Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Elon Musk: "Possibly the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist." "Why would people do that? Well, everyone's been trained in high school and college that you got to answer the question, convergent logic. So you can't tell the professor... show more

Resist the Mainstream

469,722 subscribers

15,834 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

🇺🇸 ELON: STOP TRYING TO OPTIMIZE SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN’T EXIST “Everyone’s been trained in high school and college that you answer the question — convergent logic. You can’t tell the professor 'your question is dumb' or you’ll get a bad grade, you have to answer the question. So everyone, without knowing, basically has this mental straight jacket on and they’ll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist.” Source: Startup Archive, Everyday Astronaut

🇺🇸 ELON: STOP TRYING TO OPTIMIZE SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN’T EXIST “Everyone’s been trained in high school and college that you answer the question — convergent logic. You can’t tell the professor 'your question is dumb' or you’ll get a bad grade, you have to answer the question. So everyone, without knowing, basically has this mental straight jacket on and they’ll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist.” Source: Startup Archive, Everyday Astronaut

Mario Nawfal

4,431,703 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

If you're drowning in bureaucracy at work, your company probably isn't following Elon Musk's five-step process for improvement. Here are the highlights: "Everybody's been trained in high school and college that you have to answer the question. It's convergence logic. You can't tell a professor '"your question is dumb" or you'll get a bad grade. You have to answer the question. So without knowing it, people have mental straight jackets on. They will work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist." "It's particularly dangerous if the smart person gave you the requirements because you might not question them enough." "If you're not occasionally adding things back in, you're not deleting enough process. The bias tends to be very strongly towards adding things." (These quotes are paraphrased to make them easier to read).

If you're drowning in bureaucracy at work, your company probably isn't following Elon Musk's five-step process for improvement. Here are the highlights: "Everybody's been trained in high school and college that you have to answer the question. It's convergence logic. You can't tell a professor '"your question is dumb" or you'll get a bad grade. You have to answer the question. So without knowing it, people have mental straight jackets on. They will work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist." "It's particularly dangerous if the smart person gave you the requirements because you might not question them enough." "If you're not occasionally adding things back in, you're not deleting enough process. The bias tends to be very strongly towards adding things." (These quotes are paraphrased to make them easier to read).

David Perell

377,382 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Elon Musk's Elon Musk Five Step Improvement Process: 1. First, make your requirements less dumb. 2. Try very hard to delete the part of the process. 3. Only the third step is to simplify or optimize. 4. Accelerate cycle time. 5. Automate "Everyone's wrong. No matter who you are. Everyone's wrong some of the time. The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. I have personally made a mistake of going backwards on all 5 steps. Multiple times." Elon is so real & authentic! 💯🙏

Elon Musk's Elon Musk Five Step Improvement Process: 1. First, make your requirements less dumb. 2. Try very hard to delete the part of the process. 3. Only the third step is to simplify or optimize. 4. Accelerate cycle time. 5. Automate "Everyone's wrong. No matter who you are. Everyone's wrong some of the time. The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. I have personally made a mistake of going backwards on all 5 steps. Multiple times." Elon is so real & authentic! 💯🙏

Colene Copeland-Kruszynski👾

12,008 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Elon Musk explains his 5-step process for running companies: "First, make your requirements less dumb. Your requirements are definitely dumb. It does not matter who gave them to you. It's particularly dangerous if a smart person gave you the requirements because you might not question them enough. Everyone's wrong no matter who you are. Everyone's wrong some of the time. So make your requirements less dumb. Then try very hard to delete the part or process. This is actually very important. If you're not occasionally adding things back in, you are not deleting enough. The bias tends to be very strongly towards let's add this part or process step in case we need it. But you can basically make in-case arguments for so many things and for a rocket that is trying to be the first fully reusable rocket. There's never been a fully reusable rocket. People don't understand. This is like the holy grail of rocketry. So you've got to delete the part or process step. Super important. You can't hedge your bets. That's why the grid funds, for example, do not fall down because that's a whole extra mechanism that we don't need. Also, whatever requirement or constraint you have, it must come with a name, not a department. Because you can't ask the department. You have to ask a person. That person who's putting forward their requirement or constraint must agree that they must take responsibility for that requirement. Otherwise, you can have a requirement that basically an intern two years ago randomly came up with off the cuff and they're not even at the company anymore. These things are often just way more silly than you think. So step one, make your requirements less dumb. Step two, delete the part or process step. If you're not adding things back in 10% of the time, you're clearly not deleting enough. And then only the third step is simplify or optimize. The third step, not the first step. The reason it's the third step is because possibly the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. Everyone's been trained in high school and college that you've got to answer the question. Convergent logic. So you can't tell the professor your question is dumb. You'll get a bad grade. You have to answer the question. So everyone's basically, without knowing it, they've got a mental straitjacket on. They'll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist. And then finally, you get to step four, which is accelerate cycle time. You're moving too slowly, go faster. But don't go faster until you have worked on the other three things first. You can always make things go faster. And then the final step is automate. Now, I've personally made the mistake of going backwards on all five steps multiple times. Literally, I automated, accelerated, simplified, and then deleted. One example I've talked about before is there were these fiberglass mats on top of the Model 3 battery pack that were in between the floor pan and the battery. And it was at one point choking the battery pack production line. And I was basically living on the battery pack production line trying to fix the line. It was choking the entire Model 3 production program. So the first mistake was I tried to fix the automation, like make the robot better. So automating was a mistake. Then accelerating was a mistake. Then optimizing was a mistake. And finally, I said, what the hell are these mats for? And I asked the battery safety team, what are these mats for? Are they for fire protection or something? They said, no, they're for noise and vibration. Then I asked an NVH, a noise, vibration, harshness team, what's it for? They said fire safety. So literally, it was like being in a Dilbert cartoon. Actually, I feel like I'm in a Dilbert cartoon quite frequently. So then finally, OK, great, let's try a car with the fiberglass mats and without. And they put a microphone to both and see if you can tell the difference. In fact, I was like, which one is which? So we just deleted them and just bypassed this $2 million robot cell. It was just a complete pile of nonsense."

Elon Musk explains his 5-step process for running companies: "First, make your requirements less dumb. Your requirements are definitely dumb. It does not matter who gave them to you. It's particularly dangerous if a smart person gave you the requirements because you might not question them enough. Everyone's wrong no matter who you are. Everyone's wrong some of the time. So make your requirements less dumb. Then try very hard to delete the part or process. This is actually very important. If you're not occasionally adding things back in, you are not deleting enough. The bias tends to be very strongly towards let's add this part or process step in case we need it. But you can basically make in-case arguments for so many things and for a rocket that is trying to be the first fully reusable rocket. There's never been a fully reusable rocket. People don't understand. This is like the holy grail of rocketry. So you've got to delete the part or process step. Super important. You can't hedge your bets. That's why the grid funds, for example, do not fall down because that's a whole extra mechanism that we don't need. Also, whatever requirement or constraint you have, it must come with a name, not a department. Because you can't ask the department. You have to ask a person. That person who's putting forward their requirement or constraint must agree that they must take responsibility for that requirement. Otherwise, you can have a requirement that basically an intern two years ago randomly came up with off the cuff and they're not even at the company anymore. These things are often just way more silly than you think. So step one, make your requirements less dumb. Step two, delete the part or process step. If you're not adding things back in 10% of the time, you're clearly not deleting enough. And then only the third step is simplify or optimize. The third step, not the first step. The reason it's the third step is because possibly the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. Everyone's been trained in high school and college that you've got to answer the question. Convergent logic. So you can't tell the professor your question is dumb. You'll get a bad grade. You have to answer the question. So everyone's basically, without knowing it, they've got a mental straitjacket on. They'll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist. And then finally, you get to step four, which is accelerate cycle time. You're moving too slowly, go faster. But don't go faster until you have worked on the other three things first. You can always make things go faster. And then the final step is automate. Now, I've personally made the mistake of going backwards on all five steps multiple times. Literally, I automated, accelerated, simplified, and then deleted. One example I've talked about before is there were these fiberglass mats on top of the Model 3 battery pack that were in between the floor pan and the battery. And it was at one point choking the battery pack production line. And I was basically living on the battery pack production line trying to fix the line. It was choking the entire Model 3 production program. So the first mistake was I tried to fix the automation, like make the robot better. So automating was a mistake. Then accelerating was a mistake. Then optimizing was a mistake. And finally, I said, what the hell are these mats for? And I asked the battery safety team, what are these mats for? Are they for fire protection or something? They said, no, they're for noise and vibration. Then I asked an NVH, a noise, vibration, harshness team, what's it for? They said fire safety. So literally, it was like being in a Dilbert cartoon. Actually, I feel like I'm in a Dilbert cartoon quite frequently. So then finally, OK, great, let's try a car with the fiberglass mats and without. And they put a microphone to both and see if you can tell the difference. In fact, I was like, which one is which? So we just deleted them and just bypassed this $2 million robot cell. It was just a complete pile of nonsense."

Founder Mode

73,916 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Congresswoman Lisa McClain Says Anyone In Government Who Refuses To Answer Questions & Deflects, Needs To Be Replaced “I'm gonna share with the American people, if you get somebody who's in charge, especially in a government entity that can't answer a question, you should ask yourself, do we need to replace this person who can't answer a simple question? I mean, my goodness gracious. The disappointment that I have that you can't even answer a simple question is unbelievable. Yet, you wanna be in charge, and you wanna tell the very people who you have no clue about their business what they can and can't do. That to me is repulsive.”

Congresswoman Lisa McClain Says Anyone In Government Who Refuses To Answer Questions & Deflects, Needs To Be Replaced “I'm gonna share with the American people, if you get somebody who's in charge, especially in a government entity that can't answer a question, you should ask yourself, do we need to replace this person who can't answer a simple question? I mean, my goodness gracious. The disappointment that I have that you can't even answer a simple question is unbelievable. Yet, you wanna be in charge, and you wanna tell the very people who you have no clue about their business what they can and can't do. That to me is repulsive.”

Wall Street Apes

1,094,436 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Elon Musk says “Grok 4 is going to get to the point where it’s going to get every answer right in every exam. And where it doesn’t get an answer right, it’s going to tell you what’s wrong with the question or, if the question is ambiguous, disambiguate the question into answers A, B, and C, and tell you what answer A, B, and C would be with a disambiguated question. So then the only real test would be reality. Can it discover new science? That will be the only thing actually left.

Elon Musk says “Grok 4 is going to get to the point where it’s going to get every answer right in every exam. And where it doesn’t get an answer right, it’s going to tell you what’s wrong with the question or, if the question is ambiguous, disambiguate the question into answers A, B, and C, and tell you what answer A, B, and C would be with a disambiguated question. So then the only real test would be reality. Can it discover new science? That will be the only thing actually left.

Tesla Owners Silicon Valley

43,162 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk’s Elon Musk first principles algorithm: “Well, it's easy to say simplify and it's very difficult to do it. You know, I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as a mantra, which is to first question the requirements, make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, so you want to start off by reducing the number of requirements. And no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements, they're still dumb to some degree. You have to start there because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question. So try to make the question the least wrong possible. That's what question the requirements means. And then the second thing is to try to delete whatever the step is, the part, or the process step. It sounds very obvious, but people often forget to try deleting it entirely. And if you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. And it's somewhat illogical, people often, most of the time, feel as though they've succeeded if they've not been forced to put things back in. But actually, they haven't because they've been overly conservative and have left things in there that shouldn't be. And only the third thing is to try to optimize it or simplify it. Again, these all sound, I think, very obvious when I say them, but the number of times I've made these mistakes is more than I care to remember. That's why I have this mantra. So in fact, I'd say the most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist.”

Elon Musk’s Elon Musk first principles algorithm: “Well, it's easy to say simplify and it's very difficult to do it. You know, I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as a mantra, which is to first question the requirements, make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, so you want to start off by reducing the number of requirements. And no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements, they're still dumb to some degree. You have to start there because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question. So try to make the question the least wrong possible. That's what question the requirements means. And then the second thing is to try to delete whatever the step is, the part, or the process step. It sounds very obvious, but people often forget to try deleting it entirely. And if you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. And it's somewhat illogical, people often, most of the time, feel as though they've succeeded if they've not been forced to put things back in. But actually, they haven't because they've been overly conservative and have left things in there that shouldn't be. And only the third thing is to try to optimize it or simplify it. Again, these all sound, I think, very obvious when I say them, but the number of times I've made these mistakes is more than I care to remember. That's why I have this mantra. So in fact, I'd say the most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist.”

Beanie👾

271,445 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Phillip to Jennings: When you answer my question with a question, you are dodging. Answer the question. It is very telling that you are not able to entertain an answer.

Phillip to Jennings: When you answer my question with a question, you are dodging. Answer the question. It is very telling that you are not able to entertain an answer.

Acyn

162,856 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Abby Phillip: “Just this week, Tesla offered a pay package to Elon Musk that would potentially make him a trillionaire. Do you think trillionaires should exist?” Zohran Mamdani: “I think the better question is whether working people should exist.”

Abby Phillip: “Just this week, Tesla offered a pay package to Elon Musk that would potentially make him a trillionaire. Do you think trillionaires should exist?” Zohran Mamdani: “I think the better question is whether working people should exist.”

RedWave Press

523,143 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

i hate when people say "catra should have known not to trust shadow weaver" because the thing about abusive parental figures is that when they show you a moment of kindness you start to question if they really were that bad at all. in that moment, you want to believe they care.

i hate when people say "catra should have known not to trust shadow weaver" because the thing about abusive parental figures is that when they show you a moment of kindness you start to question if they really were that bad at all. in that moment, you want to believe they care.

ᱬ𝚊𝚛 ⋆★˚｡

41,808 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

There Should Be People Going to Prison Michael Laws, 8 Dec 2022: "We now know that whether you're vaxxed or not, it doesn't stop transmission, and the question you ask, is when did they know that? And if the answer to that question is we knew it before we put in the mandates, there should be people going to prison. Because that would then mean that you purposefully lied to all of us."

There Should Be People Going to Prison Michael Laws, 8 Dec 2022: "We now know that whether you're vaxxed or not, it doesn't stop transmission, and the question you ask, is when did they know that? And if the answer to that question is we knew it before we put in the mandates, there should be people going to prison. Because that would then mean that you purposefully lied to all of us."

Coronavirus Plushie

43,863 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

This dude has a question for the protesters. “Why are you standing in the road blocking innocent people from living their lives?” “You do know that it does not make them wanna support your cause?” That’s a great question that the world would love an answer to. There is no reason protesters should be able to block the streets.

This dude has a question for the protesters. “Why are you standing in the road blocking innocent people from living their lives?” “You do know that it does not make them wanna support your cause?” That’s a great question that the world would love an answer to. There is no reason protesters should be able to block the streets.

One Bad Dude

14,794 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

WHAT IS THE TRUTH Richard Heart? NOBODY WITH A FOLLOWING HAS THE BALLS TO TAG YOU AND ASK THE EXACT QUESTION THEY WANT TO KNOW............. I DO! I THINK THE BIG QUESTION PEOPLE HAVE, NOT ME, I COULD CARE LESS, BUT OTHERS WANT TO KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH...... ARE THEY BEING BAD ACTORS ON #PULSECHAIN? IF YOU CAN NOT ANSWER WHY OR WHY NOT, I UNDERSTAND WHY........ THEY DON'T. LIKE AND RETWEET IF YOU ARE NOT A COWARD AND WANT THE ANSWER TO THIS ABOUT $PDAI IF YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION, FEEL FREE IN THE COMMENTS. EITHER WAY, I'M GOOD

WHAT IS THE TRUTH Richard Heart? NOBODY WITH A FOLLOWING HAS THE BALLS TO TAG YOU AND ASK THE EXACT QUESTION THEY WANT TO KNOW............. I DO! I THINK THE BIG QUESTION PEOPLE HAVE, NOT ME, I COULD CARE LESS, BUT OTHERS WANT TO KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH...... ARE THEY BEING BAD ACTORS ON #PULSECHAIN? IF YOU CAN NOT ANSWER WHY OR WHY NOT, I UNDERSTAND WHY........ THEY DON'T. LIKE AND RETWEET IF YOU ARE NOT A COWARD AND WANT THE ANSWER TO THIS ABOUT $PDAI IF YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION, FEEL FREE IN THE COMMENTS. EITHER WAY, I'M GOOD

MOON KING B-ROOTS

25,821 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

It's not that the question is impossible to answer, it's that he is so triggering and the very act of asking the question is trauma-inducing. Of course, she walked out, wouldn't you?

It's not that the question is impossible to answer, it's that he is so triggering and the very act of asking the question is trauma-inducing. Of course, she walked out, wouldn't you?

Dr. Jebra Faushay

4,691,982 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

KING: Who won the 2020 election? CLAYTON: I've answered that question. I'm going to get into that KING: You have not answered that question. Could you answer it? CLAYTON: Joe Biden was certified KING: No. That's not an answer. You told us you'd tell truth to power, and you won't answer a very simple question.

KING: Who won the 2020 election? CLAYTON: I've answered that question. I'm going to get into that KING: You have not answered that question. Could you answer it? CLAYTON: Joe Biden was certified KING: No. That's not an answer. You told us you'd tell truth to power, and you won't answer a very simple question.

Aaron Rupar

154,776 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Mamdani: I do not believe that is the question you must, in fact, answer in that booth. In the city I know, in the city I love, the question is not, “When did you arrive?” The question is, “Can you afford to stay?”

Mamdani: I do not believe that is the question you must, in fact, answer in that booth. In the city I know, in the city I love, the question is not, “When did you arrive?” The question is, “Can you afford to stay?”

Acyn

118,156 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Look, I know I'm harping on this a lot today, but I can't stop thinking about Occam's Razor here: Why are we not seriously considering that the reason we allegedly have mystery craft that defy the laws of physics but do not have physicists because "the one type of person who could possibly help with this" IS EXACTLY WHO THEY DON'T WANT? Imagine for a moment that they have a crime scene that they are assigning unqualified personnel to. Why would you do that? Because you're trying not to solve the the crime, only to make it LOOK like you are. Why would you not try to solve a crime? Because you already know who did it. But you go through the motions because you don't want anyone to know you know. That raises other questions, of course, like, "did they already solve it a long time ago?" or "did they not need to solve it because they were told how it works by whoever made it?" Maybe I'm wrong. But it feels like the one answer that might answer the question, "Why not do the most obvious thing?"

Look, I know I'm harping on this a lot today, but I can't stop thinking about Occam's Razor here: Why are we not seriously considering that the reason we allegedly have mystery craft that defy the laws of physics but do not have physicists because "the one type of person who could possibly help with this" IS EXACTLY WHO THEY DON'T WANT? Imagine for a moment that they have a crime scene that they are assigning unqualified personnel to. Why would you do that? Because you're trying not to solve the the crime, only to make it LOOK like you are. Why would you not try to solve a crime? Because you already know who did it. But you go through the motions because you don't want anyone to know you know. That raises other questions, of course, like, "did they already solve it a long time ago?" or "did they not need to solve it because they were told how it works by whoever made it?" Maybe I'm wrong. But it feels like the one answer that might answer the question, "Why not do the most obvious thing?"

Steve Skojec

114,638 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

"Why did you change from Darkness429 to Timmeh?" was a pretty common question and the short answer is "I've always been Timmeh, it's time to embrace it". The longer answer is in a 33 min video that I'll be releasing on YouTube.

"Why did you change from Darkness429 to Timmeh?" was a pretty common question and the short answer is "I've always been Timmeh, it's time to embrace it". The longer answer is in a 33 min video that I'll be releasing on YouTube.

Timmeh

37,259 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce