Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Daniel Dennett on "deepities" the profound-sounding claims that are secretly empty Philosopher Daniel Dennett has a name for a type of statement that sounds wise but actually says nothing: a deepity. He explains it this way: "A deepity is an apparently profound observation that is ambiguous. It has two...

im_Mateus_'s profile picture

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,229 subscribers

26,540 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."
1:15

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Rich Barton (Expedia & Zillow CEO) on how to name your company “There’s an easy way and hard way. You can use a literal word (hotels dot-com). You can use an existing word but make a new application of it (Apple). Or you can invent a new word.” As he explains, there are pros and cons to each approach: 1. Use a literal word “The easy way is if you're building a travel site to call it hotels. com…Every category has a literal word dot-com. The advantages to that are it's easy to explain to people what you do. And the disadvantages to that are you don't own any brand equity,” 2. Take a known word and give it a new meaning ”Apple Computer. Amazon. That’s viable, but you have to build a new definition for that word, which those companies obviously did successfully.” 3. Make up a new word “The hard way, and the best way is to make up a word, which is super hard because you have to tell people what the word means,” “You have to define it for them. But once you do, you own that word. The definition of that word is yours and only yours.” Rich chose to invent new words for his companies Zillow and Expedia. Video source: Tim Ferriss (2025)
1:24

Rich Barton (Expedia & Zillow CEO) on how to name your company “There’s an easy way and hard way. You can use a literal word (hotels dot-com). You can use an existing word but make a new application of it (Apple). Or you can invent a new word.” As he explains, there are pros and cons to each approach: 1. Use a literal word “The easy way is if you're building a travel site to call it hotels. com…Every category has a literal word dot-com. The advantages to that are it's easy to explain to people what you do. And the disadvantages to that are you don't own any brand equity,” 2. Take a known word and give it a new meaning ”Apple Computer. Amazon. That’s viable, but you have to build a new definition for that word, which those companies obviously did successfully.” 3. Make up a new word “The hard way, and the best way is to make up a word, which is super hard because you have to tell people what the word means,” “You have to define it for them. But once you do, you own that word. The definition of that word is yours and only yours.” Rich chose to invent new words for his companies Zillow and Expedia. Video source: Tim Ferriss (2025)

Startup Archive

14,813 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“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.”
3:10

“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 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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.”
1:44

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Is there such a thing as the ‘last love’? 🧸: what is the ‘last love’? 🦋: doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist for me 🧸: doesn’t exist. Love can exist in all forms, there’s no ending for that, right? 🦋: yeah, I mean that in the end you might find your true soulmate and someday you’ll have or see new things to love like your child or a pet. Love has no ending, it’s infinite and forever. 🧸: for me, there’s no ending for love 🦋: I think the word ‘last’ is too fixed 🧸: yeah, I feel that the word love isn’t just about two people, but it can be with your friends, pets, or your favourite worn-out blanket that you love. That’s also another form of love, so I feel that love exists all the time. #ลีน่าหมิว #LenaMiu
0:58

Is there such a thing as the ‘last love’? 🧸: what is the ‘last love’? 🦋: doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist for me 🧸: doesn’t exist. Love can exist in all forms, there’s no ending for that, right? 🦋: yeah, I mean that in the end you might find your true soulmate and someday you’ll have or see new things to love like your child or a pet. Love has no ending, it’s infinite and forever. 🧸: for me, there’s no ending for love 🦋: I think the word ‘last’ is too fixed 🧸: yeah, I feel that the word love isn’t just about two people, but it can be with your friends, pets, or your favourite worn-out blanket that you love. That’s also another form of love, so I feel that love exists all the time. #ลีน่าหมิว #LenaMiu

Shez.

19,696 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

👤 is the rumor that you two are in a relationship true? 👸🏻 yes, it's true. we are in a relationship where we love each other deeply and a lot. 🤴🏻(shy) 👤 where is the place you first met? 👸🏻 officially, it is at his majesty's birthday banquet, but actually our connection/fate is deeper than it looks. we have had that kind of relationship since our teens.
0:20

👤 is the rumor that you two are in a relationship true? 👸🏻 yes, it's true. we are in a relationship where we love each other deeply and a lot. 🤴🏻(shy) 👤 where is the place you first met? 👸🏻 officially, it is at his majesty's birthday banquet, but actually our connection/fate is deeper than it looks. we have had that kind of relationship since our teens.

j.

67,543 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

In Rust, error handling is opt-out, not opt-in. Alice Ryhl (Rust for Android at Google, Rust language advisor & Tokio maintainer) explains: “The other thing I think is quite good is error handling. So on one hand, Rust doesn't really use exceptions, so it actually returns the error as a value. So you return a value that's, using an enum, either the result or the error. And the way this is done is that there's an operator `?` - so you write: my_function and then a question mark at the end - which means if this function fails, return the error. So it's really easy to handle errors but it's not serial characters like it is with exceptions, so it's explicit. On the other hand, if you forget to put the question mark, that's a compilation error. So you have to check it, and of course you can also have it manually, but the point is it's this idea of there are these things where you write some code and there's some implicit error condition you didn't think of and now you just took down your server or something.”
1:13

In Rust, error handling is opt-out, not opt-in. Alice Ryhl (Rust for Android at Google, Rust language advisor & Tokio maintainer) explains: “The other thing I think is quite good is error handling. So on one hand, Rust doesn't really use exceptions, so it actually returns the error as a value. So you return a value that's, using an enum, either the result or the error. And the way this is done is that there's an operator `?` - so you write: my_function and then a question mark at the end - which means if this function fails, return the error. So it's really easy to handle errors but it's not serial characters like it is with exceptions, so it's explicit. On the other hand, if you forget to put the question mark, that's a compilation error. So you have to check it, and of course you can also have it manually, but the point is it's this idea of there are these things where you write some code and there's some implicit error condition you didn't think of and now you just took down your server or something.”

The Pragmatic Engineer

52,059 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.
0:52

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

27,874 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

People are skeptical that teachers don't know their students can't read. Yes, teachers know students can't decode words. But teachers have been taught that words aren't necessary for "reading". Here's a teacher teaching kids to "read" by looking at pictures. In fact the word they're "reading" is covered up so the students can't even see it! And listen to how she describes it at the end of the video: "reading and analyzing text"
0:51

People are skeptical that teachers don't know their students can't read. Yes, teachers know students can't decode words. But teachers have been taught that words aren't necessary for "reading". Here's a teacher teaching kids to "read" by looking at pictures. In fact the word they're "reading" is covered up so the students can't even see it! And listen to how she describes it at the end of the video: "reading and analyzing text"

Niels Hoven 🐮

568,256 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

"This is true! When Elon says 'Questioning the science is part of the science,' I don't know if anybody in scientific academia knows that because usually if you publish a paper or a study, that's it! Nobody questions it. You just publish it, and that's it!"
1:29

"This is true! When Elon says 'Questioning the science is part of the science,' I don't know if anybody in scientific academia knows that because usually if you publish a paper or a study, that's it! Nobody questions it. You just publish it, and that's it!"

Destiny | Steven Bonnell II

126,411 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#Ouromori ⏳️about to leave and getting embarrassed about her message ⏳️:The point is, the point is, like... know that... I don't say it to a lot of people, but, I love you man 💀:Aww, I love you too man ⏳️:*chuckles* man. You know, love is a very strong word for me and(1/?)
2:20

#Ouromori ⏳️about to leave and getting embarrassed about her message ⏳️:The point is, the point is, like... know that... I don't say it to a lot of people, but, I love you man 💀:Aww, I love you too man ⏳️:*chuckles* man. You know, love is a very strong word for me and(1/?)

Sneightow

46,007 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

BREAKING: President Trump vows to hold a press conference to read the full memorandum of understanding with Iran word-by-word to make sure the media covers it fairly. "I will actually not only release it, I'll probably have a press conference and read it to you word-by-word, so that the press covers it accurately, because it's, it's a very important document." "And, unlike Obama, who could have destroyed the Middle East with a horrible JCPoA, it is the worst agreement that was a road to a nuclear weapon. Mine is a wall against a nuclear weapon."
0:36

BREAKING: President Trump vows to hold a press conference to read the full memorandum of understanding with Iran word-by-word to make sure the media covers it fairly. "I will actually not only release it, I'll probably have a press conference and read it to you word-by-word, so that the press covers it accurately, because it's, it's a very important document." "And, unlike Obama, who could have destroyed the Middle East with a horrible JCPoA, it is the worst agreement that was a road to a nuclear weapon. Mine is a wall against a nuclear weapon."

Fox News

1,822,603 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

I asked Richardquest if he sees a pattern in Trump’s seemingly market-timed statements on the Iran war: “Jim, from where I come from, in northern England, we have a saying, let's call a spade a bloody shovel. And and you just got to call it as it as it appears. And here there is no doubt that when the heat gets really hard in the market, something happens. The president says something, he acts. There is a movement that takes the heat out and the market rallies back up again, but nothing fundamentally alters underneath it. And that's the important thing to bear in mind. And in fact, arguably the underlying movement is deteriorating and worsening. All that's happening is the market is being is being teased, if you will. It's being sugarcoated, manipulated with a small M it's being told things it wants to hear. And as a result, it goes back up again. You can't necessarily say that. And I wouldn't say that's the president's motive because I don't know. But I can say that the relationship, as you say, between these statements, market movements, reality of what's happening, true change in the economic circumstances, which as the oecd points out, is deteriorating, that there is a connection.”
1:42

I asked Richardquest if he sees a pattern in Trump’s seemingly market-timed statements on the Iran war: “Jim, from where I come from, in northern England, we have a saying, let's call a spade a bloody shovel. And and you just got to call it as it as it appears. And here there is no doubt that when the heat gets really hard in the market, something happens. The president says something, he acts. There is a movement that takes the heat out and the market rallies back up again, but nothing fundamentally alters underneath it. And that's the important thing to bear in mind. And in fact, arguably the underlying movement is deteriorating and worsening. All that's happening is the market is being is being teased, if you will. It's being sugarcoated, manipulated with a small M it's being told things it wants to hear. And as a result, it goes back up again. You can't necessarily say that. And I wouldn't say that's the president's motive because I don't know. But I can say that the relationship, as you say, between these statements, market movements, reality of what's happening, true change in the economic circumstances, which as the oecd points out, is deteriorating, that there is a connection.”

Jim Sciutto

231,192 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Nick says that the global economy is on the brink of collapse. "It is just a disaster. There's no other word for it. It's a catastrophe. Totally preventable… and yet we walked into it all the same."
3:32

Nick says that the global economy is on the brink of collapse. "It is just a disaster. There's no other word for it. It's a catastrophe. Totally preventable… and yet we walked into it all the same."

Fuentes Updates

80,632 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Cliché slogans like “love is love” and “when love beats power, the world will know peace” are empty. The people pushing them do not know what love actually is. True love is sacrificial. It wills the good of the other person. It rejoices in truth and does not celebrate sin or delusion. Modern culture uses the word “love” to justify lust, selfishness, and the destruction of the family. Until we recover a biblical understanding of love, these empty phrases will continue to mask degeneracy.
2:47

Cliché slogans like “love is love” and “when love beats power, the world will know peace” are empty. The people pushing them do not know what love actually is. True love is sacrificial. It wills the good of the other person. It rejoices in truth and does not celebrate sin or delusion. Modern culture uses the word “love” to justify lust, selfishness, and the destruction of the family. Until we recover a biblical understanding of love, these empty phrases will continue to mask degeneracy.

Kangmin Lee | 이강민

10,559 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

Rodney Mullen is the "Godfather" of skateboarding for inventing most of the sport's tricks. He started the first skateboarder-owned company, which he eventually sold for $46 million. In his 50s now, he still skateboards every day. He attributes his sustained success to this: "It's such a gift to be able to [do] something and to love it for the sake of it...I have that. I’ve nurtured it in my life." "I see people with talent, with all those things," he says, "but the one thing they don't have is just that love for doing it for the sake of it...So if there's anything, just find joy in what you do for the sake of it." There's a word for what Rodney's describing: Autotelic. From the Greek "auto" (self) & "telos" (end), an Autotelic is "someone or something that has a purpose in, and not apart from, itself." As opposed to someone who views their work as a means to some end (money, fame, etc.)—for an Autotelic... "The work is the win," as Ryan Holiday likes to say. Since you control the work you put in and not how it’s received... "Ultimately, you have to love doing it," Ryan once told me. "You have to get to a place where doing the work is the win and everything else is extra.” You have to "find joy in what you do for the sake of it." - - - "The closer we get to the core of all being, the more synonymous the effort and its reward.” Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!
1:11

Rodney Mullen is the "Godfather" of skateboarding for inventing most of the sport's tricks. He started the first skateboarder-owned company, which he eventually sold for $46 million. In his 50s now, he still skateboards every day. He attributes his sustained success to this: "It's such a gift to be able to [do] something and to love it for the sake of it...I have that. I’ve nurtured it in my life." "I see people with talent, with all those things," he says, "but the one thing they don't have is just that love for doing it for the sake of it...So if there's anything, just find joy in what you do for the sake of it." There's a word for what Rodney's describing: Autotelic. From the Greek "auto" (self) & "telos" (end), an Autotelic is "someone or something that has a purpose in, and not apart from, itself." As opposed to someone who views their work as a means to some end (money, fame, etc.)—for an Autotelic... "The work is the win," as Ryan Holiday likes to say. Since you control the work you put in and not how it’s received... "Ultimately, you have to love doing it," Ryan once told me. "You have to get to a place where doing the work is the win and everything else is extra.” You have to "find joy in what you do for the sake of it." - - - "The closer we get to the core of all being, the more synonymous the effort and its reward.” Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!

Billy Oppenheimer

742,978 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren