Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Counterargument:

Yui’s Eternal Husband 🌂☔️

4,528 subscribers

12,410 views • 13 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Single-day voting on Election Day. Make it a national holiday. Use paper ballots. Require government ID to match the voter file. Give me the best counterargument. I'll wait.

Single-day voting on Election Day. Make it a national holiday. Use paper ballots. Require government ID to match the voter file. Give me the best counterargument. I'll wait.

Vivek Ramaswamy

532,472 views • 1 year ago

Notice what he is doing He puts forward a moderate proposition, framed in a way that makes it difficult to come up with a legit counterargument "A state with equal rights" Now his opponents start screaming, and yelling and losing their minds He is like an adult in a nursery

Notice what he is doing He puts forward a moderate proposition, framed in a way that makes it difficult to come up with a legit counterargument "A state with equal rights" Now his opponents start screaming, and yelling and losing their minds He is like an adult in a nursery

Kamil Galeev

13,969 views • 11 months ago

BANNON ASKS Curt Mills FOR THE STRONGEST COUNTERARGUMENT ON IRAN MILLS: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies. They’re driving the push for war, chock full of Never Trumpers, yet instrumental in shaping Trump’s Iran policy in term one and now blowing the horn for war again. If you want the neocon case, that’s where to go.

BANNON ASKS Curt Mills FOR THE STRONGEST COUNTERARGUMENT ON IRAN MILLS: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies. They’re driving the push for war, chock full of Never Trumpers, yet instrumental in shaping Trump’s Iran policy in term one and now blowing the horn for war again. If you want the neocon case, that’s where to go.

Grace Chong, MBI

15,419 views • 3 months ago

🚨🚨 EPIC Paul Offit takedown! PLEASE LIKE AND SHARE WIDELY! A point by point analysis of the false claims and lies he presented as scientific fact in his infamous 2024 "DNA fragments in COVID vaccines are completely harmless" video: LIE #1: The mRNA vaccines contain fragments of DNA, but these are in very small quantities, measured in nanograms - Counterargument: Even though the DNA fragments may be in small quantities, their presence still poses a risk. DNA integration into the genome, even in small quantities, could still have long-term, unpredictable effects that we are not yet fully aware of. LIE #2: Impossibility of DNA entering human DNA: For these DNA fragments to integrate into our DNA, they would have to overcome several barriers, including crossing the cytoplasm and nuclear membrane, which is virtually impossible - Counterargument: The entire purpose of the LNP (lipid nanoparticle) in mRNA vaccines is to allow for the mRNA to enter the cytoplasm in order to transcribe the desired proteins. While fragments integrating into human DNA might be low, it's not "impossible." Scientific literature on gene editing technologies, like CRISPR, demonstrates that foreign DNA can be integrated into the genome under certain conditions. LIE #3: Role of innate immune system in rejecting foreign DNA: The innate immune system and enzymes in the cytoplasm work to destroy foreign DNA - Counterargument: While our immune system does recognize and destroy some foreign DNA, the immune response isn't perfect, especially if the foreign DNA is introduced in a manner that is not immediately recognized such as via the LNP. In certain environments or under specific conditions, foreign DNA can evade immune detection. LIE #4: Lack of integrases in mRNA vaccine DNA: The DNA fragments in the mRNA vaccine do not have the necessary integrases to integrate into our genome - Counterargument: While the fragments might lack integrases, it's possible that they could still interact with the genome in other ways, for example, through epigenetic changes or by influencing gene expression as is commonly achieved in laboratory settings. LIE #5: Comparison to naturally occurring foreign DNA: We are constantly exposed to foreign DNA through our food from bacteria, plants, and animals, which is much larger and more abundant than the DNA in vaccines - Counterargument: Although we are exposed to foreign DNA regularly through the digestive tract, the introduction of DNA through vaccination is a more controlled and concentrated process. The body is not naturally prepared to deal with such DNA in the same way it handles the ingestion of plant or animal DNA. LIE #6: Fear-mongering accusation: The physician scientist who raised these concerns was just scaring people unnecessarily - Counterargument: Raising concerns about potential risks is an important part of scientific discourse, especially when it comes to public health. It's better to err on the side of caution and investigate these possibilities rather than dismissing concerns outright, especially when the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines are still being studied. LIE #7: Assurance that these risks are negligible: The DNA fragments from the vaccines are clinically harmless - Counterargument: The assertion that these fragments are harmless is premature. Without long-term studies specifically addressing the potential risks of vaccine-derived DNA integration, it's impossible to claim with certainty that there will be no adverse effects in the future. Paul Offit knows all of this, so WHY IS HE LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? Please share this important video with everyone you know and DEMAND TRANSPARENT RESEARCH INTO THE QUESTION OF DNA CONTAMINATION AND INTEGRATION IN THE #COVID #vaccinated POPULATION! @P_J_Buckhaults Kevin McKernan Danny Jones Bret Weinstein Vejon Health - Dr Philip McMillan John Campbell Robert F. Kennedy Jr Steve Kirsch #AwfulOffit

🚨🚨 EPIC Paul Offit takedown! PLEASE LIKE AND SHARE WIDELY! A point by point analysis of the false claims and lies he presented as scientific fact in his infamous 2024 "DNA fragments in COVID vaccines are completely harmless" video: LIE #1: The mRNA vaccines contain fragments of DNA, but these are in very small quantities, measured in nanograms - Counterargument: Even though the DNA fragments may be in small quantities, their presence still poses a risk. DNA integration into the genome, even in small quantities, could still have long-term, unpredictable effects that we are not yet fully aware of. LIE #2: Impossibility of DNA entering human DNA: For these DNA fragments to integrate into our DNA, they would have to overcome several barriers, including crossing the cytoplasm and nuclear membrane, which is virtually impossible - Counterargument: The entire purpose of the LNP (lipid nanoparticle) in mRNA vaccines is to allow for the mRNA to enter the cytoplasm in order to transcribe the desired proteins. While fragments integrating into human DNA might be low, it's not "impossible." Scientific literature on gene editing technologies, like CRISPR, demonstrates that foreign DNA can be integrated into the genome under certain conditions. LIE #3: Role of innate immune system in rejecting foreign DNA: The innate immune system and enzymes in the cytoplasm work to destroy foreign DNA - Counterargument: While our immune system does recognize and destroy some foreign DNA, the immune response isn't perfect, especially if the foreign DNA is introduced in a manner that is not immediately recognized such as via the LNP. In certain environments or under specific conditions, foreign DNA can evade immune detection. LIE #4: Lack of integrases in mRNA vaccine DNA: The DNA fragments in the mRNA vaccine do not have the necessary integrases to integrate into our genome - Counterargument: While the fragments might lack integrases, it's possible that they could still interact with the genome in other ways, for example, through epigenetic changes or by influencing gene expression as is commonly achieved in laboratory settings. LIE #5: Comparison to naturally occurring foreign DNA: We are constantly exposed to foreign DNA through our food from bacteria, plants, and animals, which is much larger and more abundant than the DNA in vaccines - Counterargument: Although we are exposed to foreign DNA regularly through the digestive tract, the introduction of DNA through vaccination is a more controlled and concentrated process. The body is not naturally prepared to deal with such DNA in the same way it handles the ingestion of plant or animal DNA. LIE #6: Fear-mongering accusation: The physician scientist who raised these concerns was just scaring people unnecessarily - Counterargument: Raising concerns about potential risks is an important part of scientific discourse, especially when it comes to public health. It's better to err on the side of caution and investigate these possibilities rather than dismissing concerns outright, especially when the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines are still being studied. LIE #7: Assurance that these risks are negligible: The DNA fragments from the vaccines are clinically harmless - Counterargument: The assertion that these fragments are harmless is premature. Without long-term studies specifically addressing the potential risks of vaccine-derived DNA integration, it's impossible to claim with certainty that there will be no adverse effects in the future. Paul Offit knows all of this, so WHY IS HE LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? Please share this important video with everyone you know and DEMAND TRANSPARENT RESEARCH INTO THE QUESTION OF DNA CONTAMINATION AND INTEGRATION IN THE #COVID #vaccinated POPULATION! @P_J_Buckhaults Kevin McKernan Danny Jones Bret Weinstein Vejon Health - Dr Philip McMillan John Campbell Robert F. Kennedy Jr Steve Kirsch #AwfulOffit

Vaccine Safety Research Foundation

338,827 views • 1 year ago

When it comes to election integrity, Democrats' only counterargument is fearmongering They used to insult minorities by claiming they couldn't figure out how to get an ID. Now they're claiming married women are too helpless to vote because of name changes after marriage. Call it racist, call it sexist—they’re just desperate. Voter ID is common-sense protection that the vast majority of Americans support. Do you know what the left’s REALLY afraid of? Once elections are truly secure, they'll never claw back power.

When it comes to election integrity, Democrats' only counterargument is fearmongering They used to insult minorities by claiming they couldn't figure out how to get an ID. Now they're claiming married women are too helpless to vote because of name changes after marriage. Call it racist, call it sexist—they’re just desperate. Voter ID is common-sense protection that the vast majority of Americans support. Do you know what the left’s REALLY afraid of? Once elections are truly secure, they'll never claw back power.

Kari Lake

58,718 views • 3 months ago

BANNON: INVESTIGATE FOX NEWS AS A FOREIGN AGENT Host of Bannon’s WarRoom Steve Bannon expresses his belief to Matt Gaetz that there should be an investigation into Fox News as a foreign agent, given that “Fox News has been cheerleaders for the Iraq War and, by extension, Afghanistan. It’s the Iraq War playbook. They had Ukraine … we shut down the Ukraine nonsense … and now they are very focused on Israel: an Israel-Persian or Israel-Iran war… It’s at the behest of the Israel first crowd … They never put out a counterargument.”

BANNON: INVESTIGATE FOX NEWS AS A FOREIGN AGENT Host of Bannon’s WarRoom Steve Bannon expresses his belief to Matt Gaetz that there should be an investigation into Fox News as a foreign agent, given that “Fox News has been cheerleaders for the Iraq War and, by extension, Afghanistan. It’s the Iraq War playbook. They had Ukraine … we shut down the Ukraine nonsense … and now they are very focused on Israel: an Israel-Persian or Israel-Iran war… It’s at the behest of the Israel first crowd … They never put out a counterargument.”

One America News

132,758 views • 11 months ago

.Peter Meijer: "Today at the United Nations Security Council, France voted with Russia and China to torpedo a resolution by the Emirates -- you want to talk about the allies -- the allies have been formed thanks to Iran's reckless actions throughout those regions. France joined with China and Russia to oppose a move to say that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a legitimate defensive maneuver for countries like the Emirates." "The counterargument is we do nothing is, I think the European position that they're fine with Iran claiming soverignty over the Strait"

.Peter Meijer: "Today at the United Nations Security Council, France voted with Russia and China to torpedo a resolution by the Emirates -- you want to talk about the allies -- the allies have been formed thanks to Iran's reckless actions throughout those regions. France joined with China and Russia to oppose a move to say that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a legitimate defensive maneuver for countries like the Emirates." "The counterargument is we do nothing is, I think the European position that they're fine with Iran claiming soverignty over the Strait"

Curtis Houck

133,171 views • 2 months ago

🚨NEW: Piers Morgan says if Trump were in decline, "there would have been an ABSOLUTE FRENZY" in the media to uncover it — Chuck Todd offers absurd counterargument, but Morgan's not buying it🚨 TODD: "Is there a frenzy now, though, Piers? We've got a president — if I told you a president doesn't sleep at night and instead tweets crazy stuff in the middle of the night, would you wonder if there was cognitive decline?" MORGAN: "Trump makes himself always available. He's always doing two-hour rally speeches. He's doing endless huddles with the press, endless interviews." Daily Caller

🚨NEW: Piers Morgan says if Trump were in decline, "there would have been an ABSOLUTE FRENZY" in the media to uncover it — Chuck Todd offers absurd counterargument, but Morgan's not buying it🚨 TODD: "Is there a frenzy now, though, Piers? We've got a president — if I told you a president doesn't sleep at night and instead tweets crazy stuff in the middle of the night, would you wonder if there was cognitive decline?" MORGAN: "Trump makes himself always available. He's always doing two-hour rally speeches. He's doing endless huddles with the press, endless interviews." Daily Caller

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

318,660 views • 1 year ago

Recently, Ric Bucher, known assassin of false hoops narrative, cooked a masterpiece on his podcast, On The Ball (Apple) In this clip, Ric highlights the simple mind of the bronsexual, pointing out that their entire self-exposing schtick employed whenever their argument or claim gets cooked, is a deflection tactic using 2 approaches: 1) Diminish Jordan's competition 2) Dismiss the counterargument as biased nostalgia of an oldhead Ric also destroys LeBron for telling a blatant lie about his free throw attempts but I'll post that later. Ric Bucher is one of the only hoops media voices I listen to on anything approaching a regular basis.. he's not been compromised by you know who.

Recently, Ric Bucher, known assassin of false hoops narrative, cooked a masterpiece on his podcast, On The Ball (Apple) In this clip, Ric highlights the simple mind of the bronsexual, pointing out that their entire self-exposing schtick employed whenever their argument or claim gets cooked, is a deflection tactic using 2 approaches: 1) Diminish Jordan's competition 2) Dismiss the counterargument as biased nostalgia of an oldhead Ric also destroys LeBron for telling a blatant lie about his free throw attempts but I'll post that later. Ric Bucher is one of the only hoops media voices I listen to on anything approaching a regular basis.. he's not been compromised by you know who.

Apex Jones

28,414 views • 1 year ago

Could humanoid robots replace people on the battlefield? Compared with risking human lives — and with all the political backlash and risks of stress-induced war crimes and trauma — humanoid soldiers offer a more resilient, restrained, and precise alternative. Robots do not suffer from fatigue or fear and can operate continuously in extreme conditions while immune from radiation, chemicals, or biological agents. But the counterargument is chilling: humanoid soldiers have lower political and ethical barriers to initiating conflict, blur responsibility for any abuses, and further dehumanize warfare. In the latest episode of AI, Explained by Humans, TIME editor-at-large Charlie Campbell visited a company making these robots to see the war technology they're selling to governments around the world and interviewed experts on the potential implications. Read the full story here:

Could humanoid robots replace people on the battlefield? Compared with risking human lives — and with all the political backlash and risks of stress-induced war crimes and trauma — humanoid soldiers offer a more resilient, restrained, and precise alternative. Robots do not suffer from fatigue or fear and can operate continuously in extreme conditions while immune from radiation, chemicals, or biological agents. But the counterargument is chilling: humanoid soldiers have lower political and ethical barriers to initiating conflict, blur responsibility for any abuses, and further dehumanize warfare. In the latest episode of AI, Explained by Humans, TIME editor-at-large Charlie Campbell visited a company making these robots to see the war technology they're selling to governments around the world and interviewed experts on the potential implications. Read the full story here:

TIME

12,152 views • 2 months ago

BORN IN THE USA Birthright citizenship is a moral abomination, yet the Supreme Court is likely to sustain it. Here’s why. I sit down with former Border Patrol commander Gregory K Bovino to reveal what’s really stopping mass deportations. (0:00:15) Birthright Citizenship Crisis (0:03:15) Law vs Justice (0:07:20) Framers Never Intended This (0:10:10) 14th Amendment Breakdown (0:13:15) Jurisdiction Counterargument (0:16:18) Beat the Left at Their Game (0:19:29) interview w/ Greg Bovino (0:24:07) Biden Border Incentives (0:27:49) Smuggling Cycle Exposed (0:32:20) Why Deportations Stall (0:43:42) Media Strategy Matters (0:49:15) Minneapolis Turning Point (0:54:00) Future Of The Fight (0:58:06) Trump's Brilliant Easter Post

BORN IN THE USA Birthright citizenship is a moral abomination, yet the Supreme Court is likely to sustain it. Here’s why. I sit down with former Border Patrol commander Gregory K Bovino to reveal what’s really stopping mass deportations. (0:00:15) Birthright Citizenship Crisis (0:03:15) Law vs Justice (0:07:20) Framers Never Intended This (0:10:10) 14th Amendment Breakdown (0:13:15) Jurisdiction Counterargument (0:16:18) Beat the Left at Their Game (0:19:29) interview w/ Greg Bovino (0:24:07) Biden Border Incentives (0:27:49) Smuggling Cycle Exposed (0:32:20) Why Deportations Stall (0:43:42) Media Strategy Matters (0:49:15) Minneapolis Turning Point (0:54:00) Future Of The Fight (0:58:06) Trump's Brilliant Easter Post

Dinesh D'Souza

433,519 views • 1 month ago

I asked our Head of Finance if I could spend $60,000 to take five enterprise CRO prospects to the Super Bowl. He did the ROI math and it's not looking good for me. Karan Parekh ( Karan Parekh) actually walked me through the numbers on camera - deal size requirements, probability lift benchmarks, estimated ROI, and why our bet at the US Open was 10x smarter. Some of what we get into: - How to calculate the real cost per ticket - Why a 15-20% increase in close probability on even $400k ACV deals doesn't justify the spend - My land-and-expand counterargument (which I thought would win him over) - Our portfolio approach to event marketing budgets and when we measure individual bets vs signal for scaling In the end, Karan gives a surprising reason why even if all five CROs convert, the Super Bowl isn't worth the $. This type of conversation happens every day at Clay. It's how we balance making aggressive creative bets with financial discipline. Yes, he just killed my Super Bowl dreams. But he is (probably) right!

I asked our Head of Finance if I could spend $60,000 to take five enterprise CRO prospects to the Super Bowl. He did the ROI math and it's not looking good for me. Karan Parekh ( Karan Parekh) actually walked me through the numbers on camera - deal size requirements, probability lift benchmarks, estimated ROI, and why our bet at the US Open was 10x smarter. Some of what we get into: - How to calculate the real cost per ticket - Why a 15-20% increase in close probability on even $400k ACV deals doesn't justify the spend - My land-and-expand counterargument (which I thought would win him over) - Our portfolio approach to event marketing budgets and when we measure individual bets vs signal for scaling In the end, Karan gives a surprising reason why even if all five CROs convert, the Super Bowl isn't worth the $. This type of conversation happens every day at Clay. It's how we balance making aggressive creative bets with financial discipline. Yes, he just killed my Super Bowl dreams. But he is (probably) right!

Varun Anand

170,514 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreesen on why building companies will become more expensive in the AI Era. There's a notion that AI will help cut down costs and increase efficiency. However, Marc presented a strong counterargument by referencing Jevon's paradox. Jevon's paradox: The Jevon's paradox occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced. He gave some eg of Jevon's Paradox: ->Building roads will only lead to more cars & resulting in traffic. ->CGI in hollywood was developed to reduce the cost of film making but people's expectation increased, so cost involved in CGI also increased. ->Coal consumption increased in Industrial Revolution when the coal prices decreased. He says,The paradox here making cost of a given piece of software would be reduced, but the massive surge of demand for more powerful softwares will actually increase the cost of building a software company. Customers will start seeking for more & more powerful features.

Marc Andreesen on why building companies will become more expensive in the AI Era. There's a notion that AI will help cut down costs and increase efficiency. However, Marc presented a strong counterargument by referencing Jevon's paradox. Jevon's paradox: The Jevon's paradox occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced. He gave some eg of Jevon's Paradox: ->Building roads will only lead to more cars & resulting in traffic. ->CGI in hollywood was developed to reduce the cost of film making but people's expectation increased, so cost involved in CGI also increased. ->Coal consumption increased in Industrial Revolution when the coal prices decreased. He says,The paradox here making cost of a given piece of software would be reduced, but the massive surge of demand for more powerful softwares will actually increase the cost of building a software company. Customers will start seeking for more & more powerful features.

Aish

809,719 views • 2 years ago

Get Ready To Rumble: John Spencer and Robert A. Pape debate Israel's strategy to respond to October 7th. Is Israel's strategy going to lead to the end of Israel? (0:00) Introduction (3:36) Coin Toss Decision (5:30) Robert Opening Pape's Argument (11:20) John Spencer's Counterargument (15:53) Pape Responds (29:53) Assessing Hamas's Strategic Goals (34:00) Critique on Planning for the Future (37:13) Rebuilding Democracy in the Middle East (41:01) Pape's Preferred Israeli Strategies for October 8th (42:46) Creating a Wedge Strategy (47:09) Insights from General McChrystal (49:42) Differing Military Strategies (50:23) Debating Military Approaches (51:38) Winning Battles vs. Winning Wars (55:58) Political Power Dynamics (59:00) Importance of Words in Strategy (1:01:27) Acknowledging Past Mistakes (1:04:53) Counterinsurgency Strategies (1:08:36) Role of Threat in Strategy (1:10:20) Separating Militant Groups (1:12:05) Achieving Strategic Objectives (1:12:09) Counterinsurgency Tactics (1:14:20) Importance of Meaningful Conversations (1:14:38) Sharp Arguments and Surviving Contact with the Enemy

Get Ready To Rumble: John Spencer and Robert A. Pape debate Israel's strategy to respond to October 7th. Is Israel's strategy going to lead to the end of Israel? (0:00) Introduction (3:36) Coin Toss Decision (5:30) Robert Opening Pape's Argument (11:20) John Spencer's Counterargument (15:53) Pape Responds (29:53) Assessing Hamas's Strategic Goals (34:00) Critique on Planning for the Future (37:13) Rebuilding Democracy in the Middle East (41:01) Pape's Preferred Israeli Strategies for October 8th (42:46) Creating a Wedge Strategy (47:09) Insights from General McChrystal (49:42) Differing Military Strategies (50:23) Debating Military Approaches (51:38) Winning Battles vs. Winning Wars (55:58) Political Power Dynamics (59:00) Importance of Words in Strategy (1:01:27) Acknowledging Past Mistakes (1:04:53) Counterinsurgency Strategies (1:08:36) Role of Threat in Strategy (1:10:20) Separating Militant Groups (1:12:05) Achieving Strategic Objectives (1:12:09) Counterinsurgency Tactics (1:14:20) Importance of Meaningful Conversations (1:14:38) Sharp Arguments and Surviving Contact with the Enemy

Noam Dworman

13,624 views • 1 year ago

NEW: Joe Rogan obliterates Bernie Sanders, the Soros family, and the media for the most outrageous gaslighting ever. “Bernie Sanders making a post about how Donald Trump is trying to silence independent media was the wildest fucking gaslighting I think I’ve ever seen from a politician. Independent media? You mean f*cking CBS? You mean CBS that edited that Kamala Harris interview to make it look like she had a really good point?” Alex Soros warned that the U.S. has become an “unelected cabal wielding power” under Donald Trump and Elon Musk. “That’s you! That’s you, Alex. That’s your dad!” Rogan shot back, exposing the hypocrisy of a billionaire heir complaining about elite control when his own family wields massive influence over global politics. Meanwhile, the media cries over a so-called “constitutional crisis” and screams that “no one elected Elon” as the government gets caught funneling taxpayer dollars into left-wing Politico, Iraqi Sesame Street, and Moroccan pottery classes. Joe Rogan to the media: “All you’re talking about is the horrors of dismantling this amazing organization. What about all this shit that they’ve uncovered? There’s not even a counterargument like, no, we need to fund gender-fluid dance in f*cking Turkey. What are you talking about? We need $200 million for Starbucks Keurig cups. What?”

NEW: Joe Rogan obliterates Bernie Sanders, the Soros family, and the media for the most outrageous gaslighting ever. “Bernie Sanders making a post about how Donald Trump is trying to silence independent media was the wildest fucking gaslighting I think I’ve ever seen from a politician. Independent media? You mean fcking CBS? You mean CBS that edited that Kamala Harris interview to make it look like she had a really good point?” Alex Soros warned that the U.S. has become an “unelected cabal wielding power” under Donald Trump and Elon Musk. “That’s you! That’s you, Alex. That’s your dad!” Rogan shot back, exposing the hypocrisy of a billionaire heir complaining about elite control when his own family wields massive influence over global politics. Meanwhile, the media cries over a so-called “constitutional crisis” and screams that “no one elected Elon” as the government gets caught funneling taxpayer dollars into left-wing Politico, Iraqi Sesame Street, and Moroccan pottery classes. Joe Rogan to the media: “All you’re talking about is the horrors of dismantling this amazing organization. What about all this shit that they’ve uncovered? There’s not even a counterargument like, no, we need to fund gender-fluid dance in fcking Turkey. What are you talking about? We need $200 million for Starbucks Keurig cups. What?”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,708,512 views • 1 year ago

We are very excited to release zerank-2, ZeroEntropy (YC W25) 's newest reranker model. 🔥 It shows major improvement on the 5 most common RAG failure modes below. Existing rerankers consistently fail on seemingly “simple” tasks: 🔢 Comparing numbers and date: “Biggest deals closed after 04/2024.” 🗄️ Aggregation: “Top 10 objections of customer X?” 🌍 Multilingual: Major pain point, especially non-English to non-English. 🙏 Instruction-Following: “Find the *counterargument* of the claim in the transcript” 🥇 Calibrated scores: You ask "what should I cook for dinner?", and "I am allergic to nuts" scores too low for your threshold. Many rerankers overfit public benchmarks, and don’t generalize to these real issues. zerank-2 outperforms existing rerankers considerably on all of these failure modes, in real production environments. With zerank-2, you get: * 15% improvement vs Cohere rerank 3.5 on Arabic/Hindi (Miraql dataset) * +12% NDCG@10 on sorting tasks (new open-sourced eval set) * +7% vs Gemini Flash on instruction-following (MAIR dataset) * $0.025/1M tokens, 150ms p90 latency at 100KB 🤗 We are open-sourcing the model weights, along with new challenging eval sets on Hugging Face. Our Elo-inspired training methodology is already open-source! We're starting a series of technical deep dives to explain various failure modes zerank-2 fixes, with concrete prod examples, methodologies, and benchmarks. First technical deep dive in the comments.

We are very excited to release zerank-2, ZeroEntropy (YC W25) 's newest reranker model. 🔥 It shows major improvement on the 5 most common RAG failure modes below. Existing rerankers consistently fail on seemingly “simple” tasks: 🔢 Comparing numbers and date: “Biggest deals closed after 04/2024.” 🗄️ Aggregation: “Top 10 objections of customer X?” 🌍 Multilingual: Major pain point, especially non-English to non-English. 🙏 Instruction-Following: “Find the counterargument of the claim in the transcript” 🥇 Calibrated scores: You ask "what should I cook for dinner?", and "I am allergic to nuts" scores too low for your threshold. Many rerankers overfit public benchmarks, and don’t generalize to these real issues. zerank-2 outperforms existing rerankers considerably on all of these failure modes, in real production environments. With zerank-2, you get: * 15% improvement vs Cohere rerank 3.5 on Arabic/Hindi (Miraql dataset) * +12% NDCG@10 on sorting tasks (new open-sourced eval set) * +7% vs Gemini Flash on instruction-following (MAIR dataset) * $0.025/1M tokens, 150ms p90 latency at 100KB 🤗 We are open-sourcing the model weights, along with new challenging eval sets on Hugging Face. Our Elo-inspired training methodology is already open-source! We're starting a series of technical deep dives to explain various failure modes zerank-2 fixes, with concrete prod examples, methodologies, and benchmarks. First technical deep dive in the comments.

Ghita

88,409 views • 6 months ago

I just went down this rabbit hole, and it's so fascinating. So apparently, airlines have been selling your data to competitors for years. Strange right? I know, hear me out... It's called dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing is when a company charges you a price calculated specifically for you, based on what they know about you, rather than a fixed price everyone sees. Nobody called it surveillance. The mainstream take on dynamic pricing is that it's sinister and new. Corporations secretly watching, jacking up prices, exploiting desperation. That anger is mostly right. Dynamic pricing isn't a bug that crept into capitalism. It's the entire architecture of how information asymmetry becomes profit. Airlines have always charged different people different prices for the same seat. Hotels. Insurance companies. Actuarial profiling predates the internet. What changed isn't the behavior. It's the resolution. Your battery at 8% telling Uber you're stranded is a higher-resolution version of the taxi driver who saw you running in the rain and didn't turn the meter off. The new part is the precision. They know you searched the same flight six times. They know you're on a Mac. They know your zip code and how long you've been sitting on the page. Old dynamic pricing responded to demand. Surveillance pricing responds to you. The counterargument from the market side is real. Personalization can mean discounts. But companies optimizing for revenue will use behavioral data to find the ceiling, not the floor. What are your thoughts? Is this fair or pure greed from big corp? That's a wrap. Li is a gallery for the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. Follow if that interests you. We are ONE genius away. -- P.S. I'm building a course on how the world actually works. Not the surface story, but the incentive layer underneath it. Who funds what. Who benefits from what you believe? Why the official explanation is rarely the complete one. Comment "yes" if you're interested in something like this. Waitlist opens soon.

I just went down this rabbit hole, and it's so fascinating. So apparently, airlines have been selling your data to competitors for years. Strange right? I know, hear me out... It's called dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing is when a company charges you a price calculated specifically for you, based on what they know about you, rather than a fixed price everyone sees. Nobody called it surveillance. The mainstream take on dynamic pricing is that it's sinister and new. Corporations secretly watching, jacking up prices, exploiting desperation. That anger is mostly right. Dynamic pricing isn't a bug that crept into capitalism. It's the entire architecture of how information asymmetry becomes profit. Airlines have always charged different people different prices for the same seat. Hotels. Insurance companies. Actuarial profiling predates the internet. What changed isn't the behavior. It's the resolution. Your battery at 8% telling Uber you're stranded is a higher-resolution version of the taxi driver who saw you running in the rain and didn't turn the meter off. The new part is the precision. They know you searched the same flight six times. They know you're on a Mac. They know your zip code and how long you've been sitting on the page. Old dynamic pricing responded to demand. Surveillance pricing responds to you. The counterargument from the market side is real. Personalization can mean discounts. But companies optimizing for revenue will use behavioral data to find the ceiling, not the floor. What are your thoughts? Is this fair or pure greed from big corp? That's a wrap. Li is a gallery for the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. Follow if that interests you. We are ONE genius away. -- P.S. I'm building a course on how the world actually works. Not the surface story, but the incentive layer underneath it. Who funds what. Who benefits from what you believe? Why the official explanation is rarely the complete one. Comment "yes" if you're interested in something like this. Waitlist opens soon.

GeniusThinking

38,698 views • 2 months ago

In 2019, Elon Musk sat across from Jack Ma on a stage in Shanghai. Two of the most powerful men alive. One conversation that exposed everything. Ma had a thesis. He believed it the way men believe the things that flatter them. Ma: “Humans can never create another animal that is smarter than humans.” It sounded like science. It was a prayer. Musk: “I very much disagree with that.” No heat. No counterargument. The flat voice of a man who has already run the numbers and found nothing on the other side. Ma pressed. He wanted the comfort said back to him. Ma: “Computers may be clever, but human beings are much smarter.” Musk didn’t answer. He reached for his water. Took a slow sip. Set it down. Musk: “Yeah, definitely not.” Not the words. The water. The gesture of a man who realized the conversation had ended minutes ago and only one of them noticed. Ma was voicing the deepest assumption humanity carries. That biological intelligence is the ceiling of intelligence itself. It sounds true. It feels true. It has never once been true about anything else we have ever built. We never outran predators. We built weapons. Never outswam oceans. We built ships. Never outflew birds. We built planes. Every breakthrough in human history is a tool that exceeded the body that made it. Ten thousand years of the same pattern. And now we are building the tool that does to the mind what every other tool did to muscle and bone. Ma’s objection was never technical. It was existential. If something can outthink you, what exactly are you? Most people refuse to let that question fully form. Musk lets it form. Sits inside it. Builds into it. Because he understands something Ma doesn’t. Building beyond yourself was never a flaw in human intelligence. It was the entire function of it. Every parent raises a child they hope surpasses them. Every teacher works toward the day they’re no longer needed. Creating something greater than yourself is not a threat to what you are. It is the most human thing there is. Ma looked at AI and saw something that needed to stay beneath him. Musk looked at it and saw the most human project ever attempted. That is what separated the two men on that stage. The audience laughed that day in Shanghai. They thought Ma was charming and Musk was awkward. They didn’t realize they were watching two entirely different futures sit three feet apart. Certainty is the anesthetic. It feels like clarity. It is the precise sensation of a door closing in a room you would swear is still open. Ma used the most sophisticated product of blind evolution to argue that intentional design could never exceed it. The thesis refuted itself before he finished the sentence.

In 2019, Elon Musk sat across from Jack Ma on a stage in Shanghai. Two of the most powerful men alive. One conversation that exposed everything. Ma had a thesis. He believed it the way men believe the things that flatter them. Ma: “Humans can never create another animal that is smarter than humans.” It sounded like science. It was a prayer. Musk: “I very much disagree with that.” No heat. No counterargument. The flat voice of a man who has already run the numbers and found nothing on the other side. Ma pressed. He wanted the comfort said back to him. Ma: “Computers may be clever, but human beings are much smarter.” Musk didn’t answer. He reached for his water. Took a slow sip. Set it down. Musk: “Yeah, definitely not.” Not the words. The water. The gesture of a man who realized the conversation had ended minutes ago and only one of them noticed. Ma was voicing the deepest assumption humanity carries. That biological intelligence is the ceiling of intelligence itself. It sounds true. It feels true. It has never once been true about anything else we have ever built. We never outran predators. We built weapons. Never outswam oceans. We built ships. Never outflew birds. We built planes. Every breakthrough in human history is a tool that exceeded the body that made it. Ten thousand years of the same pattern. And now we are building the tool that does to the mind what every other tool did to muscle and bone. Ma’s objection was never technical. It was existential. If something can outthink you, what exactly are you? Most people refuse to let that question fully form. Musk lets it form. Sits inside it. Builds into it. Because he understands something Ma doesn’t. Building beyond yourself was never a flaw in human intelligence. It was the entire function of it. Every parent raises a child they hope surpasses them. Every teacher works toward the day they’re no longer needed. Creating something greater than yourself is not a threat to what you are. It is the most human thing there is. Ma looked at AI and saw something that needed to stay beneath him. Musk looked at it and saw the most human project ever attempted. That is what separated the two men on that stage. The audience laughed that day in Shanghai. They thought Ma was charming and Musk was awkward. They didn’t realize they were watching two entirely different futures sit three feet apart. Certainty is the anesthetic. It feels like clarity. It is the precise sensation of a door closing in a room you would swear is still open. Ma used the most sophisticated product of blind evolution to argue that intentional design could never exceed it. The thesis refuted itself before he finished the sentence.

Dustin

148,006 views • 6 days ago

This belongs to all of us.

This belongs to all of us.

Arsenal

11,771,914 views • 17 days ago