Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Avan isn't doing too badly either 🍆👄 #yaoi #gay #visualnovel #jockstudio #BLitsGames #avangeiserford

CarmenCant34132's profile picture

Lemillion

4,039 subscribers

23,101 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#yaoi#gay#visualnovel#jockstudio#BLitsGames#avangeiserford
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

As it's not Pride Month, what better time to celebrate Labour MPs who are openly gay/LGBT+. The only one on this huge list that hasn't come out yet is Shabana Mahmood as she either isn't/wants to stay in the closet/is too busy arranging new identities, safe houses and compensation for the 12 innocent people she said were right-wing extreme terrorists plotting to kill people at an Islamic event when they weren't.
1:58

As it's not Pride Month, what better time to celebrate Labour MPs who are openly gay/LGBT+. The only one on this huge list that hasn't come out yet is Shabana Mahmood as she either isn't/wants to stay in the closet/is too busy arranging new identities, safe houses and compensation for the 12 innocent people she said were right-wing extreme terrorists plotting to kill people at an Islamic event when they weren't.

MrBounceBack.com

63,199 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 TRUMP IS ALREADY WRITING HIS OWN EXIT Ex-CIA Larry Johnson says Trump pre-loaded his off ramp in his own post. "If Iran removes what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction." But any U.S. ship sent to clear the mines becomes an instant target. Iran doesn't even need missiles. Just wait for them to show up. Putin reportedly told Trump in their call: "What are you doing? Why have you done this?" Putin isn't making it easy. Iran isn't negotiating. And Trump tried to declare victory over the Houthis too. That didn't work either.
4:03

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 TRUMP IS ALREADY WRITING HIS OWN EXIT Ex-CIA Larry Johnson says Trump pre-loaded his off ramp in his own post. "If Iran removes what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction." But any U.S. ship sent to clear the mines becomes an instant target. Iran doesn't even need missiles. Just wait for them to show up. Putin reportedly told Trump in their call: "What are you doing? Why have you done this?" Putin isn't making it easy. Iran isn't negotiating. And Trump tried to declare victory over the Houthis too. That didn't work either.

Mario Nawfal

579,878 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Robinhood Chain just passed Ethereum in daily DEX volume Around $1.7 BILLION over the last 24 hours, ahead of Ethereum, BNB Chain and Base Only Solana is doing more right now and this isn't just volume pumping either TVL has also jumped 22% this week to around $757M, while more than $830M in stablecoins now sit on the chain That's probably the more important signal Volume can be temporary, but now capital is actually starting to stick around onchain too If that keeps following the trading activity, Robinhood is moving into an ecosystem people are actually parking money in
0:21

Robinhood Chain just passed Ethereum in daily DEX volume Around $1.7 BILLION over the last 24 hours, ahead of Ethereum, BNB Chain and Base Only Solana is doing more right now and this isn't just volume pumping either TVL has also jumped 22% this week to around $757M, while more than $830M in stablecoins now sit on the chain That's probably the more important signal Volume can be temporary, but now capital is actually starting to stick around onchain too If that keeps following the trading activity, Robinhood is moving into an ecosystem people are actually parking money in

Jeremy

11,457 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Listen to every word “To every white liberal out in the streets claiming to fight white supremacy and stand up for black and Hispanic people, go home. Everything you're doing is making life harder for the people you claim to support. Look around you. How many black and Hispanic people are actually standing beside you right now? Because I promise you this, if black people feel the need to fight for something, we know how to do that. — We fought not to be oppressed anymore. And what you do, stupefies people into thinking we still are. And Hispanics, they don't need you either. 50% of Latinos voted for Trump. Why? Because they and their families came here legally, did things the right way, and are tired of watching legal immigrants get rewarded while they follow the rules. A lot of them live on the border and see what happens when there's an unhealthy influx of illegal immigrants in this country. They want deportations, too. Your white privilege isn't helping anyone because it doesn't even exist. And believing that people of color can't stand up for themselves without your privilege leading the way is one of the most racist ideas there is. Google the white savior complex. White guilt has been imposed on you so deeply to the point that you feel like it's your duty to hold up posters and vandalize things with your delusions, leading people to think I support it because of my skin color. Get it? Stop. Go home and get a job”
1:17

Listen to every word “To every white liberal out in the streets claiming to fight white supremacy and stand up for black and Hispanic people, go home. Everything you're doing is making life harder for the people you claim to support. Look around you. How many black and Hispanic people are actually standing beside you right now? Because I promise you this, if black people feel the need to fight for something, we know how to do that. — We fought not to be oppressed anymore. And what you do, stupefies people into thinking we still are. And Hispanics, they don't need you either. 50% of Latinos voted for Trump. Why? Because they and their families came here legally, did things the right way, and are tired of watching legal immigrants get rewarded while they follow the rules. A lot of them live on the border and see what happens when there's an unhealthy influx of illegal immigrants in this country. They want deportations, too. Your white privilege isn't helping anyone because it doesn't even exist. And believing that people of color can't stand up for themselves without your privilege leading the way is one of the most racist ideas there is. Google the white savior complex. White guilt has been imposed on you so deeply to the point that you feel like it's your duty to hold up posters and vandalize things with your delusions, leading people to think I support it because of my skin color. Get it? Stop. Go home and get a job”

Wall Street Apes

426,902 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

lol This is a crock of crap. Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science. These models also run on circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.
1:42

lol This is a crock of crap. Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science. These models also run on circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

Chris Martz

27,737 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Ruze from HolostarsEN vents his frustration with Cover Corp: "This is just the latest and possibly final straw on like a... huge fuck off pile of hay that just like blots out the sun like some monument to corporate stupidity." "Graduation was seriously on the table and fuck if I'm being honest with you and I'll be transparent, it's still on the table. That's not a joke." "This isn't some reactionary anger over one small thing that doesn't affect me. I've been mad at the company for a really, really long time." "There's too much red tape and too many fucking dumbass, bloated, useless pieces of management at the top that don't know what the fuck they're doing and should have no business running a company." "I am still treated to a new theatrical release of Incompetence Incorporated like every single day." "I damn near quit during the lead-up to 3D because of how much they fucked me over during that period." "I fought for like ARMIS MMDs, I've been given the runaround on a third outfit for so long that at this point I'm just not doing one." "I can't even get them to reopen the shop for our fucking debut acrylics." "I’ve just gritted my teeth and turned the other cheek to insult and frankly what I assume is active sabotage. But this downsizing... that’s a step too far." "I don't know if I see a future for myself with COVER... I don't know that I trust COVER to handle the Risaters' support at all." "I don't think it makes sense that the JP boys are where they're at. I don't think it makes sense that there's a possibility for that for EN in the future. It is incompetence at its finest." "I don't know how you could fuck that up so bad. There's no possible way the numbers don't make sense to me. Sounds like you did a bad job." "At some point I've got to stop letting them weaponize my compassion for the boys and my desire to stick to my word." "At some point I’m going to have to make the hard decisions for the sake of myself and you guys... I’m going to have to make a tough call." "There's dozens of small like instances of the company being either incompetent or just actively inhibiting the boys." "Support the boys as best as you can going forward... support the boys especially the—the JP boys like more than ever."
6:19

Ruze from HolostarsEN vents his frustration with Cover Corp: "This is just the latest and possibly final straw on like a... huge fuck off pile of hay that just like blots out the sun like some monument to corporate stupidity." "Graduation was seriously on the table and fuck if I'm being honest with you and I'll be transparent, it's still on the table. That's not a joke." "This isn't some reactionary anger over one small thing that doesn't affect me. I've been mad at the company for a really, really long time." "There's too much red tape and too many fucking dumbass, bloated, useless pieces of management at the top that don't know what the fuck they're doing and should have no business running a company." "I am still treated to a new theatrical release of Incompetence Incorporated like every single day." "I damn near quit during the lead-up to 3D because of how much they fucked me over during that period." "I fought for like ARMIS MMDs, I've been given the runaround on a third outfit for so long that at this point I'm just not doing one." "I can't even get them to reopen the shop for our fucking debut acrylics." "I’ve just gritted my teeth and turned the other cheek to insult and frankly what I assume is active sabotage. But this downsizing... that’s a step too far." "I don't know if I see a future for myself with COVER... I don't know that I trust COVER to handle the Risaters' support at all." "I don't think it makes sense that the JP boys are where they're at. I don't think it makes sense that there's a possibility for that for EN in the future. It is incompetence at its finest." "I don't know how you could fuck that up so bad. There's no possible way the numbers don't make sense to me. Sounds like you did a bad job." "At some point I've got to stop letting them weaponize my compassion for the boys and my desire to stick to my word." "At some point I’m going to have to make the hard decisions for the sake of myself and you guys... I’m going to have to make a tough call." "There's dozens of small like instances of the company being either incompetent or just actively inhibiting the boys." "Support the boys as best as you can going forward... support the boys especially the—the JP boys like more than ever."

