Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Eric Weinstein isn't mincing words: Science has become its own worst enemy, clogged with gatekeepers, whisper networks, and "trolls with PhDs" who crush dissent rather than debate it. He points out the irony—physics once spawned molecular biology, the World Wide Web, and semiconductors—yet now it's sidelined while the institutions...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

429,880 subscribers

59,097 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

NEW: RFK Jr. just put all the medical journals bought off by Big Pharma on notice. This includes “The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they’re all corrupt.” Kennedy pointed to the testimony of Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who warned the public that it is “no longer a science journal.” Instead, she called it a “vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda.” Kennedy is shaking up the status quo by cutting ties with these captured publications and building something better. “We’re going to stop NIH scientists from publishing there,” he said. “And we’re going to create our own journals in health in each of the institutions.” He added that these new government-backed journals will become the “preeminent journals” in the world because they’ll be based on real science, not bought outcomes. “If you get NIH funding,” Kennedy said, “it is anointing you as a good, legitimate scientist.”
2:26

NEW: RFK Jr. just put all the medical journals bought off by Big Pharma on notice. This includes “The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they’re all corrupt.” Kennedy pointed to the testimony of Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who warned the public that it is “no longer a science journal.” Instead, she called it a “vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda.” Kennedy is shaking up the status quo by cutting ties with these captured publications and building something better. “We’re going to stop NIH scientists from publishing there,” he said. “And we’re going to create our own journals in health in each of the institutions.” He added that these new government-backed journals will become the “preeminent journals” in the world because they’ll be based on real science, not bought outcomes. “If you get NIH funding,” Kennedy said, “it is anointing you as a good, legitimate scientist.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

194,592 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Eric Weinstein declared open season on string theory's old guard: "You and I have unfinished business." He calls out the most aggressive defenders—Lubos Motl, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, Jeff Harvey, Michael Duff, Andy Strominger, Cumrun Vafa—for allegedly destroying 40 years of competing ideas in physics while claiming "nothing else exists." Now, as cracks appear, Weinstein sees "theoretical retconning" and people "running for the exits": - "It's like Shaggy: It wasn't me." - "Weekend at Lenny's" — protecting a 40-year startup with zero MVP, no investor calls, endless runway. - The sociology? "Anti-science" that should be "hunted and removed with extreme prejudice." He wants a public reckoning: Susskind, Witten, Kaku & co. in a room with the people whose careers/funding they allegedly torpedoed—plus referees like Nima Arkani-Hamed, Edward Frenkel, Peter Woit—to finally ask: "What did we just do for 40 years?" "We're watching the beginning of the collapse." Is string theory's long reign finally facing its Lehman moment—or is this just another round of physics drama?
3:59

Eric Weinstein declared open season on string theory's old guard: "You and I have unfinished business." He calls out the most aggressive defenders—Lubos Motl, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, Jeff Harvey, Michael Duff, Andy Strominger, Cumrun Vafa—for allegedly destroying 40 years of competing ideas in physics while claiming "nothing else exists." Now, as cracks appear, Weinstein sees "theoretical retconning" and people "running for the exits": - "It's like Shaggy: It wasn't me." - "Weekend at Lenny's" — protecting a 40-year startup with zero MVP, no investor calls, endless runway. - The sociology? "Anti-science" that should be "hunted and removed with extreme prejudice." He wants a public reckoning: Susskind, Witten, Kaku & co. in a room with the people whose careers/funding they allegedly torpedoed—plus referees like Nima Arkani-Hamed, Edward Frenkel, Peter Woit—to finally ask: "What did we just do for 40 years?" "We're watching the beginning of the collapse." Is string theory's long reign finally facing its Lehman moment—or is this just another round of physics drama?

Camus

39,551 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Eric Weinstein unleashes a bombshell: Theoretical physics froze in 1973—right as "Crocodile Rock" topped the charts—and hasn't advanced at the deepest level since. Youngest living Nobel in theoretical physics? Always under 50... until string theory took over as "quantum gravity." Now it's over 70. The field stopped producing breakthroughs. His wild claim: The Biden White House reportedly told Marc Andreessen they deliberately stagnated parts of theoretical physics—cocooning string theory as the "only game in town." Dissenting ideas? Career suicide. The trick? Hammer "quantum gravity is the holy grail" on repeat until it feels true. (Weirdly, that phrase barely appears in books before 1972.) Safe, harmless pursuit—no real risk even if foreign students dive in. Why? To avoid dangerous progress that could shatter the speed-of-light limit and get us to the stars... before humanity's tools become too lethal on one fragile planet. Weinstein's rallying cry: Physics is our only path off Earth. Break the stagnation, surpass Einstein, reach the cosmos. The end of physics as we know it might be glorious—if we seize this brief window before wars erupt. Clip from his ARC 2025 talk (4:05 of high-stakes provocation). Does this ring true—the deliberate stall on breakthrough physics? Or is string theory just a victim of its own complexity? What's your take on the "holy grail" mantra?
4:05

Eric Weinstein unleashes a bombshell: Theoretical physics froze in 1973—right as "Crocodile Rock" topped the charts—and hasn't advanced at the deepest level since. Youngest living Nobel in theoretical physics? Always under 50... until string theory took over as "quantum gravity." Now it's over 70. The field stopped producing breakthroughs. His wild claim: The Biden White House reportedly told Marc Andreessen they deliberately stagnated parts of theoretical physics—cocooning string theory as the "only game in town." Dissenting ideas? Career suicide. The trick? Hammer "quantum gravity is the holy grail" on repeat until it feels true. (Weirdly, that phrase barely appears in books before 1972.) Safe, harmless pursuit—no real risk even if foreign students dive in. Why? To avoid dangerous progress that could shatter the speed-of-light limit and get us to the stars... before humanity's tools become too lethal on one fragile planet. Weinstein's rallying cry: Physics is our only path off Earth. Break the stagnation, surpass Einstein, reach the cosmos. The end of physics as we know it might be glorious—if we seize this brief window before wars erupt. Clip from his ARC 2025 talk (4:05 of high-stakes provocation). Does this ring true—the deliberate stall on breakthrough physics? Or is string theory just a victim of its own complexity? What's your take on the "holy grail" mantra?

Camus

150,542 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Of all the doctrines hiding in plain sight, perhaps the most shocking is the one that effectively strips American physicists of their First Amendment rights. As Eric Weinstein powerfully argues, a dangerous legal nexus exists where the 1917 Espionage Act is casually hooked to the 1946/1954 Atomic Energy Acts. This creates a reality where scientists can be legally executed for simply doing their job—for discussing theoretical physics. This constitutional crisis has never been properly tested in the courts, and it represents the world’s largest exemption from free speech, enacted by legislative sneak attack. Weinstein reveals the absurdity: he can spend five days with physics colleagues, give a talk, and yet be forbidden from even stating he did so. This is not how a free society operates. There is no “Restricted Data” category that justifies stripping citizens of their fundamental rights while mounting covert campaigns to silence them. If the physics problem is so grave it requires this, then we must amend the Constitution openly. You cannot manage a nation this badly—its security, its economy, its science—by governing through fear and secrecy. It’s time for a long-overdue conversation. The Supreme Court must not allow this to stand.
2:19

Of all the doctrines hiding in plain sight, perhaps the most shocking is the one that effectively strips American physicists of their First Amendment rights. As Eric Weinstein powerfully argues, a dangerous legal nexus exists where the 1917 Espionage Act is casually hooked to the 1946/1954 Atomic Energy Acts. This creates a reality where scientists can be legally executed for simply doing their job—for discussing theoretical physics. This constitutional crisis has never been properly tested in the courts, and it represents the world’s largest exemption from free speech, enacted by legislative sneak attack. Weinstein reveals the absurdity: he can spend five days with physics colleagues, give a talk, and yet be forbidden from even stating he did so. This is not how a free society operates. There is no “Restricted Data” category that justifies stripping citizens of their fundamental rights while mounting covert campaigns to silence them. If the physics problem is so grave it requires this, then we must amend the Constitution openly. You cannot manage a nation this badly—its security, its economy, its science—by governing through fear and secrecy. It’s time for a long-overdue conversation. The Supreme Court must not allow this to stand.

Camus

34,948 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Eric Weinstein: "I know what some of these UAP are but I can't tell you" He told Joe Rogan "We've lost control of our own airspace, and undisclosed special access programs are at the center of it" Weinstein connects UAP incursions, secret programs, and real physics implications including how this ties into breakthroughs like Geometric Unity that challenge suppressed or hidden tech. He highlights the shutdown of El Paso airspace, linking it directly to White Sands: "I think we have a problem that we've lost control of our airspace." Weinstein points to multiple sources confirming patterns too consistent to dismiss, from craft sightings to programs operating outside normal channels that may involve advanced physics we're not publicly pursuing. This isn't fringe speculation it's about how undisclosed efforts could be holding back or redirecting major scientific progress while our skies are no longer fully ours. The conversation gets heavy on the real world stakes for physics and national security.
8:36

Eric Weinstein: "I know what some of these UAP are but I can't tell you" He told Joe Rogan "We've lost control of our own airspace, and undisclosed special access programs are at the center of it" Weinstein connects UAP incursions, secret programs, and real physics implications including how this ties into breakthroughs like Geometric Unity that challenge suppressed or hidden tech. He highlights the shutdown of El Paso airspace, linking it directly to White Sands: "I think we have a problem that we've lost control of our airspace." Weinstein points to multiple sources confirming patterns too consistent to dismiss, from craft sightings to programs operating outside normal channels that may involve advanced physics we're not publicly pursuing. This isn't fringe speculation it's about how undisclosed efforts could be holding back or redirecting major scientific progress while our skies are no longer fully ours. The conversation gets heavy on the real world stakes for physics and national security.

Interstellar

135,327 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Demis Hassabis has a test for whether AI is actually creative. Give it only the data Einstein had in 1901 and see if it invents relativity. He thinks today's text models will never pass it. This is his bar for true creativity. Not extrapolating something already known. Generating a genuinely new hypothesis about reality that nobody has reached before. The thing Einstein did in 1905 with a handful of papers that rewrote physics. Hassabis wants to hand an AI the same starting data Einstein had and see if it gets there on its own. No peeking past the cutoff. Then he explained why he doubts text alone can do it. Einstein daydreamed his way to relativity. He was a patent clerk imagining what it would look like to ride alongside a beam of light. He ran the experiment in his head first, then proved it with math. Yann LeCun, who won the Turing Award and ran AI at Meta, says the same thing in blunter terms. He says today's models don't understand the physical world as well as a housecat, and that text alone is "complete BS" as a path to real intelligence. Two of the most decorated minds in AI agree the missing piece is the same. Hassabis thinks an AI needs to understand the world of atoms, not just the world of bits. Most of the industry is racing to scale text models. Hassabis just told them the most important kind of thinking might live somewhere text can't reach. --- Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube
1:24

Demis Hassabis has a test for whether AI is actually creative. Give it only the data Einstein had in 1901 and see if it invents relativity. He thinks today's text models will never pass it. This is his bar for true creativity. Not extrapolating something already known. Generating a genuinely new hypothesis about reality that nobody has reached before. The thing Einstein did in 1905 with a handful of papers that rewrote physics. Hassabis wants to hand an AI the same starting data Einstein had and see if it gets there on its own. No peeking past the cutoff. Then he explained why he doubts text alone can do it. Einstein daydreamed his way to relativity. He was a patent clerk imagining what it would look like to ride alongside a beam of light. He ran the experiment in his head first, then proved it with math. Yann LeCun, who won the Turing Award and ran AI at Meta, says the same thing in blunter terms. He says today's models don't understand the physical world as well as a housecat, and that text alone is "complete BS" as a path to real intelligence. Two of the most decorated minds in AI agree the missing piece is the same. Hassabis thinks an AI needs to understand the world of atoms, not just the world of bits. Most of the industry is racing to scale text models. Hassabis just told them the most important kind of thinking might live somewhere text can't reach. --- Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube

Ihtesham Ali

18,905 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?
2:45

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,284,419 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?
0:46

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?

Camus

84,870 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

🚨 BREAKING: Two of the most technically qualified scientists to ever engage with the UFO mystery sat down together for the first time: Dr. Eric Davis, astrophysics PhD who formally investigated the crash retrieval program through classified government channels and Dr. Eric Weinstein (), Harvard math PhD and founder of physics theory, Geometric Unity. Davis confirms that he personally interviewed 5 direct crash retrieval program employees at two legacy aerospace companies (one being TRW, acquired by Northrop) and that the United States holds between 10 and 40 UFOs in its direct possession. He also describes discussing UFOs with George H.W. Bush directly and Jimmy Carter getting briefed on the subject. Finally, Davis says the program only consists of Aerospace engineers. Weinstein's response: if these craft of non-human origin defy the laws of physics, you need top theoretical physicists on the program. Weinstein says either the people running it are criminally incompetent or there are no craft. Sparks flew.🚨 This is the conversation I have been trying to make happen for years. Eric Davis is one of the most credentialed investigator of the UFO crash retrieval program alive with an eidetic memory. Astrophysics PhD from the University of Arizona, 30 years in the field, security clearances through AAWSAP, formally deputized by the DIA under program manager James Lacatski (who himself claims he has stepped inside a UFO and breached the hull). Eric Weinstein is one of the most technically gifted minds outside the classified world, someone Davis himself identified as one of only three people technical and heterodox enough to engage with this material. I put them in a room and let them go at it. This conversation was nothing short of historic. Bombshell Details: Davis Says Roswell Was Real and He Confirmed It Officially: Davis traces his investigation to 1996 at Robert Bigelow's NIDS. Astronaut Ed Mitchell told him Admiral Thomas Wilson, then J2 on the Joint Chiefs, independently verified the 1947 Corona crash was a real non-human craft. Davis later used his DIA credentials through AAWSAP to reach the programmatic level of the operation. His conviction: 100%. Weinstein says he has talked to too many credible people to dismiss it, but has never seen one piece of incontrovertible proof. Davis Interviewed Program Workers. None Were Physicists: Davis met five people from one legacy aerospace company on the program. A material scientist who spent two decades on it. A TRW source who ran the SCIF at Wright-Patterson with access to intact craft in a secured hangar. Not one of Grusch's 40 firsthand witnesses is a theoretical physicist. Davis confirms none of his contacts were either. Weinstein compares this to performing Beethoven's Fifth with accountants and boxers. Eight Decades of Reverse Engineering. Zero Results: Davis's senior VP source confirmed no functional progress after eight decades. They could see how craft were constructed at the nanoscale. Could not reproduce any of it. Davis asked: where are your physicists? Answer: we never had any. Weinstein calls this a two-line proof. If it defies the laws of physics and you have no physicists, you are either the dumbest operation in history or there is nothing to reverse engineer. Weinstein Tells Davis His Physics Won't Work: Davis has published on warp drives and traversable wormholes within general relativity. Weinstein tells him directly: none of it will work. Davis accepts this. Weinstein says if craft break known physics, the answer is not squeezing exotic scenarios out of Einstein. The answer is Einstein is incomplete. Davis agrees. The debate becomes a collaboration. The Golden Age of Gravity Research Vanished in the 1970s: Weinstein identifies a 1971 Australian intelligence document naming physicists like Arnowitt, Desser, Dyson, and Oppenheimer in what reads like a Manhattan Project for Gravity and exotic propulsion. Two apparent cutouts funded work through Bryce DeWitt at UNC and Lewis Witten at a facility called RIAS inside the Martin Company. Sheldon Glashow and Solomon Lefschitz worked there. Then the trail goes cold. Davis noticed the same disappearance in graduate school. No one had an answer. String Theory as a Weapon Against Frontier Physics: After a Princeton junior designed a working atomic weapon from public sources, theoretical physics became too dangerous to leave in the open. String theory consumed the field. 42 years, zero experimental predictions. The Biden White House told Andreessen and Horowitz directly that entire areas of physics were classified in the nuclear era. Davis says he always thought string theory's dominance and the absence of physicists on the crash retrieval program were connected. Weinstein agrees. Weinstein Finds Gravity Hidden in the Strong Nuclear Force: Lazar's "gravity wave A" claim sounds like garbage. Weinstein treats it as garbled proximity information. He identifies a formal possibility: the theta term from QCD, based on the Pontriagin class, transgresses to a Chern-Simons functional: the closest known Lagrangian to Einstein-Hilbert, which governs gravity. Davis calls it remarkable. Weinstein believes this is the first time the connection has been stated publicly. Renaissance Technologies as the Possible Physics Brain Trust: If a secret physics program exists, track where frontier physicists cluster. Renaissance Technologies hires differential geometers and topologists. Sits next to Brookhaven National Lab. Draws from SUNY Stony Brook, where C.N. Yang was based. Returns resemble state-sponsored performance. Weinstein told Jim Simons before his death that Chern-Simons theory is the closest Lagrangian to Einstein-Hilbert. Simons invited him to Stony Brook for a year, then asked where he would find the funding. He was worth over $20 billion. The Wilson-Davis Notes Are Confirmed Authentic: Davis confirms the typewritten notes are real, legitimate, and 100% accurate. They describe former J2 Admiral Wilson being denied access to a crash retrieval program inside a private aerospace company funded from his own DIA budget. He was told he lacked need-to-know and met with Davis out of frustration. Davis wants blanket immunity to say everything about this meeting but confirms the notes are real. Why This Matters: These two arrive from opposite directions and land on the same problem. Davis has total certainty non-human craft exist in American possession. Weinstein cannot construct a single theory that explains the full landscape of claims and missing evidence. Both say the absence of theoretical physicists is indefensible. Davis wants access to the hardware. Weinstein wants the right minds inserted. The question Davis asks: let us in. The question Weinstein asks is sharper: if you will not let physicists in, what exactly are you protecting? Full conversation covers all of this and much more. Special thanks to Missileman for co-hosting! One of the most important episodes we have ever done live now 👇
2:35

🚨 BREAKING: Two of the most technically qualified scientists to ever engage with the UFO mystery sat down together for the first time: Dr. Eric Davis, astrophysics PhD who formally investigated the crash retrieval program through classified government channels and Dr. Eric Weinstein (), Harvard math PhD and founder of physics theory, Geometric Unity. Davis confirms that he personally interviewed 5 direct crash retrieval program employees at two legacy aerospace companies (one being TRW, acquired by Northrop) and that the United States holds between 10 and 40 UFOs in its direct possession. He also describes discussing UFOs with George H.W. Bush directly and Jimmy Carter getting briefed on the subject. Finally, Davis says the program only consists of Aerospace engineers. Weinstein's response: if these craft of non-human origin defy the laws of physics, you need top theoretical physicists on the program. Weinstein says either the people running it are criminally incompetent or there are no craft. Sparks flew.🚨 This is the conversation I have been trying to make happen for years. Eric Davis is one of the most credentialed investigator of the UFO crash retrieval program alive with an eidetic memory. Astrophysics PhD from the University of Arizona, 30 years in the field, security clearances through AAWSAP, formally deputized by the DIA under program manager James Lacatski (who himself claims he has stepped inside a UFO and breached the hull). Eric Weinstein is one of the most technically gifted minds outside the classified world, someone Davis himself identified as one of only three people technical and heterodox enough to engage with this material. I put them in a room and let them go at it. This conversation was nothing short of historic. Bombshell Details: Davis Says Roswell Was Real and He Confirmed It Officially: Davis traces his investigation to 1996 at Robert Bigelow's NIDS. Astronaut Ed Mitchell told him Admiral Thomas Wilson, then J2 on the Joint Chiefs, independently verified the 1947 Corona crash was a real non-human craft. Davis later used his DIA credentials through AAWSAP to reach the programmatic level of the operation. His conviction: 100%. Weinstein says he has talked to too many credible people to dismiss it, but has never seen one piece of incontrovertible proof. Davis Interviewed Program Workers. None Were Physicists: Davis met five people from one legacy aerospace company on the program. A material scientist who spent two decades on it. A TRW source who ran the SCIF at Wright-Patterson with access to intact craft in a secured hangar. Not one of Grusch's 40 firsthand witnesses is a theoretical physicist. Davis confirms none of his contacts were either. Weinstein compares this to performing Beethoven's Fifth with accountants and boxers. Eight Decades of Reverse Engineering. Zero Results: Davis's senior VP source confirmed no functional progress after eight decades. They could see how craft were constructed at the nanoscale. Could not reproduce any of it. Davis asked: where are your physicists? Answer: we never had any. Weinstein calls this a two-line proof. If it defies the laws of physics and you have no physicists, you are either the dumbest operation in history or there is nothing to reverse engineer. Weinstein Tells Davis His Physics Won't Work: Davis has published on warp drives and traversable wormholes within general relativity. Weinstein tells him directly: none of it will work. Davis accepts this. Weinstein says if craft break known physics, the answer is not squeezing exotic scenarios out of Einstein. The answer is Einstein is incomplete. Davis agrees. The debate becomes a collaboration. The Golden Age of Gravity Research Vanished in the 1970s: Weinstein identifies a 1971 Australian intelligence document naming physicists like Arnowitt, Desser, Dyson, and Oppenheimer in what reads like a Manhattan Project for Gravity and exotic propulsion. Two apparent cutouts funded work through Bryce DeWitt at UNC and Lewis Witten at a facility called RIAS inside the Martin Company. Sheldon Glashow and Solomon Lefschitz worked there. Then the trail goes cold. Davis noticed the same disappearance in graduate school. No one had an answer. String Theory as a Weapon Against Frontier Physics: After a Princeton junior designed a working atomic weapon from public sources, theoretical physics became too dangerous to leave in the open. String theory consumed the field. 42 years, zero experimental predictions. The Biden White House told Andreessen and Horowitz directly that entire areas of physics were classified in the nuclear era. Davis says he always thought string theory's dominance and the absence of physicists on the crash retrieval program were connected. Weinstein agrees. Weinstein Finds Gravity Hidden in the Strong Nuclear Force: Lazar's "gravity wave A" claim sounds like garbage. Weinstein treats it as garbled proximity information. He identifies a formal possibility: the theta term from QCD, based on the Pontriagin class, transgresses to a Chern-Simons functional: the closest known Lagrangian to Einstein-Hilbert, which governs gravity. Davis calls it remarkable. Weinstein believes this is the first time the connection has been stated publicly. Renaissance Technologies as the Possible Physics Brain Trust: If a secret physics program exists, track where frontier physicists cluster. Renaissance Technologies hires differential geometers and topologists. Sits next to Brookhaven National Lab. Draws from SUNY Stony Brook, where C.N. Yang was based. Returns resemble state-sponsored performance. Weinstein told Jim Simons before his death that Chern-Simons theory is the closest Lagrangian to Einstein-Hilbert. Simons invited him to Stony Brook for a year, then asked where he would find the funding. He was worth over $20 billion. The Wilson-Davis Notes Are Confirmed Authentic: Davis confirms the typewritten notes are real, legitimate, and 100% accurate. They describe former J2 Admiral Wilson being denied access to a crash retrieval program inside a private aerospace company funded from his own DIA budget. He was told he lacked need-to-know and met with Davis out of frustration. Davis wants blanket immunity to say everything about this meeting but confirms the notes are real. Why This Matters: These two arrive from opposite directions and land on the same problem. Davis has total certainty non-human craft exist in American possession. Weinstein cannot construct a single theory that explains the full landscape of claims and missing evidence. Both say the absence of theoretical physicists is indefensible. Davis wants access to the hardware. Weinstein wants the right minds inserted. The question Davis asks: let us in. The question Weinstein asks is sharper: if you will not let physicists in, what exactly are you protecting? Full conversation covers all of this and much more. Special thanks to Missileman for co-hosting! One of the most important episodes we have ever done live now 👇

Jesse Michels

308,922 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Yesterday, I got a call from a senior government official. No formalitiit just a location. A bar near State House Road. That’s where power talks when it can’t breathe behind boardroom curtains. We met. The beers came first, then the roast chicken. But beneath the smiles and the nostalgia of our days as political foot soldiers men who bled loyalty for William Ruto in the fire of 2022 was a deeper truth. A disturbing one. The man looked both excited and broken. You could see it in his eyes. He poured his drink like someone drowning from the inside. Then he said it: "The boss is unteachable." He didn’t mean that casually. He meant power has completely changed William Ruto. That man is no longer who we stood with. Arrogance has replaced strategy. Insulation has replaced listening. The ground is shaking, but up there, the castle is deaf. People in government are scared not of the opposition, but of their own reflection in the public eye. The lies are catching up. Then he dropped a bomb: "UDA is dead. Mark my words, people will jump this sinking ship when it's too late to rescue it." He said ODM, for all its baggage, is quietly rebranding. While UDA is busy cannibalizing itself with tribal politics, chaos, and infighting. Raila Odinga, he claims, is playing chess while Ruto's house is burning. 80% he wants Ruto out. 20% he's scouting a soft landing just in case possibly through Kalonzo. But the elephant in the room? Rigathi Gachagua. They fear him. Deeply. Even Raila’s circle isn’t comfortable with the idea of sharing the table with that man. The arrogance, the tribal rigidity, the raw ambition it’s a liability. Then came the blunt truth: “If Raila is to support Ruto in 2027, it will be 50:50 or nothing. And Ruto doesn’t care as long as he wins. Even if Raila gets 60% of the cake.” But here's the problem: the only realistic path to Ruto winning is through rigging. And they all know it. That’s the silent fear not defeat, but exposure. The kind of exposure that not even the deep state can clean. He dropped me at KICC. Quiet. No goodbyes. Just handed me an envelope marked “Confidential”. It had an amount too bold to be a gift and too polite to be a bribe. Call it appreciation or hush money. I won’t reveal the rest. Not now. For my own safety. Time to shave my hair and clean my mind. But remember this: the system is cracking from within and the noise will come from those who once worshipped it.
0:24

Yesterday, I got a call from a senior government official. No formalitiit just a location. A bar near State House Road. That’s where power talks when it can’t breathe behind boardroom curtains. We met. The beers came first, then the roast chicken. But beneath the smiles and the nostalgia of our days as political foot soldiers men who bled loyalty for William Ruto in the fire of 2022 was a deeper truth. A disturbing one. The man looked both excited and broken. You could see it in his eyes. He poured his drink like someone drowning from the inside. Then he said it: "The boss is unteachable." He didn’t mean that casually. He meant power has completely changed William Ruto. That man is no longer who we stood with. Arrogance has replaced strategy. Insulation has replaced listening. The ground is shaking, but up there, the castle is deaf. People in government are scared not of the opposition, but of their own reflection in the public eye. The lies are catching up. Then he dropped a bomb: "UDA is dead. Mark my words, people will jump this sinking ship when it's too late to rescue it." He said ODM, for all its baggage, is quietly rebranding. While UDA is busy cannibalizing itself with tribal politics, chaos, and infighting. Raila Odinga, he claims, is playing chess while Ruto's house is burning. 80% he wants Ruto out. 20% he's scouting a soft landing just in case possibly through Kalonzo. But the elephant in the room? Rigathi Gachagua. They fear him. Deeply. Even Raila’s circle isn’t comfortable with the idea of sharing the table with that man. The arrogance, the tribal rigidity, the raw ambition it’s a liability. Then came the blunt truth: “If Raila is to support Ruto in 2027, it will be 50:50 or nothing. And Ruto doesn’t care as long as he wins. Even if Raila gets 60% of the cake.” But here's the problem: the only realistic path to Ruto winning is through rigging. And they all know it. That’s the silent fear not defeat, but exposure. The kind of exposure that not even the deep state can clean. He dropped me at KICC. Quiet. No goodbyes. Just handed me an envelope marked “Confidential”. It had an amount too bold to be a gift and too polite to be a bribe. Call it appreciation or hush money. I won’t reveal the rest. Not now. For my own safety. Time to shave my hair and clean my mind. But remember this: the system is cracking from within and the noise will come from those who once worshipped it.

𝙋𝘼𝙐𝙇

165,876 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.
4:05

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.

Camus

536,973 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.
0:54

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The future encounter between Mark Grayson and Immortal is a quiet but deeply unsettling moment. Mark travels into the future with one goal—to kill Immortal and stop a dark timeline from continuing—but what he finds is far from the powerful leader he once knew. The world around them feels empty and worn down, reflecting the state of Immortal himself. When Mark finally meets him, Immortal is no longer stable or composed. Centuries of living have taken a toll on his mind. He appears confused, almost fragile, weighed down by endless time and the loss of everyone he has ever known. Instead of attacking, Immortal begins to speak in a way that immediately shifts the tension. He looks at Mark with a strange sense of recognition and curiosity, as if searching for answers. He starts talking about his condition—not as a power, but as a sickness. To him, immortality has become something unbearable, something that has slowly destroyed his sense of self. He asks Mark if he has found a cure… not for death, but for his sickness. The question carries a quiet desperation. Immortal is not afraid to die; instead, he seems to welcome the idea of it. What he truly wants is relief from the endless burden of living. His words reveal a man who is mentally exhausted, someone who has lived far beyond what any mind can handle. For Mark, the moment becomes more than a mission. He is forced to face the reality of what Immortal has become—a broken version of a hero, and possibly a glimpse of what unchecked time and power could do to him as well.
0:55

The future encounter between Mark Grayson and Immortal is a quiet but deeply unsettling moment. Mark travels into the future with one goal—to kill Immortal and stop a dark timeline from continuing—but what he finds is far from the powerful leader he once knew. The world around them feels empty and worn down, reflecting the state of Immortal himself. When Mark finally meets him, Immortal is no longer stable or composed. Centuries of living have taken a toll on his mind. He appears confused, almost fragile, weighed down by endless time and the loss of everyone he has ever known. Instead of attacking, Immortal begins to speak in a way that immediately shifts the tension. He looks at Mark with a strange sense of recognition and curiosity, as if searching for answers. He starts talking about his condition—not as a power, but as a sickness. To him, immortality has become something unbearable, something that has slowly destroyed his sense of self. He asks Mark if he has found a cure… not for death, but for his sickness. The question carries a quiet desperation. Immortal is not afraid to die; instead, he seems to welcome the idea of it. What he truly wants is relief from the endless burden of living. His words reveal a man who is mentally exhausted, someone who has lived far beyond what any mind can handle. For Mark, the moment becomes more than a mission. He is forced to face the reality of what Immortal has become—a broken version of a hero, and possibly a glimpse of what unchecked time and power could do to him as well.

Samuel C. Okanume

19,955 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Richard Feynman didn’t just revolutionize physics; he diagnosed the fundamental sickness of modern status-seeking. To Feynman, the Nobel Prize was a "pain in the neck." While the world fixates on the external validation of the Swedish Academy, he viewed the "honors" as fundamentally unreal—a distraction from the only metric that actually matters in high-level pursuit. His philosophy provides a masterclass in intellectual autonomy: 1. The Kick of Discovery: The "prize" is the moment of insight, not the medal. If the work itself isn’t the reward, the accolade is a hollow substitute. 2. The Utility Filter: Real prestige isn't a title; it’s the observation that other brilliant people are actually using your work to build the future. 3. The Institutional Trap: He resigned from the National Academy of Science because it devolved into a "who's who" club. When an organization spends more time gatekeeping than innovating, it’s dead. We live in an era of "profile-first" achievement where the badge often precedes the breakthrough. Feynman reminds us that true "nobility" in work isn't decided by a committee—it’s found in the pleasure of finding the thing out. Validation is a lagging indicator. Focus on the kick. In a world obsessed with digital badges and titles, what is the one "kick of discovery" in your own work that no trophy could ever replace?
0:58

Richard Feynman didn’t just revolutionize physics; he diagnosed the fundamental sickness of modern status-seeking. To Feynman, the Nobel Prize was a "pain in the neck." While the world fixates on the external validation of the Swedish Academy, he viewed the "honors" as fundamentally unreal—a distraction from the only metric that actually matters in high-level pursuit. His philosophy provides a masterclass in intellectual autonomy: 1. The Kick of Discovery: The "prize" is the moment of insight, not the medal. If the work itself isn’t the reward, the accolade is a hollow substitute. 2. The Utility Filter: Real prestige isn't a title; it’s the observation that other brilliant people are actually using your work to build the future. 3. The Institutional Trap: He resigned from the National Academy of Science because it devolved into a "who's who" club. When an organization spends more time gatekeeping than innovating, it’s dead. We live in an era of "profile-first" achievement where the badge often precedes the breakthrough. Feynman reminds us that true "nobility" in work isn't decided by a committee—it’s found in the pleasure of finding the thing out. Validation is a lagging indicator. Focus on the kick. In a world obsessed with digital badges and titles, what is the one "kick of discovery" in your own work that no trophy could ever replace?

Camus

27,919 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is a day when words grow heavy. For what we feel goes beyond ordinary pain; What we experience surpasses ordinary mourning. In these days, we stand in silence filled with prayer. Our Holy Patriarch, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II, has gone to be with the Lord bringing with him his labor and his works. We, his people, his flock, his spiritual children, are his works. The Lord sent him to us as one man, and he returns with an entire nation - so visibly, so united, so unified, as has been revealed in these solemn days. We are the generation of the Patriarch. We are witnesses to a unique event, when an entire nation is spiritually united around one person; When every active clergyman in Georgia has been ordained with his blessing; When nearly all Christians in Georgia have been baptized with his blessing. The present state, character, and form of our two-thousand-year-old Church have been shaped by him. His Holiness and Beatitude became that firm link for our nation and Church that connected our past to the present, and the present to the future, in an apocalyptic era of godlessness and nihilism. Truly, we have witnessed a miracle from God - the Georgian Church, risen from the ashes and shaped by him alone anew, with his own hands. He was able to do this because he understood what mattered most. In today’s world, many values compete for primacy - freedom, equality, solidarity, justice. His Holiness and Beatitude gave each its proper place, but taught us the most important truth: freedom, equality, and all other things lose their meaning if they are not grounded in the highest value - love. We had a Patriarch of love, whose tireless preaching embodied it. Through his life, he became an example of how one can love all: one’s own and strangers, friends and enemies, the righteous and sinners. He accomplished the impossible - as a Christian, he fulfilled the law of Christ; as a monk, he kept his vows; as a Patriarch, he bore the heaviest cross of his nation. His earthly journey has ended, but love remains - his love for us, which in these days the whole nation has returned with gratitude. This was his main dream: to see his nation united in the Church of Christ. He accomplished this. And thus he has entered the presence of the Lord - righteous and full of grace. It is we, his generation - those who lived with him, saw him, felt his grace, and bear witness to his greatness. But his story does not end here. After us, once again, his generation will continue the path - the generation of his godchildren, our children, who carry his name, his blessing, and his grace. In this way, he built a bridge across time and bound our nation together. “Great are You, O Lord, and wondrous are Your works.” May the memory of our Patriarch be eternal! May his prayers and intercession protect all of Georgia!
2:24

This is a day when words grow heavy. For what we feel goes beyond ordinary pain; What we experience surpasses ordinary mourning. In these days, we stand in silence filled with prayer. Our Holy Patriarch, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II, has gone to be with the Lord bringing with him his labor and his works. We, his people, his flock, his spiritual children, are his works. The Lord sent him to us as one man, and he returns with an entire nation - so visibly, so united, so unified, as has been revealed in these solemn days. We are the generation of the Patriarch. We are witnesses to a unique event, when an entire nation is spiritually united around one person; When every active clergyman in Georgia has been ordained with his blessing; When nearly all Christians in Georgia have been baptized with his blessing. The present state, character, and form of our two-thousand-year-old Church have been shaped by him. His Holiness and Beatitude became that firm link for our nation and Church that connected our past to the present, and the present to the future, in an apocalyptic era of godlessness and nihilism. Truly, we have witnessed a miracle from God - the Georgian Church, risen from the ashes and shaped by him alone anew, with his own hands. He was able to do this because he understood what mattered most. In today’s world, many values compete for primacy - freedom, equality, solidarity, justice. His Holiness and Beatitude gave each its proper place, but taught us the most important truth: freedom, equality, and all other things lose their meaning if they are not grounded in the highest value - love. We had a Patriarch of love, whose tireless preaching embodied it. Through his life, he became an example of how one can love all: one’s own and strangers, friends and enemies, the righteous and sinners. He accomplished the impossible - as a Christian, he fulfilled the law of Christ; as a monk, he kept his vows; as a Patriarch, he bore the heaviest cross of his nation. His earthly journey has ended, but love remains - his love for us, which in these days the whole nation has returned with gratitude. This was his main dream: to see his nation united in the Church of Christ. He accomplished this. And thus he has entered the presence of the Lord - righteous and full of grace. It is we, his generation - those who lived with him, saw him, felt his grace, and bear witness to his greatness. But his story does not end here. After us, once again, his generation will continue the path - the generation of his godchildren, our children, who carry his name, his blessing, and his grace. In this way, he built a bridge across time and bound our nation together. “Great are You, O Lord, and wondrous are Your works.” May the memory of our Patriarch be eternal! May his prayers and intercession protect all of Georgia!

Shalva Papuashvili 🇬🇪

35,496 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is why smart people rarely build businesses Jensen Huang stood in front of a room of Stanford graduates and told them he hopes they suffer. He wasn't being cruel. He was being precise. His argument: people with very high expectations have very low resilience. And resilience, not intelligence, is what decides who actually makes it. A Stanford grad has spent their whole life as the smartest person in the room. They've rarely been tested by real failure. So when something finally breaks, they break with it. Then he said the line every founder should sit with: "Greatness is not intelligence. Greatness comes from character. And character isn't formed out of smart people, it's formed out of people who suffered." He would know. At nine, Huang was scrubbing toilets at a Kentucky boarding school his family hadn't realized was a reform school. As a teenager he bussed tables at Denny's. In 1993 he started NVIDIA in a Denny's booth, and nearly lost it more than once in the years that followed. The character was built decades before the valuation showed up. This is why he uses the words "pain and suffering" inside NVIDIA with what he calls great glee. He isn't trying to shield his best people from the hard part. He's trying to give it to them on purpose. Talent gets you into the room. The people who stay are the ones who were broken once and learned they could rebuild.
2:13

This is why smart people rarely build businesses Jensen Huang stood in front of a room of Stanford graduates and told them he hopes they suffer. He wasn't being cruel. He was being precise. His argument: people with very high expectations have very low resilience. And resilience, not intelligence, is what decides who actually makes it. A Stanford grad has spent their whole life as the smartest person in the room. They've rarely been tested by real failure. So when something finally breaks, they break with it. Then he said the line every founder should sit with: "Greatness is not intelligence. Greatness comes from character. And character isn't formed out of smart people, it's formed out of people who suffered." He would know. At nine, Huang was scrubbing toilets at a Kentucky boarding school his family hadn't realized was a reform school. As a teenager he bussed tables at Denny's. In 1993 he started NVIDIA in a Denny's booth, and nearly lost it more than once in the years that followed. The character was built decades before the valuation showed up. This is why he uses the words "pain and suffering" inside NVIDIA with what he calls great glee. He isn't trying to shield his best people from the hard part. He's trying to give it to them on purpose. Talent gets you into the room. The people who stay are the ones who were broken once and learned they could rebuild.

Shruti

272,111 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,628 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The hypocrisy is staggering. Paul Offit—who famously claimed a child could handle 10,000 vaccines at once—is now calling for Trump to fire RFK Jr. This isn't about safety; it's about silencing critics to protect his own conflicted empire. Let's fact-check Offit: ✅ 10,000 Vaccines Claim: He actually said this. In a 2002 paper, he argued the immune system could theoretically handle thousands of shots—a wild, out-of-touch hypothetical that ignores real-world toxicology. ✅ Major Pharma Ties: Offit co-invented the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, which was licensed to Merck. He and his institution have reaped millions from it. ✅ Advisory Panel Conflicts: While serving on government vaccine advisory boards, he was personally profiting from the very vaccine policies he was helping to set. Now he's smearing the new, independent ACIP simply for asking questions. He attacks RFK Jr. for demanding actual safety science because honest scrutiny is bad for business. He doesn't want debate; he wants deference. Our children's health deserves better than a salesman using his platform to shut down inquiry and protect his financial interests.
3:24

The hypocrisy is staggering. Paul Offit—who famously claimed a child could handle 10,000 vaccines at once—is now calling for Trump to fire RFK Jr. This isn't about safety; it's about silencing critics to protect his own conflicted empire. Let's fact-check Offit: ✅ 10,000 Vaccines Claim: He actually said this. In a 2002 paper, he argued the immune system could theoretically handle thousands of shots—a wild, out-of-touch hypothetical that ignores real-world toxicology. ✅ Major Pharma Ties: Offit co-invented the rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq, which was licensed to Merck. He and his institution have reaped millions from it. ✅ Advisory Panel Conflicts: While serving on government vaccine advisory boards, he was personally profiting from the very vaccine policies he was helping to set. Now he's smearing the new, independent ACIP simply for asking questions. He attacks RFK Jr. for demanding actual safety science because honest scrutiny is bad for business. He doesn't want debate; he wants deference. Our children's health deserves better than a salesman using his platform to shut down inquiry and protect his financial interests.

Camus

68,115 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Steve Jobs' team told him to his face that his ship date was reality distortion. He agreed with their evidence and kept the date anyway. The tape explains a decision rule most founders never learn. December 1985. NeXT is 90 days old, funded with Jobs' own money after he left Apple. At the first company retreat, the team debates slipping the launch from spring 1987 to spring 1988. The pushback is brutal and specific. One team member has receipts: "We've got a person here that said he could do a word processor in six months that's taking three years." Another names the danger: "Reality distortion is reality distortion. It has its motivational value." Build the plan on a fake date, and every design decision made from it gets torn up later. Jobs does not argue the evidence. "Well, George, I can't change the world." He argues something else entirely: "I think we have to drive a stake in the ground somewhere. And I think if we miss this window, then a whole series of events come into play." "We can't sell enough units in 87 to pay for our operating costs." Colleges buy computers in the summer. The campus surveys had already put the ceiling at $3,000. Miss spring 1987, and NeXT sells nothing for a year while burning his money. "We have 18 months. So I don't think we have a company if we don't do this. No matter what I say or anybody else says, that is my deepest belief. If we don't do this, we will not be able to attract great people. We will not be able to retain some of the ones we have." My note: the team argued estimates. Jobs argued conditions. An estimate says when the work might be done, and it invites negotiation. A condition says when the company is dead, and it does not negotiate. That is why the stake held. He anchored the date to the market's calendar and his own runway, not to optimism. The engineers could refute the schedule. Nobody in the room could refute the window. The uncomfortable version for founders: if your deadline comes from your team's estimates, it will move. If it comes from the physics of your market, it was never really a deadline. It is a survival condition wearing one. Steve Jobs at the first NeXT retreat, December 1985. Footage released by the Steve Jobs Archive in May 2026. Founders: if you want your X to do this for your business, check the first reply.
2:56

Steve Jobs' team told him to his face that his ship date was reality distortion. He agreed with their evidence and kept the date anyway. The tape explains a decision rule most founders never learn. December 1985. NeXT is 90 days old, funded with Jobs' own money after he left Apple. At the first company retreat, the team debates slipping the launch from spring 1987 to spring 1988. The pushback is brutal and specific. One team member has receipts: "We've got a person here that said he could do a word processor in six months that's taking three years." Another names the danger: "Reality distortion is reality distortion. It has its motivational value." Build the plan on a fake date, and every design decision made from it gets torn up later. Jobs does not argue the evidence. "Well, George, I can't change the world." He argues something else entirely: "I think we have to drive a stake in the ground somewhere. And I think if we miss this window, then a whole series of events come into play." "We can't sell enough units in 87 to pay for our operating costs." Colleges buy computers in the summer. The campus surveys had already put the ceiling at $3,000. Miss spring 1987, and NeXT sells nothing for a year while burning his money. "We have 18 months. So I don't think we have a company if we don't do this. No matter what I say or anybody else says, that is my deepest belief. If we don't do this, we will not be able to attract great people. We will not be able to retain some of the ones we have." My note: the team argued estimates. Jobs argued conditions. An estimate says when the work might be done, and it invites negotiation. A condition says when the company is dead, and it does not negotiate. That is why the stake held. He anchored the date to the market's calendar and his own runway, not to optimism. The engineers could refute the schedule. Nobody in the room could refute the window. The uncomfortable version for founders: if your deadline comes from your team's estimates, it will move. If it comes from the physics of your market, it was never really a deadline. It is a survival condition wearing one. Steve Jobs at the first NeXT retreat, December 1985. Footage released by the Steve Jobs Archive in May 2026. Founders: if you want your X to do this for your business, check the first reply.

Andrej Drats

253,617 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

We Will Protect IPOB Jealously We were on our own building this freedom movement for over 10 years, creating global awareness for Biafra self-determination and from no where Ekpa jumped in and started calling for the destruction of a movement he was never part of. He went on creating chaos and carrying out violent activities with the name of movement people paid with their blood to build. The consequences of his actions will be huge. I don't mind spending another10 years in making sure he pays for his treachery. If we don't set an example with Ekpa, others will try to toe his line in future. I wouldn't have any issues with him had it been he came to genuinely create his own platform, and build his freedom movement. We have other Freedom movement and, we have no issues with them as long as your activities is not jeopardizing the sanctity of the Biafra quest, or oppressing the people of Biafra which supposedly alongside IPOB, agitating to protect, we have no problem with you. What we want is Biafra. And Biafra doesn't belong to IPOB or Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It belongs to every Biafran. It is a collective heritage. But, Some of you yapping nonsense and supporting Ekpa were sleeping and clubbing with APC and PDP when we were moving from market to market, from shop to shop, from church to mosque, from office to office, from embassy to embassy, from state to state, from region to region from country to country from meeting to meeting, facing all sorts of humiliation, rejection and sometimes acceptance and encouragement. We can't just look back with so much hard work and huge sacrifice and one idiot from somewhere jumped in and started making caricatures of our pains and blood. If we can't secure IPOB it means we are not qualified to have Biafra as nation. And, we will protect IPOB jealously with the last drop of our blood from state-actors and their destructive proxies. #EmekaGift #Code0530 #FreeBiafra #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #BiafraReferendum
0:52

We Will Protect IPOB Jealously We were on our own building this freedom movement for over 10 years, creating global awareness for Biafra self-determination and from no where Ekpa jumped in and started calling for the destruction of a movement he was never part of. He went on creating chaos and carrying out violent activities with the name of movement people paid with their blood to build. The consequences of his actions will be huge. I don't mind spending another10 years in making sure he pays for his treachery. If we don't set an example with Ekpa, others will try to toe his line in future. I wouldn't have any issues with him had it been he came to genuinely create his own platform, and build his freedom movement. We have other Freedom movement and, we have no issues with them as long as your activities is not jeopardizing the sanctity of the Biafra quest, or oppressing the people of Biafra which supposedly alongside IPOB, agitating to protect, we have no problem with you. What we want is Biafra. And Biafra doesn't belong to IPOB or Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It belongs to every Biafran. It is a collective heritage. But, Some of you yapping nonsense and supporting Ekpa were sleeping and clubbing with APC and PDP when we were moving from market to market, from shop to shop, from church to mosque, from office to office, from embassy to embassy, from state to state, from region to region from country to country from meeting to meeting, facing all sorts of humiliation, rejection and sometimes acceptance and encouragement. We can't just look back with so much hard work and huge sacrifice and one idiot from somewhere jumped in and started making caricatures of our pains and blood. If we can't secure IPOB it means we are not qualified to have Biafra as nation. And, we will protect IPOB jealously with the last drop of our blood from state-actors and their destructive proxies. #EmekaGift #Code0530 #FreeBiafra #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #BiafraReferendum

Emeka Gift Official

27,193 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr