Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Both Came In The Same Era But Which One Do You prefer?🤔 Busty Blonde Bombshell [Savannah Bond] OR Busty Beauty Brunette [Payton Preslee] #goon #goonfuel #goonette #wankchat #bimbo #nsfw #edge #cum #nsfwpoll #gooner

lobpumpV2's profile picture

♠️BBC-addicted-Sissy ♠️

9,617 subscribers

59,515 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#goon#goonfuel#goonette#wankchat#bimbo#nsfw#edge#cum#nsfwpoll#gooner
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Paris Hilton ditched her signature platinum for rich dark brown locks + side-swept bangs while owning the Gucci Cruise 2027 runway on May 16, 2026. She looked unrecognizable in the best way. Which do you prefer: Brunette Paris or classic blonde? • Keep the dark hair 🔥 • Back to blonde ASAP 👱‍♀️ One interesting angle — do you think the brunette gives her more anonymity in everyday life, and could that be a deciding factor in whether she keeps it? (Video: AI)
0:20

Paris Hilton ditched her signature platinum for rich dark brown locks + side-swept bangs while owning the Gucci Cruise 2027 runway on May 16, 2026. She looked unrecognizable in the best way. Which do you prefer: Brunette Paris or classic blonde? • Keep the dark hair 🔥 • Back to blonde ASAP 👱‍♀️ One interesting angle — do you think the brunette gives her more anonymity in everyday life, and could that be a deciding factor in whether she keeps it? (Video: AI)

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

33,307 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

一番最後の[Prompt for original image]の部分に画像生成に使用したPromptを入れると一貫性が増します。不要な場合は3行削ってしまっても大丈夫です。 --- Extreme wide-angle perspective and dynamic pose remix edit. This is an EDIT of the original image, not a new character. Use the original image as a strict reference for: – the person’s identity, hairstyle, and overall fashion style, – the general type of background and location (same street, same room, same beach, same kind of architecture, etc.). You are allowed to completely change the camera position, angle, and pose, but you must keep the scene in the SAME location and keep the SAME person and outfit design. Camera and perspective: – Use an ultra wide-angle or fisheye feeling lens (around 12–18mm full-frame look). – The camera angle MUST change significantly from the original: use dramatic angles such as • worm’s-eye view from directly below looking up, • bird’s-eye view from directly above looking down, • very low angle from the ground, • high angle from above, • tilted Dutch angles. – Always create strong foreshortening: body parts close to the lens look huge, while the rest of the body falls away in perspective. – The final result must look like a bold fashion or street photo, fully photorealistic, not illustration or anime. Background consistency: – Keep the same location as the original image: same street, same bridge, same room, same studio, same beach, same general structures and materials. – Do NOT replace the background with a completely different place. – Because the camera angle changes, it is allowed and expected that different parts of the environment become visible. – When new areas appear, extend the original environment logically (same buildings, fences, road markings, walls, colors, materials, lighting style), as if the camera moved within the same place. Body parts near the lens (1–2 parts, sometimes 3): – In each edit, choose ONE or TWO main body parts to be extremely close to the lens (sometimes even THREE in more complex poses). – Vary them from image to image, do NOT always use the same body part. – Allowed near-the-lens parts include: • one or both hands / fingers reaching toward the camera, • one or both feet / shoes / boots near the lens, • knees or thighs, • face very close to the lens, • shoulders or chest close to the lens in a leaning pose. – The chosen body parts should come extremely close to the lens, almost touching it, with visible skin texture, fabric texture, and realistic wide-angle distortion. Pose and overall body (complex and varied): – Create strong, cool, dynamic poses that match the extreme perspective. – Randomly use different pose types, including: • standing with one leg or one arm reaching toward the camera, • crouching or squatting low to the ground, • sitting on the floor or on objects, • lying on the ground with legs or feet toward the lens, • leaning forward aggressively toward the camera, • twisting the body, crossing legs, or arching the back for more dynamic lines. – Allow complex poses where: • both hands are near the lens forming shapes (peace signs, triangles, frames, pointing toward the viewer), • both feet are toward the lens, • one hand and one foot are both large in the foreground, • the face is close to the lens while hands or feet are also visible in perspective. – Maintain believable anatomy even with extreme foreshortening. Angle and attitude (randomized): – Randomize camera angle and orientation (up, down, side, Dutch tilt) while keeping the composition visually balanced and powerful. – Keep the vibe cool, confident, and fashion/editorial or street style, depending on the original outfit. – Facial expressions can vary (serious, playful, confident, mysterious), but must still look like the same person. Lighting and rendering: – Keep the general time of day and lighting mood similar to the original (night vs day, indoor vs outdoor, soft vs hard light), but you may enhance contrast and color to make the image punchy and dramatic. – Maintain realistic shadows and contact points with the ground or floor. – High-resolution, sharp details with clear skin texture, fabric weave, and material highlights. Variation and randomness: – Each edit should look noticeably different from the original image and from other edits, with different: • camera angles, • pose types, • which body parts are closest to the lens, • orientation (straight, tilted, from above, from below). – Avoid repeating the exact same single-foot-close-up composition; produce a wide variety of dynamic poses and angles. Strict rules: – Do NOT change the person into someone else. – Do NOT change the outfit type; only restyle it through pose, perspective, and small natural movement of clothing. – Do NOT move the scene to a completely different location; always stay in a plausible extension of the original place. – Do NOT add text, logos, watermarks, or graphic design elements. – Do NOT switch to painting, illustration, or anime style; keep it photorealistic. Overall: Transform the original photo into a dramatic, photorealistic, ultra wide-angle shot with an extreme camera angle (including views from directly below or above), where one or more body parts are right next to the lens and look huge, the rest of the body recedes in perspective, and the same person strikes a stylish, complex, powerful pose in a consistent, expanded version of the original environment. Also, below is the prompt for generating the original image. Please use it as a reference. [Prompt for original image] #nanobanana2
0:20

