Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Both answers were surprisingly strong because they came from two different values. One chose reconciliation: befriend your friend's enemy to become the bridge that helps heal a broken relationship. The other chose loyalty: don't befriend your friend's enemy because true friendship sometimes means taking a side. Neither answer is... show more

Sara DuDirty

5,343 subscribers

41,141 просмотров • 6 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

.Secretary Marco Rubio on SundayMorningFutures: "You can't have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agreed to give up something. And both sides agree that the other side gets something right. Otherwise, if one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender. And I don't think this is a war that's going to end anytime soon on the basis of surrender."

.Secretary Marco Rubio on SundayMorningFutures: "You can't have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agreed to give up something. And both sides agree that the other side gets something right. Otherwise, if one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender. And I don't think this is a war that's going to end anytime soon on the basis of surrender."

Department of State

193,421 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Trump picked up on that and added something few in the room probably knew. “Poland was one of two nations that paid more than they were supposed to with NATO,” he said. “I don’t know if anyone knows that, but there were two nations…and Poland paid more than they were supposed to.” “Which was a very nice thing.” You could feel the energy between the two leaders was different than in other Oval Office visits of Trump’s second term. With Nawrocki, it’s mutual respect and shared values...the same values that won both of them the presidency. The meeting was also a firm message to Europe and the world that Poland isn’t hiding behind America’s defense umbrella. They’re investing in their own strength..and Trump clearly respects that.

Trump picked up on that and added something few in the room probably knew. “Poland was one of two nations that paid more than they were supposed to with NATO,” he said. “I don’t know if anyone knows that, but there were two nations…and Poland paid more than they were supposed to.” “Which was a very nice thing.” You could feel the energy between the two leaders was different than in other Oval Office visits of Trump’s second term. With Nawrocki, it’s mutual respect and shared values...the same values that won both of them the presidency. The meeting was also a firm message to Europe and the world that Poland isn’t hiding behind America’s defense umbrella. They’re investing in their own strength..and Trump clearly respects that.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

190,558 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

This woman is using a bike lane as a walking lane as well. There is a car behind her trying to beat the traffic and driving in that lane. They are driving slowly behind her yelling at her to get out of the way and antagonizing her. She starts to record them because they are being reckless and have come close to hitting her and other cars. The car even cuts off the other cars as the lane is being blocked by a pole. I understand she’s mad because the car was where they weren’t supposed to be, however the bike lane is a bi-directional bike lane, it isn’t a bike lane on one side and a walking lane on the other. So who is wrong here, are they both wrong for using the bike lane when neither one is on a bike?

This woman is using a bike lane as a walking lane as well. There is a car behind her trying to beat the traffic and driving in that lane. They are driving slowly behind her yelling at her to get out of the way and antagonizing her. She starts to record them because they are being reckless and have come close to hitting her and other cars. The car even cuts off the other cars as the lane is being blocked by a pole. I understand she’s mad because the car was where they weren’t supposed to be, however the bike lane is a bi-directional bike lane, it isn’t a bike lane on one side and a walking lane on the other. So who is wrong here, are they both wrong for using the bike lane when neither one is on a bike?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

439,743 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

L’Oréal show Carlos two Bernese mountain dog pics, as for a emoji. They asked him to choose one to describe the GP, he chose first one for Bahrain, the second one for Singapore. The host asked him to imitate both emojis, and always asked twice, so fans could screenshot🙂‍↕️ 🎙️which is look like me, sometimes I see a lot of videos of fans have made fun out of me because I look like space out. I saw a video the other day, in the airport i was a bit jet lag, I look a lot like this.. open eyes, completely jet lag without knowing what’s going on.

L’Oréal show Carlos two Bernese mountain dog pics, as for a emoji. They asked him to choose one to describe the GP, he chose first one for Bahrain, the second one for Singapore. The host asked him to imitate both emojis, and always asked twice, so fans could screenshot🙂‍↕️ 🎙️which is look like me, sometimes I see a lot of videos of fans have made fun out of me because I look like space out. I saw a video the other day, in the airport i was a bit jet lag, I look a lot like this.. open eyes, completely jet lag without knowing what’s going on.

WIO🦄

92,370 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Beauty of Indian Democracy. Here, an ex king of a really old Rajput kingdom is being awarded by president of a modern republic. President who came from Dalit community and the ex king who is from Deora branch of Chauhans who once ruled Delhi. Both are humble towards each other and show the depth in their character in just one Namaskar to each other. The greeting also acknowledges the beautiful democracy from one side and the glorious past from the other. There is no friction, never was. They haven’t dropped “Maharao” from his name. Because they know what it means to be a true Indian. I really wish they secured some seats for ex rulers of Indian states in Parliament on rotational basis. Things could be so much different for many cities & their people.

Beauty of Indian Democracy. Here, an ex king of a really old Rajput kingdom is being awarded by president of a modern republic. President who came from Dalit community and the ex king who is from Deora branch of Chauhans who once ruled Delhi. Both are humble towards each other and show the depth in their character in just one Namaskar to each other. The greeting also acknowledges the beautiful democracy from one side and the glorious past from the other. There is no friction, never was. They haven’t dropped “Maharao” from his name. Because they know what it means to be a true Indian. I really wish they secured some seats for ex rulers of Indian states in Parliament on rotational basis. Things could be so much different for many cities & their people.

Siddharth's Echelon

109,465 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The number one reason for breakups in marriage is not infidelity, it's financial pressure. It's one partner outspending the other. This really matter in the first three years of a marriage, because you can see disastrous outcomes if somebody is a spendaholic and the other is not, and they never discuss this or talked about their financial goals in the first place. The first child you have in a marriage is money. You both have to have separate bank accounts. You should fund a mutual one that pays for mutual expenses, but keep all of your financial structure intact under your own name, and that's very important.

The number one reason for breakups in marriage is not infidelity, it's financial pressure. It's one partner outspending the other. This really matter in the first three years of a marriage, because you can see disastrous outcomes if somebody is a spendaholic and the other is not, and they never discuss this or talked about their financial goals in the first place. The first child you have in a marriage is money. You both have to have separate bank accounts. You should fund a mutual one that pays for mutual expenses, but keep all of your financial structure intact under your own name, and that's very important.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

31,340 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Zlatan Ibrahimović was offered a $100 million deal from China and big money from Saudi. He turned them both down. “I had to finish on the big stage,” he told Piers Morgan. “You have to be remembered for your talent, not for what you earned. Certain players reach a level where they can’t go lower just for the paycheck.” He chose the harder path — chasing the challenge instead of the bag — because legacy hits different when it’s built on what you actually did on the pitch, not what you cashed. Some players need the money. Zlatan needed the respect of the game. What’s one decision you’ve made (or wish you’d made) where you chose legacy/respect over money?

Zlatan Ibrahimović was offered a $100 million deal from China and big money from Saudi. He turned them both down. “I had to finish on the big stage,” he told Piers Morgan. “You have to be remembered for your talent, not for what you earned. Certain players reach a level where they can’t go lower just for the paycheck.” He chose the harder path — chasing the challenge instead of the bag — because legacy hits different when it’s built on what you actually did on the pitch, not what you cashed. Some players need the money. Zlatan needed the respect of the game. What’s one decision you’ve made (or wish you’d made) where you chose legacy/respect over money?

Camus

51,962 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

“We got a message from the Iranian side that one of the ships, which presumably was closest to our borders at that point of time, wanted to come into our port. On the 1st March, we said you can come in and it took them a few days to sail in and then they docked in Kochi. There were a lot of young cadets and they disembarked. So for us, when this ship wanted to come in and that too in difficulties, I think it was the humane thing to do. We were guided by that principle. In a sense of the other ships, one obviously had a similar situation in Sri Lanka and they took the decision that they did, and one unfortunately didn’t make it.” * ⁠EAM Dr. S. Jaishankar made it clear that there were two Iranian vessels. One docked safely in Kochi, while the other moved towards Sri Lanka. The vessel that remained under India’s watch stayed completely safe and secure.

“We got a message from the Iranian side that one of the ships, which presumably was closest to our borders at that point of time, wanted to come into our port. On the 1st March, we said you can come in and it took them a few days to sail in and then they docked in Kochi. There were a lot of young cadets and they disembarked. So for us, when this ship wanted to come in and that too in difficulties, I think it was the humane thing to do. We were guided by that principle. In a sense of the other ships, one obviously had a similar situation in Sri Lanka and they took the decision that they did, and one unfortunately didn’t make it.” * ⁠EAM Dr. S. Jaishankar made it clear that there were two Iranian vessels. One docked safely in Kochi, while the other moved towards Sri Lanka. The vessel that remained under India’s watch stayed completely safe and secure.

BJP

40,930 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

GAD SAAD: WHEN EMPATHY TURNS SUICIDAL, CIVILIZATION PAYS THE PRICE Gad Saad delivered a blunt warning about what happens when a society abandons its survival instincts in the name of blind empathy. Using a tribal metaphor, Saad described 2 rival groups watching each other across a river, each calculating whether it's the right time to attack. What keeps the peace? Mutual respect - or at least mutual fear. But when one tribe decides that defending itself is morally wrong, things start to fall apart fast. Saad argues that this is exactly what’s happening in parts of the modern West: a celebration of total passivity, even in the face of violence, chaos, or destruction. Defending your family, culture, or values is now treated as something “phobic.” His conclusion is stark: “They want to rape your women, don't attack them because it's phobic. They want to take over your society, don't fight back because it'll be phobic. They wish to urinate on your culture, your heritage, your religion, your civilization, don't fight back because that would be phobic.” Source: Gad Saad

GAD SAAD: WHEN EMPATHY TURNS SUICIDAL, CIVILIZATION PAYS THE PRICE Gad Saad delivered a blunt warning about what happens when a society abandons its survival instincts in the name of blind empathy. Using a tribal metaphor, Saad described 2 rival groups watching each other across a river, each calculating whether it's the right time to attack. What keeps the peace? Mutual respect - or at least mutual fear. But when one tribe decides that defending itself is morally wrong, things start to fall apart fast. Saad argues that this is exactly what’s happening in parts of the modern West: a celebration of total passivity, even in the face of violence, chaos, or destruction. Defending your family, culture, or values is now treated as something “phobic.” His conclusion is stark: “They want to rape your women, don't attack them because it's phobic. They want to take over your society, don't fight back because it'll be phobic. They wish to urinate on your culture, your heritage, your religion, your civilization, don't fight back because that would be phobic.” Source: Gad Saad

Mario Nawfal

22,620 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨 Pep Guardiola hits back at Jim Ratcliffe: "We treat immigrants or people that come from other countries like they are the ones causing problems for our country. It's a big problem because the fact I am Catalan and you are British? What influence did we have on where we were born? "Everyone wants to have a better life, everyone wants to have a better future for themselves and their families. Sometimes the opportunities are where you are born and sometimes it is in the place where you go. "The colour of your skin or the place where you were born don't make a difference. "Most people run away from their countries for the problems that are in their country, not because they want to leave. "The more we embrace other cultures, truly embrace it, then we will have a better society - I do not have any doubts about that."

🚨 Pep Guardiola hits back at Jim Ratcliffe: "We treat immigrants or people that come from other countries like they are the ones causing problems for our country. It's a big problem because the fact I am Catalan and you are British? What influence did we have on where we were born? "Everyone wants to have a better life, everyone wants to have a better future for themselves and their families. Sometimes the opportunities are where you are born and sometimes it is in the place where you go. "The colour of your skin or the place where you were born don't make a difference. "Most people run away from their countries for the problems that are in their country, not because they want to leave. "The more we embrace other cultures, truly embrace it, then we will have a better society - I do not have any doubts about that."

CaughtOffside

1,888,026 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Two 100 mph lefties: 2 totally different strategies💡 Scott is highly back-side driven, with a deep hinge and the head staying over the back hip as he builds momentum in the stride. This corresponds to a more lateral block (landing from behind). Crochet is more front-side driven, with a shallow hinge and the head riding the front hip as he builds momentum in the stride. This corresponds to a more vertical block (landing from above). BOTH strategies can work, but it's unlikely that both strategies will work for any one pitcher in particular. Understanding your own body and structure allows for better customization of your mechanics to that unique structure.

Two 100 mph lefties: 2 totally different strategies💡 Scott is highly back-side driven, with a deep hinge and the head staying over the back hip as he builds momentum in the stride. This corresponds to a more lateral block (landing from behind). Crochet is more front-side driven, with a shallow hinge and the head riding the front hip as he builds momentum in the stride. This corresponds to a more vertical block (landing from above). BOTH strategies can work, but it's unlikely that both strategies will work for any one pitcher in particular. Understanding your own body and structure allows for better customization of your mechanics to that unique structure.

Ben Brewster

79,904 просмотров • 1 год назад

This is an address to Ukrainian Allies and partners from the frontlines by Andrii Melnyk, a Ukrainian officer. In civilian life, he is a historian and a school principal in Kyiv. ‼️Friends, please listen and share. "There is probably no one in the world who would like to see the war end and peace come as much as the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military. But we don't dream of peace at any cost, because then these three years will be in vain. We are fighting here not only for our land. We are fighting not only for our families. We are fighting not only for our state. The most important thing for us is values. Values pushed us to fight the enemy. The values of freedom, the desire to live in our own country, the values of being human beings, not slaves. Every day and every minute of this war, we have felt the support of the world, the support of Europe, the support of the West. And we want to say that we are grateful. We know this, but we ask you not to turn your back on us now, because we will not give up our freedom for nothing. We want normal, fair and just conditions of peace. We stand for peace, but for a just peace. We are for an honest peace. And we are ready for it."

This is an address to Ukrainian Allies and partners from the frontlines by Andrii Melnyk, a Ukrainian officer. In civilian life, he is a historian and a school principal in Kyiv. ‼️Friends, please listen and share. "There is probably no one in the world who would like to see the war end and peace come as much as the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military. But we don't dream of peace at any cost, because then these three years will be in vain. We are fighting here not only for our land. We are fighting not only for our families. We are fighting not only for our state. The most important thing for us is values. Values pushed us to fight the enemy. The values of freedom, the desire to live in our own country, the values of being human beings, not slaves. Every day and every minute of this war, we have felt the support of the world, the support of Europe, the support of the West. And we want to say that we are grateful. We know this, but we ask you not to turn your back on us now, because we will not give up our freedom for nothing. We want normal, fair and just conditions of peace. We stand for peace, but for a just peace. We are for an honest peace. And we are ready for it."

Anton Gerashchenko

258,136 просмотров • 1 год назад

Peter Thiel and David Sacks were going to write a book about PayPal. Elon Musk’s chapter was titled “The Man Who Knew Nothing About Risk.” The PayPal Mafia. The sharpest venture minds of a generation. People who had built with Musk. Watched him operate up close. They thought he was out of his mind. Thiel: “When Elon was building both Tesla and SpaceX in the 2000s, people thought he was just really, really crazy.” This was not the press misunderstanding a founder. This was his own people. And they were not wrong by accident. They were wrong by design. Because the framework everyone uses to calculate risk is built on one assumption. That the laws governing what is possible are fixed. Musk did not share that assumption. Thiel figured that out later. Thiel: “If one of the two companies had succeeded, you would say, well, maybe he still got really lucky. But when two out of two companies that people thought were completely harebrained both succeed, you have to reassess.” One success is luck. Two is a different kind of intelligence entirely. Musk was simultaneously trying to privatize space and electrify transportation. Two industries with the most entrenched players on Earth. Two that had eaten billions in failed attempts. Two that governments spent decades trying to move and couldn’t. He did both. At the same time. Nearly went bankrupt doing it. And came out the other side owning both. That is not luck. That is not even genius. That is a different relationship with reality itself. The conventional risk model measures one thing. The probability of losing what you already have. Capital at risk. Downside scenarios. Protect the position. Musk was running a different equation entirely. He was calculating the cost of not trying. The risk of building a reusable rocket and failing is a rounding error. The risk of humanity remaining trapped on a single planet forever is not. The conventional investor sees a 90% chance of losing everything and calls it irrational. Musk saw a 100% chance of civilizational stagnation if no one moved and called that the real risk. The math was never wrong. The lens was just incomprehensibly larger. Thiel: “Somehow the rest of us are too risk-averse, or there’s something about risk he knows that we don’t.” That is Peter Thiel. One of the most ruthless, clear-eyed thinkers in venture capital history admitting the model broke. Not that Musk got lucky. That the rest of them were running a flawed framework and didn’t know it. That should keep you up at night. Because if the PayPal Mafia had the wrong model, the question is not whether Musk is exceptional. The question is how many other things the conventional framework is catastrophically wrong about right now. How many ideas getting buried today look obvious in ten years. How many founders are being told they don’t understand risk when they are the only ones who do. The chapter never got written. The man it was supposed to warn us about built two of the most important companies in human history instead. They are still writing the explanation. He already moved on to the next impossible thing.

Peter Thiel and David Sacks were going to write a book about PayPal. Elon Musk’s chapter was titled “The Man Who Knew Nothing About Risk.” The PayPal Mafia. The sharpest venture minds of a generation. People who had built with Musk. Watched him operate up close. They thought he was out of his mind. Thiel: “When Elon was building both Tesla and SpaceX in the 2000s, people thought he was just really, really crazy.” This was not the press misunderstanding a founder. This was his own people. And they were not wrong by accident. They were wrong by design. Because the framework everyone uses to calculate risk is built on one assumption. That the laws governing what is possible are fixed. Musk did not share that assumption. Thiel figured that out later. Thiel: “If one of the two companies had succeeded, you would say, well, maybe he still got really lucky. But when two out of two companies that people thought were completely harebrained both succeed, you have to reassess.” One success is luck. Two is a different kind of intelligence entirely. Musk was simultaneously trying to privatize space and electrify transportation. Two industries with the most entrenched players on Earth. Two that had eaten billions in failed attempts. Two that governments spent decades trying to move and couldn’t. He did both. At the same time. Nearly went bankrupt doing it. And came out the other side owning both. That is not luck. That is not even genius. That is a different relationship with reality itself. The conventional risk model measures one thing. The probability of losing what you already have. Capital at risk. Downside scenarios. Protect the position. Musk was running a different equation entirely. He was calculating the cost of not trying. The risk of building a reusable rocket and failing is a rounding error. The risk of humanity remaining trapped on a single planet forever is not. The conventional investor sees a 90% chance of losing everything and calls it irrational. Musk saw a 100% chance of civilizational stagnation if no one moved and called that the real risk. The math was never wrong. The lens was just incomprehensibly larger. Thiel: “Somehow the rest of us are too risk-averse, or there’s something about risk he knows that we don’t.” That is Peter Thiel. One of the most ruthless, clear-eyed thinkers in venture capital history admitting the model broke. Not that Musk got lucky. That the rest of them were running a flawed framework and didn’t know it. That should keep you up at night. Because if the PayPal Mafia had the wrong model, the question is not whether Musk is exceptional. The question is how many other things the conventional framework is catastrophically wrong about right now. How many ideas getting buried today look obvious in ten years. How many founders are being told they don’t understand risk when they are the only ones who do. The chapter never got written. The man it was supposed to warn us about built two of the most important companies in human history instead. They are still writing the explanation. He already moved on to the next impossible thing.

Dustin

49,454 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Today I’d like to introduce you to one of China’s most extraordinary traditional skills: double-sided three-different embroidery. On a single piece of fabric, artisans use different stitches and threads from both sides to create two entirely distinct patterns that do not interfere with each other. For example, as you can see in the video, the front shows a golden snub-nosed monkey, while the back features a Pekingese dog, with completely different colors and shapes. This is where human hands create what seems beyond even nature's reach.👍👍👍

Today I’d like to introduce you to one of China’s most extraordinary traditional skills: double-sided three-different embroidery. On a single piece of fabric, artisans use different stitches and threads from both sides to create two entirely distinct patterns that do not interfere with each other. For example, as you can see in the video, the front shows a golden snub-nosed monkey, while the back features a Pekingese dog, with completely different colors and shapes. This is where human hands create what seems beyond even nature's reach.👍👍👍

AL-fira 🇨🇳

16,404 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨NEW: dan turrentine calls on Dem Leaders to ADMIT they were "WRONG" to call Trump "fascist, Hitler" after Charlie Kirk Assassination🚨 "The party should not call Trump Hitler, should not say he's a fascist. One, it's bad politics. Two, it's just not true. It is simply not the case!" "Don't say 'We have to destroy the other side and stop it because it's Hitler' ... Crazy people hear that and think, 'I have to do my part.'" Daily Caller

🚨NEW: dan turrentine calls on Dem Leaders to ADMIT they were "WRONG" to call Trump "fascist, Hitler" after Charlie Kirk Assassination🚨 "The party should not call Trump Hitler, should not say he's a fascist. One, it's bad politics. Two, it's just not true. It is simply not the case!" "Don't say 'We have to destroy the other side and stop it because it's Hitler' ... Crazy people hear that and think, 'I have to do my part.'" Daily Caller

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

107,060 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Naval Ravikant explains why "the meaning of life" is the wrong question: "It's a 'why' question. You can keep asking 'why' forever. Any answer I give you, you just ask 'why' again." Naval explains where every "why" question ends: "There's a thing called Agrippa's Trilemma. It says that any questioning like this will always end in one of three places. First is infinite regress: 'why?' 'because of this,' 'why?' and you just keep playing it. Second is circular reasoning: 'why A?' 'because of B,' 'why B?' 'because of A.' Third is an axiom. The most popular axiom is God. But it could be anything: math, science, the Big Bang, the simulation. These are all just stopping points. Saying 'we're in a simulation' or 'it's the Big Bang' is just another way of saying God. It's just that God's a dirty word now." He shares what this means: "So there is no answer. The real answer is 'because.' You get to make up your own answers. The beauty is, if there was a single answer, we would not be free. We would be trapped. We'd be Borg-like robots competing with each other to fulfill that single meaning. But luckily there is no answer. So you just do whatever you want." Naval addresses the fear of being insignificant: "All the great questions are paradoxes. You're asking, 'Do I matter?' On one hand, you're completely separate. No one will have your thoughts, your emotions, your experience. Your life is a single-player game. You're trapped inside your head. On the other hand, I cannot say the words 'Joe Rogan' without invoking the entire universe. What's Joe Rogan? A human. What's a human? A bipedal ape. What's an ape? On earth. What's earth? A planet. Where was the carbon made? Inside stars. I have to create the entire universe just to say the words 'Joe Rogan.'" He concludes: "So the answer to 'Do I matter?' is: I am nothing and I am everything. The answers to all great questions are paradoxes. It's pointless to pursue them for a trite answer, but the act of pursuing them brings a level of peace."

Naval Ravikant explains why "the meaning of life" is the wrong question: "It's a 'why' question. You can keep asking 'why' forever. Any answer I give you, you just ask 'why' again." Naval explains where every "why" question ends: "There's a thing called Agrippa's Trilemma. It says that any questioning like this will always end in one of three places. First is infinite regress: 'why?' 'because of this,' 'why?' and you just keep playing it. Second is circular reasoning: 'why A?' 'because of B,' 'why B?' 'because of A.' Third is an axiom. The most popular axiom is God. But it could be anything: math, science, the Big Bang, the simulation. These are all just stopping points. Saying 'we're in a simulation' or 'it's the Big Bang' is just another way of saying God. It's just that God's a dirty word now." He shares what this means: "So there is no answer. The real answer is 'because.' You get to make up your own answers. The beauty is, if there was a single answer, we would not be free. We would be trapped. We'd be Borg-like robots competing with each other to fulfill that single meaning. But luckily there is no answer. So you just do whatever you want." Naval addresses the fear of being insignificant: "All the great questions are paradoxes. You're asking, 'Do I matter?' On one hand, you're completely separate. No one will have your thoughts, your emotions, your experience. Your life is a single-player game. You're trapped inside your head. On the other hand, I cannot say the words 'Joe Rogan' without invoking the entire universe. What's Joe Rogan? A human. What's a human? A bipedal ape. What's an ape? On earth. What's earth? A planet. Where was the carbon made? Inside stars. I have to create the entire universe just to say the words 'Joe Rogan.'" He concludes: "So the answer to 'Do I matter?' is: I am nothing and I am everything. The answers to all great questions are paradoxes. It's pointless to pursue them for a trite answer, but the act of pursuing them brings a level of peace."

Jaynit

155,303 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Gabor Maté on why he worries about "very nice" people and the hidden cost of people-pleasing People-pleasers didn't choose to be that way. According to physician and trauma expert Gabor Maté, they gave something up far earlier before they even had the words for it. "People pleasers are the ones who gave up not by conscious choice, but as a matter of survival, their authenticity in order to stay liked and accepted and attached." And once that pattern is set in childhood, it doesn't stay there. "They carry that on in the rest of their lives." And the consequences, Maté says, go beyond relationships they become a health risk. "I always worry for the very nice people." He draws a crucial distinction between two kinds of niceness: "There are two places to be very nice from. One is just genuine human compassion and concern for others but you're still grounded in yourself. That's great." The second kind is where it gets dangerous. "A lot of people are very nice because they are afraid not to be because they weren't liked who they were. They weren't loved for who they were. Being nice was their way of getting the love and the attention they needed." The difference isn't visible from the outside. Both people smile. Both people help. Both people say yes. But one is rooted. The other is running.

