Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Don't mind testing something, was editing another video and saw #binimaloi doing her thing, so decided to make a video out of it. Also needed to push the event. Btw quality is difference since this is all handheld. 🎉 6 𝐃𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎! 🎉 We’re getting closer! 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 6...

13,138 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

"It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree." ~Jan Mac The Predator Case of Lima, Ohio "If you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too." ~Bruce Mac (In the replies, I'd love to discuss... If this thing is the same thing that Jay Stratton and Travis S Taylor (and others?) say they saw, what the hell is it and what the hell is it doing? Is it just a peak into a shadow biome that our senses usually can't perceive but every now and then, shows itself? Just a Predator-like being doing its thing? "Hi everybody, I'm just collecting acorns!" ~Pedator Fella As you watch or read, you'll ask yourself: Is what Jan Mac saw, connected to that light that showed up over the high school, and did it originate from elsewhere? Or, is it native to this planet and just trying to misdirect (by having that light pop up at the same time) and make us think it's from somewhere else? ICYMI, here's my post about the alleged Stratton/Taylor Predator experience... ) ~ David Paulides Voiceover: "The last case I want to investigate is even a little deeper down the rabbit hole. It's not about a missing hunter, but instead about a strange experience one hunter faced in Lima, Ohio. It's important to note that this isn't a connection to The Missing, it's simply an odd event that's worth looking into. And it's associated with one of the smartest people I've ever met." The Late Bruce Maccabee - Ph.D., Optical Physicist: "There's a difference, I guess, between being freaked out by things that you imagine and being freaked out by things that you actually see." ~ Jan Maccabee - Bruce's Wife: "This, I have to say, was the most (sighs) terrifying experience. But yeah, I don't know why I didn't react to it, and that bothers me. "The hunting in Ohio is awesome. We have some great, big trophy deer in Ohio, and we happen to have some of the biggest right here on our own property. "It was the most beautiful night to deer hunt. It was the second day of season, I wanted to get my, you know, rear end in the woods to hunt. I was really excited about it. "There was a band over at the high school. By the time I got to my deer stand, I could hear 'em. I was all settled in, I didn't see nothing coming down the paths. Trails, the birds, crickets, everything were normal woods sounds. When you're hunting, you have two of your most keenest senses, is your hearing and your eyesight. "All of a sudden the woods went to this dead quiet. If I had dropped a pin out of that deer stand... It cut off. No birds, no crickets, no nothing." ~~~ Others have told similar stories featuring that detail of complete silence engulfing them. Brandon Fugal: "And as I was walking around to the back of the old homesteads, it was like I entered an anechoic chamber, a soundproof room. And there was an auditory sensation. It was almost like my ears were boxed. And all of the ambient noise, to a degree, was completely muted. "And one thing that we’ve seen that is consistent is the electromagnetic. The cell phone anomalies…Erik Bard has conducted quite a bit of research into what type of acute medical episodes can accompany extreme electromagnetic, interference or events, even the auditory phenomena that I experienced. I related to you my experience of walking around the back of the old homestead and having this auditory sensation where all the ambient noise was essentially muted. And it truly felt like I stepped into a soundproof chamber of sorts. And it’s interesting. Electromagnetic phenomena at times, and that kind of interference can actually create those kind of reactions biologically." Source: ~ And this excerpt from "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." (Like with Fugal's experience, this took place at Skinwalker Ranch) "Suddenly a cone of silence descended on Kelleher and Witt; the crickets seemed to go silent and even the faint rustling of the breeze in the trees ceased. Turning around, they saw a creature ambling towards them from the south. It was the size of a 150-pound pig and should have been making considerable noise as it walked. Yet, the cone of silence dominated the moonlit scene as the creature glided past within 30 feet of Kelleher and about 50 feet from Witt. To Kelleher, it appeared the animal had a series of dinosaur-like spines on its back and also sported a very large, flattened beaver-like tail. It noiselessly coasted past the pair and disappeared around the southwestern corner of the building, still not making a sound. Even Kelleher, who had spent hundreds of days and nights on Skinwalker Ranch and had already been exposed to his fair share of bizarre anomalies on the property, felt a distinct chill as he watched the surreal animal shuffle silently away." Longer excerpt: ~~~Back to Jan Mac and The Predator~~~ Jan: "The sun's still up. We were not calling for bad weather that night. It was a great night to hunt. Also, I felt like I had like a mote in my eye. I even took my finger and wiped my eye, like, when you get that fogginess over your eye, like it's just... I look and I'm thinking, 'What is this thing in the trees?' "It looked like a large piece of saran wrap. It's the only way I can describe it. But this thing was very wide. So I'm up fourteen foot, and it hung quite a ways down. And I'm thinking, 'What is this thing?' It didn't really scare me at that time until it moved and formed the arm that reached over to the other tree. It reached over about twelve to fourteen foot, and then it all, like a blob, like, sucked into it. And it went to the whole other tree. "I had this very euphoric feeling like, something ain't right here. Normally at that time, I'd have probably got down and stopped hunting, but for some reason I didn't." Paulides: "So, as you're sitting in your blind and you're looking across, where did the blob come from?" Jan: "I have no idea, it just appeared in the one tree. As it was moving through the woods, it went from like, tree to tree, and then it just...it disappeared. It didn't continue on. So, where it went, I don't know. It's like it just, poof, right before my eyes, vanished. "And I don't remember taking the picture, but being married to who I'm married to, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, he always said, 'If you see anything weird, get a picture.' "I don't recall, actually, when, either, that the sounds had returned. Because it's like, I don't remember. That's not me to this day. Normally, I would probably crawl down, come running in the house and say, 'You ain't gonna believe what's back there in them woods.'" Paulides: "How much longer you think you stayed in the stand?" Jan: "Umm, about half hour till sundown, when it's time to come out." ~ Bruce: "The sequence of this is: Jan goes out to hunt, we have guests show up, we're having dinner. She comes back from the hunt and says nothing about what happened. It was strange. The guests are about ready to leave. Later on, Matthew sends me an email: There was a sighting by a number of students and the faculty at the high school band practice just before dark." ~ Jan: "I'm like, 'Holy crap! Maybe it has something to do with what I saw in the woods?' And Bruce goes, 'What?' And I said, 'I forgot to tell you about what happened in those woods to me tonight!' And I'm reading this from Matthew, and then I started really getting, I get goosebumps. He said, 'This light appeared above the big stadium lights of the football field.' Had Matthew not sent that email, I'm not sure if I would have remembered even that night to say anything." ~ Paulides: "How many kids were on the field?" Matthew Pheneger - Shawnee High School, Class of 2013: "At least thirty. Thirty to forty, I would say." Paulides: "And was that the high school band?" Matthew: "Yes." Paulides: "And so, this was just before you guys went back to school?" Matthew: "Yes, band camp, late August." Paulides: "Late August. So, what time of night do you think that was?" Matthew: "Uhh, between six and seven. We were rehearsing, normally, out here about six, seven o'clock, doing our normal routine, when all of a sudden there was this bright light in the sky that just came out of nowhere. And we all just kind of stopped and looked at it as one." Paulides: "Where was the light?" Matthew: "So, the light was anywhere...it was above the tree line, for sure, just kind of hovering in the skyline. Close enough that it could catch your attention. Like it shouldn't have been there, I guess. If it was some man-made thing, it was too low to be there." Paulides: "Okay. What was the weather like that night?" Matthew: "Clear and hot. Typical, August Ohio weather." Paulides: "Okay. What color was it?" Matthew: "Candle orange. As far as I could tell, the thing had no definable edges to it. There were no like, dimensions. It was just kind of waxing and waning till it just zapped out. You know, our band director, who never stops for anything, he stopped and turned around and looked at us, and he goes, you know, 'What the hell was that?' Before I had time to even like, think about what I was seeing, it was gone. And then it was just kind of like an imprint in your mind, like I've seen something strange.” ~ Paulides: “So in your gut, are the two issues related?” Jan: “I often wonder now. All I can say is it happened within the same time frame, basically, as my experience here. Probably a half a mile over there, as the crow would fly.” ~ Bruce: “This is a Blackberry. On the back, you have the lens. It's not like the modern ones that have a camera on the front as well as a camera on the back. So I'd be taking your picture right now, but I would not be taking my picture. Something happened to that camera, I don't know what, but there's hard evidence of some weird thing that happened. She took a couple of pictures of herself before the event, which provide a fixed point of investigation, you might say. And she took another picture afterwards, So you have the camera phone doing its normal thing before and after, but right in the middle with this one photo, that something bizarre happened. “The picture she took, the resolution somehow changed for that one picture. You could manually change the cell phone to 1600 by 1200, 1024, by 760, or something like that, and 640 by 480. But it got changed to 500 by 400 or something. Numbers that don't exist. I don't know how to make it do that resolution. You'd have to get in there and rewire it somehow, or change the software. But even changing the software doesn't change the number of pixels along the edge of the sensor. I don't know how to explain this filamentary stuff. I can't imagine what this, what looks like it is well focused. I don't know what that is.” ~ Paulides: “I’ve had people write to me and say, ‘Well, what that is is Jan took a picture of her own hair.’” Jan: “My hair was back through the back of the ball cap, where it adjusts. it was tied back.” Paulides: “So there was no part of you that could have been in that frame?” Jan: “No way, no way.” ~ Bruce: “It would be possible for her to take a picture of her hair. She put her hand back there. But that wouldn't change the resolution of the camera or the byte size of the picture.” ~ Paulides: “So Jan, let me ask you, since that has happened, has it changed your life?” Jan: “Yeah, I've never been back in that woods to hunt that. I actually ended up buying a redneck deer blind. I mean, I want something surrounding me.” ~ Bruce: “You can imagine if you saw in the woods some strange thing like that, like The Predator, you'd probably be leery about going back there again, too.”

Joe Murgia

24,717 просмотров • 1 год назад

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)

Joe Murgia

88,583 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Nobody warns you about the sound a dying puppy makes when it realizes someone finally stopped. It's not a bark. It's not even a whimper. It's silence — the kind that hits harder than any noise ever could. I need you to sit with that for a second before you scroll past this. Because somewhere, right now, in a city you've probably never thought about, a puppy is lying on concrete that's colder than it should be, in a position that shouldn't be possible for a living body, and every single person walking by is telling themselves the same lie: "someone else will help." Nobody else is coming. That's the part people don't want to hear. There is no invisible network of rescuers patrolling every street corner on earth. There is no guarantee. There is only whoever happens to look down at the right second and decides — actually decides, on purpose, against every excuse their brain hands them — to stop. I've spent years around rescue accounts, rescue communities, rescue chaos. And if there's one thing that never stops breaking something open in me, it's this: the gap between "before" and "after" is never as far as people think. It's not months. It's not years. Sometimes it's hours. Sometimes it's one bowl of water and one blanket and one person who didn't look away. The video below is one of those hours. I'm not going to explain what happens in it. I'm not going to summarize it, narrate it, or tell you the ending. If I did that, you'd just nod, feel a flicker of something, and keep scrolling — and this isn't one of those stories that deserves to be flattened into a caption. Some things you have to actually watch, in real time, to feel what they're supposed to make you feel. What I will tell you is this: by the last few seconds, you will not believe it's the same animal from the first few seconds. And that gap — that impossible, almost unfair-feeling gap between where this story starts and where it ends — is the entire reason rescue videos have quietly become one of the most watched categories of content on the internet. Nobody talks about why. So let's talk about why. — THE THREE TYPES OF PEOPLE ON EVERY STREET Every single time an animal is suffering in public, in front of witnesses, there are exactly three types of people who pass by. The first type doesn't notice. Genuinely, chemically, doesn't register it. Their brain has learned to filter out suffering that isn't "their problem" the same way it filters out a stranger's cough or a parked car. This isn't cruelty. It's just how overloaded human attention works in a city. The second type notices, feels something sharp and uncomfortable, and immediately starts building a case for why it's not their responsibility. "I don't have a car." "I don't know any vets." "What if it bites me." "Someone more qualified will handle it." Every excuse is technically true and completely irrelevant, because none of them require the animal to actually be okay — they only require the person to feel okay about walking away. The third type is rare. The third type feels the same discomfort as everyone else, has the same list of legitimate excuses available to them, and stops anyway. Not because they're braver. Not because they're more equipped. Just because somewhere along the way they decided that "I don't know how to fix this completely" is not the same thing as "I can't do anything at all." Every single rescue video you've ever watched exists because, for one specific moment, one specific person refused to be type one or type two. That's it. That's the whole secret. There's no special training required to be the reason a story doesn't end badly. There's just the willingness to not walk past. — THE MATH NOBODY TELLS YOU Here's something that will genuinely surprise you if you've never looked into it: saving a life on the street is dramatically cheaper than most people assume, and dramatically more expensive in time and emotional labor than most people assume. It's a strange trade. A bowl of water costs nothing. A blanket, if you have one, costs nothing. The first hour of warmth and calm and quiet often costs nothing but presence. What costs something is what comes after — the vet visits, the medication, the sleepless nights checking if breathing has changed, the slow, exhausting, unglamorous process of rebuilding trust in a creature that has learned the world is dangerous. People assume rescue is a single dramatic moment. It isn't. The dramatic moment is maybe five percent of the story. The other ninety-five percent is quiet, boring, repetitive care that nobody films because it doesn't look like anything — just a person, showing up, again and again, on days when it would be so much easier not to. I think that's actually the most important part of any rescue story, and it's the part almost nobody talks about because it doesn't fit into fifteen seconds. The rescue isn't the moment someone picks the animal up off the ground. The rescue is every single day after that, stacked one on top of another, until one day the animal simply forgets to be afraid. Watch the video with that in mind. What you're seeing isn't a moment. It's the compressed evidence of dozens of unglamorous, unfilmed days. — WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT LOOK AWAY FROM THESE VIDEOS There's actual psychology behind why rescue content spreads the way it does, and it has almost nothing to do with sadness. Humans are wired with something researchers call "negativity bias" — we pay disproportionate attention to threat, suffering, and danger because, evolutionarily, missing a threat was far more costly than missing a reward. That's why the first few seconds of any rescue story grab you by the throat. Your brain isn't choosing to care. It's incapable of not caring, at least for a moment. But negativity bias alone doesn't explain why people watch these videos more than once, why they send them to friends, why they sit through the uncomfortable part just to get to the end. That's a different mechanism entirely — something closer to what psychologists call "vicarious relief." When you watch someone else's suffering resolve into safety, your nervous system responds almost as if it happened to you. The tension you felt in the first ten seconds has to go somewhere, and when the story resolves well, it releases as something that feels suspiciously like hope. That's the actual addictive ingredient in rescue content. It's not sadness. It's the release after the sadness. It's proof, delivered in real time, that terrible situations can flip into good ones faster than you'd think possible. In a timeline full of arguments, outrage, bad news, and content designed to make you angry, a video that ends in relief is doing something almost nobody else on this platform is doing anymore. It's giving your nervous system permission to feel something other than dread. That's not manipulation. That's just what happens when something real gets filmed. — THE MYTHS THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM STOPPING Myth one: "It's probably already being taken care of." This is the single most common lie people tell themselves, and it's almost never true. If an animal is visibly suffering in public and multiple people are walking past it, the statistical likelihood that someone has already intervened is far lower than your brain wants you to believe. Myth two: "I'll make it worse if I try to help without training." In reality, the two things that matter most in the first critical window — calm presence and basic comfort — require zero training. Water. Shade or warmth depending on the weather. A soft voice. Distance from immediate danger. That's not veterinary medicine. That's just decency. Myth three: "One person can't actually make a difference." This is the myth that has ended more rescue stories before they began than any other. One person is, statistically, the only thing that has ever made a difference, in every single rescue story that has ever existed. Movements don't stop for suffering animals. Governments don't personally kneel down next to them. It is always, without exception, one individual person choosing to act. Myth four: "If I get attached, it'll hurt too much." This one is actually true, and it's also irrelevant. Attachment hurting later is not a reason to withhold help now. It's a tax on caring, and it's a tax worth paying every single time. — WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE FIRST HOUR If you've never been close to a rescue in progress, here's what almost nobody tells you about that first hour: it is mostly about calm, not action. A frightened, injured, or exhausted animal is running almost entirely on a threat-response system. Every fast movement reads as danger. Every loud sound reads as danger. Even kindness, delivered too quickly, can read as danger. The single most valuable thing a rescuer brings to that first hour isn't equipment. It's a nervous system that isn't panicking, next to a nervous system that is. This is the part rescue videos compress into a few seconds but that, in real life, can take agonizingly long. Sitting still. Speaking low. Letting the animal decide, on its own timeline, that this particular human is not a threat. You cannot force trust. You can only make yourself boring enough, and safe enough, that trust becomes the path of least resistance. Once that shift happens — once an animal that has only ever known danger from humans decides, for the first time, that one specific human might be different — something changes that's very hard to put into words. It's not just physical safety being restored. It's an entire belief system about the world getting quietly, permanently rewritten. That shift is the actual turning point in every rescue story. Not the moment of being picked up. The moment of deciding to stop being afraid. — THE PART OF RECOVERY NOBODY FILMS Everyone loves the "after" photo. Clean fur, bright eyes, a wagging tail, a completely different creature from the one in the "before" photo. What almost nobody shows is the middle. The middle is ugly, slow, and full of setbacks. It's an animal flinching at a raised hand because somewhere in its history a raised hand meant pain, even though this new human would never dream of hurting it. It's appetite that comes and goes. It's trust that gets built for three days and then evaporates because of one loud noise. It's the rescuer wondering, quietly, at 2 a.m., whether any of this is actually working. And then, almost always without warning, there's a moment. A specific, unremarkable moment that the rescuer will remember forever and nobody else will ever understand the weight of — the first time the animal chooses to get close instead of staying away. The first tail wag that isn't fear-based. The first time it falls asleep in a way that says "I feel safe here" instead of "I am too exhausted to stay alert." That moment is the real transformation. Everything after it is just confirmation. — WHY THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT You've probably scrolled past hundreds of rescue videos in your life. Some blur together. Some you forget within the hour. And then, occasionally, one lands differently — not because the situation was more extreme, necessarily, but because something about the arc of it, start to finish, refuses to leave your head. I'm not going to tell you which category this one falls into. That's not my call to make for you. What I'll say is that the transformation you're about to watch happens faster, and more completely, than most people expect is possible — and by the time you reach the end, you may find yourself replaying the first few seconds just to remind yourself that it's actually the same animal. There's a specific kind of silence that happens in comment sections under videos like this. Not the absence of engagement — the opposite. Hundreds of people, all typing some version of the same sentence, all a little stunned by the same gap between where the story starts and where it lands. That silence, multiplied across thousands of people at once, is not a coincidence. It's a signal. — A SMALL CHALLENGE BEFORE YOU WATCH Before you press play, I want you to do something slightly uncomfortable. I want you to think of the last time you saw an animal that looked like it needed help — on a street, on a drive, in a video someone else posted — and you didn't stop. Not because you're a bad person. Just because life is fast and excuses are convenient and someone else always seems more qualified to deal with it. I'm not saying that to make you feel guilty. Guilt doesn't change anything on its own. I'm saying it because I think there's real value in watching a story like this one while holding that memory in your hand at the same time. Not to punish yourself with it. Just to notice the gap between what you're capable of and what you usually let yourself do. Because here's the uncomfortable truth underneath all of this: the difference between a story that ends in tragedy and a story that ends in transformation is very rarely luck. It is almost always just one decision, made by one person, at one specific moment when it would have been so much easier to keep walking. — WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY WATCHING You are not watching an isolated event. You are watching the compressed, visible tip of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern that repeats every single day, in every country, on every continent — a pattern where suffering happens quietly, most people walk past it, and every once in a while, someone doesn't. You're watching proof that the gap between "no one will help" and "everything will be okay" is thinner than it feels from the outside. You're watching evidence that transformation on this scale is not rare because it's hard. It's rare because most suffering never gets the one thing it actually needs, which isn't money, or medicine, or even shelter. It just needs someone to stop. — THE PART WHERE I ASK YOU FOR SOMETHING I'm not going to pretend this post exists in a vacuum. Every share, every comment, every few extra seconds someone spends actually watching instead of scrolling past — all of it does something. It pushes stories like this in front of more people who might, on some ordinary Tuesday, be standing near an animal that needs exactly what this one needed. You don't have to donate anything. You don't have to foster anything. You don't even have to feel anything in particular. All I'm asking is that you actually watch it, start to finish, without skipping to the end. Let the tension build the way it's supposed to. Let the resolution land the way it's supposed to. And if it does what I think it's going to do, tell someone. Tag someone. Send it to the one friend who always says they wish they could do more for animals but never knows how. Because that friend needs to see exactly what "doing more" can actually look like — not a grand gesture, not a huge donation, not a heroic rescue mission with helicopters and headlines. Just one person. One decision. One moment of refusing to keep walking. — THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE SILENCE Nobody likes statistics in an emotional post, so I'll keep this short, but you need to see it once. Estimates put the global population of stray and free-roaming dogs somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Not thousands. Not tens of thousands. Hundreds of millions of animals living without guaranteed food, guaranteed shelter, or guaranteed safety, in nearly every country on earth, including the ones people assume have this "figured out." Most of them will never appear in a video. Most of them will never be seen by anyone who has the resources, the time, or the willingness to intervene. The ones who do get rescued and filmed are not the majority of the story. They are the exception that got lucky enough to be noticed. I say this not to make the video you're about to watch feel smaller, but to make it feel bigger. Every single successful rescue is a statistical outlier fighting against enormous odds — geography, timing, resources, and the simple fact that most passersby fall into type one or type two from earlier in this post. When a rescue actually happens, and actually works, it is beating odds that are stacked against it from every direction. That's worth remembering the next time someone tells you that one person "can't really make a difference." The math says otherwise, every single time someone decides to stop. — THE SCIENCE OF WHY WE MIRROR SUFFERING There's a reason watching an animal in distress produces an almost physical reaction in your own body — tightness in the chest, a lump in the throat, an urge to look away that fights against an equal urge to keep watching. Neuroscience has a name for part of this mechanism: mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we experience something and when we simply witness someone — or something — else experiencing it. This is why you don't need to speak "dog" to understand exactly what fear, exhaustion, or relief look like on an animal's face. Your brain is doing the translation automatically, faster than conscious thought, because the machinery for recognizing suffering and safety evolved long before language did. It also explains something stranger: why the "after" moment in a rescue story can feel almost as emotionally intense as the "before" moment, just in the opposite direction. When you watch fear resolve into calm, your own nervous system downshifts along with it. That's not sentimentality. That's biology, functioning exactly the way it's supposed to. Understanding the mechanism doesn't make the feeling less real. If anything, it makes it more remarkable — proof that empathy isn't a choice you have to talk yourself into. It's already built in. All a video like this does is give it somewhere to go. — A LETTER TO THE VERSION OF YOU THAT ALMOST SCROLLED PAST You almost didn't stop on this post. I know that, because that's how this platform works — thousands of things competing for a few seconds of attention, and most of them losing. So I want to talk directly to whatever part of you paused anyway. That instinct — the one that made you keep reading instead of swiping away at the first line — is the exact same instinct that, in a different context, on a different day, could be the reason an animal doesn't die alone on a sidewalk. It's not a coincidence that you're still here. People who scroll past everything don't usually make it this far into a post like this one. You are, statistically, more likely than average to be a "type three" person — someone who notices, feels the discomfort, and doesn't immediately talk themselves out of caring. That's not flattery. That's just a pattern that tends to hold true. Hold onto that. Not for this post. For the next time you're standing on a sidewalk somewhere, and something is wrong, and every excuse in the world is available to you for free. — WHAT PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY IN THE COMMENTS If you scroll into the comments under a video like this one, you'll see the same handful of reactions repeated hundreds of times, almost word for word, from people who have never met each other. Someone will say they weren't ready for the ending. Someone else will say they had to watch it twice because they didn't believe what they saw the first time. Someone will tag a friend with nothing but a single crying emoji, because there's genuinely nothing else that needs to be said. Someone will admit, quietly, that they teared up at their desk at work and had to pretend they were checking email. None of that is performative. That's what actually happens when a story compresses an entire arc — fear to safety, danger to comfort, abandonment to belonging — into a couple of minutes and lets you watch every second of the shift in real time. There's something almost primal about it. We are wired to react to transformation stories, the same way we're wired to react to danger. A creature going from broken to whole, in front of your eyes, hits something ancient in the way we process hope. — FIVE THINGS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO, STARTING TODAY Watching this shouldn't be the end of the feeling. Here's what to do with it. One — keep a small bag with water, a collapsible bowl, and a few treats in your car or bag if you can. It costs almost nothing and it means you're never the person who "would have helped but didn't have anything on hand." Two — save the number of a local shelter or rescue group in your phone right now, before you need it. In the moment, panic makes it hard to search for anything. Three — if you see something and can't personally intervene, post it, tag local rescues, ask your followers if anyone nearby can help. Visibility alone has saved more animals than most people realize. Four — support rescuers financially if you can, even five dollars, even once. The unglamorous middle of every recovery costs real money that almost never comes from anywhere dramatic. Five — talk about this stuff, out loud, the way you're reading about it right now. Normalizing stopping, normalizing caring in public, chips away at exactly the excuses that keep most people in the type-two category forever. — WHY I KEEP COMING BACK TO CONTENT LIKE THIS People sometimes ask why accounts like this exist — why anyone spends time writing thousands of words about a video instead of just posting the clip and moving on. Here's the honest answer: the clip does the emotional work in sixty seconds. But emotion without context fades fast. You feel something, you scroll, and by tomorrow the feeling is gone, replaced by whatever the algorithm decided to show you next. The words are an attempt to make the feeling stick a little longer — long enough that maybe, the next time you're standing near something that needs help, some fragment of this actually resurfaces. That's the entire goal. Not views. Not engagement, even though engagement is obviously what keeps posts like this alive. The actual goal is recruitment — quietly turning as many people as possible from type one or type two into type three, one video, one post, one uncomfortable moment of self-reflection at a time. If even one person reading this stops for an animal they would have otherwise walked past, everything above was worth writing. — THE QUESTION THAT MATTERS MORE THAN THE VIDEO Here's something worth sitting with after you finish watching, once the initial reaction fades and the timeline moves on to the next thing competing for your attention. It's easy to feel something for sixty seconds. It's easy to type a heart emoji, feel a small warm rush of having "engaged" with something good, and go back to whatever you were doing before you saw this post. That reaction costs nothing, and it changes nothing. It's not wrong to feel it — but it's not enough to stop there, either. The real question isn't "did this make you feel something." Almost everything on this platform is engineered to make you feel something. The real question is whether the feeling survives contact with your actual, ordinary, unfilmed life. Whether it shows up the next time you're walking somewhere and notice something is wrong. Whether it shows up the next time a friend mentions fostering and you actually consider it instead of changing the subject. Whether it shows up as five dollars to a local rescue instead of just a comment saying you wish you could help. Stories like the one below aren't rare because the transformation itself is rare. They're rare because the specific combination of noticing, caring, and acting — all three, together, at the same moment — is rare. Most people manage one or two out of three. Noticing and caring without acting is the most common combination on earth, and it's also the one that changes absolutely nothing for the animal that needed help. This post isn't asking you to become someone else. It's asking you to notice the moments where you're already halfway there — where you already noticed, you already cared — and to close that last small gap between caring and doing something about it. That gap is smaller than it feels. It's usually just one decision, made once, that gets easier every single time after the first. Somewhere out there, right now, that gap is the only thing standing between an animal and the ending you're about to watch. — LAST THING BEFORE YOU PRESS PLAY Every rescue story starts the exact same way: with someone who had every reasonable excuse to keep moving, and didn't use a single one of them. You're about to watch what happens next. Don't look away this time. Watch it till the last second — the ending is not what you're expecting. If this hit you the way I think it will, share it. Somewhere out there, right now, someone is walking past a story that hasn't started yet. Maybe this is the post that stops them.

Earth Unveiled

70,670 просмотров • 3 дней назад

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

Earth Unveiled

161,131 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Analyzing Episode 55. Season 2 aka The Violence of Alignment If I visualize CihAl's journey for this season, a spiral tightening its rings comes to mind. There's always one problem after another, spiking in intensity and reaction. And, the weight of it is reflected in both Alya's increasingly somber demeanor. But, here's the thing. In every new problem, there's an echo of the old one, which leaves one with an inevitable feeling of deja vu - for the audience and the characters. We'll get to why towards the end of this analysis. For now, on we go. We kick off epi 55 with Cihan being introduced to Meryem *cough* dishrag *cough* by Sadakat. And what follows is a breakdown of her story with Cihan listening. However, when Meryem recounted her past woes, I focused less on her words and more on Cihan's words and expression. And what follows is a masterclass in the difference between sympathy and empathy. Kudos to Ozan Akbaba for portraying the difference. I couldn't help but compare the situation to when Cihan is listening to Alya's account of her past. With Alya, Cihan leans forward, barely moving. He listens, but his face tends to reflect his own emotion and mirrors Alya's at times - in other words, he's living those events with her. When he talks, his voice drops lower, but more importantly, there's a gentle softness meant to soothe. With Meryem, Cihan's body language is a tad more detached. When he's leaning forward in the seat, his hands are extended in front of him, clasped together, creating space. Then he leans back, one arm extended on the table, the other on his thigh. Again, there's this feel of distance. His voice remains soft, but there's no tenderness. He's not trying to alleviate, rather he's simply listening. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the guy doesn't feel bad for her, because what she relates shouldn't be experienced by anyone. But empathy goes beyond sympathy. Empathy is when you hurt with the one who's hurting. And that difference, to me, is clear between the two scenes. Long story short, when he's heard what Meryem's gone through, he offers to help get her out of prison because he feels responsible in part for her misfortunes. He says it's his 'duty' to help her. Here's what's interesting: when Meryem says his kindness and heart haven't changed, he gets uncomfortable. And after that, he's the one to get up from the chair, signaling the end of the conversation. Like he wants to get out of there, because some part of him that's not stupidly male understands Meryem's still attached to him, but he has no interest in that whatsoever. His method of saying goodbye is a handshake, again, a testament to his aloofness. And when Meryem hugs him, his hands remain at their sides; the man could have been a pillar. So, while he speaks not of Alya, the one time he takes her name, he drives the message across that 'she's no one ordinary' and 'tread carefully'. Honestly, I don't think he wants to talk about Alya to Meryem. Not because Alya's not important, but because Alya is too important. The part of his life that Alya represents is his alone, and he's very possessive about sharing that with anyone. To him, Meryem is a past that exists, but one that he would erase if he had the choice, because it hurts Alya. And that's pretty much the whole feel of this conversation. He wants to help Meryem, but he also wants her gone because her presence is a source of discomfort to Alya. Speaking of discomforts, the next scene I want to talk about is when the massive turd, who happens to be Alya's ex-husband, goes to the hospital to threaten her some more. Seriously, this character is a step short of absolute psycho. He's incapable of true emotion, just like his mother. Anyway, when Alya is explaining why she hasn't moved out yet, the zombie's eyes zero in on her wedding band. And, of course, being who he is, he absolutely ignores the topic of Deniz, his own flesh and blood, and instead, wants the ring gone because it symbolizes Alya's love and attachment to Cihan. Thankfully, Cihan arrives in time to push away the zombie and to hear Alya proclaim that while Boran has the power to use her son and distance her from Cihan physically, he has no power over her heart and who reigns over it. Now, think back to that conversation where Deniz wants her to pick between Cihan and himself. And Cihan says Deniz's throne (or place) in her heart is so secure, he's happy to live in the shadow of that throne. While Alya smiles at Cihan's response, she also looks miserable later at the thought of not being able to tell Cihan that things aren't exactly so. However, I think she manages to get her point across in this scene without even realizing it. Because while she may make sacrifices for her son, no amount of blackmail, pain, or hurt can remove Cihan's love from her heart. Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds almost like an equal footing. The only difference is that she's bound to protect her son, because, unlike Cihan, he can't protect himself. And that's what leads Cihan to later tell Alya that her words are etched across his heart, and that he's never felt that loved by anyone. Curiously enough, this scene also brings the spotlight on two other details: Alya's 'anka' side and the wedding ring. Both of which will feature rather greatly, in the coming episodes, I think. Now, there's a rumor going around that Alya will take off her wedding ring. And, I don't know, the fact that Cihan's almost preening at Alya, still wearing the ring, and Alya saying 'I couldn't take it off' tells me that's not what's going to happen. For some reason, I'm beginning to get the vibes of a showdown of trust in the same vein as episode 27. Now you may argue that Cihan actually tells Alya about Mine's pregnancy in that episode, but CihAl have had a long journey since then. Alya has seen Cihan choose her over Boran with her own eyes. She's seen the lengths the man has gone to for her and Deniz. So, yes, she might be pissed about something or the other related to Meryem in future episodes, but her taking off the ring seems not within her character somehow. But hey, that's just me, and I could be wrong. Anyway, the final scene I want to talk about is, of course, the ending. Everyone kept focusing on why Cihan allowed Meryem to hold his hands, but I focused on his words. Because he very clearly tells Meryem that he's no longer in love with her, that he's moved on, and that she should not hang about in the hopes of that ever changing. In his own way, Cihan is quite ruthless here. He draws a line, but his words are designed not to hurt, because he's not an ahole. He just wants dishrag to understand that even the thought of Alya being hurt pains him more now than anything else. And, he's not very kind to people who try to hurt Alya. It's a disclosure and warning, but in the form of steel wrapped in satin. Now, let's go back to the beginning for a bit, where I mentioned spiraling events. See, I somehow thought that those vows Cihal took 'savaşta, bedelde, kararda, kaderde, aşkta' were linear levels. That they'd clear them one by one and get to love. But when you see the overall structure of their journey in this season, it's not linear at all. Because all those things have existed in one form or another since ep 29. There's always an element of all of these conditions in every episode. Which is why we keep thinking, wait a minute, we've been here before. But as I said, the spiral is tightening itself. With every episode, the stakes are raised higher, and CihAl are pushed a little bit closer to the edge. Almost like the deep breath before the plunge. And here’s where things get interesting. Because what feels like repetition is not actually stagnation, it’s confrontation deferred, coming back sharper each time. Every cycle brings them back to the same point. Their love deepens, fear follows, a decision is made in the name of protection, and that decision creates distance instead of resolution. Which brings me back to the vows - savaşta, bedelde, kararda, kaderde, aşkta. I was wrong to think of them as steps. They’re not something Cihan and Alya are moving towards; they’re something CihAl are already inside of. Every episode is them living those vows in real time. But with every new episode, the pressure mounts, like music builds to a crescendo. And yet, within all of that, aşk remains. Not as a reward at the end of the journey. But as the one thing that refuses to disappear, no matter how many times everything else goes wrong. And maybe that's why episode 55 feels the way it does. It creates the illusion that everything is falling apart, yet again, when in reality, everything is being forced into alignment. Something is moving all the pieces on the chessboard for an ultimate showdown. And the process gets more violent by the minute. Cihan hides the truth because he thinks love needs protection. Alya experiences that same act as distance, almost betrayal. Meanwhile, Boran and Sadakat keep pushing, and Meryem drops like a freaking bomb at the worst possible moment. Suddenly, everything that could have remained unsaid, unresolved, or postponed is dragged into the open. This has all the hallmarks of a breaking point. Note, I said breaking point, not breakdown. Because, unlike breakdowns, breaking points are used for revelations. I guess what I'm trying to say is things are headed towards alignment, not just for the overall story, but also CihAl's journey individually. Because Cihan and Alya also keep repeating their mistakes. Their growth requires something along the lines of a push, too. So, we have war, sacrifice, decisions, fate, and love, all coming to a head. And while there are plenty of reasons to feel ominous, I personally don't. The story is no longer about them loving each other - we're well past that. It’s about whether they can finally stand in that love openly and without any fear. Because everything is pushing them toward a breaking point, not to destroy them, I think, but to shape them into who they need to be. And if there’s one thing CihAl have proven since day one, it’s this - they don’t fall apart under pressure, they grow stronger, and they survive the impossible. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

21,885 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

15,145 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.

Ron Stauffer

19,249 просмотров • 2 лет назад

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,006 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад