Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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💦

8,872 subscribers

29,060 次观看 • 3 年前 •via X (Twitter)

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

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

19,708 次观看 • 4 个月前

One side says Tesla will kill Uber. The other says Uber owns the customer relationship and can just aggregate competing robotaxi fleets. I think both miss what changes when you remove the human driver. Uber built an incredible business around a scarce resource: people willing to drive other people around. Recruiting those drivers, coordinating them, and connecting them with riders is difficult. Uber solved a real problem. But a robotaxi network changes that equation. Once you solve autonomous driving safely, you can grow supply by manufacturing vehicles. You don’t have to recruit another human for every additional car. That’s a completely different business. Imagine a company putting enough robotaxis into a city to offer much shorter waits at half the price of Uber. How hard is it to convince someone to download another app at that point? People talk about Uber’s brand, payment relationships, and existing users as if those automatically carry over into a robotaxi world. They matter. But I think people underestimate how quickly a dramatically better service can create demand for its own network. And this is where the “Uber will aggregate everyone else” argument gets difficult. If another company actually solves robotaxis and can deploy them at scale, why would it keep giving Uber a meaningful cut of every ride? Why wouldn’t it build its own network and pass those savings to customers? Uber might help it get started. That doesn’t mean Uber remains essential once it scales. There’s an even bigger problem for the second and third robotaxi networks: they have to compete with whoever gets to scale first. I mean real scale. Enough vehicles, coverage, and availability that the service feels significantly better to the customer. A few impressive demos don’t establish that. Once a network reaches that point, the next competitor has to match its availability AND its price. That could require a lot of subsidies while building out a fleet. This is why I think Tesla’s work on Cybercab manufacturing is such a big deal. A competitor needs great autonomous driving software. But it also needs a vehicle cost structure that lets it compete sustainably. Tesla is working on both sides of that equation. If Tesla gets the software right and scales a much cheaper vehicle, that combination becomes extremely difficult to compete against. Does that mean Uber goes bankrupt overnight? I don’t think so. There are plenty of services where people want or need a human involved. Delivery, assistance, specialized transportation. Habits also change more slowly than people in the tech world sometimes assume. Uber has room to adapt. But I think a true robotaxi network becomes a different class of transportation: cheaper, more available, and useful for far more trips. The big questions are when Tesla can reach the required safety and reliability, how quickly it can deploy, and who else can match the complete service at a competitive cost.
53:56

One side says Tesla will kill Uber. The other says Uber owns the customer relationship and can just aggregate competing robotaxi fleets. I think both miss what changes when you remove the human driver. Uber built an incredible business around a scarce resource: people willing to drive other people around. Recruiting those drivers, coordinating them, and connecting them with riders is difficult. Uber solved a real problem. But a robotaxi network changes that equation. Once you solve autonomous driving safely, you can grow supply by manufacturing vehicles. You don’t have to recruit another human for every additional car. That’s a completely different business. Imagine a company putting enough robotaxis into a city to offer much shorter waits at half the price of Uber. How hard is it to convince someone to download another app at that point? People talk about Uber’s brand, payment relationships, and existing users as if those automatically carry over into a robotaxi world. They matter. But I think people underestimate how quickly a dramatically better service can create demand for its own network. And this is where the “Uber will aggregate everyone else” argument gets difficult. If another company actually solves robotaxis and can deploy them at scale, why would it keep giving Uber a meaningful cut of every ride? Why wouldn’t it build its own network and pass those savings to customers? Uber might help it get started. That doesn’t mean Uber remains essential once it scales. There’s an even bigger problem for the second and third robotaxi networks: they have to compete with whoever gets to scale first. I mean real scale. Enough vehicles, coverage, and availability that the service feels significantly better to the customer. A few impressive demos don’t establish that. Once a network reaches that point, the next competitor has to match its availability AND its price. That could require a lot of subsidies while building out a fleet. This is why I think Tesla’s work on Cybercab manufacturing is such a big deal. A competitor needs great autonomous driving software. But it also needs a vehicle cost structure that lets it compete sustainably. Tesla is working on both sides of that equation. If Tesla gets the software right and scales a much cheaper vehicle, that combination becomes extremely difficult to compete against. Does that mean Uber goes bankrupt overnight? I don’t think so. There are plenty of services where people want or need a human involved. Delivery, assistance, specialized transportation. Habits also change more slowly than people in the tech world sometimes assume. Uber has room to adapt. But I think a true robotaxi network becomes a different class of transportation: cheaper, more available, and useful for far more trips. The big questions are when Tesla can reach the required safety and reliability, how quickly it can deploy, and who else can match the complete service at a competitive cost.

Dave Lee

89,754 次观看 • 26 天前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

There is something almost unsettling about watching this race end. Not because someone loses, but because, for a few seconds, the meaning of winning completely changes. The runners are almost at the finish line when one of them can no longer keep going. Her body gives out just when the goal is within reach. She falls, and suddenly the race becomes something very different from what it was a moment before. The other runners have a choice. They can keep running. They can accept the advantage that has just appeared in front of them, cross the finish line first, and let the result speak for itself. No rule requires them to stop. No official is going to punish them for continuing. This is a competition, and competitions are built around the idea that everyone is trying to get there before everyone else. But they stop anyway. They turn around, reach for her, help her back onto her feet, and continue toward the finish together. That small decision is what makes this clip so memorable. We are accustomed to seeing competition through numbers. First place. Second place. Winning time. Personal best. Records. Medals. Statistics. The entire structure of sport encourages us to identify the person who was fastest and separate that person from everyone else. But there are moments when the numbers suddenly feel inadequate. What number could measure the decision to give up a possible victory because another person needed help? What statistic could capture the few seconds someone spends turning around instead of moving forward? And what exactly does “winning” mean when the person you defeated is someone who needed you more than they needed to be beaten? That question extends far beyond sport. Modern life can sometimes feel like one enormous race. We are encouraged to move quickly, accomplish more, build better careers, earn more money, reach our goals, and stay ahead. Even personal growth can become competitive. Someone else buys a house earlier. Someone else gets promoted sooner. Someone else seems more successful, more confident, more accomplished. And without realizing it, we can start treating another person's progress as a measurement of our own. The people beside us become competitors rather than human beings going through their own struggles. That is why the fallen runner changes everything. Before she falls, she is simply another competitor. After she falls, she is vulnerable. And vulnerability has a strange way of reminding us of something competition makes us forget: the person next to us is not just someone standing between us and the finish line. They are someone who can become exhausted, frightened, injured, discouraged, or simply unable to take the next step. Just like we can. There is also something important about the way she is helped. She is not carried away from the race as though her participation is over. She is brought back into it. She is given the support necessary to finish what she started. That distinction matters. Sometimes helping someone does not mean doing everything for them. It means giving them enough support to stand again and take the next step themselves. And then comes the image that stays with me most: the three runners crossing the finish line together, their hands raised. From a traditional competitive perspective, that image is almost wrong. A race is supposed to create separation. One person finishes ahead. Another follows. Someone wins, someone loses. Yet this ending creates something completely different. There is no obvious distance between them. For one brief moment, the finish line belongs to all three. That is a beautiful reminder that some victories become more meaningful when they are shared. Of course, we should also be honest about the fact that inspirational sports clips are sometimes staged, recreated, or presented without the full context. But even when a moment has been arranged for the camera, the emotion it provokes can still reveal something genuine about us. Why do millions of people stop scrolling to watch a stranger help another stranger? Because we recognize the possibility. We know what it means to fall just before reaching something we desperately wanted. We know the embarrassment of being the one who cannot keep up. We know how difficult it can be to admit that we need help. And perhaps, somewhere inside us, we hope that when our own strength disappears, someone will choose to turn around. That may be the real reason this finish line feels so much more satisfying than an ordinary victory. The fastest runner would have a result. These three runners created a memory. And maybe that is something worth remembering in our own lives. There will always be races where getting there first matters. But there will also be moments when the more important question is not, “How quickly can I reach the finish line?” It is: “Who is struggling beside me—and what kind of person do I want to be when I notice?” Because one day, the person who falls may be someone else. And one day, it may be you. When that day comes, I hope someone turns around.
0:32

There is something almost unsettling about watching this race end. Not because someone loses, but because, for a few seconds, the meaning of winning completely changes. The runners are almost at the finish line when one of them can no longer keep going. Her body gives out just when the goal is within reach. She falls, and suddenly the race becomes something very different from what it was a moment before. The other runners have a choice. They can keep running. They can accept the advantage that has just appeared in front of them, cross the finish line first, and let the result speak for itself. No rule requires them to stop. No official is going to punish them for continuing. This is a competition, and competitions are built around the idea that everyone is trying to get there before everyone else. But they stop anyway. They turn around, reach for her, help her back onto her feet, and continue toward the finish together. That small decision is what makes this clip so memorable. We are accustomed to seeing competition through numbers. First place. Second place. Winning time. Personal best. Records. Medals. Statistics. The entire structure of sport encourages us to identify the person who was fastest and separate that person from everyone else. But there are moments when the numbers suddenly feel inadequate. What number could measure the decision to give up a possible victory because another person needed help? What statistic could capture the few seconds someone spends turning around instead of moving forward? And what exactly does “winning” mean when the person you defeated is someone who needed you more than they needed to be beaten? That question extends far beyond sport. Modern life can sometimes feel like one enormous race. We are encouraged to move quickly, accomplish more, build better careers, earn more money, reach our goals, and stay ahead. Even personal growth can become competitive. Someone else buys a house earlier. Someone else gets promoted sooner. Someone else seems more successful, more confident, more accomplished. And without realizing it, we can start treating another person's progress as a measurement of our own. The people beside us become competitors rather than human beings going through their own struggles. That is why the fallen runner changes everything. Before she falls, she is simply another competitor. After she falls, she is vulnerable. And vulnerability has a strange way of reminding us of something competition makes us forget: the person next to us is not just someone standing between us and the finish line. They are someone who can become exhausted, frightened, injured, discouraged, or simply unable to take the next step. Just like we can. There is also something important about the way she is helped. She is not carried away from the race as though her participation is over. She is brought back into it. She is given the support necessary to finish what she started. That distinction matters. Sometimes helping someone does not mean doing everything for them. It means giving them enough support to stand again and take the next step themselves. And then comes the image that stays with me most: the three runners crossing the finish line together, their hands raised. From a traditional competitive perspective, that image is almost wrong. A race is supposed to create separation. One person finishes ahead. Another follows. Someone wins, someone loses. Yet this ending creates something completely different. There is no obvious distance between them. For one brief moment, the finish line belongs to all three. That is a beautiful reminder that some victories become more meaningful when they are shared. Of course, we should also be honest about the fact that inspirational sports clips are sometimes staged, recreated, or presented without the full context. But even when a moment has been arranged for the camera, the emotion it provokes can still reveal something genuine about us. Why do millions of people stop scrolling to watch a stranger help another stranger? Because we recognize the possibility. We know what it means to fall just before reaching something we desperately wanted. We know the embarrassment of being the one who cannot keep up. We know how difficult it can be to admit that we need help. And perhaps, somewhere inside us, we hope that when our own strength disappears, someone will choose to turn around. That may be the real reason this finish line feels so much more satisfying than an ordinary victory. The fastest runner would have a result. These three runners created a memory. And maybe that is something worth remembering in our own lives. There will always be races where getting there first matters. But there will also be moments when the more important question is not, “How quickly can I reach the finish line?” It is: “Who is struggling beside me—and what kind of person do I want to be when I notice?” Because one day, the person who falls may be someone else. And one day, it may be you. When that day comes, I hope someone turns around.

💖🌼Music, Kindness, and Inspiring Stories

32,780 次观看 • 1 个月前

One of the best businesses to start right now is an agent conversion agency. An agent conversion agency makes boring business websites agent ready. You pick an industry and you give their site tools that an agent can actually call. $2K to $10K to set it up. Then $500 to $700 a month to keep it running. Here's the whole setup: 1) Pick the niche. Law firms. HVAC. Med spas. Dentists. Anyone whose whole business is booked appointments. 2) Build the V1 tools. Request a quote. Book a consult. The two things their front desk does all day. 3) Sell the package, not the acronym. WebMCP is one piece. An MCP server is another. Show them a headless version and a UI version and let them pick. 4) Charge the setup fee up front. $2,000 for a small shop, $10,000 for a large firm. 5) Put them on a monitoring and evals retainer. A few hundred a month, up to $700, every month. 6) Then go after their internal tools. Same client, same tech, and their office processes are a bigger surface than their website. The retainer is the business. The setup fee is just how you get to the retainer. WebMCP launched in February out of Microsoft and Google and it's still experimental in Chrome. That's the point. You're selling them on "a new class of citizens on the Internet" before those visitors show up, and you're the first mover when they do. Pick the niche, build the tools, then keep the retainer.
3:26

One of the best businesses to start right now is an agent conversion agency. An agent conversion agency makes boring business websites agent ready. You pick an industry and you give their site tools that an agent can actually call. $2K to $10K to set it up. Then $500 to $700 a month to keep it running. Here's the whole setup: 1) Pick the niche. Law firms. HVAC. Med spas. Dentists. Anyone whose whole business is booked appointments. 2) Build the V1 tools. Request a quote. Book a consult. The two things their front desk does all day. 3) Sell the package, not the acronym. WebMCP is one piece. An MCP server is another. Show them a headless version and a UI version and let them pick. 4) Charge the setup fee up front. $2,000 for a small shop, $10,000 for a large firm. 5) Put them on a monitoring and evals retainer. A few hundred a month, up to $700, every month. 6) Then go after their internal tools. Same client, same tech, and their office processes are a bigger surface than their website. The retainer is the business. The setup fee is just how you get to the retainer. WebMCP launched in February out of Microsoft and Google and it's still experimental in Chrome. That's the point. You're selling them on "a new class of citizens on the Internet" before those visitors show up, and you're the first mover when they do. Pick the niche, build the tools, then keep the retainer.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

27,335 次观看 • 1 个月前

Mikel Arteta listing “six or seven” languages and then switching between them on camera looks like a flex but it isn’t. It is one of the quieter advantages that keeps showing up in the best managers. He speaks Basque and Spanish from home. Catalan because school in Barcelona demanded it. French because Luis Fernández told a young Arteta at PSG: learn it fast or you don’t play. Portuguese from friendships. Italian from curiosity and culture, not from ever living there. English forged across Rangers, Everton and Arsenal. Sometimes he jokes that Scottish counts too. That list is not decoration. A modern dressing room is a small United Nations. The manager who can speak to a player in the language they think in gets trust sooner, instructions cleaner, and emotion without a middleman. Arteta has said it himself: you can communicate without connecting. Connection needs the other person’s language. He starts in a signing’s mother tongue, then pushes English as respect for the club that hired them. He also uses it as a weapon. French to one player on the touchline, Spanish to another, English to the next. Clarity for his own, noise for the opposition bench. This is not unique to Arteta. It is a pattern. Arsene Wenger built Arsenal’s first great international side while speaking French, English, German, Spanish, Italian and later Japanese. Language was how he sold a project to players who had never seen Highbury, and how he made a dressing room of French, Dutch, African and English voices feel like one idea. Pep Guardiola carries Catalan, Spanish and highly functional English, and has always treated language as part of the method. The concepts are precise; the delivery has to be too. Players talk about how quickly the ideas land when the coach can meet them halfway. Jose Mourinho is the purest case. His coaching career began as Bobby Robson’s interpreter. Portuguese, English, Spanish, Italian, French, Catalan. He understood early that tactics only exist once they have been transmitted. The Special One was, first, a translator who refused to let meaning get lost. The through-line is simple. Elite management is teaching under pressure. Teaching is language: the right word for “now,” the tone that makes a demand feel like belief, the private sentence that settles a new signing in week one. Wenger, Guardiola, Mourinho and Arteta all treated that medium as part of the job, not an optional extra. Plenty of coaches know the game. Fewer can look a player in the eye, in the language he dreams in, and make the idea feel personal rather than translated. That is the extra yard.
2:29

Mikel Arteta listing “six or seven” languages and then switching between them on camera looks like a flex but it isn’t. It is one of the quieter advantages that keeps showing up in the best managers. He speaks Basque and Spanish from home. Catalan because school in Barcelona demanded it. French because Luis Fernández told a young Arteta at PSG: learn it fast or you don’t play. Portuguese from friendships. Italian from curiosity and culture, not from ever living there. English forged across Rangers, Everton and Arsenal. Sometimes he jokes that Scottish counts too. That list is not decoration. A modern dressing room is a small United Nations. The manager who can speak to a player in the language they think in gets trust sooner, instructions cleaner, and emotion without a middleman. Arteta has said it himself: you can communicate without connecting. Connection needs the other person’s language. He starts in a signing’s mother tongue, then pushes English as respect for the club that hired them. He also uses it as a weapon. French to one player on the touchline, Spanish to another, English to the next. Clarity for his own, noise for the opposition bench. This is not unique to Arteta. It is a pattern. Arsene Wenger built Arsenal’s first great international side while speaking French, English, German, Spanish, Italian and later Japanese. Language was how he sold a project to players who had never seen Highbury, and how he made a dressing room of French, Dutch, African and English voices feel like one idea. Pep Guardiola carries Catalan, Spanish and highly functional English, and has always treated language as part of the method. The concepts are precise; the delivery has to be too. Players talk about how quickly the ideas land when the coach can meet them halfway. Jose Mourinho is the purest case. His coaching career began as Bobby Robson’s interpreter. Portuguese, English, Spanish, Italian, French, Catalan. He understood early that tactics only exist once they have been transmitted. The Special One was, first, a translator who refused to let meaning get lost. The through-line is simple. Elite management is teaching under pressure. Teaching is language: the right word for “now,” the tone that makes a demand feel like belief, the private sentence that settles a new signing in week one. Wenger, Guardiola, Mourinho and Arteta all treated that medium as part of the job, not an optional extra. Plenty of coaches know the game. Fewer can look a player in the eye, in the language he dreams in, and make the idea feel personal rather than translated. That is the extra yard.

Rincol

1,160,615 次观看 • 25 天前

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

23,188 次观看 • 2 个月前

Today I’m starting from zero again. This morning, I officially launched the Timeless Traveler on YouTube. Two videos are live, and I’ve wanted to do this for a long time. Over the past year, I’ve spent a lot of time writing about places worth visiting, the history behind them, and the stories that make travel more interesting. X gave me a place to share those stories. Substack gave me a place to dive deeper. But there was always another piece I wanted to build....YouTube. Some stories are just better when you can see them. The streets. The landscapes. The old photographs. The maps. The buildings that have been standing for hundreds of years. The little details that make you stop and think, I need to see this place for myself. That’s what I’m building. The Timeless Traveler channel will focus on travel documentaries about interesting places around the world. Not just lists of things to do. I want to show you why a place is worth caring about in the first place. The history, the people, the strange stories and the things you might walk right past if nobody told you they were there. I’m sharing the first documentary with this post so you can watch it right here on X. If you enjoy it, I’d love for you to head over to YouTube, subscribe to the channel and check out the second documentary. I’ll put the link below. The plan from here is to publish two new videos every week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. I have no idea how quickly the channel will grow, and that’s part of what makes this fun. I’ve built audiences on X and Substack, but on YouTube I’m back at zero. New platform.....new skills to learn. A lot to figure out. I’m starting at zero, but the goal is 100,000 subscribers by this time next year. I have no idea how long it’ll take to get there. That’s fine. I’m going to keep publishing, learn what works and get better with every video. If you watch this first one, let me know what you think. New platform. Same mission. Helping people discover places worth remembering.
19:36

Today I’m starting from zero again. This morning, I officially launched the Timeless Traveler on YouTube. Two videos are live, and I’ve wanted to do this for a long time. Over the past year, I’ve spent a lot of time writing about places worth visiting, the history behind them, and the stories that make travel more interesting. X gave me a place to share those stories. Substack gave me a place to dive deeper. But there was always another piece I wanted to build....YouTube. Some stories are just better when you can see them. The streets. The landscapes. The old photographs. The maps. The buildings that have been standing for hundreds of years. The little details that make you stop and think, I need to see this place for myself. That’s what I’m building. The Timeless Traveler channel will focus on travel documentaries about interesting places around the world. Not just lists of things to do. I want to show you why a place is worth caring about in the first place. The history, the people, the strange stories and the things you might walk right past if nobody told you they were there. I’m sharing the first documentary with this post so you can watch it right here on X. If you enjoy it, I’d love for you to head over to YouTube, subscribe to the channel and check out the second documentary. I’ll put the link below. The plan from here is to publish two new videos every week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. I have no idea how quickly the channel will grow, and that’s part of what makes this fun. I’ve built audiences on X and Substack, but on YouTube I’m back at zero. New platform.....new skills to learn. A lot to figure out. I’m starting at zero, but the goal is 100,000 subscribers by this time next year. I have no idea how long it’ll take to get there. That’s fine. I’m going to keep publishing, learn what works and get better with every video. If you watch this first one, let me know what you think. New platform. Same mission. Helping people discover places worth remembering.

The Timeless Traveler 🇺🇸

19,592 次观看 • 23 天前

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

156,653 次观看 • 1 年前

I have them Belt Treatment 🥵 Seedance 2.5 action > Hollywood Prompt : GIRL = MAIN CHARACTER: Young Korean woman in her early 20s, natural appearance, black wavy hair loosely tied back, fitted dark short top, loose cargo pants and sneakers. Realistic skin texture, natural makeup, authentic facial expressions and realistic biomechanics. Use the reference image as the exact identity reference and maintain her appearance throughout. LOCATION: Quiet Korean neighborhood street during late afternoon. Narrow concrete road, small convenience store, parked scooters, bicycles, utility poles, apartment buildings, street signs, pedestrians in the distance and warm sunlight. The entire sequence feels like it was accidentally captured by a friend on an old consumer DV camcorder. CAMERA / LOOK: Early-2000s handheld digital camcorder. Strong natural camera shake, imperfect framing, occasional focus hunting, exposure shifts, blown-out highlights, soft 480p/720p digital texture, faded colors, compression noise, lens flare, rolling-shutter wobble and occasional accidental zooms. The camera operator reacts late to sudden movements and sometimes loses her in the frame before quickly finding her again. No polished modern cinematography. SEQUENCE: Opening: She walks casually down the residential street carrying a small shopping bag. Two or three adult men hanging around outside a convenience store notice her and start behaving disrespectfully, blocking part of the sidewalk and making unwanted comments. She ignores them and keeps walking. One steps into her path. She stops and calmly tells him, “Move.” The camcorder shakes slightly as the operator moves closer. One man grabs toward her arm. She quickly pulls away and gives him a warning look. Fight breaks out: He tries to grab her again. She blocks his wrist, pivots away and delivers a quick controlled kick that knocks him backward. The other men rush toward her together rather than attacking one at a time. She ducks the first swing, redirects his arm, spins around the second attacker and pushes him into a parked trash container. The camcorder operator struggles to keep up, briefly losing her behind a parked scooter before swinging back into frame. She immediately steps sideways as another attacker charges, catches his momentum and sends him stumbling across the pavement. A fourth man tries to approach from behind. She notices him through a shop-window reflection, turns instantly and blocks his strike. She counters with a fast combination of parry → body strike → low sweep, sending him safely onto the ground. No exaggerated superpowers, no impossible strength, no gore. FINAL EXCHANGE: The remaining men hesitate. She stands in the middle of the street, breathing heavily, hair slightly messy, watching them cautiously. One makes another aggressive move. She sidesteps, redirects his arm and uses his momentum to throw him onto a pile of empty cardboard boxes. The boxes collapse dramatically. The other men immediately back away. She looks around, straightens her clothes and picks up the shopping bag that fell during the fight. A nearby friend filming her finally catches up. She looks directly into the camcorder and says with a tired expression: “Can we just go home now?” She walks away down the street without looking back. The camcorder operator follows her for a few steps, then accidentally zooms too far into her back before pulling focus. She turns around and waves dismissively at the camera. CUT TO BLACK. FIGHT STYLE: Realistic Taekwondo, Karate and practical self-defense movements. Fast but physically believable. Every strike has readable weight, balance and recovery. No teleportation, flying, energy beams, supernatural powers or impossible physics.
0:30

I have them Belt Treatment 🥵 Seedance 2.5 action > Hollywood Prompt : GIRL = MAIN CHARACTER: Young Korean woman in her early 20s, natural appearance, black wavy hair loosely tied back, fitted dark short top, loose cargo pants and sneakers. Realistic skin texture, natural makeup, authentic facial expressions and realistic biomechanics. Use the reference image as the exact identity reference and maintain her appearance throughout. LOCATION: Quiet Korean neighborhood street during late afternoon. Narrow concrete road, small convenience store, parked scooters, bicycles, utility poles, apartment buildings, street signs, pedestrians in the distance and warm sunlight. The entire sequence feels like it was accidentally captured by a friend on an old consumer DV camcorder. CAMERA / LOOK: Early-2000s handheld digital camcorder. Strong natural camera shake, imperfect framing, occasional focus hunting, exposure shifts, blown-out highlights, soft 480p/720p digital texture, faded colors, compression noise, lens flare, rolling-shutter wobble and occasional accidental zooms. The camera operator reacts late to sudden movements and sometimes loses her in the frame before quickly finding her again. No polished modern cinematography. SEQUENCE: Opening: She walks casually down the residential street carrying a small shopping bag. Two or three adult men hanging around outside a convenience store notice her and start behaving disrespectfully, blocking part of the sidewalk and making unwanted comments. She ignores them and keeps walking. One steps into her path. She stops and calmly tells him, “Move.” The camcorder shakes slightly as the operator moves closer. One man grabs toward her arm. She quickly pulls away and gives him a warning look. Fight breaks out: He tries to grab her again. She blocks his wrist, pivots away and delivers a quick controlled kick that knocks him backward. The other men rush toward her together rather than attacking one at a time. She ducks the first swing, redirects his arm, spins around the second attacker and pushes him into a parked trash container. The camcorder operator struggles to keep up, briefly losing her behind a parked scooter before swinging back into frame. She immediately steps sideways as another attacker charges, catches his momentum and sends him stumbling across the pavement. A fourth man tries to approach from behind. She notices him through a shop-window reflection, turns instantly and blocks his strike. She counters with a fast combination of parry → body strike → low sweep, sending him safely onto the ground. No exaggerated superpowers, no impossible strength, no gore. FINAL EXCHANGE: The remaining men hesitate. She stands in the middle of the street, breathing heavily, hair slightly messy, watching them cautiously. One makes another aggressive move. She sidesteps, redirects his arm and uses his momentum to throw him onto a pile of empty cardboard boxes. The boxes collapse dramatically. The other men immediately back away. She looks around, straightens her clothes and picks up the shopping bag that fell during the fight. A nearby friend filming her finally catches up. She looks directly into the camcorder and says with a tired expression: “Can we just go home now?” She walks away down the street without looking back. The camcorder operator follows her for a few steps, then accidentally zooms too far into her back before pulling focus. She turns around and waves dismissively at the camera. CUT TO BLACK. FIGHT STYLE: Realistic Taekwondo, Karate and practical self-defense movements. Fast but physically believable. Every strike has readable weight, balance and recovery. No teleportation, flying, energy beams, supernatural powers or impossible physics.

Synthia

11,930 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

126,810 次观看 • 8 个月前

ARE WE LIVING UNDER COG⁉️ In my opinion, we are. COG = Continuity Of Government October 13, 2016 West Palm Beach, Florida During a campaign speech, Trump said: “This is not simply another four year election.” January 20, 2017 Washington, DC During his inauguration address, he said: “Today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, but transferring power from Washington DC, and giving it back to you, the people.” He said that with the military standing behind him, which is not part of the ceremony and had never been done before or since. They then walked away as quickly as they appeared. July 13, 2024 Butler, Pennsylvania While campaigning for the 2024 election, Trump showed the immigration chart that clearly displayed that he left office at the end of March in 2020. Yes, he showed us that he left office about 7 months prior to the 2020 rigged and stolen election. What in the actual f*** does that mean? Can I tell you the answer with absolute certainty? Of course not. My belief is that they caught them all trying to steal the 2016 election. Hillary was never supposed to lose. President Trump was inaugurated as a Wartime President. The 2020 election was the biggest sting operation in history. Trump left the office of the President at the end of March 2020, and remained Commander In Chief. From that moment on we have been governed under Continuity Of Government. January 20, 2025 Washington, DC While being sworn in, Trump did not place his hand on the Bible. Why not? He was already sworn in! We are still in Trump’s first term, under Continuity Of Government. Does that sound crazy? YES. That doesn’t make it not true. When you connect the dots that President Trump provides, it all makes sense. So when I say the midterms should and could be paused, they absolutely can be. Trump is still our Commander In Chief. The military was our only path forward. We are living in unprecedented times. This has never happened before. This is not business as usual. If the pause does not happen, then it’s not part of the plan, not because it’s not possible. Anyone saying it’s not possible is completely ignoring everything Trump has shown us and told us. They are ignoring the fact that Joe Biden was never President and that 45 - 47 means exactly what the dash implies. Again, these are my opinions only, but they are based on factual events. If Trump wants to proceed with the midterms on schedule, then we will vote our asses off and make it too big to rig, again. I’m looking at all possibilities. Looking at all possibilities is not a PsyOp. Ignoring all possibilities IS.
0:25

ARE WE LIVING UNDER COG⁉️ In my opinion, we are. COG = Continuity Of Government October 13, 2016 West Palm Beach, Florida During a campaign speech, Trump said: “This is not simply another four year election.” January 20, 2017 Washington, DC During his inauguration address, he said: “Today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, but transferring power from Washington DC, and giving it back to you, the people.” He said that with the military standing behind him, which is not part of the ceremony and had never been done before or since. They then walked away as quickly as they appeared. July 13, 2024 Butler, Pennsylvania While campaigning for the 2024 election, Trump showed the immigration chart that clearly displayed that he left office at the end of March in 2020. Yes, he showed us that he left office about 7 months prior to the 2020 rigged and stolen election. What in the actual f*** does that mean? Can I tell you the answer with absolute certainty? Of course not. My belief is that they caught them all trying to steal the 2016 election. Hillary was never supposed to lose. President Trump was inaugurated as a Wartime President. The 2020 election was the biggest sting operation in history. Trump left the office of the President at the end of March 2020, and remained Commander In Chief. From that moment on we have been governed under Continuity Of Government. January 20, 2025 Washington, DC While being sworn in, Trump did not place his hand on the Bible. Why not? He was already sworn in! We are still in Trump’s first term, under Continuity Of Government. Does that sound crazy? YES. That doesn’t make it not true. When you connect the dots that President Trump provides, it all makes sense. So when I say the midterms should and could be paused, they absolutely can be. Trump is still our Commander In Chief. The military was our only path forward. We are living in unprecedented times. This has never happened before. This is not business as usual. If the pause does not happen, then it’s not part of the plan, not because it’s not possible. Anyone saying it’s not possible is completely ignoring everything Trump has shown us and told us. They are ignoring the fact that Joe Biden was never President and that 45 - 47 means exactly what the dash implies. Again, these are my opinions only, but they are based on factual events. If Trump wants to proceed with the midterms on schedule, then we will vote our asses off and make it too big to rig, again. I’m looking at all possibilities. Looking at all possibilities is not a PsyOp. Ignoring all possibilities IS.

RealAF Patriot

166,953 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.

40,880 次观看 • 9 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

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

1,036,378 次观看 • 2 年前