Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Chamath: Google is a compounding machine and can win the entire AI stack Chamath Palihapitiya reacts to $GOOG dropping ~7% after raising its capex forecast to ~$200B for 2026: “Do you know what Google's 25-year average return on invested capital has been since going public? 32%. When you are...

theallinpod's profile picture

The All-In Podcast

585,140 subscribers

108,550 views • 9 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyFinanceNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Chamath Palihapitiya Chamath Palihapitiya is more bullish on Google's $GOOGL CapEx spending: "Do you know what Google's 25 year average ROIC has been since going public? 32%. When you are a machine that compounds money at 32% over a 20 year average, you give these guys benefit of a doubt. These are not guys flying fast and loose, they are methodically investing in their edge. They are going to get massively rewarded...the best thing that can happen to them is 500 different models proliferate and they support all of them. They will make so much money at the silicon layer and as the cloud provider." Via The All-In Podcast
2:18

Chamath Palihapitiya Chamath Palihapitiya is more bullish on Google's $GOOGL CapEx spending: "Do you know what Google's 25 year average ROIC has been since going public? 32%. When you are a machine that compounds money at 32% over a 20 year average, you give these guys benefit of a doubt. These are not guys flying fast and loose, they are methodically investing in their edge. They are going to get massively rewarded...the best thing that can happen to them is 500 different models proliferate and they support all of them. They will make so much money at the silicon layer and as the cloud provider." Via The All-In Podcast

P Equity Research 📰

203,371 views • 10 days ago

The banking machine is one big giant machine made to make you poorer and make them richer - it’s made to break you. They all work together - it’s one big club. “Do people need to be buying these things that they can afford? Obviously they think so, these things are advertised to people as a very important and deeply attractive. Who’s advertising things that people don’t need?? Well the people were lending the money to”
1:38

The banking machine is one big giant machine made to make you poorer and make them richer - it’s made to break you. They all work together - it’s one big club. “Do people need to be buying these things that they can afford? Obviously they think so, these things are advertised to people as a very important and deeply attractive. Who’s advertising things that people don’t need?? Well the people were lending the money to”

Mickamious

24,818 views • 1 year ago

Kalonzo Musyoka: I would go back to NHIF and stop the stealing because this money is going to people’s pockets, and we do not know how much money is enough for some of these people. I hear that a lot of them are beginning to see that the inevitable will happen, so they are beginning to make ways of exiting even before they are caught up #CitizenSundayLive
0:31

Kalonzo Musyoka: I would go back to NHIF and stop the stealing because this money is going to people’s pockets, and we do not know how much money is enough for some of these people. I hear that a lot of them are beginning to see that the inevitable will happen, so they are beginning to make ways of exiting even before they are caught up #CitizenSundayLive

Citizen TV Kenya

14,882 views • 4 months ago

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."
1:04

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

The All-In Podcast

7,919,032 views • 1 year ago

Lutnick: We have billions to universities for them to do research and they invent things and who owns those patents? Universities. So we are going to make a deal with them all, which is if we give them the money, don't you think it is fair that the US get a piece of that?
0:58

Lutnick: We have billions to universities for them to do research and they invent things and who owns those patents? Universities. So we are going to make a deal with them all, which is if we give them the money, don't you think it is fair that the US get a piece of that?

Acyn

441,694 views • 11 months ago

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”
0:30

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”

Headquarters

1,599,476 views • 1 year ago

Lutnick: We have billions to universities for them to do research and they invent things and who owns those patents? Universities. So we are going to make a deal with them all, which is if we give them the money, don't you think it is fair that the US get a piece of that?
0:58

Lutnick: We have billions to universities for them to do research and they invent things and who owns those patents? Universities. So we are going to make a deal with them all, which is if we give them the money, don't you think it is fair that the US get a piece of that?

unusual_whales

416,482 views • 11 months ago

CHAMATH: ELON IS BUILDING THE MOST POWERFUL AI STACK ON EARTH “They are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about. I think that Tesla has the best vision models now; with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models, and they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo. And then that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life; whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi.” Source: The All-In Podcast, Chamath Palihapitiya, @jason
1:04

CHAMATH: ELON IS BUILDING THE MOST POWERFUL AI STACK ON EARTH “They are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about. I think that Tesla has the best vision models now; with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models, and they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo. And then that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life; whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi.” Source: The All-In Podcast, Chamath Palihapitiya, @jason

Mario Nawfal

57,594 views • 1 year ago

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan: "How crazy is it that Biden deported 1.49 million while letting in 20?" "Like, what do you think they were doing!?" "I know there was also efforts to move people to specific states so that you can get a larger number for the census so you get more congressional seats." "This is a dark thing that people don't want to admit because they're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat." "I had a conversation with my parents about it and they're like, 'No!' I'm like, 'Yes! It's about congressional seats. It's like, the census counts illegals!'" "And not only that, they're trying to make it so that those people can vote!" "And if you can make it so that those people can vote, then all of the sudden you ship these people to a place, you give them EBT cards, you get them on food stamps, you give them Medicaid money — they have money." "And now, who are you going to vote for? You're going to vote for the people who got you money!" Daily Caller
1:14

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan: "How crazy is it that Biden deported 1.49 million while letting in 20?" "Like, what do you think they were doing!?" "I know there was also efforts to move people to specific states so that you can get a larger number for the census so you get more congressional seats." "This is a dark thing that people don't want to admit because they're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat." "I had a conversation with my parents about it and they're like, 'No!' I'm like, 'Yes! It's about congressional seats. It's like, the census counts illegals!'" "And not only that, they're trying to make it so that those people can vote!" "And if you can make it so that those people can vote, then all of the sudden you ship these people to a place, you give them EBT cards, you get them on food stamps, you give them Medicaid money — they have money." "And now, who are you going to vote for? You're going to vote for the people who got you money!" Daily Caller

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

259,092 views • 11 months ago

John Kim on the most misunderstood part of raising a fund: "Very few limited partners are actually compensated on the returns that the general partner makes. When an investing professional talks to LPs, they are so passionate about how much money they're going to make for them and the returns. But the secret is very few LPs are compensated on IRR. You have to wait for 10 years to see if something's good or bad. The general partner could be tricking up the IRR, and there are lots of great tools to do that these days. So it's really an awkward alignment of interest. Therefore, there are a lot of people who just simply don't make money if you make money. So there's gotta be some other motivation. When you're trying to raise money, look for that motivation, because they're in that spot for some reason."
1:30

John Kim on the most misunderstood part of raising a fund: "Very few limited partners are actually compensated on the returns that the general partner makes. When an investing professional talks to LPs, they are so passionate about how much money they're going to make for them and the returns. But the secret is very few LPs are compensated on IRR. You have to wait for 10 years to see if something's good or bad. The general partner could be tricking up the IRR, and there are lots of great tools to do that these days. So it's really an awkward alignment of interest. Therefore, there are a lot of people who just simply don't make money if you make money. So there's gotta be some other motivation. When you're trying to raise money, look for that motivation, because they're in that spot for some reason."

Patrick OShaughnessy

168,659 views • 20 days ago

Chamath: AI Will Kill Brands, Only Abundance Wins The brands that bring abundance will win big. Chamath Palihapitiya: “ If I had to bet, I'm going to bet that brands go to zero.” @jason: “Really?” Chamath: “When you can make things that are as good or better, and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand. The perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW. This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product. Yes, it's got a great brand, but nobody's going to pay a premium for these products. The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison. Maybe the right word is abundance. The brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they're able to bring more at the same unit cost or less, capture share. That's probably true.”
0:48

Chamath: AI Will Kill Brands, Only Abundance Wins The brands that bring abundance will win big. Chamath Palihapitiya: “ If I had to bet, I'm going to bet that brands go to zero.” @jason: “Really?” Chamath: “When you can make things that are as good or better, and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand. The perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW. This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product. Yes, it's got a great brand, but nobody's going to pay a premium for these products. The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison. Maybe the right word is abundance. The brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they're able to bring more at the same unit cost or less, capture share. That's probably true.”

The All-In Podcast

99,549 views • 4 months ago

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"
1:26

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"

Jaynit

160,132 views • 19 days ago

Hot 4 minute take from Scott Galloway on winners and losers given Meta’s push into AI and creative. Increasingly feeling like the role of auditor has never been more important. “Large media agencies are already irrelevant, but the real losers are going to be niche ad agencies. They are not needed if you have a small budget. In terms of creative, Nike and P&G will be the equivalent of rich people. Rich people will not pick Vanguard because they like to think that as rich people, they deserve special artisanal money management. So they will pay hedgefunds and JP Morgan to underperform the market and pay more and feel like they are special. Nike is not going to use Meta’s AI to make their ads. Their attitude is we have the best people in the world at Wieden & Kennedy and we’re different and will get better work. But you’re a small company, you didn’t have access to incredible creative or media planning and it was expensive to do an ad campaign. Now I can go to direct to consumer and come up with creative that typically only Braun or Gillette would be able to deploy.”
4:27

Hot 4 minute take from Scott Galloway on winners and losers given Meta’s push into AI and creative. Increasingly feeling like the role of auditor has never been more important. “Large media agencies are already irrelevant, but the real losers are going to be niche ad agencies. They are not needed if you have a small budget. In terms of creative, Nike and P&G will be the equivalent of rich people. Rich people will not pick Vanguard because they like to think that as rich people, they deserve special artisanal money management. So they will pay hedgefunds and JP Morgan to underperform the market and pay more and feel like they are special. Nike is not going to use Meta’s AI to make their ads. Their attitude is we have the best people in the world at Wieden & Kennedy and we’re different and will get better work. But you’re a small company, you didn’t have access to incredible creative or media planning and it was expensive to do an ad campaign. Now I can go to direct to consumer and come up with creative that typically only Braun or Gillette would be able to deploy.”

Olivia Kory

18,726 views • 1 year ago

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.
2:50

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.

Lazy Canadian Investor

66,816 views • 2 years ago

Listen carefully to what Madhavilatha is saying. Sai Samsthan and all those filing cases have a motto that is not to win the case or get justice. They want to create ruckus, file as many cases as possible from different states, make people roam around the courts, exhaust their time and money, and suck them dry, so much so that Hindus raising questions will have to apologise and take back their questions. This is nothing less than sadism. She gives an example of a phone call she received from Karnataka. A poor man posted a paragraph from Sai Satcharitra and they filed an FIR against him. When he approached them and apologised (as he doesn’t have money to travel multiple times), they said they wanted to make him an example. They told him to issue a public apology in a press meet and online. Sai Samsthan is leaving people from other states easily but is coming after Telugu Hindus who are raising questions with all its might. You can guess the reason why: Telugu states are a huge source of income for them. If Telugus stop visiting, there will be a huge dent to their massive revenue.
2:58

Listen carefully to what Madhavilatha is saying. Sai Samsthan and all those filing cases have a motto that is not to win the case or get justice. They want to create ruckus, file as many cases as possible from different states, make people roam around the courts, exhaust their time and money, and suck them dry, so much so that Hindus raising questions will have to apologise and take back their questions. This is nothing less than sadism. She gives an example of a phone call she received from Karnataka. A poor man posted a paragraph from Sai Satcharitra and they filed an FIR against him. When he approached them and apologised (as he doesn’t have money to travel multiple times), they said they wanted to make him an example. They told him to issue a public apology in a press meet and online. Sai Samsthan is leaving people from other states easily but is coming after Telugu Hindus who are raising questions with all its might. You can guess the reason why: Telugu states are a huge source of income for them. If Telugus stop visiting, there will be a huge dent to their massive revenue.

Tathvam-asi

39,680 views • 3 months ago

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."
2:00

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 views • 1 year ago

🚨 NEW: Trump’s war on windmills continues 😂 “There are windmills all over Europe. There are windmills all over the place. And they are losers. The more windmills a country has the more money that country loses and the worse than country is doing. China makes almost all the windmills and yet I haven’t been able to find any windfarms in China. China is smart. They make them, they sell them for a fortune, and they sell them to the stupid people that buy them. They don’t use them themselves. They have a couple, but they just use them to show people. They don’t even spin. China is shocked people continue to buy these damn things. They kill the birds, they ruin your landscape, but other than that I think they’re fabulous.” 💀
1:24

🚨 NEW: Trump’s war on windmills continues 😂 “There are windmills all over Europe. There are windmills all over the place. And they are losers. The more windmills a country has the more money that country loses and the worse than country is doing. China makes almost all the windmills and yet I haven’t been able to find any windfarms in China. China is smart. They make them, they sell them for a fortune, and they sell them to the stupid people that buy them. They don’t use them themselves. They have a couple, but they just use them to show people. They don’t even spin. China is shocked people continue to buy these damn things. They kill the birds, they ruin your landscape, but other than that I think they’re fabulous.” 💀

Autism Capital 🧩

34,094 views • 6 months ago

Remote Work is Killing Career Growth for Young Professionals Chamath Palihapitiya explains: There are two types of mentoring 1) "Capital M Mentoring" "Capital M is where some person is assigned to you. They're going to imbue some magical phrase, or saying, or thing, and all of a sudden everything is going to work out for you." "That form of Capital M Mentoring doesn't exist and has never worked for those that have tried it." 2) "small m mentoring" "The thing that's really productive is small m mentoring. And that happens when you model behaviors of really smart people, and really capable people, really ethical people." "And again, that happens because you're seeing them on a day to day basis, not just in a meeting, but in the gaps between meetings. They'll include you in certain things, or you'll have lunch with them." Chamath Palihapitiya sums it up: "All of these people that are looking for an accelerant in their career, they've robbed themselves of the most powerful accelerant possible, which is capable people to surround themselves with." "They are going to look back on these decisions, and they're going to regret them."
0:57

Remote Work is Killing Career Growth for Young Professionals Chamath Palihapitiya explains: There are two types of mentoring 1) "Capital M Mentoring" "Capital M is where some person is assigned to you. They're going to imbue some magical phrase, or saying, or thing, and all of a sudden everything is going to work out for you." "That form of Capital M Mentoring doesn't exist and has never worked for those that have tried it." 2) "small m mentoring" "The thing that's really productive is small m mentoring. And that happens when you model behaviors of really smart people, and really capable people, really ethical people." "And again, that happens because you're seeing them on a day to day basis, not just in a meeting, but in the gaps between meetings. They'll include you in certain things, or you'll have lunch with them." Chamath Palihapitiya sums it up: "All of these people that are looking for an accelerant in their career, they've robbed themselves of the most powerful accelerant possible, which is capable people to surround themselves with." "They are going to look back on these decisions, and they're going to regret them."

The All-In Podcast

105,598 views • 1 year ago

"IF YOU WISH TO KEEP SLAVES, YOU MUST HAVE ALL KINDS OF GUARDS. THE CHEAPEST WAY TO HAVE GUARDS IS TO HAVE THE SLAVES PAY TAXES TO FINANCE THEIR OWN GUARDS. TO FOOL THE SLAVES, YOU TELL THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT SLAVES AND THAT THEY HAVE FREEDOM. YOU TELL THEM THEY NEED LAW AND ORDER TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST BAD SLAVES. THEN YOU TELL THEM TO ELECT A GOVERNMENT. GIVE THEM FREEDOM TO VOTE AND THEY WILL VOTE FOR THEIR OWN GUARDS AND PAY THEIR SALARY. THEY WILL THEN BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE PERSONS. THEN GIVE THEM MONEY TO EARN, COUNT AND SPEND AND THEY WILL BE TOO BUSY TO NOTICE THE SLAVERY THEY ARE IN.*
1:22

"IF YOU WISH TO KEEP SLAVES, YOU MUST HAVE ALL KINDS OF GUARDS. THE CHEAPEST WAY TO HAVE GUARDS IS TO HAVE THE SLAVES PAY TAXES TO FINANCE THEIR OWN GUARDS. TO FOOL THE SLAVES, YOU TELL THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT SLAVES AND THAT THEY HAVE FREEDOM. YOU TELL THEM THEY NEED LAW AND ORDER TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST BAD SLAVES. THEN YOU TELL THEM TO ELECT A GOVERNMENT. GIVE THEM FREEDOM TO VOTE AND THEY WILL VOTE FOR THEIR OWN GUARDS AND PAY THEIR SALARY. THEY WILL THEN BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE PERSONS. THEN GIVE THEM MONEY TO EARN, COUNT AND SPEND AND THEY WILL BE TOO BUSY TO NOTICE THE SLAVERY THEY ARE IN.*

Joey dark 2 Light

202,109 views • 6 months ago

I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.
0:51

I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.

Ms. Malissia

15,768 views • 3 months ago