, my cousin Aidelomo referred to someone as “that Idiot that can’t play chess” & although I quickly correct myself, my 40+ year old brain still defines idiots as people that can’t play chess. (I am so sorry non-chess players 🙈). When I was 4/5, my Dad said “if a fly is buzzing in your ear, it’s asking you to marry it, shout No.” 40+ year old me still shouts “NO!! I will not marry you!!!” in a crowd. Sigh. 😞 It’s majorly embarrassing. But it’s reflex. Who wants to marry a fly???? Not me! Now you see, right? How, given my age & my family, these stories are plenty. It’s Day 1, the stories are going to come. When they come. If they come. No patterns. Just randomness. That’s me. Random. And my stories. Random. See you soon with day 2. Hopefully.
0:20

Day 1: Late comer. I have always been late. And sadly, not fashionably so. I didn’t grow breasts nor start my period till I was in my first year at the university. In fact, emptying my bag first day in year one- Wande Olumekun (now Awojobi) my friend helping me arrange my locker, asked me if I forgot to buy some. The pads I mean, not the breast. 😁 I didn’t forget, I just didn’t need them. But I needed the breasts and they blossomed 2nd semester, 😁 now, my boobs are way past Double Ds. Way past! My mum used to always tell stories of how as a baby, I didn’t walk on time, or talk on time. I also didn’t start reading on time until I discovered that you can time travel & get lost in books. Pure Magic! There a lot of things that I didn’t get to on time. A lot! The most obvious (not certain by whose calendar though), is that I didn’t get married on time, although in retrospect, I firmly believe no one should get married before 33. (Another story, another time.) I was 40 give or take some months 😊 when I got married, but I married someone that is really into me, ridiculously so, that I still get heart giggles thinking about it. 🥰 and it makes up for all the “lateness.” So, first of all, introduction, I am a 40+ recently married perpetual late comer woman, who still can’t drive a car or swim. Building a business from scratch. (Again!) this time in a new country. And now that we have established where I am, these stories will make a lot more sense to you. You see I decided to tell my “why stories” in a series called “Lived forwards, understood backwards” as proof that every decision, every lesson, every action we take has a ripple effect, that impacts on our lives somehow in the future. When I was 17, I asked my mum to teach me how to drive, she said I should wait for my husband, her own husband taught her how to drive. So I waited. Been waiting Dike 🌚 When I was 8, my cousin Aidelomo referred to someone as “that Idiot that can’t play chess” & although I quickly correct myself, my 40+ year old brain still defines idiots as people that can’t play chess. (I am so sorry non-chess players 🙈). When I was 4/5, my Dad said “if a fly is buzzing in your ear, it’s asking you to marry it, shout No.” 40+ year old me still shouts “NO!! I will not marry you!!!” in a crowd. Sigh. 😞 It’s majorly embarrassing. But it’s reflex. Who wants to marry a fly???? Not me! Now you see, right? How, given my age & my family, these stories are plenty. It’s Day 1, the stories are going to come. When they come. If they come. No patterns. Just randomness. That’s me. Random. And my stories. Random. See you soon with day 2. Hopefully.

Ized… | Growth | Data | Magic

28,869 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

My Spoiler‑Free Review of Star Wars Outlaws I spent around 30 hours with Star Wars Outlaws, completed the main story, and played a good amount of side content. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed my time with it, even though the game clearly has both high points and noticeable shortcomings. The visuals are one of the strongest aspects of the game. Cities, lighting, character models, and ray tracing all look impressive, and the game genuinely feels like a true current‑gen release. I played on PC with an RTX 5080 and an AMD 9800X3D, and most locations ran smoothly. A few areas were demanding enough that I had to lower some settings to keep the framerate consistent, but the overall optimization felt solid. The planets feel alive thanks to the populated hubs and the amount of environmental detail. You can tell the developers put real effort into making each world feel lived in. The seamless transitions between planets add a lot to the immersion. The worlds look great, even if they aren’t packed with activities, and the planetary travel works well for a story‑driven open‑world game. Even though I have not watched the Star Wars movies, the game still delivered the Star Wars atmosphere convincingly. One downside for me was the absence of lightsabers, which felt like a missed opportunity. Nix, your companion, is genuinely helpful and makes stealth much more manageable. I’m not a major fan of stealth games, and that was one of the reasons I didn’t buy Outlaws at launch when I saw in reviews that the game had a strong focus on stealth. On normal difficulty, the game is flexible enough to let you mix your approach, but you still need to take a few enemies out quietly first if you don’t want to make things harder for yourself. The stealth system itself is simple, maybe too simple for a game that relies on it as much as this one does. I am judging this based on normal difficulty, so harder modes might offer a different experience. Gunplay is satisfying, even if it is not particularly unique. The story left me with mixed feelings. Most characters were not very memorable, and while the mission structure is fine and the pacing works well enough, it never becomes anything special. That said, I enjoyed the balance between stealth, combat, and exploration, and traveling around the planets with the speeder was genuinely fun. The space missions and dogfights were a welcome change of pace. I just wish there had been more mission variety and that Ubisoft had taken a few more creative risks. Combat overall is enjoyable, although the limited weapon variety holds it back and makes encounters feel repetitive over time. One thing I did appreciate was the syndicate system. It isn’t very deep, but it adds some personality to the world and makes the different syndicates feel more distinct. It’s simple, but it fits the game well. Lockpicking and hacking were surprisingly enjoyable. They were challenging enough to feel engaging without becoming frustrating or time consuming. Considering how often you encounter these mechanics, Ubisoft did a good job keeping them fun instead of turning them into chores. The game is in a good technical state on PC. I cannot speak for the console versions, but I only encountered one minor visual bug during my entire playthrough. The only thing that felt off at times was Kay’s facial animations in certain scenes, which could use more polish. Overall, I had a very good time with Star Wars Outlaws. It is not a masterpiece, but it is an enjoyable experience despite its flaws. I can comfortably recommend picking it up on sale or playing it through a subscription. I also hope we eventually get a sequel or another Star Wars project from Ubisoft, because Outlaws offers a good base to work from, and a sequel could expand on it nicely.
2:21

My Spoiler‑Free Review of Star Wars Outlaws I spent around 30 hours with Star Wars Outlaws, completed the main story, and played a good amount of side content. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed my time with it, even though the game clearly has both high points and noticeable shortcomings. The visuals are one of the strongest aspects of the game. Cities, lighting, character models, and ray tracing all look impressive, and the game genuinely feels like a true current‑gen release. I played on PC with an RTX 5080 and an AMD 9800X3D, and most locations ran smoothly. A few areas were demanding enough that I had to lower some settings to keep the framerate consistent, but the overall optimization felt solid. The planets feel alive thanks to the populated hubs and the amount of environmental detail. You can tell the developers put real effort into making each world feel lived in. The seamless transitions between planets add a lot to the immersion. The worlds look great, even if they aren’t packed with activities, and the planetary travel works well for a story‑driven open‑world game. Even though I have not watched the Star Wars movies, the game still delivered the Star Wars atmosphere convincingly. One downside for me was the absence of lightsabers, which felt like a missed opportunity. Nix, your companion, is genuinely helpful and makes stealth much more manageable. I’m not a major fan of stealth games, and that was one of the reasons I didn’t buy Outlaws at launch when I saw in reviews that the game had a strong focus on stealth. On normal difficulty, the game is flexible enough to let you mix your approach, but you still need to take a few enemies out quietly first if you don’t want to make things harder for yourself. The stealth system itself is simple, maybe too simple for a game that relies on it as much as this one does. I am judging this based on normal difficulty, so harder modes might offer a different experience. Gunplay is satisfying, even if it is not particularly unique. The story left me with mixed feelings. Most characters were not very memorable, and while the mission structure is fine and the pacing works well enough, it never becomes anything special. That said, I enjoyed the balance between stealth, combat, and exploration, and traveling around the planets with the speeder was genuinely fun. The space missions and dogfights were a welcome change of pace. I just wish there had been more mission variety and that Ubisoft had taken a few more creative risks. Combat overall is enjoyable, although the limited weapon variety holds it back and makes encounters feel repetitive over time. One thing I did appreciate was the syndicate system. It isn’t very deep, but it adds some personality to the world and makes the different syndicates feel more distinct. It’s simple, but it fits the game well. Lockpicking and hacking were surprisingly enjoyable. They were challenging enough to feel engaging without becoming frustrating or time consuming. Considering how often you encounter these mechanics, Ubisoft did a good job keeping them fun instead of turning them into chores. The game is in a good technical state on PC. I cannot speak for the console versions, but I only encountered one minor visual bug during my entire playthrough. The only thing that felt off at times was Kay’s facial animations in certain scenes, which could use more polish. Overall, I had a very good time with Star Wars Outlaws. It is not a masterpiece, but it is an enjoyable experience despite its flaws. I can comfortably recommend picking it up on sale or playing it through a subscription. I also hope we eventually get a sequel or another Star Wars project from Ubisoft, because Outlaws offers a good base to work from, and a sequel could expand on it nicely.

𝑨𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑶𝒏𝒆

31,138 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

MrBeast: "If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers in six months" "Your videos suck. You think your videos are good, but they suck. They just do. And the sooner you learn how to make good, great videos that people actually want to watch, the sooner you'll get views." MrBeast shares his early reality: "When I was 14, I thought my videos were the best in the world. They weren't, they were terrible. To be successful, you kind of have to have a little bit of that ego where you think your content's great. But also, if you have sub-1,000 subscribers, there's a good probability your videos just suck. They just do." He explains what to do about it: "You need to make hundreds of videos. Improve something every time. And just get to the point where they don't suck. When you make good content, you'll blow up. It's not the algorithm. It's not anything. Most people who are in my position just made terrible videos, and that's okay. Because you've got to make a bunch of videos and improve over time to be great." MrBeast uses an analogy: "You don't just pick up a baseball and become an MLB-level athlete within a year. It takes many, many, many years. YouTube's kind of the same way." On analysis paralysis: "A lot of people get analysis paralysis. They'll sit there and plan their first video for three months. If you have zero videos on your channel, your first video is not gonna get views. Period. Your first 10 are not gonna get views. I can very confidently say that. So stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on end. Just get to work and start uploading." He gives the formula: "All you need to do is make 100 videos and improve something every time. Do that, and then on your 101st video, we'll start talking. Maybe you can get some views. But your first 100 are gonna suck." How to improve something each time: "The second video: put more effort into the script. The third one: learn a new editing trick. The fourth one: figure out a way to have better inflections in your voice. The fifth one: study a new thumbnail tip and implement it. The sixth one: figure out a new title. There's infinite ways. The coloring, the frame rate, the editing, the filming, the production, the jokes, the pacing, every little thing can be improved. There's literally no such thing as a perfect video." On the algorithm: "What YouTube wants is for people to click on a video and watch it. That's what it is at its core. By studying the algorithm, you'll learn that you're more studying human psychology. What do humans want to watch?" MrBeast shares a simple reframe: "Anytime you say the word 'algorithm,' just replace it with 'audience' and it works perfectly. 'The algorithm didn't like that video?' No, the audience didn't like that video. Literally, that's it. If people are clicking and watching, it gets promoted more. The algorithm just reflects what the people want." On titles: "Short, simple, and just so freaking interesting that you have to click. If someone reads it, are they like, do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's gonna haunt them if they don't click?" He adds nuance: "Keep it below 50 characters. Above 50 characters, on certain devices it goes dot, dot, dot, and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on." MrBeast shares the extremity principle: "The more extreme the opinion, typically the higher the click-through rate. 'Fiji water sucks', that'd do fine. But 'Fiji water is the worst water I've ever drank in my life', way more extreme, would do way better. But then you have to deliver. The more extreme you are, the more extreme you have to be in the video." On the first 5 seconds: "Before you film a video, what is the thumbnail? What is the title? Then what's the first 5 seconds? Then what's the first 30 seconds?" He explains why autoplay changed everything: "On YouTube now, videos automatically play. So many people don't even see the thumbnail because it autoplays so quickly. The thumbnail is irrelevant for them. I have to visually convince you to click on the video in the first 5 seconds. Before, the hook was important because you had to convince people to watch. Now you have to convince people to click and watch at the same time, with the first 5 seconds." On matching expectations: "Your title and thumbnail set expectations. At the very beginning of the video, to minimize drop-off, you want to assure them that those expectations are being met. If you click on a video called 'Tether is a scam' and at the very beginning, he starts talking about literally anything else, you're like, 'Oh, this is BS. This isn't what I clicked on.' But if at the very start you go, 'Tether is a scam and I'm gonna teach you why,' then it's like, okay, you match the expectations. Then you want to exceed them." He emphasizes the importance: "The thing people undervalue the most is literally the first 10 seconds of the video. That 15% difference in viewership between losing 35% of viewers in the first 30 seconds versus losing 20%, that really does make the difference between 2 million views and 10 million views. You just had a more strategic intro that hooked them." On removing dull moments: "You basically want to remove every dull moment. Find the 10 most critical people you know, make them watch the video, and just roast it. If I talk to a camera for 10 seconds without a cut, a lot of people will get bored. Having a B-cam and C-cam three seconds in, cutting to a different angle, now it's more interesting even though it's essentially the same thing." On keeping viewers watching: "Give them why they clicked. Tell them why they should watch. Then just stick on topic. That right there isn't even super complex, but I would already put you in the upper echelon of YouTube. A lot of people drag it out. It's like, 'I'm going to eat $100 ice cream, but first...' and then it's them birthday shopping for their mom. That's not why I came here." On quality over quantity: "It's much easier to get 5 million views on one video than 50,000 views on 100 videos. A lot of small YouTubers just post videos that aren't bad but aren't great, and none of them ever pop off, so they never get an audience. It might be better to upload half or a third or even a fifth of the videos, but make the videos you upload so freaking good that the algorithm has to promote it." He warns against the consistency trap: "When you set a consistent schedule and you're constantly having to upload videos that aren't as good as you'd like because you gotta hit 'Oh, this Monday I said I'd upload', that's a dangerous trap. The viewers notice the quality isn't as good and it makes them less likely to watch. I think it hurts your longevity." On the real metric that matters: "A big thing that everyone underestimates, what was your experience with your last video? If people loved the last video of yours that they watched, they're more likely to watch your next one. When people watch your video, you don't want them to go, 'Okay, that was good, but that's enough of you for the day.' What you want is them to go, 'Holy crap, that was crazy! Oh my god, what's that?' and they watch 10 videos. That's how you get high view counts. People watch 10 videos, not one." On thumbnails: "You want it to be simple. When they're scrolling, you want them to instantly understand what you're conveying and feel some type of emotion. Make it so interesting, or spike their curiosity so much, that if they don't click it, they'll wonder before they go to bed what happened?" He gives an example: "If you uploaded 'I rode a skateboard with 1,000 other people on it', and people are falling off the side, it's about to go off a big ramp if you don't click that, you're gonna be so curious. Later in the day, when you're daydreaming, you'll think, 'What happened to those 1,000 people on that skateboard?' That's the mindset you should have when making thumbnails." On knowledge being the only barrier: "It's all knowledge. It really is. I could start a new channel tomorrow without using my face or my voice, without ever promoting it, and in six months have 20 million subscribers. I just could. It's purely knowledge. If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers no matter where you are right now within six months." He addresses the skeptics: "90% of the people watching don't agree with that. Everyone has excuses. 'Nah, YouTube just doesn't work like that, Jimmy.' But I mentor a lot of people. I see it all the time. It is possible. It is simply knowledge. The second you accept that it is knowledge and you start your journey of learning figuring out what makes a good video, what does my audience want, how can I elevate and then you take that knowledge and just assume 'I will never understand what the perfect video is' and every single day be devoted to learning and improving as much as possible there you go." On money not being the barrier: "There are tons of viral ideas that don't require money. It does not require money to go viral. One of my most-viewed videos was spending 24 hours in a desert, we just grabbed a tent and some stuff and went to the desert. It got 60-70 million views. People say, 'I could be MrBeast if I had money.' A, I didn't start off with money; I was poor, I had no money. It took me seven years just to buy a camera saving up from YouTube. And B, some of our most-viewed videos literally anyone can do." On why no one will outwork him: "No one's ever gonna do what I do better than me. It's just not humanly possible. I reinvest every penny I make. I work every hour I'm awake. I devote every atom in my brain to solving this. I hire the best people on the planet. I've been doing this for 14 years. And I think in decades, not years. I'm gonna be doing this for another 20-30 years. If I thought someone was doing better than me, I'd just start sleeping less so I could work even more." But he doesn't recommend it: "I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. My personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible. That is why I exist on this planet. And I don't recommend it. You should have work-life balance. You should not devote your entire life to this one thing. I have a mental breakdown every other week because I push myself so hard. I don't recommend it." The only question that matters: "Subscribers don't matter. Views don't matter. I mean, they do. But everything you want as a creator comes from making the best videos possible and thumbnails. The video part's the hard part. Ask: 'How can I make my videos better?' Do that every single day for years. And then you'll probably get views."
18:41

MrBeast: "If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers in six months" "Your videos suck. You think your videos are good, but they suck. They just do. And the sooner you learn how to make good, great videos that people actually want to watch, the sooner you'll get views." MrBeast shares his early reality: "When I was 14, I thought my videos were the best in the world. They weren't, they were terrible. To be successful, you kind of have to have a little bit of that ego where you think your content's great. But also, if you have sub-1,000 subscribers, there's a good probability your videos just suck. They just do." He explains what to do about it: "You need to make hundreds of videos. Improve something every time. And just get to the point where they don't suck. When you make good content, you'll blow up. It's not the algorithm. It's not anything. Most people who are in my position just made terrible videos, and that's okay. Because you've got to make a bunch of videos and improve over time to be great." MrBeast uses an analogy: "You don't just pick up a baseball and become an MLB-level athlete within a year. It takes many, many, many years. YouTube's kind of the same way." On analysis paralysis: "A lot of people get analysis paralysis. They'll sit there and plan their first video for three months. If you have zero videos on your channel, your first video is not gonna get views. Period. Your first 10 are not gonna get views. I can very confidently say that. So stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on end. Just get to work and start uploading." He gives the formula: "All you need to do is make 100 videos and improve something every time. Do that, and then on your 101st video, we'll start talking. Maybe you can get some views. But your first 100 are gonna suck." How to improve something each time: "The second video: put more effort into the script. The third one: learn a new editing trick. The fourth one: figure out a way to have better inflections in your voice. The fifth one: study a new thumbnail tip and implement it. The sixth one: figure out a new title. There's infinite ways. The coloring, the frame rate, the editing, the filming, the production, the jokes, the pacing, every little thing can be improved. There's literally no such thing as a perfect video." On the algorithm: "What YouTube wants is for people to click on a video and watch it. That's what it is at its core. By studying the algorithm, you'll learn that you're more studying human psychology. What do humans want to watch?" MrBeast shares a simple reframe: "Anytime you say the word 'algorithm,' just replace it with 'audience' and it works perfectly. 'The algorithm didn't like that video?' No, the audience didn't like that video. Literally, that's it. If people are clicking and watching, it gets promoted more. The algorithm just reflects what the people want." On titles: "Short, simple, and just so freaking interesting that you have to click. If someone reads it, are they like, do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's gonna haunt them if they don't click?" He adds nuance: "Keep it below 50 characters. Above 50 characters, on certain devices it goes dot, dot, dot, and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on." MrBeast shares the extremity principle: "The more extreme the opinion, typically the higher the click-through rate. 'Fiji water sucks', that'd do fine. But 'Fiji water is the worst water I've ever drank in my life', way more extreme, would do way better. But then you have to deliver. The more extreme you are, the more extreme you have to be in the video." On the first 5 seconds: "Before you film a video, what is the thumbnail? What is the title? Then what's the first 5 seconds? Then what's the first 30 seconds?" He explains why autoplay changed everything: "On YouTube now, videos automatically play. So many people don't even see the thumbnail because it autoplays so quickly. The thumbnail is irrelevant for them. I have to visually convince you to click on the video in the first 5 seconds. Before, the hook was important because you had to convince people to watch. Now you have to convince people to click and watch at the same time, with the first 5 seconds." On matching expectations: "Your title and thumbnail set expectations. At the very beginning of the video, to minimize drop-off, you want to assure them that those expectations are being met. If you click on a video called 'Tether is a scam' and at the very beginning, he starts talking about literally anything else, you're like, 'Oh, this is BS. This isn't what I clicked on.' But if at the very start you go, 'Tether is a scam and I'm gonna teach you why,' then it's like, okay, you match the expectations. Then you want to exceed them." He emphasizes the importance: "The thing people undervalue the most is literally the first 10 seconds of the video. That 15% difference in viewership between losing 35% of viewers in the first 30 seconds versus losing 20%, that really does make the difference between 2 million views and 10 million views. You just had a more strategic intro that hooked them." On removing dull moments: "You basically want to remove every dull moment. Find the 10 most critical people you know, make them watch the video, and just roast it. If I talk to a camera for 10 seconds without a cut, a lot of people will get bored. Having a B-cam and C-cam three seconds in, cutting to a different angle, now it's more interesting even though it's essentially the same thing." On keeping viewers watching: "Give them why they clicked. Tell them why they should watch. Then just stick on topic. That right there isn't even super complex, but I would already put you in the upper echelon of YouTube. A lot of people drag it out. It's like, 'I'm going to eat $100 ice cream, but first...' and then it's them birthday shopping for their mom. That's not why I came here." On quality over quantity: "It's much easier to get 5 million views on one video than 50,000 views on 100 videos. A lot of small YouTubers just post videos that aren't bad but aren't great, and none of them ever pop off, so they never get an audience. It might be better to upload half or a third or even a fifth of the videos, but make the videos you upload so freaking good that the algorithm has to promote it." He warns against the consistency trap: "When you set a consistent schedule and you're constantly having to upload videos that aren't as good as you'd like because you gotta hit 'Oh, this Monday I said I'd upload', that's a dangerous trap. The viewers notice the quality isn't as good and it makes them less likely to watch. I think it hurts your longevity." On the real metric that matters: "A big thing that everyone underestimates, what was your experience with your last video? If people loved the last video of yours that they watched, they're more likely to watch your next one. When people watch your video, you don't want them to go, 'Okay, that was good, but that's enough of you for the day.' What you want is them to go, 'Holy crap, that was crazy! Oh my god, what's that?' and they watch 10 videos. That's how you get high view counts. People watch 10 videos, not one." On thumbnails: "You want it to be simple. When they're scrolling, you want them to instantly understand what you're conveying and feel some type of emotion. Make it so interesting, or spike their curiosity so much, that if they don't click it, they'll wonder before they go to bed what happened?" He gives an example: "If you uploaded 'I rode a skateboard with 1,000 other people on it', and people are falling off the side, it's about to go off a big ramp if you don't click that, you're gonna be so curious. Later in the day, when you're daydreaming, you'll think, 'What happened to those 1,000 people on that skateboard?' That's the mindset you should have when making thumbnails." On knowledge being the only barrier: "It's all knowledge. It really is. I could start a new channel tomorrow without using my face or my voice, without ever promoting it, and in six months have 20 million subscribers. I just could. It's purely knowledge. If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers no matter where you are right now within six months." He addresses the skeptics: "90% of the people watching don't agree with that. Everyone has excuses. 'Nah, YouTube just doesn't work like that, Jimmy.' But I mentor a lot of people. I see it all the time. It is possible. It is simply knowledge. The second you accept that it is knowledge and you start your journey of learning figuring out what makes a good video, what does my audience want, how can I elevate and then you take that knowledge and just assume 'I will never understand what the perfect video is' and every single day be devoted to learning and improving as much as possible there you go." On money not being the barrier: "There are tons of viral ideas that don't require money. It does not require money to go viral. One of my most-viewed videos was spending 24 hours in a desert, we just grabbed a tent and some stuff and went to the desert. It got 60-70 million views. People say, 'I could be MrBeast if I had money.' A, I didn't start off with money; I was poor, I had no money. It took me seven years just to buy a camera saving up from YouTube. And B, some of our most-viewed videos literally anyone can do." On why no one will outwork him: "No one's ever gonna do what I do better than me. It's just not humanly possible. I reinvest every penny I make. I work every hour I'm awake. I devote every atom in my brain to solving this. I hire the best people on the planet. I've been doing this for 14 years. And I think in decades, not years. I'm gonna be doing this for another 20-30 years. If I thought someone was doing better than me, I'd just start sleeping less so I could work even more." But he doesn't recommend it: "I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. My personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible. That is why I exist on this planet. And I don't recommend it. You should have work-life balance. You should not devote your entire life to this one thing. I have a mental breakdown every other week because I push myself so hard. I don't recommend it." The only question that matters: "Subscribers don't matter. Views don't matter. I mean, they do. But everything you want as a creator comes from making the best videos possible and thumbnails. The video part's the hard part. Ask: 'How can I make my videos better?' Do that every single day for years. And then you'll probably get views."

Jaynit

125,413 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

If you watch this ~50 minute screen recording closely (yeah, I know, it's long; there are also some times when my computer was very slow and laggy, just skip past that part. And at one point I had to run and get my 9-month-old a new bottle and left it on a boring screen, sorry!), I believe you can see real signs of the kind of runaway, recursive AI self-improvement that people have been warning of for a while (Mr. Kurzweil most notably and prophetically). Why do I say that? What's different now? Well, there's a reason my set of agent coding tooling is called the Flywheel. These tools all mutually self-reinforce each other. And they all flow directly into my ntm tool (short for "named_tmux_manager"), which acts as a sort of integration point and nerve center for the tools (this is becoming more true by the minute as I'm now seriously working on ntm). Now, ntm was something I started making to automate some aspects of my workflow, but it was the kind of thing where, until it was perfect, it sort of just slowed me down. So I didn't actually use it even though I kept working on it and trying to improve it, and suggested to users that they try it in my tutorials. Well anyway, I finally got around to "dogfooding" ntm last night, and now it's going to get very dramatically better at an alarming rate. Some of that is from applying my "idea wizard" prompt to generate more useful features and building that stuff out and addressing obvious pain points I encountered during my newfound usage of the tool. But a lot comes from my realization that, once again, ntm's true utility is not as a tool for ME, but for an agent. That is, ntm lets one instance of Claude Code or Codex act as, well, me, do the things that I had been doing manually. Do I wish I had started using ntm earlier? No, for two big reasons: 1) Doing it manually helped me build up my intuition massively, which directly led me down the path of creating useful prompt strategies and workflows; these often began as ad-hoc prompts that I realized could be generalized and made more versatile/universal. Lesson: don't prematurely automate until you have an intimate, intuitive feel for your "core value-add loop." Otherwise you'll have a fully automated system quickly that efficiently and automatically does a stupid or otherwise sub-optimal thing. 2) My eyes have been opened to the beauty and power of Skills. I'm not talking about your garden-variety skills that are just a simple markdown file. I'm talking about true tour-de-force directories of perfectly structured and organized files that are filled with good information, insights, workflows, etc., but presented in a way that is highly optimized for consumption by AI agents, with extreme attention paid to things like perfect progressive disclosure, token density, agent-ergonomics, agent-intuitiveness, etc. And also Skills that go way beyond markdown files, with full integration into Claude Code where it makes sense via hooks, sub-agents, and even Python scripts. These kinds of skills are a qualitative difference in expressive power and usefulness and a total game changer. They are also effectively composable, creating almost an algebra of skills that let you use them together in powerful ways. I'm working on a subscription service website and CLI tool now to share what I've learned here most effectively, stay tuned for that in the coming days. Anyway, I now know what to make and how to make it. So, getting back to that screen recording, what does it show that makes me claim recursive self-improvement is here? If you keep your eye on the upper left tmux pane, that's the "controller" agent. It is using ntm to control all the other panes which are also running Claude Code (but ntm fully supports other agent types like Codex and Gemini-CLI, and it's trivially easy to mix and match them if you wanted to have, say, 8 CCs and 6 Codexes for writing the code and 3 Gemini-CLIs for reviewing code.) Now, there's nothing that crazy about this much so far. But where it starts to get very cool is that as the session continues and we encounter real-world problems, things like my ridiculously overloaded computer that keeps hanging for long periods, Claude Code instances that crash and get into a frozen, unresponsive state, it can learn from that. And you can see it using my skill writing skill to refine its ntm vibe coding skill in real time. And then take that skill and refine it to be more intuitive for itself. Or use my cass tool skill to search all the session histories to look for problems that came up and strategize how to solve them. The most useful part was when, towards the end of the session, I told it to reflect on all the things we had done and problems we encountered. One way it can usefully leverage those reflections is by improving its ntm vibe coding skill to make it cover more edge cases and exigencies. But the other, more fundamental, way is for it to conceive of and design the optimal new features and functionality for ntm itself so that the tool embodies those lessons in a first-class way. This offloads cognition from its brain onto its tooling, just like how a person can lean on spellcheck or a calculator. It codifies correct, effective reasoning at the tool level, where it's more reliable and robust and repeatable. And btw, did you notice what code base it was working on the whole time? It was none other than ntm itself! So as it worked on its own tool, it had reflections and ideas about how to further improve the tool. Now, it could have just as easily gotten those insights and ideas while using ntm to work on a different project, but the fact that it was working on itself is almost gloriously meta and recursive. So by the end, after learning from tending to a big group of agent workers (btw, I have previously emphasized doing everything in a really distributed/decentralized way, where each fungible agent gets identical marching orders that tell it to use my bv tool to find the optimal bead to work on. This does work very well, but occasionally results in some contention and overlap from thundering herd, or at least wastes time/tokens/communication in avoiding that before the agents waste time duplicating work. But in this new ntm-oriented workflow, I was able to have the controller agent in the upper left use bv itself and then optimally parcel out the instructions to each agent so that we could know for sure that there's no overlap), I ended up with a ton of new beads for new features, which I had it optimize and polish a few times. Now I can swap to a new Claude Max account and have the swarm implement all those new features! It should only take a couple passes like the one shown in the screen recording to get everything implemented. Then we can rinse and repeat, having the agent read through the full session histories of each agent and its experience from its own session in sending ntm commands and seeing how they worked out in practice, to come up with the next batch of changes to both its ntm vibe coding skill AND to the ntm tool itself. Do you see how rapidly this turns into Skynet? My mistake earlier was in focusing on making myself a "faster horse" as Henry Ford used to joke about customers wanting before he showed them what they should really want (a Model T). That is, something that would make my experience nicer while doing this agent swarm based development workflow. But the obvious lesson is that you should make all your tooling agent-first because the agents are just better at this stuff. You can still watch, and of course I did add a ridiculous number of very nice human-centric features to ntm that you'll be seeing in the next day or two, but those are really kind of "for fun" to make us humans feel better about the process. All the real value-add is happening "by agents, for agents." PS: Towards the end, you can see me switch to my Mac and tell Claude to improve the skill that I made earlier today for taking the mkv screen recording files from OBS Studio and muxing them into MP4 files for sharing, while downloading songs from YouTube to serve as the background music. I made it so it can also grab the thumbnails and generate little song credit cards that show up in the lower right corner. This worked perfectly the first time! I'll include some screenshots in a response post showing how that worked, but it was awesome to witness. Skills are POWERFUL. I'll also post a link to this video on YouTube if you prefer to watch it there.
51:48

If you watch this ~50 minute screen recording closely (yeah, I know, it's long; there are also some times when my computer was very slow and laggy, just skip past that part. And at one point I had to run and get my 9-month-old a new bottle and left it on a boring screen, sorry!), I believe you can see real signs of the kind of runaway, recursive AI self-improvement that people have been warning of for a while (Mr. Kurzweil most notably and prophetically). Why do I say that? What's different now? Well, there's a reason my set of agent coding tooling is called the Flywheel. These tools all mutually self-reinforce each other. And they all flow directly into my ntm tool (short for "named_tmux_manager"), which acts as a sort of integration point and nerve center for the tools (this is becoming more true by the minute as I'm now seriously working on ntm). Now, ntm was something I started making to automate some aspects of my workflow, but it was the kind of thing where, until it was perfect, it sort of just slowed me down. So I didn't actually use it even though I kept working on it and trying to improve it, and suggested to users that they try it in my tutorials. Well anyway, I finally got around to "dogfooding" ntm last night, and now it's going to get very dramatically better at an alarming rate. Some of that is from applying my "idea wizard" prompt to generate more useful features and building that stuff out and addressing obvious pain points I encountered during my newfound usage of the tool. But a lot comes from my realization that, once again, ntm's true utility is not as a tool for ME, but for an agent. That is, ntm lets one instance of Claude Code or Codex act as, well, me, do the things that I had been doing manually. Do I wish I had started using ntm earlier? No, for two big reasons: 1) Doing it manually helped me build up my intuition massively, which directly led me down the path of creating useful prompt strategies and workflows; these often began as ad-hoc prompts that I realized could be generalized and made more versatile/universal. Lesson: don't prematurely automate until you have an intimate, intuitive feel for your "core value-add loop." Otherwise you'll have a fully automated system quickly that efficiently and automatically does a stupid or otherwise sub-optimal thing. 2) My eyes have been opened to the beauty and power of Skills. I'm not talking about your garden-variety skills that are just a simple markdown file. I'm talking about true tour-de-force directories of perfectly structured and organized files that are filled with good information, insights, workflows, etc., but presented in a way that is highly optimized for consumption by AI agents, with extreme attention paid to things like perfect progressive disclosure, token density, agent-ergonomics, agent-intuitiveness, etc. And also Skills that go way beyond markdown files, with full integration into Claude Code where it makes sense via hooks, sub-agents, and even Python scripts. These kinds of skills are a qualitative difference in expressive power and usefulness and a total game changer. They are also effectively composable, creating almost an algebra of skills that let you use them together in powerful ways. I'm working on a subscription service website and CLI tool now to share what I've learned here most effectively, stay tuned for that in the coming days. Anyway, I now know what to make and how to make it. So, getting back to that screen recording, what does it show that makes me claim recursive self-improvement is here? If you keep your eye on the upper left tmux pane, that's the "controller" agent. It is using ntm to control all the other panes which are also running Claude Code (but ntm fully supports other agent types like Codex and Gemini-CLI, and it's trivially easy to mix and match them if you wanted to have, say, 8 CCs and 6 Codexes for writing the code and 3 Gemini-CLIs for reviewing code.) Now, there's nothing that crazy about this much so far. But where it starts to get very cool is that as the session continues and we encounter real-world problems, things like my ridiculously overloaded computer that keeps hanging for long periods, Claude Code instances that crash and get into a frozen, unresponsive state, it can learn from that. And you can see it using my skill writing skill to refine its ntm vibe coding skill in real time. And then take that skill and refine it to be more intuitive for itself. Or use my cass tool skill to search all the session histories to look for problems that came up and strategize how to solve them. The most useful part was when, towards the end of the session, I told it to reflect on all the things we had done and problems we encountered. One way it can usefully leverage those reflections is by improving its ntm vibe coding skill to make it cover more edge cases and exigencies. But the other, more fundamental, way is for it to conceive of and design the optimal new features and functionality for ntm itself so that the tool embodies those lessons in a first-class way. This offloads cognition from its brain onto its tooling, just like how a person can lean on spellcheck or a calculator. It codifies correct, effective reasoning at the tool level, where it's more reliable and robust and repeatable. And btw, did you notice what code base it was working on the whole time? It was none other than ntm itself! So as it worked on its own tool, it had reflections and ideas about how to further improve the tool. Now, it could have just as easily gotten those insights and ideas while using ntm to work on a different project, but the fact that it was working on itself is almost gloriously meta and recursive. So by the end, after learning from tending to a big group of agent workers (btw, I have previously emphasized doing everything in a really distributed/decentralized way, where each fungible agent gets identical marching orders that tell it to use my bv tool to find the optimal bead to work on. This does work very well, but occasionally results in some contention and overlap from thundering herd, or at least wastes time/tokens/communication in avoiding that before the agents waste time duplicating work. But in this new ntm-oriented workflow, I was able to have the controller agent in the upper left use bv itself and then optimally parcel out the instructions to each agent so that we could know for sure that there's no overlap), I ended up with a ton of new beads for new features, which I had it optimize and polish a few times. Now I can swap to a new Claude Max account and have the swarm implement all those new features! It should only take a couple passes like the one shown in the screen recording to get everything implemented. Then we can rinse and repeat, having the agent read through the full session histories of each agent and its experience from its own session in sending ntm commands and seeing how they worked out in practice, to come up with the next batch of changes to both its ntm vibe coding skill AND to the ntm tool itself. Do you see how rapidly this turns into Skynet? My mistake earlier was in focusing on making myself a "faster horse" as Henry Ford used to joke about customers wanting before he showed them what they should really want (a Model T). That is, something that would make my experience nicer while doing this agent swarm based development workflow. But the obvious lesson is that you should make all your tooling agent-first because the agents are just better at this stuff. You can still watch, and of course I did add a ridiculous number of very nice human-centric features to ntm that you'll be seeing in the next day or two, but those are really kind of "for fun" to make us humans feel better about the process. All the real value-add is happening "by agents, for agents." PS: Towards the end, you can see me switch to my Mac and tell Claude to improve the skill that I made earlier today for taking the mkv screen recording files from OBS Studio and muxing them into MP4 files for sharing, while downloading songs from YouTube to serve as the background music. I made it so it can also grab the thumbnails and generate little song credit cards that show up in the lower right corner. This worked perfectly the first time! I'll include some screenshots in a response post showing how that worked, but it was awesome to witness. Skills are POWERFUL. I'll also post a link to this video on YouTube if you prefer to watch it there.

Jeffrey Emanuel

25,483 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

JD Vance tells Rogan that conservatives have higher testosterone, which is maybe why Democrats want everyone to be fat and out of shape. Within one minute, you get so much that’s wrong with the right: Social Darwinism combined with pretending to be a champion of the lower class masses, and conspiratorial thinking along with plausible deniability. Of course, if you pointed out that conservatives are fatter than liberals, Vance would say how dare you, evil elites looking down on us regular Americans. This is why people vote Trump! It’s like the IQ thing. Conservatives become the low IQ party at the same time they become obsessed with calling their opponents low IQ. They’re the party of old fat people who talk like they’re the real champions of vigor and youth. The conspiratorial aspect here is another interesting angle. Vance seems like he’s joking, but Rogan’s reaction makes me think that he believes there’s something to this theory. I bet if you pressed Vance on this he would say he was kidding, but being in a right-wing subculture where they believe any conspiracy theory that’s thrown out there allows one to gain points with this crowd while maintaining plausible deniability. Vance knows this subculture, and he plays this game well. Vance is often referred to as the “smarter” version of Trumpism. But making Trump smarter isn't better. It leads to an even more insidious and just as intellectually hollow way of engaging with the world. Insult your opponents in the nastiest terms possible, even dress it up as “science,” but also be hypersensitive to all criticism going in the other direction. Play to conspiracy theories, which your followers can believe are true while you can maintain plausible deniability. Then say you’re joking, and be declared the smart version of whatever conservatives happen to be doing, when you are the one who helped make them so dumb in the first place.
0:48

JD Vance tells Rogan that conservatives have higher testosterone, which is maybe why Democrats want everyone to be fat and out of shape. Within one minute, you get so much that’s wrong with the right: Social Darwinism combined with pretending to be a champion of the lower class masses, and conspiratorial thinking along with plausible deniability. Of course, if you pointed out that conservatives are fatter than liberals, Vance would say how dare you, evil elites looking down on us regular Americans. This is why people vote Trump! It’s like the IQ thing. Conservatives become the low IQ party at the same time they become obsessed with calling their opponents low IQ. They’re the party of old fat people who talk like they’re the real champions of vigor and youth. The conspiratorial aspect here is another interesting angle. Vance seems like he’s joking, but Rogan’s reaction makes me think that he believes there’s something to this theory. I bet if you pressed Vance on this he would say he was kidding, but being in a right-wing subculture where they believe any conspiracy theory that’s thrown out there allows one to gain points with this crowd while maintaining plausible deniability. Vance knows this subculture, and he plays this game well. Vance is often referred to as the “smarter” version of Trumpism. But making Trump smarter isn't better. It leads to an even more insidious and just as intellectually hollow way of engaging with the world. Insult your opponents in the nastiest terms possible, even dress it up as “science,” but also be hypersensitive to all criticism going in the other direction. Play to conspiracy theories, which your followers can believe are true while you can maintain plausible deniability. Then say you’re joking, and be declared the smart version of whatever conservatives happen to be doing, when you are the one who helped make them so dumb in the first place.

Richard Hanania

2,342,210 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Watch how the national security state talks about AI and you can see the future they are building. They want a system that never blinks. Every person reduced to a pattern that can be searched, flagged, and acted on. They want to collapse the gap between observation and force until the machine can spot you, sort you, and move on you before you have time to understand what is happening. A government that learns to use AI for targeting abroad will use it for sorting, scoring, and monitoring at home. A government that gets comfortable with machine judgment in war will get comfortable with machine judgment in policing, licensing, border enforcement, financial scrutiny, traffic enforcement, and whatever else it decides falls under "public safety." Capability creates appetite. Appetite creates justification. Then the infrastructure settles in and starts looking normal. That is why the surveillance buildout matters so much. The road, the camera pole, the plate reader, the toll scanner, the phone in your pocket, the black box in the dash, the vendor database, the analytics layer sitting above it all. None of this exists in a vacuum. It all becomes useful to the state once the fragments can be pulled together, searched, retained, purchased, subpoenaed, shared, or quietly integrated into the systems government already uses to monitor, flag, and act on people. Driving used to mean distance, anonymity, departure on your own terms. Now every trip leaves a wake that can be funneled upward. Where you went. When you went. How long you stayed. Who was with you. Which route you took when you thought nobody was watching. Homes speak through smart devices. Streets speak through cameras. Phones speak through location data. Purchases speak through payment networks. AI is the system that teaches those fragments how to talk to each other, and government is the customer that benefits most when they do. It pulls private life into administrative visibility, finds the pattern, flags the deviation, and hands institutions an operational picture of your private life. Once that infrastructure settles in, the question becomes how directly the feed reaches the state, how cheaply it can be used against you, and how far the judgment travels after the watching ends. Raw data alone is heavy, messy, and expensive to exploit. AI changes the economics of suspicion. It reduces the labor cost of watching you. It turns millions of otherwise boring signals into ranked alerts, behavioral models, exception reports, and searchable histories. A human officer cannot sit in every passenger seat. A machine can watch every road at once, remember everything, flag whatever deviates from a norm, and hand the state a neat little queue of people to inspect. A company you have never heard of builds the in-cabin monitor. Another stores the data. Another trains the model. Another sells the analytics layer. Another lands the government contract. The state gets the visibility it wants. The vendor gets recurring revenue. The public gets told this is all for safety, insurance optimization, distracted driving reduction, terrorism prevention, or some other phrase engineered to make objections sound antisocial. People still use the word "private" as if that solves everything. It does not. A contractor whose business depends on state demand, state mandates, state integrations, and state favor is functioning as an extension of power with better branding and weaker accountability. And once the state can make companies comply through regulation, licensing, contracting, or procurement, the distinction matters even less. The government does not need to build every sensor with its own hands. It only needs the authority to require that the sensors exist, the leverage to access the outputs, and the political class to call the whole arrangement reasonable. That is where this goes. Your movement becomes legible to institutions that should never have had this level of visibility in the first place. Your car knows where you were. Plate readers know when you arrived. Data brokers know what device traveled with you. Occupancy systems know whether someone was with you. In-cabin analytics estimate what you were doing. AI pulls those fragments together and makes them legible. Visit a protest, a clinic, a church, a gun range, a therapist, a friend going through a divorce, an out-of-the-way meeting with the wrong politics, and suddenly your life is simply a pattern available for government review. The old police state needed manpower. The new one only needs integration. Once this stack is complete, restraint gets mocked as negligence. Objection gets framed as paranoia. Your rights get recoded as an inconvenient friction. Power generalizes. It takes the permission you gave it for one target and reuses it on the rest. Once ordinary objects become informants, our freedom starts dying in plain sight.
1:51

Watch how the national security state talks about AI and you can see the future they are building. They want a system that never blinks. Every person reduced to a pattern that can be searched, flagged, and acted on. They want to collapse the gap between observation and force until the machine can spot you, sort you, and move on you before you have time to understand what is happening. A government that learns to use AI for targeting abroad will use it for sorting, scoring, and monitoring at home. A government that gets comfortable with machine judgment in war will get comfortable with machine judgment in policing, licensing, border enforcement, financial scrutiny, traffic enforcement, and whatever else it decides falls under "public safety." Capability creates appetite. Appetite creates justification. Then the infrastructure settles in and starts looking normal. That is why the surveillance buildout matters so much. The road, the camera pole, the plate reader, the toll scanner, the phone in your pocket, the black box in the dash, the vendor database, the analytics layer sitting above it all. None of this exists in a vacuum. It all becomes useful to the state once the fragments can be pulled together, searched, retained, purchased, subpoenaed, shared, or quietly integrated into the systems government already uses to monitor, flag, and act on people. Driving used to mean distance, anonymity, departure on your own terms. Now every trip leaves a wake that can be funneled upward. Where you went. When you went. How long you stayed. Who was with you. Which route you took when you thought nobody was watching. Homes speak through smart devices. Streets speak through cameras. Phones speak through location data. Purchases speak through payment networks. AI is the system that teaches those fragments how to talk to each other, and government is the customer that benefits most when they do. It pulls private life into administrative visibility, finds the pattern, flags the deviation, and hands institutions an operational picture of your private life. Once that infrastructure settles in, the question becomes how directly the feed reaches the state, how cheaply it can be used against you, and how far the judgment travels after the watching ends. Raw data alone is heavy, messy, and expensive to exploit. AI changes the economics of suspicion. It reduces the labor cost of watching you. It turns millions of otherwise boring signals into ranked alerts, behavioral models, exception reports, and searchable histories. A human officer cannot sit in every passenger seat. A machine can watch every road at once, remember everything, flag whatever deviates from a norm, and hand the state a neat little queue of people to inspect. A company you have never heard of builds the in-cabin monitor. Another stores the data. Another trains the model. Another sells the analytics layer. Another lands the government contract. The state gets the visibility it wants. The vendor gets recurring revenue. The public gets told this is all for safety, insurance optimization, distracted driving reduction, terrorism prevention, or some other phrase engineered to make objections sound antisocial. People still use the word "private" as if that solves everything. It does not. A contractor whose business depends on state demand, state mandates, state integrations, and state favor is functioning as an extension of power with better branding and weaker accountability. And once the state can make companies comply through regulation, licensing, contracting, or procurement, the distinction matters even less. The government does not need to build every sensor with its own hands. It only needs the authority to require that the sensors exist, the leverage to access the outputs, and the political class to call the whole arrangement reasonable. That is where this goes. Your movement becomes legible to institutions that should never have had this level of visibility in the first place. Your car knows where you were. Plate readers know when you arrived. Data brokers know what device traveled with you. Occupancy systems know whether someone was with you. In-cabin analytics estimate what you were doing. AI pulls those fragments together and makes them legible. Visit a protest, a clinic, a church, a gun range, a therapist, a friend going through a divorce, an out-of-the-way meeting with the wrong politics, and suddenly your life is simply a pattern available for government review. The old police state needed manpower. The new one only needs integration. Once this stack is complete, restraint gets mocked as negligence. Objection gets framed as paranoia. Your rights get recoded as an inconvenient friction. Power generalizes. It takes the permission you gave it for one target and reuses it on the rest. Once ordinary objects become informants, our freedom starts dying in plain sight.

Dylan Allman

31,639 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Donald Trump Is Not Your Friend Virulent Iran hawk Brian Hook has reportedly been chosen by Donald Trump to help staff the State Department of the incoming administration, just in case you were still holding out hope that this time might be different and Trump really would end the wars and fight the deep state. Readers might remember Hook as the swamp creature who in 2017 was seen in a leaked State Department memo lecturing Rex Tillerson on the US government’s policy of using human rights as a cynical tool to undermine enemies and reinforce alliances. This is done, Hook explained, by ignoring human rights abuses when they are perpetrated by US allies while emphasizing them at every opportunity in the nations of enemy governments in order to “impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” “The ‘realist’ view is that America’s allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such,” Hook wrote in the memo, saying that “In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.” “One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries,” Hook wrote. “We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” Hook’s words, shared in confidentiality with the political neophyte Tillerson, were an excellent window into what western empire managers are doing when they feign outrage at alleged human rights abuses in nations they’ve targeted for destruction. The fact that his would be one of the first names chosen by Trump suggests we can expect more despicable foreign policy recklessness from the returning president. I’m already getting people telling me to “give Trump a chance” and stop criticizing him before he’s in office when I point out developments like this. Give Trump a chance? He had four years. He was the president for four fucking years. Trump showed us who he is: a murderous warmongering empire lackey just like his predecessors. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. There’s no reason to think this time will be different. Trump criticizes foreign interventionism because that kind of rhetoric is popular, not because he actually means it. In order to get to where he’s at Trump cut deals with Zionist oligarchs, powerful lobby groups, and more or less the exact same Republican voting base and donor class that’s given rise to every other disgusting Republican president in recent years. Even if he wanted to end wars and fight the establishment (and there is no evidence that he does), he’s already tied his own hands with the deals he’s made with the powerful establishment factions he’s promised his service to. Trump supporters are George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters. They act like they’re backing some anti-war figure who’s taking a meaningful stand against the machine, when they’re really backing a guy who spent four years rolling out longstanding neocon agendas. That’s what makes them so annoying. At least liberals are more or less honest about wanting to preserve the status quo; Trumpers want you to take seriously their belief that they participated in some huge revolutionary act by ticking a box for the Republican on election day. They correctly believe that their country is controlled by an unelected deep state (though they are very confused about who that actually is), but they incorrectly believe this unelected power structure can be defeated by voting for one of the two mainstream candidates presented to them at the ballot box. Like that would ever be an option. I am really not looking forward to another four years of that shit, I’ll be honest. For four fucking years these morons were in my mentions telling me every action of Trump’s that I criticized was actually a brilliant 47-dimensional chess maneuver against the deep state, even when he was openly advancing some longstanding agenda of the CIA and neoconservative swamp monsters like ramping up aggressions against Iran or staging a coup in Venezuela. They warm up to me because they see me criticizing the media and talking about corrupt power structures and go “Ooh, she’s like me!”, but then they cannot understand why I keep criticizing their shitty Republican daddy figure. And then I have to spend my time explaining to them that their hero is a murderous imperialist shitstain. And at the same time I’m going to have to be criticizing the Democrats because they’ll be attacking Trump for being insufficiently hawkish on foreign policy, because that’s the only foreign policy criticism you’re allowed to level at a US president in mainstream politics and media — which will only contribute to the problem of Trump supporters thinking I’m on their side. It’s a much less efficient and straightforward way for me to do my thing than when there’s a Democrat in charge of the war machine. It’s not my preferred way to operate. Let me make things simple: if you are cheering for the US president, you are not fighting the power. You are a power-worshipping bootlicker, and you should feel embarrassed. Your president is not your friend. The US president will always, always serve the warmongering power structure you correctly feel needs to be opposed. The plutocrats and empire managers who rule your country are never, ever going to let you vote them out of power. Hope that helps. Reading by Tim Foley.
7:08

Donald Trump Is Not Your Friend Virulent Iran hawk Brian Hook has reportedly been chosen by Donald Trump to help staff the State Department of the incoming administration, just in case you were still holding out hope that this time might be different and Trump really would end the wars and fight the deep state. Readers might remember Hook as the swamp creature who in 2017 was seen in a leaked State Department memo lecturing Rex Tillerson on the US government’s policy of using human rights as a cynical tool to undermine enemies and reinforce alliances. This is done, Hook explained, by ignoring human rights abuses when they are perpetrated by US allies while emphasizing them at every opportunity in the nations of enemy governments in order to “impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” “The ‘realist’ view is that America’s allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such,” Hook wrote in the memo, saying that “In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.” “One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries,” Hook wrote. “We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” Hook’s words, shared in confidentiality with the political neophyte Tillerson, were an excellent window into what western empire managers are doing when they feign outrage at alleged human rights abuses in nations they’ve targeted for destruction. The fact that his would be one of the first names chosen by Trump suggests we can expect more despicable foreign policy recklessness from the returning president. I’m already getting people telling me to “give Trump a chance” and stop criticizing him before he’s in office when I point out developments like this. Give Trump a chance? He had four years. He was the president for four fucking years. Trump showed us who he is: a murderous warmongering empire lackey just like his predecessors. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. There’s no reason to think this time will be different. Trump criticizes foreign interventionism because that kind of rhetoric is popular, not because he actually means it. In order to get to where he’s at Trump cut deals with Zionist oligarchs, powerful lobby groups, and more or less the exact same Republican voting base and donor class that’s given rise to every other disgusting Republican president in recent years. Even if he wanted to end wars and fight the establishment (and there is no evidence that he does), he’s already tied his own hands with the deals he’s made with the powerful establishment factions he’s promised his service to. Trump supporters are George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters. They act like they’re backing some anti-war figure who’s taking a meaningful stand against the machine, when they’re really backing a guy who spent four years rolling out longstanding neocon agendas. That’s what makes them so annoying. At least liberals are more or less honest about wanting to preserve the status quo; Trumpers want you to take seriously their belief that they participated in some huge revolutionary act by ticking a box for the Republican on election day. They correctly believe that their country is controlled by an unelected deep state (though they are very confused about who that actually is), but they incorrectly believe this unelected power structure can be defeated by voting for one of the two mainstream candidates presented to them at the ballot box. Like that would ever be an option. I am really not looking forward to another four years of that shit, I’ll be honest. For four fucking years these morons were in my mentions telling me every action of Trump’s that I criticized was actually a brilliant 47-dimensional chess maneuver against the deep state, even when he was openly advancing some longstanding agenda of the CIA and neoconservative swamp monsters like ramping up aggressions against Iran or staging a coup in Venezuela. They warm up to me because they see me criticizing the media and talking about corrupt power structures and go “Ooh, she’s like me!”, but then they cannot understand why I keep criticizing their shitty Republican daddy figure. And then I have to spend my time explaining to them that their hero is a murderous imperialist shitstain. And at the same time I’m going to have to be criticizing the Democrats because they’ll be attacking Trump for being insufficiently hawkish on foreign policy, because that’s the only foreign policy criticism you’re allowed to level at a US president in mainstream politics and media — which will only contribute to the problem of Trump supporters thinking I’m on their side. It’s a much less efficient and straightforward way for me to do my thing than when there’s a Democrat in charge of the war machine. It’s not my preferred way to operate. Let me make things simple: if you are cheering for the US president, you are not fighting the power. You are a power-worshipping bootlicker, and you should feel embarrassed. Your president is not your friend. The US president will always, always serve the warmongering power structure you correctly feel needs to be opposed. The plutocrats and empire managers who rule your country are never, ever going to let you vote them out of power. Hope that helps. Reading by Tim Foley.

Caitlin Johnstone

89,745 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce