正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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...

ti_morse's profile picture

Ti Morse

20,506 subscribers

40,328 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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! 💯🙏
1:29

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 次观看 • 7 个月前

Elon Musk explains his 5-step algorithm for solving any problem: "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist." "I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run as a mantra." Elon breaks it down: Step 1: Question the requirements. "Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements. You have to start there, because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question." Step 2: Try to delete it. "Try to delete the part or the process step entirely. If you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. Most people feel like they've succeeded if they haven't been forced to put things back in. But actually they haven't, they've been overly conservative and left things in that shouldn't be there." Step 3: Optimize or simplify. "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist. So you don't optimize until after you've tried to delete." Step 4: Speed it up. "Any given thing can be done faster than you think. But you shouldn't speed things up until you've tried to delete it and optimize it otherwise, you're speeding up something that shouldn't exist." Step 5: Automate. "And then the fifth thing is to automate it." Elon explains why the order matters: "I've gone backwards so many times where I've automated something, sped it up, simplified it, and then deleted it. I got tired of doing that. So that's why I have this mantra."
8:05

Elon Musk explains his 5-step algorithm for solving any problem: "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist." "I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run as a mantra." Elon breaks it down: Step 1: Question the requirements. "Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements. You have to start there, because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question." Step 2: Try to delete it. "Try to delete the part or the process step entirely. If you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. Most people feel like they've succeeded if they haven't been forced to put things back in. But actually they haven't, they've been overly conservative and left things in that shouldn't be there." Step 3: Optimize or simplify. "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist. So you don't optimize until after you've tried to delete." Step 4: Speed it up. "Any given thing can be done faster than you think. But you shouldn't speed things up until you've tried to delete it and optimize it otherwise, you're speeding up something that shouldn't exist." Step 5: Automate. "And then the fifth thing is to automate it." Elon explains why the order matters: "I've gone backwards so many times where I've automated something, sped it up, simplified it, and then deleted it. I got tired of doing that. So that's why I have this mantra."

Jaynit

669,903 次观看 • 4 个月前

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.”
1:58

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👾

271,244 次观看 • 6 个月前

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."
4:09

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

73,176 次观看 • 2 个月前

Elon Musk literally gave the 5-step process on how to build better 1. Question the requirements 2. Remove unnecessary process steps 3. Optimize 4. Accelerate time-to-learning 5. Automate
1:29

Elon Musk literally gave the 5-step process on how to build better 1. Question the requirements 2. Remove unnecessary process steps 3. Optimize 4. Accelerate time-to-learning 5. Automate

Min Choi

39,216 次观看 • 6 个月前

New episode: "How Elon Works" This episode covers the insanely valuable company-building principles of Elon Musk A few notes from the episode: 1. The mission comes first. 2. Retreat is not an option. 3. A maniacal sense of urgency is our operating principle. 4. Product design should be driven by engineers. 5. You should not separate engineering from product design. 6. Having separate design and production departments is bullshit. Keep everything together and feedback immediate. 7. The leader should be on the front lines. You should be a battlefield general. 8. "If they see the general out on the battlefield, the troops are going to be motivated. Wherever Napoleon was, that's where his armies would do best." 9. Apply The Algorithm constantly. (1) Question every requirement. (2) Delete any part of the process you can. (3) Simplify and optimize. (4) Accelerate cycle time. (5) Automate. 10. Repetition is persuasive. "I became a broken record on the algorithm. I think it's helpful to say it to an annoying degree." 11. You should go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification. 12. Camaraderie is dangerous. It makes it hard for people to challenge each other’s work. (Refer to point #1) 13. Never ask your troops to do something you wouldn’t do. 14. Hire for attitude. Skills can be taught. Attitude changes require a brain transplant. 15. Good attitude = A desire to work maniacally hard. 16. The only rules are the ones dictated by the laws of physics. Everything else is a recommendation. 17. Keep your entire company committed to a common goal. 18. If things aren’t going well, throw away the existing design, start from first principles, question every requirement based on fundamental physics. 19. Find the limit. You want to delete as much as possible and you can’t do that unless you find the limit. 20. If you aren’t adding back at least 10% of the things you deleted, then you didn’t delete enough. 21. Maintain control. Avoid joint ventures. Eliminate middlemen. 22. Have a relentless dedication to questioning every requirement. 23. No work about work, just work. 24. Go to the problem. Get on the plane. Fly to the source. Go to the exact location in the factory. Go to the problem and stay there until it's resolved. 25. The best part is no part. 26. Be wired for war. 27. Do not fear losing. It hurts the first 50 times but then you’ll be able to play with less emotion. You will take more risks. 28. Stay heads down focused on doing useful things for civilization. 29. When something is important and has to be done quickly, have meetings every 24 hours to run the algorithm and check on the previous days progress. You'll be shocked at how fast this speeds things up. 30. Life needs to be interesting and edgy. 31. Delete, delete, delete, delete. There are 100 more ideas in the episode. I hope you listen to it. 30 years of Elon’s career + 60 hours of reading and research and me just absolutely ripping through idea after idea at 2x speed for 90 minutes. It will be hard to find a better use of time.
1:33:02

New episode: "How Elon Works" This episode covers the insanely valuable company-building principles of Elon Musk A few notes from the episode: 1. The mission comes first. 2. Retreat is not an option. 3. A maniacal sense of urgency is our operating principle. 4. Product design should be driven by engineers. 5. You should not separate engineering from product design. 6. Having separate design and production departments is bullshit. Keep everything together and feedback immediate. 7. The leader should be on the front lines. You should be a battlefield general. 8. "If they see the general out on the battlefield, the troops are going to be motivated. Wherever Napoleon was, that's where his armies would do best." 9. Apply The Algorithm constantly. (1) Question every requirement. (2) Delete any part of the process you can. (3) Simplify and optimize. (4) Accelerate cycle time. (5) Automate. 10. Repetition is persuasive. "I became a broken record on the algorithm. I think it's helpful to say it to an annoying degree." 11. You should go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification. 12. Camaraderie is dangerous. It makes it hard for people to challenge each other’s work. (Refer to point #1) 13. Never ask your troops to do something you wouldn’t do. 14. Hire for attitude. Skills can be taught. Attitude changes require a brain transplant. 15. Good attitude = A desire to work maniacally hard. 16. The only rules are the ones dictated by the laws of physics. Everything else is a recommendation. 17. Keep your entire company committed to a common goal. 18. If things aren’t going well, throw away the existing design, start from first principles, question every requirement based on fundamental physics. 19. Find the limit. You want to delete as much as possible and you can’t do that unless you find the limit. 20. If you aren’t adding back at least 10% of the things you deleted, then you didn’t delete enough. 21. Maintain control. Avoid joint ventures. Eliminate middlemen. 22. Have a relentless dedication to questioning every requirement. 23. No work about work, just work. 24. Go to the problem. Get on the plane. Fly to the source. Go to the exact location in the factory. Go to the problem and stay there until it's resolved. 25. The best part is no part. 26. Be wired for war. 27. Do not fear losing. It hurts the first 50 times but then you’ll be able to play with less emotion. You will take more risks. 28. Stay heads down focused on doing useful things for civilization. 29. When something is important and has to be done quickly, have meetings every 24 hours to run the algorithm and check on the previous days progress. You'll be shocked at how fast this speeds things up. 30. Life needs to be interesting and edgy. 31. Delete, delete, delete, delete. There are 100 more ideas in the episode. I hope you listen to it. 30 years of Elon’s career + 60 hours of reading and research and me just absolutely ripping through idea after idea at 2x speed for 90 minutes. It will be hard to find a better use of time.

David Senra

3,743,080 次观看 • 9 个月前

One of the most underrated things about Starship isn't just that it's bigger It's that it's designed to completely rewrite the economics of spaceflight SpaceX, Falcon's reusability already removed roughly 85% of the historic cost of launching to orbit Starship aims to deliver another order-of-magnitude improvement on top of that And it's not just about cost.....It's also about throughput Falcon Heavy can deliver up to 64 metric tons to orbit Starship Version 3 is targeting roughly 100 metric tons to orbit Future versions could potentially push that to around 200 metric tons The philosophy behind all of this comes from the Elon's "The Algorithm": 1. Question the requirements 2. Delete parts and process steps 3. Simplify 4. Accelerate 5. Automate You can see this philosophy perfectly in the evolution of the Raptor engine What began as a complex engine evolved into Raptor 3 dramatically simplified, more powerful, more reliable, and easier to manufacture This is how SpaceX keeps pulling ahead Not by adding complexity......By relentlessly removing it
1:26

One of the most underrated things about Starship isn't just that it's bigger It's that it's designed to completely rewrite the economics of spaceflight SpaceX, Falcon's reusability already removed roughly 85% of the historic cost of launching to orbit Starship aims to deliver another order-of-magnitude improvement on top of that And it's not just about cost.....It's also about throughput Falcon Heavy can deliver up to 64 metric tons to orbit Starship Version 3 is targeting roughly 100 metric tons to orbit Future versions could potentially push that to around 200 metric tons The philosophy behind all of this comes from the Elon's "The Algorithm": 1. Question the requirements 2. Delete parts and process steps 3. Simplify 4. Accelerate 5. Automate You can see this philosophy perfectly in the evolution of the Raptor engine What began as a complex engine evolved into Raptor 3 dramatically simplified, more powerful, more reliable, and easier to manufacture This is how SpaceX keeps pulling ahead Not by adding complexity......By relentlessly removing it

X Freeze

27,778 次观看 • 5 天前

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).
1:29

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

376,471 次观看 • 2 年前

Revel Founder & CEO Scott Morton spent 9 years working at SpaceX / Starship for Elon Musk: Biggest lesson? "Elon Musk is really good at is asking engineers to go further than they otherwise would have." i.e. Push past the first “no.” - Avoid incremental thinking. - Question every requirement & constraint. - Force one more round of thinking. - Breakthroughs often follow discomfort. Ref: Walter Isaacson's Biography on Elon: “1. Question every requirement. Each should come with the name of the person who made it. You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from “the legal department” or “the safety department.” You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement. Then you should question it, no matter how smart that person is. Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb. 2. Delete any part or process you can. You may have to add them back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn’t delete enough. 3. Simplify & optimize. This should come after step two. A common mistake is to simplify and optimize a part or a process that should not exist. 4. Accelerate cycle time. Every process can be speeded up. But only do this after you have followed the first three steps. In the Tesla factory, I mistakenly spent a lot of time accelerating processes that I later realized should have been deleted. 5. Automate. That comes last. The big mistake in Nevada and at Fremont was that I began by trying to automate every step. We should have waited until all the requirements had been questioned, parts and processes deleted, and the bugs were shaken out.” . . . Scott Morton (Scott Morton) Founder & CEO of Revel (Revel.io) "Oh man, I have so many stories. But actually, there’s a good one here. I think what Elon’s really good at is asking engineers to go further than they otherwise would have. One of the most interesting examples was the first orbital flight of Starship. We had this maneuver to separate the booster from the ship. We called it the “twig snap.” It essentially looked like a twig snapping in space, and it was a very inefficient way to do it. For the next flight, he was like, “We’re going to do hot staging,” which is where you literally start the Starship engines while it’s still connected to the booster and just blast off. Coming out of that, we all thought, “Okay, cool. We’re going to do the same exact conceptual operations for the next flight. Of course. We’re just going to go nail it this time, right?” And he was like, “No, we’re going to do hot staging on the next flight.” I was actually sitting outside. I wasn’t in the Elon meeting, but I was outside. I saw everyone walk out, and they were all just like, “Oh my God. How are we going to do this?” That week, screenshots started getting shot around. I’m sure everyone was thinking, “Oh, this is going to be really difficult.” But then, throughout the course of the week, some really awesome ideas started coming up. It started to look more and more feasible. Then it became, “How would you manufacture this? How would this all go together?” They ended up inventing, just out of nowhere, a new stage that would sit between the booster and the ship called the hot stage. It would take the blast, and then it would get ejected on reentry for the booster. It worked first shot. That’s insane. I just remember the vibes at SpaceX were like, “Oh my… how in the hell are we going to go do this?” But I think the big lesson there, and something I’ve pulled forward to Revel, is that when engineers come to you and say, “Hey, we just can’t get this to work. This is not possible,” you push them and say, “Well, why don’t you spend two more days thinking about it? Let’s see what comes up. And if nothing, we’ll think about it then.” Engineers really underestimate their ability to creatively problem-solve and come up with new ideas they otherwise never would have thought of when they’re presenting what they think is possible in the moment. I’ll say, “Okay.” They’ll say, “This just isn’t working. We don’t think this is a path.” And I’ll say, “Okay, let’s spend one more day thinking about it.” Oftentimes, there’ll be some breakthrough that no one saw coming. I don’t know how someone hasn’t made a movie about this. There are just so many stories. I mean, early Starship, back in the Hopper days, it was like…"
2:54

Revel Founder & CEO Scott Morton spent 9 years working at SpaceX / Starship for Elon Musk: Biggest lesson? "Elon Musk is really good at is asking engineers to go further than they otherwise would have." i.e. Push past the first “no.” - Avoid incremental thinking. - Question every requirement & constraint. - Force one more round of thinking. - Breakthroughs often follow discomfort. Ref: Walter Isaacson's Biography on Elon: “1. Question every requirement. Each should come with the name of the person who made it. You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from “the legal department” or “the safety department.” You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement. Then you should question it, no matter how smart that person is. Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb. 2. Delete any part or process you can. You may have to add them back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn’t delete enough. 3. Simplify & optimize. This should come after step two. A common mistake is to simplify and optimize a part or a process that should not exist. 4. Accelerate cycle time. Every process can be speeded up. But only do this after you have followed the first three steps. In the Tesla factory, I mistakenly spent a lot of time accelerating processes that I later realized should have been deleted. 5. Automate. That comes last. The big mistake in Nevada and at Fremont was that I began by trying to automate every step. We should have waited until all the requirements had been questioned, parts and processes deleted, and the bugs were shaken out.” . . . Scott Morton (Scott Morton) Founder & CEO of Revel (Revel.io) "Oh man, I have so many stories. But actually, there’s a good one here. I think what Elon’s really good at is asking engineers to go further than they otherwise would have. One of the most interesting examples was the first orbital flight of Starship. We had this maneuver to separate the booster from the ship. We called it the “twig snap.” It essentially looked like a twig snapping in space, and it was a very inefficient way to do it. For the next flight, he was like, “We’re going to do hot staging,” which is where you literally start the Starship engines while it’s still connected to the booster and just blast off. Coming out of that, we all thought, “Okay, cool. We’re going to do the same exact conceptual operations for the next flight. Of course. We’re just going to go nail it this time, right?” And he was like, “No, we’re going to do hot staging on the next flight.” I was actually sitting outside. I wasn’t in the Elon meeting, but I was outside. I saw everyone walk out, and they were all just like, “Oh my God. How are we going to do this?” That week, screenshots started getting shot around. I’m sure everyone was thinking, “Oh, this is going to be really difficult.” But then, throughout the course of the week, some really awesome ideas started coming up. It started to look more and more feasible. Then it became, “How would you manufacture this? How would this all go together?” They ended up inventing, just out of nowhere, a new stage that would sit between the booster and the ship called the hot stage. It would take the blast, and then it would get ejected on reentry for the booster. It worked first shot. That’s insane. I just remember the vibes at SpaceX were like, “Oh my… how in the hell are we going to go do this?” But I think the big lesson there, and something I’ve pulled forward to Revel, is that when engineers come to you and say, “Hey, we just can’t get this to work. This is not possible,” you push them and say, “Well, why don’t you spend two more days thinking about it? Let’s see what comes up. And if nothing, we’ll think about it then.” Engineers really underestimate their ability to creatively problem-solve and come up with new ideas they otherwise never would have thought of when they’re presenting what they think is possible in the moment. I’ll say, “Okay.” They’ll say, “This just isn’t working. We don’t think this is a path.” And I’ll say, “Okay, let’s spend one more day thinking about it.” Oftentimes, there’ll be some breakthrough that no one saw coming. I don’t know how someone hasn’t made a movie about this. There are just so many stories. I mean, early Starship, back in the Hopper days, it was like…"

Molly O’Shea

90,303 次观看 • 3 个月前

Chamath Palihapitiya on Elon Musk: “Whether you like his style or not, his substance is irrefutable.” “Maybe he may mistweet from time to time. My point is, who cares? Your job as a smart investor is to separate the facts and the news from the fiction and the noise. And all of that stuff doesn't matter. It does not change the fact that tens of thousands of consumers are buying that car faster than they can get their hands on it. It doesn't change that the minute you sit inside that car, your definition of what is expected is altered forever. And you wonder why every other car around you that you ever step in that you may buy doesn't have the same things that that car offers. So, at the end of the day, whether you like his style or not, his substance is irrefutable.” CNBC, May 1, 2019
0:42

Chamath Palihapitiya on Elon Musk: “Whether you like his style or not, his substance is irrefutable.” “Maybe he may mistweet from time to time. My point is, who cares? Your job as a smart investor is to separate the facts and the news from the fiction and the noise. And all of that stuff doesn't matter. It does not change the fact that tens of thousands of consumers are buying that car faster than they can get their hands on it. It doesn't change that the minute you sit inside that car, your definition of what is expected is altered forever. And you wonder why every other car around you that you ever step in that you may buy doesn't have the same things that that car offers. So, at the end of the day, whether you like his style or not, his substance is irrefutable.” CNBC, May 1, 2019

ELON CLIPS

161,514 次观看 • 11 个月前

🔥ELON MUSK’S 5-STEP RULE FOR RUNNING COMPANIES: QUESTION EVERYTHING, DELETE WHAT YOU CAN, SIMPLIFY WHAT’S LEFT, THEN SPEED IT UP, AND AUTOMATE.
4:08

🔥ELON MUSK’S 5-STEP RULE FOR RUNNING COMPANIES: QUESTION EVERYTHING, DELETE WHAT YOU CAN, SIMPLIFY WHAT’S LEFT, THEN SPEED IT UP, AND AUTOMATE.

Coin Bureau

109,273 次观看 • 1 个月前

Have you heard of the xDoctor app? Elon and X, in the interest of transparency, have open sourced much of the X Algorithm. xDoctor analyzes your X archives against what has been made public, to identify posts and delete them. This isn’t a “delete all” approach, it is curated.
1:06

Have you heard of the xDoctor app? Elon and X, in the interest of transparency, have open sourced much of the X Algorithm. xDoctor analyzes your X archives against what has been made public, to identify posts and delete them. This isn’t a “delete all” approach, it is curated.

Shane 𝕏

69,457 次观看 • 15 天前

"It starts over with the work. There is no complacency. There is no entitlement. We go back to work, and that is the focus. Because, if you don't work, it doesn't matter."
0:25

"It starts over with the work. There is no complacency. There is no entitlement. We go back to work, and that is the focus. Because, if you don't work, it doesn't matter."

The Winning Difference

40,731 次观看 • 1 年前

The thing with love is that logic goes out of the window. More so for women. A woman who is in love and can afford to love will even disown her own family just to be with the man she loves. Find someone you love deeply and loves you deeply, marry them and it won’t matter who does what. Everyday it will be 100 and how it is split won’t matter. If you have to rationalise it and find causes for love, or even worse, if you can rationalise it at all and have a cause, then what you have is like any other legal contract or partnership. While mutual understanding and compatibility is important, an inexplainable emotional attachment to each other is more important. This is the only reason you’ll forgive without an explicit apology. And marriage would become an unavoidable bureaucratic process to formalise an already existing union, not the definition of a partnership. I stand corrected, but if you can answer the question of "Why do you love me?", then you don’t love them.
1:27

The thing with love is that logic goes out of the window. More so for women. A woman who is in love and can afford to love will even disown her own family just to be with the man she loves. Find someone you love deeply and loves you deeply, marry them and it won’t matter who does what. Everyday it will be 100 and how it is split won’t matter. If you have to rationalise it and find causes for love, or even worse, if you can rationalise it at all and have a cause, then what you have is like any other legal contract or partnership. While mutual understanding and compatibility is important, an inexplainable emotional attachment to each other is more important. This is the only reason you’ll forgive without an explicit apology. And marriage would become an unavoidable bureaucratic process to formalise an already existing union, not the definition of a partnership. I stand corrected, but if you can answer the question of "Why do you love me?", then you don’t love them.

Ben X

40,503 次观看 • 6 个月前

This is one of my favorite movie endings... It has a powerful lesson: "At some point, everything is going to go south on you...and you're gonna say 'this is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is, you just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem. Then you solve the next one. And the next. And if you solve enough problems, you get to come home." This is the beautiful thing about life: No matter where you are today—no matter how deep in the darkness—you are always just one good decision away from being in a better place tomorrow. You can always focus on that one decision—that one problem—in front of you. Don't worry about the hundreds or thousands of decisions that you still have to make to get to where you want to be—just focus on the next decision. Just begin. Solve one problem. Then solve the next one. And the next. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
0:50

This is one of my favorite movie endings... It has a powerful lesson: "At some point, everything is going to go south on you...and you're gonna say 'this is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is, you just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem. Then you solve the next one. And the next. And if you solve enough problems, you get to come home." This is the beautiful thing about life: No matter where you are today—no matter how deep in the darkness—you are always just one good decision away from being in a better place tomorrow. You can always focus on that one decision—that one problem—in front of you. Don't worry about the hundreds or thousands of decisions that you still have to make to get to where you want to be—just focus on the next decision. Just begin. Solve one problem. Then solve the next one. And the next. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius

Sahil Bloom

213,808 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk: Just caring about the work somebody does and nothing else is the least racist or sexist you can be. "I think we need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian, who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is, how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else." From: European Jewish Association, 2024
0:36

Elon Musk: Just caring about the work somebody does and nothing else is the least racist or sexist you can be. "I think we need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian, who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is, how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else." From: European Jewish Association, 2024

ELON CLIPS

1,606,859 次观看 • 1 年前

“At all costs means you will do anything within the rules to get the win. You have to convince your players that this is what it takes and this is the cost. The cost is you better get your ass in the best shape of your life. The only way to do that is you’ve got to work,” Pat Riley 🎥 ESPN
0:20

“At all costs means you will do anything within the rules to get the win. You have to convince your players that this is what it takes and this is the cost. The cost is you better get your ass in the best shape of your life. The only way to do that is you’ve got to work,” Pat Riley 🎥 ESPN

The Winning Difference

86,771 次观看 • 2 年前

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."
1:12

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 次观看 • 4 个月前

how beautiful it must be to have someone in your life that supports you every step of the way and does it all just because he loves you and is proud of you
0:47

how beautiful it must be to have someone in your life that supports you every step of the way and does it all just because he loves you and is proud of you

marcie

33,429 次观看 • 1 个月前

Here it is: The algorithm that toppled the United States government on November 3, 2020. The 2020 election Edison data confirms fluctuations in vote counts—meaning a straight-up algorithm. “Scytl is receiving the election data directly from election officials in at least nine states, meaning there is no projection—this is raw data. When you look at raw data in an election, we would all agree that elections are supposed to be additive processes. So, with each interval report, you would expect to see more votes—not deletions. More votes, not deletions. Now look at this real-time video of the Edison reports. You have in-person votes, then mail-in votes, and look how it pauses—there is oscillation and deletion. This is the algorithm trying to figure out the math problem that is you. That is you. And if I let this video play to completion, you’ll find out it wasn’t just Pennsylvania. We have three counties in North Carolina. We have three counties in Georgia. And guess what— in Georgia, we know for a fact that Scytl contracts directly with the state to get that data. So you should see no oscillation. Instead, what you see is absolute manipulation, and this is all possible because of how wide open the system is.” Ban all voting machines and Pass the Save Act. And arrest Chris Krebs.
4:06

Here it is: The algorithm that toppled the United States government on November 3, 2020. The 2020 election Edison data confirms fluctuations in vote counts—meaning a straight-up algorithm. “Scytl is receiving the election data directly from election officials in at least nine states, meaning there is no projection—this is raw data. When you look at raw data in an election, we would all agree that elections are supposed to be additive processes. So, with each interval report, you would expect to see more votes—not deletions. More votes, not deletions. Now look at this real-time video of the Edison reports. You have in-person votes, then mail-in votes, and look how it pauses—there is oscillation and deletion. This is the algorithm trying to figure out the math problem that is you. That is you. And if I let this video play to completion, you’ll find out it wasn’t just Pennsylvania. We have three counties in North Carolina. We have three counties in Georgia. And guess what— in Georgia, we know for a fact that Scytl contracts directly with the state to get that data. So you should see no oscillation. Instead, what you see is absolute manipulation, and this is all possible because of how wide open the system is.” Ban all voting machines and Pass the Save Act. And arrest Chris Krebs.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

18,982 次观看 • 3 个月前