正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Epstein Probably DID Survive - Bret Weinstein explains why: 00:00 Why It Matters If Epstein Is Alive 01:13 Evidence That's Weird 05:55 Bret's Take on Why He's Alive 08:15 Ruling Out Possibilities 09:39 What Game Theory Suggests "So I think that that suggests that in light of his being...

thedarkhorsepod's profile picture

The DarkHorse Podcast

53,593 subscribers

52,619 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术
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

Is Epstein still alive? Bret Weinstein thinks so. "...in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do."
0:57

Is Epstein still alive? Bret Weinstein thinks so. "...in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do."

The Darkhorse Podcast

14,927 次观看 • 5 个月前

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”
0:50

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”

RedWave Press

53,415 次观看 • 8 个月前

Joe Rogan drops a bombshell theory about why Barack Obama pushed the “Fine People” hoax to try and get Kamala Harris elected. Rogan says Obama “must know” that “fine people on both sides” was a hoax, yet he pushed it anyway. Why? Once Rogan laid out his theory, he admitted he would push the “Fine People” hoax, too, if he were in Obama’s position. ROGAN: “Why would you sacrifice [your stature and integrity] for someone who just probably wasn’t gonna win anyway?” JEFF DYE: “I don’t know if it’s money or if it’s some sort of oath or if it’s intentional, but that stuff’s so dangerous… that shortening of what someone said, taking it out of context.” ROGAN: “I think there’s also the consequences of people going to trial for that Russiagate stuff because I think that Russiagate collusion hoax that they perpetrated on mainstream media for years, and a lot of people are really uncomfortable with even saying it was a hoax. “No, it was a hoax, ladies and gentlemen. It was a hoax. And a lot of people coordinated that hoax. And there were a lot of people involved, and I think they’re super sketched out about Trump being president again and possibly digging into that stuff. And he’s doing that now. “And you’re finding real evidence that… the intelligence agencies… it seems like they also meddle, and not just meddle but completely try to sabotage someone and paint them out in a way that’s completely inaccurate, knowingly, with taxpayer dollars funding it all.” JEFF DYE: “‘For the greater good.’ For their greater good.” ROGAN: “Bro. I might say ‘very fine people,’ too, if I was doing that kind of stuff. Say whatever. ‘He’s a f*cking Nazi.’ ‘He’s Hitler.’ Let’s say whatever the f*ck—keep him out of office.”
1:43

Joe Rogan drops a bombshell theory about why Barack Obama pushed the “Fine People” hoax to try and get Kamala Harris elected. Rogan says Obama “must know” that “fine people on both sides” was a hoax, yet he pushed it anyway. Why? Once Rogan laid out his theory, he admitted he would push the “Fine People” hoax, too, if he were in Obama’s position. ROGAN: “Why would you sacrifice [your stature and integrity] for someone who just probably wasn’t gonna win anyway?” JEFF DYE: “I don’t know if it’s money or if it’s some sort of oath or if it’s intentional, but that stuff’s so dangerous… that shortening of what someone said, taking it out of context.” ROGAN: “I think there’s also the consequences of people going to trial for that Russiagate stuff because I think that Russiagate collusion hoax that they perpetrated on mainstream media for years, and a lot of people are really uncomfortable with even saying it was a hoax. “No, it was a hoax, ladies and gentlemen. It was a hoax. And a lot of people coordinated that hoax. And there were a lot of people involved, and I think they’re super sketched out about Trump being president again and possibly digging into that stuff. And he’s doing that now. “And you’re finding real evidence that… the intelligence agencies… it seems like they also meddle, and not just meddle but completely try to sabotage someone and paint them out in a way that’s completely inaccurate, knowingly, with taxpayer dollars funding it all.” JEFF DYE: “‘For the greater good.’ For their greater good.” ROGAN: “Bro. I might say ‘very fine people,’ too, if I was doing that kind of stuff. Say whatever. ‘He’s a f*cking Nazi.’ ‘He’s Hitler.’ Let’s say whatever the f*ck—keep him out of office.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

631,189 次观看 • 8 个月前

REPORT: Aaron Rodgers thinks it’s weird that Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of trafficking kids, but “nobody who she was trafficking kids to got indicted or named.” “All the files that are out there still haven’t been released.” Why? Well, Tucker Carlson pointed out that “there were a lot of people that didn’t want him [Jeffrey Epstein] to be alive.” “He [Epstein] was murdered in federal detention in Manhattan. I don’t think there’s any question about that,” Carlson said. Who murdered Jeffrey Epstein, and why are we still unable to see the client list?
2:33

REPORT: Aaron Rodgers thinks it’s weird that Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of trafficking kids, but “nobody who she was trafficking kids to got indicted or named.” “All the files that are out there still haven’t been released.” Why? Well, Tucker Carlson pointed out that “there were a lot of people that didn’t want him [Jeffrey Epstein] to be alive.” “He [Epstein] was murdered in federal detention in Manhattan. I don’t think there’s any question about that,” Carlson said. Who murdered Jeffrey Epstein, and why are we still unable to see the client list?

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

2,086,566 次观看 • 2 年前

According to this filel, it confirms the very plausible possibility that Epstein is still alive and living in Colorado. 00 (or was in 2021). What do you think?
1:32

According to this filel, it confirms the very plausible possibility that Epstein is still alive and living in Colorado. 00 (or was in 2021). What do you think?

Clerpatriot

13,233 次观看 • 5 个月前

How Did Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail the Most Powerful People Alive? “I think that the Epstein Files reveal a trafficking operation that was used as leverage over our politicians by a larger power structure that continues to have a stranglehold on our institutions. This is a blackmail operation that predates the internet, that now, with the internet, people put the pieces together and it’s a lot harder to hide it. If you’re making the claim that Epstein left that cell alive and you pull on that thread, it implicates larger power structures in our government and a deep level of corruption. He was collecting blackmail when you had to put it on a floppy drive. He’s been doing this for a long time. And what better insurance policy than retention of all of this evidence as your dead man switch?”
11:17

How Did Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail the Most Powerful People Alive? “I think that the Epstein Files reveal a trafficking operation that was used as leverage over our politicians by a larger power structure that continues to have a stranglehold on our institutions. This is a blackmail operation that predates the internet, that now, with the internet, people put the pieces together and it’s a lot harder to hide it. If you’re making the claim that Epstein left that cell alive and you pull on that thread, it implicates larger power structures in our government and a deep level of corruption. He was collecting blackmail when you had to put it on a floppy drive. He’s been doing this for a long time. And what better insurance policy than retention of all of this evidence as your dead man switch?”

Shawn Ryan

89,253 次观看 • 1 个月前

Scott Jennings just shattered the narrative that President Trump is calling the entire Epstein scandal a hoax. As Phillip attempted to paint Trump as callous toward Epstein’s victims, Scott Jennings cut her off cold and exposed her spin for exactly what it was—pure theater. “Well, the hoax is, Democrats and others, who have gone on television and either implied or worse, that he had something to do with it.” “There’s not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that’s what they want people to believe. That’s the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That’s the hoax.” “He’s never said what happened to them is a hoax.” “In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump.” “And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply, or worse about him.”
0:42

Scott Jennings just shattered the narrative that President Trump is calling the entire Epstein scandal a hoax. As Phillip attempted to paint Trump as callous toward Epstein’s victims, Scott Jennings cut her off cold and exposed her spin for exactly what it was—pure theater. “Well, the hoax is, Democrats and others, who have gone on television and either implied or worse, that he had something to do with it.” “There’s not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that’s what they want people to believe. That’s the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That’s the hoax.” “He’s never said what happened to them is a hoax.” “In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump.” “And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply, or worse about him.”

Overton

228,648 次观看 • 8 个月前

WATCH: Victor Davis Hanson drops what might be the clearest, most damning explanation yet for Epstein’s real role.....and why those files still aren’t public. Victor Davis Hanson has a gift for cutting through the noise. In this conversation with Glenn Beck, he laid out exactly what he thinks Epstein was really doing, and why the files remained buried. Beck asked him: “What do you think this is really about?” Hanson replied: “I think it's pretty clear now that Epstein had no talent other than blackmail. And he was not a financier, he a captain of finance at all.” “What he did is he invited very powerful people to his island or his New York home, filmed them and then he bribed them.” Beck pressed: “So why isn't it being exposed?” That’s when Hanson delivered the single most likely—and explosive—explanation. “I think there are people within the establishment—I don't know if they partook in the his sick things he was doing—but they have some association with him and they gave him money to invest when there was no reason to hire someone like that.” “He got a half a billion dollars somehow, from people who were mainstream establishmentarians on the basis that he was going to blackmail them.” “I think those names are numerous and I think the Trump administration thought, well we're going to release this and there's some crazy people that we don't care about, are going to be embarrassed....and then all the sudden, they got a lot of calls.” “Said, why are you doing this? I didn't do this, I went down to the island once, I was on a plane, I didn't touch anybody.” “There's a lot of people who were very powerful who were giving him money or were trafficking with him, not necessarily all them engaging in what he was doing, but just the association with him.” “And I think they're putting pressure on people. I really do.”
1:49

WATCH: Victor Davis Hanson drops what might be the clearest, most damning explanation yet for Epstein’s real role.....and why those files still aren’t public. Victor Davis Hanson has a gift for cutting through the noise. In this conversation with Glenn Beck, he laid out exactly what he thinks Epstein was really doing, and why the files remained buried. Beck asked him: “What do you think this is really about?” Hanson replied: “I think it's pretty clear now that Epstein had no talent other than blackmail. And he was not a financier, he a captain of finance at all.” “What he did is he invited very powerful people to his island or his New York home, filmed them and then he bribed them.” Beck pressed: “So why isn't it being exposed?” That’s when Hanson delivered the single most likely—and explosive—explanation. “I think there are people within the establishment—I don't know if they partook in the his sick things he was doing—but they have some association with him and they gave him money to invest when there was no reason to hire someone like that.” “He got a half a billion dollars somehow, from people who were mainstream establishmentarians on the basis that he was going to blackmail them.” “I think those names are numerous and I think the Trump administration thought, well we're going to release this and there's some crazy people that we don't care about, are going to be embarrassed....and then all the sudden, they got a lot of calls.” “Said, why are you doing this? I didn't do this, I went down to the island once, I was on a plane, I didn't touch anybody.” “There's a lot of people who were very powerful who were giving him money or were trafficking with him, not necessarily all them engaging in what he was doing, but just the association with him.” “And I think they're putting pressure on people. I really do.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

496,559 次观看 • 1 年前

Mark Zuckerberg explains why he has never believed in delegation (and why founders shouldn't either): Most CEOs believe their job is to hire great people and get out of the way, but Mark disagrees. "I basically don't believe in delegation." He explains his thinking: "There's so much going on across the company that I can't possibly get involved in all of it. So all these people are going to have a ton of stuff that they're going to do." But that's not a reason to step back. It's a reason to be selective and then go deep. "Fundamentally, if there is a decision that I want to be involved with, I'm going to be involved in it." His argument is simple: if you're the one accountable for everything, why would you ever accept being locked out of something important? "If you're running the company and you're on the hook for everything and there's something that's important at whatever level of detail in the organization, I don't get the logic of saying I'm not going to be involved in that." He's not calling for micromanagement, and he acknowledges he can't be everywhere. What he's rejecting is the idea that hierarchy should be a barrier. That founders should stay in their lane. That diving into the details is somehow a sign of poor leadership. Mark Zuckerberg does add one caveat: "You want to have humility and know that if you're diving into some decision, you may not have the most context immediately." But humility about context is different from staying out entirely. His conclusion is a cultural one: "You want to have the cultural expectation that things are not going to be so hierarchical and you're just going to dive into whatever you want."
1:03

Mark Zuckerberg explains why he has never believed in delegation (and why founders shouldn't either): Most CEOs believe their job is to hire great people and get out of the way, but Mark disagrees. "I basically don't believe in delegation." He explains his thinking: "There's so much going on across the company that I can't possibly get involved in all of it. So all these people are going to have a ton of stuff that they're going to do." But that's not a reason to step back. It's a reason to be selective and then go deep. "Fundamentally, if there is a decision that I want to be involved with, I'm going to be involved in it." His argument is simple: if you're the one accountable for everything, why would you ever accept being locked out of something important? "If you're running the company and you're on the hook for everything and there's something that's important at whatever level of detail in the organization, I don't get the logic of saying I'm not going to be involved in that." He's not calling for micromanagement, and he acknowledges he can't be everywhere. What he's rejecting is the idea that hierarchy should be a barrier. That founders should stay in their lane. That diving into the details is somehow a sign of poor leadership. Mark Zuckerberg does add one caveat: "You want to have humility and know that if you're diving into some decision, you may not have the most context immediately." But humility about context is different from staying out entirely. His conclusion is a cultural one: "You want to have the cultural expectation that things are not going to be so hierarchical and you're just going to dive into whatever you want."

Big Brain Business

20,055 次观看 • 28 天前

Mehdi Hasan declares the Jeffrey Epstein "conspiracy theory" has been proven "real," because it's finally been proven that Epstein did in fact have "ties to the rich and powerful," as well as to "foreign governments." But... it's been known that Epstein had exactly these "ties" from the literal first moment he gained any public notoriety. Literally, since 2002. The actual Epstein "conspiracy theory" -- now in the process of being memory-holed, amazingly enough -- was of course never merely that Epstein had certain "ties" to "rich and powerful" people, or to representatives of "foreign governments." It was that he was running a vast child-sex trafficking and blackmail operation -- *in concert with* these "rich and powerful people," to whom he had "ties" -- and at the direction of, or in service to, some unknown assemblage of clandestine intelligence agencies. Uh, remember that whole thing about how he was supposedly flying around his VIP friends on the "Lolita Express," or gathering them on "Pedophile Island," so they could rape all the children he'd procured? Then he'd catch them on hidden camera, and use the resulting sexual blackmail to get them to do either his own sinister bidding, or that of his secret intel paymasters? THAT was the fundamental "theory" -- the beating heart of the "Epstein conspiracy," such as there ever was one. And it's been proven resoundingly FALSE -- based on all available evidence, after MILLIONS of new records have now been released. Yet pundits such as Mehdi, who posture as vaguely "anti-establishment," for some reason still feel the need to act like the essential "conspiracy theory" of Epstein has obviously been proven true. They can only do this if they RADICALLY define down why there was ever an "Epstein conspiracy theory" in the first place! Because... it's been proven completely false!
0:44

Mehdi Hasan declares the Jeffrey Epstein "conspiracy theory" has been proven "real," because it's finally been proven that Epstein did in fact have "ties to the rich and powerful," as well as to "foreign governments." But... it's been known that Epstein had exactly these "ties" from the literal first moment he gained any public notoriety. Literally, since 2002. The actual Epstein "conspiracy theory" -- now in the process of being memory-holed, amazingly enough -- was of course never merely that Epstein had certain "ties" to "rich and powerful" people, or to representatives of "foreign governments." It was that he was running a vast child-sex trafficking and blackmail operation -- *in concert with* these "rich and powerful people," to whom he had "ties" -- and at the direction of, or in service to, some unknown assemblage of clandestine intelligence agencies. Uh, remember that whole thing about how he was supposedly flying around his VIP friends on the "Lolita Express," or gathering them on "Pedophile Island," so they could rape all the children he'd procured? Then he'd catch them on hidden camera, and use the resulting sexual blackmail to get them to do either his own sinister bidding, or that of his secret intel paymasters? THAT was the fundamental "theory" -- the beating heart of the "Epstein conspiracy," such as there ever was one. And it's been proven resoundingly FALSE -- based on all available evidence, after MILLIONS of new records have now been released. Yet pundits such as Mehdi, who posture as vaguely "anti-establishment," for some reason still feel the need to act like the essential "conspiracy theory" of Epstein has obviously been proven true. They can only do this if they RADICALLY define down why there was ever an "Epstein conspiracy theory" in the first place! Because... it's been proven completely false!

Michael Tracey

31,030 次观看 • 11 天前

Flashback to Kash’s interview on Joe Rogan. At the time, I said it sounded like Kash was trying to tell us that the evidence is not at the FBI/DOJ. It’s gone. Kash hinted that he doesn’t have the Epstein tapes people are looking for and says “where else could it be?”. Kash very clearly said that if he had access to evidence showing criminals engaged felonious activity on Epstein island, we would know about it, then proceeds to hint that the evidence we are looking for might be somewhere else. People have been alleging this means Kash is engaged in a cover up, but I think he is trying to tell us that someone else already covered it up, and the evidence is somewhere else. Whether that be the CIA, a different agency, hidden somewhere, another nation’s intelligence agency, destroyed, etc. I think Kash was trying to warn us that the stuff we want about Epstein, and probably a great deal of other topics, is missing from FBI/DOJ records. I don’t think Kash, Bongino, and Bondi are the ones doing the covering up. I think the cover up already happened.
0:27

Flashback to Kash’s interview on Joe Rogan. At the time, I said it sounded like Kash was trying to tell us that the evidence is not at the FBI/DOJ. It’s gone. Kash hinted that he doesn’t have the Epstein tapes people are looking for and says “where else could it be?”. Kash very clearly said that if he had access to evidence showing criminals engaged felonious activity on Epstein island, we would know about it, then proceeds to hint that the evidence we are looking for might be somewhere else. People have been alleging this means Kash is engaged in a cover up, but I think he is trying to tell us that someone else already covered it up, and the evidence is somewhere else. Whether that be the CIA, a different agency, hidden somewhere, another nation’s intelligence agency, destroyed, etc. I think Kash was trying to warn us that the stuff we want about Epstein, and probably a great deal of other topics, is missing from FBI/DOJ records. I don’t think Kash, Bongino, and Bondi are the ones doing the covering up. I think the cover up already happened.

Clandestine

733,052 次观看 • 1 年前

Epstein victims' attorney Kuvin: Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein in a vacuum. His conspiracy of utilizing young girls for sexual conduct involved not just him, but many other individuals—individuals who were given young girls, individuals he was trying to gather evidence against so he could curry favor and potentially blackmail them. Some of those people are still out there. They remain unnamed and unidentified. The federal government knows who they are, but they’re refusing to disclose those names. That is the information the public needs to know, and the public deserves to judge for themselves why someone may have been, for example, at Epstein’s home with a bunch of topless underage girls—or at his island, similarly surrounded by topless underage girls. Those people should be outed. They should be identified. And people like you, and the rest of the press, should be asking them questions.
1:07

Epstein victims' attorney Kuvin: Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein in a vacuum. His conspiracy of utilizing young girls for sexual conduct involved not just him, but many other individuals—individuals who were given young girls, individuals he was trying to gather evidence against so he could curry favor and potentially blackmail them. Some of those people are still out there. They remain unnamed and unidentified. The federal government knows who they are, but they’re refusing to disclose those names. That is the information the public needs to know, and the public deserves to judge for themselves why someone may have been, for example, at Epstein’s home with a bunch of topless underage girls—or at his island, similarly surrounded by topless underage girls. Those people should be outed. They should be identified. And people like you, and the rest of the press, should be asking them questions.

MeidasTouch

98,675 次观看 • 11 个月前

I think the presenter is on to something big, but where I disagree with her is that she accuses African leaders and gives a subtle pass to African citizens. It is not true that African citizens were oblivious to what Trump or Epstein are. They knew, but they simply did not have the ability to think critically that when Trump talks about LGBT issues, it is not necessarily that he does not support them, but that he understood there is a group of foolish people out there who would buy into that rhetoric without interrogating why he was deploying it. Some of Trump’s best friends, like Peter Mandelson, are gay, yet some Africans were foolish enough to believe that Trump is anti-gay. He simply understood how human beings operate, that there are times when people fail to think, a tragic failure to think, and they just go with the flow. If you ask Africans today what they gained from the perceived homophobia that Trump projected, which we know was political theatre targeted at a particular audience, they will not be able to tell you. Trump might be many things to many people. I do not like him and everybody knows that, but the one thing I respect him for is that he understands his audience. He knows what to say when he is talking to foolish people. He knows what to say when he is talking to idiotic people. He knows what to say when he is talking to sycophants. He knows what to say when he is talking to people who do not understand the world of politics, and he gets away with it. And for that, I give it to him. He becomes a political superstar precisely because you then have black people in Africa supporting him. That in itself shows you the scale of political illiteracy that exists, where people rally behind rhetoric crafted to manipulate them, not to advance their interests.
2:29

I think the presenter is on to something big, but where I disagree with her is that she accuses African leaders and gives a subtle pass to African citizens. It is not true that African citizens were oblivious to what Trump or Epstein are. They knew, but they simply did not have the ability to think critically that when Trump talks about LGBT issues, it is not necessarily that he does not support them, but that he understood there is a group of foolish people out there who would buy into that rhetoric without interrogating why he was deploying it. Some of Trump’s best friends, like Peter Mandelson, are gay, yet some Africans were foolish enough to believe that Trump is anti-gay. He simply understood how human beings operate, that there are times when people fail to think, a tragic failure to think, and they just go with the flow. If you ask Africans today what they gained from the perceived homophobia that Trump projected, which we know was political theatre targeted at a particular audience, they will not be able to tell you. Trump might be many things to many people. I do not like him and everybody knows that, but the one thing I respect him for is that he understands his audience. He knows what to say when he is talking to foolish people. He knows what to say when he is talking to idiotic people. He knows what to say when he is talking to sycophants. He knows what to say when he is talking to people who do not understand the world of politics, and he gets away with it. And for that, I give it to him. He becomes a political superstar precisely because you then have black people in Africa supporting him. That in itself shows you the scale of political illiteracy that exists, where people rally behind rhetoric crafted to manipulate them, not to advance their interests.

Hopewell Chin’ono

20,339 次观看 • 6 个月前

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)
1:50

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)

Startup Archive

54,696 次观看 • 7 个月前

This Guy is right about Why the Epstein List will NOT be released. He says “…it’s because the names on that list would literally cause society to crumble. The trust would be gone in governments and everything in theaters and movies the richest people in the world would crash. And the richest people in the world are not gonna allow that which is why it's not being released. Why because the top F*cking people in the world are on that goddamn list and I think it needs to be released…” I already have no trust for the people in the Government, movie, music industries, etc and I definitely will NOT be shocked at who is on that list, but what I will be shocked about is if they do release the Epstein List.
0:43

This Guy is right about Why the Epstein List will NOT be released. He says “…it’s because the names on that list would literally cause society to crumble. The trust would be gone in governments and everything in theaters and movies the richest people in the world would crash. And the richest people in the world are not gonna allow that which is why it's not being released. Why because the top F*cking people in the world are on that goddamn list and I think it needs to be released…” I already have no trust for the people in the Government, movie, music industries, etc and I definitely will NOT be shocked at who is on that list, but what I will be shocked about is if they do release the Epstein List.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

164,852 次观看 • 2 年前

NEW: Marjorie Taylor Greene describes Mar-a-Lago as an Epstein-class universe "The president and his friends are part... of that entire Epstein-class world" "Mar-a-Lago is... where all of them hang out... party together... do business together" "[It's] an entire universe" This clip of Greene (Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸) is taken from a discussion with Alec Zeck (D. Alec Zeck) posted to YouTube on May 15, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And he called me on the phone, and I was at my office, and he's demanding I take my name off the discharge petition. But he's also pleading with me. And he tells me the truth. He says, my friends will get hurt because they're in the Epstein files. "He said, these are people at Mar-a-Lago. He said, these are people, you know, and he said, they're going to get hurt. And so what that means is they will be exposed if the Epstein files come out. "So the reason why he fought it so hard, it was very personal to him, which means the President and his friends are part of that world. Part of the world. Part of that entire Epstein-class world. "So everyone always asks me, like, why? And I'm like, I'll tell you why he told me. And so that's why he turned on me so hard. Think about that. He told me the truth. And then I said, I'm, I'm sorry, Mr. President. I have to do the right thing. I— These are women that were raped at 14 and 16 years old. I've heard their stories. They tremble and shake when they tell their story, and they cry and they. No one's listening to them and no one's helping them. "This was wrong. To me, it's like, I'm sorry that those are your friends. Those are not the type of people I'm friends with. Those are the type of people I want nothing to do with. "I just was so shocked. I just was completely shocked. And my whole body revolted in that moment. I was like, this is something I can have nothing to do with. I want nothing to do with any of this anymore. It was the most eye-opening thing is, is he would fight me to stop the release of the Epstein files because he's protecting his friends. He's protecting his world. "Mar-a-Lago is his world. That's where all of them hang out, they party together, they do business together. I mean, that's an entire universe. It's a social club. And, it's for business. It's for many reasons. And so that is his entire world. And that's what he said was going to get exposed. "For me, I was like, okay, this is this. I can't have anything to do with this. I'm just going to do the right thing. From that moment forward, it was just do the right thing, no matter who gets mad at me. And it's pretty. Believe me, it's pretty incredible to have the President of the United States mad at you, calling you a traitor, saying he's going to destroy you. Those are big words. And they brought really bad death threats, mostly on my son. And that was the part that I couldn't take."
3:04

NEW: Marjorie Taylor Greene describes Mar-a-Lago as an Epstein-class universe "The president and his friends are part... of that entire Epstein-class world" "Mar-a-Lago is... where all of them hang out... party together... do business together" "[It's] an entire universe" This clip of Greene (Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸) is taken from a discussion with Alec Zeck (D. Alec Zeck) posted to YouTube on May 15, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And he called me on the phone, and I was at my office, and he's demanding I take my name off the discharge petition. But he's also pleading with me. And he tells me the truth. He says, my friends will get hurt because they're in the Epstein files. "He said, these are people at Mar-a-Lago. He said, these are people, you know, and he said, they're going to get hurt. And so what that means is they will be exposed if the Epstein files come out. "So the reason why he fought it so hard, it was very personal to him, which means the President and his friends are part of that world. Part of the world. Part of that entire Epstein-class world. "So everyone always asks me, like, why? And I'm like, I'll tell you why he told me. And so that's why he turned on me so hard. Think about that. He told me the truth. And then I said, I'm, I'm sorry, Mr. President. I have to do the right thing. I— These are women that were raped at 14 and 16 years old. I've heard their stories. They tremble and shake when they tell their story, and they cry and they. No one's listening to them and no one's helping them. "This was wrong. To me, it's like, I'm sorry that those are your friends. Those are not the type of people I'm friends with. Those are the type of people I want nothing to do with. "I just was so shocked. I just was completely shocked. And my whole body revolted in that moment. I was like, this is something I can have nothing to do with. I want nothing to do with any of this anymore. It was the most eye-opening thing is, is he would fight me to stop the release of the Epstein files because he's protecting his friends. He's protecting his world. "Mar-a-Lago is his world. That's where all of them hang out, they party together, they do business together. I mean, that's an entire universe. It's a social club. And, it's for business. It's for many reasons. And so that is his entire world. And that's what he said was going to get exposed. "For me, I was like, okay, this is this. I can't have anything to do with this. I'm just going to do the right thing. From that moment forward, it was just do the right thing, no matter who gets mad at me. And it's pretty. Believe me, it's pretty incredible to have the President of the United States mad at you, calling you a traitor, saying he's going to destroy you. Those are big words. And they brought really bad death threats, mostly on my son. And that was the part that I couldn't take."

Sense Receptor

129,309 次观看 • 2 个月前

Tim Dillon: “Why did anyone think it would be interesting for Trump to win if he was just gonna do all the things this Deep State wants him to do? What is he doing that they don’t like? He’s in Iran, he kidnapped Maduro, flock cameras are everywhere, the tech people are getting all the money. Who is this Deep State? Who are these people that are really upset and up in arms with him? What would they want him to do that he’s not doing? He seems to be pretty lockstep with all of these people”
1:49

Tim Dillon: “Why did anyone think it would be interesting for Trump to win if he was just gonna do all the things this Deep State wants him to do? What is he doing that they don’t like? He’s in Iran, he kidnapped Maduro, flock cameras are everywhere, the tech people are getting all the money. Who is this Deep State? Who are these people that are really upset and up in arms with him? What would they want him to do that he’s not doing? He seems to be pretty lockstep with all of these people”

It's politics

34,933 次观看 • 12 天前

Jason Day was asked ahead of The Masters whether he has any empathy for what Tiger Woods is going through and he gave a brilliant answer that a lot of people can probably agree with: “So yeah, in regards to Tiger, it just shows the human element and the human side of someone that is struggling with some sort of an addiction. He's not immune to it just because he can hit a golf ball really well. He's had 25 to 30 something surgeries, and when you're going through that many procedures, it's painful coming out of those procedures. I've had procedures done and I typically try and stay away from all that stuff because I just know that -- painkillers, there can potentially be a downfall to it. “Granted, when I look at that, I look at it and go, he's just a human being like everyone else and we have struggles. It's unfortunate, the only thing that I don't understand is that it's a little bit selfish of him to drive and put other people in harm's way, as well. “But when you're the player that he was and how strong-willed he is, he thinks he can do almost anything, and that's probably why he's probably driving and a little bit under the influence. “He was my hero -- he's my hero. He was my hero growing up. The reason why I play golf is because of this tournament and Tiger. It's hard to see him go through what he's going through, and especially under the microscope that -- it must be hard to be who he is and have everything, everyone look on, kind of down on him. “Some people want him to fail. Some people obviously want him to succeed. It's really difficult for me to go through that and watch him, and I know that he's getting the help now, which is good. I'm just hoping he comes out on the other side and is better.” Well said. Jason Day The Masters
1:46

Jason Day was asked ahead of The Masters whether he has any empathy for what Tiger Woods is going through and he gave a brilliant answer that a lot of people can probably agree with: “So yeah, in regards to Tiger, it just shows the human element and the human side of someone that is struggling with some sort of an addiction. He's not immune to it just because he can hit a golf ball really well. He's had 25 to 30 something surgeries, and when you're going through that many procedures, it's painful coming out of those procedures. I've had procedures done and I typically try and stay away from all that stuff because I just know that -- painkillers, there can potentially be a downfall to it. “Granted, when I look at that, I look at it and go, he's just a human being like everyone else and we have struggles. It's unfortunate, the only thing that I don't understand is that it's a little bit selfish of him to drive and put other people in harm's way, as well. “But when you're the player that he was and how strong-willed he is, he thinks he can do almost anything, and that's probably why he's probably driving and a little bit under the influence. “He was my hero -- he's my hero. He was my hero growing up. The reason why I play golf is because of this tournament and Tiger. It's hard to see him go through what he's going through, and especially under the microscope that -- it must be hard to be who he is and have everything, everyone look on, kind of down on him. “Some people want him to fail. Some people obviously want him to succeed. It's really difficult for me to go through that and watch him, and I know that he's getting the help now, which is good. I'm just hoping he comes out on the other side and is better.” Well said. Jason Day The Masters

Flushing It

502,949 次观看 • 4 个月前