Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Edenforce Groxx_01&Lyntt_04 小品13 大吉大利，今晚吃__（填空题，2分）。 Supervisor helping with work = unrelated activity? Still got wages deducted lol. 🔁 G: "Oh, Lyntt sir. What brings you here?" G: "Cut it out, we're still on duty." L: "The door's locked. No one's gonna see."
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
Похожие видео
0:30
Sensitive content
Edenforce Groxx_01&Lyntt_04 小品12 两人因工作时间多次进行无关动作而被扣除一天工资 Both individuals had one day's wages deducted for repeatedly engaging in unrelated actions during work hours. Translation： "Sir, we're on the job. People might see." "No one's around."X2
🐻星浩琥_Lyntt🐇
132,694 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад
![G. Edward Griffin: "[Netanyahu, Trump, Putin are] all collectivists...They hate us...[and] want to make us slaves...[but they can't] declare...the New World Order, and now we all go to prison...there'd be a rebellion...so we have to go through these stages of [fake] conflict." This clip of G. Edward Griffin (G. Edward Griffin), the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island and host of the Red Pill Expo, is taken from an interview with Christian White posted to YouTube on January 22, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- White: "Netanyahu, Trump, et cetera. They're all kind of that there's theater going on. I mean, I assume that that kind of bleeds over on the geopolitical front." Griffin: "Yes, yes. But here again, they're all collectivists. See, that's the problem with our world. We don't really have any of these options being offered to us. We don't have any options that represent the ideal of collective— I mean, individualism. So they're fighting amongst each other, aren't they? But they all believe basically the same. They all want to be the top of the ladder. That's it. But as far as we are concerned, they consider us the enemy. They all hate us, they all want to subdue us. They all want to make us slaves or vassals to their empire. "But you do come to this question of strategies. How do you gradually work that out? You can't just declare and say, look, here's my trump card. I win. We're dealing a geopolitics game or a card game, and we have to condition the thinking of the people of the world that they're fighting a battle. Gradually, they're losing. Gradually, they're losing. Gradually, they're still losing. Oh, now they're still losing. And now they've lost. "But they sure tried hard, so it was okay in the sense that they did their best. If they just played the card all at once and said, okay, we, now declare that we are the New World Order, and you all go to prison, and it's going to be done today, there'd be a big rebellion. But as long as, you know, like the old story of the frog, you put it in the water and gradually turn up the heat. Frog will stay in there until he boils to death. But if you drop him into a pot of boiling water, boom, he's right out of it again. This is the strategy that our enemy is playing. They don't want us to get into the hot water too fast. They want us to gradually get used to it. "So we have to go through these stages of conflict and win a little bit and lose a little bit back and forth. Oh, we got a hero. Oh, well, he's not so much a hero. Oh, but he's a strong man. Well, he didn't do everything right, but he did some good things right. And what about this woman? Now she's really making sense. Oh, but she changed her mind. "They have to slow us down so that they don't see too much progress at one time. Although I have to admit, it looks like they're accelerating the whole thing, because I think they suspect that people are waking up. And if enough people understand what we're talking about, then that game won't work anymore."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014827891113291909/amplify_video_thumb/2014824637767811073/img/giZphVpL95dbhKkj.jpg)
![Dr. Thyme finding out that there's one person he couldn't be in time for... #久リップ #Clippuccino #DistrictV [arrives at the airport after his business trip > sees text about ❔'s death] 📖: what? wait, what? 📖: whose number is this again? 📖: oh, wait, this is Justine 📖: Marcus is dead? wait– [calls ❔ and leaves a voice message] 📖: straight to voicemail... 📖: [📼] h–hi, Marcus, I'm a little worried, um, how are you doing? I just got back from my business trip, uh, I was just wondering, you know, since uh, since I haven't been able to, you know, say it out straight to you 📖: [📼] I was just wondering if, uh, if you wanted to go on a date, just me and you, just me and you 📖: [📼] wanna get to know you a little bit better, um, you wanna meet at the aquarium– you wanna meet at the aquarium, um, later tonight? 📖: [📼] if you, uh– if you're– if you're not too busy, um, I’d really like to see you if that's okay? 📖: [📼] so uh, if you see this, I know you must be busy with, uh, police work so, uh, if you could get back to me as soon as possible I'm very– I'm really worried about you man, bye 📖: what? is Marcus– I don't– I– the fuck? 📖: nah, Justine must just be pranking me 📖: yeah, alright, let's head back to the ems then [gets a rental car, drives back to the city] 📖: oh, is this the place where I saved him from his bike? 📖: oh my god, I should take a nostalgia photo [sends the picture to Marcus] 📖: [💬] hehe, remember here? :3 📖: I wonder if he does remember [runs into 🐰☕ on the way to the hospital] 📖: hi, I was just wondering is Marcus in town right now? I've been looking for him. 🐰☕: no, he's not. can I ask who's asking for him? 📖: it's Justin Thyme 🐰☕: oh I heard you were out of town, haven't seen you in a couple of days 📖: yeah, I just got back, I was on a business trip and now I'm back 📖: I'm back to see my love interest, y'know what I mean? 🐰☕: let me talk to those at the shop, okay? back at PD, I'll see if we got some news for you 📖: thank you, appreciate it, he hasn't been answering his phone, it went straight to voicemail 📖: I was just wondering, maybe he has his phone turned off or– 🐰☕: we'll get to it, don't worry, okay? 📖: okay, thank you [drives off] 🐰☕: hey guy, I just ran into, uh, Dr. Justin, apparently they're back in town. they're asking about Macaroni 🐰☕: should I, uh– is this something that's public knowledge now? are we allowed to talk about this? 👹: you are allowed to talk about it, yeah remember the official story is that he is missing but presumed dead 👹: I don't envy your position mate, good luck, alright? 🐰☕: 10-4, let me swing back around [🐰☕ calls 📖 to meet up at the hospital] 🐰☕: hey, listen I don't wanna mince words, but uh, there's a good chance that Macaroni is dead 📖: wait, what? say that again 🐰☕: we weren't able to find him, so we're calling him dead for now 📖: find– like, what? they– what? like their phone died or something? 🐰☕: Justin 📖: their phone died? I mean– 🐰☕: Macaroni's dead 📖: I– that can't be, right? he's the toughest guy out there 🐰☕: listen, I know it's hard, he's a damn good cop 📖: no, no, I– I think you're a mistaken, he– there's no way he's dead, like, I saw him in action, he– he's really good at– at driving his car, he's– he's got a good shot 🐰☕: I heard from the chief myself, he's gone 📖: no, no, no, no, no, I refuse, I refuse to fucking believe this shit, what– I– 🐰☕: I'm sorry 📖: is there any proof? 🐰☕: unfortunately I haven't been given much to go on myself [...] 📖: w– when did he go missing? 🐰☕: uh, about two days ago [...] 📖: I– please find him, please find him, I'm a doctor, I– I can patch him up, I can– I can fix him 🐰☕: hey, he's gone 📖: please tell me– please tell me he's alive, please, please, please 🐰☕: if you're as close as you guys say you were, he would want you to go on, he would want you to keep saving people, keep doing what you do 📖: what's a world to live without the person I want to live with? 🐰☕: that's an answer we all still have to find for ourselves, I could tell you I'm still trying to answer it myself. 🐰☕: as long as you're alive you should be able to find the answer 📖: I'll try find the answer then 🐰☕: keep going 📖: y'know what? I have some business to attend to 📖: thank you so much for letting me in 🐰☕: if you need anything, we'll be here, okay? 📖: thank you [...] [goes to the pier] 📖: there's no way, there's no way 📖: we were supposed to come here together 📖: Marcus... 📖: y'know, I scoped out here a little bit before and I looked at all the rides and I was like wouldn't it be so fun– wouldn't it be so fun if Marcus was here with me 📖: now what am I gonna do? 📖: y'know, I never went to the haunted house, or on the roller coasters, or any of those ferris wheel or anything as a matter of fact because I– I wanted to save it 📖: I wanted to save it for when I went with him...looks like that's not happening anymore](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2028329724024697027/amplify_video_thumb/2028324903846584320/img/MpE6AcJPLn6DBkP_.jpg)
![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:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1994972575768727743/amplify_video_thumb/1994972220930621440/img/_5CCZJyz89oDfqQJ.jpg)
!["Machinery really does exist. It's consciousness driven." ~Robert Bigelow Is Robert Bigelow a Firsthand Witness to Non-Human "Machinery"? (Not new but may have slipped under your radar. This is not the clip I was looking for but I watched it again and always wanted to share. ) Robert Bigelow: "You're leaving out, you know, kind of the holy grail of the topic. You know, machinery." George Knapp: "Yeah. Is there machinery? The New York Times reported that you modified your facility here in order to house some material from somewhere else." ~From that NYT article on 12/16/2017~ "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (helene cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean received a lot of flack for that paragraph as people took it to mean that Bigelow (BAASS) received those materials/alloys. But that's not what they wrote. They modified buildings IN CASE they received that stuff. And we now know (or, have been told) that one of those "materials" was an alleged non-human craft from Lockheed Martin. Reportedly, they were trying to divest themselves of it due to a lack of success in reverse engineering efforts.) Link to full article: ~ Knapp: "Did you ever have it?" Bigelow: "We never had any." Knapp: "Did you ever see it?" (I transcribed Mr. B's answer word-for-word because he looked and sounded really uncomfortable answering. I have zero doubt he's telling the truth, but that doesn't mean ANY of this is proof that we have these craft.) Bigelow: "Umm. Well, I've...there's, I, umm... You know, do you see, do you see, uhh, things that are photos, or do you see things in person, and so forth? So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future." Knapp: "Yeah." (If Mr. Bigelow was shown government photos or videos (with proper provenance) of craft that were presented to him as being manufactured by non-humans or an intelligence of unknown origin, is that enough to call him a firsthand witness? If he saw "machinery" and saw it "in person," then he's 100% a firsthand witness. Did Lacatski take him to see the craft that was described in "Initial Revelations"? 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 ) “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? ~End Excerpt from Initial Revelations~ ~~~ Bigelow: "So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future. And...because who knows what might happen in terms of a coalescing of intersections that could happen? And so..." Knapp: "You don't wanna spill any beans that causes you, it puts you in a bad light somewhere down the road." Bigelow: "Well, I just, I, I, you know, of...I think that... Machinery really does exist. It does exist, you know? And so, but the problem has been the inability to back engineer. And I kind of think that some things require a weightless environment. So, part of that is, we don't have it here, terrestrially. So, what you need is a manufacturing facility where there's a weightless environment." Knapp: "It's part of the reason you developed Bigelow Aerospace." Bigelow: "For certain amalgams and certain kinds of things, but it's also like, you know, it doesn't do you much good to own a sliver of a case that holds a cell phone to understand, was it even a case? Was it holding something, and what was that something it was holding? And much less, how does a cell phone work? And, oh, by the way, it doesn't work at all if you don't have all the communication capabilities that that cell phone needs to communicate with, and all that kind of thing. So it's like...it could just domino out into a thousand different things. So, having an answer on a small sliver of something isn't necessarily much, right?" (On thing I've consistently said is: If we're going to wake up the masses, materials won't do it. A rectangular piece of metal from an alleged NHI craft that a scientist says cannot be manufactured on Earth with known technology, is interesting, but not enough. IMO, we need a full (or partial) craft (machinery) and bodies.) Bigelow: "So, we are embarrassingly - as a specie, as a science, as a space-faring, attempting specie - behind. We're a galactic embarrassment, almost. I mean, we're so far freaking behind, we really are. It's a galactic embarrassment and we may not even be able to, consciously, be able to operate the things, you know? Because it's not like fingerprints or anything, you know? It's consciousness driven. So you taste that a little bit in being able to have some communications." (If it's truly consciousness driven, then what jakebarber and Skywatcher have spoken about makes complete sense: Using telepathy or psi to attract/summon craft and then operate them from a distance.) Bigelow: "And we have other areas of psi and phenomenology, where mentally, people can have macro PK, you know? They can execute macro-PK events, and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Our physics and science says, 'No, you can't do that.' And yet it's happening, right? So whether it's Bob Jahn's and Brenda Dunne's work in micro PK on subatomic particles, or macro PK with Kulagina in Russia, and with her bell jar and all that kind of thing. And she's lifting a pencil or bottle cap." Here are a few clips of Kulagina. I'm not sure if she's done this under more strict controls. ( I love that Bigelow is well read on these subjects and knows they're legit. But I wonder when the masses will realize it?) ~~~ Bigelow: "You're sniffing at something that's really not on our radar as a parochial-educational system in physics or anything. You're totally outside the boundary, right? And we're still dealing with fire engines, right? Okay? So, it's really frustrating and the potential might some day be there to try to back engineer more. And we've heard stories about little bitty things that maybe the Russians have back engineered. "And so, we're still enough of, potentially, the Klingons to turn things into weapons, right? So that's a big problem. Is the fact that we don't have an intersection. If you have two lines, one on spirituality and technology. Where's the intersection ever happening? Because we're flatlined on spiritual evolution, but our technological evolution is not only vertical, it's segmented, it's jumping. It's jumping faster, you know? And so. where's that intersection of harmony supposed to be? I don't see it. I don't see it 100 years from now, or 200 years from now. I don't see anything on the horizon today that's saying, 'Well, the spirituality line is gonna start to really accelerate [and] this other one (technological) is going to start to stop. And eventually, there's going to be an intersection of harmony where there's an integration of the two. I don't see...I can't possibly foresee that, I don't see it at all. So it's a big worry." (Steven Greer has said: "The [ETs] that are here, they'd be like Gandhi. No civilization that is capable of interstellar travel is allowed out of their solar system until they're peaceful. Otherwise, they're quarantined. But actually, we have technology that can go interstellar. We're not allowed to. And the reason is, we're still savages." ~Greer on his IG (I have no idea if that's true and neither does Greer.) Bigelow: "If you were an occupying...if you were another specie on another planet, a thinking specie of intelligence, and we had the capabilities to get to you, you should be damn concerned about the human race." Knapp. "Yeah. If I had that technology, I would not give it to us." Bigelow: "Yeah! Okay, you just said it. That's exactly right. You just said that. That is the big enchilada, right there. You just said it, that's the plate." (I want this tech shared with the world if it can help clean up our planet or advance our science and medicine. But if it can be used as a weapon, it's hard to argue with what Mr. B and Knapp said there. This assumes we've been able to reverse engineer certain aspects of the tech we allegedly have in our possession.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1896059907922936110/ext_tw_video_thumb/1895940899684921344/pu/img/HfozbzOChrkopUlf.jpg)
![😡GROTESQUE: Jared Kushner on Gaza— "[I'm a] volunteer to help the government when asked... [but] we appointed [the] new government in Gaza... businessmen who are risking their lives." "Tony Blair has been great." "We're building a Palestinian police force." "Steve [Witkoff] and I are both realizing, 'Oh, my God, there's a lot to do to keep this thing held together.'" ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "I have not joined the administration, so I'm still just a, volunteer like other businessmen who volunteer to help the government when asked. The level of engagement has definitely been a lot more than, I anticipated. "It really got started with Gaza. I was helping, Steve Witkoff, who's, really, an amazing human being. And he's really made a big sacrifice to go and devote his life to trying to make a difference on some of these, very, very challenging issues. And I know firsthand how lonely it is to be in those jobs and how hard it is when everyone's rooting against your success. "And so I spent a lot of time helping Steve, just quietly. And then when things got very intense with Gaza, Steve, and the president asked me to get more involved operationally, which obviously, when the president asks you to do something, you do it. And, we worked together incredibly well. We're able to achieve an outcome that, I think nobody thought was possible. "For two years, the war in Gaza was raging. It was causing really, a big dark cloud over the entire world. And I think that, it was something we were able to get in. And really, with the great help of our partners, in Qatar and Egypt and Turkey and many others who helped, we were able to get to a great outcome. "And now the 20 hostages have been brought home. All 28 bodies have been returned. It's the first time since 2014 that there's no, hostages or dead bodies in Gaza. And now that's creating the conditions for a new beginning. "You know, the other side of it as well is now that the war has stopped and we've, you know, a lot of people thought it wouldn't hold. It was a very delicate ceasefire in the beginning. You know, I thought I would get the deal done, and then, you know, I'd go back to my life. But then Steve and I are both realizing, oh, my God, there's a lot to do to keep this thing held together. "You know, there's so much here hatred and emotion and distrust when you're ending a war that you can't just, like a light switch, turn it on and off. So we, then started focusing on how do we deal with the massive humanitarian issue that was occurring in Gaza. You had 2 million people there. "We've been able to work with the United Nations. I give Tom Fletcher a lot of credit. We've, put in more humanitarian aid into a war zone. Than I think has ever been done in history. So now, there's a lot of aid in there, and we've started the rebuilding process. I know Yakir, Gabay is here, who's a great friend of mine, and, he's basically volunteered all of his time away, from his businesses to try and help us come up with a plan to do this. "Tony Blair has been great, so we really have brought a lot of great entrepreneurs and thinkers in, and I think we're, making a lot of progress. And, we're currently, I think it's about four months, since the war, was stopped, and I think nobody thought it would last this long. And, we're kind of at the final stages of the negotiations with Hamas on the demilitarization, where, they've basically agreed in principle to, follow through. That was the agreement we did. Now their concerns are mostly about, well, if we turn over our weapons and we do this, who are we turning them over to? "And, we're building a Palestinian police force. Right now we had over, I think about 200,000 applicants for it, and I think over like 70,000 that passed our vet. So we're going to build a great Palestinian police force, and so we have to work it through. And I think that we appointed a new government in Gaza, which also was a very interesting, experience all, again, businessmen who are risking their lives, to go in and do public service in that area. And, our goal is just to really help them. And I think we want to see this region built for, at least Gaza. We want to see it built for the people of Gaza."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2037701588664684901/amplify_video_thumb/2037698393980751872/img/6KMUsGH_fQ3KaVLo.jpg)
![🔥🛸👽 Grusch: Senior Congressional Staffers Had Their World-Bubble Burst After Being Briefed on the Biological Analysis and Physiology of Alien Bodies 👽🛸🔥 (This is one of the most important claims in the history of the topic because, if true, it overcomes the, "It-may-be-our-tech" argument.) Rogan: "So, when it comes to these...I'm gonna bring it back to these, these actual entities." Grusch: "Yeah." Rogan: "Do we know, or [do we] have an understanding of how many of them we're talking about, and the variety of them?" Grusch: "Yeah, there is a variety, and we have a certain number of (laughs) different things, umm. But the like, total numbers of like, what's interacting with us on Earth? I mean, nobody knows that. And, I mean, that..." Rogan: "But there's an understanding of some that they do believe are interacting with us, and there's a variety in terms of...there's variables?" Grusch: "Yeah, I talked to people who are familiar with the biological analysis and everything. So we have some idea, not a complete picture, because it's like, you know, you know, you're looking at, it's like, well, I don't even understand the physiology at all. It's like, what the heck? It's like, way different, right? So, umm...we have at least a..." Rogan: "Is there a description of this physiology? Grusch: "Yeah, no, I was in...I was in the room when, uhhh (exhales)...hmm. I gotta be careful, I don't wanna... I was in Washington, DC with a very number of senior people that work for members of Congress - put it that way - umm, when I was still in government. And I brought the people who worked on that stuff to The Hill. I mean, this is why the members were so confident to put out the Schumer amendment (UAPDA) and stuff. And I was like, 'Please explain.' "And, um, they went into all those details and stuff. And I remember, you know (laughs), some of the professional staff members were like, 'Whoa.' Like, they were like, in G-LOC, right? Because, I mean it's like a total world-bubble, umm...got burst right there for a lot of people. "And, so we have some idea, it's not a complete picture. I mean, it's just like...but you're not even bringing in the right people. Like, I think about my friend and colleague, Dr. Garry P. Nolan, which I started the SOL Foundation non-profit with. I mean, he's like, Nobel-level, biologist, virologist. Like, he's the guy that you would want on it, but he's not on it. So, I think we can make a lot of progress in our understanding once again, if this is more broadly studied in an open environment." ~ Note: G-LOC = Gravity-Induced Loss of Consciousness. In Laymen's terms, losing consciousness when a plane pulls more Gs than your body can handle. Source: dot com/blog/what-is-g-loc](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2050662480012296693/amplify_video_thumb/2050636008421838848/img/2L3ynKMT89gG9z0l.jpg)
![🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1999618259063308336/amplify_video_thumb/1999591424954957824/img/RtJss2MFC_SNRr-Z.jpg)
![This is absolutely fascinating: Jason Furman, one of the foremost economists in the U.S. and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, explains why the so-called "China shock" is a myth. According to him, "85 to 95% of Americans benefited" from trade with China, and "China has been part of helping [the US economy] work, not hurting it work." In other words, the narrative that China "stole" American jobs and wages is the exact opposite of reality. Furman's logic is pretty ironclad: 1) He points out, which is factual, that "the slowdown of wage growth and the rise of inequality began in the 1970s, when there basically was no trade with China." It then accelerated in the 1980s-90s when China trade was small, and **slowed down** after 2000. And "since about 2013," when trade with China was at its highest, "we've had pretty fast real wage growth," with "the fastest real wage growth for moderate income households." In other words, the timing doesn't fit: if China was the cause, the problem should have gotten worse as trade with China increased. Instead, it got better. 2) A common narrative one hears about China is "who cares about affordable goods, we need well-paying jobs." But Furman points out it's actually one and the same thing: "the way we measure jobs is how much your wages can buy. If you improve purchasing power, you are making every single job in the economy better." In very concrete terms, if salaries stay flat but Chinese imports make goods 10% cheaper, your purchasing power just went up 10%, as if you got a 10% wage hike. This makes every single job in the economy better. In effect "jobs vs. cheap goods" is a false dichotomy: cheap goods ARE better jobs. 3) Furman also points out, rightly, that the majority of what U.S. imports from China isn't consumer goods: "more than half of what we import is actually inputs into the manufacturing process itself." In other words, Chinese imports make U.S. manufacturing MORE competitive as it decreases their input costs. If you were to cut all Chinese imports, you'd cripple U.S. manufacturing as it would no longer be able to compete on price with anyone. And, as per point 2 above, you'd also destroy Americans' purchasing power, making every single U.S. worker worse off. 4) Last but not least, Furman says that the "China shock" literature is fundamentally flawed, as it "doesn't answer the most important question, which is what the net effect was." It "doesn't consider other causes for the job losses, doesn't look at all the places that gained jobs and wages, and doesn't integrate the consumer side." All in all, he believes that if one were to actually calculate the net effect of trade with China on the U.S. economy, it'd show that "85 to 95% of Americans benefited." And even for the 5-15% who lost out, Furman says these people were failed by "our labor policies, our social safety net" - not by China. What Furman is saying is more relevant than ever because, both in the U.S. and in Europe, this notion that China is somehow "stealing" Western jobs and prosperity has become the unquestioned premise of so many of today's policies. Nobody even debates it anymore, it's almost universally assumed correct. In my own country France, Macron keeps repeating it all the time, leading the charge in Europe to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, warning that China is "killing its own customers" and that it's a question of life or death for European industry ( He literally called last week for the EU to build its own version of America's Section 301 - the same protectionist tool Trump uses ( BUT, if Furman is right, and the data strongly suggests he is, France and Europe are about to inflict economic self-harm in the name of a problem that doesn't exist. Much more affordable cars, for instance, would literally give every single European a big wage hike. It's Furman's argument on "85 to 95% benefiting" vs 5% to 15% losing out: the vast majority of Europeans would see their money go further, while a small number of jobs in legacy automakers would be disrupted. Instead of helping those workers transition, Europe wants to prevent making everyone better off. Anyhow, please do watch the whole podcast, which has many other fascinating insights because Furman also debates with Justin Yifu Lin, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and State Council Counsellor of China. They're both interviewed by my friend Hansong Li - also a professor and an immensely smart man - in his excellent new podcast "worldviews" (imho one of the best new podcasts our there). The video is here:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2059814198545371491/amplify_video_thumb/2059799973081071616/img/jAdf0cZy7mcA9rCu.jpg)
