Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
F = (2πr³/3) * (p_ac² / (ρ c²)) * ∇(sin²(kz)) = mg Standing waves from opposing transducers create pressure nodes where acoustic radiation force exactly balances gravity. No magic... just nonlinear acoustics trapping particles in mid-air. Watch droplets, Styrofoam, even small solids hover like they're defying physics. Containerless processing... show more
26,245 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![🚨🛸👽 Alien Craft and Bodies - How Confident? 👽🛸🚨 "Confidence is high. Repeat: confidence is high." ~The Sherminator Grusch/Kelly Part 1 - Video and Transcript "As somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that...the U.S. government has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of non-human crafts and recovering the biologics as well. I take that assessment very seriously" ~Grusch (I'll do my best to finish all three parts tonight) ~ Biggest Takeaway How did Grusch see evidence of alleged non-human craft and bodies and how confident is he that this is legit? Grusch: "I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "Eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio-visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." ~~~ Megyn Kelly: "It's the age-old question that has fascinated humans for centuries and continues to: are we alone in the universe, or even on our own planet? My next guest says, not only are UFOs - or now they're called UAPs - Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That's hard to remember, but UAPs - real, but the government has allegedly been aware of them for decades and running a disinformation campaign to make you feel like an idiot if you believe reports about them. "David Grusch is a former US Air Force Intelligence Officer and senior intelligence official. He was his agency's co-lead in UAP investigation and quote 'transmedium object analysis' and was reporting to the Pentagon's UAP Task Force as well. In 2023, Grusch filed a whistleblower complaint asserting that the United States has been operating a quote, 'multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,' meaning we're taking what we find - vehicles - and trying to figure out how they operated. And that Congress has been kept in the dark about large portions of the program. He later testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, drawing national attention when he made this claim here. Watch." ~Video from the 2023 Oversight Committee Hearing~ Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?" David Grusch: "As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah." Mace: "Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?" Grusch: "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program." ~ Kelly: "So, he's alleging that we have crafts and we have non-human biologics from those crafts, and that the American people are being kept in the dark about it. And he is not alone. He is not alone. Now, Pentagon officials have publicly denied that there's any verified evidence of non-human intelligence or secret programs of this kind. They've been denying it for 80 years. But now, a new documentary called 'The Age of Disclosure' is taking center stage. It's extraordinary, examining decades of this alleged secrecy, and they have everyone in this film. "The film features interviews with 34 former and current government officials, including Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who claim the U.S. has long been concealing evidence of non-human intelligence and UAPs. Here's a part of the trailer." Begin Excerpt from "The Age of Disclosure" Tim Gallaudet: "Humanity is not the only intelligence in the Universe." Dr. Eric Davis: "Humanity is not the only intelligent species." Brett Feddersen: "We are absolutely not alone." Karl Nell: "Non-human intelligence exists." Jim Semivan: "UAPs are real ,they're here, and they're not human." Jay Stratton: "I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." Senator Mike Rounds: "This is so secret, very, very few people in our entire government have been allowed access to it." Secretary Marco Rubio: "Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control." Kirsten Gillibrand: "It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees." Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "You better be careful about a government that doesn't trust its people, because there's no telling what they'll pull on ya." ~End AoD Excerpt~ Kelly: "It's extraordinary. Let's get into it. David joins me now. David, thank you so much for your service and for being here." Grusch: "Thanks. Mellon. Um, excuse me (laughs). Thanks, Megan. Thank you for having me on." Kelly: "(laughs) No worries. This is like a crazy story and a stunning story and disturbing. And I have to tell you, I've always been sort of open minded to this issue, but more skeptical. And I my skepticism is gone, having watched 'The Age of Disclosure.'" (Until we hear from a firsthand witness who says they worked hands-on what they feel was a non-human craft, in the alleged Legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, I think it's smart to retain some skepticism.) Kelly: "['The Age of Disclosure' is] incredibly well done, and they've got everybody. I mean, all of the like, astrophysicists and extremely-well-educated, and accomplished, scientists - who have been investigating this from the start. Well, not the start, because it was 80 years ago, but in recent decades - on camera, on the record, saying as much as they can. "And the director of the film (Dan Farah) has been making the rounds saying, the only reason he was able to get so many people to participate is because they felt there was safety in numbers and that they couldn't either fire everyone, or worse. Because a lot of these guys, these are distinguished guys, served in the Air Force like yourself, or served at the Pentagon, served all over the armed forces. A lot of these guys are actually worried not just about their careers getting killed, but about them themselves getting killed. I mean, set it up for us on the stakes of the number of people who went on camera and actually started saying as much as they could without violating classified restrictions." Grusch: "Certainly, that's a real fear, and we can certainly get into that. 'Age of Disclosure' was, you know, a project I didn't fully participate in, however, I do applaud the effort in these individuals for at least coming forward and speaking. And like you, I was a very skeptical person. I was certainly open to the topic. I was interested in space and science in a very precocious way, as a child. I ended up studying physics and the Air Force gave me a full-ride scholarship. And I was always, obviously, open to the topic, but I was in positions of high trust in the government at the most extreme levels, having walked the halls of the West Wing, personally handled the presidential daily intelligence brief and had some of the same broad accesses that the President and his cabinet has had over the years, even as a young man across multiple administrations "I figured - when I was eventually brought into this topic, working for the UAP Task Force - oh, I would know this exists. Somebody would have slipped and said something to me. At the time, I was briefed to over 90% out of all black programs in the Department of Defense and also the Intelligence Community, and I had an arrogant opinion of the topic. I was certainly open to the idea, but I figured I haven't seen any evidence and I would have been briefed into those kind of things, because I had a need-to-know at the time. So I came into it very similar to you, but open minded." Kelly: "And then, what specifically were you assigned to where you started to see actual evidence that we've been researching this for 80 years, that we do have crafts recovered, that we have, quote, 'biologics' recovered, which include some sort of other being. And what was your reaction when you started to learn this?" Grusch: "Yeah, I was very skeptical. I was in my military capacity, I had a parallel-civilian-intelligence career as well. But in my military-reserve capacity, I was the backup Intelligence Director for the National Reconnaissance Offices operation center. I briefed the NRO director. That's where I handled the PDB" Kelly: "Presidential Daily Brief." Grusch: "And I handled, essentially, all sensitive activities and all that stuff. And so, the UAP Task Force was looking for a representative from that organization. I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "But eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." Kelly: "Many in our audience may know you, David, you've been kind of really celebrated [by] people for coming out as a whistleblower and calling attention the fact that our government's been hiding this from us. And even when told to disclose what they know to investigators and to the public or to the oversight seers they haven't. There's a deeper program called The Legacy program that has really...seems to have been trying to hide the most shocking pieces of what we know from even the UAP Task Force."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2009110796807360534/amplify_video_thumb/2009074481340534787/img/tP8VqixJms_G8IcI.jpg)
!["We have sequencing from a colon [tumor] biopsy from a patient who was 4 times vaccinated...we can find [DNA] plasmids in there a hundred copies per cell. They're not exactly the same as Pfizer's, which is a real head-scratcher, but they're in there." Kevin McKernan (Kevin McKernan), Chief Scientific Officer and Founder of Medicinal Genomics, as well as former R&D lead of the Human Genome Project, describes for Nick Jikomes (Nick Jikomes) how he and his colleagues have sequenced a colon tumor biopsy from a person who took four COVID injections and have found DNA plasmids—almost certainly from Pfizer's COVID-injection manufacturing process—at a ratio of 100 per cell. McKernan notes that the plasmids, however, are "not exactly the same as Pfizer's," which "is a real head-scratcher." "We haven't published the work yet, but we have sequencing from a colon biopsy from a patient who was 4 times vaccinated. A year after vaccination, they had a colon cancer. They biopsied it that day, and then 30 days later, they died, and then they biopsied after, and we have sequencing on both the pre-mortem and post-mortem samples," McKernan says. The scientist and entrepreneur, often cited as the first person to find DNA contamination in the mRNA COVID injections, adds, "we can find plasmids in there a hundred copies per cell. They're not exactly the same as Pfizer's, which is a real head-scratcher, but they're in there." "There's two of them," McKernan says of the plasmids. "And one encodes spike and one encodes nucleocapsid. We don't know where the hell the nucleocapsid one's coming from." (For reference, a nucleocapsid of a virus is the protein shell or capsid that encloses the nucleic acid—DNA or RNA—content, providing protection and structure to the viral genome.) When asked why the plasmids wouldn't exactly match those used in Pfizer's mRNA-injection manufacturing process, McKernan speculates: "Do they have more than one [DNA plasmid] in circulation? Like, BioNTech got a different manufacturing plasmid than the manufacturing plant out here in the US because they're making these in two different locations? It's possible. Is there contamination in their laboratory, in the manufacturing of this, they get the wrong plasmid in their E. coli vat, and suddenly they've got a different background there?" "And we've gotta do everything on our end to make sure we didn't introduce it, which we're doing. We're running all types of experiments to show that there's spike expression going on. But there's any number of reasons that could explain this," McKernan adds. Note that DNA plasmids—small, circular, double-stranded DNA molecules capable of replicating independently within a bacterial cell—were understood to be used in the manufacturing of the mRNA injections, but should've been removed below a certain threshold established by regulatory authorities such as the FDA. (The DNA contamination may be present in vials at 1,000 times higher than allowable according to one article published by the Brownstone Institute covering this issue. Article title: "The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery") "We've got a case now that we're zeroing in on that looked like the SV40 poly-A signal, which is a termination signal. It's a transcription termination signal. We've got a piece of that integrating into chromosome 21, and it's breaking a gene that's involved in cancer. So, that one looks really interesting," McKernan tells Jikomes. "That could be maybe the driver of this whole thing. But the program spits out a long list of potential integrations that we have to go through and verify which ones are real and which ones are artifacts and all that. So I don't wanna get ahead of ourselves on that. That hasn't been Sanger verified yet." (For reference, Sanger sequencing is a method used to determine the precise order of nucleotides in a DNA molecule; the SV40 promoter is a strong regulatory region from the Simian Virus 40 that drives high levels of gene expression in mammalian cells when used in genetic constructs; a poly-A signal is a sequence in DNA or RNA that signals the end of a gene, prompting the addition of a polyadenine tail to the mRNA during processing, which stabilizes the mRNA and aids in its export from the nucleus.) "But the copy number alone suggests that these things aren't fully fragmented. Right? These plasmids really shouldn't be replicating to a hundred copies per cell," McKernan adds. "They couldn't, they shouldn't be in there at that level, because if you just do the math on how much is in the vaccine, when you do an injection of this, this person has four vaccines...1.2 ml of Pfizer...went into about 87,000 mls [of] body volume. So you should have a massive dilution into your body. Yet when we're sequencing this and doing qPCR off the tumor, the CTs coming back off the tumor are almost as high as they are straight out of the vial." (For reference, qPCR—or quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction—is a technique used to amplify and simultaneously quantify a targeted DNA molecule. "CTs" is a reference to cycle threshold; PCR cycle threshold is the number of cycles at which the fluorescence signal from the reaction exceeds the background level, indicating that the target DNA amplification has occurred.) McKernan goes on to say: "And even if it were an integration event [that is, the DNA plasmid integrated into the genome]...I think there could be two things going on here: There could be plasmids replicating episomally [in the cell] and there could be parts of them integrated. But if it were purely integrated and the plasmid was gone, we would not expect to see the copy number of what integrated to be higher than the copy number of the genome. Right? You'd get one integration into one chromosome probably. So it would be half the signal of what you get amplifying a human house gene like RNAP, which is what we use. You would get a similar CT if it integrated. Because if it were a driver mutation, the cells would take off, and it would maybe have one copy of that mutation with it. And as a tumor advanced, you would probably you expect to see a CT score in PCR for that region that was similar to the actual genome background. But we're not seeing that. We're seeing CTs that are that are way ahead. If it's a hundred fold up there, it's around six to seven CTs ahead of the RNAP gene, which is the human gene. And then when we do sequencing, we see the same thing. "The coverage of sequencing is like 100 to 200X in the plasmids [vs.] 1X of the human genome. So they're in this tumor at really high levels. And that tells us that it has to be replicating. And this was a formalin fixed tissue. So it's not like we could sprinkle plasmids on it from our laboratory to contaminate that and have them be translationally active. Formalin is like this process when you take a tissue and you Formalin fix it. It's like...carbon freezing Han Solo. Alright? So you can't add plasmids after the fact and get it to replicate on cells, and you can't add plasmids on the fact afterwards and get it to integrate. Like those things can only occur if the cells are live. So we're pretty certain we've ruled out that, alright, this isn't coming from us. The anti-vaxxers aren't pouring plasmids on this to create a story. "This has certain biological signals that show this was present in the patient when they were alive. We don't know the source of it. They were four times vaccinated, and one of the vaccines that they used was one of the earliest vaccines from December 30th 2020."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1863041263756624246/ext_tw_video_thumb/1863040923929571328/pu/img/RqpWM1Dr-laLIXD0.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
