Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

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.”show more

Beanie👾

11,730 subscribers

271,244 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

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

73,366 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon's Algorithm: 1. Make Requirements Less Dumb 2. Delete the Part or Process Step 3. Optimize 4. Accelerate 5. Automate "The Algorithm is a five step process that [Elon] installs at all his companies — it's his method for breaking bottlenecks. It starts by questioning the requirements. Question every requirement. It doesn't matter how smart the person is. Accept no requirements from departments, they must have a human name attached to them. The second step is to delete and simplify. Delete anything you possibly can. The most useful heuristic is you have to over-delete. If you aren't adding back at least 10% of what you deleted then you haven't been deleting enough. The reason to simplify is that you get both reliability and low cost. You want fewer parts and fewer lines of code. Complexity is recursive...each additional element causes more complexity and more work. Those first two steps carry 80% of the weight. Number three is optimize which is typical engineering work. The forth is accelerate which is just...go faster. And the fifth is automate. The problem is almost everybody does these five steps in reverse order."

Elon's Algorithm: 1. Make Requirements Less Dumb 2. Delete the Part or Process Step 3. Optimize 4. Accelerate 5. Automate "The Algorithm is a five step process that [Elon] installs at all his companies — it's his method for breaking bottlenecks. It starts by questioning the requirements. Question every requirement. It doesn't matter how smart the person is. Accept no requirements from departments, they must have a human name attached to them. The second step is to delete and simplify. Delete anything you possibly can. The most useful heuristic is you have to over-delete. If you aren't adding back at least 10% of what you deleted then you haven't been deleting enough. The reason to simplify is that you get both reliability and low cost. You want fewer parts and fewer lines of code. Complexity is recursive...each additional element causes more complexity and more work. Those first two steps carry 80% of the weight. Number three is optimize which is typical engineering work. The forth is accelerate which is just...go faster. And the fifth is automate. The problem is almost everybody does these five steps in reverse order."

Ti Morse

40,518 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Elon Musk: The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. “The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. Why would people do that? Everyone's been trained in high school and college to 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 basically, without knowing it, got mental straitjacket on. They'll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist.” Starbase Tour with Everyday Astronaut, 2021

Elon Musk: The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. “The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. Why would people do that? Everyone's been trained in high school and college to 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 basically, without knowing it, got mental straitjacket on. They'll work on optimizing the thing that should simply not exist.” Starbase Tour with Everyday Astronaut, 2021

ELON CLIPS

298,650 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

Mary Margaret Olohan

1,111,670 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

ELON: MAXIMIZE YOUR USEFULNESS “Generally, just try to make a good product or service. It's really that. You have to say, what is a useful thing that you could do? Maximize your usefulness. If you want to make the best beef jerky, just go ahead and do it. First of all, you need to make sure it is, in fact, the best beef jerky. And then, you just need to explain to people why it is. And so, if you have both the reality and the perception of something being the best beef jerky, or whatever the product may be, then I think you'll find it to be very successful.” Source: Philadelphia, October 2024

ELON: MAXIMIZE YOUR USEFULNESS “Generally, just try to make a good product or service. It's really that. You have to say, what is a useful thing that you could do? Maximize your usefulness. If you want to make the best beef jerky, just go ahead and do it. First of all, you need to make sure it is, in fact, the best beef jerky. And then, you just need to explain to people why it is. And so, if you have both the reality and the perception of something being the best beef jerky, or whatever the product may be, then I think you'll find it to be very successful.” Source: Philadelphia, October 2024

Mario Nawfal

27,809 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“Failure is so much more interesting than success. And it always saddens me that school doesn't teach that. At school the thing is to be brilliant and to get the answer right first time. And there are brilliant people who could do that, but for the rest of us who are not brilliant, we have to strive, and we have to go through failure. And we realize that you don't get it right the first time or the second time. In my case and I counted it. It took 5,127 times. With failure you question it “Well why did it go wrong?” And actually the reason it goes wrong is often very, very interesting. Where something works you say “Great that worked.” You don't even stop to wonder why it works. So if you've got to enjoy failure.” —James Dyson

“Failure is so much more interesting than success. And it always saddens me that school doesn't teach that. At school the thing is to be brilliant and to get the answer right first time. And there are brilliant people who could do that, but for the rest of us who are not brilliant, we have to strive, and we have to go through failure. And we realize that you don't get it right the first time or the second time. In my case and I counted it. It took 5,127 times. With failure you question it “Well why did it go wrong?” And actually the reason it goes wrong is often very, very interesting. Where something works you say “Great that worked.” You don't even stop to wonder why it works. So if you've got to enjoy failure.” —James Dyson

David Senra

55,042 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

🚨 LMFAO! President Trump, gesturing to the fake news: "[The cognitive test] is hard. There are many people in this room I know that are smart. THEY'RE not going to ace them!" 🤣 "There are many people standing back there. The fake news, I'd like to have them." "You know, the first question is very easy. And they always show the first question is, you have a lion, a bear, an alligator, and a, what's another good, a squirrel, okay? Which is the squirrel? So they show that question. And then the first four or five questions, they get a little more difficult. By the time you get to the middle, they're tough." "By the time you get to the end, I don't want to be insulting, but they won't be!"

🚨 LMFAO! President Trump, gesturing to the fake news: "[The cognitive test] is hard. There are many people in this room I know that are smart. THEY'RE not going to ace them!" 🤣 "There are many people standing back there. The fake news, I'd like to have them." "You know, the first question is very easy. And they always show the first question is, you have a lion, a bear, an alligator, and a, what's another good, a squirrel, okay? Which is the squirrel? So they show that question. And then the first four or five questions, they get a little more difficult. By the time you get to the middle, they're tough." "By the time you get to the end, I don't want to be insulting, but they won't be!"

Eric Daugherty

17,867 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk: Education shouldn't be such a huge chore. “If you're thinking like, what is education? You're basically downloading data and algorithms into your brain. And it's actually amazingly bad in conventional education. Because it shouldn't be like this huge chore. So you're making it way, way better. But I think a lot of things that I would say you've probably heard 100 times and are fact, or if not doing, the more you can gamify the process of learning, the better. For my kids, I do not have to encourage them to play video games. I have to pry them from their hands like crack. It's like, drop that crack needle. The crack is addictive. So to the degree that you can make somehow learning like a game, but then it's better. And I think unfortunately a lot of education is very vaudevillian. You've got someone standing up there kind of lecturing at people, and they've done the same lecture 20 years in a row, and they're not very excited about it.” Interview with Sal Khan, Khan Academy, April 22, 2013.

Elon Musk: Education shouldn't be such a huge chore. “If you're thinking like, what is education? You're basically downloading data and algorithms into your brain. And it's actually amazingly bad in conventional education. Because it shouldn't be like this huge chore. So you're making it way, way better. But I think a lot of things that I would say you've probably heard 100 times and are fact, or if not doing, the more you can gamify the process of learning, the better. For my kids, I do not have to encourage them to play video games. I have to pry them from their hands like crack. It's like, drop that crack needle. The crack is addictive. So to the degree that you can make somehow learning like a game, but then it's better. And I think unfortunately a lot of education is very vaudevillian. You've got someone standing up there kind of lecturing at people, and they've done the same lecture 20 years in a row, and they're not very excited about it.” Interview with Sal Khan, Khan Academy, April 22, 2013.

ELON CLIPS

34,228 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Elon Musk: Freedom of speech is the ability to say what you want to say without being thrown in prison or killed "One of the first things the Nazis did when they came in, is to shut down all the press and any means of conveying information. If there had been social media, I think it would have been impossible to hide, if there'd been freedom of speech as well. It's worth noting that the First Amendment in the United States was freedom of speech because the people that came to the United States from other countries did not have freedom of speech. If they had said something, they could be imprisoned or killed. And that's why the first correction to the Constitution was the ability to say what you want to say and not be thrown in prison or killed."

Elon Musk: Freedom of speech is the ability to say what you want to say without being thrown in prison or killed "One of the first things the Nazis did when they came in, is to shut down all the press and any means of conveying information. If there had been social media, I think it would have been impossible to hide, if there'd been freedom of speech as well. It's worth noting that the First Amendment in the United States was freedom of speech because the people that came to the United States from other countries did not have freedom of speech. If they had said something, they could be imprisoned or killed. And that's why the first correction to the Constitution was the ability to say what you want to say and not be thrown in prison or killed."

ELON CLIPS

1,218,467 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

NEW: CNN’s Dana Bash gets thoroughly schooled on Medicaid work requirements, tries to end the conversation but gets cornered by Scott Bessent. This is satisfying to watch. BASH: “You’ve seen and heard a lot of the concern, including and especially from Republicans, who are the most vocal in Congress, about the fact that those work requirements are going to be very cumbersome to actually prove and it will inevitably force the people who need that Medicaid coverage off the rolls.” BESSENT: “Well, first of all, the Republicans are not the most vocal on this. It is a group of Democrats who, unfortunately, seem to think that poor people are stupid. I don’t think poor people are stupid. I think they have agency, and I think to have them register twice a year for these benefits—that is not a burden. But these people who want to infantilize the poor and those who need these Medicaid benefits are alarmists.” BASH: “But I do want to move on because—” “NO, NO, NO,” Bessent interrupted firmly. “We’ve also wanted to put in work requirements, which somehow was very popular under Bill Clinton, was POPULAR under President Obama… But work requirements even poll well with the median Democratic voter, maybe not the fringe.”

NEW: CNN’s Dana Bash gets thoroughly schooled on Medicaid work requirements, tries to end the conversation but gets cornered by Scott Bessent. This is satisfying to watch. BASH: “You’ve seen and heard a lot of the concern, including and especially from Republicans, who are the most vocal in Congress, about the fact that those work requirements are going to be very cumbersome to actually prove and it will inevitably force the people who need that Medicaid coverage off the rolls.” BESSENT: “Well, first of all, the Republicans are not the most vocal on this. It is a group of Democrats who, unfortunately, seem to think that poor people are stupid. I don’t think poor people are stupid. I think they have agency, and I think to have them register twice a year for these benefits—that is not a burden. But these people who want to infantilize the poor and those who need these Medicaid benefits are alarmists.” BASH: “But I do want to move on because—” “NO, NO, NO,” Bessent interrupted firmly. “We’ve also wanted to put in work requirements, which somehow was very popular under Bill Clinton, was POPULAR under President Obama… But work requirements even poll well with the median Democratic voter, maybe not the fringe.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

847,958 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,738,796 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Elon Musk: We have to have free speech in order for civilization to advance. “It's a bigger deal than you'd think. It's the kind of thing that you don't know what you're missing until you don't have it. In a lot of places, people don't have it. It's important to bear in mind that the nature of free speech is, the acid test for it is, are people you don't like allowed to say things that you don't like? Otherwise it's not free. It can't be just be things that you like because eventually somebody's not going to like what you say and they're going to shut you up. That's the essence of free speech. That's why it's the First Amendment in this country. And if we lose that, I think we lose the bedrock of democracy.” From: NBC Universal Marketing Conference, April 18, 2023

Elon Musk: We have to have free speech in order for civilization to advance. “It's a bigger deal than you'd think. It's the kind of thing that you don't know what you're missing until you don't have it. In a lot of places, people don't have it. It's important to bear in mind that the nature of free speech is, the acid test for it is, are people you don't like allowed to say things that you don't like? Otherwise it's not free. It can't be just be things that you like because eventually somebody's not going to like what you say and they're going to shut you up. That's the essence of free speech. That's why it's the First Amendment in this country. And if we lose that, I think we lose the bedrock of democracy.” From: NBC Universal Marketing Conference, April 18, 2023

ELON CLIPS

33,631 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

ELON: SEEK THE TRUTH, NOT WHAT YOU WISH TO BE TRUE "Mistakes people generally make, and I'm guilty of it too, is wishful thinking. You know, like you want something to be true even if it isn't true, and so you ignore the things that, you ignore the real truth because of what you want to be true. This is a very difficult trap to avoid, and like I said, it's certainly one that I find myself in having problems with. But if you just take that approach of you are always to some degree wrong and your goal is to be less wrong, and solicit critical feedback, particularly from friends. If somebody loves you, they want the best for you, they don't want to tell you the bad things." Source: Unlock Futurix YT

ELON: SEEK THE TRUTH, NOT WHAT YOU WISH TO BE TRUE "Mistakes people generally make, and I'm guilty of it too, is wishful thinking. You know, like you want something to be true even if it isn't true, and so you ignore the things that, you ignore the real truth because of what you want to be true. This is a very difficult trap to avoid, and like I said, it's certainly one that I find myself in having problems with. But if you just take that approach of you are always to some degree wrong and your goal is to be less wrong, and solicit critical feedback, particularly from friends. If somebody loves you, they want the best for you, they don't want to tell you the bad things." Source: Unlock Futurix YT

Mario Nawfal

34,926 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🎙️ : “carlos sainz had some lovely things to say about you [..] he said that you're the most open driver on the grid, but that in the modern world, sometimes people can use that against you. how important is it to you to be this open book that you are?” lando: “that's tricky. i don't know if it's about importance. it's not like i'm trying to be like this because i think it's important. i'm just being myself and i'd rather be myself than try to be something i'm not. i'd rather do what i enjoy in my life and feel like i've just done what i feel like i should have done in my life than try to pretend i'm someone else or try to pretend like i'm the racing driver that everyone thinks you need to be or should be. a lot of people like to set these stereotypes and some things are probably right and along better lines. for me, i just want to enjoy my time here. i work hard. i do everything i can to win races and try to be the best. but that's it. other than that, i'm here to enjoy my life, share it with others and try to stand on the top step and that's as simple as i try and keep it”

🎙️ : “carlos sainz had some lovely things to say about you [..] he said that you're the most open driver on the grid, but that in the modern world, sometimes people can use that against you. how important is it to you to be this open book that you are?” lando: “that's tricky. i don't know if it's about importance. it's not like i'm trying to be like this because i think it's important. i'm just being myself and i'd rather be myself than try to be something i'm not. i'd rather do what i enjoy in my life and feel like i've just done what i feel like i should have done in my life than try to pretend i'm someone else or try to pretend like i'm the racing driver that everyone thinks you need to be or should be. a lot of people like to set these stereotypes and some things are probably right and along better lines. for me, i just want to enjoy my time here. i work hard. i do everything i can to win races and try to be the best. but that's it. other than that, i'm here to enjoy my life, share it with others and try to stand on the top step and that's as simple as i try and keep it”

ray

148,886 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Pavel Durov on why he hasn't had depression in 20 years: "I normally never have depression. I don't remember having depression in the last 20 years, at least maybe when I was a teenager." Pavel's approach to difficult emotions is completely counterintuitive. As he puts it: "I'm a human being like everybody else. I do get to experience emotions and some of them are not very pleasant. But I believe that it's the responsibility of every one of us to cope with these emotions and to learn to work through them." On what creates depression: "Self-discipline is particularly important because without it, how can you overcome this seemingly endless loop of negativity or despair that ultimately leads to depression for some people?" His method: "One of the reasons I don't have depression is I start doing things. I identify the problem, I can see a solution, and I start executing the strategy. If you are stuck in this loop of being worried about something, nothing's ever going to change." The mistake people make: "People often make this mistake thinking 'Oh, I should just have some rest and then regain energy.' This is not how it works. You gain energy by doing something. So you start doing something, then it happens. You feel motivated, you feel inspired, and then ultimately you do something else a little bit more." He continues: "The whole point is to do first and then feel, not feel and then do. Going to the gym is a good example. There are many days when you don't want to start working out. But you have to overcome this initial reluctance and then you get to a point that you enjoy it and you think 'Oh my god, it was such a good idea to come to gym today.'" Action creates energy, not the other way around.

Pavel Durov on why he hasn't had depression in 20 years: "I normally never have depression. I don't remember having depression in the last 20 years, at least maybe when I was a teenager." Pavel's approach to difficult emotions is completely counterintuitive. As he puts it: "I'm a human being like everybody else. I do get to experience emotions and some of them are not very pleasant. But I believe that it's the responsibility of every one of us to cope with these emotions and to learn to work through them." On what creates depression: "Self-discipline is particularly important because without it, how can you overcome this seemingly endless loop of negativity or despair that ultimately leads to depression for some people?" His method: "One of the reasons I don't have depression is I start doing things. I identify the problem, I can see a solution, and I start executing the strategy. If you are stuck in this loop of being worried about something, nothing's ever going to change." The mistake people make: "People often make this mistake thinking 'Oh, I should just have some rest and then regain energy.' This is not how it works. You gain energy by doing something. So you start doing something, then it happens. You feel motivated, you feel inspired, and then ultimately you do something else a little bit more." He continues: "The whole point is to do first and then feel, not feel and then do. Going to the gym is a good example. There are many days when you don't want to start working out. But you have to overcome this initial reluctance and then you get to a point that you enjoy it and you think 'Oh my god, it was such a good idea to come to gym today.'" Action creates energy, not the other way around.

Jaynit

547,156 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

115,694 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Trump: Now they'll say all these stories are terrible. Well, these stories have, you know, you heard my story in the boat with the shark, right? I got killed on that. They thought I was rambling. I'm not rambling. We can't get the boat to float. The battery is so heavy. So then I start talking about asking questions. You know, I have an, I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for many years, long, I think the longest tenure ever. Very smart, had three different degrees and you know, so I have an aptitude for things. You know, there is such a thing as an aptitude. I said, well, what would happen if this boat is so heavy and started to sink and you're on the top of the boat. Do you get electrocuted or not? In other words, the boat is going down and you're on the top, will the electric currents flow through the water and wipe you out? And let's say there's a shark about 10 yards over there. Would I have to immediately abandon or could I ride the electric down and he said, sir, nobody's ever asked us that question. But sir, I don't know. I said, well, I want to know because I guarantee you one thing, I don't care what happens. I'm staying with the electric, I'm not getting over with it. So I tell that story. And the fake news they go, he told this crazy story with electric. It's actually not crazy. It's sort of a smart story, right? Sort of like, you know, it's like the snake, it's a smart when you, you figure what you're leaving in, right? You're bringing it in the, you know, the snake, right? The snake and the snake. I tell that and they do the same thing

Trump: Now they'll say all these stories are terrible. Well, these stories have, you know, you heard my story in the boat with the shark, right? I got killed on that. They thought I was rambling. I'm not rambling. We can't get the boat to float. The battery is so heavy. So then I start talking about asking questions. You know, I have an, I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for many years, long, I think the longest tenure ever. Very smart, had three different degrees and you know, so I have an aptitude for things. You know, there is such a thing as an aptitude. I said, well, what would happen if this boat is so heavy and started to sink and you're on the top of the boat. Do you get electrocuted or not? In other words, the boat is going down and you're on the top, will the electric currents flow through the water and wipe you out? And let's say there's a shark about 10 yards over there. Would I have to immediately abandon or could I ride the electric down and he said, sir, nobody's ever asked us that question. But sir, I don't know. I said, well, I want to know because I guarantee you one thing, I don't care what happens. I'm staying with the electric, I'm not getting over with it. So I tell that story. And the fake news they go, he told this crazy story with electric. It's actually not crazy. It's sort of a smart story, right? Sort of like, you know, it's like the snake, it's a smart when you, you figure what you're leaving in, right? You're bringing it in the, you know, the snake, right? The snake and the snake. I tell that and they do the same thing

Headquarters

2,056,404 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren