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.

Don’t hunch

Bruno Baba

478,205 subscribers

380,809 views • 4 months 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

Why don’t I ever hear the feminists talk about being equally represented in these roughneck jobs? I have a hunch though 😂

Why don’t I ever hear the feminists talk about being equally represented in these roughneck jobs? I have a hunch though 😂

Kat Kanada 🏴

6,379,344 views • 2 years ago

The abrupt ending of The Wolf of Wall Street is unforgettable for its unsettling note that mirror’s society’s ongoing worship of wealth over decency. Don’t feel the pressure to nail it in one take. Let your hunch start something great and AI take it from there.

The abrupt ending of The Wolf of Wall Street is unforgettable for its unsettling note that mirror’s society’s ongoing worship of wealth over decency. Don’t feel the pressure to nail it in one take. Let your hunch start something great and AI take it from there.

Historic Vids

162,021 views • 12 days ago

This why so many people don’t have healthy relationships. Because y’all too busy trying to hunch with everyone instead talking to them to learn and understand. Men and women are built different and think different but if you can’t even be friends with someone of the opposite without sex and or money being involved you will never gain any understanding of how their mind and thought process works. 🤓🤓🤓🤓

This why so many people don’t have healthy relationships. Because y’all too busy trying to hunch with everyone instead talking to them to learn and understand. Men and women are built different and think different but if you can’t even be friends with someone of the opposite without sex and or money being involved you will never gain any understanding of how their mind and thought process works. 🤓🤓🤓🤓

PoloMan

196,729 views • 8 months ago

Long before ADAM LAMBERT and I ever said out loud who we were, our mothers were already paying attention. My mom once placed her yellow canary heels beside my dad’s work boots to see which pair toddler me would choose. Years later, Adam’s mom noticed him exploring her clothes and makeup. Both stories led to the same realization: our moms had been watching more closely than we knew. Mine had a hunch. Adam’s had one very specific boundary: “I don’t care that you’re putting on women’s clothes. I care that you’re putting on my stuff.”

Long before ADAM LAMBERT and I ever said out loud who we were, our mothers were already paying attention. My mom once placed her yellow canary heels beside my dad’s work boots to see which pair toddler me would choose. Years later, Adam’s mom noticed him exploring her clothes and makeup. Both stories led to the same realization: our moms had been watching more closely than we knew. Mine had a hunch. Adam’s had one very specific boundary: “I don’t care that you’re putting on women’s clothes. I care that you’re putting on my stuff.”

David Begnaud

13,360 views • 3 months ago

Nick Fuentes clarified his stance on Jeffrey Epstein, saying he’s focusing on what is clear and obvious. “When you shed a light on these 3 million emails…what you don’t find is a smoking gun about ritual satanic abuse. You might suspect that. You might have a hunch. And you might even be right. I don’t actually think it’s crazy to think that’s going on.” “The most extraordinary, maximalist claims about pedo island, satanic pedos, and occult cabals, it just isn’t in there. If it was I’d be covering it on the show. If it was, we’d be talking about it. We’d be investigating.” “What is there, is what is transparent and obvious. Which is, that our society is clearly leveraged, manipulated, and influenced by elite jews in every sector of society.”

Nick Fuentes clarified his stance on Jeffrey Epstein, saying he’s focusing on what is clear and obvious. “When you shed a light on these 3 million emails…what you don’t find is a smoking gun about ritual satanic abuse. You might suspect that. You might have a hunch. And you might even be right. I don’t actually think it’s crazy to think that’s going on.” “The most extraordinary, maximalist claims about pedo island, satanic pedos, and occult cabals, it just isn’t in there. If it was I’d be covering it on the show. If it was, we’d be talking about it. We’d be investigating.” “What is there, is what is transparent and obvious. Which is, that our society is clearly leveraged, manipulated, and influenced by elite jews in every sector of society.”

Fractured Light

600,322 views • 8 months ago

Clock. They was mad at me for putting khia stairs on people posting their OWN business all because I gave it more attention, ppl enjoyed it, and mad hoes was jealous I received attention (because they pages boring and still is). Khia been in the bed chilling while these girlies continue to pick and choose when they wanna play moral police. If it’s a content creator they don’t like, they LOVE the mess and want front row seats (Grayling, etc). But let it be somebody they wanna HUNCH like animal planet or somebody they’re associated to— and then suddenly everybody needs to have morals and respect people’s privacy.

Clock. They was mad at me for putting khia stairs on people posting their OWN business all because I gave it more attention, ppl enjoyed it, and mad hoes was jealous I received attention (because they pages boring and still is). Khia been in the bed chilling while these girlies continue to pick and choose when they wanna play moral police. If it’s a content creator they don’t like, they LOVE the mess and want front row seats (Grayling, etc). But let it be somebody they wanna HUNCH like animal planet or somebody they’re associated to— and then suddenly everybody needs to have morals and respect people’s privacy.

Boochie Myers🔪

10,870 views • 7 days ago

Leaving Las Vegas starring Kevin Gill. I wasn’t going to post this out of respect but I’m sharing these video recordings of Kevin’s crash out because some people are claiming it was “The Kansas City Shuffle!” 🤨🤔 If this was acting the dude seriously deserves an Oscar. I’m obviously leaning more toward it being real mainly because I can’t see those being fake cops or the police being in on a stunt like this. With that out the way, here are a few things that I noticed and is a little suspicious to me… First the phone number he gave for his brother? I don’t think it’s actually his brother’s. I went halfway down the rabbit hole and it looks like it belongs to someone else. I won’t dox anyone but I am curious what y’all dig up. Second, I don’t even believe he has an ex girlfriend named Natalie and I don’t think that’s a girl’s number either but that’s just a hunch. Curious what you retards find… Here’s every video of that night that I have. Fake or real? Let the tinfoil hat games begin! 🐶

Leaving Las Vegas starring Kevin Gill. I wasn’t going to post this out of respect but I’m sharing these video recordings of Kevin’s crash out because some people are claiming it was “The Kansas City Shuffle!” 🤨🤔 If this was acting the dude seriously deserves an Oscar. I’m obviously leaning more toward it being real mainly because I can’t see those being fake cops or the police being in on a stunt like this. With that out the way, here are a few things that I noticed and is a little suspicious to me… First the phone number he gave for his brother? I don’t think it’s actually his brother’s. I went halfway down the rabbit hole and it looks like it belongs to someone else. I won’t dox anyone but I am curious what y’all dig up. Second, I don’t even believe he has an ex girlfriend named Natalie and I don’t think that’s a girl’s number either but that’s just a hunch. Curious what you retards find… Here’s every video of that night that I have. Fake or real? Let the tinfoil hat games begin! 🐶

No_Pie_2109

14,534 views • 6 months ago

Plaid CEO Zachary Perret says AI agents will rely on credit cards, not stablecoins, for payments in the near term: "For as far as I can see, which in this environment is maybe a year or something like that, I think agents using credit cards is going to be by far the primary thing that happens." "The reason for that is merchants accept credit cards. Merchants don’t accept stablecoins, for the most part, for most of the things that a consumer wants to do." "Now, over time, certain types of merchants might start to accept stablecoins. The question is: will the companies that care about making credit cards really easy be able to make them sufficiently easy in the amount of time before merchants actually start thinking about accepting stablecoins?" "And my hunch is, you’ve seen, I think Ramp actually launched an agentic credit card... I know there’s a bunch of other agentic credit cards that are out there, and I can’t imagine that there will not be 5,000 YC companies launching agentic-focused credit cards soon." "So I think we will see more and more options pop up. That’s not to say I’m not a believer in stablecoins. I think it’d be super cool, but I just don’t think it’s realistic in a short time frame."

Plaid CEO Zachary Perret says AI agents will rely on credit cards, not stablecoins, for payments in the near term: "For as far as I can see, which in this environment is maybe a year or something like that, I think agents using credit cards is going to be by far the primary thing that happens." "The reason for that is merchants accept credit cards. Merchants don’t accept stablecoins, for the most part, for most of the things that a consumer wants to do." "Now, over time, certain types of merchants might start to accept stablecoins. The question is: will the companies that care about making credit cards really easy be able to make them sufficiently easy in the amount of time before merchants actually start thinking about accepting stablecoins?" "And my hunch is, you’ve seen, I think Ramp actually launched an agentic credit card... I know there’s a bunch of other agentic credit cards that are out there, and I can’t imagine that there will not be 5,000 YC companies launching agentic-focused credit cards soon." "So I think we will see more and more options pop up. That’s not to say I’m not a believer in stablecoins. I think it’d be super cool, but I just don’t think it’s realistic in a short time frame."

TBPN

52,930 views • 6 months ago

🐹Jimin and I have completely different workout styles. I keep it neat and tidy, I’m like “today, I will hit all three chest exercises, then move on to shoulders and abs, all in a flash.” It’s a bit short, even I think it’s a bit short, but I do about 30 minutes and head out. But Jimin works out, like a rice cooker, “hisssssss~~~” he was working out like this. So I asked him, “Jimin, when you work out like that, is that a workout or a rice cooker finishing cooking? I don’t really get it.” Then there was this one time when we were playing a game, and he suddenly said he needed to go somewhere. I said, “Where are you going?” Anyway, he said this was his last round of the game. When I asked where he was going, he said he couldn’t tell me. “No, where are you going? Why is it a secret from me?” “Ah, I just can’t, I just can’t tell you, hyung,“ Jimin said. That’s when I got a hunch. When Jimin works out, I don’t exactly bother him, but I do keep striking up conversations with him next to him. “Jimin, that’s not how you work out. Lifting such a light weight is a problem. You’re not holding dumbbells, it’s like you’re holding the Earth, you’re lifting air. Are cicadas coming from somewhere? I guess the rice is ready, Jimin.” I teases him a bit, but I don’t interrupt him when working out. Do I? I don’t bother him when I am exercising. I am not sure about when he’s working out, but I don’t bother him when I am exercising. Maybe I am a bad person? but I am not that bad though? I guess Jimin felt like he’s being interrupted, so he kept it a secret from me and went to work out. “Okay, I get it. Let’s just play the game up to this point.” So I turned the game off right away, and since I thought Jimin might go there, so I went to work out. Then he asked, “How did you know I was coming?” So this was a little episode we had 😄 #JIN (Jin is so funny 😆)

🐹Jimin and I have completely different workout styles. I keep it neat and tidy, I’m like “today, I will hit all three chest exercises, then move on to shoulders and abs, all in a flash.” It’s a bit short, even I think it’s a bit short, but I do about 30 minutes and head out. But Jimin works out, like a rice cooker, “hisssssss~~~” he was working out like this. So I asked him, “Jimin, when you work out like that, is that a workout or a rice cooker finishing cooking? I don’t really get it.” Then there was this one time when we were playing a game, and he suddenly said he needed to go somewhere. I said, “Where are you going?” Anyway, he said this was his last round of the game. When I asked where he was going, he said he couldn’t tell me. “No, where are you going? Why is it a secret from me?” “Ah, I just can’t, I just can’t tell you, hyung,“ Jimin said. That’s when I got a hunch. When Jimin works out, I don’t exactly bother him, but I do keep striking up conversations with him next to him. “Jimin, that’s not how you work out. Lifting such a light weight is a problem. You’re not holding dumbbells, it’s like you’re holding the Earth, you’re lifting air. Are cicadas coming from somewhere? I guess the rice is ready, Jimin.” I teases him a bit, but I don’t interrupt him when working out. Do I? I don’t bother him when I am exercising. I am not sure about when he’s working out, but I don’t bother him when I am exercising. Maybe I am a bad person? but I am not that bad though? I guess Jimin felt like he’s being interrupted, so he kept it a secret from me and went to work out. “Okay, I get it. Let’s just play the game up to this point.” So I turned the game off right away, and since I thought Jimin might go there, so I went to work out. Then he asked, “How did you know I was coming?” So this was a little episode we had 😄 #JIN (Jin is so funny 😆)

FOR BTS JIN (김석진번역팀)

14,188 views • 2 months ago

Jeff Bezos on the importance of intuition when building something new When Jeff Bezos is trying to figure out where his company should spend its energy and resources, he always goes back to his customer’s needs. “That’s the only way I can advise any founder or entrepreneur,” Jeff explains. “Deeply understand what the big ideas are that their customers want.” One way to understand your customers’ needs is to ask them. But Jeff argues that’s not sufficient: “You have to invent on their behalf. For the biggest breakthroughs and most important ideas, customers don’t know to ask for those things. You have to dream. You have to use your intuition, your gut, and your heart.” This doesn’t mean you don’t look at your data, Jeff caveats: “All of the data that gets used in business is essential. If you’re in business and you’re not looking at your data, trust me, your competitors are going to beat you. But if you’re only looking at your data, you also will not win — or at least not win big.” He continues: “The most important decisions that every person makes when they’re building something new is made with intuition. You cannot prove it, but you have an instinct and a hunch. Then you’ll pay attention — if that instinct turns out to be wrong, it won’t be a big deal. You’ll correct.” Video source: Reuters (2025)

Jeff Bezos on the importance of intuition when building something new When Jeff Bezos is trying to figure out where his company should spend its energy and resources, he always goes back to his customer’s needs. “That’s the only way I can advise any founder or entrepreneur,” Jeff explains. “Deeply understand what the big ideas are that their customers want.” One way to understand your customers’ needs is to ask them. But Jeff argues that’s not sufficient: “You have to invent on their behalf. For the biggest breakthroughs and most important ideas, customers don’t know to ask for those things. You have to dream. You have to use your intuition, your gut, and your heart.” This doesn’t mean you don’t look at your data, Jeff caveats: “All of the data that gets used in business is essential. If you’re in business and you’re not looking at your data, trust me, your competitors are going to beat you. But if you’re only looking at your data, you also will not win — or at least not win big.” He continues: “The most important decisions that every person makes when they’re building something new is made with intuition. You cannot prove it, but you have an instinct and a hunch. Then you’ll pay attention — if that instinct turns out to be wrong, it won’t be a big deal. You’ll correct.” Video source: Reuters (2025)

Startup Archive

46,407 views • 1 year ago

Vinod Khosla reveals Sam Altman admitted nobody tells him where he is “screwing up,” and explains why startups fail when private doubts go unspoken “By the way, I was just talking to Sam Altman. He was here earlier this week. We were having dinner. I said, ‘Sam, your hardest problem is nobody’s going to be brutally honest with you and tell you you’re screwed up in X or Y.’ Like, literally, I told him that.” “And he said, ‘Yeah, nobody says that to me. Like, where am I screwing up?’” “And there’s a great book by a woman called Margaret Heffernan. I said to him, ‘You should invite her to come speak to your senior management team.’ And she’s given a TED Talk, which is the easy way to look at it, called Dare to Disagree.” “She talks about where people don’t disagree even if they know something’s wrong. And then very often you don’t know something’s wrong, but you have a hunch. So you’re not even sure of your own opinion. But if you don’t bring it up in a group meeting, you can’t discuss it. And there may be three other people in the room that are worried about the same thing.” “And very often when startups go wrong, people say, ‘You know, I thought that two years or three years ago,’ and somebody else will say, ‘I thought that too,’ but they never surfaced it for discussion.” “Discussion is always a good thing. Disagreement is always a good thing. As Jeff Bezos says, you want to have that discussion, then you want to have the team agree and commit or disagree and commit. But you want one strategy, and that’s what the founder does or the CEO does.”

Vinod Khosla reveals Sam Altman admitted nobody tells him where he is “screwing up,” and explains why startups fail when private doubts go unspoken “By the way, I was just talking to Sam Altman. He was here earlier this week. We were having dinner. I said, ‘Sam, your hardest problem is nobody’s going to be brutally honest with you and tell you you’re screwed up in X or Y.’ Like, literally, I told him that.” “And he said, ‘Yeah, nobody says that to me. Like, where am I screwing up?’” “And there’s a great book by a woman called Margaret Heffernan. I said to him, ‘You should invite her to come speak to your senior management team.’ And she’s given a TED Talk, which is the easy way to look at it, called Dare to Disagree.” “She talks about where people don’t disagree even if they know something’s wrong. And then very often you don’t know something’s wrong, but you have a hunch. So you’re not even sure of your own opinion. But if you don’t bring it up in a group meeting, you can’t discuss it. And there may be three other people in the room that are worried about the same thing.” “And very often when startups go wrong, people say, ‘You know, I thought that two years or three years ago,’ and somebody else will say, ‘I thought that too,’ but they never surfaced it for discussion.” “Discussion is always a good thing. Disagreement is always a good thing. As Jeff Bezos says, you want to have that discussion, then you want to have the team agree and commit or disagree and commit. But you want one strategy, and that’s what the founder does or the CEO does.”

Fireside Alpha

89,034 views • 15 days ago

🚨BREAKING: An ICE agents just tried to claim they were conducting “targeted enforcement”… after pulling over a U.S. citizen, and demanding he prove he was a citizen, in Seattle, Washington. In the video, the man explains he had just bought the car from a friend. Then he asks the agent: “Would you mind explaining how this works? Do you just run the plates?” The ICE agent responds: “Uh… so we’re doing targeted enforcement.” The man immediately asks: “And you saw me come off of Home Depot?” And the ICE agents went silent. Because he realized he messed up. “Targeted enforcement” isn’t a legal justification for pulling over a U.S. citizen. Federal agents don’t get to stop people on a hunch, demand identification, and hope they find someone they can deport. They need a lawful basis for the stop. So, what exactly made this man a “target?” His truck? The Home Depot parking lot? Or was it because he looked Hispanic? Because if agents are stopping people based on their race, ethnicity, or perceived immigration status, that’s a constitutional violation… not “targeted enforcement.” The Constitution applies to ICE, too. And if your entire justification falls apart the second someone asks, “Why did you stop me?” It becomes pretty clear you never had one to begin with.

🚨BREAKING: An ICE agents just tried to claim they were conducting “targeted enforcement”… after pulling over a U.S. citizen, and demanding he prove he was a citizen, in Seattle, Washington. In the video, the man explains he had just bought the car from a friend. Then he asks the agent: “Would you mind explaining how this works? Do you just run the plates?” The ICE agent responds: “Uh… so we’re doing targeted enforcement.” The man immediately asks: “And you saw me come off of Home Depot?” And the ICE agents went silent. Because he realized he messed up. “Targeted enforcement” isn’t a legal justification for pulling over a U.S. citizen. Federal agents don’t get to stop people on a hunch, demand identification, and hope they find someone they can deport. They need a lawful basis for the stop. So, what exactly made this man a “target?” His truck? The Home Depot parking lot? Or was it because he looked Hispanic? Because if agents are stopping people based on their race, ethnicity, or perceived immigration status, that’s a constitutional violation… not “targeted enforcement.” The Constitution applies to ICE, too. And if your entire justification falls apart the second someone asks, “Why did you stop me?” It becomes pretty clear you never had one to begin with.

Jesus Freakin Congress

193,242 views • 3 months ago

Tyrant deputy arrests a man because an off duty officer saw another man give him a cigarette. It all started when an off-duty officer named Stocker called dispatch, claiming he witnessed a "suspicious hand-to-hand transaction" between a black Cadillac and a red Chevy pickup truck. He claimed he saw a "substantial baggie of white stuff" pass between them. But when on-duty Marysville police and St. Clair County sheriff’s deputies rolled up, the reality on the ground didn't match the "hunch". The driver of the truck, Jason Kidder, immediately told the responding officer the truth: the driver of the Cadillac was his coworker, Ronnie, from the local Busy Beaver store, and Ronnie had simply handed him a cigarette. When deputies questioned Ronnie on the other side of the car wash, he completely corroborated the story—explaining he just stopped by to say hi, gave Jason a cigarette, and handed him "a five" ($5 bill) so they could hang out afterward. Instead of accepting the perfectly legal, matching explanations, the officers demanded Jason's ID, claiming an off-duty cop's visual hunch gave them full Probable Cause. Knowing his rights, Jason refused to comply with an groundless investigation and demanded a supervisor. The deputy returned to his vehicle and spoke with the off duty officer again and his supervisor. He decided he wanted to play the hunch and detain Jason. When Jason stepped into his truck, officers declared him detained. They threatened him with a Taser, shattered his window, and physically dragged him out of the cab. While taking him down to the wet concrete they cuffed Jason and took him into custody. With Jason handcuffed in the back of a cruiser, multiple officers—including U.S. Border Patrol agents—completely ransacked and trashed the interior of his truck. They tore apart his center console, searched under the seats, and went through his personal belongings desperately looking for a "softball-sized baggie" to justify their behavior. The result? Absolutely ZERO drugs or contraband were found. Despite finding nothing, the system did what it always does to cover its tracks. Discovering an old, unrelated local warrant, they jailed Jason anyway and slapped him with charges of "resisting and obstructing" an officer. These tyrant officers know they are wrong, but their ego and the fact that they know a lawsuit will come is standing in their way which is why they doubled down on their actions. Jason is still battling the criminal charges they are still pushing on him and needs to clear that hurdle before going after any civil suit. Jason is refusing to back down and is fighting to hold these departments accountable for unlawful detention, illegal search, and excessive use of force. Our rights don’t end where a cop's blind assumptions begin. Jason does have a go fund me set up as he tries to raise money for lawyer fees for his legal issues as a result of this situation. If you want to help Jason hire a civil rights attorney to take this fight to the courts and defend the Fourth Amendment, you can support his official legal defense fund: 🔹 Fundraiser: GoFundMe 🔹 Campaign Title: "Help Jason Kidder Fight for Justice" I wish him luck in his battle against these corrupt deputies.

Tyrant deputy arrests a man because an off duty officer saw another man give him a cigarette. It all started when an off-duty officer named Stocker called dispatch, claiming he witnessed a "suspicious hand-to-hand transaction" between a black Cadillac and a red Chevy pickup truck. He claimed he saw a "substantial baggie of white stuff" pass between them. But when on-duty Marysville police and St. Clair County sheriff’s deputies rolled up, the reality on the ground didn't match the "hunch". The driver of the truck, Jason Kidder, immediately told the responding officer the truth: the driver of the Cadillac was his coworker, Ronnie, from the local Busy Beaver store, and Ronnie had simply handed him a cigarette. When deputies questioned Ronnie on the other side of the car wash, he completely corroborated the story—explaining he just stopped by to say hi, gave Jason a cigarette, and handed him "a five" ($5 bill) so they could hang out afterward. Instead of accepting the perfectly legal, matching explanations, the officers demanded Jason's ID, claiming an off-duty cop's visual hunch gave them full Probable Cause. Knowing his rights, Jason refused to comply with an groundless investigation and demanded a supervisor. The deputy returned to his vehicle and spoke with the off duty officer again and his supervisor. He decided he wanted to play the hunch and detain Jason. When Jason stepped into his truck, officers declared him detained. They threatened him with a Taser, shattered his window, and physically dragged him out of the cab. While taking him down to the wet concrete they cuffed Jason and took him into custody. With Jason handcuffed in the back of a cruiser, multiple officers—including U.S. Border Patrol agents—completely ransacked and trashed the interior of his truck. They tore apart his center console, searched under the seats, and went through his personal belongings desperately looking for a "softball-sized baggie" to justify their behavior. The result? Absolutely ZERO drugs or contraband were found. Despite finding nothing, the system did what it always does to cover its tracks. Discovering an old, unrelated local warrant, they jailed Jason anyway and slapped him with charges of "resisting and obstructing" an officer. These tyrant officers know they are wrong, but their ego and the fact that they know a lawsuit will come is standing in their way which is why they doubled down on their actions. Jason is still battling the criminal charges they are still pushing on him and needs to clear that hurdle before going after any civil suit. Jason is refusing to back down and is fighting to hold these departments accountable for unlawful detention, illegal search, and excessive use of force. Our rights don’t end where a cop's blind assumptions begin. Jason does have a go fund me set up as he tries to raise money for lawyer fees for his legal issues as a result of this situation. If you want to help Jason hire a civil rights attorney to take this fight to the courts and defend the Fourth Amendment, you can support his official legal defense fund: 🔹 Fundraiser: GoFundMe 🔹 Campaign Title: "Help Jason Kidder Fight for Justice" I wish him luck in his battle against these corrupt deputies.

Giggling Gannon

1,124,481 views • 3 months ago

Robert Altman on his Gambling addiction & his attitude towards Gambling: "The reason I was so keen to do 'California Split' (1974) was that for years I wanted to do a gambling film that had nothing but the ambience of gambling, and then point out it had nothing to do with money." Full Excerpt: "I think gambling is just action, and why not? What is there to hoard? I don’t think I have ever jeopardized anybody’s existence by my gambling. Actually, for the last fifteen years or so I’ve been kind of bored with it, because it doesn’t mean anything — what’s the most I could win? Buying lottery tickets, that isn’t gambling. That’s just throwing your hat in the ring. I don’t think gamblers want to lose. But there are people who are addicted to it. At one time I could stand at a crap table for two days — the feeling is like sex. Compulsive gamblers lie to themselves, to everybody. I think I became embarrassed that maybe I was becoming a compulsive gambler. When I was making Tanner ’88, I bet on every game on every day of the baseball season. There’s a moral blanket over gambling. It’s considered immoral, it’s not what you’re supposed to do. I think the greatest theatrical opening scene ever was in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," when the guys are tossing coins, and one of them wins every time. The odds are against that, yet they’re not. Every time you throw a coin, the odds are fifty—-fifty. When you say I’ve thrown heads six hundred times in a row, what are the odds of that happening? Well, mathematically they’re tremendous, but to say that now you’re going to bet on tails because the odds are way in your favour — the odds are not in your favour. So you try this guessing game, ‘I’ve got a hunch, I feel it...’ That was the whole point of California Split, when at the end George Segal turned to Elliott Gould and said, “There was no special feeling.’ He never felt it, because he has nothing to feel! The reason I was so keen to do 'California Split' was that for years I wanted to do a gambling film that had nothing but the ambience of gambling, and then point out it had nothing to do with money." ('Altman on Altman', Edited by David Thompson, 2006)

Sensitive content

Robert Altman on his Gambling addiction & his attitude towards Gambling: "The reason I was so keen to do 'California Split' (1974) was that for years I wanted to do a gambling film that had nothing but the ambience of gambling, and then point out it had nothing to do with money." Full Excerpt: "I think gambling is just action, and why not? What is there to hoard? I don’t think I have ever jeopardized anybody’s existence by my gambling. Actually, for the last fifteen years or so I’ve been kind of bored with it, because it doesn’t mean anything — what’s the most I could win? Buying lottery tickets, that isn’t gambling. That’s just throwing your hat in the ring. I don’t think gamblers want to lose. But there are people who are addicted to it. At one time I could stand at a crap table for two days — the feeling is like sex. Compulsive gamblers lie to themselves, to everybody. I think I became embarrassed that maybe I was becoming a compulsive gambler. When I was making Tanner ’88, I bet on every game on every day of the baseball season. There’s a moral blanket over gambling. It’s considered immoral, it’s not what you’re supposed to do. I think the greatest theatrical opening scene ever was in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," when the guys are tossing coins, and one of them wins every time. The odds are against that, yet they’re not. Every time you throw a coin, the odds are fifty—-fifty. When you say I’ve thrown heads six hundred times in a row, what are the odds of that happening? Well, mathematically they’re tremendous, but to say that now you’re going to bet on tails because the odds are way in your favour — the odds are not in your favour. So you try this guessing game, ‘I’ve got a hunch, I feel it...’ That was the whole point of California Split, when at the end George Segal turned to Elliott Gould and said, “There was no special feeling.’ He never felt it, because he has nothing to feel! The reason I was so keen to do 'California Split' was that for years I wanted to do a gambling film that had nothing but the ambience of gambling, and then point out it had nothing to do with money." ('Altman on Altman', Edited by David Thompson, 2006)

DepressedBergman

119,994 views • 7 months ago

A few months ago, researchers made a synthetic cell that grows, eats, and divides. But it only grows for about five generations, and then it “breaks down” completely and stops moving. This is the reason it’s not yet considered “alive.” When I asked Kate Adamala, the lead author behind SpudCell, why she thinks this happens, she said something really simple and somewhat surprising: The cell cannot break down its own waste. In other words, it has all these proteins and RNA and DNA, but has no way to break them down and reuse the building blocks when they inevitably fail. So when a ribosome stops working, it just sits inside the cell and remains there for many generations. With each generation, more of the cell is filled up with broken pieces. Now, you could add a protease to these cells, but proteases are blunt-force instruments. They would destroy both working proteins *and* the broken ones, and so probably kill the cell. And when I asked Kate why we can't just use the enzymes and chaperones that natural cells use, she said there are too many of them. If you try to recreate all of biology's quality control processes, you end up with a hugely bloated metabolism inside what is supposed to be a minimal cell. The issue, then — the fundamental bottleneck — is that we do not have good tools to recognize WHAT is broken inside a cell and *then* destroy them while leaving healthy variants unscathed. My hunch here is that we need better molecular sensors. If we could distinguish between different forms of a protein, without destroying a cell entirely, then perhaps we could couple that recognition to a selective protease and recycle only the things that are broken. We also just don’t understand, at a high enough level, what happens when a ribosome breaks, and thus we can’t design good probes to sense those broken molecules. In trying to create a synthetic cell, then, we might also arrive at ideas for much better tools. Trying to create life is a really good way to figure out all the obstacles and stuff we don’t yet understand. But when Kate says she thinks they'll achieve perpetual cell division by 2030 (in the interview), I'm kind of skeptical. There's a lot of work to do here, and the tools we tend to use as biologists are often much broader than the precise, highly-evolved systems we find in nature.

A few months ago, researchers made a synthetic cell that grows, eats, and divides. But it only grows for about five generations, and then it “breaks down” completely and stops moving. This is the reason it’s not yet considered “alive.” When I asked Kate Adamala, the lead author behind SpudCell, why she thinks this happens, she said something really simple and somewhat surprising: The cell cannot break down its own waste. In other words, it has all these proteins and RNA and DNA, but has no way to break them down and reuse the building blocks when they inevitably fail. So when a ribosome stops working, it just sits inside the cell and remains there for many generations. With each generation, more of the cell is filled up with broken pieces. Now, you could add a protease to these cells, but proteases are blunt-force instruments. They would destroy both working proteins and the broken ones, and so probably kill the cell. And when I asked Kate why we can't just use the enzymes and chaperones that natural cells use, she said there are too many of them. If you try to recreate all of biology's quality control processes, you end up with a hugely bloated metabolism inside what is supposed to be a minimal cell. The issue, then — the fundamental bottleneck — is that we do not have good tools to recognize WHAT is broken inside a cell and then destroy them while leaving healthy variants unscathed. My hunch here is that we need better molecular sensors. If we could distinguish between different forms of a protein, without destroying a cell entirely, then perhaps we could couple that recognition to a selective protease and recycle only the things that are broken. We also just don’t understand, at a high enough level, what happens when a ribosome breaks, and thus we can’t design good probes to sense those broken molecules. In trying to create a synthetic cell, then, we might also arrive at ideas for much better tools. Trying to create life is a really good way to figure out all the obstacles and stuff we don’t yet understand. But when Kate says she thinks they'll achieve perpetual cell division by 2030 (in the interview), I'm kind of skeptical. There's a lot of work to do here, and the tools we tend to use as biologists are often much broader than the precise, highly-evolved systems we find in nature.

Niko McCarty.

11,388 views • 13 days ago

🚨THIS IS WHAT WASTING YOUR TAX DOLLARS LOOKS LIKE. In Chicago, at least 7 unmarked ICE vehicles, and around a dozen ICE agents, surround a car with two women inside, demanding they prove their citizenship… And then let them go when they proved they were U.S. citizens. So, why were they stopped in the first place? ICE cannot stop people, and demand they prove their citizenship, based on a hunch… or because an agent thinks someone “looks undocumented.” The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and immigration agents still need lawful grounds to detain someone. So, when neighbors saw 7 ICE vehicles surrounding ONE car, they started filming. One man, standing at his front door, yells, “You all got nothing better to do.” An ICE agent responds, “I can’t hear you… come down here and talk to me.” Why? He has the same right to criticize federal agents from a public sidewalk as he does from his front door. Then he points out how absurd this situation is… “20 cars for 2 females. You all better wear masks. That’s why you wear fucking masks… so your face doesn’t show.” He’s calling them out for hiding their identities… saying, you’re covering your faces so you can’t be identified or held accountable for what you’re doing. Because remember… these are dozens of armed, masked agents surrounding ONE car, with TWO WOMEN inside… who are U.S. citizens. Instead of ignoring the criticism, the ICE agent walks over and says, “That’s not a threat, is it?” So now saying federal agents should be identifiable, and held accountable, is a threat? The man responds, “Did I threaten you, asshole?” You don’t lose your constitutional rights because an ICE agent doesn’t like being recorded. And criticizing the government isn’t a threat… it’s a constitutional right. And when dozens of masked, armed agents surround two women, question their citizenship, and force them to prove they were U.S. citizens... everyone should be questioning and criticizing the government. So I’ll ask again… Why were these women stopped in the first place? Because the people with cameras aren’t the problem… The masked, armed agents violating the Constitution are.

🚨THIS IS WHAT WASTING YOUR TAX DOLLARS LOOKS LIKE. In Chicago, at least 7 unmarked ICE vehicles, and around a dozen ICE agents, surround a car with two women inside, demanding they prove their citizenship… And then let them go when they proved they were U.S. citizens. So, why were they stopped in the first place? ICE cannot stop people, and demand they prove their citizenship, based on a hunch… or because an agent thinks someone “looks undocumented.” The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and immigration agents still need lawful grounds to detain someone. So, when neighbors saw 7 ICE vehicles surrounding ONE car, they started filming. One man, standing at his front door, yells, “You all got nothing better to do.” An ICE agent responds, “I can’t hear you… come down here and talk to me.” Why? He has the same right to criticize federal agents from a public sidewalk as he does from his front door. Then he points out how absurd this situation is… “20 cars for 2 females. You all better wear masks. That’s why you wear fucking masks… so your face doesn’t show.” He’s calling them out for hiding their identities… saying, you’re covering your faces so you can’t be identified or held accountable for what you’re doing. Because remember… these are dozens of armed, masked agents surrounding ONE car, with TWO WOMEN inside… who are U.S. citizens. Instead of ignoring the criticism, the ICE agent walks over and says, “That’s not a threat, is it?” So now saying federal agents should be identifiable, and held accountable, is a threat? The man responds, “Did I threaten you, asshole?” You don’t lose your constitutional rights because an ICE agent doesn’t like being recorded. And criticizing the government isn’t a threat… it’s a constitutional right. And when dozens of masked, armed agents surround two women, question their citizenship, and force them to prove they were U.S. citizens... everyone should be questioning and criticizing the government. So I’ll ask again… Why were these women stopped in the first place? Because the people with cameras aren’t the problem… The masked, armed agents violating the Constitution are.

Jesus Freakin Congress

152,623 views • 1 month ago