Rima Evenstar

222,641 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Just pulled up Olipop's landing page after seeing their ads everywhere lately and I need to break this down because this is one of the cleaner DTC pages I've seen in a while. Here's what's actually happening when you land on this page and why it converts cold Facebook traffic better than 90% of ecom brands right now: 1) The first 3 seconds Before you read a single word, there's a video of the product being poured, fizzing, bubbling and condensation on the can with no voiceover or text overlay. Your brain processes that faster than any headline ever could. You can almost hear the fizz. That's intentional. They're triggering a sensory response before your logical brain even wakes up. Then the headline hits. "A New Kind of Soda." Now that's a category repositioning. They're not saying "healthy soda" or "better soda." They're saying the entire category you grew up with needs a new version and this is it. Sub-headline says high fiber, less sugar. Targets exactly the person who clicked the health-focused ad on Instagram. Message match is perfect. The person who clicked the ad lands here and immediately feels like the page was made for them. 2) The product carousel Most brands mess this up by showing you the product and making you go through three more pages to add it to your cart. Olipop lets you hover over any flavor and an "Add 12 Pack" button appears right there. One click. Done. You never leave the homepage. That little micro-interaction is doing serious conversion work because every extra click you require is a percentage of buyers you lose. They basically short-circuited the whole buying process and most people don't even notice it's happening. Star ratings under every flavor. Smart. You're not waiting until the reviews section at the bottom to see social proof. It's right there next to the product at the exact moment you're deciding what to buy. Then there's the "Limited" and "Out of Stock" tags on certain flavors. This is a psychological move that a lot of brands either don't use or use badly. When you see Shirley Temple is sold out your brain immediately thinks this must be good enough that people are actually buying it. And now you're looking at everything else thinking you better grab it before it's gone too. 3) The retention play At this point you haven't bought yet and they already know some people won't on the first visit. So right here they drop the rewards program section. Trade your email for perks and points. They're not letting you leave empty handed. Either you buy today or you give them your email so they can bring you back. Both outcomes work for them. Then comes the subscription nudge. 15% off. Free shipping. Cancel anytime. Three objections handled in one sentence. 1. Too expensive? 15% off. 2. Annoying to reorder? Free shipping straight to your door. 3. Scared of being locked in? Cancel whenever you want. That's a complete objection removal stack built into what looks like a simple banner. The people who weren't ready to buy a 12-pack today are looking at that and doing the math. 4) The press section Bloomberg. Forbes. BuzzFeed. Mindbody. This section exists for one reason. You clicked an ad from a brand you'd maybe seen once or twice before. You don't fully trust them yet. These logos close that gap in about half a second. It's institutional validation. You don't need to read the articles. Just seeing the logos tells your brain people with real credibility have looked at this and thought it was worth covering. Background behind this section is a high-res macro shot of condensation on the can. Cold. Refreshing. Premium. Even the section design is doing sensory work. 5) The overall lesson What Olipop figured out is that a landing page for Facebook traffic has one job. Close the trust gap between the ad and the purchase as fast as possible without losing the energy the ad created. Every section of this page does exactly that. Sensory hook gets you in. Category positioning tells you what it is. Carousel with inline add to cart removes friction. Social proof and scarcity show demand. Subscription offer removes price and convenience objections. Press section provides institutional trust. By the time you hit the footer you either already bought or you gave them your email. That's not a landing page. That's a conversion machine. If your page isn't doing all of this right now, that's where your revenue is leaking. Not in the ads. In what happens after the click. DM me ‘FUNNEL’ and I'll show you exactly how to build something like this for your brand.
0:45

Just pulled up Olipop's landing page after seeing their ads everywhere lately and I need to break this down because this is one of the cleaner DTC pages I've seen in a while. Here's what's actually happening when you land on this page and why it converts cold Facebook traffic better than 90% of ecom brands right now: 1) The first 3 seconds Before you read a single word, there's a video of the product being poured, fizzing, bubbling and condensation on the can with no voiceover or text overlay. Your brain processes that faster than any headline ever could. You can almost hear the fizz. That's intentional. They're triggering a sensory response before your logical brain even wakes up. Then the headline hits. "A New Kind of Soda." Now that's a category repositioning. They're not saying "healthy soda" or "better soda." They're saying the entire category you grew up with needs a new version and this is it. Sub-headline says high fiber, less sugar. Targets exactly the person who clicked the health-focused ad on Instagram. Message match is perfect. The person who clicked the ad lands here and immediately feels like the page was made for them. 2) The product carousel Most brands mess this up by showing you the product and making you go through three more pages to add it to your cart. Olipop lets you hover over any flavor and an "Add 12 Pack" button appears right there. One click. Done. You never leave the homepage. That little micro-interaction is doing serious conversion work because every extra click you require is a percentage of buyers you lose. They basically short-circuited the whole buying process and most people don't even notice it's happening. Star ratings under every flavor. Smart. You're not waiting until the reviews section at the bottom to see social proof. It's right there next to the product at the exact moment you're deciding what to buy. Then there's the "Limited" and "Out of Stock" tags on certain flavors. This is a psychological move that a lot of brands either don't use or use badly. When you see Shirley Temple is sold out your brain immediately thinks this must be good enough that people are actually buying it. And now you're looking at everything else thinking you better grab it before it's gone too. 3) The retention play At this point you haven't bought yet and they already know some people won't on the first visit. So right here they drop the rewards program section. Trade your email for perks and points. They're not letting you leave empty handed. Either you buy today or you give them your email so they can bring you back. Both outcomes work for them. Then comes the subscription nudge. 15% off. Free shipping. Cancel anytime. Three objections handled in one sentence. 1. Too expensive? 15% off. 2. Annoying to reorder? Free shipping straight to your door. 3. Scared of being locked in? Cancel whenever you want. That's a complete objection removal stack built into what looks like a simple banner. The people who weren't ready to buy a 12-pack today are looking at that and doing the math. 4) The press section Bloomberg. Forbes. BuzzFeed. Mindbody. This section exists for one reason. You clicked an ad from a brand you'd maybe seen once or twice before. You don't fully trust them yet. These logos close that gap in about half a second. It's institutional validation. You don't need to read the articles. Just seeing the logos tells your brain people with real credibility have looked at this and thought it was worth covering. Background behind this section is a high-res macro shot of condensation on the can. Cold. Refreshing. Premium. Even the section design is doing sensory work. 5) The overall lesson What Olipop figured out is that a landing page for Facebook traffic has one job. Close the trust gap between the ad and the purchase as fast as possible without losing the energy the ad created. Every section of this page does exactly that. Sensory hook gets you in. Category positioning tells you what it is. Carousel with inline add to cart removes friction. Social proof and scarcity show demand. Subscription offer removes price and convenience objections. Press section provides institutional trust. By the time you hit the footer you either already bought or you gave them your email. That's not a landing page. That's a conversion machine. If your page isn't doing all of this right now, that's where your revenue is leaking. Not in the ads. In what happens after the click. DM me ‘FUNNEL’ and I'll show you exactly how to build something like this for your brand.

Nick Theriot

26,389 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Marilyn Monroe died at only 36. Despite being rich/famous, she was super depressed BECAUSE THEY LIKELY STERILIZED HER ⚠️🧵 🚨 I WANT YOU TO LISTEN CLOSELY BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING THIS TO US TOO 🚨 Drug and alcohol culture is designed at its core to wipe out the strength of our population through a combination of distraction and gradual chemical castration. Particularly relevant in the case of Marilyn Monroe, there is also an evil anxiety “medicine” called benzodiazepine (one of many) that was developed by slime-bag “scientists” in the 1950’s and used by many celebrities who were tricked into taking it. Risk of ectopic pregnancy (where the baby grows and dies outside the womb) is 50% HIGHER among women who fill a benzodiazepine prescription before conception. READ THAT AGAIN. Marilyn told close friends that she wanted children more than anything in the world. So badly that she was ready to walk away from Hollywood and start a family… BUT THEY COULDN’T LET THAT HAPPEN‼️ So they pumped her full of alcohol and all sorts of drugs and convinced her she needed to keep taking more. During her marriage to Arthur Miller, she experienced at least two miscarriages as well as an ECTOPIC PREGNANCY (1956–1958) and couldn’t handle the agony. All likely caused by the substances they hooked her on. She would have given up everything she had and been poor a million times over just to start a family. None of it was worth it. Not a single moment. Not a single dollar. She died of an intentional overdose in 1962! Not only are they still doing similar stuff to celebrities, but they have normalized and glorified drugs/alcohol/depression medication use because they don’t want you to have kids either… There is one and only one way to fight back. Stay away from all the substances to the best of your ability, AND HAVE AS MANY KIDS AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN! Worry about the money later. You will never regret bringing another child into this world. Please do it like crazy and you will live the happiest life of anyone to ever walk the earth.
0:30

Marilyn Monroe died at only 36. Despite being rich/famous, she was super depressed BECAUSE THEY LIKELY STERILIZED HER ⚠️🧵 🚨 I WANT YOU TO LISTEN CLOSELY BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING THIS TO US TOO 🚨 Drug and alcohol culture is designed at its core to wipe out the strength of our population through a combination of distraction and gradual chemical castration. Particularly relevant in the case of Marilyn Monroe, there is also an evil anxiety “medicine” called benzodiazepine (one of many) that was developed by slime-bag “scientists” in the 1950’s and used by many celebrities who were tricked into taking it. Risk of ectopic pregnancy (where the baby grows and dies outside the womb) is 50% HIGHER among women who fill a benzodiazepine prescription before conception. READ THAT AGAIN. Marilyn told close friends that she wanted children more than anything in the world. So badly that she was ready to walk away from Hollywood and start a family… BUT THEY COULDN’T LET THAT HAPPEN‼️ So they pumped her full of alcohol and all sorts of drugs and convinced her she needed to keep taking more. During her marriage to Arthur Miller, she experienced at least two miscarriages as well as an ECTOPIC PREGNANCY (1956–1958) and couldn’t handle the agony. All likely caused by the substances they hooked her on. She would have given up everything she had and been poor a million times over just to start a family. None of it was worth it. Not a single moment. Not a single dollar. She died of an intentional overdose in 1962! Not only are they still doing similar stuff to celebrities, but they have normalized and glorified drugs/alcohol/depression medication use because they don’t want you to have kids either… There is one and only one way to fight back. Stay away from all the substances to the best of your ability, AND HAVE AS MANY KIDS AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN! Worry about the money later. You will never regret bringing another child into this world. Please do it like crazy and you will live the happiest life of anyone to ever walk the earth.

Matt Wallace

582,778 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

vibe coding metahuman with threejs and codex: spitting FACS ok, i'll admit 3D modeling has a lot of depth, going from a cube to a full facial action coding system is.. a lot of work, but really it isn't all that hard to learn like some people want you to believe it took me about 10 evenings to go from scratch (no idea how to even model in blender beyond the famous donut) to a working rigged and shape keyed expression system the actual vibe coding parts are very manageable, i'm not even hitting any session limits the past week since codex is basically just reading the glb file and it writes the drivers to have a full animation system in a single turn after that i usually notice that some things don't look as professional as i like it to be, followed by codex sending my ass back to blender and telling me what i need to do to make it better so here we are, the expression system is still very very simplified, no micro expressions yet and i believe i will need probably 500+ shape keys to actual achieve realism, but why not? Doing the 52 ARKit expressions for this demo wasn't too hard either, just tedious and boring The final driver in the demo uses a mix of bone movements and blendshapes to smoothly animate the face I might mix up some terminology here but i usually do cause it's been like what, 10 days since i started? Guess next up i'll look into face deformation parameters and then we'll move to the fun part of skinning. Once the head/neck area works (hairs are also still missing), full body next and finally LOD systems and we can call it a day Demo (pls use a desktop i'm not optimizing the ui for mobile):
0:41

vibe coding metahuman with threejs and codex: spitting FACS ok, i'll admit 3D modeling has a lot of depth, going from a cube to a full facial action coding system is.. a lot of work, but really it isn't all that hard to learn like some people want you to believe it took me about 10 evenings to go from scratch (no idea how to even model in blender beyond the famous donut) to a working rigged and shape keyed expression system the actual vibe coding parts are very manageable, i'm not even hitting any session limits the past week since codex is basically just reading the glb file and it writes the drivers to have a full animation system in a single turn after that i usually notice that some things don't look as professional as i like it to be, followed by codex sending my ass back to blender and telling me what i need to do to make it better so here we are, the expression system is still very very simplified, no micro expressions yet and i believe i will need probably 500+ shape keys to actual achieve realism, but why not? Doing the 52 ARKit expressions for this demo wasn't too hard either, just tedious and boring The final driver in the demo uses a mix of bone movements and blendshapes to smoothly animate the face I might mix up some terminology here but i usually do cause it's been like what, 10 days since i started? Guess next up i'll look into face deformation parameters and then we'll move to the fun part of skinning. Once the head/neck area works (hairs are also still missing), full body next and finally LOD systems and we can call it a day Demo (pls use a desktop i'm not optimizing the ui for mobile):

robot

29,357 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Why are people still hating $XRP when a White House rep just said TENS OF TRILLIONS are headed into crypto that solves real-world inefficiencies? At Ripple Swell 2025, Patrick Witt, U.S. White House official, didn’t dodge the question. He said it plainly: “You’ll be looking at market caps in the tens of trillions... tied to platforms that integrate into real finance and unlock global efficiency.” Now read that again. And ask yourself, what protocol is already doing it? Ripple is not “building” toward relevance. It’s already acquiring the legacy system and plugging it directly into the $XRP Ledger. Here’s what they’ve taken over: -GTreasury (real-time treasury infra) -Hidden Road (prime brokerage) -Rail Payments Platform (bank-grade payments infra) -Standard Custody & Trust -Palisade (institutional-grade custody) -Metaco (tokenized asset infrastructure) Every one of these is being wired into XRP Ledger. This isn’t narrative. It’s execution at the highest level of finance. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse didn’t mince words either: “I’m reminding you all that XRP sits at the center of everything Ripple does. Lock in.” Let’s talk about supply. $XRP critics still throw around the tired line: “It has too much supply… already high market cap… no upside.” That take is about to age very badly. Because they don’t understand what’s coming: – Daily volume in the trillions on XRPL – Stablecoins, tokenized bonds, FX, credit – Institutional players locking up supply – XRP being burned in every transaction – Long-term holdings by corporates and treasuries – Supply shock. When value flows through a single bridge asset at scale. That asset doesn’t just move up. It reprices entirely to reflect the role it now plays. So the real question isn’t: “Can XRP go to $5, $10, or $20?” It’s: How do you even value an asset that sits at the center of a multi-trillion dollar financial network? Are you starting to understand what’s really happening? Repost if you finally see what’s coming. Follow me, I’ll keep showing you before it’s obvious.
0:47

Why are people still hating $XRP when a White House rep just said TENS OF TRILLIONS are headed into crypto that solves real-world inefficiencies? At Ripple Swell 2025, Patrick Witt, U.S. White House official, didn’t dodge the question. He said it plainly: “You’ll be looking at market caps in the tens of trillions... tied to platforms that integrate into real finance and unlock global efficiency.” Now read that again. And ask yourself, what protocol is already doing it? Ripple is not “building” toward relevance. It’s already acquiring the legacy system and plugging it directly into the $XRP Ledger. Here’s what they’ve taken over: -GTreasury (real-time treasury infra) -Hidden Road (prime brokerage) -Rail Payments Platform (bank-grade payments infra) -Standard Custody & Trust -Palisade (institutional-grade custody) -Metaco (tokenized asset infrastructure) Every one of these is being wired into XRP Ledger. This isn’t narrative. It’s execution at the highest level of finance. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse didn’t mince words either: “I’m reminding you all that XRP sits at the center of everything Ripple does. Lock in.” Let’s talk about supply. $XRP critics still throw around the tired line: “It has too much supply… already high market cap… no upside.” That take is about to age very badly. Because they don’t understand what’s coming: – Daily volume in the trillions on XRPL – Stablecoins, tokenized bonds, FX, credit – Institutional players locking up supply – XRP being burned in every transaction – Long-term holdings by corporates and treasuries – Supply shock. When value flows through a single bridge asset at scale. That asset doesn’t just move up. It reprices entirely to reflect the role it now plays. So the real question isn’t: “Can XRP go to $5, $10, or $20?” It’s: How do you even value an asset that sits at the center of a multi-trillion dollar financial network? Are you starting to understand what’s really happening? Repost if you finally see what’s coming. Follow me, I’ll keep showing you before it’s obvious.

X Finance Bull

179,890 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

👤: Hey, while you were living together (in LA), did you never fight? Not even once? 🐨: We did fight. One night after drinking, getting all melancholy and stuff. 👤: Who got the angriest? You, right? You again? You got mad again? 🐨: Ah, I didn't get mad! 👤: Who fought with whom? Who fought with whom? And SUGA broke it up. 🐨: Because we had to work again the next day, because we were always doing song camp. So I was like, "Hey. Let's clean this up a bit now, this situation..." and then- 👤: Oh, this is the highlight part right now, isn't it? 🐨: "Hyung, shouldn't you also not say that to Taehyung like that either?" This is what happened. 🐱: No but, I was right there beside them listening, and then suddenly the guys were getting heated, so I called Jimin over and I said, "What's this about?" But since they were all drunk they didn't really know exactly what it was about. But they were all like (huff huff) and then it became like this- 🐨: "No, but still, Hyung, you can't talk to a member like that!" 🐨: "Me? Why? What did I do?” 🐨: And then Taehyung suddenly went, "Exactly, I was disappointed too..." like that. 🐱: No, the two of them were suddenly bawling their eyes out. 👤: All of a sudden the two of them were on the same side. 🐨: Yes! All I said was let's call it a night and then I became some kind of... 👤: You became the bad guy. To Jimin, you were the bad guy. 🐨: I mean, I was less drunk than the two of them. So they followed me to my room and for 3 hours both of them were like "I'm so disappointed" like this. 👤: So what exactly is he disappointed by? 🐱: I was just watching from the side and I kept saying, "Hey, why?" 👤: That's so in character for you. 🐱: Why? Seriously, why? This doesn't seem like the time to fight right now? 👤: Then what about J-Hope? 🐨: Well, Hobi just went in early / went to sleep early. He doesn't drink much. 👤: That's so Hobi-like too. You probably still kind of hear it sometimes even now. 🐨: I do hear it! "A member is having a hard time"
1:33

👤: Hey, while you were living together (in LA), did you never fight? Not even once? 🐨: We did fight. One night after drinking, getting all melancholy and stuff. 👤: Who got the angriest? You, right? You again? You got mad again? 🐨: Ah, I didn't get mad! 👤: Who fought with whom? Who fought with whom? And SUGA broke it up. 🐨: Because we had to work again the next day, because we were always doing song camp. So I was like, "Hey. Let's clean this up a bit now, this situation..." and then- 👤: Oh, this is the highlight part right now, isn't it? 🐨: "Hyung, shouldn't you also not say that to Taehyung like that either?" This is what happened. 🐱: No but, I was right there beside them listening, and then suddenly the guys were getting heated, so I called Jimin over and I said, "What's this about?" But since they were all drunk they didn't really know exactly what it was about. But they were all like (huff huff) and then it became like this- 🐨: "No, but still, Hyung, you can't talk to a member like that!" 🐨: "Me? Why? What did I do?” 🐨: And then Taehyung suddenly went, "Exactly, I was disappointed too..." like that. 🐱: No, the two of them were suddenly bawling their eyes out. 👤: All of a sudden the two of them were on the same side. 🐨: Yes! All I said was let's call it a night and then I became some kind of... 👤: You became the bad guy. To Jimin, you were the bad guy. 🐨: I mean, I was less drunk than the two of them. So they followed me to my room and for 3 hours both of them were like "I'm so disappointed" like this. 👤: So what exactly is he disappointed by? 🐱: I was just watching from the side and I kept saying, "Hey, why?" 👤: That's so in character for you. 🐱: Why? Seriously, why? This doesn't seem like the time to fight right now? 👤: Then what about J-Hope? 🐨: Well, Hobi just went in early / went to sleep early. He doesn't drink much. 👤: That's so Hobi-like too. You probably still kind of hear it sometimes even now. 🐨: I do hear it! "A member is having a hard time"

bts memeories⁷

500,822 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"Why don't you leave the place where you grew up and where your family lives?" No, YOU'RE leaving. You and every other ex-dirtbag left scene leech who pretended to become right-wing because COVID lockdowns gave you a sad. We all know you're just waiting for a chance to slime back to the Berniebro swamp you crawled out of. I am done with tourists and scene leeches who do not understand the gravity of what is going on. To you this is just some social gathering where you can snort ketamine in the bathroom and get simped on by retards. I and countless others have given our LIVES for this. I've been MAGA since day one, when people like you were either stanning the senile socialist from Vermont because you're too stupid to understand compounding interest on your student loans or you were in high school and too stupid to have an opinion on anything. I gave up a career to do this. I've been defamed by Israeli intelligence, physically threatened, and censored. Not too long ago I had to talk to the police because psycho leftists were stalking my neighborhood looking for me. And that doesn't even come close to what others have suffered. Good people rotted in jail over things like J6, others committed suicide because the government's harassment was too much to bear. One guy was even murdered by a foreign government. This is not even remotely funny to me. I regret nothing. I did all of this journalism and poasting because I BELIEVED in Trump and his movement, and so did everyone else who suffered for it. My political movement is not your fucking costume. If you had any conception of MAGA beyond a fun little weekend hobby, you'd understand why Anna and Dasha platforming a repulsive little worm like Nick Fuentes was wrong. Fuentes is a doxer whose cult of brownoid freaks actively tries to ruin anyone on the right who gets more attention then him, which includes Anna and Dasha's OWN FRIENDS. He's a probable federal informant who mysteriously escaped prosecution for inciting imminent lawless action at J6 when countless others, including his own capos, went to prison. He's a saboteur who shills-not-shills for Democrats and actively tried (and failed) to get Kamala Harris elected last year. He's a pedophile who actively covers for gay sexual predator Ali Alexander. And he's a complete fake who bots his Twitter likes and livestream views and has to beg other podcasters to interview him so he can leech off their audiences. Like he begged Anna and Dasha after spending years attacking them as part of the illusory "Thiel Network" that exists only in his sociopathic mind (see clip; I never forget). As @lotus__point pointed out on Filthy Armenian's podcast (I'll link that in reply because he said it better than me), this flirtation with Fuentes and his merry band of pedophile freaks started when everyone got into Catholicism as the next big trend. All of you are fake Catholics BTW. You act all pious at KGB Bar but as soon as last call ends you're sucking and fucking your way into the confessional booth next Sunday. It's okay. I'm a cafeteria Catholic too. I'm so cafeteria I don't even remember my confirmation name. The difference is that I'm honest enough to admit it. I did not spend a decade of my life advocating for a politician and a movement that was social and career cancer and live long enough to see victory just for scene leeches to ruin it because of their inability to take anything seriously. I should have guessed the NYC Drinks with Friends crowd would eventually normalize Fuentes given that they were unable to eject Crumps, a literal antifa and glowie nepo baby who stated his reason for "infiltrating" the scene was to expose the "fascist" underbelly of NYC art or something. I'm very happy he never tried to get into the Terror House event because it would have been on sight. All of you who tolerated Crumps hoping he'd mention you in his gay little gossip rag are absolute embarrassments. "If you see fraud and don't shout 'FRAUD!,' YOU are a fraud." I'm not going to be lectured to by a bunch of ideological tourists whose conception of reality doesn't extend past the filthy fucksquats where they sit around doing cocaine until the next check from daddy rolls in. I've been here for well over a decade. Half the zoomers in the "scene" were reading my shit in junior high. I'm satisfied with what I've done in my life. None of you will be remembered for anything other than being some other sad clout-chaser's Saturday morning regret.
1:12

"Why don't you leave the place where you grew up and where your family lives?" No, YOU'RE leaving. You and every other ex-dirtbag left scene leech who pretended to become right-wing because COVID lockdowns gave you a sad. We all know you're just waiting for a chance to slime back to the Berniebro swamp you crawled out of. I am done with tourists and scene leeches who do not understand the gravity of what is going on. To you this is just some social gathering where you can snort ketamine in the bathroom and get simped on by retards. I and countless others have given our LIVES for this. I've been MAGA since day one, when people like you were either stanning the senile socialist from Vermont because you're too stupid to understand compounding interest on your student loans or you were in high school and too stupid to have an opinion on anything. I gave up a career to do this. I've been defamed by Israeli intelligence, physically threatened, and censored. Not too long ago I had to talk to the police because psycho leftists were stalking my neighborhood looking for me. And that doesn't even come close to what others have suffered. Good people rotted in jail over things like J6, others committed suicide because the government's harassment was too much to bear. One guy was even murdered by a foreign government. This is not even remotely funny to me. I regret nothing. I did all of this journalism and poasting because I BELIEVED in Trump and his movement, and so did everyone else who suffered for it. My political movement is not your fucking costume. If you had any conception of MAGA beyond a fun little weekend hobby, you'd understand why Anna and Dasha platforming a repulsive little worm like Nick Fuentes was wrong. Fuentes is a doxer whose cult of brownoid freaks actively tries to ruin anyone on the right who gets more attention then him, which includes Anna and Dasha's OWN FRIENDS. He's a probable federal informant who mysteriously escaped prosecution for inciting imminent lawless action at J6 when countless others, including his own capos, went to prison. He's a saboteur who shills-not-shills for Democrats and actively tried (and failed) to get Kamala Harris elected last year. He's a pedophile who actively covers for gay sexual predator Ali Alexander. And he's a complete fake who bots his Twitter likes and livestream views and has to beg other podcasters to interview him so he can leech off their audiences. Like he begged Anna and Dasha after spending years attacking them as part of the illusory "Thiel Network" that exists only in his sociopathic mind (see clip; I never forget). As @lotus__point pointed out on Filthy Armenian's podcast (I'll link that in reply because he said it better than me), this flirtation with Fuentes and his merry band of pedophile freaks started when everyone got into Catholicism as the next big trend. All of you are fake Catholics BTW. You act all pious at KGB Bar but as soon as last call ends you're sucking and fucking your way into the confessional booth next Sunday. It's okay. I'm a cafeteria Catholic too. I'm so cafeteria I don't even remember my confirmation name. The difference is that I'm honest enough to admit it. I did not spend a decade of my life advocating for a politician and a movement that was social and career cancer and live long enough to see victory just for scene leeches to ruin it because of their inability to take anything seriously. I should have guessed the NYC Drinks with Friends crowd would eventually normalize Fuentes given that they were unable to eject Crumps, a literal antifa and glowie nepo baby who stated his reason for "infiltrating" the scene was to expose the "fascist" underbelly of NYC art or something. I'm very happy he never tried to get into the Terror House event because it would have been on sight. All of you who tolerated Crumps hoping he'd mention you in his gay little gossip rag are absolute embarrassments. "If you see fraud and don't shout 'FRAUD!,' YOU are a fraud." I'm not going to be lectured to by a bunch of ideological tourists whose conception of reality doesn't extend past the filthy fucksquats where they sit around doing cocaine until the next check from daddy rolls in. I've been here for well over a decade. Half the zoomers in the "scene" were reading my shit in junior high. I'm satisfied with what I've done in my life. None of you will be remembered for anything other than being some other sad clout-chaser's Saturday morning regret.

Matt Forney

20,127 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Some of Mae West's Best One-liners. Mae West was a master of witty, saucy, and iconic one-liners that celebrated independence, glamour, and double entendres. Her sharpest quips covered everything from romance and wealth to living life on her own terms. • “You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.” • “There are no good girls gone wrong ― just bad girls found out.” • “I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it.” • “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can't figure out what from.” • “I wrote the story myself. It's about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.” • “Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.” • “Good sex is like good bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand.” • “When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.” • “I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” • “I'm single because I was born that way.” • “Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.” • “I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing.” • “Ladies who play with fire must remember that smoke gets in their eyes.” • “A dame that knows the ropes isn't likely to get tied up.” • “Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.” • “It's not the men in your life that matters, it's the life in your men.” • “All discarded lovers should be given a second chance, but with somebody else.” • “Don't cry for a man who's left you ― the next one may fall for your smile.” • “Sex is an emotion in motion.” • “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” • “Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.” • “Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.” • “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!” • “I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number you get in a diamond.” • “It is better to be looked over than overlooked.” • “I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.” • “Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly.” • “Don't keep a man guessing too long ― he's sure to find the answer somewhere else” • “You are never too old to become younger!” • “Love thy neighbor ― and if he happens to be tall, debonair and devastating, it will be that much easier.” “Women like a man with a past, but they prefer a man with a present.” • “He who hesitates is a damned fool.” • “Look your best ― who said love is blind? ” • “His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.” • “A woman in love can't be reasonable ― or she probably wouldn't be in love.” • “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?” • “To err is human ― but it feels divine.” • “I have found men who didn't know how to kiss. I've always found time to teach them.” • “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!” • “Men are my hobby, if I ever got married I'd have to give it up.” • “Getting married is like trading in the adoration of many for the sarcasm of one.” • “When women go wrong, men go right after them.” • “The curve is more powerful than the sword.” • “Good women are no fun... The only good woman I can recall in history was Betsy Ross. And all she ever made was a flag.” • “I've no time for broads who want to rule the world alone. Without men, who'd do up the zipper on the back of your dress? ” • “I never loved another person the way I loved myself.” • “Love conquers all things except poverty and toothache.” • “The score never interested me, only the game.” • “Keep a diary and one day it'll keep you.” • “She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.” • JUDGE: “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” MAE WEST: “I was doin' my best to hide it.” • “Women with pasts interest men because they hope history will repeat itself.” • “I've been things and seen places.” • “I only read biographies, metaphysics and psychology. I can dream up my own fiction.” • “I'm a woman of very few words, but lots of action.” • “An ounce of performance is worth pounds of promises.” • “One more drink and I'll be under the host.” • “A man’s kiss is his signature.” • “Everyone has the right to run his own life ― even if you're heading for a crash. What I'm against is blind flying.” • “Love isn't an emotion or an instinct - it's an art.” • “No one can have everything, so you have to try for what you want most.” • “Love is like a booger, you pick and pick at it. Then when you get it you wonder how to get rid of it.” • “I've been in more laps than a napkin.” • “I see you're a man with ideals. I better be going before you've still got them.” • “It's all right for a perfect stranger to kiss your hand as long as he's perfect.” • “Don't marry a man to reform him ― that's what reform schools are for.” • “I saw what a mess a lot of people could make of their lives when they're smitten. Some of them go temporarily insane. They find a person who they think holds the key to their happiness ― the only key to their happiness... My work has always been my greatest happiness” • “It isn't what I do, but how I do it. It isn't what I say, but how I say it, and how I look when I do it and say it.” • “The best way to hold a man is in your arms.” • “A hard man is good to find.” • “I didn't discover curves; I only uncovered them.” • “You may admire a girl's curves on the first introduction, but the second meeting shows up new angles.” • “Goodness, what beautiful diamonds!' ― 'Goodness had nothing to do with it'.” • “Ten men waiting for me at the door? Send one of them home, I'm tired.” • “If I had known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.” • “A man in the house is worth two on the street.” • “Men are all alike ― except the one you've met who's different.” • “Brains are an asset, if you hide them.” • “I only like two kinds of men, domestic and imported.” • “I've been rich and I've been poor, and rich is better.” • “You can do what you want, but saving love doesn't bring any interest.” • Woman: “You certainly know the way to a man's heart.” Mae West: “Funny, too, 'cause I don't know how to cook.” • “When in doubt, take a bath...” • “Sex with love is the greatest thing in life. But sex without love — that's not so bad either.” • “What's the good of resisting temptation? There'll always be more.” • “If I can't have a man with a million dollars, I'll have a million men with one dollar.” • “Gentlemen prefer blondes, but who says blondes prefer gentlemen?” • “Whenever I have to choose between two evils, I always like to try the one I haven't tried before” • “An ounce of performance is worth a pound of promises.” • “Don’t ever make the same mistake twice, unless it pays.” MAE WEST
2:11

Some of Mae West's Best One-liners. Mae West was a master of witty, saucy, and iconic one-liners that celebrated independence, glamour, and double entendres. Her sharpest quips covered everything from romance and wealth to living life on her own terms. • “You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.” • “There are no good girls gone wrong ― just bad girls found out.” • “I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it.” • “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can't figure out what from.” • “I wrote the story myself. It's about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.” • “Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.” • “Good sex is like good bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand.” • “When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.” • “I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” • “I'm single because I was born that way.” • “Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.” • “I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing.” • “Ladies who play with fire must remember that smoke gets in their eyes.” • “A dame that knows the ropes isn't likely to get tied up.” • “Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.” • “It's not the men in your life that matters, it's the life in your men.” • “All discarded lovers should be given a second chance, but with somebody else.” • “Don't cry for a man who's left you ― the next one may fall for your smile.” • “Sex is an emotion in motion.” • “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” • “Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.” • “Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.” • “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!” • “I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number you get in a diamond.” • “It is better to be looked over than overlooked.” • “I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.” • “Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly.” • “Don't keep a man guessing too long ― he's sure to find the answer somewhere else” • “You are never too old to become younger!” • “Love thy neighbor ― and if he happens to be tall, debonair and devastating, it will be that much easier.” “Women like a man with a past, but they prefer a man with a present.” • “He who hesitates is a damned fool.” • “Look your best ― who said love is blind? ” • “His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.” • “A woman in love can't be reasonable ― or she probably wouldn't be in love.” • “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?” • “To err is human ― but it feels divine.” • “I have found men who didn't know how to kiss. I've always found time to teach them.” • “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!” • “Men are my hobby, if I ever got married I'd have to give it up.” • “Getting married is like trading in the adoration of many for the sarcasm of one.” • “When women go wrong, men go right after them.” • “The curve is more powerful than the sword.” • “Good women are no fun... The only good woman I can recall in history was Betsy Ross. And all she ever made was a flag.” • “I've no time for broads who want to rule the world alone. Without men, who'd do up the zipper on the back of your dress? ” • “I never loved another person the way I loved myself.” • “Love conquers all things except poverty and toothache.” • “The score never interested me, only the game.” • “Keep a diary and one day it'll keep you.” • “She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.” • JUDGE: “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” MAE WEST: “I was doin' my best to hide it.” • “Women with pasts interest men because they hope history will repeat itself.” • “I've been things and seen places.” • “I only read biographies, metaphysics and psychology. I can dream up my own fiction.” • “I'm a woman of very few words, but lots of action.” • “An ounce of performance is worth pounds of promises.” • “One more drink and I'll be under the host.” • “A man’s kiss is his signature.” • “Everyone has the right to run his own life ― even if you're heading for a crash. What I'm against is blind flying.” • “Love isn't an emotion or an instinct - it's an art.” • “No one can have everything, so you have to try for what you want most.” • “Love is like a booger, you pick and pick at it. Then when you get it you wonder how to get rid of it.” • “I've been in more laps than a napkin.” • “I see you're a man with ideals. I better be going before you've still got them.” • “It's all right for a perfect stranger to kiss your hand as long as he's perfect.” • “Don't marry a man to reform him ― that's what reform schools are for.” • “I saw what a mess a lot of people could make of their lives when they're smitten. Some of them go temporarily insane. They find a person who they think holds the key to their happiness ― the only key to their happiness... My work has always been my greatest happiness” • “It isn't what I do, but how I do it. It isn't what I say, but how I say it, and how I look when I do it and say it.” • “The best way to hold a man is in your arms.” • “A hard man is good to find.” • “I didn't discover curves; I only uncovered them.” • “You may admire a girl's curves on the first introduction, but the second meeting shows up new angles.” • “Goodness, what beautiful diamonds!' ― 'Goodness had nothing to do with it'.” • “Ten men waiting for me at the door? Send one of them home, I'm tired.” • “If I had known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.” • “A man in the house is worth two on the street.” • “Men are all alike ― except the one you've met who's different.” • “Brains are an asset, if you hide them.” • “I only like two kinds of men, domestic and imported.” • “I've been rich and I've been poor, and rich is better.” • “You can do what you want, but saving love doesn't bring any interest.” • Woman: “You certainly know the way to a man's heart.” Mae West: “Funny, too, 'cause I don't know how to cook.” • “When in doubt, take a bath...” • “Sex with love is the greatest thing in life. But sex without love — that's not so bad either.” • “What's the good of resisting temptation? There'll always be more.” • “If I can't have a man with a million dollars, I'll have a million men with one dollar.” • “Gentlemen prefer blondes, but who says blondes prefer gentlemen?” • “Whenever I have to choose between two evils, I always like to try the one I haven't tried before” • “An ounce of performance is worth a pound of promises.” • “Don’t ever make the same mistake twice, unless it pays.” MAE WEST

Hollywood Golden Age of Cinema

30,093 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

▲ Davis: Lacatski Never Told Us We Had Made Progress with Reverse Engineering! ▲ (This may be kind of a big deal. I've posted several times about Lacatski's claim that we've reverse engineered craft, but not to their full extent. Say what? I've always been surprised that Lacatski said that. If it's true, it's HUGE. Today, Davis addressed it, and his answer seems to put to bed the claim that he's (Davis) been trying to hide any progress we may have made on that front, as others have suggested. Hell, I thought he might be downplaying any progress we've made on that because these guys (Eric, Lue, Stratton, etc.) don't want our adversaries to know certain things, and I thought that was one of those things. Yes, Davis has always downplayed (and pretty much rejected) the claim that we've made progress on the reverse-engineering front, but it now appears he was saying that only because that's what he had learned through his investigations and research and not because he was trying to protect that specific secret.) Dr. Eric Davis: "So the military was seeing triangles, and so, we were...so the AAASAP was trying to figure out the physics of how to do that type of propulsion. And [Lacatksi] was asked by Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, "Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAASAP had a lot of value?' And Jim Lacatski replied, 'It hasn't been achieved to its full extent (laughs).'" (As you've seen me ask more than a few times: If not to the full extent, how much? 50% 75? If we've really had success, that's an important question. Glad to see Davis and I are on the same page with that. And was Lacatski JUST referring to triangular craft, or all craft in our possession?) Davis: "So how much did they achieve it? 25% 50% 75% I don't know because he never told us! So, Hal Puthoff and I have talked about these things, and we're looking at each other like, 'Huh?' So, uhh...no, this isn't disinformation." (I've wondered on here if it was a disinformation attempt by Lacatski to trick our adversaries into thinking we may have made more progress than we actually have. But Davis appears to think otherwise.) Davis: "This is the DOPSR telling Jim what he can say publicly in his books versus what he can't say in his books. And they cleared him to say what he said, and obviously they cleared him to say what he said to Corbell and George Knapp." (Either that, or he slipped up during the interview with "Weaponized." But Lacatski seems to measure his words and he doesn't appear to be a guy who slips up like that. He's VERY hesitant to share too much because he's said that our adversaries are listening to every word he says or writes.) Davis: "I haven't read his second and third books yet, so I don't know if that thing about the triangles is even in there. I haven't gone all the way through the first book yet, either. So, it's real. Lacatski would have the eligibility for access." ~~~ The original exchange between Corbell and Lacatski... Jeremy Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value?" Lacatski: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent."
1:18

▲ Davis: Lacatski Never Told Us We Had Made Progress with Reverse Engineering! ▲ (This may be kind of a big deal. I've posted several times about Lacatski's claim that we've reverse engineered craft, but not to their full extent. Say what? I've always been surprised that Lacatski said that. If it's true, it's HUGE. Today, Davis addressed it, and his answer seems to put to bed the claim that he's (Davis) been trying to hide any progress we may have made on that front, as others have suggested. Hell, I thought he might be downplaying any progress we've made on that because these guys (Eric, Lue, Stratton, etc.) don't want our adversaries to know certain things, and I thought that was one of those things. Yes, Davis has always downplayed (and pretty much rejected) the claim that we've made progress on the reverse-engineering front, but it now appears he was saying that only because that's what he had learned through his investigations and research and not because he was trying to protect that specific secret.) Dr. Eric Davis: "So the military was seeing triangles, and so, we were...so the AAASAP was trying to figure out the physics of how to do that type of propulsion. And [Lacatksi] was asked by Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, "Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAASAP had a lot of value?' And Jim Lacatski replied, 'It hasn't been achieved to its full extent (laughs).'" (As you've seen me ask more than a few times: If not to the full extent, how much? 50% 75? If we've really had success, that's an important question. Glad to see Davis and I are on the same page with that. And was Lacatski JUST referring to triangular craft, or all craft in our possession?) Davis: "So how much did they achieve it? 25% 50% 75% I don't know because he never told us! So, Hal Puthoff and I have talked about these things, and we're looking at each other like, 'Huh?' So, uhh...no, this isn't disinformation." (I've wondered on here if it was a disinformation attempt by Lacatski to trick our adversaries into thinking we may have made more progress than we actually have. But Davis appears to think otherwise.) Davis: "This is the DOPSR telling Jim what he can say publicly in his books versus what he can't say in his books. And they cleared him to say what he said, and obviously they cleared him to say what he said to Corbell and George Knapp." (Either that, or he slipped up during the interview with "Weaponized." But Lacatski seems to measure his words and he doesn't appear to be a guy who slips up like that. He's VERY hesitant to share too much because he's said that our adversaries are listening to every word he says or writes.) Davis: "I haven't read his second and third books yet, so I don't know if that thing about the triangles is even in there. I haven't gone all the way through the first book yet, either. So, it's real. Lacatski would have the eligibility for access." ~~~ The original exchange between Corbell and Lacatski... Jeremy Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value?" Lacatski: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent."