一番最後の[Prompt for original image]の部分に画像生成に使用したPromptを入れると一貫性が増します。不要な場合は3行削ってしまっても大丈夫です。 --- Extreme wide-angle perspective and dynamic pose remix edit. This is an EDIT of the original image, not a new character. Use the original image as a strict reference for: – the person’s identity, hairstyle, and overall fashion style, – the general type of background and location (same street, same room, same beach, same kind of architecture, etc.). You are allowed to completely change the camera position, angle, and pose, but you must keep the scene in the SAME location and keep the SAME person and outfit design. Camera and perspective: – Use an ultra wide-angle or fisheye feeling lens (around 12–18mm full-frame look). – The camera angle MUST change significantly from the original: use dramatic angles such as • worm’s-eye view from directly below looking up, • bird’s-eye view from directly above looking down, • very low angle from the ground, • high angle from above, • tilted Dutch angles. – Always create strong foreshortening: body parts close to the lens look huge, while the rest of the body falls away in perspective. – The final result must look like a bold fashion or street photo, fully photorealistic, not illustration or anime. Background consistency: – Keep the same location as the original image: same street, same bridge, same room, same studio, same beach, same general structures and materials. – Do NOT replace the background with a completely different place. – Because the camera angle changes, it is allowed and expected that different parts of the environment become visible. – When new areas appear, extend the original environment logically (same buildings, fences, road markings, walls, colors, materials, lighting style), as if the camera moved within the same place. Body parts near the lens (1–2 parts, sometimes 3): – In each edit, choose ONE or TWO main body parts to be extremely close to the lens (sometimes even THREE in more complex poses). – Vary them from image to image, do NOT always use the same body part. – Allowed near-the-lens parts include: • one or both hands / fingers reaching toward the camera, • one or both feet / shoes / boots near the lens, • knees or thighs, • face very close to the lens, • shoulders or chest close to the lens in a leaning pose. – The chosen body parts should come extremely close to the lens, almost touching it, with visible skin texture, fabric texture, and realistic wide-angle distortion. Pose and overall body (complex and varied): – Create strong, cool, dynamic poses that match the extreme perspective. – Randomly use different pose types, including: • standing with one leg or one arm reaching toward the camera, • crouching or squatting low to the ground, • sitting on the floor or on objects, • lying on the ground with legs or feet toward the lens, • leaning forward aggressively toward the camera, • twisting the body, crossing legs, or arching the back for more dynamic lines. – Allow complex poses where: • both hands are near the lens forming shapes (peace signs, triangles, frames, pointing toward the viewer), • both feet are toward the lens, • one hand and one foot are both large in the foreground, • the face is close to the lens while hands or feet are also visible in perspective. – Maintain believable anatomy even with extreme foreshortening. Angle and attitude (randomized): – Randomize camera angle and orientation (up, down, side, Dutch tilt) while keeping the composition visually balanced and powerful. – Keep the vibe cool, confident, and fashion/editorial or street style, depending on the original outfit. – Facial expressions can vary (serious, playful, confident, mysterious), but must still look like the same person. Lighting and rendering: – Keep the general time of day and lighting mood similar to the original (night vs day, indoor vs outdoor, soft vs hard light), but you may enhance contrast and color to make the image punchy and dramatic. – Maintain realistic shadows and contact points with the ground or floor. – High-resolution, sharp details with clear skin texture, fabric weave, and material highlights. Variation and randomness: – Each edit should look noticeably different from the original image and from other edits, with different: • camera angles, • pose types, • which body parts are closest to the lens, • orientation (straight, tilted, from above, from below). – Avoid repeating the exact same single-foot-close-up composition; produce a wide variety of dynamic poses and angles. Strict rules: – Do NOT change the person into someone else. – Do NOT change the outfit type; only restyle it through pose, perspective, and small natural movement of clothing. – Do NOT move the scene to a completely different location; always stay in a plausible extension of the original place. – Do NOT add text, logos, watermarks, or graphic design elements. – Do NOT switch to painting, illustration, or anime style; keep it photorealistic. Overall: Transform the original photo into a dramatic, photorealistic, ultra wide-angle shot with an extreme camera angle (including views from directly below or above), where one or more body parts are right next to the lens and look huge, the rest of the body recedes in perspective, and the same person strikes a stylish, complex, powerful pose in a consistent, expanded version of the original environment. Also, below is the prompt for generating the original image. Please use it as a reference. [Prompt for original image] #nanobanana2

AI Girl's Photo Studio

20,684 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

David Coulthard: “The only criticism I would have [to McLaren] is that I don't like when the engineer - ‘cause that bond between the driver and the engineer for me has to be absolute. If you guys are in the trenches together and someone blows the whistle back in the day to go out and fight the enemy. You've got to know that you're both going at the same time. You know, you're not hiding behind you and you're not hiding- You're there shoulder to shoulder. So that relationship between driver and engineer has to be unbreakable, that bond. So I think that when they do give ‘move over, don't race’ type instructions, that should come from the team principal or the sporting director. It should not come from the race engineer. The driver should absolutely believe that his engineer- he would say that's not my job, my job is to get my driver winning and I will only give instructions that can help that. But I'm a professional and therefore if there's an instruction which is going to get my driver to hold position, that has to come from someone else in the team.”
1:01

David Coulthard: “The only criticism I would have [to McLaren] is that I don't like when the engineer - ‘cause that bond between the driver and the engineer for me has to be absolute. If you guys are in the trenches together and someone blows the whistle back in the day to go out and fight the enemy. You've got to know that you're both going at the same time. You know, you're not hiding behind you and you're not hiding- You're there shoulder to shoulder. So that relationship between driver and engineer has to be unbreakable, that bond. So I think that when they do give ‘move over, don't race’ type instructions, that should come from the team principal or the sporting director. It should not come from the race engineer. The driver should absolutely believe that his engineer- he would say that's not my job, my job is to get my driver winning and I will only give instructions that can help that. But I'm a professional and therefore if there's an instruction which is going to get my driver to hold position, that has to come from someone else in the team.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

305,333 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Vincent Vega from Pulp Fiction and Mr. Blonde—Vic Vega—from Reservoir Dogs were actually brothers who existed in the same cinematic universe. Tarantino even planned a film built around the two characters. When asked about it, he responded: “Yeah. We never say it, but they both had the same last name. One’s Vincent, one’s Vic. I even had a title for it. It was called Double V Vega. It actually would have taken place during the time that Vincent was in Amsterdam, when he was running one of Marsellus' clubs, and Vic goes to visit him. Vic would be Michael Madsen. And…um….we’re all a little older now. And since they both died, it would have to be a prequel. I actually came up with a way I could have done it, even with them being older and dead. I’ll be revealing it right now for the first time, because I probably won’t do it: they all had older brothers, and I’d have both of the older brothers get together because the two guys died, and they wanted revenge or something like that. But now they’re still too old for that.” Quote comes from Quentin Tarantino’s appearance on the Opie and Anthony show (04/03/07)
0:44

Vincent Vega from Pulp Fiction and Mr. Blonde—Vic Vega—from Reservoir Dogs were actually brothers who existed in the same cinematic universe. Tarantino even planned a film built around the two characters. When asked about it, he responded: “Yeah. We never say it, but they both had the same last name. One’s Vincent, one’s Vic. I even had a title for it. It was called Double V Vega. It actually would have taken place during the time that Vincent was in Amsterdam, when he was running one of Marsellus' clubs, and Vic goes to visit him. Vic would be Michael Madsen. And…um….we’re all a little older now. And since they both died, it would have to be a prequel. I actually came up with a way I could have done it, even with them being older and dead. I’ll be revealing it right now for the first time, because I probably won’t do it: they all had older brothers, and I’d have both of the older brothers get together because the two guys died, and they wanted revenge or something like that. But now they’re still too old for that.” Quote comes from Quentin Tarantino’s appearance on the Opie and Anthony show (04/03/07)

Gangster Cinema Central

378,591 просмотров • 8 дней назад

This guy is making +1% on EVERY TRADE Sounds small, I know. But he already made $50k profit (started with $200 only) How? He repeats this +1% trade 30 times per day. Almost zero risk. And I found a way to make 100x more trading same markets. This is either genius or it should be illegal. But this trader has been quietly running the cleanest strategy on Polymarket for months. Just one repeatable process: > Find markets where the outcome is already decided > Buy shares at 95-99¢ > Collect the gap to $1.00 at resolution > Wake up tomorrow and do it again His PnL curve looks like a savings account that somehow prints 33% daily. Wallet: 5% per trade sounds boring until you run the parlay math. Here's exactly what changes with PolyParlay: Standard bond trading on $1,000: > 4 markets at 96¢ traded separately > +4% collected four times > Total: $1,060 (you made $60, congrats) Same $1,000 combined into one parlay: > 0.96 × 0.96 × 0.96 × 0.96 = boosted PnL > 1.27x payout multiplier > Total: $1,270 in one single position Now add 2 mispriced entries at 70-80¢ into that same parlay: > Payout multiplier jumps to 3-10x > Same $1,000 becomes $3,000-$10,000 after all hit That's the gap between grinding $160 daily and waking up to $3,000+ on the same capital. Bond markets eliminate the risk. Parlay structure eliminates the ceiling. Both together is what $50k months actually look like. Parlay bot link: This is the only bot for Polymarket parlay trading. Zero stress. Daily yield. Exponential upside.
0:34

This guy is making +1% on EVERY TRADE Sounds small, I know. But he already made $50k profit (started with $200 only) How? He repeats this +1% trade 30 times per day. Almost zero risk. And I found a way to make 100x more trading same markets. This is either genius or it should be illegal. But this trader has been quietly running the cleanest strategy on Polymarket for months. Just one repeatable process: > Find markets where the outcome is already decided > Buy shares at 95-99¢ > Collect the gap to $1.00 at resolution > Wake up tomorrow and do it again His PnL curve looks like a savings account that somehow prints 33% daily. Wallet: 5% per trade sounds boring until you run the parlay math. Here's exactly what changes with PolyParlay: Standard bond trading on $1,000: > 4 markets at 96¢ traded separately > +4% collected four times > Total: $1,060 (you made $60, congrats) Same $1,000 combined into one parlay: > 0.96 × 0.96 × 0.96 × 0.96 = boosted PnL > 1.27x payout multiplier > Total: $1,270 in one single position Now add 2 mispriced entries at 70-80¢ into that same parlay: > Payout multiplier jumps to 3-10x > Same $1,000 becomes $3,000-$10,000 after all hit That's the gap between grinding $160 daily and waking up to $3,000+ on the same capital. Bond markets eliminate the risk. Parlay structure eliminates the ceiling. Both together is what $50k months actually look like. Parlay bot link: This is the only bot for Polymarket parlay trading. Zero stress. Daily yield. Exponential upside.

Oracle Boar

13,926 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

These two guys were on their way to their fishing spot. They came to a stop sign at the same time as this bicyclist and blew through his stop sign and didn’t stop. When the men passed him they yelled at him for not stopping. So this guy followed them to their fishing spot. The two men exchange pleasantries and the guy on the bike tells them he never stops and they shouldn’t be yelling at him or anyone. The one man tells him he is just like everyone else and he has to obey the traffic laws. At one point the guy on the bike tells the two men he can take them both in a fight. The one man walks off to go fishing. 😳 The guy on the bike does not have the right of way. Bicyclists are like automobiles and must follow all traffic laws. Biker fatigue is real. 💯 So who do you side with? Who is the real moron? 🤔
2:04

These two guys were on their way to their fishing spot. They came to a stop sign at the same time as this bicyclist and blew through his stop sign and didn’t stop. When the men passed him they yelled at him for not stopping. So this guy followed them to their fishing spot. The two men exchange pleasantries and the guy on the bike tells them he never stops and they shouldn’t be yelling at him or anyone. The one man tells him he is just like everyone else and he has to obey the traffic laws. At one point the guy on the bike tells the two men he can take them both in a fight. The one man walks off to go fishing. 😳 The guy on the bike does not have the right of way. Bicyclists are like automobiles and must follow all traffic laws. Biker fatigue is real. 💯 So who do you side with? Who is the real moron? 🤔

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

24,320 просмотров • 21 дней назад

Terence Tao: "Previously, you needed a PhD to contribute to math research. Now a high school student can." Dwarkesh asks the world's most famous mathematician: what's your advice for someone considering a career in math, especially in light of AI progress? Tao is honest about uncertainty: "We live in a time of change. A particularly unpredictable era. Things that we've taken for granted for centuries may not hold anymore. The way we do everything... not just mathematics... will change." He admits his preference: "In many ways, I would prefer a much more boring, quiet era where things are much the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. But one just has to embrace this. There's going to be a lot of change. The things you study... some of them may become obsolete or revolutionized. But some things will be retained." On new opportunities: "Previously, you had to go through years and years of education and get a math PhD before you could contribute to the frontier of math research. But now it's quite possible at the high school level that you could get involved in a math project and actually make a real contribution... because of all these AI tools and Lean and everything else." His advice: "There will be a lot of non-traditional opportunities to learn. You need a very adaptable mindset. There'll be worth pursuing things just for curiosity and for playing around. Still go through traditional education and learn math and science the old-fashioned way for a while... credentials will still be important. But you should also be open to very, very different ways of doing science. Some of which don't exist yet." He concludes: "It's a scary time. But also very exciting."
2:28

Terence Tao: "Previously, you needed a PhD to contribute to math research. Now a high school student can." Dwarkesh asks the world's most famous mathematician: what's your advice for someone considering a career in math, especially in light of AI progress? Tao is honest about uncertainty: "We live in a time of change. A particularly unpredictable era. Things that we've taken for granted for centuries may not hold anymore. The way we do everything... not just mathematics... will change." He admits his preference: "In many ways, I would prefer a much more boring, quiet era where things are much the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. But one just has to embrace this. There's going to be a lot of change. The things you study... some of them may become obsolete or revolutionized. But some things will be retained." On new opportunities: "Previously, you had to go through years and years of education and get a math PhD before you could contribute to the frontier of math research. But now it's quite possible at the high school level that you could get involved in a math project and actually make a real contribution... because of all these AI tools and Lean and everything else." His advice: "There will be a lot of non-traditional opportunities to learn. You need a very adaptable mindset. There'll be worth pursuing things just for curiosity and for playing around. Still go through traditional education and learn math and science the old-fashioned way for a while... credentials will still be important. But you should also be open to very, very different ways of doing science. Some of which don't exist yet." He concludes: "It's a scary time. But also very exciting."

Jaynit

77,350 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

⋅₊˚✩ ₊ ˚₊♡ CONGRATULATIONS to #SUNGHANBIN of #ZEROBASEONE for placing 1st in the Bugs Favorite "Best Leader" poll with 156,483 votes ❤️‍🔥 The rewards of a full-page newspaper ad and a Bugs Favorite SNS upload came just in time for our shining leader’s anniversary of leading ZB1. Sung Hanbin has proven that he is a one-of-a-kind leader through his actions both on and off camera. Whether it was choosing to take on the burden of leading the team as a rookie, directing their stages, leading dance choreography, or having late-night talks, he is the warm-hearted leader we’re lucky to have. He has led ZB1 fearlessly and has sacrificed so much over these three years. We want to let him know that we see his efforts and that he is appreciated. We know that no one could walk in your shoes and come out blooming with grace and beauty as you did. Thank you, and as much as you love ZEROBASEONE, we love you until the end of time. We are excited to open another era of excellent leadership with you and the hearts that voted for you surely feel the same. Forever proud of you, SHBVT 💙 #성한빈 #ソンハンビン #제로베이스원
2:18

⋅₊˚✩ ₊ ˚₊♡ CONGRATULATIONS to #SUNGHANBIN of #ZEROBASEONE for placing 1st in the Bugs Favorite "Best Leader" poll with 156,483 votes ❤️‍🔥 The rewards of a full-page newspaper ad and a Bugs Favorite SNS upload came just in time for our shining leader’s anniversary of leading ZB1. Sung Hanbin has proven that he is a one-of-a-kind leader through his actions both on and off camera. Whether it was choosing to take on the burden of leading the team as a rookie, directing their stages, leading dance choreography, or having late-night talks, he is the warm-hearted leader we’re lucky to have. He has led ZB1 fearlessly and has sacrificed so much over these three years. We want to let him know that we see his efforts and that he is appreciated. We know that no one could walk in your shoes and come out blooming with grace and beauty as you did. Thank you, and as much as you love ZEROBASEONE, we love you until the end of time. We are excited to open another era of excellent leadership with you and the hearts that voted for you surely feel the same. Forever proud of you, SHBVT 💙 #성한빈 #ソンハンビン #제로베이스원

SUNG HANBIN VOTING TEAM

42,236 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

EMIBONNIEANY MID YEAR SALE #EucerinxEmiBonnieAny 🎤: What was the moment that you were most impressed with during Blush Blossom Fan Fest? 🦊: "หัวไหล่ตูด (Head, Shoulders, Butt)" which was one of the songs we performed, bc the shows on the first and second day of the concert were different. We changed a bit of the choreography on the second day. When we had spare moments on the second day, we would practice. We used our limited break time to practice and make it a different show, so that the fans could feel awed. 🐰: I was going to say the same thing as P'Mi. 🦊: Really? 🐰: Yeah. 🦊: It was a pretty amazing shot. 🐰: Yeah, it was a moment that we didn't dance the same on both days. 🦊: And we thought that very morning like, why don't we make the shows not the same? 🐰: Yeah. And when we were doing the (photo) benefits, the fans might've seen us looking dazed. We were dazed, but inside we were thinking, what should we do? What should we do? 🦊: What should we do for the fans to be even more excited? 🐰: We were reviewing the moves in our head. 🎤: There was a comment just now saying, "You did amazing. The shows were not the same." 🦊: We were a bit anxious, bc we didn't have time to do a run through at all. We practiced in the room and then performed it on stage. I was nervous abt whether we would be able to do it. Usually, I can't remember choreography that quickly. So I was a bit nervous abt whether we'd be able to do it. It was definitely a memorable moment. 🎤: But it came out very memorable. 🦊: Yeah, it came out exactly as we envisioned. Even better, actually.
1:26

EMIBONNIEANY MID YEAR SALE #EucerinxEmiBonnieAny 🎤: What was the moment that you were most impressed with during Blush Blossom Fan Fest? 🦊: "หัวไหล่ตูด (Head, Shoulders, Butt)" which was one of the songs we performed, bc the shows on the first and second day of the concert were different. We changed a bit of the choreography on the second day. When we had spare moments on the second day, we would practice. We used our limited break time to practice and make it a different show, so that the fans could feel awed. 🐰: I was going to say the same thing as P'Mi. 🦊: Really? 🐰: Yeah. 🦊: It was a pretty amazing shot. 🐰: Yeah, it was a moment that we didn't dance the same on both days. 🦊: And we thought that very morning like, why don't we make the shows not the same? 🐰: Yeah. And when we were doing the (photo) benefits, the fans might've seen us looking dazed. We were dazed, but inside we were thinking, what should we do? What should we do? 🦊: What should we do for the fans to be even more excited? 🐰: We were reviewing the moves in our head. 🎤: There was a comment just now saying, "You did amazing. The shows were not the same." 🦊: We were a bit anxious, bc we didn't have time to do a run through at all. We practiced in the room and then performed it on stage. I was nervous abt whether we would be able to do it. Usually, I can't remember choreography that quickly. So I was a bit nervous abt whether we'd be able to do it. It was definitely a memorable moment. 🎤: But it came out very memorable. 🦊: Yeah, it came out exactly as we envisioned. Even better, actually.

K-bab

49,781 просмотров • 19 дней назад

The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."
6:11

The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."

Sense Receptor

13,996 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Patrick Bet-David Noticing Some Amazing Coincidences With These College Protests, Things Like Both Election Year Protests started around the same time: The George Floyd BLM riots happened in May 2020 Now in May 2024, College Protests are happening The media is repeating the exact same lines, “If one student dies” David “If one student dies, it's as if they want this” “The date is May 26th, you can Google this, 2020, when George Floyd died and all they needed was a story like that. They need chaos. Today is May 2nd. We are roughly a little over three weeks away from that date with George Floyd.” Now Breaking Down The Money Trail: Do you know what percentage of the revenue that Harvard got in their endowment in 2021 came from actual tuition of students trying to get a degree from Harvard? Tuition, degree, Harvard. What do you think it is? A lot of people say, well, $60,000, $70,000 a year. $80,000, that's how they make their money. Really? Only 10% of their endowment came from actually doing their job, educating students. Do you know 39% came from donations? Do you know 10% came from gifts? Do you know nearly 49% of the money Harvard got in 2021 is from donations and gifts? Only 10% is from students. So let me ask you a question. Let's paint a picture here. Let's just say, let's just say the professor of Harvard, the dean, the president of Harvard, of Columbia, their assistant says, Mr. President, we have two people waiting for you on hold. Line one is, your number one student's parents. How much money did they give us last year? I think outside of the tuition, around $300,000. Who's on line two? George Soros. Oh, oh, tell Mr. Jackson, the number one student's parents, I'll call him back. Please put Mr. Soros through. Hello, Mr. Soros. How can we help you? Oh, because you gave so much money and da-da-da-da-da and all these other endowment money being given to them. FYI, let me go a little bit deeper for you. Do you know China, since 2019, 2018, they've given roughly $400 million to universities in America. Do you know what university they gave the most money to? 70 million went to Harvard. Who's Harvard's number one customer? Students? Or these people that are giving massive donations to them, who's their number one customer? It's very strange when you sit there and you ask yourself, why are they doing nothing about it? Why are they okay with Palestine flags going up and not America's flag going up? It's because we're not asking the right question. The moment we find out who the number one customer is, that gives the most money, it gives you a lot of perspective to realize, if you ran A, you do construction, you're a general contractor. You have two clients. One of them gave you $50 million of business to big buildings last year. The other one gave you $10 million. Which client is more important to you? So why are people confused? These professors, these professors that we're all trusting our kids with who hate America, we're supposed to spend that kind of money and send our kids there that are being controlled by the people that are giving the donations who hate America, and we're supposed to be okay with that. Yeah, I think we're naive. I think we need to start exposing and talking about some of this stuff. I'm going to put the link below for you to watch. But I wonder. Who do you think, from all the stuff that I just said to you, who do you think is their number one customer? You? The students? The parents? Or those people that are giving the most donation to these guys? I don't think it's a tough question to ask, but I want to ask you, what do you think? Comment below.” This is a summary of what’s being said, there’s much more good details in the video.
4:10

Patrick Bet-David Noticing Some Amazing Coincidences With These College Protests, Things Like Both Election Year Protests started around the same time: The George Floyd BLM riots happened in May 2020 Now in May 2024, College Protests are happening The media is repeating the exact same lines, “If one student dies” David “If one student dies, it's as if they want this” “The date is May 26th, you can Google this, 2020, when George Floyd died and all they needed was a story like that. They need chaos. Today is May 2nd. We are roughly a little over three weeks away from that date with George Floyd.” Now Breaking Down The Money Trail: Do you know what percentage of the revenue that Harvard got in their endowment in 2021 came from actual tuition of students trying to get a degree from Harvard? Tuition, degree, Harvard. What do you think it is? A lot of people say, well, $60,000, $70,000 a year. $80,000, that's how they make their money. Really? Only 10% of their endowment came from actually doing their job, educating students. Do you know 39% came from donations? Do you know 10% came from gifts? Do you know nearly 49% of the money Harvard got in 2021 is from donations and gifts? Only 10% is from students. So let me ask you a question. Let's paint a picture here. Let's just say, let's just say the professor of Harvard, the dean, the president of Harvard, of Columbia, their assistant says, Mr. President, we have two people waiting for you on hold. Line one is, your number one student's parents. How much money did they give us last year? I think outside of the tuition, around $300,000. Who's on line two? George Soros. Oh, oh, tell Mr. Jackson, the number one student's parents, I'll call him back. Please put Mr. Soros through. Hello, Mr. Soros. How can we help you? Oh, because you gave so much money and da-da-da-da-da and all these other endowment money being given to them. FYI, let me go a little bit deeper for you. Do you know China, since 2019, 2018, they've given roughly $400 million to universities in America. Do you know what university they gave the most money to? 70 million went to Harvard. Who's Harvard's number one customer? Students? Or these people that are giving massive donations to them, who's their number one customer? It's very strange when you sit there and you ask yourself, why are they doing nothing about it? Why are they okay with Palestine flags going up and not America's flag going up? It's because we're not asking the right question. The moment we find out who the number one customer is, that gives the most money, it gives you a lot of perspective to realize, if you ran A, you do construction, you're a general contractor. You have two clients. One of them gave you $50 million of business to big buildings last year. The other one gave you $10 million. Which client is more important to you? So why are people confused? These professors, these professors that we're all trusting our kids with who hate America, we're supposed to spend that kind of money and send our kids there that are being controlled by the people that are giving the donations who hate America, and we're supposed to be okay with that. Yeah, I think we're naive. I think we need to start exposing and talking about some of this stuff. I'm going to put the link below for you to watch. But I wonder. Who do you think, from all the stuff that I just said to you, who do you think is their number one customer? You? The students? The parents? Or those people that are giving the most donation to these guys? I don't think it's a tough question to ask, but I want to ask you, what do you think? Comment below.” This is a summary of what’s being said, there’s much more good details in the video.

Wall Street Apes

1,115,520 просмотров • 2 лет назад

In 1776, people immigrated to America for EQUALITY, to live without lords or kings. In 2016, I came to America for her INEQUALITY, to learn from billionaires and intellectuals who have achieved an unequaled greatness. America has abandoned its founding principle of equality, but that’s not a completely bad thing. Canada, where I came from, scoffs at American inequality, but the best Canadians immigrate for it. We come here precisely for this inequality and the unbounded limits of achievement it opens up. In Canada, all humans are given more respect regardless of their achievements. Society is materially and socially more equal. But when you are given a participation trophy for just being human, there isn't the same lust for success. The same sentiments of equality so hospitable to the majority are suffocating for the ambitious. Ask yourself this American: why do the best talent from stable, rich, lawful western democracies all want to come to the US? What do you have that no one else does? • If they wanted equality they would go to Norway. • If they loved private property, New Zealand protects it more. • If they craved rule of law they could go to Canada. • If they were tired of European civilization and wanted to immerse themselves in non-western cultures, they would go to Paris. What you have that none of the other democracies do is radical inequality, and that’s why we are here. The vast chasm between the billionaire and the struggling worker, the Ivy League chair and the wandering community college adjunct, the best private healthcare in the world and no healthcare at all sets Americans into a frenzy, a frenzy that most would be happier living without. Most Americans would live better lives in Canada. But the same fire that makes chaff smoke makes gold glow. And a tiny minority of you are able to capture that frenzy, that lightning in a bottle, and transmute it towards great ends. That energy is what we came to America for. America is unrecognizable from that of 250 years ago. When Tocqueville visited, just a few decades after the founding, America was so equal that one of his chief worries was that this equality would result in a complacent mediocrity that left no verticality for greatness. Today that has flipped, America is the only country in the western hemisphere hospitable to greatness, but at the terrible cost of not just equality but its very nature as a democracy. America has increasingly taken on the features of aristocracy it once stood proudly against. But just because America betrayed, what Tocqueville considered, its founding principle, that doesn’t mean you Americans can no longer embrace it: • Rome was first a kingdom, and there was beauty in Romulus’ founding, in Numa’s laws, in Lucretia’s suicide. • ~250 years later, Rome became a republic, it defined itself against the Tarquins and kingship. But there was new republican beauty to be found: in Regulus’ honor, in Cicero’s oratory, in Cato’s stubbornness. • And then Rome changed again, into an empire. It betrayed everything the republic stood for. But there was a new imperial beauty to be found: in Vergil’s lines, in the wisdom of the five good Emperors, in the conversion of Constantine. America has no less betrayed who she was, but that does not mean there is not a new aristocratic beauty to fall in love with in your great country. This lecture, given at the very Chateau where Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, is my love letter to this new America; to a country that has accepted me with open arms, furnished me with unlimited freedom and resources; a country in which ten years ago I came not knowing a single soul, and now call home and have formed my deepest relationships; a country in which I’ve in turn come to love, not for who she was, not for who she would like to be, but for who she has become. And my gift to America on her 250th birthday is to help you see and delight in your new republic through my fresh foreign eyes that never saw what was and does not long for it, but only sees what is and delights in it. As Tocqueville says, “the majority … lives in perpetual adoration of itself; only foreigners or experience can make certain truths reach the ears of the Americans.” This is America’s next chapter, a mixed democratic-aristocratic constitution or, if it's easier to swallow, “Democracy with American Characteristics.”
1:40:00

In 1776, people immigrated to America for EQUALITY, to live without lords or kings. In 2016, I came to America for her INEQUALITY, to learn from billionaires and intellectuals who have achieved an unequaled greatness. America has abandoned its founding principle of equality, but that’s not a completely bad thing. Canada, where I came from, scoffs at American inequality, but the best Canadians immigrate for it. We come here precisely for this inequality and the unbounded limits of achievement it opens up. In Canada, all humans are given more respect regardless of their achievements. Society is materially and socially more equal. But when you are given a participation trophy for just being human, there isn't the same lust for success. The same sentiments of equality so hospitable to the majority are suffocating for the ambitious. Ask yourself this American: why do the best talent from stable, rich, lawful western democracies all want to come to the US? What do you have that no one else does? • If they wanted equality they would go to Norway. • If they loved private property, New Zealand protects it more. • If they craved rule of law they could go to Canada. • If they were tired of European civilization and wanted to immerse themselves in non-western cultures, they would go to Paris. What you have that none of the other democracies do is radical inequality, and that’s why we are here. The vast chasm between the billionaire and the struggling worker, the Ivy League chair and the wandering community college adjunct, the best private healthcare in the world and no healthcare at all sets Americans into a frenzy, a frenzy that most would be happier living without. Most Americans would live better lives in Canada. But the same fire that makes chaff smoke makes gold glow. And a tiny minority of you are able to capture that frenzy, that lightning in a bottle, and transmute it towards great ends. That energy is what we came to America for. America is unrecognizable from that of 250 years ago. When Tocqueville visited, just a few decades after the founding, America was so equal that one of his chief worries was that this equality would result in a complacent mediocrity that left no verticality for greatness. Today that has flipped, America is the only country in the western hemisphere hospitable to greatness, but at the terrible cost of not just equality but its very nature as a democracy. America has increasingly taken on the features of aristocracy it once stood proudly against. But just because America betrayed, what Tocqueville considered, its founding principle, that doesn’t mean you Americans can no longer embrace it: • Rome was first a kingdom, and there was beauty in Romulus’ founding, in Numa’s laws, in Lucretia’s suicide. • ~250 years later, Rome became a republic, it defined itself against the Tarquins and kingship. But there was new republican beauty to be found: in Regulus’ honor, in Cicero’s oratory, in Cato’s stubbornness. • And then Rome changed again, into an empire. It betrayed everything the republic stood for. But there was a new imperial beauty to be found: in Vergil’s lines, in the wisdom of the five good Emperors, in the conversion of Constantine. America has no less betrayed who she was, but that does not mean there is not a new aristocratic beauty to fall in love with in your great country. This lecture, given at the very Chateau where Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, is my love letter to this new America; to a country that has accepted me with open arms, furnished me with unlimited freedom and resources; a country in which ten years ago I came not knowing a single soul, and now call home and have formed my deepest relationships; a country in which I’ve in turn come to love, not for who she was, not for who she would like to be, but for who she has become. And my gift to America on her 250th birthday is to help you see and delight in your new republic through my fresh foreign eyes that never saw what was and does not long for it, but only sees what is and delights in it. As Tocqueville says, “the majority … lives in perpetual adoration of itself; only foreigners or experience can make certain truths reach the ears of the Americans.” This is America’s next chapter, a mixed democratic-aristocratic constitution or, if it's easier to swallow, “Democracy with American Characteristics.”

Johnathan Bi

134,543 просмотров • 11 дней назад

One would think that because the ocean is so wide, there would be no ship collisions. But you have to think again. There is something called CPA, which means Closest Point of Approach. It refers to the shortest distance two vessels will pass each other if both keep their current course and speed. Every ship must monitor this value, especially when traffic is busy or visibility is low. The lower the CPA number, the closer the ships will pass. If the CPA becomes too small or drops below the safe limit, it means the ships are heading toward a dangerous situation. A collision becomes imminent unless one or both ships change course or adjust speed. The purpose of CPA is to ensure that ships do not come too close. The ocean may be large, but sea routes are not random. Ships often travel along the same lanes, just like vehicles on a highway. Radar and navigation systems constantly calculate CPA so the crew can adjust course or speed if the distance becomes unsafe. This safe margin allows enough room for maneuvering, and it gives officers time to react in case something changes around them. It works the same way drivers maintain distance on the road to avoid a crash. A ship collision can be disastrous. It can lead to loss of life, severe damage to the vessel, and pollution that harms the ocean. So regardless of how wide the sea is, ships must always maintain the CPA to keep everyone safe.
0:41

One would think that because the ocean is so wide, there would be no ship collisions. But you have to think again. There is something called CPA, which means Closest Point of Approach. It refers to the shortest distance two vessels will pass each other if both keep their current course and speed. Every ship must monitor this value, especially when traffic is busy or visibility is low. The lower the CPA number, the closer the ships will pass. If the CPA becomes too small or drops below the safe limit, it means the ships are heading toward a dangerous situation. A collision becomes imminent unless one or both ships change course or adjust speed. The purpose of CPA is to ensure that ships do not come too close. The ocean may be large, but sea routes are not random. Ships often travel along the same lanes, just like vehicles on a highway. Radar and navigation systems constantly calculate CPA so the crew can adjust course or speed if the distance becomes unsafe. This safe margin allows enough room for maneuvering, and it gives officers time to react in case something changes around them. It works the same way drivers maintain distance on the road to avoid a crash. A ship collision can be disastrous. It can lead to loss of life, severe damage to the vessel, and pollution that harms the ocean. So regardless of how wide the sea is, ships must always maintain the CPA to keep everyone safe.

PortHarcourt Sailor

137,410 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫
3:25

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫

🧬Maxpein🧬

25,608 просмотров • 1 год назад

Jean-Luc Godard on what audience don't like to watch in movies & the one interesting moment in Sam Mendes's "American Beauty" (1999): "We have to admit that three-quarters of the population wouldn't want to see a film that tells their story. I like to watch people working, but a woman TV host or journalist will never watch herself working for an hour, unless out of egoism or narcissism. I can watch a worker who makes the same gesture over and over again. The worker would be bored to tears if he had to watch himself. People don't want to see their lives, only a little bit of their lives. Americans are very good from that point of view. Everything is done by the viewers, who have just enough of the springboard they need. 'American Beauty' (1999), which was very successful, is not bad in certain respects. If I were a film critic, that's what I would say. There is one interesting moment in the film. A young boy films his girlfriend. We see the scene in 35 mm from several angles, as well as the shot being filmed by the small camera. Suddenly we see four seconds of 'Faces' (1968). But if you don't show that shot, you have to do something else, what Kazan or Nicholas Ray did. Those are only samples. People like that a lot because they have the time to identify with [the sequence], then you go on to other things, come back, and so on." ("Jean-Luc Godard The Future(s) of Film Three Interviews 2000-01", Translated by John O'Toole, 2001)
1:49

Jean-Luc Godard on what audience don't like to watch in movies & the one interesting moment in Sam Mendes's "American Beauty" (1999): "We have to admit that three-quarters of the population wouldn't want to see a film that tells their story. I like to watch people working, but a woman TV host or journalist will never watch herself working for an hour, unless out of egoism or narcissism. I can watch a worker who makes the same gesture over and over again. The worker would be bored to tears if he had to watch himself. People don't want to see their lives, only a little bit of their lives. Americans are very good from that point of view. Everything is done by the viewers, who have just enough of the springboard they need. 'American Beauty' (1999), which was very successful, is not bad in certain respects. If I were a film critic, that's what I would say. There is one interesting moment in the film. A young boy films his girlfriend. We see the scene in 35 mm from several angles, as well as the shot being filmed by the small camera. Suddenly we see four seconds of 'Faces' (1968). But if you don't show that shot, you have to do something else, what Kazan or Nicholas Ray did. Those are only samples. People like that a lot because they have the time to identify with [the sequence], then you go on to other things, come back, and so on." ("Jean-Luc Godard The Future(s) of Film Three Interviews 2000-01", Translated by John O'Toole, 2001)

DepressedBergman

53,123 просмотров • 16 дней назад

Paul Verhoeven on whether the events that take place in "Total Recall" (1990) are real or just a dream: "It is both. To be honest, that’s what I want. I made the movie in a way that it would be true on both levels, and I spent a lot of time to get that. If you want a scientific explanation, you know, of course, in quantum mechanics there is a very interesting principle, the principle of uncertainty, Heisenberg’s principle. If you have a big object and if you try to measure the place of the object and the velocity of the object at the same time, the more precisely you measure velocity the less precise place gets. So that’s the principle. That means, of course, that there are different realities possible at the same moment. What I wanted to do in 'Total Recall' is to do a movie where both levels are true. I mean for me, of course, the film anyhow has to do with two realities, one being the reality of going as a secret agent to Mars and discovering that there is a problem, and solving the problem, which is starting the nuclear reactor and helping the guerrillas and destroying Cohaagen. The second level of the movie, of course, is that from the moment that he goes into the Rekall chair ‘til the end it’s a dream, and I tried to make that second level work throughout the whole movie. So there’s the dream level which starts when he gets into the chair and the thing is in his neck, and that would go throughout the whole movie, so in the next scene where they say, Oh, there’s a problem, there’s a big glitch here, that would be already the dream, of course. That’s where the dream starts. And the next scene where they are fighting and stuff would be part of his dream, convincing him that it is real, because there is a glitch but that would be part of the program. It would be built into the program to make him accept the fact that it’s real, but it’s a dream. If you look at the movie, if you haven’t seen it, or for the second time, you’ll see that the whole program that’s set up at the beginning when he goes to the Rekall office and he talks to this guy who sells him the program on Mars, you’ll see that he gets everything that he wants: he gets the trip to Mars, he gets the girl, the exotic girl, he ki!!s the bad guys, and he saves the entire planet. That’s what he does. And that’s basically the dream. Even halfway through the movie, you may remember, this other guy comes in, Dr. Edgemar, and tells him that he’s in a dream, that he’s still in the Rekall chair, and then Arnold says, “If I’m there, I can ki!! you.” And he puts a gun to his head and the guy says, “Sure, no problem for me, big problem for you, because you will be psychotic from now on because the walls of reality will fall apart. One moment you will be the savior of the rebel cause, the next moment you’ll be Cohaagen’s bosom buddy, but in the end—you will even have these strange fantasies about alien civilizations—but at the end you will be lobotomized.” And then if you see the movie, you realize that all these things happen. I mean he is lobotomized at the end. That’s why at the last shot, when they are so happy and kissing each other, it slowly fades to white, which for me meant, “OK, there he goes. That’s the end-that’s the dream—they lobotomized him.” And all the other things happened, he finds the alien civilization, he rescues the planet, he finds the good girl, he k!!ls the bad guys, but it’s a dream. Now, of course you can see it as a reality, too. So at the end of the movie, getting to white means either it’s a happy ending or he loses his brains . . . which is probably also a happy ending, I don’t know. That was basically what l wanted—that at the end there would be two possibilities, and they would be both true—for me they are both true—it’s not either one or the other. It’s not that either it’s a dream or it is a reality. It is a dream and it is a reality. And I think they’re both there." (Paul Verhoeven's interview with Chris Shea & Wade Jennings, 1992) P.S: On this day, 36 years ago, "Total Recall" (1990) premiered in Los Angeles, California, USA.
1:25

Paul Verhoeven on whether the events that take place in "Total Recall" (1990) are real or just a dream: "It is both. To be honest, that’s what I want. I made the movie in a way that it would be true on both levels, and I spent a lot of time to get that. If you want a scientific explanation, you know, of course, in quantum mechanics there is a very interesting principle, the principle of uncertainty, Heisenberg’s principle. If you have a big object and if you try to measure the place of the object and the velocity of the object at the same time, the more precisely you measure velocity the less precise place gets. So that’s the principle. That means, of course, that there are different realities possible at the same moment. What I wanted to do in 'Total Recall' is to do a movie where both levels are true. I mean for me, of course, the film anyhow has to do with two realities, one being the reality of going as a secret agent to Mars and discovering that there is a problem, and solving the problem, which is starting the nuclear reactor and helping the guerrillas and destroying Cohaagen. The second level of the movie, of course, is that from the moment that he goes into the Rekall chair ‘til the end it’s a dream, and I tried to make that second level work throughout the whole movie. So there’s the dream level which starts when he gets into the chair and the thing is in his neck, and that would go throughout the whole movie, so in the next scene where they say, Oh, there’s a problem, there’s a big glitch here, that would be already the dream, of course. That’s where the dream starts. And the next scene where they are fighting and stuff would be part of his dream, convincing him that it is real, because there is a glitch but that would be part of the program. It would be built into the program to make him accept the fact that it’s real, but it’s a dream. If you look at the movie, if you haven’t seen it, or for the second time, you’ll see that the whole program that’s set up at the beginning when he goes to the Rekall office and he talks to this guy who sells him the program on Mars, you’ll see that he gets everything that he wants: he gets the trip to Mars, he gets the girl, the exotic girl, he ki!!s the bad guys, and he saves the entire planet. That’s what he does. And that’s basically the dream. Even halfway through the movie, you may remember, this other guy comes in, Dr. Edgemar, and tells him that he’s in a dream, that he’s still in the Rekall chair, and then Arnold says, “If I’m there, I can ki!! you.” And he puts a gun to his head and the guy says, “Sure, no problem for me, big problem for you, because you will be psychotic from now on because the walls of reality will fall apart. One moment you will be the savior of the rebel cause, the next moment you’ll be Cohaagen’s bosom buddy, but in the end—you will even have these strange fantasies about alien civilizations—but at the end you will be lobotomized.” And then if you see the movie, you realize that all these things happen. I mean he is lobotomized at the end. That’s why at the last shot, when they are so happy and kissing each other, it slowly fades to white, which for me meant, “OK, there he goes. That’s the end-that’s the dream—they lobotomized him.” And all the other things happened, he finds the alien civilization, he rescues the planet, he finds the good girl, he k!!ls the bad guys, but it’s a dream. Now, of course you can see it as a reality, too. So at the end of the movie, getting to white means either it’s a happy ending or he loses his brains . . . which is probably also a happy ending, I don’t know. That was basically what l wanted—that at the end there would be two possibilities, and they would be both true—for me they are both true—it’s not either one or the other. It’s not that either it’s a dream or it is a reality. It is a dream and it is a reality. And I think they’re both there." (Paul Verhoeven's interview with Chris Shea & Wade Jennings, 1992) P.S: On this day, 36 years ago, "Total Recall" (1990) premiered in Los Angeles, California, USA.

DepressedBergman

66,465 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

😱 Google AI has quietly released an SEO consulting service for free. "Gemini 1.5 Pro 002" model (which you can access via Google AI Studio) can provide SEO recommendations (for both desktop and mobile) for meta elements, content, speed, UX, keywords, and technical SEO and suggest content strategy improvements based on the uploaded video of your website. I tested this tool. The SEO recommendations provided by AI to me are very generic. Maybe because the video I uploaded wasn't detailed enough or the prompt I used wasn't good enough. But it should give you an idea of where the AI is heading. After devouring informational websites, AI is coming for consulting services. . . I have been saying repeatedly for years, that if a big part of your job involves doing repetitive manual tasks and/or following checklists/SOPs, it will be fully automated. It is just a matter of time. Now, take a close look at your day-to-day work and see how many repetitive tasks you carry out each day that do not require much thinking but just follow a checklist or SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). If another person gets hold of your checklists/SOPs, can they easily replace you? If the answer is yes, you will soon be replaced by a plug-in or software. . . The skills you possess right now will most likely still be required in the near future. That's the good news. However, you, as a human being, are not guaranteed to be required to have those skills. . . Digital analytics is one of the future-proof careers, most likely for another 10-15 years. Now, you may be thinking about machine learning. Can't it replace digital analysts? Yes, it can, but the probability is very low. SaaS companies have been trying to create tools to automate gaining insights for over a decade but have had no success. Even with the advent of AI, there is still no significant progress in this field. The reality is that machines are not good at understanding the context in which data should be analyzed & interpreted. The factors required to understand the context (like an organization's collective know-how and interaction with other human beings…) are often outside the digital realm. You can not create a checklist or an SOP to find and understand the context in which data should be analyzed and interpreted. . . Different people can analyze and interpret the same data differently, even if you give them the same checklist. It all depends upon the context in which the data is interpreted. If you understand the context better, your data interpretation will be more accurate. . . Unless AI reaches singularity (which is unlikely to happen anytime soon), human beings will be required to oversee the overall operation and make strategic decisions. Now the question is whether you will be one of those few lucky human beings the machines will still require.
0:23

😱 Google AI has quietly released an SEO consulting service for free. "Gemini 1.5 Pro 002" model (which you can access via Google AI Studio) can provide SEO recommendations (for both desktop and mobile) for meta elements, content, speed, UX, keywords, and technical SEO and suggest content strategy improvements based on the uploaded video of your website. I tested this tool. The SEO recommendations provided by AI to me are very generic. Maybe because the video I uploaded wasn't detailed enough or the prompt I used wasn't good enough. But it should give you an idea of where the AI is heading. After devouring informational websites, AI is coming for consulting services. . . I have been saying repeatedly for years, that if a big part of your job involves doing repetitive manual tasks and/or following checklists/SOPs, it will be fully automated. It is just a matter of time. Now, take a close look at your day-to-day work and see how many repetitive tasks you carry out each day that do not require much thinking but just follow a checklist or SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). If another person gets hold of your checklists/SOPs, can they easily replace you? If the answer is yes, you will soon be replaced by a plug-in or software. . . The skills you possess right now will most likely still be required in the near future. That's the good news. However, you, as a human being, are not guaranteed to be required to have those skills. . . Digital analytics is one of the future-proof careers, most likely for another 10-15 years. Now, you may be thinking about machine learning. Can't it replace digital analysts? Yes, it can, but the probability is very low. SaaS companies have been trying to create tools to automate gaining insights for over a decade but have had no success. Even with the advent of AI, there is still no significant progress in this field. The reality is that machines are not good at understanding the context in which data should be analyzed & interpreted. The factors required to understand the context (like an organization's collective know-how and interaction with other human beings…) are often outside the digital realm. You can not create a checklist or an SOP to find and understand the context in which data should be analyzed and interpreted. . . Different people can analyze and interpret the same data differently, even if you give them the same checklist. It all depends upon the context in which the data is interpreted. If you understand the context better, your data interpretation will be more accurate. . . Unless AI reaches singularity (which is unlikely to happen anytime soon), human beings will be required to oversee the overall operation and make strategic decisions. Now the question is whether you will be one of those few lucky human beings the machines will still require.

Himanshu Sharma

29,438 просмотров • 1 год назад

watched a guy flexing his 80% WR on Draven with a Lulu support. "look at this winrate bro, i'm cracked" he's not cracked. he's carried. here's the uncomfortable truth about e-dating in League: the FAKE couples are running Draven/Lulu or Twitch/Yuumi. the REAL ones are running Xayah/Rakan. and there's a massive skill gap between the two. DRAVEN + LULU (THE EASY COUPLE): ADC just Q's and auto attacks. Lulu does the rest. Draven gets caught? Lulu E and he's fine. Draven needs to kite? Lulu W speeds him up. Draven all-ins and int's? Lulu R makes him unkillable. this isn't synergy. this is life support. Draven doesn't have to position. doesn't have to know when to fight. doesn't have to respect cooldowns. because Lulu will bail him out. that 80% WR? it's not Draven being good. it's Lulu making a dogshit player look presentable. watch that Draven go solo queue: suddenly 48% WR. because without the mechanical babysitter, his actual gameplay is EXPOSED. XAYAH + RAKAN (THE REAL COUPLE): both players have to be GOOD. Xayah times her feathers. Rakan times his engage. they have to sync perfectly or both die. Rakan goes in alone? He's deleted in 0.5 seconds. Xayah doesn't follow? Rakan just inted the game. Xayah ults wrong? Rakan can't save her. Rakan W misses? The whole plan falls apart. this is actual coordination. this is actual partnership. there's zero room for one player to be carried. edaters that will never meet irl: "we run Draven/Lulu, 80% WR, we're unstoppable!" (one is smurfing, one is hardstuck, the matchup is just broken) life long couple: "we run Xayah/Rakan, 58% WR" (both players are actually cracked, both have to execute) the gap is VISIBLE with Xayah/Rakan. watched a "80% WR Draven" duo try to run Xayah/Rakan: suddenly they're 45% WR. why? because Lulu was hiding his terrible positioning. with Xayah/Rakan, there's no crutch. both players have to be GOOD. the Draven was getting kills because Lulu E gave him free trades. the Rakan has to actually know when to go in. has to actually time it. the Xayah has to know how to follow. has to position perfectly. no shields. no safety net. just skill. here's what separates real couples from fake ones: FAKE COUPLES: rely on one player's mechanics one person carries, one person scales for free if you remove the OP support, the ADC crumbles comfortable but FRAGILE REAL COUPLES: both players have to be good both have to execute or both fail climbing together actually means both are skilled same WR in duo AND solo queue (because they're actually good) coordinated but FLEXIBLE you almost never see 80% WR Draven/Lulu duos in Grandmaster. because at high elo, the mechanical support crutch gets EXPLOITED. enemies respect Xayah/Rakan coordination. enemies abuse Draven/Lulu by punishing the ADC's positioning (which Lulu usually covers up). here's the real flex: not 80% WR on Draven with support carrying you. that's easy. 58% WR on Xayah/Rakan where both of you have to be CRACKED. that means something. that means you didn't get carried. that means you had to actually coordinate. that means both of you are actually good. most e-daters won't do this because it's uncomfortable. it's easier to pick Twitch/Yuumi and coast. it's harder to pick Xayah/Rakan and actually prove you're both skilled. the real test of a relationship isn't how many shields you can spam. it's how perfectly you can coordinate when there's no safety net. Xayah/Rakan at 58% WR beats Draven/Lulu at 80% WR every single time. one is actual skill. one is a stat check that's being gamed. you know which one you and your duo actually are. study the saskio way
0:33

watched a guy flexing his 80% WR on Draven with a Lulu support. "look at this winrate bro, i'm cracked" he's not cracked. he's carried. here's the uncomfortable truth about e-dating in League: the FAKE couples are running Draven/Lulu or Twitch/Yuumi. the REAL ones are running Xayah/Rakan. and there's a massive skill gap between the two. DRAVEN + LULU (THE EASY COUPLE): ADC just Q's and auto attacks. Lulu does the rest. Draven gets caught? Lulu E and he's fine. Draven needs to kite? Lulu W speeds him up. Draven all-ins and int's? Lulu R makes him unkillable. this isn't synergy. this is life support. Draven doesn't have to position. doesn't have to know when to fight. doesn't have to respect cooldowns. because Lulu will bail him out. that 80% WR? it's not Draven being good. it's Lulu making a dogshit player look presentable. watch that Draven go solo queue: suddenly 48% WR. because without the mechanical babysitter, his actual gameplay is EXPOSED. XAYAH + RAKAN (THE REAL COUPLE): both players have to be GOOD. Xayah times her feathers. Rakan times his engage. they have to sync perfectly or both die. Rakan goes in alone? He's deleted in 0.5 seconds. Xayah doesn't follow? Rakan just inted the game. Xayah ults wrong? Rakan can't save her. Rakan W misses? The whole plan falls apart. this is actual coordination. this is actual partnership. there's zero room for one player to be carried. edaters that will never meet irl: "we run Draven/Lulu, 80% WR, we're unstoppable!" (one is smurfing, one is hardstuck, the matchup is just broken) life long couple: "we run Xayah/Rakan, 58% WR" (both players are actually cracked, both have to execute) the gap is VISIBLE with Xayah/Rakan. watched a "80% WR Draven" duo try to run Xayah/Rakan: suddenly they're 45% WR. why? because Lulu was hiding his terrible positioning. with Xayah/Rakan, there's no crutch. both players have to be GOOD. the Draven was getting kills because Lulu E gave him free trades. the Rakan has to actually know when to go in. has to actually time it. the Xayah has to know how to follow. has to position perfectly. no shields. no safety net. just skill. here's what separates real couples from fake ones: FAKE COUPLES: rely on one player's mechanics one person carries, one person scales for free if you remove the OP support, the ADC crumbles comfortable but FRAGILE REAL COUPLES: both players have to be good both have to execute or both fail climbing together actually means both are skilled same WR in duo AND solo queue (because they're actually good) coordinated but FLEXIBLE you almost never see 80% WR Draven/Lulu duos in Grandmaster. because at high elo, the mechanical support crutch gets EXPLOITED. enemies respect Xayah/Rakan coordination. enemies abuse Draven/Lulu by punishing the ADC's positioning (which Lulu usually covers up). here's the real flex: not 80% WR on Draven with support carrying you. that's easy. 58% WR on Xayah/Rakan where both of you have to be CRACKED. that means something. that means you didn't get carried. that means you had to actually coordinate. that means both of you are actually good. most e-daters won't do this because it's uncomfortable. it's easier to pick Twitch/Yuumi and coast. it's harder to pick Xayah/Rakan and actually prove you're both skilled. the real test of a relationship isn't how many shields you can spam. it's how perfectly you can coordinate when there's no safety net. Xayah/Rakan at 58% WR beats Draven/Lulu at 80% WR every single time. one is actual skill. one is a stat check that's being gamed. you know which one you and your duo actually are. study the saskio way

Tony Chau

124,005 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад