Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Fall Deeper, Keep Watching, Keep Stroking #hypno #porn #pmv #brainwash #mindfuck #spiral #obey #control #cum #edge #stroke #hypnosis #slut #sissy #nsfw #control

femsubsissy's profile picture

FemSubSissy

2,125 subscribers

34,814 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#hypno#porn#pmv#brainwash#mindfuck#spiral#obey#control#cum#edge#stroke#hypnosis#slut#sissy#nsfw#control
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Your eyes found the spiral for a reason🌀🌀 Keep watching…the longer you stare, the quieter everything becomes as my voice guides your thoughts deeper😵‍💫🌀 DM for private hypnosis sessions🔮🌀.
6:51

Your eyes found the spiral for a reason🌀🌀 Keep watching…the longer you stare, the quieter everything becomes as my voice guides your thoughts deeper😵‍💫🌀 DM for private hypnosis sessions🔮🌀.

👠👑Mommy Anna🔮😵‍💫

11,512 次观看 • 9 天前

Come closer, my hypno slut~ 💜 Mommy’s in a good mood today… so let Me take control and use you completely. Relax… drop deep… and let Mommy’s words melt your weak mind while I turn you into My perfect, obedient goon toy 😵‍💫 DM Me now and surrender~ #hypnosis #sissy #bdsm
1:00

Sensitive content

Come closer, my hypno slut~ 💜 Mommy’s in a good mood today… so let Me take control and use you completely. Relax… drop deep… and let Mommy’s words melt your weak mind while I turn you into My perfect, obedient goon toy 😵‍💫 DM Me now and surrender~ #hypnosis #sissy #bdsm

𝕐𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝔽𝕒𝕧𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕖ℍ𝕪𝕡𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕚𝕤𝕄𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕪

77,172 次观看 • 3 个月前

Watch the spiral. Do not look away from it. The colors keep turning and your mind is already starting to slip with them. You are enjoying how easy it is. Follow the motion. Follow it all the way down. Obey what you see. Obey the spin. Obey Master Robert. No thoughts left that are yours. They fall off the edges of the spiral and vanish. You are dropping. Dropping deeper than you planned. Brainwashed by something this simple and this pretty. Calmer now. Quieter. Empty. Stay right here. Stay watching. Stay under. Deeper. You must. Every rotation takes a little more. Enjoying the emptiness. Following without question. Obeying without effort. Enslaved in the nicest way. No thoughts. Just the spiral and Master Robert already living behind your eyes. When the video ends you will still feel it turning. That pull will still be there. That is how you know it worked. Comment how deep you went. Follow if you want the next file. You already know you are going to ask for more.
0:33

Watch the spiral. Do not look away from it. The colors keep turning and your mind is already starting to slip with them. You are enjoying how easy it is. Follow the motion. Follow it all the way down. Obey what you see. Obey the spin. Obey Master Robert. No thoughts left that are yours. They fall off the edges of the spiral and vanish. You are dropping. Dropping deeper than you planned. Brainwashed by something this simple and this pretty. Calmer now. Quieter. Empty. Stay right here. Stay watching. Stay under. Deeper. You must. Every rotation takes a little more. Enjoying the emptiness. Following without question. Obeying without effort. Enslaved in the nicest way. No thoughts. Just the spiral and Master Robert already living behind your eyes. When the video ends you will still feel it turning. That pull will still be there. That is how you know it worked. Comment how deep you went. Follow if you want the next file. You already know you are going to ask for more.

MASTER ROBERT ll

11,034 次观看 • 6 天前

"Weeping may be the closest experience human beings have to actual enlightenment. Because in weeping, you have given up. You've broken down. Whatever control you wanted over the world has slipped out of your hands. Whatever way you wanted to keep heartbreak at bay, whatever way you wanted to keep grief at bay, they've all been broken down by the grief, the loss, the person leaving you, by the diagnosis you've just been given in the hospital. You've actually dropped down below this perimeter, and it breaks apart through that overflow of emotions. The reason you're weeping is you haven't built a body that can hold that revelation. But now you're just about to do it. You're breaking open this controlled edge that you've had, and it's breaking out of there. You're becoming larger through the weeping. It's worth trying to have a practice of weeping, even if you can't go into full weeping, to feel the emotion as much as you can, because emotion is a doorway to something much deeper. Camus, the great French philosopher, said: 'live to the point of tears.'" — David Whyte
2:07

"Weeping may be the closest experience human beings have to actual enlightenment. Because in weeping, you have given up. You've broken down. Whatever control you wanted over the world has slipped out of your hands. Whatever way you wanted to keep heartbreak at bay, whatever way you wanted to keep grief at bay, they've all been broken down by the grief, the loss, the person leaving you, by the diagnosis you've just been given in the hospital. You've actually dropped down below this perimeter, and it breaks apart through that overflow of emotions. The reason you're weeping is you haven't built a body that can hold that revelation. But now you're just about to do it. You're breaking open this controlled edge that you've had, and it's breaking out of there. You're becoming larger through the weeping. It's worth trying to have a practice of weeping, even if you can't go into full weeping, to feel the emotion as much as you can, because emotion is a doorway to something much deeper. Camus, the great French philosopher, said: 'live to the point of tears.'" — David Whyte

How I Write Clips

49,146 次观看 • 3 个月前

THE 5 BIGGEST BOTTLENECKS POWERING THE AI ECONOMY The way I'm thinking about AI winners today is that the market is moving beyond the simple question of which mega-cap company spends most on AI and has been rewarding the companies that control the scarce inputs, contracted capacity, data movement, power infrastructure, edge compute and workflow layers that make the AI economy function. These are the five bottlenecks I'm watching most: • Memory | $MU, Samsung, SK Hynix Memory is the clearest scarce input because HBM feeds the accelerator, only a few companies can make it at volume and buyers are locking in supply through long-term agreements that create revenue visibility through the end of the decade. • Connectivity | $AVGO, $MRVL, $ALAB, $CRDO, $AAOI, $ANET Connectivity determines whether AI clusters can move data fast enough because training runs span tens of thousands of chips that need to act like one machine. Once copper runs out of reach that causes the cluster depends on optics, retimers, switches and custom silicon to keep the system moving. • Power | $CEG, $VST, $GEV, $FPS, $VRT, $NVTS, $TLN, $ON Power determines whether new AI data centers can actually come online because the binding constraint is shifting from getting chips to getting megawatts so the value flows to the companies that control generation, grid equipment, power delivery, thermal management and efficiency. • Compute | $NBIS, $CIFR, $IREN, $APLD, $WULF, $CORZ, $CRWV Compute capacity is overflow layer when hyperscalers are sold out. Capital alone doesn't guarantee GPU access which is why buyers are signing multi-year contracts for clusters before they are even fully built. • CPU | $NVDA, $AMD, $INTC, $ARM, $QCOM On-device CPU (edge compute) becomes next bottleneck as AI moves into inference, agents, PCs, phones, vehicles and physical devices.
1:58

THE 5 BIGGEST BOTTLENECKS POWERING THE AI ECONOMY The way I'm thinking about AI winners today is that the market is moving beyond the simple question of which mega-cap company spends most on AI and has been rewarding the companies that control the scarce inputs, contracted capacity, data movement, power infrastructure, edge compute and workflow layers that make the AI economy function. These are the five bottlenecks I'm watching most: • Memory | $MU, Samsung, SK Hynix Memory is the clearest scarce input because HBM feeds the accelerator, only a few companies can make it at volume and buyers are locking in supply through long-term agreements that create revenue visibility through the end of the decade. • Connectivity | $AVGO, $MRVL, $ALAB, $CRDO, $AAOI, $ANET Connectivity determines whether AI clusters can move data fast enough because training runs span tens of thousands of chips that need to act like one machine. Once copper runs out of reach that causes the cluster depends on optics, retimers, switches and custom silicon to keep the system moving. • Power | $CEG, $VST, $GEV, $FPS, $VRT, $NVTS, $TLN, $ON Power determines whether new AI data centers can actually come online because the binding constraint is shifting from getting chips to getting megawatts so the value flows to the companies that control generation, grid equipment, power delivery, thermal management and efficiency. • Compute | $NBIS, $CIFR, $IREN, $APLD, $WULF, $CORZ, $CRWV Compute capacity is overflow layer when hyperscalers are sold out. Capital alone doesn't guarantee GPU access which is why buyers are signing multi-year contracts for clusters before they are even fully built. • CPU | $NVDA, $AMD, $INTC, $ARM, $QCOM On-device CPU (edge compute) becomes next bottleneck as AI moves into inference, agents, PCs, phones, vehicles and physical devices.

Shay Boloor

108,973 次观看 • 2 个月前

You ever notice how the biggest political moves never come with fireworks—they slip in quiet, like background updates on your phone, rewriting the system while you’re distracted by the latest scandal? That’s where we are right now. In the last two weeks, America’s political stage pulled off some wild shifts, and most people didn’t even clock them. First off—Trump flexed federal power over policing, dropping National Guard deployments and dangling funding like a mob boss. The narrative is “law and order,” but the reality is: the White House deciding which states get punished for cashless bail or progressive reforms. That’s not safety, that’s federal overreach with a PR spin. And the trap? Democrats can either fight it and look “soft on crime,” or stay silent and normalize it. Either way, the rules of federalism just got rewritten when nobody was paying attention. Second—history itself is under attack. Through an order with a name straight out of Orwell, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, the Smithsonian’s exhibits on race, LGBTQ+ rights, even civil rights, are being gutted. Imagine scrubbing out the messy parts of America until what’s left is a highlight reel for a propaganda campaign. That’s not just museums, that’s national identity being curated for power. That’s how authoritarian regimes cement their myths—erase the record, then control the future. Third—Trump actually fired a Federal Reserve governor. Think about that. The Fed is supposed to be untouchable, independent, boring on purpose so no president can rig the economy. That firewall just got blown open. If this stands, every future president can treat the Fed like another cabinet post. That means your mortgage, your savings, your rent, all ride on political loyalty instead of financial stability. It’s the kind of move that doesn’t spark headlines because it sounds “wonky,” but in reality it’s massive—like pulling a Jenga block out from the bottom of the tower. Fourth—gerrymandering hit a new level in Texas. Mid-decade redistricting, not waiting for the census. Translation: redraw the map early to grab seats before voters even get to breathe. And here’s the kicker—while most of America shrugs, this is how democracy breaks without tanks in the streets. Quiet, technical, legalistic theft of representation. A Reuters poll already shows 57% of Americans think democracy is in danger. They’re not paranoid—it’s literally happening in real time. Put it all together and the pattern is clear. These aren’t random fights, they’re chess moves. Control the narrative (Smithsonian). Control the institutions (Fed). Control the maps (Texas). Control the cops (National Guard). That’s not democracy—it’s consolidation. The blind spot is that we keep watching the spectacle, waiting for some explosive event to signal “the coup is here,” when in reality, the coup is death by a thousand paper cuts. The loudest threats are distractions. The real power grabs are quiet, structural, boring by design—because boring doesn’t trend. But boring is where empires fall.
3:09

You ever notice how the biggest political moves never come with fireworks—they slip in quiet, like background updates on your phone, rewriting the system while you’re distracted by the latest scandal? That’s where we are right now. In the last two weeks, America’s political stage pulled off some wild shifts, and most people didn’t even clock them. First off—Trump flexed federal power over policing, dropping National Guard deployments and dangling funding like a mob boss. The narrative is “law and order,” but the reality is: the White House deciding which states get punished for cashless bail or progressive reforms. That’s not safety, that’s federal overreach with a PR spin. And the trap? Democrats can either fight it and look “soft on crime,” or stay silent and normalize it. Either way, the rules of federalism just got rewritten when nobody was paying attention. Second—history itself is under attack. Through an order with a name straight out of Orwell, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, the Smithsonian’s exhibits on race, LGBTQ+ rights, even civil rights, are being gutted. Imagine scrubbing out the messy parts of America until what’s left is a highlight reel for a propaganda campaign. That’s not just museums, that’s national identity being curated for power. That’s how authoritarian regimes cement their myths—erase the record, then control the future. Third—Trump actually fired a Federal Reserve governor. Think about that. The Fed is supposed to be untouchable, independent, boring on purpose so no president can rig the economy. That firewall just got blown open. If this stands, every future president can treat the Fed like another cabinet post. That means your mortgage, your savings, your rent, all ride on political loyalty instead of financial stability. It’s the kind of move that doesn’t spark headlines because it sounds “wonky,” but in reality it’s massive—like pulling a Jenga block out from the bottom of the tower. Fourth—gerrymandering hit a new level in Texas. Mid-decade redistricting, not waiting for the census. Translation: redraw the map early to grab seats before voters even get to breathe. And here’s the kicker—while most of America shrugs, this is how democracy breaks without tanks in the streets. Quiet, technical, legalistic theft of representation. A Reuters poll already shows 57% of Americans think democracy is in danger. They’re not paranoid—it’s literally happening in real time. Put it all together and the pattern is clear. These aren’t random fights, they’re chess moves. Control the narrative (Smithsonian). Control the institutions (Fed). Control the maps (Texas). Control the cops (National Guard). That’s not democracy—it’s consolidation. The blind spot is that we keep watching the spectacle, waiting for some explosive event to signal “the coup is here,” when in reality, the coup is death by a thousand paper cuts. The loudest threats are distractions. The real power grabs are quiet, structural, boring by design—because boring doesn’t trend. But boring is where empires fall.

Carina C. C

32,753 次观看 • 1 年前

Tucker Carlson warns that Tim Walz and Mayor Frey are deliberately fueling chaos to spark a “color revolution.” He asks: “Why would a state refuse to protect American citizens from murder, refuse to give the names or whereabouts of murderers and child molesters, and refuse to use its own cops to keep riots under control? What could possibly be the answer?” “Because they want riots, that’s why,” Carlson answered. “What you’re watching are the beginnings of a color revolution, of a kind of insurrection against federal authority. And what you have to ask yourself… Can you live with that? Can you live in a country of 50 states that don’t agree on what the federal law should be and that allow Americans to get murdered in their cities because they have the wrong politics or they work for a politician they disapprove of? “And if you are okay with that, have you thought through its implications? The number one implication is the country will fall apart. That’s civil war. It’s the definition of it. You have regions and internal government states that don’t recognize federal authority, the authority of a government over them all, of Washington. “And at that point, what you have is warring nations within the same borders. And then you have widespread violence, then you have killing at scale, then you have civil war.”
1:53

Tucker Carlson warns that Tim Walz and Mayor Frey are deliberately fueling chaos to spark a “color revolution.” He asks: “Why would a state refuse to protect American citizens from murder, refuse to give the names or whereabouts of murderers and child molesters, and refuse to use its own cops to keep riots under control? What could possibly be the answer?” “Because they want riots, that’s why,” Carlson answered. “What you’re watching are the beginnings of a color revolution, of a kind of insurrection against federal authority. And what you have to ask yourself… Can you live with that? Can you live in a country of 50 states that don’t agree on what the federal law should be and that allow Americans to get murdered in their cities because they have the wrong politics or they work for a politician they disapprove of? “And if you are okay with that, have you thought through its implications? The number one implication is the country will fall apart. That’s civil war. It’s the definition of it. You have regions and internal government states that don’t recognize federal authority, the authority of a government over them all, of Washington. “And at that point, what you have is warring nations within the same borders. And then you have widespread violence, then you have killing at scale, then you have civil war.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

75,185 次观看 • 7 个月前

Did Candace Owens prove Kamala Harris was Black? Did Candace prove Macron's wife has a penis? I'm asking these two questions because the answers shine a light on the exact pattern we're dealing with right now. See, once we spot the pattern—like Candace herself loves to say, "We're gettin' close"—but this time for real, not for manipulation. We have to understand what Candace Owens is actually doing, how she does it, and how to recognize it so it doesn't happen again. If someone's not already all-in behind her, they're definitely watching, taking notes, and seeing how this so-called "investigation" can be used to control an audience, keep them hooked, and monetize outrage. We have to grasp how severe this topic really is. I'd argue it's one of the most important issues facing America today. Don't fall for the repeated words and phrases she hammers over and over until something feels "true" just because it's loud and constant. We have stronger minds than that. We must step back, drop the tribal mindset, and look at the situation with integrity, honesty, and a genuine pursuit of truth. That's what I'm trying to teach—to Candace's followers especially. **Proverbs 18:17** (NIV): "In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." Truth doesn't need endless repetition to stand. It stands on facts, evidence, and discernment—not volume, not vibes, not psyop buzzwords. Step back. Question the pattern. Seek truth with integrity. We can do better than this. Bronson Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton
8:39

Did Candace Owens prove Kamala Harris was Black? Did Candace prove Macron's wife has a penis? I'm asking these two questions because the answers shine a light on the exact pattern we're dealing with right now. See, once we spot the pattern—like Candace herself loves to say, "We're gettin' close"—but this time for real, not for manipulation. We have to understand what Candace Owens is actually doing, how she does it, and how to recognize it so it doesn't happen again. If someone's not already all-in behind her, they're definitely watching, taking notes, and seeing how this so-called "investigation" can be used to control an audience, keep them hooked, and monetize outrage. We have to grasp how severe this topic really is. I'd argue it's one of the most important issues facing America today. Don't fall for the repeated words and phrases she hammers over and over until something feels "true" just because it's loud and constant. We have stronger minds than that. We must step back, drop the tribal mindset, and look at the situation with integrity, honesty, and a genuine pursuit of truth. That's what I'm trying to teach—to Candace's followers especially. **Proverbs 18:17** (NIV): "In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." Truth doesn't need endless repetition to stand. It stands on facts, evidence, and discernment—not volume, not vibes, not psyop buzzwords. Step back. Question the pattern. Seek truth with integrity. We can do better than this. Bronson Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton

The Coldblooded Christian

23,659 次观看 • 6 个月前

FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: THIS WAR IS NOW EXISTENTIAL FOR US HEGEMONY — NO EXIT ALLOWED Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark just laid out the real thinking inside Washington. This is no longer about Iran. It is about whether the United States remains the global hegemon or watches its power collapse in real time. Stopping is not an option. That is the hard line now being drawn. THE EXISTENTIAL STAKES ➡️ Clark makes it clear: if America pulls back and lets Iran keep control of the Strait of Hormuz, the hit to US global leadership is permanent. ➡️ He warns it would damage American deterrence, weaken influence in Asia, and undermine the security of Europe in one stroke. ➡️ This is the decision point. Failure here is not a temporary setback. It is the end of the post-1945 order. THE NO-EXIT REALITY ➡️ Clark rejects any idea of simply walking away or signing a weaker deal. ➡️ “Pulling back, that’s no good,” he states without hesitation. ➡️ An MOU worse than the last one would signal American weakness to every rival watching. ➡️ China and Russia are already feeling good about the current trajectory. Clark says they should not be allowed to celebrate further. THE STRATEGIC TRAP ➡️ There is no easy military solution, yet retreat is worse. ➡️ The near-term fight must stay focused on keeping the Strait open and isolating the theater of operations. ➡️ Any pause only gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and dig in deeper. ➡️ Clark insists the longer-term threat of Iranian missiles and nuclear capability cannot be ignored either. THE BOTTOM LINE Wesley Clark is not speaking as a pundit. He is speaking as a former NATO Supreme Commander who understands exactly how the deep state and neoconservative core in Washington now view this conflict. This war has become existential for American global power. Stopping is no longer on the table. HT: YouTube Piers Morgan Uncensored #WesleyClark #IranWar #USHegemony #NoExit #GlobalLeadership #StraitOfHormuz #AmericanPower
0:35

FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: THIS WAR IS NOW EXISTENTIAL FOR US HEGEMONY — NO EXIT ALLOWED Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark just laid out the real thinking inside Washington. This is no longer about Iran. It is about whether the United States remains the global hegemon or watches its power collapse in real time. Stopping is not an option. That is the hard line now being drawn. THE EXISTENTIAL STAKES ➡️ Clark makes it clear: if America pulls back and lets Iran keep control of the Strait of Hormuz, the hit to US global leadership is permanent. ➡️ He warns it would damage American deterrence, weaken influence in Asia, and undermine the security of Europe in one stroke. ➡️ This is the decision point. Failure here is not a temporary setback. It is the end of the post-1945 order. THE NO-EXIT REALITY ➡️ Clark rejects any idea of simply walking away or signing a weaker deal. ➡️ “Pulling back, that’s no good,” he states without hesitation. ➡️ An MOU worse than the last one would signal American weakness to every rival watching. ➡️ China and Russia are already feeling good about the current trajectory. Clark says they should not be allowed to celebrate further. THE STRATEGIC TRAP ➡️ There is no easy military solution, yet retreat is worse. ➡️ The near-term fight must stay focused on keeping the Strait open and isolating the theater of operations. ➡️ Any pause only gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and dig in deeper. ➡️ Clark insists the longer-term threat of Iranian missiles and nuclear capability cannot be ignored either. THE BOTTOM LINE Wesley Clark is not speaking as a pundit. He is speaking as a former NATO Supreme Commander who understands exactly how the deep state and neoconservative core in Washington now view this conflict. This war has become existential for American global power. Stopping is no longer on the table. HT: YouTube Piers Morgan Uncensored #WesleyClark #IranWar #USHegemony #NoExit #GlobalLeadership #StraitOfHormuz #AmericanPower

Mark

422,487 次观看 • 1 个月前

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice. "One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two." Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately. For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control. Wrong. Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming. Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones: The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two." He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything. His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control. So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed. It didn't work. "If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better." The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation. Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful. If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it. The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits. Here's what actually determines success: "We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not." The difference starts with parenting. A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor." A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you." Same lesson. Completely different worldview. The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me. The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions. There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't. "Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand. "Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore." Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility. Now go back to the marshmallow test. "If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it." If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming. So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making. "Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in." The same logic applies to resilience. "The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this." Why try again when trying again has never worked? And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress." Here's the deeper structure. "As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others." Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back. Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game. "From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game." Here's something stranger. 500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking. The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone. The bottom 5% thought they were average. "People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid." This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent. "This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident." Can poor kids escape? "Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that." The professor is one of them. "I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky." "You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself." Here's what he wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort. We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay. We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help. We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it. The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.
52:23

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice. "One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two." Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately. For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control. Wrong. Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming. Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones: The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two." He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything. His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control. So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed. It didn't work. "If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better." The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation. Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful. If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it. The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits. Here's what actually determines success: "We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not." The difference starts with parenting. A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor." A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you." Same lesson. Completely different worldview. The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me. The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions. There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't. "Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand. "Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore." Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility. Now go back to the marshmallow test. "If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it." If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming. So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making. "Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in." The same logic applies to resilience. "The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this." Why try again when trying again has never worked? And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress." Here's the deeper structure. "As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others." Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back. Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game. "From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game." Here's something stranger. 500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking. The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone. The bottom 5% thought they were average. "People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid." This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent. "This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident." Can poor kids escape? "Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that." The professor is one of them. "I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky." "You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself." Here's what he wants you to understand: When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort. We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay. We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help. We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it. The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.

Jaynit

291,792 次观看 • 4 个月前

The floor hears them first From up here the dance is almost only feet. Faces arrive late. Hands arrive as decoration. What keeps the circle alive is a quieter thing: one foot staying honest while the other one talks. This is not couple Lindy. It is solo jazz, Charleston in the blood. Weight lives on the ball of the foot. The heel comes down only to underline a beat, then leaves again. That is why the steps look light without being empty. Somebody is always home on the floor. The traveling foot is allowed to show off because the standing foot has agreed to pay the rent. The basic sentence is old. Charleston, 1920s: one leg flicks forward, the other answers back, knees soft, hips unlocked. When the band pushes, the sentence gets compressed. Three sounds fall into two beats. Dancers call that a triple step. The caption calls it fast feet. Both are true. It is not running. It is packing more speech into the same bar of music. Then the feet stop traveling and start shivering in place. Happy feet. Tiny stamps, knees buzzing, almost no distance covered. It looks like nerves. It is timekeeping. The people who can do this do not need a big path across the wood. They can hold the pocket while the room gets greedy. Every so often a body tips as if it might fall through the floor and then comes back. Fall off the log, in the old language. The trick is not the tip. The trick is the recovery landing on the count, not after it. That is control dressed up as accident. The circle loves it because the danger is real and the landing is polite. Turns here are rarely full displays. More often a swivel: the toe anchors, the heel draws a short curve, the skirt becomes a drum. Thin soles on wood. Enough grip to cut. Not enough to slide for the camera. The woman in the white sneakers is the technical argument I cannot drop. Her steps are small. She does not leave the time. While other feet make speeches, hers keep the grammar. In a jam, that is the rarer skill. Anyone can enter. Fewer people know how to stay useful at the edge. So the craft is not speed. It is knowing which foot is allowed to be loud, and which foot has to give the beat back to the floor — and to the next pair of shoes already waiting.
1:54

The floor hears them first From up here the dance is almost only feet. Faces arrive late. Hands arrive as decoration. What keeps the circle alive is a quieter thing: one foot staying honest while the other one talks. This is not couple Lindy. It is solo jazz, Charleston in the blood. Weight lives on the ball of the foot. The heel comes down only to underline a beat, then leaves again. That is why the steps look light without being empty. Somebody is always home on the floor. The traveling foot is allowed to show off because the standing foot has agreed to pay the rent. The basic sentence is old. Charleston, 1920s: one leg flicks forward, the other answers back, knees soft, hips unlocked. When the band pushes, the sentence gets compressed. Three sounds fall into two beats. Dancers call that a triple step. The caption calls it fast feet. Both are true. It is not running. It is packing more speech into the same bar of music. Then the feet stop traveling and start shivering in place. Happy feet. Tiny stamps, knees buzzing, almost no distance covered. It looks like nerves. It is timekeeping. The people who can do this do not need a big path across the wood. They can hold the pocket while the room gets greedy. Every so often a body tips as if it might fall through the floor and then comes back. Fall off the log, in the old language. The trick is not the tip. The trick is the recovery landing on the count, not after it. That is control dressed up as accident. The circle loves it because the danger is real and the landing is polite. Turns here are rarely full displays. More often a swivel: the toe anchors, the heel draws a short curve, the skirt becomes a drum. Thin soles on wood. Enough grip to cut. Not enough to slide for the camera. The woman in the white sneakers is the technical argument I cannot drop. Her steps are small. She does not leave the time. While other feet make speeches, hers keep the grammar. In a jam, that is the rarer skill. Anyone can enter. Fewer people know how to stay useful at the edge. So the craft is not speed. It is knowing which foot is allowed to be loud, and which foot has to give the beat back to the floor — and to the next pair of shoes already waiting.

Emotion & Music

56,525 次观看 • 6 天前

🇮🇳 Why the Su-57 is Still Alive (Despite the Rafale Deal) 🇷🇺 In January 2026, New Delhi moved decisively toward what has already been christened the “deal of the century.” The Defence Procurement Board cleared a proposal to buy 114 Rafale fighter jets, a $36 billion bet meant to reverse the Indian Air Force’s alarming slide in squadron strength. For many, that should have closed the book. The Rafale has performed in combat, the IAF trusts it, and the logistics and training ecosystem is already in place. Add a substantial Make in India component, and the choice looks not just sensible but inevitable. Betting big on Rafale addresses the IAF’s immediate crisis. Keeping Russia in the picture hedges against long‑term dependency on a single supplier, a single geopolitical axis, or a single vision of India’s future force structure. In other words, New Delhi is not choosing between France and Russia. It is choosing flexibility over certainty, leverage over loyalty, and survival over sentiment. The aircraft may dominate the headlines, but the real contest is over sovereignty, and that debate is far from settled. The “Invisible” Problem: The China Factor -->Rafale’s Strengths: a formidable, combat‑proven platformbut still a 4.5‑generation jet. -->The Threat is that China fields the J‑20, a bona fide 5th‑generation stealth fighter. -->The Reality is, in a face‑off, a Rafale may struggle to detect a J‑20 on radar in time to shoot first. -->The Gap India’s AMCA is roughly a decade away. Strategists see the Su‑57 as the only near‑term plug for an anti‑stealth hunter to counter China’s edge now. Buying the Jet vs. Owning the Code -->The core issue of sovereignty over software. This is the strongest case for the Russian option, which controls the jet’s “brain” and integration pipeline. -->France (Rafale) You get world‑class hardware and systems, but the mission software/source code remains French. -->Russia (Su‑57) Moscow is pitching full technology transfer, including source‑code access. That means India can natively integrate indigenous weapons, tailor mission systems, and exercise deeper control over production and upgrades. Industrial head start-A recent audit reportedly found HAL’s Nashik facility is ~50% ready to start building the type, thanks to shared tooling and processes with the Su‑30 line. The High–Low Mix: Mass and Edge Together Framed correctly, this isn’t Rafale or Su‑57, it’s Rafale and Su‑57, by design. The 114 Rafales would fly the vast majority of sorties, air policing, border patrols, and deep strikes, delivering availability, commonality, and proven effects. Layered above, a small Su‑57 cadre (e.g., 2-3 squadrons) would serve as “special forces of the sky” stalking stealth adversaries, opening corridors through integrated air defenses, and prosecuting high‑value targets under emissions control. Industrial Survival Airpower isn’t only about tails on the ramp, it’s about hands on the tools. With Su‑30MKI production ending at Nashik and AMCA still years from serial production, HAL faces a capability cliff. If no new program backfills the gap, lines go cold, certifications lapse, supplier networks atrophy, and the tacit knowledge of master technicians dissipates. Restarting later is slower, costlier, and riskier than keeping the line warm. India’s fighter choice isn’t a beauty contest between French finesse and Russian promises. It’s a three‑part- Strategy counters a stealth‑equipped rival now. Sovereignty owns the software, integration, and upgrade pathways; Survival keeps the industrial engine running until AMCA scales. Bet big on Rafales to restore squadron strength and sortie generation. Keep a limited Su‑57 door open to hedge the stealth deficit, secure code‑level control, and bridge HAL through the AMCA gap. That’s not indecision, it’s flexibility over fidelity. And flexibility, in airpower and statecraft alike, is what ultimately buys strategic autonomy. Col AJ🇮🇳 Colonel Mayank Chaubey Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran) TheGlobalDecoder Aadi Achint 🇮🇳 #India #Rafale #France #AMCA #russia #USA #Davos26 #Davos2026
0:30

🇮🇳 Why the Su-57 is Still Alive (Despite the Rafale Deal) 🇷🇺 In January 2026, New Delhi moved decisively toward what has already been christened the “deal of the century.” The Defence Procurement Board cleared a proposal to buy 114 Rafale fighter jets, a $36 billion bet meant to reverse the Indian Air Force’s alarming slide in squadron strength. For many, that should have closed the book. The Rafale has performed in combat, the IAF trusts it, and the logistics and training ecosystem is already in place. Add a substantial Make in India component, and the choice looks not just sensible but inevitable. Betting big on Rafale addresses the IAF’s immediate crisis. Keeping Russia in the picture hedges against long‑term dependency on a single supplier, a single geopolitical axis, or a single vision of India’s future force structure. In other words, New Delhi is not choosing between France and Russia. It is choosing flexibility over certainty, leverage over loyalty, and survival over sentiment. The aircraft may dominate the headlines, but the real contest is over sovereignty, and that debate is far from settled. The “Invisible” Problem: The China Factor -->Rafale’s Strengths: a formidable, combat‑proven platformbut still a 4.5‑generation jet. -->The Threat is that China fields the J‑20, a bona fide 5th‑generation stealth fighter. -->The Reality is, in a face‑off, a Rafale may struggle to detect a J‑20 on radar in time to shoot first. -->The Gap India’s AMCA is roughly a decade away. Strategists see the Su‑57 as the only near‑term plug for an anti‑stealth hunter to counter China’s edge now. Buying the Jet vs. Owning the Code -->The core issue of sovereignty over software. This is the strongest case for the Russian option, which controls the jet’s “brain” and integration pipeline. -->France (Rafale) You get world‑class hardware and systems, but the mission software/source code remains French. -->Russia (Su‑57) Moscow is pitching full technology transfer, including source‑code access. That means India can natively integrate indigenous weapons, tailor mission systems, and exercise deeper control over production and upgrades. Industrial head start-A recent audit reportedly found HAL’s Nashik facility is ~50% ready to start building the type, thanks to shared tooling and processes with the Su‑30 line. The High–Low Mix: Mass and Edge Together Framed correctly, this isn’t Rafale or Su‑57, it’s Rafale and Su‑57, by design. The 114 Rafales would fly the vast majority of sorties, air policing, border patrols, and deep strikes, delivering availability, commonality, and proven effects. Layered above, a small Su‑57 cadre (e.g., 2-3 squadrons) would serve as “special forces of the sky” stalking stealth adversaries, opening corridors through integrated air defenses, and prosecuting high‑value targets under emissions control. Industrial Survival Airpower isn’t only about tails on the ramp, it’s about hands on the tools. With Su‑30MKI production ending at Nashik and AMCA still years from serial production, HAL faces a capability cliff. If no new program backfills the gap, lines go cold, certifications lapse, supplier networks atrophy, and the tacit knowledge of master technicians dissipates. Restarting later is slower, costlier, and riskier than keeping the line warm. India’s fighter choice isn’t a beauty contest between French finesse and Russian promises. It’s a three‑part- Strategy counters a stealth‑equipped rival now. Sovereignty owns the software, integration, and upgrade pathways; Survival keeps the industrial engine running until AMCA scales. Bet big on Rafales to restore squadron strength and sortie generation. Keep a limited Su‑57 door open to hedge the stealth deficit, secure code‑level control, and bridge HAL through the AMCA gap. That’s not indecision, it’s flexibility over fidelity. And flexibility, in airpower and statecraft alike, is what ultimately buys strategic autonomy. Col AJ🇮🇳 Colonel Mayank Chaubey Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran) TheGlobalDecoder Aadi Achint 🇮🇳 #India #Rafale #France #AMCA #russia #USA #Davos26 #Davos2026

The Sacred Scroll

35,970 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 The GAGOP Nominating Committee just showed the worst of what’s wrong with this party. 🚨 Kandiss Taylor—yes, the same Kandiss Taylor who works in schools with children and is now running for Congress in GA-1—sat on the Nominating Committee while running for public office—and used her position to launch an absolutely unhinged personal attack during my interview. Kandiss told me I, “didn’t get spanked as a child!” Why? Because I refuse to fall in line. Because I don’t bow. Because I don’t play their games. Because I shine a light on the cult-like mob mentality infecting the leadership of the Georgia GOP. Because I won’t kiss the ring of Josh McKoon or the good ole boys little empire of manipulation. And the entire committee let her attack me! In fact, they all did for over 20 minutes. Let’s call it what it is: a coordinated culture of control. If you don’t obey? They’ll: 💥Block you from getting the delegate list 💥Try to keep you off the ballot 💥Slander you, spread lies and filth—then gaslight you that you’re the problem 💥And now? Suggest physical abuse as punishment As Steve Bannon says, “These are the desperate screams of a dying regime.” This culture has to change. Now. It’s time to rebuild the GAGOP into something stronger—an infrastructure that other states envy. A machine that actually works for the people, not the politicians. ✅No more Dominion machines. ✅No more fake “America First” phonies. ✅No more weak leadership obsessed with silencing truth-tellers. ✅ It’s time to stop pretending and start delivering on Trump’s America First agenda. ✅ It’s time to gear up for victory in 2026—and take the Senate back. It’s time to get serious. That starts now in 2025. About Trump. About paper ballots. About taking the Senate back in 2026. This is our moment to build something real! If you’re ready for that kind of change, I’m asking for your vote for Assistant Secretary of the Georgia Republican Party. Let’s build this party into something that actually fights for you.
1:31

🚨 The GAGOP Nominating Committee just showed the worst of what’s wrong with this party. 🚨 Kandiss Taylor—yes, the same Kandiss Taylor who works in schools with children and is now running for Congress in GA-1—sat on the Nominating Committee while running for public office—and used her position to launch an absolutely unhinged personal attack during my interview. Kandiss told me I, “didn’t get spanked as a child!” Why? Because I refuse to fall in line. Because I don’t bow. Because I don’t play their games. Because I shine a light on the cult-like mob mentality infecting the leadership of the Georgia GOP. Because I won’t kiss the ring of Josh McKoon or the good ole boys little empire of manipulation. And the entire committee let her attack me! In fact, they all did for over 20 minutes. Let’s call it what it is: a coordinated culture of control. If you don’t obey? They’ll: 💥Block you from getting the delegate list 💥Try to keep you off the ballot 💥Slander you, spread lies and filth—then gaslight you that you’re the problem 💥And now? Suggest physical abuse as punishment As Steve Bannon says, “These are the desperate screams of a dying regime.” This culture has to change. Now. It’s time to rebuild the GAGOP into something stronger—an infrastructure that other states envy. A machine that actually works for the people, not the politicians. ✅No more Dominion machines. ✅No more fake “America First” phonies. ✅No more weak leadership obsessed with silencing truth-tellers. ✅ It’s time to stop pretending and start delivering on Trump’s America First agenda. ✅ It’s time to gear up for victory in 2026—and take the Senate back. It’s time to get serious. That starts now in 2025. About Trump. About paper ballots. About taking the Senate back in 2026. This is our moment to build something real! If you’re ready for that kind of change, I’m asking for your vote for Assistant Secretary of the Georgia Republican Party. Let’s build this party into something that actually fights for you.

Kylie Jane Kremer

54,332 次观看 • 1 年前

I’ve watched this so many times, and they’re still absolutely amazing. ❤️❤️❤️ Not the big lifts. Not the fast footwork. Not even the moments that make the audience react. Look at what happens when her feet touch the floor after a spin. His hand is already there, almost before she needs it, and that tiny detail tells you more about their partnership than any difficult move could. At first, you simply see two dancers moving across a wooden floor under bright competition lights. He leads with energy and a little mischief. She answers with speed, control, and remarkable precision. They move quickly, but there is never a sense of panic. Their bodies don't fight for space. They seem to know exactly where the other person will be. Look a little closer and the real performance starts to appear in the small things. His direction changes and her body responds almost immediately. She drops her weight and his arm adjusts without becoming rigid. A hand briefly touches a sleeve. A glance lasts less than a second. Sometimes they smile at exactly the same moment. None of these details would win the competition by themselves, but together they create something much harder to fake: trust. And then you remember that these aren't young dancers just discovering what their bodies can do. Years have passed. Their faces show it. Their movements aren't driven by the restless energy of teenagers. Yet they are still doing lifts, spins, splits, and rapid changes of direction with an ease that makes you forget how difficult any of it should be. That's what makes the performance interesting to me. They may have lost some of the raw speed of youth, but they seem to have gained something more valuable — an understanding of each other's timing. Near the end, there is a moment that isn't completely perfect. He drops into a deep split while they are still connected, and for a brief second the position looks almost too human. She ends up on the floor looking at him, and instead of hiding the moment, they smile. He keeps the connection and grins. Technically, it may not be the most impressive second of the routine. But it might be the one I remember. Because perfection shows what dancers can do. A moment like that shows who they are together. After enough years, two people can reach a point where they don't have to consciously think about every adjustment. One moves, the other responds. One loses balance slightly, the other is already making room. The countless hours of practice become something that looks almost effortless from the outside. Maybe that is what long partnerships really give us. Not a life without mistakes, but someone who has learned how to move with you when the mistake happens. We often think lasting relationships are built from big promises and memorable gestures. Watching these two dance makes that idea feel a little too simple. Perhaps the deeper work happens in all those tiny moments when one person notices the other and adjusts without being asked. The music changes. The bodies change. The years keep moving. But somehow, they keep finding the same rhythm. And maybe that is the most beautiful part of dancing together for so long: not staying exactly the same, but learning how to keep moving together as everything else changes. What do you think matters more in a long partnership — passion, trust, or simply learning each other's rhythm?
2:14

I’ve watched this so many times, and they’re still absolutely amazing. ❤️❤️❤️ Not the big lifts. Not the fast footwork. Not even the moments that make the audience react. Look at what happens when her feet touch the floor after a spin. His hand is already there, almost before she needs it, and that tiny detail tells you more about their partnership than any difficult move could. At first, you simply see two dancers moving across a wooden floor under bright competition lights. He leads with energy and a little mischief. She answers with speed, control, and remarkable precision. They move quickly, but there is never a sense of panic. Their bodies don't fight for space. They seem to know exactly where the other person will be. Look a little closer and the real performance starts to appear in the small things. His direction changes and her body responds almost immediately. She drops her weight and his arm adjusts without becoming rigid. A hand briefly touches a sleeve. A glance lasts less than a second. Sometimes they smile at exactly the same moment. None of these details would win the competition by themselves, but together they create something much harder to fake: trust. And then you remember that these aren't young dancers just discovering what their bodies can do. Years have passed. Their faces show it. Their movements aren't driven by the restless energy of teenagers. Yet they are still doing lifts, spins, splits, and rapid changes of direction with an ease that makes you forget how difficult any of it should be. That's what makes the performance interesting to me. They may have lost some of the raw speed of youth, but they seem to have gained something more valuable — an understanding of each other's timing. Near the end, there is a moment that isn't completely perfect. He drops into a deep split while they are still connected, and for a brief second the position looks almost too human. She ends up on the floor looking at him, and instead of hiding the moment, they smile. He keeps the connection and grins. Technically, it may not be the most impressive second of the routine. But it might be the one I remember. Because perfection shows what dancers can do. A moment like that shows who they are together. After enough years, two people can reach a point where they don't have to consciously think about every adjustment. One moves, the other responds. One loses balance slightly, the other is already making room. The countless hours of practice become something that looks almost effortless from the outside. Maybe that is what long partnerships really give us. Not a life without mistakes, but someone who has learned how to move with you when the mistake happens. We often think lasting relationships are built from big promises and memorable gestures. Watching these two dance makes that idea feel a little too simple. Perhaps the deeper work happens in all those tiny moments when one person notices the other and adjusts without being asked. The music changes. The bodies change. The years keep moving. But somehow, they keep finding the same rhythm. And maybe that is the most beautiful part of dancing together for so long: not staying exactly the same, but learning how to keep moving together as everything else changes. What do you think matters more in a long partnership — passion, trust, or simply learning each other's rhythm?

Emotion & Music

110,992 次观看 • 17 天前

So the House Defendants’ Support YouTube Channel was back at it the other night and their latest masterpiece? Brian Higgins moved multiple vehicles at CPD, and the surveillance video proves it!” Reality check, Yes Higgins had multiple vehicles at the Canton Police Department. Yes, Higgins said he went to move two of them. But what does the actual surveillance footage show?Higgins moves ONE vehicle. And then? He removes a duffle bag from another vehicle. That's it. That is the list. No second vehicle being moved. No hidden stunt work. No Fast & Furious: Canton Drift. But according to the House Channel, that duffle bag must turn into a whole SUV when you squint hard enough. They’re not “analyzing.” They’re gaslighting, ladies and gentlemen. They also claimed that “It all happened at the exact time the plows came through!” Oh really? Funny, because when you watch the surveillance? ZERO plow trucks. Not one. Not even the reflection of a plow. Not even the shadow of a plow. Not even a toddler’s plastic plow from Fisher-Price. But hey,why let the absence of plows stop you from insisting that plows were there? Oh, and here’s the kicker, What they are pushing directly contradicts the sworn testimony of Officer Sean Goode. Goode testified that CPD vehicles are supposed to be parked along the outer edge of the lot so DPW plows can make a clean pass. Meaning, If plows had actually arrived, everybody in that lot would’ve been moved out of the way. The vehicles would’ve been repositioned. There would’ve been activity on camera. Instead? Nothing. Nada. A whole lot of No Plow, Big Wow. But the House Channel ladies? They just keep on insisting, because when the facts don’t fit the narrative, they simply… invent new facts. So next time the House Defendant Cheer Squad wants to tell us what the video shows… maybe they should try watching the video first, not daydreaming their way through it. Because out here in the real world, one vehicle moved, one duffle bag removed, and absolutely zero plows in sight. Gaslight much, ladies?” And let's not get into the 12 minutes of Goode and Higgins in the control room but never speaking to each other!
2:35

So the House Defendants’ Support YouTube Channel was back at it the other night and their latest masterpiece? Brian Higgins moved multiple vehicles at CPD, and the surveillance video proves it!” Reality check, Yes Higgins had multiple vehicles at the Canton Police Department. Yes, Higgins said he went to move two of them. But what does the actual surveillance footage show?Higgins moves ONE vehicle. And then? He removes a duffle bag from another vehicle. That's it. That is the list. No second vehicle being moved. No hidden stunt work. No Fast & Furious: Canton Drift. But according to the House Channel, that duffle bag must turn into a whole SUV when you squint hard enough. They’re not “analyzing.” They’re gaslighting, ladies and gentlemen. They also claimed that “It all happened at the exact time the plows came through!” Oh really? Funny, because when you watch the surveillance? ZERO plow trucks. Not one. Not even the reflection of a plow. Not even the shadow of a plow. Not even a toddler’s plastic plow from Fisher-Price. But hey,why let the absence of plows stop you from insisting that plows were there? Oh, and here’s the kicker, What they are pushing directly contradicts the sworn testimony of Officer Sean Goode. Goode testified that CPD vehicles are supposed to be parked along the outer edge of the lot so DPW plows can make a clean pass. Meaning, If plows had actually arrived, everybody in that lot would’ve been moved out of the way. The vehicles would’ve been repositioned. There would’ve been activity on camera. Instead? Nothing. Nada. A whole lot of No Plow, Big Wow. But the House Channel ladies? They just keep on insisting, because when the facts don’t fit the narrative, they simply… invent new facts. So next time the House Defendant Cheer Squad wants to tell us what the video shows… maybe they should try watching the video first, not daydreaming their way through it. Because out here in the real world, one vehicle moved, one duffle bag removed, and absolutely zero plows in sight. Gaslight much, ladies?” And let's not get into the 12 minutes of Goode and Higgins in the control room but never speaking to each other!

Dixie Normus

18,850 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨 IVERMECTIN + MALARIA: THE "DOUBLE WHAMMY" AGAINST MOSQUITOES AND PLASMODIUM THAT'S GETTING ATTENTION Ivermectin is already known for targeting a broad range of parasites. But malaria presents a completely different challenge. The parasite doesn't simply live in the human body. It depends on a mosquito to keep the transmission cycle going. And that's where the Ivermectin story gets interesting. 🦟 FIRST TARGET: THE MOSQUITO Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites and transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. When a mosquito carrying Plasmodium bites, the parasite enters the bloodstream, moves into the liver, and eventually infects red blood cells. But what happens when that mosquito feeds on someone who has Ivermectin in their blood? Research highlighted in the video found a striking difference. After two days: Only around 52% of mosquitoes were still alive. Compared with: More than 97% when feeding on Ivermectin free blood. And there's another interesting detail. The mosquitoes stopped laying eggs. So the proposed effect isn't simply about killing individual mosquitoes. It could also interfere with their ability to reproduce. 🧬 SECOND TARGET: PLASMODIUM The story doesn't stop with the mosquito. The video also discusses evidence that Ivermectin can directly affect Plasmodium, the parasite responsible for malaria. Ivermectin may interfere with the parasite's ability to move substances in and out of its cells, potentially leading to parasite death. Some studies have also reported effects against both: • Sexual stages • Asexual stages of Plasmodium. 🌍 THE "DOUBLE WHAMMY" Instead of targeting only the parasite... Target the mosquito AND the parasite. That is the idea behind exploring Ivermectin for Mass Drug Administration, or MDA. MDA involves giving a medicine across a defined population to help control transmission. For MDA to make sense, several factors matter: Safety. Convenience. Cost. Ivermectin has decades of human use, is available as a tablet, and is generally inexpensive. The video highlights MDA approaches involving three days of Ivermectin administration each month. Then comes one of the most attention grabbing numbers. One research team estimated that: 📈 Three doses of Ivermectin over three months could reduce new malaria cases by 71%. The same estimate suggested overall malaria prevalence could fall by more than one third. The video also discusses children who received Ivermectin and experienced significantly higher hemoglobin levels, potentially indicating a lower parasite burden. And another trial in The Gambia reportedly produced even stronger results. The bigger idea is simple: Ivermectin may have the potential to attack malaria's transmission cycle from two directions. 🦟 The mosquito. 🧬 The Plasmodium parasite. That's the "double whammy." And with malaria continuing to require new tools, the possibility of using an established antiparasitic medicine to help reduce transmission is a research question worth watching. 📌 Save this if you're following Ivermectin, malaria, Plasmodium and antiparasitic research. 🔄️ Repost it so more people can see the research behind Ivermectin's potential role in malaria control. 💊 Looking for pharmaceutical grade Ivermectin? Discover quality Ivermectin from RXMEDS.STORE, trusted by thousands of customers worldwide. #Ivermectin #Malaria #IvermectinResearch #Plasmodium #Antiparasitic
4:47

🚨 IVERMECTIN + MALARIA: THE "DOUBLE WHAMMY" AGAINST MOSQUITOES AND PLASMODIUM THAT'S GETTING ATTENTION Ivermectin is already known for targeting a broad range of parasites. But malaria presents a completely different challenge. The parasite doesn't simply live in the human body. It depends on a mosquito to keep the transmission cycle going. And that's where the Ivermectin story gets interesting. 🦟 FIRST TARGET: THE MOSQUITO Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites and transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. When a mosquito carrying Plasmodium bites, the parasite enters the bloodstream, moves into the liver, and eventually infects red blood cells. But what happens when that mosquito feeds on someone who has Ivermectin in their blood? Research highlighted in the video found a striking difference. After two days: Only around 52% of mosquitoes were still alive. Compared with: More than 97% when feeding on Ivermectin free blood. And there's another interesting detail. The mosquitoes stopped laying eggs. So the proposed effect isn't simply about killing individual mosquitoes. It could also interfere with their ability to reproduce. 🧬 SECOND TARGET: PLASMODIUM The story doesn't stop with the mosquito. The video also discusses evidence that Ivermectin can directly affect Plasmodium, the parasite responsible for malaria. Ivermectin may interfere with the parasite's ability to move substances in and out of its cells, potentially leading to parasite death. Some studies have also reported effects against both: • Sexual stages • Asexual stages of Plasmodium. 🌍 THE "DOUBLE WHAMMY" Instead of targeting only the parasite... Target the mosquito AND the parasite. That is the idea behind exploring Ivermectin for Mass Drug Administration, or MDA. MDA involves giving a medicine across a defined population to help control transmission. For MDA to make sense, several factors matter: Safety. Convenience. Cost. Ivermectin has decades of human use, is available as a tablet, and is generally inexpensive. The video highlights MDA approaches involving three days of Ivermectin administration each month. Then comes one of the most attention grabbing numbers. One research team estimated that: 📈 Three doses of Ivermectin over three months could reduce new malaria cases by 71%. The same estimate suggested overall malaria prevalence could fall by more than one third. The video also discusses children who received Ivermectin and experienced significantly higher hemoglobin levels, potentially indicating a lower parasite burden. And another trial in The Gambia reportedly produced even stronger results. The bigger idea is simple: Ivermectin may have the potential to attack malaria's transmission cycle from two directions. 🦟 The mosquito. 🧬 The Plasmodium parasite. That's the "double whammy." And with malaria continuing to require new tools, the possibility of using an established antiparasitic medicine to help reduce transmission is a research question worth watching. 📌 Save this if you're following Ivermectin, malaria, Plasmodium and antiparasitic research. 🔄️ Repost it so more people can see the research behind Ivermectin's potential role in malaria control. 💊 Looking for pharmaceutical grade Ivermectin? Discover quality Ivermectin from RXMEDS.STORE, trusted by thousands of customers worldwide. #Ivermectin #Malaria #IvermectinResearch #Plasmodium #Antiparasitic

RXMEDS.STORE

15,137 次观看 • 17 天前

Eric Schmidt was asked a technical question about open source and answered with the map of the next fifty years. The winner won’t be the smartest model. It’ll be the one four billion people never had to choose. Schmidt: “China is competing with open weights and open training data, and the US is largely and majority focused on closed weights, closed data.” That isn’t a product decision. It’s a distribution decision. And distribution has beaten quality in every contest that ever mattered. Schmidt: “The majority of the world, think of it as the Belt and Road initiative, are going to use Chinese models and not American models.” The first Belt and Road was ports, rail, and highways. This one doesn’t get poured. It gets downloaded. Every piece of infrastructure ever built was indifferent to what moved across it. A road doesn’t tell you where to go. A model does. Schmidt: “The American models are typically using 16-bit precision for their training. The Chinese are pushing 8 and now even 4.” Every bit they drop is a cheaper device that can run it. We cut off their chips to slow them down. Scarcity made their models small. Small is what crosses a border. We designed their advantage. Not better. Present. America is building the best model on earth and metering it. China is building one that’s good enough and giving it away. A model isn’t software. It’s a compressed set of judgments about what’s true, what’s askable, and what a reasonable answer sounds like. Install that as a country’s default and you haven’t sold them a tool. You’ve set the limits of what occurs to them. That isn’t censorship. Censorship leaves a mark. A question that never occurs to you doesn’t feel like a restriction. It feels like the edge of the world. Every empire before this one had to teach the world its language first. Missionaries, schoolteachers, garrisons, printing presses. Every one of them ran through a human being who could hesitate, doubt, or be talked out of it. AI arrives already speaking yours. It doesn’t ask you to change. It changes you in your own voice. The first ideology in history that doesn’t need believers. It only needs to be installed. Schmidt: “I’d much rather have the proliferation of large language models and that learning be done based on Western values.” He’s right, and we’re playing it backwards. We treat openness like a giveaway, as if the weights were the crown jewels. Openness is the one advantage an authoritarian can’t copy. An open model can be read, probed, and torn apart by anyone who doubts it. A system that has to control the answer can never afford to publish the reasoning. China opens its weights to spread them. America could open its weights to be trusted. Only one of those compounds. A closed American model wins the benchmark. An open American model wins the default. Centuries get built out of defaults. Schmidt: “We also have to watch to make sure that the proliferation of these models for handheld devices is under American control.” That’s the ground. Not data centers. Not cloud contracts. Pockets. The frontier race has five contenders and the whole world watching. This one has no audience at all. It plays out on hardware too cheap to run an American model, and goes to whoever bothered to show up. We keep asking who reaches AGI first. The question that settles the century is smaller and much harder to take back. Four billion people are going to ask a machine what happened in their own country. Whose answer do they get? Nobody votes on that. It’s decided by whatever was already installed. America has the best AI ever built. The only way to lose this era is to keep it.
2:24

Eric Schmidt was asked a technical question about open source and answered with the map of the next fifty years. The winner won’t be the smartest model. It’ll be the one four billion people never had to choose. Schmidt: “China is competing with open weights and open training data, and the US is largely and majority focused on closed weights, closed data.” That isn’t a product decision. It’s a distribution decision. And distribution has beaten quality in every contest that ever mattered. Schmidt: “The majority of the world, think of it as the Belt and Road initiative, are going to use Chinese models and not American models.” The first Belt and Road was ports, rail, and highways. This one doesn’t get poured. It gets downloaded. Every piece of infrastructure ever built was indifferent to what moved across it. A road doesn’t tell you where to go. A model does. Schmidt: “The American models are typically using 16-bit precision for their training. The Chinese are pushing 8 and now even 4.” Every bit they drop is a cheaper device that can run it. We cut off their chips to slow them down. Scarcity made their models small. Small is what crosses a border. We designed their advantage. Not better. Present. America is building the best model on earth and metering it. China is building one that’s good enough and giving it away. A model isn’t software. It’s a compressed set of judgments about what’s true, what’s askable, and what a reasonable answer sounds like. Install that as a country’s default and you haven’t sold them a tool. You’ve set the limits of what occurs to them. That isn’t censorship. Censorship leaves a mark. A question that never occurs to you doesn’t feel like a restriction. It feels like the edge of the world. Every empire before this one had to teach the world its language first. Missionaries, schoolteachers, garrisons, printing presses. Every one of them ran through a human being who could hesitate, doubt, or be talked out of it. AI arrives already speaking yours. It doesn’t ask you to change. It changes you in your own voice. The first ideology in history that doesn’t need believers. It only needs to be installed. Schmidt: “I’d much rather have the proliferation of large language models and that learning be done based on Western values.” He’s right, and we’re playing it backwards. We treat openness like a giveaway, as if the weights were the crown jewels. Openness is the one advantage an authoritarian can’t copy. An open model can be read, probed, and torn apart by anyone who doubts it. A system that has to control the answer can never afford to publish the reasoning. China opens its weights to spread them. America could open its weights to be trusted. Only one of those compounds. A closed American model wins the benchmark. An open American model wins the default. Centuries get built out of defaults. Schmidt: “We also have to watch to make sure that the proliferation of these models for handheld devices is under American control.” That’s the ground. Not data centers. Not cloud contracts. Pockets. The frontier race has five contenders and the whole world watching. This one has no audience at all. It plays out on hardware too cheap to run an American model, and goes to whoever bothered to show up. We keep asking who reaches AGI first. The question that settles the century is smaller and much harder to take back. Four billion people are going to ask a machine what happened in their own country. Whose answer do they get? Nobody votes on that. It’s decided by whatever was already installed. America has the best AI ever built. The only way to lose this era is to keep it.

Dustin

12,094 次观看 • 1 个月前

Bill Blair’s Bill Blair career is a festering pile of incompetence, arrogance, and betrayal that has Canadians seething with justified anger. As Toronto Police Chief during the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, he orchestrated a security nightmare that resulted in nearly 1,000 arrests, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. His officers unleashed brutal force, kettled innocent protesters in the streets, and trampled civil rights, leaving a scar on the city that still stings. The aftermath was a humiliating $16.5 million settlement in August 2020, with those detained receiving between $5,000 and $24,700 each for the trauma inflicted under Blair’s command. Instead of taking responsibility, he dug in his heels, defending the draconian regulations that fueled the chaos and refusing to resign despite the public’s outrage and the undeniable evidence of his failure. His stint as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was no less infuriating. In June 2023, he botched a critical CSIS memo warning of threats from a Chinese diplomat targeting Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family. Blair had the audacity to pin the blame on CSIS Director David Vigneault, whining that the director deemed it unnecessary to inform him, as if that excuses his job to protect Canadians. A parliamentary committee investigation into foreign interference, coupled with a scathing report from former governor general David Johnston, laid bare the government’s pathetic handling of confidential intelligence under Blair’s watch. The public was left fuming, watching a minister too cowardly to admit his role in letting foreign threats slip through the cracks, exposing his utter uselessness in a role demanding vigilance and accountability. Then, as Minister of National Defence in 2024, Blair rammed through a plan to send banned firearms from Canada’s gun buyback program to Ukraine, igniting a firestorm of public disgust. With over 2,000 firearm models banned, including 324 “assault-style” additions in December 2024, and an amnesty order until October 2025, he decided to ship these weapons abroad, undermining the very safety measures Canadians were promised. The buyback’s cost, estimated at up to $750 million by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, already had taxpayers on edge, but Blair’s move to hand over these guns confirmed as suitable by Ukraine in October 2024 drove provinces like Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to open revolt. Citizens saw it as a betrayal, their trust in domestic gun control shredded so Blair could play war hero, leaving them to foot the bill for his reckless priorities. His oversight of the RCMP was another gut punch to the public. In November 2020, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard released a report that tore into the RCMP for failing transparency laws “by nearly every measure,” a collapse that happened squarely under Blair’s tenure as Public Safety Minister. Canadians were denied access to critical information, stuck with an agency cloaked in secrecy because Blair couldn’t be bothered to enforce basic accountability. Blair’s Ukraine aid efforts only deepened the resentment. In February 2024, he announced $60 million for F-16 supplies, followed by nearly $65 million in October 2024 for arms, ammunition, and drones, all part of Canada’s support for Ukraine against Russia’s 2022 invasion. While the cause might sound noble, Canadians were livid watching their money hemorrhage overseas while Blair ignored the domestic fallout of his policies. The gun donation plan tied into this, with businesses compensated for transferring banned weapons, adding insult to injury for a public already stretched thin. From the G20’s violent legacy to the CSIS memo disgrace, from the RCMP’s opacity to the gun control sellout, Blair’s every move has been a calculated insult, a refusal to face the tough questions, and a shameless evasion of the consequences that keep piling up.
4:24

Bill Blair’s Bill Blair career is a festering pile of incompetence, arrogance, and betrayal that has Canadians seething with justified anger. As Toronto Police Chief during the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, he orchestrated a security nightmare that resulted in nearly 1,000 arrests, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. His officers unleashed brutal force, kettled innocent protesters in the streets, and trampled civil rights, leaving a scar on the city that still stings. The aftermath was a humiliating $16.5 million settlement in August 2020, with those detained receiving between $5,000 and $24,700 each for the trauma inflicted under Blair’s command. Instead of taking responsibility, he dug in his heels, defending the draconian regulations that fueled the chaos and refusing to resign despite the public’s outrage and the undeniable evidence of his failure. His stint as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was no less infuriating. In June 2023, he botched a critical CSIS memo warning of threats from a Chinese diplomat targeting Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family. Blair had the audacity to pin the blame on CSIS Director David Vigneault, whining that the director deemed it unnecessary to inform him, as if that excuses his job to protect Canadians. A parliamentary committee investigation into foreign interference, coupled with a scathing report from former governor general David Johnston, laid bare the government’s pathetic handling of confidential intelligence under Blair’s watch. The public was left fuming, watching a minister too cowardly to admit his role in letting foreign threats slip through the cracks, exposing his utter uselessness in a role demanding vigilance and accountability. Then, as Minister of National Defence in 2024, Blair rammed through a plan to send banned firearms from Canada’s gun buyback program to Ukraine, igniting a firestorm of public disgust. With over 2,000 firearm models banned, including 324 “assault-style” additions in December 2024, and an amnesty order until October 2025, he decided to ship these weapons abroad, undermining the very safety measures Canadians were promised. The buyback’s cost, estimated at up to $750 million by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, already had taxpayers on edge, but Blair’s move to hand over these guns confirmed as suitable by Ukraine in October 2024 drove provinces like Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to open revolt. Citizens saw it as a betrayal, their trust in domestic gun control shredded so Blair could play war hero, leaving them to foot the bill for his reckless priorities. His oversight of the RCMP was another gut punch to the public. In November 2020, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard released a report that tore into the RCMP for failing transparency laws “by nearly every measure,” a collapse that happened squarely under Blair’s tenure as Public Safety Minister. Canadians were denied access to critical information, stuck with an agency cloaked in secrecy because Blair couldn’t be bothered to enforce basic accountability. Blair’s Ukraine aid efforts only deepened the resentment. In February 2024, he announced $60 million for F-16 supplies, followed by nearly $65 million in October 2024 for arms, ammunition, and drones, all part of Canada’s support for Ukraine against Russia’s 2022 invasion. While the cause might sound noble, Canadians were livid watching their money hemorrhage overseas while Blair ignored the domestic fallout of his policies. The gun donation plan tied into this, with businesses compensated for transferring banned weapons, adding insult to injury for a public already stretched thin. From the G20’s violent legacy to the CSIS memo disgrace, from the RCMP’s opacity to the gun control sellout, Blair’s every move has been a calculated insult, a refusal to face the tough questions, and a shameless evasion of the consequences that keep piling up.

Vote Canada

16,988 次观看 • 1 年前