Gabor Maté on why he worries about "very nice" people and the hidden cost of people-pleasing People-pleasers didn't choose to be that way. According to physician and trauma expert Gabor Maté, they gave something up far earlier before they even had the words for it. "People pleasers are the ones who gave up not by conscious choice, but as a matter of survival, their authenticity in order to stay liked and accepted and attached." And once that pattern is set in childhood, it doesn't stay there. "They carry that on in the rest of their lives." And the consequences, Maté says, go beyond relationships they become a health risk. "I always worry for the very nice people." He draws a crucial distinction between two kinds of niceness: "There are two places to be very nice from. One is just genuine human compassion and concern for others but you're still grounded in yourself. That's great." The second kind is where it gets dangerous. "A lot of people are very nice because they are afraid not to be because they weren't liked who they were. They weren't loved for who they were. Being nice was their way of getting the love and the attention they needed." The difference isn't visible from the outside. Both people smile. Both people help. Both people say yes. But one is rooted. The other is running.

Kevin Tanaka

28,613 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The media’s pretending it’s not happening. But the polls tell a different story. One Nation is gaining serious ground and Australians are ready to take their country back. One Nation is surging because people know what’s at stake. Our country is slipping away and only real change can save it. We have the strength. We have the momentum. And we have the candidates you can trust to fight for you. This election, your vote is your voice. Your vote is the last line of defence against Labor, the Greens, and the Teals. That’s why it’s critical to put your vote where it will make the biggest difference: ✅ Put Australians first with One Nation. ✅ Put Labor, Greens. Teals last - where they belong. ✅ Bring back common sense, pride, and fairness for your family and your future. Pre-poll is open. Vote now. Vote with pride. Vote One Nation. When you put One Nation first, you’re standing with proud Australians, determined to protect our country, our values, and our future. This is our moment. Vote One Nation. Protect Australia’s future.

The media’s pretending it’s not happening. But the polls tell a different story. One Nation is gaining serious ground and Australians are ready to take their country back. One Nation is surging because people know what’s at stake. Our country is slipping away and only real change can save it. We have the strength. We have the momentum. And we have the candidates you can trust to fight for you. This election, your vote is your voice. Your vote is the last line of defence against Labor, the Greens, and the Teals. That’s why it’s critical to put your vote where it will make the biggest difference: ✅ Put Australians first with One Nation. ✅ Put Labor, Greens. Teals last - where they belong. ✅ Bring back common sense, pride, and fairness for your family and your future. Pre-poll is open. Vote now. Vote with pride. Vote One Nation. When you put One Nation first, you’re standing with proud Australians, determined to protect our country, our values, and our future. This is our moment. Vote One Nation. Protect Australia’s future.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

101,450 просмотров • 1 год назад

Eight decades ago, China and the US fought side by side for peace and justice, and our two peoples forged a friendship amid the trials of blood and fire. Today, whether China and the US can together fulfill our responsibility for world peace and development bears on the well-being of both our peoples and the future of humanity. Ultimately, this depends on what our young friends believe and do. It is my hope that you will continue to take an active part in the “50,000 in five years” initiative, reach out to and make friends with your peers in China, and encourage our two countries to respect one another with empathy, manage differences in awe, and expand cooperation with a sense of mission, so as to enhance the foundation and build more bridges for a stable, sound and sustainable China-US relationship.

Eight decades ago, China and the US fought side by side for peace and justice, and our two peoples forged a friendship amid the trials of blood and fire. Today, whether China and the US can together fulfill our responsibility for world peace and development bears on the well-being of both our peoples and the future of humanity. Ultimately, this depends on what our young friends believe and do. It is my hope that you will continue to take an active part in the “50,000 in five years” initiative, reach out to and make friends with your peers in China, and encourage our two countries to respect one another with empathy, manage differences in awe, and expand cooperation with a sense of mission, so as to enhance the foundation and build more bridges for a stable, sound and sustainable China-US relationship.

Xie Feng 谢锋

64,674 просмотров • 1 год назад