Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Every VC in the market is now reading the same customer call transcripts. That is not an edge. That is a commodity. The moment diligence becomes something you read instead of something you do in person, it stops being diligence. Michael B. Gilroy , co-founder of Marathon Management Partners,... which runs $400 million across software and fintech. "If all my competitors are reading the same transcript, who cares? What am I going to learn from that that's differentiated from the market?" he told me. "You will know if I'm lying, if my eyes are darting around the room, the classic touching your nose." AI gave every investor the same call notes. It did not give anyone an edge, because an edge that everyone has is not an edge. The firms still doing customer back channels, still getting on Zoom, still watching a founder's eyes when they answer a hard question, are the ones who will actually know something the market does not. The humans who stayed in the room are about to get paid for it.show more

David Weisburd 🚀

23,024 subscribers

10,599 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

7 Comments

Matt Patterson2 months ago

@MBGilroy Agree @MBGilroy! We fly all late diligence founders in and spend a full day with them. There’s so much you can’t get from Zoom.

Ryan Denehy2 months ago

@MBGilroy It hasn't really changed! Four years ago during our Series D three different firms presented their "exhaustive customer research" and it was quotes from the same four or five customers

Michael B. Gilroy2 months ago

Get on the plane. Spend the extra 20 mins to get a solid back channel.

Dirty Indy 🟥🟧🟨2 months ago

@MBGilroy Sound call out

David Weisburd 🚀2 months ago

Watch full episode:

Dara2 months ago

@MBGilroy I genuinely don't know any Investors who are not speaking or talking to investors directly

Jason傑森 🇭🇰 | 🛠️2 months ago

@MBGilroy 这帖子倒真说了句对的

Related Videos

an institutional trader who was personally recruited by andy krieger has asked every retail trader he meets the same question for 14 years: what is your edge? "you know how many times I've gotten a legitimate answer to that question? zero. literally not once." the answers he gets: I follow smart money. I have excellent risk management. I know a chart pattern that works all the time. his definition of what they should be saying: "an edge is a mechanical cause and effect relationship in the market that is repeatable enough for you to take advantage of it and profit from it over time." I see the same thing, most have zero edge.

an institutional trader who was personally recruited by andy krieger has asked every retail trader he meets the same question for 14 years: what is your edge? "you know how many times I've gotten a legitimate answer to that question? zero. literally not once." the answers he gets: I follow smart money. I have excellent risk management. I know a chart pattern that works all the time. his definition of what they should be saying: "an edge is a mechanical cause and effect relationship in the market that is repeatable enough for you to take advantage of it and profit from it over time." I see the same thing, most have zero edge.

Goshawk Trades

126,077 views • 1 month ago

🚨 An Inconvenient Study has now reached 130 million views worldwide, and Del Bigtree is taking it to Europe! The film runs about 70 minutes, and Del makes the case that the value is not in what you already know; it is in having something that is clear and that is well-packaged to put in front of the people in your life who are still open to it. Something you can actually get someone to sit down and watch. The European screening schedule is coming together fast. 💥Padua - May 22nd 💥Rome - May 24th 💥Paris and Lyon - June 7th Del will be at every event, and he is not making a vague promise. He said he will stand and personally meet every single person in the room, and if you know Del, you know he means it. This is The HighWire worldwide, showing up in person across Italy and France. If you are anywhere near these cities or know someone who is, now is the time to make it happen.

🚨 An Inconvenient Study has now reached 130 million views worldwide, and Del Bigtree is taking it to Europe! The film runs about 70 minutes, and Del makes the case that the value is not in what you already know; it is in having something that is clear and that is well-packaged to put in front of the people in your life who are still open to it. Something you can actually get someone to sit down and watch. The European screening schedule is coming together fast. 💥Padua - May 22nd 💥Rome - May 24th 💥Paris and Lyon - June 7th Del will be at every event, and he is not making a vague promise. He said he will stand and personally meet every single person in the room, and if you know Del, you know he means it. This is The HighWire worldwide, showing up in person across Italy and France. If you are anywhere near these cities or know someone who is, now is the time to make it happen.

An Inconvenient Study

42,656 views • 4 months ago

David Tepper on what to do when you have zero edge: "i don't have an opinion on the stock market. i just don't feel it being involved. i'm here on the bond market... i definitely have more of an opinion on this one." most guys feel physically sick if they are not in an active trade. if the market is chopping sideways in a muddy range, they will just force an entry anyway. they sit there clicking buttons and handing their account balance to the algos out of pure boredom Tepper runs a massive fund, and his biggest flex is simply admitting when he has no clue what the stock market is about to do instead of guessing, he takes his money and moves it to a completely different market where the setup is actually clean and the central banks are telling him exactly what they want you do not have to trade every single day. you do not have to trade the same ticker all year. if the chart looks like trash and you have no read on it, sitting in cash is a real position stop forcing plays just to feel something. only step in when the math makes sense bookmark and watch the 2016 archive here

David Tepper on what to do when you have zero edge: "i don't have an opinion on the stock market. i just don't feel it being involved. i'm here on the bond market... i definitely have more of an opinion on this one." most guys feel physically sick if they are not in an active trade. if the market is chopping sideways in a muddy range, they will just force an entry anyway. they sit there clicking buttons and handing their account balance to the algos out of pure boredom Tepper runs a massive fund, and his biggest flex is simply admitting when he has no clue what the stock market is about to do instead of guessing, he takes his money and moves it to a completely different market where the setup is actually clean and the central banks are telling him exactly what they want you do not have to trade every single day. you do not have to trade the same ticker all year. if the chart looks like trash and you have no read on it, sitting in cash is a real position stop forcing plays just to feel something. only step in when the math makes sense bookmark and watch the 2016 archive here

ludoonchart

420,069 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Shruti

96,091 views • 3 months ago

Qullamaggie on Putting in Work on the Weekends Is the Only Way You Will Make It In Trading “Don't forget to put in a lot of work during the weekend. That's the only way you're going to make it. It's during the weekends. That's where your edge is honed. It's not watching trading choppy markets. That's not where you get an edge. You get an edge by sitting there and doing things most people are not willing to do. That's where edge comes from. Okay, guys. Good luck. See ya.”

Qullamaggie on Putting in Work on the Weekends Is the Only Way You Will Make It In Trading “Don't forget to put in a lot of work during the weekend. That's the only way you're going to make it. It's during the weekends. That's where your edge is honed. It's not watching trading choppy markets. That's not where you get an edge. You get an edge by sitting there and doing things most people are not willing to do. That's where edge comes from. Okay, guys. Good luck. See ya.”

Lone

15,114 views • 8 months ago

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Dustin

247,233 views • 6 months ago

Warren Buffett’s response when asked if he has an opinion on the stock market: “Charlie and I never have an opinion about the market because it wouldn’t be any good… If we think a business is attractive, it wouldn’t be very foolish for us to not take action on that because we thought something about what the market was going to do or anything of that sort… To give up something that you do know and is profitable for something that you don’t know and won’t know because of that, it doesn’t make any sense to us.” ___ Video: CNBC Warren Buffett Archive (1994)

Warren Buffett’s response when asked if he has an opinion on the stock market: “Charlie and I never have an opinion about the market because it wouldn’t be any good… If we think a business is attractive, it wouldn’t be very foolish for us to not take action on that because we thought something about what the market was going to do or anything of that sort… To give up something that you do know and is profitable for something that you don’t know and won’t know because of that, it doesn’t make any sense to us.” ___ Video: CNBC Warren Buffett Archive (1994)

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

25,245 views • 7 months ago

Every gambler who ever muttered "I'm due for a win" was one theorem away from understanding why he was about to lose. an Oxford professor teaches that exact theorem for free. Vegas does not mind. the people who need these 50 minutes most are the ones feeding the slot machines instead. his subject is conditional probability. the wheel has no memory. ten reds in a row change nothing. the next spin carries the same edge against you, every single time. that is the whole casino in one idea. and the post above argues the whole market runs on it too. Crawford teaches it to Oxford first-years. no system. no strategy. no hot streak. just the proof that the house edge does not care what already happened. skip to conditional probability. watch him kill "I'm due" in one line. every bet independent, every one bleeding the same tiny percentage, the crowd paying it a million times over. no memory. no streaks. one edge, forever. a trader I know says the day he understood independence was the day he stopped revenge trading. the math has been free the whole time. the house is betting you never learn it.

Every gambler who ever muttered "I'm due for a win" was one theorem away from understanding why he was about to lose. an Oxford professor teaches that exact theorem for free. Vegas does not mind. the people who need these 50 minutes most are the ones feeding the slot machines instead. his subject is conditional probability. the wheel has no memory. ten reds in a row change nothing. the next spin carries the same edge against you, every single time. that is the whole casino in one idea. and the post above argues the whole market runs on it too. Crawford teaches it to Oxford first-years. no system. no strategy. no hot streak. just the proof that the house edge does not care what already happened. skip to conditional probability. watch him kill "I'm due" in one line. every bet independent, every one bleeding the same tiny percentage, the crowd paying it a million times over. no memory. no streaks. one edge, forever. a trader I know says the day he understood independence was the day he stopped revenge trading. the math has been free the whole time. the house is betting you never learn it.

Rossst.03

10,472 views • 2 months ago

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."

David Perell

96,667 views • 2 years ago

"The simplest reason to not read something published in the past 50 years is that's what everybody else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in the last two years. And it's a simple fact of life that if you read what everybody else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing and worst of all think what they are thinking is, let's say... increased." (From my interview with The Cultural Tutor)

"The simplest reason to not read something published in the past 50 years is that's what everybody else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in the last two years. And it's a simple fact of life that if you read what everybody else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing and worst of all think what they are thinking is, let's say... increased." (From my interview with The Cultural Tutor)

David Perell

184,088 views • 2 years ago

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,652 views • 6 months ago

Listen to the old woman. Not a spokesman. Not a militia. A Palestinian grandmother, speaking in her own house, in her own language, while someone tries to feed her the official line. They tell her the Jews stole the land. She does not perform the script. The Jews, she says, do not cheat you. They do not rob you of what is yours. What you are owed, you receive. Then she turns on her own camp. The Arabs are the ones who cheat. An Arab will finish you if you are no longer useful to him. When the interviewer reaches for the sacred sentence, but they took our lands, she cuts him off. “What are you talking about? You gave it to them. They did not seize it by force. The Arabs were greedy for money. They sold it to the Jews.” That will not settle a century. It does not erase a war. It does something rarer. It punctures the one story the West is not allowed to question: that this land was only ever taken, never sold, and that memory runs in only one direction. A movement that needs every grandmother to recite the same lie has already told you what it is afraid of. Play it. Then ask why her voice is treated as a glitch, and the slogan is treated as history.

Listen to the old woman. Not a spokesman. Not a militia. A Palestinian grandmother, speaking in her own house, in her own language, while someone tries to feed her the official line. They tell her the Jews stole the land. She does not perform the script. The Jews, she says, do not cheat you. They do not rob you of what is yours. What you are owed, you receive. Then she turns on her own camp. The Arabs are the ones who cheat. An Arab will finish you if you are no longer useful to him. When the interviewer reaches for the sacred sentence, but they took our lands, she cuts him off. “What are you talking about? You gave it to them. They did not seize it by force. The Arabs were greedy for money. They sold it to the Jews.” That will not settle a century. It does not erase a war. It does something rarer. It punctures the one story the West is not allowed to question: that this land was only ever taken, never sold, and that memory runs in only one direction. A movement that needs every grandmother to recite the same lie has already told you what it is afraid of. Play it. Then ask why her voice is treated as a glitch, and the slogan is treated as history.

Mor Edge Insight

106,565 views • 25 days ago

Charlie Munger: "It's not a competency if you don't know the edge of it. You are a disaster if you don't know the edge of your own competency." "Warren [Buffett] frequently says, 'I'd rather deal with a guy with an IQ of 130 who thinks it's 125 than a guy with an IQ of 180 who thinks it's 200. That second guy will kill you.'" "Warren and I know the edge of our competency better than other people do. That is a very important thing to know." (Caltech || 2008)

Charlie Munger: "It's not a competency if you don't know the edge of it. You are a disaster if you don't know the edge of your own competency." "Warren [Buffett] frequently says, 'I'd rather deal with a guy with an IQ of 130 who thinks it's 125 than a guy with an IQ of 180 who thinks it's 200. That second guy will kill you.'" "Warren and I know the edge of our competency better than other people do. That is a very important thing to know." (Caltech || 2008)

Kevin Carpenter

16,530 views • 2 months ago

People say “that’s not fair,” but often what they really mean is “my status feels diminished." People care deeply about fairness, especially when it comes to how material resources are distributed. But often the concern is not really about the resource itself. It is about something underneath it. People say they care about fairness, but what they are really asking is: do you respect me? Do you see me as equal? Are you granting me the status that matches how I see myself? Take a common example. You find out that others at your job, in the same role, are being paid more than you. You are still doing well. You are comfortable. By most objective standards, you are fine. But the moment you learn that your peers earn more, the reaction is immediate: something is wrong. This feels unfair. Now imagine your boss responds, “You’re already making good money. Relax.” That does not calm the situation. It makes it worse. Because the issue was never just the money. It was the signal the difference sends. The gap suggests that you are valued less, that you occupy a lower rung, even if your absolute income is high. The anger that follows is not about deprivation. It is about status. It is the feeling of being diminished, of being treated as less than others who are, in principle, your equals.

People say “that’s not fair,” but often what they really mean is “my status feels diminished." People care deeply about fairness, especially when it comes to how material resources are distributed. But often the concern is not really about the resource itself. It is about something underneath it. People say they care about fairness, but what they are really asking is: do you respect me? Do you see me as equal? Are you granting me the status that matches how I see myself? Take a common example. You find out that others at your job, in the same role, are being paid more than you. You are still doing well. You are comfortable. By most objective standards, you are fine. But the moment you learn that your peers earn more, the reaction is immediate: something is wrong. This feels unfair. Now imagine your boss responds, “You’re already making good money. Relax.” That does not calm the situation. It makes it worse. Because the issue was never just the money. It was the signal the difference sends. The gap suggests that you are valued less, that you occupy a lower rung, even if your absolute income is high. The anger that follows is not about deprivation. It is about status. It is the feeling of being diminished, of being treated as less than others who are, in principle, your equals.

Rob Henderson

20,838 views • 5 months ago

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

115,251 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

ELON CLIPS

1,266,090 views • 1 year ago

I asked Claude to find the most obvious edge on Polymarket. It came back with three bets on the End Of The World and a potential profit of +$18,400. I gave it just one prompt: "find where the crowd is lying to itself the most." Then it went silent for 40 minutes. It came back with a NASA link tracking 34,000 asteroids with meter-level precision. And NASA publishes it for free. The market "5kt meteor strike in 2026?" is priced at 38%. NASA says 0.3%. The market "10kt+ strike?" Market: 20%. NASA: 0.05%. The gap is measured using KL divergence. Anything above 0.05 is an edge. We got 4.76. That is 95x above the threshold. The agent went NO on all three. Resolve is in December 2026. +$18,400 if the world does not end because of a meteor strike. And if it does, we probably will not need the money anyway. But the more interesting question is this: If a 95x gap is visible to anyone with an API, why is the market still pricing it at 38%?

I asked Claude to find the most obvious edge on Polymarket. It came back with three bets on the End Of The World and a potential profit of +$18,400. I gave it just one prompt: "find where the crowd is lying to itself the most." Then it went silent for 40 minutes. It came back with a NASA link tracking 34,000 asteroids with meter-level precision. And NASA publishes it for free. The market "5kt meteor strike in 2026?" is priced at 38%. NASA says 0.3%. The market "10kt+ strike?" Market: 20%. NASA: 0.05%. The gap is measured using KL divergence. Anything above 0.05 is an edge. We got 4.76. That is 95x above the threshold. The agent went NO on all three. Resolve is in December 2026. +$18,400 if the world does not end because of a meteor strike. And if it does, we probably will not need the money anyway. But the more interesting question is this: If a 95x gap is visible to anyone with an API, why is the market still pricing it at 38%?

may.crypto {🦅}

97,354 views • 7 months ago

You should not still be standing. The issue, the breakdown, the diagnosis, the season where you genuinely didn't know if you were going to make it — all of it had a target on it. But the devil miscalculated. Because God's ways are higher. You're here. Reading this. Still standing. That is not luck. That is purpose. The glory of what's ahead of you will be greater than anything behind you. You were fashioned — specifically, intentionally, precisely — to fit the plan of God. Not despite what you survived. Because of it. ⬇️ Tell me what you survived. I'm reading every comment.

You should not still be standing. The issue, the breakdown, the diagnosis, the season where you genuinely didn't know if you were going to make it — all of it had a target on it. But the devil miscalculated. Because God's ways are higher. You're here. Reading this. Still standing. That is not luck. That is purpose. The glory of what's ahead of you will be greater than anything behind you. You were fashioned — specifically, intentionally, precisely — to fit the plan of God. Not despite what you survived. Because of it. ⬇️ Tell me what you survived. I'm reading every comment.

Paula White-Cain

11,447 views • 3 months ago

NVIDIA founder Jensen Huang: "We never talk about market share” “We never talk about market share in our company… Why are you fighting people for market share? The whole concept of market share says there’s a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. And if they’re doing the same thing, why are we doing it? Why am I squandering the lives of these incredibly talented people to do something that has already been done?” Instead Jensen believes in building your company around “doing something that has never been done before.” Sometimes this means walking away from commodity work: “That demonstrates very clearly to your employees that we’re not going to do commodity work. The combination of choosing the right work and walking away from the wrong work is the best way to create the conditions [for employees to do their life’s work.]” Video source: Sana (2023)

NVIDIA founder Jensen Huang: "We never talk about market share” “We never talk about market share in our company… Why are you fighting people for market share? The whole concept of market share says there’s a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. And if they’re doing the same thing, why are we doing it? Why am I squandering the lives of these incredibly talented people to do something that has already been done?” Instead Jensen believes in building your company around “doing something that has never been done before.” Sometimes this means walking away from commodity work: “That demonstrates very clearly to your employees that we’re not going to do commodity work. The combination of choosing the right work and walking away from the wrong work is the best way to create the conditions [for employees to do their life’s work.]” Video source: Sana (2023)

Startup Archive

130,939 views • 10 months ago

ELON: ORDINARY CITIZENS VERY OFTEN KNOW MORE THAN JOURNALISTS “I think the media is a driver of misinformation much more than the media would like to admit that they are. In a lot of cases, it is the average citizen that knows more than the journalist. Very often, when I see an article about something that I know a lot about, and I read the article, they get a lot wrong. It's the best interpretation of someone who doesn't really understand what's going on in the industry, has only a few facts to play with, and has to come up with an article. It's not going to hit the bullseye. If you read an article about something you know about, how accurate is that article? Now, imagine that that is how essentially all articles are. They're an approximation of what's going on, but not an exact situation. If somebody is actually an expert in the field, and was actually there and then writes about their experience of being actually there, I think that actually that's, in a lot of cases, going to be better than a journalist because the journalist wasn't there.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023

ELON: ORDINARY CITIZENS VERY OFTEN KNOW MORE THAN JOURNALISTS “I think the media is a driver of misinformation much more than the media would like to admit that they are. In a lot of cases, it is the average citizen that knows more than the journalist. Very often, when I see an article about something that I know a lot about, and I read the article, they get a lot wrong. It's the best interpretation of someone who doesn't really understand what's going on in the industry, has only a few facts to play with, and has to come up with an article. It's not going to hit the bullseye. If you read an article about something you know about, how accurate is that article? Now, imagine that that is how essentially all articles are. They're an approximation of what's going on, but not an exact situation. If somebody is actually an expert in the field, and was actually there and then writes about their experience of being actually there, I think that actually that's, in a lot of cases, going to be better than a journalist because the journalist wasn't there.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023

Mario Nawfal

8,733,042 views • 1 year ago