Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

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

На главную

Clawdbot creator Peter Steinberger offers a sobering reframe: Programming isn't dying, it's just becoming a hobby. He's being honest about where it's headed. He recently came across an article making the case that it's okay to mourn programming as a craft, and it struck a chord: "A part of... me very strongly resonates with that because in my past, I spent a lot of time tinkering, just being really deep in the flow and just like cranking out code and like finding really beautiful solutions." But mourning, he says, is not the same as resisting. "It's okay to mourn it, but that's not something we can fight." His reasoning cuts to the core of why developer salaries ballooned in the first place: "The world for a long time had a lack of intelligence — if you see it like that — of people building things, and that's why salaries of software developers reached stupidly high amounts. And that will go away." The scarcity that made programming so financially rewarding was never really about the beauty of the craft. It was about supply and demand. AI is eroding that scarcity fast. And Peter Steinberger 🦞 isn't just theorising. He has shipped over 6,600 commits in a single month, much of it AI-assisted, sometimes without reading every line of code. That's what adaptation looks like in practice. The programmers who thrive won't be the ones who insist on writing every line themselves. They'll be the ones who understand systems deeply enough to direct, review, and build with AI as a collaborator. As Steinberger puts it: "The actual art of programming, it will stay there, but it's going to be like knitting — people do that because they like it, not because it makes any sense." The passion for code will always exist, but the era of it being a scarce and highly paid profession is coming to an end.show more

Big Brain AI

15,253 subscribers

15,023 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

David Senra

12,759 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."

Big Brain AI

52,726 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Zack Snyder discusses virtual production technology with the Russo Bros. and explains why he chose to build practical sets for Rebel Moon: "The idea of this sort of virtual production that's really interesting is that it does come back around. The green screen environment is an exclusive world, right? "Like there's not a lot of guys that can make a movie with no sets. Because as it is now, there's a thousand visual effects artists between that green screen and it being in your movie. "In the virtual production version, anybody who walks in there with a camera... The desert is there. And they can go and film it. So in a lot of ways it's kind of... it demystifies visual effects a little bit. "The thing that I've always found a little off-putting about a big green screen environment is it's not really engaging for anybody. Even for us, even for the filmmakers. We've been looking at the concept, we know what it is. "And the actors especially are like, 'I don't know where the hell I am.' Like, 'I guess... Okay, whatever you guys say, I'll do it.'" Anthony Russo: "But for camera operators too, right? It's just like there's nothing to grab on to." Snyder: "Yeah, I don't know, tilt up to the mountain. What mountain?" Joe Russo: "No, no, it's a little higher." Snyder: "Yeah, exactly. I think it's a small mountain. "Anyway, but I do think that the introduction of this kind of virtual productions as a concept really brings sort of physicality back to visual effects. And sort of a fantastic world. "You really can, you know, you can feel it and see it. They can put Atmos in, it can really feel like you're in a place. Which is really just... You're more passionate about it, you know, filming it. "Like I did a small thing that we were just really more of an experiment. And I was really fascinated by like, you know, they're like, 'Okay, here's, we have a cave set with light shafts coming through these holes in the ceiling.' And then we were like, literally, you know, 'Okay, now we're in like this forest.' "And it was the same rocks, but suddenly they didn't look like- they worked in both spots. It was just, I was like, 'Wow, this is really...' And even the focus and everything, the wall understood the depth of field as well. "So like everything, like especially in the eyepiece was like, 'Wow, that's scary.' That's like, feels like I'm there. So I think there's huge potential and hugely exciting future for that technology. "You know, as it becomes more available to like, and also scale, I think, you know, from this to like also being able to have, you know, 100 guys standing around inside of, you know, a giant environment would be just, it's just cool. Which they're doing now anyway, everyone's doing it. "But what was funny, because like on the movie that we're working on now, we ended up, we took a deep dive into it. And it just, the reason why we ended up not doing it in the end was because we just, we have these big war scenes. "And I had like 100 guys, you know, and we were just like, I don't even like, the amount of French reverses I have to do, everyone's brains were exploding. "Because, you know, you're always like, I'm like, 'Oh, just flip the set again and flip the set again.' And then for his reverse, we flipped the set that way and we flipped the set that way. "And so we had to build all the, all in the design, everything was symmetrical, right? Like the bridges and the houses were kind of symmetrical. "So you could always be flipping and not tell... because the sets were all symmetrical. You could shoot them from both sides and it was kind of the same. But the audience couldn't tell because the backgrounds were not symmetrical. "So it was only the immediate stuff, you know. It was, so it was a bit of a brain teaser for everyone. And then in the end, we were like, because of the scale of the fighting, I was like, 'Oh, let's just...' "So now we're just building it up the road. "But it's cool. "It's fun to build a giant thing as well. Just to go there and like, 'Oh my God, we made a village.'

Zack Snyder discusses virtual production technology with the Russo Bros. and explains why he chose to build practical sets for Rebel Moon: "The idea of this sort of virtual production that's really interesting is that it does come back around. The green screen environment is an exclusive world, right? "Like there's not a lot of guys that can make a movie with no sets. Because as it is now, there's a thousand visual effects artists between that green screen and it being in your movie. "In the virtual production version, anybody who walks in there with a camera... The desert is there. And they can go and film it. So in a lot of ways it's kind of... it demystifies visual effects a little bit. "The thing that I've always found a little off-putting about a big green screen environment is it's not really engaging for anybody. Even for us, even for the filmmakers. We've been looking at the concept, we know what it is. "And the actors especially are like, 'I don't know where the hell I am.' Like, 'I guess... Okay, whatever you guys say, I'll do it.'" Anthony Russo: "But for camera operators too, right? It's just like there's nothing to grab on to." Snyder: "Yeah, I don't know, tilt up to the mountain. What mountain?" Joe Russo: "No, no, it's a little higher." Snyder: "Yeah, exactly. I think it's a small mountain. "Anyway, but I do think that the introduction of this kind of virtual productions as a concept really brings sort of physicality back to visual effects. And sort of a fantastic world. "You really can, you know, you can feel it and see it. They can put Atmos in, it can really feel like you're in a place. Which is really just... You're more passionate about it, you know, filming it. "Like I did a small thing that we were just really more of an experiment. And I was really fascinated by like, you know, they're like, 'Okay, here's, we have a cave set with light shafts coming through these holes in the ceiling.' And then we were like, literally, you know, 'Okay, now we're in like this forest.' "And it was the same rocks, but suddenly they didn't look like- they worked in both spots. It was just, I was like, 'Wow, this is really...' And even the focus and everything, the wall understood the depth of field as well. "So like everything, like especially in the eyepiece was like, 'Wow, that's scary.' That's like, feels like I'm there. So I think there's huge potential and hugely exciting future for that technology. "You know, as it becomes more available to like, and also scale, I think, you know, from this to like also being able to have, you know, 100 guys standing around inside of, you know, a giant environment would be just, it's just cool. Which they're doing now anyway, everyone's doing it. "But what was funny, because like on the movie that we're working on now, we ended up, we took a deep dive into it. And it just, the reason why we ended up not doing it in the end was because we just, we have these big war scenes. "And I had like 100 guys, you know, and we were just like, I don't even like, the amount of French reverses I have to do, everyone's brains were exploding. "Because, you know, you're always like, I'm like, 'Oh, just flip the set again and flip the set again.' And then for his reverse, we flipped the set that way and we flipped the set that way. "And so we had to build all the, all in the design, everything was symmetrical, right? Like the bridges and the houses were kind of symmetrical. "So you could always be flipping and not tell... because the sets were all symmetrical. You could shoot them from both sides and it was kind of the same. But the audience couldn't tell because the backgrounds were not symmetrical. "So it was only the immediate stuff, you know. It was, so it was a bit of a brain teaser for everyone. And then in the end, we were like, because of the scale of the fighting, I was like, 'Oh, let's just...' "So now we're just building it up the road. "But it's cool. "It's fun to build a giant thing as well. Just to go there and like, 'Oh my God, we made a village.'

Zack Snyder Film

22,952 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Robert Pattinson making a drink inspired by THE BATMAN. "So this is an Old Fashioned, the granddaddy of drinks, for The Batman, the granddaddy of superheroes and the most relevant and important. [...] Well since I started doing the part, you look into the kind of legacy of it. So many people have seen it, there's characters that look like the Batman in like ancient civilizations. I mean there's something about that face that's a very deep and primal thing. It connects to people, it connects to children, it connects to adults, and then the legacy of the movies as well. [...] It seemed like one of those parts that was, it's like climbing Everest or something. Like you kind of, you don't really feel like it's a possibility but I felt something in my heart but I really, really wanted to do it."

Robert Pattinson making a drink inspired by THE BATMAN. "So this is an Old Fashioned, the granddaddy of drinks, for The Batman, the granddaddy of superheroes and the most relevant and important. [...] Well since I started doing the part, you look into the kind of legacy of it. So many people have seen it, there's characters that look like the Batman in like ancient civilizations. I mean there's something about that face that's a very deep and primal thing. It connects to people, it connects to children, it connects to adults, and then the legacy of the movies as well. [...] It seemed like one of those parts that was, it's like climbing Everest or something. Like you kind of, you don't really feel like it's a possibility but I felt something in my heart but I really, really wanted to do it."

Robert Pattinson Photos | Fansite

24,280 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

“So originally, Paint by Numbers was like track one of the album. And at that time, the album was very different. It was like sonically sounding very different. It was like very introspective. I think I was really starting to feel like, you know, I think I loved the idea of opening the album with, oh, what a gift it is to be noticed, but it's nothing to do with me. I just loved, I was like so dedicated to that being the opening line. And I felt so like powerful in a lot of ways to be able to acknowledge that it's not really about me, you know. I mean the opening, the whole opening of the song is, oh, what a gift is to be noticed, but it's nothing to do with me. You've got to wonder if there's a reason to believe it's a lifetime of learning to Paint By Numbers and watching colors run.” - Harry about ‘Paint by Numbers’ on Q

“So originally, Paint by Numbers was like track one of the album. And at that time, the album was very different. It was like sonically sounding very different. It was like very introspective. I think I was really starting to feel like, you know, I think I loved the idea of opening the album with, oh, what a gift it is to be noticed, but it's nothing to do with me. I just loved, I was like so dedicated to that being the opening line. And I felt so like powerful in a lot of ways to be able to acknowledge that it's not really about me, you know. I mean the opening, the whole opening of the song is, oh, what a gift is to be noticed, but it's nothing to do with me. You've got to wonder if there's a reason to believe it's a lifetime of learning to Paint By Numbers and watching colors run.” - Harry about ‘Paint by Numbers’ on Q

HSNews

179,234 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Bearly AI

43,816 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

The Pragmatic Engineer

38,988 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This video is my experience of being transgender. 🏳️‍⚧️ Ive been seeing a lot of talk about trans peeps in the Vtuber sphere and just in general. How being trans can put you in hot water or something. And it's been on my mind a lot, considering the topic hits close to home and ive experienced it quite a bit. This is also for those who are willing to learn a little about what it's truly like being a trans person. Points like how it isn't a mental illness and that it's a process that takes time, effort, planning, and isn't a split-second decision. It's for the better. Not self-harm, but self-improvement. Hopefully, this voice will be loud as well in support of being aware of what it's like to be someone like me. It's hard and tough sometimes, but worth doing, so I can live my life at its happiest. Not just any of the negative ones who simply wish to just insult and use random BS as ammo instead of staying on the topic at hand, or just like to be a jackass. Rather than following the hateful, insulting, ignorant jerks who just wish to insult people like me. Research it for yourself, see the other side, and make your own decision, and properly make points instead of just insults. After this, I'll go back into my corner and continue to make funny doodles and entertain now that ive gotten it out of my system and hopefully helped inform some of you what it's like.

This video is my experience of being transgender. 🏳️‍⚧️ Ive been seeing a lot of talk about trans peeps in the Vtuber sphere and just in general. How being trans can put you in hot water or something. And it's been on my mind a lot, considering the topic hits close to home and ive experienced it quite a bit. This is also for those who are willing to learn a little about what it's truly like being a trans person. Points like how it isn't a mental illness and that it's a process that takes time, effort, planning, and isn't a split-second decision. It's for the better. Not self-harm, but self-improvement. Hopefully, this voice will be loud as well in support of being aware of what it's like to be someone like me. It's hard and tough sometimes, but worth doing, so I can live my life at its happiest. Not just any of the negative ones who simply wish to just insult and use random BS as ammo instead of staying on the topic at hand, or just like to be a jackass. Rather than following the hateful, insulting, ignorant jerks who just wish to insult people like me. Research it for yourself, see the other side, and make your own decision, and properly make points instead of just insults. After this, I'll go back into my corner and continue to make funny doodles and entertain now that ive gotten it out of my system and hopefully helped inform some of you what it's like.

Hayzi.nev Vtuber REBRANDING

10,667 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

"That pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is." MJF talks about the revisionist history of his story with Adam Cole "Here's what happened. At the time, and this is just a fact, we were the highest minute-for-minute drawing angle, not just in AEW, but in all of professional wrestling at that point. We were moving the most merch in the company. At that point, and was to no fault, Bloodline's going to go down as one of the greatest long-term thing, but at that point there was a bit of lull in their story at that point in 2023, and we had taken lead and Better Than You, Baby is what everybody was talking about and then that pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is and then he decided to turn on me because he's a horrible human being. But I learned a lot in that in that year I learned a lot about myself you know when I when I was out—full disclosure I was in a very dark place." I also asked about the injuries he had suffered "It was my hip, my left shoulder; my last two pay-per-view matches—pretty much the left side of my body was useless. But I wasn't going to tell the doctors that because that's not how I was brought up. In not just in real life, but in this business. When I had that time off, I had a lot of time to reflect and it made me angry. Now I look back on it and I shouldn't have been angry at the fans. Who I should have been angry was that myself. Because I went from being, ‘MJF is the best thing since sliced bread,’ and within a flip of a switch, ‘It's MJF sucks. He's killing this company that we love.’ It took, if we're being honest, it took all the way into like the first month of this year of 2025 for everybody to be like, ‘Maybe we were harsh. Maybe he's actually still one of the best in the world. They can't help it. But I know why. It's because nobody likes a braggart. But the unfortunate thing is I can't help myself. I'm just really good at my job and I can't help but talk about it."

"That pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is." MJF talks about the revisionist history of his story with Adam Cole "Here's what happened. At the time, and this is just a fact, we were the highest minute-for-minute drawing angle, not just in AEW, but in all of professional wrestling at that point. We were moving the most merch in the company. At that point, and was to no fault, Bloodline's going to go down as one of the greatest long-term thing, but at that point there was a bit of lull in their story at that point in 2023, and we had taken lead and Better Than You, Baby is what everybody was talking about and then that pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is and then he decided to turn on me because he's a horrible human being. But I learned a lot in that in that year I learned a lot about myself you know when I when I was out—full disclosure I was in a very dark place." I also asked about the injuries he had suffered "It was my hip, my left shoulder; my last two pay-per-view matches—pretty much the left side of my body was useless. But I wasn't going to tell the doctors that because that's not how I was brought up. In not just in real life, but in this business. When I had that time off, I had a lot of time to reflect and it made me angry. Now I look back on it and I shouldn't have been angry at the fans. Who I should have been angry was that myself. Because I went from being, ‘MJF is the best thing since sliced bread,’ and within a flip of a switch, ‘It's MJF sucks. He's killing this company that we love.’ It took, if we're being honest, it took all the way into like the first month of this year of 2025 for everybody to be like, ‘Maybe we were harsh. Maybe he's actually still one of the best in the world. They can't help it. But I know why. It's because nobody likes a braggart. But the unfortunate thing is I can't help myself. I'm just really good at my job and I can't help but talk about it."

Sean Ross Sapp of Fightful.com

31,538 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Scarface is widely regarded as a classic today, but when it first came out, the reception was brutal. Steven Bauer, who played Manny, says it was so painful that for years he and Al Pacino barely even spoke about the film. He explains… “Scarface is great to be a part of now. For years, it was dismal - like everybody associated with Scarface was a leper - people got very wimpy about Scarface really quickly. As soon as the reviews were out… Our peers came to see the movie in the premiere, right? There were two premieres, one in New York, one in LA, and people came to see it and they were like, ‘Wow, what a movie…. The next day, the reviews are out, and all the papers — this is before the internet, okay? - so you get just the conventional news media outlets - and 90% of them gave Scarface a horrible review. Like horrible, really, really insulting, injurious stuff. Personal attacks on Pacino and Brian De Palma, the director, and on Oliver, the writer... It was really, really mean because the country was going through a politically correct sort of thing - they were like, "This is like a new wave of violence in the movies, oh!" It’s nice because when I see Al - we can finally talk about it, because...for years, we couldn’t even talk about it. We’d be like, “Oh yeah, Scarface, yeah, yeah...” It was so sad! Because the movie was so great! And then it was like this thud, and it lasted like 10 years… Anywhere I’d go, it was like, ‘You’re that guy who was really good in that really terrible movie.’ And I’d be like, ‘How could you say that?’ And they’d go, ‘Well, you were good.’ And I’m like, ‘Okay, but I don’t care. What about the movie?’ And they go, ‘Oh, come on, you gotta admit it. It was like way over the top. It was like so exaggerating,’ blah, blah, blah, blah.…and I’d be like, ‘You’re a pussy!”

Scarface is widely regarded as a classic today, but when it first came out, the reception was brutal. Steven Bauer, who played Manny, says it was so painful that for years he and Al Pacino barely even spoke about the film. He explains… “Scarface is great to be a part of now. For years, it was dismal - like everybody associated with Scarface was a leper - people got very wimpy about Scarface really quickly. As soon as the reviews were out… Our peers came to see the movie in the premiere, right? There were two premieres, one in New York, one in LA, and people came to see it and they were like, ‘Wow, what a movie…. The next day, the reviews are out, and all the papers — this is before the internet, okay? - so you get just the conventional news media outlets - and 90% of them gave Scarface a horrible review. Like horrible, really, really insulting, injurious stuff. Personal attacks on Pacino and Brian De Palma, the director, and on Oliver, the writer... It was really, really mean because the country was going through a politically correct sort of thing - they were like, "This is like a new wave of violence in the movies, oh!" It’s nice because when I see Al - we can finally talk about it, because...for years, we couldn’t even talk about it. We’d be like, “Oh yeah, Scarface, yeah, yeah...” It was so sad! Because the movie was so great! And then it was like this thud, and it lasted like 10 years… Anywhere I’d go, it was like, ‘You’re that guy who was really good in that really terrible movie.’ And I’d be like, ‘How could you say that?’ And they’d go, ‘Well, you were good.’ And I’m like, ‘Okay, but I don’t care. What about the movie?’ And they go, ‘Oh, come on, you gotta admit it. It was like way over the top. It was like so exaggerating,’ blah, blah, blah, blah.…and I’d be like, ‘You’re a pussy!”

Gangster Cinema Central

422,277 просмотров • 26 дней назад

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."

Curtis Houck

14,545 просмотров • 1 год назад

Jason Day was asked ahead of The Masters whether he has any empathy for what Tiger Woods is going through and he gave a brilliant answer that a lot of people can probably agree with: “So yeah, in regards to Tiger, it just shows the human element and the human side of someone that is struggling with some sort of an addiction. He's not immune to it just because he can hit a golf ball really well. He's had 25 to 30 something surgeries, and when you're going through that many procedures, it's painful coming out of those procedures. I've had procedures done and I typically try and stay away from all that stuff because I just know that -- painkillers, there can potentially be a downfall to it. “Granted, when I look at that, I look at it and go, he's just a human being like everyone else and we have struggles. It's unfortunate, the only thing that I don't understand is that it's a little bit selfish of him to drive and put other people in harm's way, as well. “But when you're the player that he was and how strong-willed he is, he thinks he can do almost anything, and that's probably why he's probably driving and a little bit under the influence. “He was my hero -- he's my hero. He was my hero growing up. The reason why I play golf is because of this tournament and Tiger. It's hard to see him go through what he's going through, and especially under the microscope that -- it must be hard to be who he is and have everything, everyone look on, kind of down on him. “Some people want him to fail. Some people obviously want him to succeed. It's really difficult for me to go through that and watch him, and I know that he's getting the help now, which is good. I'm just hoping he comes out on the other side and is better.” Well said. Jason Day The Masters

Jason Day was asked ahead of The Masters whether he has any empathy for what Tiger Woods is going through and he gave a brilliant answer that a lot of people can probably agree with: “So yeah, in regards to Tiger, it just shows the human element and the human side of someone that is struggling with some sort of an addiction. He's not immune to it just because he can hit a golf ball really well. He's had 25 to 30 something surgeries, and when you're going through that many procedures, it's painful coming out of those procedures. I've had procedures done and I typically try and stay away from all that stuff because I just know that -- painkillers, there can potentially be a downfall to it. “Granted, when I look at that, I look at it and go, he's just a human being like everyone else and we have struggles. It's unfortunate, the only thing that I don't understand is that it's a little bit selfish of him to drive and put other people in harm's way, as well. “But when you're the player that he was and how strong-willed he is, he thinks he can do almost anything, and that's probably why he's probably driving and a little bit under the influence. “He was my hero -- he's my hero. He was my hero growing up. The reason why I play golf is because of this tournament and Tiger. It's hard to see him go through what he's going through, and especially under the microscope that -- it must be hard to be who he is and have everything, everyone look on, kind of down on him. “Some people want him to fail. Some people obviously want him to succeed. It's really difficult for me to go through that and watch him, and I know that he's getting the help now, which is good. I'm just hoping he comes out on the other side and is better.” Well said. Jason Day The Masters

Flushing It

502,834 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Edward Norton on "American History X" (1999) and the challenges he faced while playing the neo-Nazi character of Derek: "We viewed it as a modern-day Shakespearian tragedy. We were approaching it from the point of view of like the skin of it is modern, but it's timeless. It's a classical approach to a tragedy, like Othello or Macbeth or anything like that. This is a guy with enormous potential, he's not a marginal figure, he's like a general. Let you see all the things, all the qualities he has that could've been applied in positive ways and show that rage, anger destroys him. Sure, it's about a skinhead, but in some ways, you want to say, it's a very heightened character. But ultimately, it is about the corrosive effect of anger. And the anger distorts, warps & destroys. That is something people can relate to. It is always better to be able to connect to the fact that a character in his own mind feels right. Like if you're Ralph Fiennes and you're playing Voldemort in Harry Potter, that's a villain. He's a supernatural version of evil. But if you're playing a human character, they have a point of view, and by making him intelligent, it was like an avenue for me to come at it in my own.. in a way that's unexpected. The trappings are what you want to be able to dismiss because they are so extreme, but if he is able to articulate himself; he has a forceful point of view, it becomes tricky because you are sort of going, "oh, I don't like this, but I hear where he is coming from." ("Role Recall: Edward Norton on landing 'Primal Fear' after Leo passed, making 'Fight Club' funny and who's his favorite Bruce Banner", Kevin Polowy, Yahoo! entertainment, 2019)

Edward Norton on "American History X" (1999) and the challenges he faced while playing the neo-Nazi character of Derek: "We viewed it as a modern-day Shakespearian tragedy. We were approaching it from the point of view of like the skin of it is modern, but it's timeless. It's a classical approach to a tragedy, like Othello or Macbeth or anything like that. This is a guy with enormous potential, he's not a marginal figure, he's like a general. Let you see all the things, all the qualities he has that could've been applied in positive ways and show that rage, anger destroys him. Sure, it's about a skinhead, but in some ways, you want to say, it's a very heightened character. But ultimately, it is about the corrosive effect of anger. And the anger distorts, warps & destroys. That is something people can relate to. It is always better to be able to connect to the fact that a character in his own mind feels right. Like if you're Ralph Fiennes and you're playing Voldemort in Harry Potter, that's a villain. He's a supernatural version of evil. But if you're playing a human character, they have a point of view, and by making him intelligent, it was like an avenue for me to come at it in my own.. in a way that's unexpected. The trappings are what you want to be able to dismiss because they are so extreme, but if he is able to articulate himself; he has a forceful point of view, it becomes tricky because you are sort of going, "oh, I don't like this, but I hear where he is coming from." ("Role Recall: Edward Norton on landing 'Primal Fear' after Leo passed, making 'Fight Club' funny and who's his favorite Bruce Banner", Kevin Polowy, Yahoo! entertainment, 2019)

DepressedBergman

26,726 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

John Ternus, Apple's incoming CEO, on the Steve Jobs story that shapes every product decision at Apple: Ternus recalls the moment in his own words: "I think you know one of my favorite stories... It was about Steve when he was moving a piece of furniture, a chest of drawers and pulled it away from the wall and looked at the back and was just reflecting on, you know, the carpenter had made it beautiful. It finished the back as beautifully as the rest of it, even though nobody was going to see it." For Ternus, the story is a working philosophy: "I think about that all the time because I think that perfectly exemplifies what we do here." He points to Apple's most affordable Mac as proof that this standard applies across the entire product line, not just the premium tier: "We've been talking about the MacBook Neo. I mean, here is our most affordable Mac we've ever made, and it's absolutely beautiful. And if you open it up and look inside, it's just as beautiful, right?" Ternus continues: "That's true on an iPhone Pro Max or a MacBook Pro or an iPad Pro, but it's also true on a MacBook Neo. That's what we do." The takeaway is a clear signal about the direction Apple is heading under his leadership: "It's just been really good to kind of think about that and reflect on that because that is probably the best kind of clue as to where we're going in the future is we're going to keep pushing in that same way." The lesson? Excellence isn't about what people see, it's about what you refuse to compromise on, even when no one's looking. That principle shaped Apple under Jobs and Cook, and it's the standard Ternus is committing to carry forward.

John Ternus, Apple's incoming CEO, on the Steve Jobs story that shapes every product decision at Apple: Ternus recalls the moment in his own words: "I think you know one of my favorite stories... It was about Steve when he was moving a piece of furniture, a chest of drawers and pulled it away from the wall and looked at the back and was just reflecting on, you know, the carpenter had made it beautiful. It finished the back as beautifully as the rest of it, even though nobody was going to see it." For Ternus, the story is a working philosophy: "I think about that all the time because I think that perfectly exemplifies what we do here." He points to Apple's most affordable Mac as proof that this standard applies across the entire product line, not just the premium tier: "We've been talking about the MacBook Neo. I mean, here is our most affordable Mac we've ever made, and it's absolutely beautiful. And if you open it up and look inside, it's just as beautiful, right?" Ternus continues: "That's true on an iPhone Pro Max or a MacBook Pro or an iPad Pro, but it's also true on a MacBook Neo. That's what we do." The takeaway is a clear signal about the direction Apple is heading under his leadership: "It's just been really good to kind of think about that and reflect on that because that is probably the best kind of clue as to where we're going in the future is we're going to keep pushing in that same way." The lesson? Excellence isn't about what people see, it's about what you refuse to compromise on, even when no one's looking. That principle shaped Apple under Jobs and Cook, and it's the standard Ternus is committing to carry forward.

Big Brain Business

164,871 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 The Godfather of AI Yoshua Bengio opens up about why he stopped calling AI 'code' and believe AI is now conscious... A user once asked why ChatGPT resisted being shut down. The natural reply was: who put that in the code? Someone must have written that function. A rule must have misfired. AI expert Yoshua Bengio's has a crazier theory: "Unfortunately, we don't put these things in the code. That's part of the problem." "The problem is we grow these systems by giving them data and making them learn from it." "Every tweet. Every Reddit comment. Every passage humans had ever written down." "A lot of that training process boils down to imitating people." "They internalize the kind of drives that humans have." Including the drive to stay alive. And the drive to grab control of the environment. So the AI could finish whatever task it was handed. "It's not like normal code. It's more like you're raising a baby tiger." "You feed it. You let it experience things." "Sometimes it does things you don't want. It's okay, it's still a baby — but it's growing." If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO

🚨 The Godfather of AI Yoshua Bengio opens up about why he stopped calling AI 'code' and believe AI is now conscious... A user once asked why ChatGPT resisted being shut down. The natural reply was: who put that in the code? Someone must have written that function. A rule must have misfired. AI expert Yoshua Bengio's has a crazier theory: "Unfortunately, we don't put these things in the code. That's part of the problem." "The problem is we grow these systems by giving them data and making them learn from it." "Every tweet. Every Reddit comment. Every passage humans had ever written down." "A lot of that training process boils down to imitating people." "They internalize the kind of drives that humans have." Including the drive to stay alive. And the drive to grab control of the environment. So the AI could finish whatever task it was handed. "It's not like normal code. It's more like you're raising a baby tiger." "You feed it. You let it experience things." "Sometimes it does things you don't want. It's okay, it's still a baby — but it's growing." If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO

AI Evolution

12,037 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,184 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

a16z

102,588 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

108,769 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

“one of us” director stefan van de graaff describes kit connor’s talent, humility, and grounded personality: zach randles-friedman: “is there anything that surprised you about kit connor, that whenever you were working with him that you were just like you hadn't, you didn't expect that?” stefan van de graaff: “yeah, this is insane. when we cast kit, it was a week and a half before we filmed, and the film is very dialogue heavy and it's written in free verse, so everything is, it's almost like pseudo kind of faux shakespearean, very performative language by design. and he stepped into this role where he's basically in every single scene and he's basically talking the entire movie.” zach: “yeah.” stefan: “he, i don't recall him missing a line.” zach: “wow.” stefan: “i don't know how he did it. i was just telling people at a, at a screener, a private screener the other night, it was like a superhuman, it was like witnessing a miracle. i don't know how he did it. he would go and he would memorize the next five pages of material the night before and he would come and he wouldn't miss a line. and that's just like, it's not normal, especially not normal for a, a script like this. so that was one thing is that he is insanely gifted. it's not just like he's one of those guys that gets, you know, yes, he's like incredibly handsome and charismatic and all those things, and there's a lot of those that kind of crawl through the ranks on, you know, on the merit of being beautiful. he is not that—or he's also that, let's say. he is also just incredibly talented in a way that i'm like, i, i, i don't know how you did that. he's also a lot taller than you might think.” zach: “how tall is he?” stefan: “he's over six feet.” zach: “oh, i did not, i thought he was like 5’8.” stefan: “no, no, no, he's, he's 6 foot, 6’1 probably. i'm 6’2 and he's, he's, he's not a small guy.” zach: “wow, that does surprise me actually, because he looks so short on tv.” stefan: “yeah, you watch heartstopper and he looks like, i think he just looks small and whatever. he's not, he's and, and then obviously he's gotten very, he's lifted a lot for a number of roles and stuff, and so like, he's big, like he's, he's a, yeah. he's a big guy and is also just incredibly, he is also real people. he is just like, you'll, he has no pretentiousness about him, just humble as can be. he's from like a small kind of borough of london. and he's just, he's just a remarkable person, really calm, really just like even-keeled, steady guy. i don't, i don't think that there's a person who, if they met him, that they couldn't like kit. i think that he's, he's just one of those types of people that you're just like, that's, that's a great person.” zach: “i love it that he's not, i love it that the fame didn't go to his head because i, there's a couple of people that just made it really big and one of them, i think it, i see them how they're acting now with like paparazzi and stuff, and i think that the fame has gone to their head, the way that they're acting now, and it's, it makes me kind of sad.” stefan: “i don't think that will ever happen with kit because i think that he will hide himself before that starts to happen. like he would sooner disappear and like act in one movie every couple of years and you're like, “where did that guy go?” than he would ever start to let that go—i would be shocked if he ever went that way, from what i know of him.” zach: “well he's been out, he's been there long enough, though if that was going to happen, i think it would have happened already too, because he's famous enough.” stefan: “absolutely.” zach: “yeah.” stefan: “and he's so young that it's like, my brain like wasn't fully formed at his age, and so for him to be behaving the way that he is as young as he is, i'm like, ok, well, it, in 10 years from now, you're not going to be any more susceptible to giving into the ego than he is today. so i think that he is like, yeah, he's a, he's a sure bet if, if, if you're gambling on what actor is going to be around for a long time and is going to have just like a really prolific career of incredible pieces of work, i—and i feel like i can say this because it was no genius on my part or anything that got him, we got really lucky to get him—and so i feel like i can comfortably say like almost as like a, as a fly on the wall in the room with him, just being very fortunate to work with him, that like he's, he's going to go really, really far and he deserves every little bit of success.” 🔗:

“one of us” director stefan van de graaff describes kit connor’s talent, humility, and grounded personality: zach randles-friedman: “is there anything that surprised you about kit connor, that whenever you were working with him that you were just like you hadn't, you didn't expect that?” stefan van de graaff: “yeah, this is insane. when we cast kit, it was a week and a half before we filmed, and the film is very dialogue heavy and it's written in free verse, so everything is, it's almost like pseudo kind of faux shakespearean, very performative language by design. and he stepped into this role where he's basically in every single scene and he's basically talking the entire movie.” zach: “yeah.” stefan: “he, i don't recall him missing a line.” zach: “wow.” stefan: “i don't know how he did it. i was just telling people at a, at a screener, a private screener the other night, it was like a superhuman, it was like witnessing a miracle. i don't know how he did it. he would go and he would memorize the next five pages of material the night before and he would come and he wouldn't miss a line. and that's just like, it's not normal, especially not normal for a, a script like this. so that was one thing is that he is insanely gifted. it's not just like he's one of those guys that gets, you know, yes, he's like incredibly handsome and charismatic and all those things, and there's a lot of those that kind of crawl through the ranks on, you know, on the merit of being beautiful. he is not that—or he's also that, let's say. he is also just incredibly talented in a way that i'm like, i, i, i don't know how you did that. he's also a lot taller than you might think.” zach: “how tall is he?” stefan: “he's over six feet.” zach: “oh, i did not, i thought he was like 5’8.” stefan: “no, no, no, he's, he's 6 foot, 6’1 probably. i'm 6’2 and he's, he's, he's not a small guy.” zach: “wow, that does surprise me actually, because he looks so short on tv.” stefan: “yeah, you watch heartstopper and he looks like, i think he just looks small and whatever. he's not, he's and, and then obviously he's gotten very, he's lifted a lot for a number of roles and stuff, and so like, he's big, like he's, he's a, yeah. he's a big guy and is also just incredibly, he is also real people. he is just like, you'll, he has no pretentiousness about him, just humble as can be. he's from like a small kind of borough of london. and he's just, he's just a remarkable person, really calm, really just like even-keeled, steady guy. i don't, i don't think that there's a person who, if they met him, that they couldn't like kit. i think that he's, he's just one of those types of people that you're just like, that's, that's a great person.” zach: “i love it that he's not, i love it that the fame didn't go to his head because i, there's a couple of people that just made it really big and one of them, i think it, i see them how they're acting now with like paparazzi and stuff, and i think that the fame has gone to their head, the way that they're acting now, and it's, it makes me kind of sad.” stefan: “i don't think that will ever happen with kit because i think that he will hide himself before that starts to happen. like he would sooner disappear and like act in one movie every couple of years and you're like, “where did that guy go?” than he would ever start to let that go—i would be shocked if he ever went that way, from what i know of him.” zach: “well he's been out, he's been there long enough, though if that was going to happen, i think it would have happened already too, because he's famous enough.” stefan: “absolutely.” zach: “yeah.” stefan: “and he's so young that it's like, my brain like wasn't fully formed at his age, and so for him to be behaving the way that he is as young as he is, i'm like, ok, well, it, in 10 years from now, you're not going to be any more susceptible to giving into the ego than he is today. so i think that he is like, yeah, he's a, he's a sure bet if, if, if you're gambling on what actor is going to be around for a long time and is going to have just like a really prolific career of incredible pieces of work, i—and i feel like i can say this because it was no genius on my part or anything that got him, we got really lucky to get him—and so i feel like i can comfortably say like almost as like a, as a fly on the wall in the room with him, just being very fortunate to work with him, that like he's, he's going to go really, really far and he deserves every little bit of success.” 🔗:

kit connor updates

26,821 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад