Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
FEAR AND LOATHING IN LOS BIPSONS Capcom vs. SNK 2 Results [37 Entrants] 🥇 Bas 🥈 ChoiBoy 🥉 Nakanishi Evo 2008 Evo 2024 Community Showcase Evo 2025 Extended Lineup Evo 2026 BYOC Bas and ChoiBoy meet once again in Grand Finals. I think they're destined to do this forever.
20,002 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![What could Alphafold 4 look like? (Sergey Ovchinnikov, Ep #3) 2 hours listening time (links below) To those in the (machine-learning for protein design) space, Dr. Sergey Ovchinnikov (Sergey Ovchinnikov) is a very, very well-recognized name. A recent MIT professor (circa early 2024), he has played a part in a staggering number of recent great papers in the field: ColabFold, RFDiffusion, Bindcraft, automated design of soluble proxies of membrane proteins, elucidating what protein language models are learning, conformational sampling via Alphafold2, and many more. Of course, all these papers were group efforts, but Sergey's name comes up astonishingly frequently! And even beyond the research that have come from his lab in the last few years, the co-evolution work he did during his PhD/fellowship also laid some of the groundwork for the original Alphafold paper, being cited twice in it. This is a two hour conversation with him, asking every question I could think of. We talk about his own journey into biology research, an issue he has with Alphafold3, what Alphafold4-and-beyond models may look like, what research he’d want to spend a hundred million dollars on, and lots more. Topics/institutions we discuss: Arc Institute's Evo models, Hannah Wayment-Steele's work, Isomorphic Labs's AF2/AF3, and EvolutionaryScale's ESM models Also, extremely grateful to Asimov Press (Asimov Press) for helping fund the travel + studio time required for this episode! They are a non-profit publisher dedicated to thoughtful writing on biology and metascience, such as articles over synthetic blood and interviews with plant geneticists. I myself have published within them twice! I highly recommend checking out their essays at or reaching out to editors@asimov.com if you’re interested in contributing. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Highlight clips [00:01:10] Introduction + Sergey's background and how he got into the field [00:18:14] Is conservation all you need? [00:23:26] Ambiguous vs non-ambiguous regions in proteins [00:24:59] What will AlphaFold 4/5/6 look like? [00:36:19] Diffusion vs. inversion for protein design [00:44:52] A problem with Alphafold3 [00:53:41] MSA vs. single sequence models [01:06:52] How Sergey picks research problems [01:21:06] What are DNA models like Evo learning? [01:29:11] The problem with train/test splits in biology [01:49:07] What Sergey would do with $100 million](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1915897678187372557/amplify_video_thumb/1915847249084456960/img/TnpQQQNlc88AcmQ2.jpg)
![Brennan's thoughts on his upcoming indictment Brennan "I don't know, I guess it's up to President Trump to say why [he hates me], but clearly my engagement with the CIA during the 2016 period, where we uncovered Russian attempts to interfere in the presidential election, where we determined that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, was trying to interfere to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump, is something that Donald Trump still does not come to terms with and continues to believe that we try to undermine his election and his presidency, which is so far from the truth. When I was director of CIA, we tried to do our best to stop the Russians, any country, from interfering in the foundation of our democracy, which is our presidential elections. And so Donald Trump has had this gripe against me for the past 8 plus years. And again, what we're seeing right now in terms of the indictment of Jim Comey, clearly this was politically motivated. There have been the career prosecutors that resigned rather than bring charges because there was a lack of evidence, I think strongly suggests that this is something that is part of Donald Trump's revenge tour. And unfortunately, he cannot get over the past. He is somebody who has retribution, I think, in his heart and wants to hurt people, whether it be hurt them reputationally, professionally, financially, or whatever, or legally. And unfortunately, tragically, the Department of Justice now has become putty in his hands. And I think all Americans should be outraged. And I'm waiting for the Republicans, especially Republicans in Congress, to be outraged over what has happened to the Department of Justice. Question: Have you talked to any of them, the Republicans in Congress, about this? Brennan: Not recently, no. They don't call me anymore. Interviewer: I'm curious, especially because you are dealing with this personally. It feels to me that the conviction is not the point. That at the end of the day, whether or not Comey actually gets convicted by a judge at the end of this year is not the point. That it is the selling of the reputation. It is making you guys get lawyers and deal with this, making your family concerned and scared. The chilling effect that it creates to all the people who have something to say about Donald Trump and this country, whether they have power and access to resources or not. Am I right? Is the conviction the point, or is it something else? BRENNAN: Well, I think some of Trump's allies have publicly said, if we cannot charge them with something, we're going to publicly shame them. And so clearly, I think what they're trying to do is to publicly try to embarrass, defame, and disparage individuals who have given their lives in service to this country. Jim Comey, I worked very closely with him when he was director of FBI and CIA. He was trying to carry out his responsibilities to fulfill his oath of office. And I disagree with Jim on a number of issues, but I never doubted his integrity. I never doubted that he was really trying to do everything possible to continue to protect this country from foreign interference in terms of the 2016 election. So, yes, I do believe that what Trump is doing when he talks in such disparaging and profane terms about individuals. Interviewer: And he even said in a recent Charlie Kirk memorial service that he hates his opponents. For the President of the United States to say this. Is it just about disparaging individuals, though? You're the former director of the CIA. Jim Comey is the former director of the FBI. What does this do to Americans' trust in those institutions, in the FBI and the CIA and the Justice Department? Brennan; Well, I think certainly it has undermined confidence in the U.S. judicial system or the Department of Justice, first and foremost, because he's using now prosecutions against individuals. But also I think it makes the individuals within the CIA and the FBI really worry about what it is that the President of the United States may be directing them to do. He doesn't follow not just norms and traditions, but also he pushes the boundaries as far as presidential executive authority. And so I really do think in talking to a number of people, either recently retired or still in government, they really are questioning whether or not this is what they signed up for. And whether or not they can fulfill their obligations, their oath of office, in a way that is consistent with their values and the foundational principles, again, of this country. Interviewer: I realize it's a bit unusual to ask you about the potential case being built against you inside the administration. But I do want to ask about Washington Post reporting that came out this week. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, revoked security clearances of current and former officials who could be viewed, called as potential witnesses in the case, according to two senior administration officials. Some of these people targeted by Gabbard worked in the Obama administration at the same time as you did and could possibly be called as witnesses in the government's probe. But these potential witnesses have been labeled by the Director of National Intelligence as unreliable and traitorous, which will complicate efforts by prosecutors to build a case against you. What is your reaction? Brennan: It was absolutely appalling that she revoked the security clearances of those 37 individuals, some of whom were still in government. And there was no basis whatsoever to do that. And the story that says that because of her revocation, it really undermines the case against me. You know, I don't see any case against me. I have looked back on all of my actions and decisions. And with John Durham, the special counsel, and others that have looked at what we did, it was certainly consistent with our legal authorities and with the law. So I don't know what they're referring to there. Individuals who used to work in the government, even if their security clearances were revoked, they could be subpoenaed. They could be called to provide testimony in support of whatever allegations they have. I just don't see a case there. Interviewer: People who are in the crosshairs of these kinds of possible investigations and how it changes your entire life and how you and your family can operate. So how are you? Brennan: Well, I'm glad that Jim Comey put out that video statement the other night where he said that they're not going to live on their knees, his family, and others shouldn't as well. I'm not going to be intimidated by the likes of Donald Trump. I have always tried to speak my mind and do what I thought was right. And clearly there is a corruption and a perversion of the justice system right now within the executive branch. And so I don't know what may be coming my way, but I'm not going to do things that are inconsistent with my ethics and my values. And what it is that I believe is important, I think more people have to speak out when they see injustice. When they see a government that is abusing its authority and its power, I think more and more people have to speak out. And I'm waiting for those Republicans in Congress to come to their senses because the damage that's being done to this country and the dangerous times that we're in, I think too many Americans do not appreciate the extent of that. And certainly I think we're in for even choppier waters ahead. Interviewer: Talking about speaking out, you said that you're still talking to people inside of government. Do you think that it's time for people to hand in their resignations as a sign that they think that this government isn't functioning anymore? Brennan: Well, I'm talking mostly to people who have retired and people who are now transitioning out because they have not been able to put up with what this government is involved in right now. I applaud those individuals who will not bow to Donald Trump. So Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney in the eastern district of Virginia, who resigned rather than bringing charges that he thought were hollow against Jim Comey. I think more and more individuals, if they're being pushed to do something that is either illegal, unethical, unprincipled, or inconsistent with what their responsibilities are, they need to say, no, I'm not going to do that and either be fired or resign. I am hoping, though, that we're still going to have people in the national security community, in law enforcement, who are going to carry out their responsibilities. Because this country really depends on the professionals for them to do their work. This country faces so many challenges, both domestically and internationally. And so what we can't do is be distracted by all these politically motivated prosecutions. And again, I'm hoping that my former colleagues who remain inside of the government are going to continue to carry out their duties in full faith that the American people have in them. Interviewer: I think it's worth also putting a pin in the James Comey statement, which is, he also said, fear is a tool of the tyrant. Brennan: Absolutely. That's what Donald Trump's trying to do. He's trying to stop all people from talking and coerce them into it. I'm not going to be silent.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1972734316116627738/amplify_video_thumb/1972731557791301632/img/-jsaRjRsvDGWcWOh.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)
![Fitts: "[With the control grid]... the mega-rich can live a very... luxurious life and control or shrink the rest of the population without fear... [but that] uber class of people... literally think of themselves as a different species." Carlson: "And they may be actually." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a conversation with Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) posted to YouTube on February 27, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Carlson: "Can I just ask the dumbest question? Why would anybody in authority want that level of control? What's the impulse there? Why would you want to do that to people?" Fitts: "With that kind of control I can bring out phenomenally powerful technology without worrying about it being weaponized. So I can bring out breakthrough energy technology and not worry that I can't control how it gets used. I can manage a large population in a world where technology is changing without losing control. "So a small group of people can control the many. And also if I believe that with life science I can live forever or for much longer lifetimes, I can either depopulate or control people who are angry that I'm living to be 145 and they're not, and I can basically keep them in check even though, so the mega-rich can live a very different luxurious life and control or shrink the rest of the population without fear because they have complete control. "So bottom line, in a time of radical technological change, which we're living through right now, the first result is societal chaos and revolutions and wars. And that's why I got the Bolsheviks, et cetera, et cetera. The people pushing this technological change or watching it from positions of authority know this. "And so the control grid would allow the transition to whatever this technological future is without the downside of like a Bolshevik revolution. So in my experience, the people who run the financial system are first and foremost risk managers. They don't think in terms of making money. They print money out of thin air. But they're very deeply careful about risk and they're very afraid of the guillotine. They're very afraid of the crowd. "But it's hard, it's hard to manage people. And if you look at, at coming into the development of digital technology and globalization, they had two choices. They could use this technology to build something that allowed explosive new decentralized wealth to be created. At which point how did they make sure they stay in control? Especially because you have so much going on that's secret. "So how do you stay in control? And, and can you create a bottom up structure that will behave responsibly? And the hard part of behaving responsibly is you as a manager of society have to turn the aircraft carrier before you hit the iceberg. You don't trust the crowd to care until you hit the iceberg and then it's too late. "So you decide, okay, we need a meritocracy. We can't trust the people. Now, I disagree with that. But so that was the model I was working on when I was making all this software. So I was saying we can have a bottom up structure that does the risk management, but builds the explosive wealth and it can work. But then you don't have an uber class. "But I think they decided, okay, the only way we find managing the general population very frustrating. And it's back to the red button story. We find them very hypocritical and irresponsible and frustrating. We are very frustrated, we are just going to go to complete control and they had to choose one or the other, and so they chose complete control. "The problem is once you get into complete control, you get an uber class of people who literally think of themselves as a different species." Carlson: "Yeah. And they may be actually. Sorry, excuse me."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2027477227705930046/amplify_video_thumb/2027475418878738432/img/qzR_VkKmjjC7JtKY.jpg)