Joe Murgia

13,125 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)
1:02

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)

DepressedBergman

13,543 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

People are undoubtedly a little alarmed at having unwittingly helped build a 3D map of the world for Niantic by contributing 30 billion crowdsourced images. I interviewed Niantic's CTO Brian McClendon about exactly this in a TED interview last year -- he's also the guy who co-created Google Earth. But let's put it in perspective. Pokestop data isn't what you think it is. It's not a surveillance panopticon of your neighborhood. These are static captures of parks, statues, murals, landmarks -- the places people congregate. Brian described it as "building the map from the bottom up, from the locations where people spend time." Think of these 20 million waypoints as basically the inverse of what Google mapped with Street View. Google mapped the drivable streets. Niantic mapped where people actually hang out. Cool data, genuinely useful for visual positioning -- but very different from what the headlines imply. And lest we forget that Niantic is just one of many companies quietly building their own map of the world right now -- and they're all capturing different facets of reality: >🚶 person-level: Axon body cams on hundreds of thousands of officers. Meta Ray-Ban glasses capturing first-person POV at scale -- overseas operators reviewing images every time someone says "Hey Meta." > 🚗 vehicle-level: Tesla dashcams on every car in the fleet, massive onboard compute extracting and distilling data to the cloud. Waymo with cm-accurate 3D maps of every city they operate in. Fleet telematics cameras on delivery vehicles globally. > 🏠 street & home-level: Flock Safety deploying CCTV across neighborhoods and cities. Amazon with Ring cameras on every doorstep and mailroom (recently got dragged over that Super Bowl commercial about fusing all these cams together to find your dog) plus dashcams on every Prime delivery van. Roomba mapping your floor plan every time it vacuums -- Amazon wanted that data badly enough to try acquiring iRobot for $1.7B before regulators shut it down. > 🥽 headset-level: Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest build a 3D model of whatever room you're in every time you put them on. Between Ring, Roomba, and your headset, your entire home is being spatially understood by at least three different companies. >📍platform-level: Google with Street View cars, aerial planes, satellite imagery, and live location from every Android phone in your pocket. Apple doing the same with mapping cars AND every LiDAR iPhone is quietly a 3D scanner. And yeah, despite the "Apple is too privacy-conscious" narrative, they're collecting location data too. >🏃 trajectory-level: Strava mapped every running and cycling trail on Earth -- and accidentally exposed secret military bases in Afghanistan and Syria because soldiers logged their jogs. When you aggregate enough individual trajectories, patterns emerge that were never supposed to be visible. > 🛰️ space-level: Planet Labs imaging the entire Earth's landmass every single day from orbit. Vantor capturing it in higher detail. Iceye doing it in 3D using SAR. If something changes anywhere on the planet -- a building goes up, a forest burns down, a military convoy moves -- before-and-after imagery within 24 hours. Fused together -- we have everything from body cam to dashcam to doorbell to phone to satellite -- every layer of physical reality is being mapped by somebody right now. Different sensors, different angles, different purposes. Same pattern. The interesting part is how they incentivize it. Google spends billions. Mapillary tried altruism. Hivemapper grinds with crypto. Pokémon GO cracked something none of them could: a game mechanic that subsidizes the scanning behavior. You're not building a map. You're catching pokemon. The map is just a side effect. 3D scanning is still a niche hobby for reality capture nerds like me. The moment somebody gamifies dense 3D capture at scale -- not posed photos but actual geometry -- that's when this blows wide open. Niantic sold the games for $3.5B but kept the spatial platform, with a data-sharing agreement in place. One team makes the game great, the other builds the spatial infrastructure underneath. Incentives finally aligned. Gaming is becoming a way for humans to contribute real-world trajectories that help physical AI learn about the real world. Google does it with live traffic. Tesla does it with autopilot. The mechanic is different but the pattern is identical -- and most people are already part of at least one -- if not a majority -- of these datasets whether they realize it or not.
0:37

People are undoubtedly a little alarmed at having unwittingly helped build a 3D map of the world for Niantic by contributing 30 billion crowdsourced images. I interviewed Niantic's CTO Brian McClendon about exactly this in a TED interview last year -- he's also the guy who co-created Google Earth. But let's put it in perspective. Pokestop data isn't what you think it is. It's not a surveillance panopticon of your neighborhood. These are static captures of parks, statues, murals, landmarks -- the places people congregate. Brian described it as "building the map from the bottom up, from the locations where people spend time." Think of these 20 million waypoints as basically the inverse of what Google mapped with Street View. Google mapped the drivable streets. Niantic mapped where people actually hang out. Cool data, genuinely useful for visual positioning -- but very different from what the headlines imply. And lest we forget that Niantic is just one of many companies quietly building their own map of the world right now -- and they're all capturing different facets of reality: >🚶 person-level: Axon body cams on hundreds of thousands of officers. Meta Ray-Ban glasses capturing first-person POV at scale -- overseas operators reviewing images every time someone says "Hey Meta." > 🚗 vehicle-level: Tesla dashcams on every car in the fleet, massive onboard compute extracting and distilling data to the cloud. Waymo with cm-accurate 3D maps of every city they operate in. Fleet telematics cameras on delivery vehicles globally. > 🏠 street & home-level: Flock Safety deploying CCTV across neighborhoods and cities. Amazon with Ring cameras on every doorstep and mailroom (recently got dragged over that Super Bowl commercial about fusing all these cams together to find your dog) plus dashcams on every Prime delivery van. Roomba mapping your floor plan every time it vacuums -- Amazon wanted that data badly enough to try acquiring iRobot for $1.7B before regulators shut it down. > 🥽 headset-level: Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest build a 3D model of whatever room you're in every time you put them on. Between Ring, Roomba, and your headset, your entire home is being spatially understood by at least three different companies. >📍platform-level: Google with Street View cars, aerial planes, satellite imagery, and live location from every Android phone in your pocket. Apple doing the same with mapping cars AND every LiDAR iPhone is quietly a 3D scanner. And yeah, despite the "Apple is too privacy-conscious" narrative, they're collecting location data too. >🏃 trajectory-level: Strava mapped every running and cycling trail on Earth -- and accidentally exposed secret military bases in Afghanistan and Syria because soldiers logged their jogs. When you aggregate enough individual trajectories, patterns emerge that were never supposed to be visible. > 🛰️ space-level: Planet Labs imaging the entire Earth's landmass every single day from orbit. Vantor capturing it in higher detail. Iceye doing it in 3D using SAR. If something changes anywhere on the planet -- a building goes up, a forest burns down, a military convoy moves -- before-and-after imagery within 24 hours. Fused together -- we have everything from body cam to dashcam to doorbell to phone to satellite -- every layer of physical reality is being mapped by somebody right now. Different sensors, different angles, different purposes. Same pattern. The interesting part is how they incentivize it. Google spends billions. Mapillary tried altruism. Hivemapper grinds with crypto. Pokémon GO cracked something none of them could: a game mechanic that subsidizes the scanning behavior. You're not building a map. You're catching pokemon. The map is just a side effect. 3D scanning is still a niche hobby for reality capture nerds like me. The moment somebody gamifies dense 3D capture at scale -- not posed photos but actual geometry -- that's when this blows wide open. Niantic sold the games for $3.5B but kept the spatial platform, with a data-sharing agreement in place. One team makes the game great, the other builds the spatial infrastructure underneath. Incentives finally aligned. Gaming is becoming a way for humans to contribute real-world trajectories that help physical AI learn about the real world. Google does it with live traffic. Tesla does it with autopilot. The mechanic is different but the pattern is identical -- and most people are already part of at least one -- if not a majority -- of these datasets whether they realize it or not.

Bilawal Sidhu

204,351 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

In the 1920s, a Stanford psychologist tracked genius children for 50 years. Malcolm Gladwell breaks down what he discovered: Rich families → successful. Poor families → failures. Not average. Failures. Genius-level IQs that produced nothing. He spent 60 minutes at Microsoft explaining why we're wrong about success: The psychologist was named Terman. He gave IQ tests to 250,000 California schoolchildren. He identified the top 0.1%. Kids with IQs of 140 and above. His hypothesis: these children would become the leaders of academia, industry, and politics. He tracked them. And tracked them. For decades. The results split into three groups. The top 15% achieved real prominence. The middle group had average, moderately successful professional lives. And the bottom group? By any measure, failures. The difference wasn't personality. Wasn't habits. Wasn't work ethic. It was simple: the successful geniuses came from wealthy households. The failures came from poor families. Poverty is such a powerful constraint that it can reduce a one-in-a-billion brain to a lifetime of worse than mediocrity. There's a concept called "capitalization rate." It asks a simple question: what percentage of people who are capable of doing something actually end up doing that thing? In inner city Memphis, only 1 in 6 kids with athletic scholarships actually go to college. If our capitalization rate for sports in the inner city is 16%, imagine how low it must be for everything else. Here's something stranger. Gladwell read the birth dates of the 2007 Czech Junior Hockey Team: January 3rd. January 3rd. January 12th. February 8th. February 10th. February 17th. February 20th. February 24th. March 5th. March 10th. March 26th... 11 of the 20 players were born in January, February, or March. This isn't unique to the Czechs. Every elite hockey team in the world shows the same pattern. Every elite soccer team too. Why? The eligibility cutoff for youth leagues is January 1st. When you're 10 years old, a kid born in January has 10 months of maturity on a kid born in October. That's 3 or 4 inches of height. The difference between clumsy and coordinated. So we look at a group of 10 year olds, pick the "best" ones, give them special coaching, extra practice, more games. We think we're identifying talent. We're just identifying the oldest. Then we give the oldest more opportunities, and 10 years later they really are the best. Self-fulfilling prophecy. The capitalization rate for hockey talent born in the second half of the year? Close to zero. We're leaving half of all potential hockey players on the table because of an arbitrary date on a calendar. Kids born in the youngest cohort of their school class are 11% less likely to go to college. 11% of human potential squandered because we organize elementary school without reference to biological maturity. Now here's the part about math. Asian kids dramatically outperform Western kids in mathematics. The gap is enormous and consistent across decades of testing. Some people say it's genetic. It's not. It's attitudinal. When Asian kids face a math problem, they believe effort will solve it. When Western kids face a math problem, they believe the answer depends on innate ability they either have or don't. Here's the proof. The international math tests include a 120-question survey. It asks about study habits, parental support, attitudes. It's so long most kids don't finish it. A researcher named Erling Boe decided to rank countries by what percentage of survey questions their kids completed. Then he compared it to the ranking of countries by math performance. The correlation was 0.98. In the history of social science, there has never been a correlation that high. If you want to know how good a country is at math, you don't need to ask any math questions. Just make kids sit down and focus on a task for an extended period of time. If they can do it, they're good at math. Why do Asian cultures have this attitude? Gladwell's theory: rice farming. His European ancestors in medieval England worked about 1,000 hours a year. Dawn to noon, five days a week. Winters off. Lots of holidays. A peasant in South China or Japan in the same period worked 3,000 hours a year. Rice farming isn't just harder than wheat farming. It's a completely different relationship with work. There's a Chinese proverb: "A man who works dawn to dusk 360 days a year will not go hungry." His English ancestors would have said: "A man who works 175 days a year, dawn to 11, may or may not be hungry." If your culture does that for a thousand years, it becomes part of your makeup. When your kids sit down to face a calculus problem, that legacy of persistence translates perfectly. Now consider distance running. In Kenya, there are roughly a million schoolboys between 10 and 17 running 10 to 12 miles a day. In the United States, that number is probably 5,000. Our capitalization rate for distance running is less than 1%. Kenya's is probably 95%. The difference isn't genetic. The difference is what the culture values and where it spends its attention. Here's the most fascinating finding. 30% of American entrepreneurs have been diagnosed with a profound learning disability. Richard Branson is dyslexic. Charles Schwab is dyslexic. John Chambers can barely read his own email. This isn't coincidence. Their entrepreneurialism is a direct function of their disability. How do you succeed if you can't read or write from early childhood? You learn to delegate. You become a great oral communicator. You become a problem solver because your entire life is one big problem. You learn to lead. 80% of dyslexic entrepreneurs were captain of a high school sports team. Versus 30% of non-dyslexic entrepreneurs. By the time they enter the real world, they've spent their whole life practicing the four skills at the core of entrepreneurial success: delegation, oral communication, problem solving, and leadership. Ask them what role dyslexia played in their success and they don't say it was an obstacle. They say it's the reason they succeeded. A disadvantage that became an advantage. Here's what Gladwell wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability. We forget how much poverty, stupidity, and attitude constrain what people can become. We refuse to admit that our own arbitrary rules are leaving talent on the table. We cling to naive beliefs that our meritocracies are fair. The capitalization argument is liberating. It says you don't look at a struggling group and conclude they're incapable. It says problems that look genetic or innate are often just failures of exploitation. It says we can make a profound difference in how well people turn out. If we choose to pay attention. This 60 minute Microsoft talk will teach you more about success than every self-help book you've ever read combined. Bookmark this & give it an hour today, no matter what.
1:14:47

In the 1920s, a Stanford psychologist tracked genius children for 50 years. Malcolm Gladwell breaks down what he discovered: Rich families → successful. Poor families → failures. Not average. Failures. Genius-level IQs that produced nothing. He spent 60 minutes at Microsoft explaining why we're wrong about success: The psychologist was named Terman. He gave IQ tests to 250,000 California schoolchildren. He identified the top 0.1%. Kids with IQs of 140 and above. His hypothesis: these children would become the leaders of academia, industry, and politics. He tracked them. And tracked them. For decades. The results split into three groups. The top 15% achieved real prominence. The middle group had average, moderately successful professional lives. And the bottom group? By any measure, failures. The difference wasn't personality. Wasn't habits. Wasn't work ethic. It was simple: the successful geniuses came from wealthy households. The failures came from poor families. Poverty is such a powerful constraint that it can reduce a one-in-a-billion brain to a lifetime of worse than mediocrity. There's a concept called "capitalization rate." It asks a simple question: what percentage of people who are capable of doing something actually end up doing that thing? In inner city Memphis, only 1 in 6 kids with athletic scholarships actually go to college. If our capitalization rate for sports in the inner city is 16%, imagine how low it must be for everything else. Here's something stranger. Gladwell read the birth dates of the 2007 Czech Junior Hockey Team: January 3rd. January 3rd. January 12th. February 8th. February 10th. February 17th. February 20th. February 24th. March 5th. March 10th. March 26th... 11 of the 20 players were born in January, February, or March. This isn't unique to the Czechs. Every elite hockey team in the world shows the same pattern. Every elite soccer team too. Why? The eligibility cutoff for youth leagues is January 1st. When you're 10 years old, a kid born in January has 10 months of maturity on a kid born in October. That's 3 or 4 inches of height. The difference between clumsy and coordinated. So we look at a group of 10 year olds, pick the "best" ones, give them special coaching, extra practice, more games. We think we're identifying talent. We're just identifying the oldest. Then we give the oldest more opportunities, and 10 years later they really are the best. Self-fulfilling prophecy. The capitalization rate for hockey talent born in the second half of the year? Close to zero. We're leaving half of all potential hockey players on the table because of an arbitrary date on a calendar. Kids born in the youngest cohort of their school class are 11% less likely to go to college. 11% of human potential squandered because we organize elementary school without reference to biological maturity. Now here's the part about math. Asian kids dramatically outperform Western kids in mathematics. The gap is enormous and consistent across decades of testing. Some people say it's genetic. It's not. It's attitudinal. When Asian kids face a math problem, they believe effort will solve it. When Western kids face a math problem, they believe the answer depends on innate ability they either have or don't. Here's the proof. The international math tests include a 120-question survey. It asks about study habits, parental support, attitudes. It's so long most kids don't finish it. A researcher named Erling Boe decided to rank countries by what percentage of survey questions their kids completed. Then he compared it to the ranking of countries by math performance. The correlation was 0.98. In the history of social science, there has never been a correlation that high. If you want to know how good a country is at math, you don't need to ask any math questions. Just make kids sit down and focus on a task for an extended period of time. If they can do it, they're good at math. Why do Asian cultures have this attitude? Gladwell's theory: rice farming. His European ancestors in medieval England worked about 1,000 hours a year. Dawn to noon, five days a week. Winters off. Lots of holidays. A peasant in South China or Japan in the same period worked 3,000 hours a year. Rice farming isn't just harder than wheat farming. It's a completely different relationship with work. There's a Chinese proverb: "A man who works dawn to dusk 360 days a year will not go hungry." His English ancestors would have said: "A man who works 175 days a year, dawn to 11, may or may not be hungry." If your culture does that for a thousand years, it becomes part of your makeup. When your kids sit down to face a calculus problem, that legacy of persistence translates perfectly. Now consider distance running. In Kenya, there are roughly a million schoolboys between 10 and 17 running 10 to 12 miles a day. In the United States, that number is probably 5,000. Our capitalization rate for distance running is less than 1%. Kenya's is probably 95%. The difference isn't genetic. The difference is what the culture values and where it spends its attention. Here's the most fascinating finding. 30% of American entrepreneurs have been diagnosed with a profound learning disability. Richard Branson is dyslexic. Charles Schwab is dyslexic. John Chambers can barely read his own email. This isn't coincidence. Their entrepreneurialism is a direct function of their disability. How do you succeed if you can't read or write from early childhood? You learn to delegate. You become a great oral communicator. You become a problem solver because your entire life is one big problem. You learn to lead. 80% of dyslexic entrepreneurs were captain of a high school sports team. Versus 30% of non-dyslexic entrepreneurs. By the time they enter the real world, they've spent their whole life practicing the four skills at the core of entrepreneurial success: delegation, oral communication, problem solving, and leadership. Ask them what role dyslexia played in their success and they don't say it was an obstacle. They say it's the reason they succeeded. A disadvantage that became an advantage. Here's what Gladwell wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability. We forget how much poverty, stupidity, and attitude constrain what people can become. We refuse to admit that our own arbitrary rules are leaving talent on the table. We cling to naive beliefs that our meritocracies are fair. The capitalization argument is liberating. It says you don't look at a struggling group and conclude they're incapable. It says problems that look genetic or innate are often just failures of exploitation. It says we can make a profound difference in how well people turn out. If we choose to pay attention. This 60 minute Microsoft talk will teach you more about success than every self-help book you've ever read combined. Bookmark this & give it an hour today, no matter what.

Jaynit

1,588,218 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten