Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Dr. Robert Becker spent 20 years proving that low-level electricity affects living things. His breakthrough experiment was using very low voltage currents to heal broken bones. Bones that were broken so bad they couldn't heal on its own. And that discovery came with a disturbing implication. If carefully controlled... low-level electricity can heal bones, what are uncontrolled electrical fields doing to your body every single day? • Power transmission lines • Your household appliances • The devices surrounding you right now The scientific community maintained for decades that to be harmed by electricity, you had to be shocked or burned. Low-level exposure was considered completely harmless. Becker's 20 years of research said otherwise. He found that animals exposed to low-level electrical fields grew at slower rates than control animals. Exposure produced measurable stress responses. Human volunteers exposed for just 24 hours showed significant elevations in serum triglycerides, a danger signal for heart attack and stroke. The electricity that surrounds us is too weak to feel. But Becker proved it's not too weak to affect us. The question is whether it's healing or harming, and nobody is controlling which one it does. — Dr. Robert Becker, chief of orthopedic surgery, Veterans Administration, Syracuse, New Yorkshow more

Goku

13,738 subscribers

40,720 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

How it affects people The National Academies report links high-power microwaves to impacts on people through the Frey effect. The human head acts as a receiving antenna for microwaves in the low gigahertz frequency range. Pulses of microwaves in these frequencies can cause people to hear sounds, which is one of the symptoms reported by the affected U.S. personnel. Other symptoms Havana syndrome sufferers have reported include headaches, nausea, hearing loss, lightheadedness and cognitive issues. The report notes that electronic devices were not disrupted during the attacks, suggesting that the power levels needed for the Frey effect are lower than would be required for an attack on electronics. This would be consistent with a high-power microwave weapon located at some distance from the targets. Power decreases dramatically with distance through the inverse square law, which means one of these devices could produce a power level at the target that would be too low to affect electronics but that could induce the Frey effect.

How it affects people The National Academies report links high-power microwaves to impacts on people through the Frey effect. The human head acts as a receiving antenna for microwaves in the low gigahertz frequency range. Pulses of microwaves in these frequencies can cause people to hear sounds, which is one of the symptoms reported by the affected U.S. personnel. Other symptoms Havana syndrome sufferers have reported include headaches, nausea, hearing loss, lightheadedness and cognitive issues. The report notes that electronic devices were not disrupted during the attacks, suggesting that the power levels needed for the Frey effect are lower than would be required for an attack on electronics. This would be consistent with a high-power microwave weapon located at some distance from the targets. Power decreases dramatically with distance through the inverse square law, which means one of these devices could produce a power level at the target that would be too low to affect electronics but that could induce the Frey effect.

HaunticonHunter

28,765 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

You do not have a past-self living within your mind or body. You only exist in this moment at the age you currently are with all that you've lived through. No part of you is a child. You cannot heal the 6-year-old self who was neglected. That neglect was very real if that's something you experienced. The pain you feel from that neglect, it matters and it's real. But only the 25 or 32 or 45 or 56-year-old self staring back at you in the mirror can actually be healed. And she can't be healed by you. The self cannot be both the problem and the solution. It's actually a power outside of you that can heal you as you are right now. Namely, it is the God who created you, who alone has the power to heal you and to help you. And yes, He speaks to you as His daughter, no matter your age, but not as a toddler. He sees and cares about your childhood, but He communicates to you as the adult you are, not as the baby that you were. The Christian approach to trauma is compassion. Yes, absolutely. But it is also the difficult Holy Spirit empowered work of finding our worth in Christ and forgiving those who have wronged us. This is where true liberation is found. It is not found from self-discovery and self-love. No amount of speaking to your inner child, which doesn't actually exist, will lead you down a path of lasting fulfillment. Counseling, in light of that truth, can be helpful and healing for the Christian, but no borrowing of New Age psychology will do.

You do not have a past-self living within your mind or body. You only exist in this moment at the age you currently are with all that you've lived through. No part of you is a child. You cannot heal the 6-year-old self who was neglected. That neglect was very real if that's something you experienced. The pain you feel from that neglect, it matters and it's real. But only the 25 or 32 or 45 or 56-year-old self staring back at you in the mirror can actually be healed. And she can't be healed by you. The self cannot be both the problem and the solution. It's actually a power outside of you that can heal you as you are right now. Namely, it is the God who created you, who alone has the power to heal you and to help you. And yes, He speaks to you as His daughter, no matter your age, but not as a toddler. He sees and cares about your childhood, but He communicates to you as the adult you are, not as the baby that you were. The Christian approach to trauma is compassion. Yes, absolutely. But it is also the difficult Holy Spirit empowered work of finding our worth in Christ and forgiving those who have wronged us. This is where true liberation is found. It is not found from self-discovery and self-love. No amount of speaking to your inner child, which doesn't actually exist, will lead you down a path of lasting fulfillment. Counseling, in light of that truth, can be helpful and healing for the Christian, but no borrowing of New Age psychology will do.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

10,846 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

.Chamath Palihapitiya says President Trump is completely different from how he is portrayed by the media. "He is charismatic. He's intellectually sharp, and he's funny. And when you put that together, he can engage an audience for a long time and be totally extemporaneous. The other thing I would say is that he is very polite. And he's kind in a way that was disarming and was not what I expected." "And so I felt that I had misjudged him many years in the past. And so I was very glad that I had an opportunity to sit beside him and to actually interact with him one-on-one. It was really engaging." "It was not just a pro-America agenda, but it was very clear that he was pro-innovation. So he was really supportive of AI in the details that he talked about, he was very supportive of crypto in those details. And he's very much low regulation, low taxation. And so when you put that together, it does stand very much in contrast with what the alternative is." "So it's us talking, and he says, you guys are a really beautiful couple. And I said, well, thank you. And then he turns to me, and he goes, well, you must be really rich. And I started laughing out loud. Natalie thought he was hilarious."

.Chamath Palihapitiya says President Trump is completely different from how he is portrayed by the media. "He is charismatic. He's intellectually sharp, and he's funny. And when you put that together, he can engage an audience for a long time and be totally extemporaneous. The other thing I would say is that he is very polite. And he's kind in a way that was disarming and was not what I expected." "And so I felt that I had misjudged him many years in the past. And so I was very glad that I had an opportunity to sit beside him and to actually interact with him one-on-one. It was really engaging." "It was not just a pro-America agenda, but it was very clear that he was pro-innovation. So he was really supportive of AI in the details that he talked about, he was very supportive of crypto in those details. And he's very much low regulation, low taxation. And so when you put that together, it does stand very much in contrast with what the alternative is." "So it's us talking, and he says, you guys are a really beautiful couple. And I said, well, thank you. And then he turns to me, and he goes, well, you must be really rich. And I started laughing out loud. Natalie thought he was hilarious."

KanekoaTheGreat

1,565,457 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Elon Musk: Why a 1 Terawatt AI is impossible on Earth?? "My estimate is that the cost-effectiveness of AI in space will be overwhelmingly better than AI on the ground. So, long before you exhaust potential energy sources on Earth, meaning perhaps in the four or five-year timeframe, the lowest cost way to do AI compute will be with solar-powered AI satellites. I'd say not more than five years from now Just look at the supercomputers we're building together. Let's say each rack is two tons; out of that two tons, 1.95 of it is probably for cooling. Just imagine how tiny that little supercomputer is Electricity generation is already becoming a challenge. If you start doing any kind of scaling for both electricity generation and cooling, you realize space is incredibly compelling Let's say you wanted to do 200 or 300 gigawatts per year of AI compute. It's very difficult to do that on Earth. The US average electricity usage, last time I checked, was around 460 gigawatts per year. So, if you're doing 300 gigawatts a year, that would be like two-thirds of US electricity production per year. There's no way you're building power plants at that level And then if you take it up to a Terawatt per year, impossible. You have to do that in space In space, you've got continuous solar. You don't need batteries because it's always sunny. The solar panels actually become cheaper because you don't need glass or framing, and the cooling is just radiative"

Elon Musk: Why a 1 Terawatt AI is impossible on Earth?? "My estimate is that the cost-effectiveness of AI in space will be overwhelmingly better than AI on the ground. So, long before you exhaust potential energy sources on Earth, meaning perhaps in the four or five-year timeframe, the lowest cost way to do AI compute will be with solar-powered AI satellites. I'd say not more than five years from now Just look at the supercomputers we're building together. Let's say each rack is two tons; out of that two tons, 1.95 of it is probably for cooling. Just imagine how tiny that little supercomputer is Electricity generation is already becoming a challenge. If you start doing any kind of scaling for both electricity generation and cooling, you realize space is incredibly compelling Let's say you wanted to do 200 or 300 gigawatts per year of AI compute. It's very difficult to do that on Earth. The US average electricity usage, last time I checked, was around 460 gigawatts per year. So, if you're doing 300 gigawatts a year, that would be like two-thirds of US electricity production per year. There's no way you're building power plants at that level And then if you take it up to a Terawatt per year, impossible. You have to do that in space In space, you've got continuous solar. You don't need batteries because it's always sunny. The solar panels actually become cheaper because you don't need glass or framing, and the cooling is just radiative"

X Freeze

446,406 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Dr. Benjamin Bikman just revealed the longest living humans all had HIGH cholesterol. But doesn't high cholesterol cause heart disease? That's what doctors told us for decades, yet a 2023 Swedish study proved otherwise. They looked at the most consistent variables in people who lived the longest. They found three things: 1) Low uric acid 2) High cholesterol 3) Good glucose control "The longest lived people had high cholesterol levels. It is one of the most consistent themes of longevity research." Bikman is a metabolic scientist who says cholesterol is required for your body to function at the most basic level: • Every sex hormone is built from it • LDL helps your immune system fight infections • Your mitochondria cannot produce energy without it Yet we live in a world that hates cholesterol. Modern medicine told us it was bad to have high levels of it. The reason is because they sold us statin lowering drugs. "We have chosen markers in modern medicine that we have well-designed drugs for." Bikman says the marker that actually predicts heart attacks is triglycerides—not cholesterol. But there's no profitable drug that lowers triglycerides. And there is one for cholesterol. The molecule we've been told to fear may be the one keeping us alive the longest. — Dr. Benjamin Bikman (Benjamin Bikman) on Steven Bartlett's (@SteveBartlettSC) Diary of a CEO podcast PS. This account exists to share interesting health insights. If you found this post intriguing, follow me for more.

Dr. Benjamin Bikman just revealed the longest living humans all had HIGH cholesterol. But doesn't high cholesterol cause heart disease? That's what doctors told us for decades, yet a 2023 Swedish study proved otherwise. They looked at the most consistent variables in people who lived the longest. They found three things: 1) Low uric acid 2) High cholesterol 3) Good glucose control "The longest lived people had high cholesterol levels. It is one of the most consistent themes of longevity research." Bikman is a metabolic scientist who says cholesterol is required for your body to function at the most basic level: • Every sex hormone is built from it • LDL helps your immune system fight infections • Your mitochondria cannot produce energy without it Yet we live in a world that hates cholesterol. Modern medicine told us it was bad to have high levels of it. The reason is because they sold us statin lowering drugs. "We have chosen markers in modern medicine that we have well-designed drugs for." Bikman says the marker that actually predicts heart attacks is triglycerides—not cholesterol. But there's no profitable drug that lowers triglycerides. And there is one for cholesterol. The molecule we've been told to fear may be the one keeping us alive the longest. — Dr. Benjamin Bikman (Benjamin Bikman) on Steven Bartlett's (@SteveBartlettSC) Diary of a CEO podcast PS. This account exists to share interesting health insights. If you found this post intriguing, follow me for more.

Goku

26,068 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "To me, it's [JFK's] most important speech. It's one of the most important speeches in American history; the thing that he did that was so unusual in that speech is he talked to the American people and asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians..." "The zeitgeist of our era was that America had won the war and now we were going to rightfully dominate the peace. And he said something very, very different to Americans that challenged that patriotic assumption: He said, no, it was actually the Russians who won the war. They weakened Hitler and made it possible for us to march into Berlin." "And he talked about the suffering of the Russians during the war and to legitimize their security concerns, which nobody was doing... what he was saying to the Americans is, no, they have legitimate security concerns the same as we do, and we need to understand those things." "And he reminded Americans of the suffering that the Russians had endured, unimaginable suffering. One in seven Russians had been killed during World War II. He asked Americans to imagine that all of the land, all of the cities, all of the towns from the East Coast to Chicago had been leveled to rubble, that the forests and fields had been burned. And he said that's what happened to Russia during the war. That's what they sacrificed for us, and they have legitimate security concerns to make sure that never happens again..." "I'm speaking you today because the world is once again at a very similar crossroads. As in my uncle's time, nuclear tensions are at an extreme and dangerous level. As in his time, we have a unique opportunity not only to diffuse those tensions, but to take a radically different path, a path towards peace."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "To me, it's [JFK's] most important speech. It's one of the most important speeches in American history; the thing that he did that was so unusual in that speech is he talked to the American people and asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians..." "The zeitgeist of our era was that America had won the war and now we were going to rightfully dominate the peace. And he said something very, very different to Americans that challenged that patriotic assumption: He said, no, it was actually the Russians who won the war. They weakened Hitler and made it possible for us to march into Berlin." "And he talked about the suffering of the Russians during the war and to legitimize their security concerns, which nobody was doing... what he was saying to the Americans is, no, they have legitimate security concerns the same as we do, and we need to understand those things." "And he reminded Americans of the suffering that the Russians had endured, unimaginable suffering. One in seven Russians had been killed during World War II. He asked Americans to imagine that all of the land, all of the cities, all of the towns from the East Coast to Chicago had been leveled to rubble, that the forests and fields had been burned. And he said that's what happened to Russia during the war. That's what they sacrificed for us, and they have legitimate security concerns to make sure that never happens again..." "I'm speaking you today because the world is once again at a very similar crossroads. As in my uncle's time, nuclear tensions are at an extreme and dangerous level. As in his time, we have a unique opportunity not only to diffuse those tensions, but to take a radically different path, a path towards peace."

COMBATE |🇵🇷

287,322 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

66-year-old medical doctor Mark Hyman ran an experiment on himself. He started eating more saturated fat. His testosterone levels went “way up.” A low-fat diet, he says, does the opposite. He calls it “bad news.” And low testosterone is never just about testosterone. It’s a “clue for other problems.” “There’s a strong relationship between low testosterone and erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Hyman said. Men with low testosterone are also 38% more likely to die of a cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke. So doctors reach for the little blue pill. Which was never designed for ED at all. It was a failed blood pressure drug. It doesn’t touch the root cause. If you want to fix ED, Hyman says, you first have to improve your metabolic health. That’s the long-term fix. But what if your metabolic health is fine and the problem is still there? “Certain medications, by the way, can mess up your libido”… THREAD 🧵

66-year-old medical doctor Mark Hyman ran an experiment on himself. He started eating more saturated fat. His testosterone levels went “way up.” A low-fat diet, he says, does the opposite. He calls it “bad news.” And low testosterone is never just about testosterone. It’s a “clue for other problems.” “There’s a strong relationship between low testosterone and erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Hyman said. Men with low testosterone are also 38% more likely to die of a cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke. So doctors reach for the little blue pill. Which was never designed for ED at all. It was a failed blood pressure drug. It doesn’t touch the root cause. If you want to fix ED, Hyman says, you first have to improve your metabolic health. That’s the long-term fix. But what if your metabolic health is fine and the problem is still there? “Certain medications, by the way, can mess up your libido”… THREAD 🧵

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

177,896 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Professor Retsef Levi explains his perspective on thimerosal (mercury) in influenza vaccines: "If you just think about a one-time vaccine, you could argue that the amount of mercury in a single dose of a single vaccine is probably small. And you could argue potentially that it poses no significant risks. The problem is that you don't take one shot. You take, actually, a shot every year, and moreover, you are actually being exposed to mercury from other sources in your life - from food, from fish, & from other sources. So, when you want to consider risk here, you need to adopt a system-level kind of thinking and really think about not only this isolated episode, but rather what is the overall contribution to the overall risk, to the overall exposure. And if you do that, given the fact that mercury is a highly toxic compound - nobody debates that - and it accumulates in the body, I think it's going to be sensible, at least in my mind, to say that if we can eliminate some controllable sources of mercury, we should do that." CC Robert W Malone, MD

Professor Retsef Levi explains his perspective on thimerosal (mercury) in influenza vaccines: "If you just think about a one-time vaccine, you could argue that the amount of mercury in a single dose of a single vaccine is probably small. And you could argue potentially that it poses no significant risks. The problem is that you don't take one shot. You take, actually, a shot every year, and moreover, you are actually being exposed to mercury from other sources in your life - from food, from fish, & from other sources. So, when you want to consider risk here, you need to adopt a system-level kind of thinking and really think about not only this isolated episode, but rather what is the overall contribution to the overall risk, to the overall exposure. And if you do that, given the fact that mercury is a highly toxic compound - nobody debates that - and it accumulates in the body, I think it's going to be sensible, at least in my mind, to say that if we can eliminate some controllable sources of mercury, we should do that." CC Robert W Malone, MD

Jan Jekielek

56,130 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

ELON MUSK: The Future of AI Power is in Space, Not on Earth. "Once you start thinking in terms of what percentage of the sun's power are you harnessing? You realize you have to go to space and you can't scale very much on Earth. All of the United States currently uses only half a terawatt per hour on average. So you know, if you say a terawatt, that would be twice as much electricity as the United States currently consumes. So that's quite a lot. It's actually very difficult to build power plants and then you don't just need the power plants, you need all of the electrical equipment. Need the electrical transformers to run the transformers. You can build power plants. That's what we did at xAI for Colossus 2. It's very difficult to scale other forms of power. You can scale potentially solar. Solar cells are already very cheap. Now put it in space and it's 10 times cheaper because you don't need any batteries. So the moment your cost of access to space becomes low. By far, the cheapest and most scalable way to generate tokens is space. It's not even close. It'll be an order of magnitude easier to scale five years from now. My prediction is we will launch and be operating every year more AI in space than the cumulative total on Earth."

ELON MUSK: The Future of AI Power is in Space, Not on Earth. "Once you start thinking in terms of what percentage of the sun's power are you harnessing? You realize you have to go to space and you can't scale very much on Earth. All of the United States currently uses only half a terawatt per hour on average. So you know, if you say a terawatt, that would be twice as much electricity as the United States currently consumes. So that's quite a lot. It's actually very difficult to build power plants and then you don't just need the power plants, you need all of the electrical equipment. Need the electrical transformers to run the transformers. You can build power plants. That's what we did at xAI for Colossus 2. It's very difficult to scale other forms of power. You can scale potentially solar. Solar cells are already very cheap. Now put it in space and it's 10 times cheaper because you don't need any batteries. So the moment your cost of access to space becomes low. By far, the cheapest and most scalable way to generate tokens is space. It's not even close. It'll be an order of magnitude easier to scale five years from now. My prediction is we will launch and be operating every year more AI in space than the cumulative total on Earth."

DogeDesigner

37,485 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Acyn

1,065,464 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

“Democrats don't stand for anything and they haven't for a very long time..They do exactly what the corporate right does, which is to go back and forth about cultural issues hoping that nobody notices that 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Hoping that nobody notices that while life expectancies are great for the top 1%, you live 7 years less long...if you're in the bottom 50% of this country. “And so as long as they're doing TikTok dances, or holding up paddles, or we're talking about 'wokeness,' or the mere 10 trans athletes that are in the NCAA, you can convince people to go to the polls and pull a lever for one side or the other, and 10/20/30 years from now they’ll wake up and say: What happen to my mortgage? What happened to my life? What happened to my ability raise a family and have kids? “And that's exactly the conversation they want us to be having, instead of focusing on why it is that our government, run by corporatists and billionaires, regardless of if it's a Democratic government or a Republican government, consistently serves one segment of the population, and it's the very very rich.”

“Democrats don't stand for anything and they haven't for a very long time..They do exactly what the corporate right does, which is to go back and forth about cultural issues hoping that nobody notices that 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Hoping that nobody notices that while life expectancies are great for the top 1%, you live 7 years less long...if you're in the bottom 50% of this country. “And so as long as they're doing TikTok dances, or holding up paddles, or we're talking about 'wokeness,' or the mere 10 trans athletes that are in the NCAA, you can convince people to go to the polls and pull a lever for one side or the other, and 10/20/30 years from now they’ll wake up and say: What happen to my mortgage? What happened to my life? What happened to my ability raise a family and have kids? “And that's exactly the conversation they want us to be having, instead of focusing on why it is that our government, run by corporatists and billionaires, regardless of if it's a Democratic government or a Republican government, consistently serves one segment of the population, and it's the very very rich.”

Briahna Joy Gray

364,054 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Kevin O'Leary: The 80/20 signal-to-noise rule Steve Jobs & Elon Musk used to outperform everyone "I used to work for Steve Jobs in the early 90s making all of his educational software. I would say, 'Steve, we've got to do some market research on Oregon Trail. It's in 110,000 school buildings. It's going to cost you 12-15 million bucks. We want to find out what the students want, what the teachers want, what the parents want.'" O'Leary shares Steve's response: "Steve would say, by the way, not a nice guy, not a nice guy, he would say to a room full of people: 'Kevin, I don't give a shit what the students want or the parents think or anybody thinks. It's what I want. They don't know what they want till I tell them what they want.'" O'Leary pushed back: "I said, 'Steve, you sound like such an asshole. You have no idea what that sounds like.' He said, 'No, no, that's how it is, Kevin. Are you making money with me? Am I your fastest growing OEM? Have we not been wildly successful and continue to be?' I said, 'Yes, Steve, that's true.' He said, 'Then shut up and do what I say.' That's how he would talk to you. 100%." O'Leary explains what he learned: "There's a concept that he understood that very few people focused on back then, signal-to-noise ratio. His vision of signal was the top 3 to 5 things you have to get done in the next 18 hours. Not your vision for the business next week or next month or next year. Just the next 18 hours you're awake. You're going to get those 3 to 5 things done that you have deemed critical for your mission. They must get done today. Anything that stops you from doing that is the noise." He shares the ratio that made Jobs successful: "For Steve Jobs, the signal to noise ratio to be successful was 80/20. 80% signal, 20% noise. And I knew that to be true with him because he would email me at 2:30 in the morning and expect me to get back to him." O'Leary compares Jobs to one other person: "The only other person I've seen with a higher ratio than that is Elon Musk. He has no noise. He does not deal with noise. He is 100% signal. 24 seconds of every 30 seconds. 60 seconds of every minute. 60 minutes of every hour. The 18 hours he's awake, it's all signal. And look what he's achieved." He acknowledges the tradeoff: "That's very awkward for him socially, because noise is dealing with your family sometimes. Noise is saying hi to a friend. Noise is doom scrolling on social media. Maybe playing your guitar. But very few people on Earth, and if you go back in history, you'll find that the geniuses of their time were close to 100% signal." O'Leary shares another example: "Bezos will not make a decision after 1:00 in the afternoon, because he felt that the noise was too high. The signal for him was in the morning hours." He summarizes the lesson: "This is a crucial aspect of success that I now understand. It defines an entrepreneur. A man or woman that understands the signal-to-noise ratio, that focuses on that, they'll be successful. The ones that can't, that get down to a 50/50 signal to noise, they'll fail. It's that simple."

Kevin O'Leary: The 80/20 signal-to-noise rule Steve Jobs & Elon Musk used to outperform everyone "I used to work for Steve Jobs in the early 90s making all of his educational software. I would say, 'Steve, we've got to do some market research on Oregon Trail. It's in 110,000 school buildings. It's going to cost you 12-15 million bucks. We want to find out what the students want, what the teachers want, what the parents want.'" O'Leary shares Steve's response: "Steve would say, by the way, not a nice guy, not a nice guy, he would say to a room full of people: 'Kevin, I don't give a shit what the students want or the parents think or anybody thinks. It's what I want. They don't know what they want till I tell them what they want.'" O'Leary pushed back: "I said, 'Steve, you sound like such an asshole. You have no idea what that sounds like.' He said, 'No, no, that's how it is, Kevin. Are you making money with me? Am I your fastest growing OEM? Have we not been wildly successful and continue to be?' I said, 'Yes, Steve, that's true.' He said, 'Then shut up and do what I say.' That's how he would talk to you. 100%." O'Leary explains what he learned: "There's a concept that he understood that very few people focused on back then, signal-to-noise ratio. His vision of signal was the top 3 to 5 things you have to get done in the next 18 hours. Not your vision for the business next week or next month or next year. Just the next 18 hours you're awake. You're going to get those 3 to 5 things done that you have deemed critical for your mission. They must get done today. Anything that stops you from doing that is the noise." He shares the ratio that made Jobs successful: "For Steve Jobs, the signal to noise ratio to be successful was 80/20. 80% signal, 20% noise. And I knew that to be true with him because he would email me at 2:30 in the morning and expect me to get back to him." O'Leary compares Jobs to one other person: "The only other person I've seen with a higher ratio than that is Elon Musk. He has no noise. He does not deal with noise. He is 100% signal. 24 seconds of every 30 seconds. 60 seconds of every minute. 60 minutes of every hour. The 18 hours he's awake, it's all signal. And look what he's achieved." He acknowledges the tradeoff: "That's very awkward for him socially, because noise is dealing with your family sometimes. Noise is saying hi to a friend. Noise is doom scrolling on social media. Maybe playing your guitar. But very few people on Earth, and if you go back in history, you'll find that the geniuses of their time were close to 100% signal." O'Leary shares another example: "Bezos will not make a decision after 1:00 in the afternoon, because he felt that the noise was too high. The signal for him was in the morning hours." He summarizes the lesson: "This is a crucial aspect of success that I now understand. It defines an entrepreneur. A man or woman that understands the signal-to-noise ratio, that focuses on that, they'll be successful. The ones that can't, that get down to a 50/50 signal to noise, they'll fail. It's that simple."

Jaynit

153,075 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Dr. Ardis closed with a deeply personal reflection on what true healing really means. Looking back on the years of lockdowns and isolation, he said, “One of their main goals during COVID-19 was to prevent free assembly so they could manipulate and program all of us to live in fear, anxiety, and panic.” He urged people to reconnect—to share energy, wisdom, and faith face-to-face. “It’s one thing to listen alone,” he said, “but it’s very different when you’re there in person sharing it with all of us.” For Dr. Ardis, Healing for the Ages is more than an event—it’s a calling. “We are really, really tired and feel that God has told us this is what we’re supposed to be doing at this point in our lives—for all of you.” His closing message was simple yet profound: “It’s going to come from the decisions you make in your own personal day-to-day lives.” It was a powerful conclusion, reminding us that real healing doesn’t begin with technology or medicine, but with the courage to take responsibility for our own lives.

Dr. Ardis closed with a deeply personal reflection on what true healing really means. Looking back on the years of lockdowns and isolation, he said, “One of their main goals during COVID-19 was to prevent free assembly so they could manipulate and program all of us to live in fear, anxiety, and panic.” He urged people to reconnect—to share energy, wisdom, and faith face-to-face. “It’s one thing to listen alone,” he said, “but it’s very different when you’re there in person sharing it with all of us.” For Dr. Ardis, Healing for the Ages is more than an event—it’s a calling. “We are really, really tired and feel that God has told us this is what we’re supposed to be doing at this point in our lives—for all of you.” His closing message was simple yet profound: “It’s going to come from the decisions you make in your own personal day-to-day lives.” It was a powerful conclusion, reminding us that real healing doesn’t begin with technology or medicine, but with the courage to take responsibility for our own lives.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

28,702 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Gavin Newsom’s $101 million dollar Pacific Palisades low income housing projects EXPOSED The new housing complexes come with ‘covenants,’ after a certain amount of years they are no longer low income and convert to market rate James Li It’s a full blown land grab, “One of the largest industries that donated to him was real estate” “Let me tell you what Gavin Newsom is really up to with this hundred million dollar low income housing project in the Palisades. This ultimately is a real estate play in my opinion, because they want this building to go into nice affluent neighborhoods. Because the value of that building is going to be astronomically higher than versus building it in another area where it's underdeveloped or it's a new neighborhood, or it's more on the outskirts of la and ultimately all these affordable units that they have covenants on them. So in 15, 20, 25 years, depending on the, the exact building, all of those affordable housing units will convert to market rate. So that's why they want it in those areas. It's not because like, oh, we're helping the homeless people out. It's like, oh no, this, this is just like a giveaway to real estate developers, right? One of the largest industries that donated to him was real estate. So like this is just him placating to his donors, making sure that they're needs, quote unquote, are being met. This is a long term real estate play to say, okay, we're going to put this building here because in 25 years this building will be worth like 20x if we versus we put in another neighborhood.” It’s all about kickbacks for Gavin Newsom’s donors You know the new low income housing complexes will covenants because that’s what the other properties in LA and San Diego come with. It’s the Democrat scam

Gavin Newsom’s $101 million dollar Pacific Palisades low income housing projects EXPOSED The new housing complexes come with ‘covenants,’ after a certain amount of years they are no longer low income and convert to market rate James Li It’s a full blown land grab, “One of the largest industries that donated to him was real estate” “Let me tell you what Gavin Newsom is really up to with this hundred million dollar low income housing project in the Palisades. This ultimately is a real estate play in my opinion, because they want this building to go into nice affluent neighborhoods. Because the value of that building is going to be astronomically higher than versus building it in another area where it's underdeveloped or it's a new neighborhood, or it's more on the outskirts of la and ultimately all these affordable units that they have covenants on them. So in 15, 20, 25 years, depending on the, the exact building, all of those affordable housing units will convert to market rate. So that's why they want it in those areas. It's not because like, oh, we're helping the homeless people out. It's like, oh no, this, this is just like a giveaway to real estate developers, right? One of the largest industries that donated to him was real estate. So like this is just him placating to his donors, making sure that they're needs, quote unquote, are being met. This is a long term real estate play to say, okay, we're going to put this building here because in 25 years this building will be worth like 20x if we versus we put in another neighborhood.” It’s all about kickbacks for Gavin Newsom’s donors You know the new low income housing complexes will covenants because that’s what the other properties in LA and San Diego come with. It’s the Democrat scam

Wall Street Apes

47,016 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Ms. Malissia

18,397 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

I'm normally not a big fan, but this is an absolutely brilliant answer by Larry Summers to the oft-repeated argument that China is somehow "cheating" in trade. In fact it's probably the best answer I've ever heard on this. It goes back to the point I was making ( in reply to Steve Miran's completely insane argument that having the dollar as a reserve currency is such a burden to the US that other countries need to compensate them for it. Thanks to the dollar reserve status, to quote Summers's rhetorical question: "If China wants to sell us things at really low prices and the transaction is we get solar collectors or we get batteries that we can put in electric cars and we send them pieces of paper that we print. Do you think that's a good deal for us or a bad deal for us?" Characterizing this as "cheating", like Summers rightly says, should be rejected entirely. At the end of the day, who's more "cheated": the party doing the hard work of producing goods at very low prices on razor thin margins, or the party that simply prints a virtually infinite amount of fiat money to pay for all this stuff?

I'm normally not a big fan, but this is an absolutely brilliant answer by Larry Summers to the oft-repeated argument that China is somehow "cheating" in trade. In fact it's probably the best answer I've ever heard on this. It goes back to the point I was making ( in reply to Steve Miran's completely insane argument that having the dollar as a reserve currency is such a burden to the US that other countries need to compensate them for it. Thanks to the dollar reserve status, to quote Summers's rhetorical question: "If China wants to sell us things at really low prices and the transaction is we get solar collectors or we get batteries that we can put in electric cars and we send them pieces of paper that we print. Do you think that's a good deal for us or a bad deal for us?" Characterizing this as "cheating", like Summers rightly says, should be rejected entirely. At the end of the day, who's more "cheated": the party doing the hard work of producing goods at very low prices on razor thin margins, or the party that simply prints a virtually infinite amount of fiat money to pay for all this stuff?

Arnaud Bertrand

1,496,654 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr