Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Drew Timme vs Sioux Falls: 36PTS-16REB-8AST-16/27FG

61,493 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The new Huberman Lab episode is out: How to Improve Your Memory & Cognitive Function at Any Age | Dr. Alan Castel 0:00 Dr. Alan Castel 2:41 What Is Memory?, Reconstruction & Metacognition 4:49 Mnemonics, Remembering Names & Deeper Learning 8:22 The Penny & Apple Logo, Noticing vs Seeing, Learning Through Mistakes 10:43 Sponsors: Wealthfront & Helix 14:05 Neuroplasticity, Frustration, Curiosity & Mindset 17:42 Maintaining vs Learning New Things, Habits, Novelty & Emotional Memory 24:28 "Mental Photographs," Photo-Taking & Imagining the Future 29:28 Eyewitness Memory, the Ronald Cotton Case, Confidence vs Accuracy 35:07 Medium-Term & Prospective Memory, Hotel Fire Exits 40:28 Sponsor: AG1 41:47 When Habits Turn Lethal, Aviation & Human Error 49:01 Why Memory Changes With Age; Alzheimer's & the Nun Study 52:34 Exercise & Hippocampal Volume, Falls & Balance 57:14 SuperAgers & Athletes; Regret, Balance & Being Driven 1:12:08 Sponsor: Function 1:13:45 Age Stereotypes, Subjective Age & Positive Age Beliefs 1:20:02 Goals & Plans, Scams; Anterior Midcingulate Cortex & SuperAgers 1:26:23 Culture, Resilience, Blue Zones & COVID 1:29:18 Adversity, the Positivity Effect & Intergenerational Learning 1:36:31 Sponsor: Lingo 1:38:00 Limitations & Purpose; Time, Family & Connection 1:44:58 Deliberately Building Memories; the ABCs of Successful Aging 1:51:02 Following Your Interests; Castel's Path & Older Adults 1:57:16 Mental Simulations, Curiosity Studies & Selectivity 2:01:19 Socioemotional Selectivity Theory; Steve Jobs & Lifespan 2:07:10 The Secret to Successful Aging; State vs Trait Curiosity 2:11:04 Scams & AI Voice Cloning 2:14:31 John Wooden, Wisdom, Love & Balance 2:17:41 Learning Through Mistakes; Does the Brain Get Better With Age? 2:25:00 Conclusion, Better With Age 2:26:00 Zero-Cost Support, YouTube, Spotify & Apple Follow, Reviews & Feedback, Sponsors, Protocols Book, Social Media, Neural Network Newsletter Includes paid partnerships.

Andrew D. Huberman, Ph.D.

125,709 views • 18 days ago

Most of us don’t have a slow metabolism, and are far from overtraining. The real issue is people underestimate their calorie intake, confuse discomfort with "failure," and just don't do the work. New episode with Dr. Layne Norton (Layne Norton, PhD), a Ph.D. scientist, professional bodybuilder, and champion powerlifter who deadlifts over 700 pounds. We discuss: • When to push to failure • Whether seed oils promote chronic disease (and how) • Why good habits beat perfectionism • Layne’s approach to eating, training, and supplementation. Plus, we tackle hot topics like the carnivore diet, artificial sweeteners, intermittent fasting, and more. This episode is available on X, YouTube, Spotify, and everywhere else. Links in comment. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:30 - Layne's coaching philosophy 12:22 - Why to start tracking calories (for at least 3 days) 15:24 - Why people mislead themselves about food intake 20:49 - Exercise vs. SSRIs 24:35 - Treat exercise like brushing your teeth 27:53 - Why old people should lift 31:34 - Should you train to failure? 44:50 - Exercise selection 54:29 - Is lifting heavy necessary? 55:37 - Barbell vs. hack squats for preventing falls 57:53 - Why lifting weights decreases lower back pain 59:26 - How to prevent and overcome training injuries 1:08:59 - Why 'exposure therapy' promotes recovery 1:12:47 - Why pain doesn't always indicate tissue injury 1:16:00 - Why and how to train after poor sleep 1:19:40 - Why menopause can cause weight gain 1:27:19 - Why it's never too late to start lifting weights 1:29:48 - Training tips for older people with joint pain 1:34:01 - Total protein intake vs. distribution 1:42:02 - Layne's daily protein distribution 1:44:27 - The shortcomings of nutrition studies 1:51:49 - Is consuming more than 1.6 g/kg of protein beneficial? 1:53:16 - Protein consumption in a calorie deficit 1:54:26 - Protein intake for endurance athletes 1:55:50 - How much protein does Layne eat? 1:56:54 - Are seed oils a predominant cause of disease? 2:01:15 - Saturated fat vs. seed oils 2:06:28 - Is the carnivore diet an LDL cholesterol catastrophe? 2:11:59 - Why heating seeds oil makes them inflammatory 2:18:16 - Is there a "big food" industry conspiracy? 2:24:00 - Sugar-sweetened beverages 2:28:00 - Can diet soda help you lose weight? 2:32:03 - Diet soda (cancer and microbiome) 2:42:07 - Why Layne rarely takes a strong position on early science 2:46:47 - Carnivore diet 2:59:35 - Time-restricted eating and fasting 3:10:21 - Layne's daily routine 3:14:38 - Layne's diet and supplements 3:16:21 - Why everyone should take creatine 3:20:32 - Rhodiola rosea 3:22:03 - Ashwagandha 3:23:37 - Promising supplements (need more evidence)

Dr. Rhonda Patrick

228,403 views • 1 year ago

these UGC creators have driven 5 billion+ views for consumer apps in the past 90 days. I talked to Drew Levin from SideShift and he broke down the viral formats working right now (it's not just hook & demo anymore) full vid👇 0:00 - Sourcing UGC from apps driving 500M+ views 0:15 - Engineering virality and leveraging AI controversy 3:59 - The shift from massive influencer campaigns to authentic UGC 4:38 - New format strategy: 10-minute long-form story videos 5:57 - Using rage bait and health trends to capture watch time 8:40 - Scaling UGC programs with campaign managers and content coaches 9:29 - Creator Managers (logistics) vs. Content Coaches (creative feedback) 10:41 - The winning manager-to-creator scaling ratio 13:00 - Finding golden formats and frictionless creator onboarding 16:40 - Format Deconstruction: A 9.6M-view talking head case study 18:21 - Using engagement rate as a predictive virality indicator 24:44 - The "Duolingo-style" training program to mint new talent 29:00 - Case Study: Reaching #1 on the App Store via Spark Ads 29:44 - Protecting budgets: Isolating paid spend from creator bonuses 32:28 - Algorithmic and UI differences: Meta Partnership vs. TikTok Spark Ads 34:21 - The infinite growth glitch: Traffic quality of organic-boosted spend 35:45 - The 3-5x rule: Using paid spend to lift organic shadowbans 42:38 - Creator compensation: Retainer base vs. stacked milestone structures 44:06 - Payout optimization: Capitalizing on the "free view" framework 45:45 - What to expect: Realistic CPM progression over the first 90 days

Joseph Choi

22,595 views • 2 months ago

PrismML Releases Bonsai 27B: 1-bit and Ternary Builds of Qwen3.6-27B Hitting 89.5% of FP16 at 3.9GB. No new pretrain. No higher-precision escape hatches. No multi-GPU rig. Here's how it works. 👇 1: Codes, not floats Every weight becomes a code, with one shared FP16 scale per group of 128. Ternary is {−1, 0, +1}, binary is {−1, +1}. Sharing the scale across 128 weights keeps its cost at 16/128 = 0.125 bits. → Ternary: log2(3) + 16/128 ≈ 1.71 bits/weight → 5.9GB → Binary: 1 + 16/128 = 1.125 bits/weight → 3.9GB 2: Post-training, not from scratch No BitNet-style low-bit pretrain. It starts from off-the-shelf Qwen3.6-27B, architecture unchanged. The representation runs end to end across embeddings, attention projections, MLP projections, and the LM head. → 9.4× (ternary) and 14.2× (binary) vs the 54GB FP16 baseline 3: Labels are not bit-widths Conventional low-bit builds are mixed-precision by construction. The advertised name describes the most-compressed tensors, not the model. → Q4_K_XL, labeled "4-bit," is really 5.2 bits/weight at 17.6GB → IQ2_XXS, labeled "2-bit," is really 2.8 bits/weight at 9.4GB 4: Fitting a phone is two budgets iOS caps a single app near half of RAM, so a 12GB iPhone exposes ~6GB. The KV cache grows on top. Hybrid attention at ~75% linear means only 16 of 64 layers cache. → 4-bit KV: 4.3GB at 262K context, down from 17.2GB → 11.0 tok/s on iPhone 17 Pro Max 5: The numbers (15 benchmarks, thinking mode) → Ternary: 80.49 avg at 5.9GB — 94.6% of FP16 → 1-bit: 76.11 avg at 3.9GB — 89.5% of FP16 → IQ2_XXS falls to 57.5 on AIME26 while still scoring 88.93 on MMLU-Redux The key takeaway: 27B-class reasoning without the 54GB checkpoint — group-wise ternary and binary codes, an end-to-end low-bit language stack, 4-bit KV, on one phone. Full analysis: Repo: Model weight: Technical details: PrismML

Marktechpost AI

31,860 views • 16 days ago

Inside the mind of an ex-SIG quant trader who can't turn off the EV brain - even for his kid's school choice Andrew Courtney (Andrew Courtney) ran the International ETFs Trading Desk at Susquehanna International Group for ~15 years before leaving in 2023. He now runs Kalshionomics (Kalshinomics), a prediction markets analytics tool, and writes the Whirligig Bear, one of the sharpest prediction markets Substacks out there. "I think of everything as a bet. I kind of don't understand how you talk to normal people — they do not do that." SIG trains their junior traders with poker, spending 2hrs/day turning over cards after every hand, justifying every decision quantitatively AND qualitatively. 15 years later, Andrew views prediction markets the same way: read who's on the other side, size accordingly, fold when the whale comes back at you 10x. We cover: - Why SIG pays junior traders to play poker for 2hrs/day — & what happens after every single hand - The "one eye on the market, always" attention tax that destroys most people's careers - How to find edge in prediction markets by asking: who am I actually trading against? - Why meme-heavy, overhyped markets (Taylor Swift at the Super Bowl) might be the juiciest trades - The insider trading debate in prediction markets — & why it's "socially corrosive" - Floor trading vs. upstairs quant: why the transition saved his career - 40 connections after ~15 years at one of the world's best firms — the hidden cost of prop trading - Why he doesn't have collision insurance on his car (& the EV math behind it) Thank you so much Andrew Courtney for coming on the pod! Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 05:00 Floor trading vs. electronic trading 06:28 What makes an upstairs trader 10:16 Poker as trader training 13:00 Thinking in bets as a mental framework 15:11 Decision trees in real life 16:40 Where prediction markets actually have edge 19:00 Why the LLM forecasting layer falls short 19:40 Liquidity incentives and trading low-volume markets 22:00 Limiting downside even when the model is wrong 24:32 Executing in illiquid markets 25:44 Fair value vs. directional conviction 27:11 Bayesian updating when liquidity responds 28:40 Fading hype and crowded narratives 31:07 Longshot bias vs. fanbase bias 34:20 How to judge whether you really have edge 36:40 Building analytics tools for prediction markets 38:20 The temporary edge for smart amateurs 40:35 Where prediction markets fit best 41:20 Markets that shouldn’t exist 43:20 Why insider trading corrodes incentives 46:52 Are prediction markets a net good or bad 50:47 Minimizing degeneracy and maximizing signal 53:32 A simple EV mindset anyone can use

Ethan Kho

436,074 views • 5 months ago

What does it take to run one of football’s most passionate clubs… and keep it sustainable? Pablo Longoria, President of Olympique de Marseille, leads a club where emotion, politics, and pressure collide. From scout to club president, Pablo’s rise is remarkable; his thinking refreshingly modern. Its results first at all costs, but that’s just the start. The Mason Greenwood signing drew headlines, but Marseille’s transfer strategy is far deeper than marquee names. In this episode we explore: ⚽ Why sporting success still drives every business metric 📉 How French football’s media collapse reshaped the league 💡 Finding value in overlooked players (and handling controversy) 🏟️ The economics of Marseille’s 67,000-seat Velodrome 💻 Why tech, data, and AI are football’s next competitive edge As Pablo puts it 🗣️: Football is emotion, but it has to be sustainable. Strategy without emotion is useless and emotion without structure is chaos. All on Business of Sport 🔥 Youtube: Spotify: Apple: 00:00 Intro 01:23 Pablo Longoria’s Path to Football Executive 04:40 Joining Olympique de Marseille 06:35 The State of Marseille When Pablo Arrived 08:00 Revenues: Ticketing, Security, Food & Beverage 16:42 How On-Pitch Success Drives Business Growth 18:19 Pablo’s Role in Player Recruitment 21:15 What People Get Wrong About Football Managers 25:03 Football Director vs Manager: What’s the Difference? 26:05 Managing Transfer Market Inflation 35:56 How Fans Influence Transfer Strategy 39:51 Learning from Transfer Mistakes 42:08 Where Marseille Fits in the Football Pyramid 45:45 Inside France’s Evolving Media Rights Landscape 50:15 The Competitive Imbalance in French Football 51:31 How CVC’s Investment Impacts French Clubs 53:00 Winning vs Profitability Under U.S. Ownership 57:49 The Concentration of Value in Top Leagues 01:03:40 Underinvestment in Technology Across Sport 01:07:11 Where Marseille Aims to Be in Five Years

Business of Sport

20,264 views • 9 months ago

SVM by hand ✍️ ~ 19 steps walkthrough below (Linear vs RBF) Support Vector Machines reigned supreme in machine learning before the deep learning revolution. An SVM predicts with dot products, the same matrix multiplication every model uses. What it does not do is train by backpropagation: it is fitted by convex optimization, so there is no matrix-multiplication backward pass for a GPU to accelerate. I drew and calculated two SVMs by hand: a linear one (top) and an RBF one (bottom), classifying the same two test vectors. Goal: turn six training vectors and their learned coefficients into a prediction, and see what changing the kernel actually changes. = 1. Given = Six training vectors, their labels, and the coefficients and bias already learned. A coefficient of zero means that vector is not a support vector: too far from the boundary to matter. = 2. Linear kernel, test vector 1 = Let us take the dot product of the test vector with every training vector. The dot product stands in for cosine similarity, and the column of results is the first column of the kernel matrix K. = 3. Linear kernel, test vector 2 = We do the same for the second, and K is complete. = 4. Signed weights = Let us multiply each coefficient by its label. The second training vector drops out here, because its coefficient is 0. = 5. Weighted combination = We multiply the signed weights through K and add the bias b. The result is a signed distance to the decision boundary: 17 and 5. = 6. Classify = Let us take the sign. Both are positive. = 7 to 11. RBF kernel, test vector 1 = Now the same picture with a different kernel, in five moves: square the differences, sum them, take the square root for the L2 distance, multiply by minus gamma, and raise e to that power. The negation is what turns a distance into a similarity, and gamma controls how far a single training vector's influence reaches. = 12 to 16. RBF kernel, test vector 2 = We repeat all five. The numbers change, the moves do not. = 17 to 19. Decision boundary, again = Signed weights, weighted combination, sign. Identical arithmetic to steps 4 through 6, on a K that was built a completely different way. The outputs: Linear K, first column = [13, 25, 12, 15, 19, 27] Linear decision values = 17 and 5, both positive RBF decision values = -2 and 1, so negative and positive The takeaway: the kernel is the only thing that changed, and it changed the answer. The linear SVM calls both test vectors positive; the RBF one splits them. Everything after the kernel matrix, the signed weights and the weighted combination and the sign, is the same page of arithmetic twice. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

16,510 views • 7 days ago