Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

.Feross says the reason we're seeing increased cyberattacks is because the software supply chain is built on blind trust. "Fundamentally, if you really zoom out and ask why this is happening, it's because the whole software supply chain is built on blind trust. You're downloading code from random people...

tbpn's profile picture

TBPN

350,301 subscribers

15,575 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi describes the difficulties of building a business around open source: "You have to hit two home runs, consecutively." "Your first home run - and you're banking on hitting that home run - is that your open source project takes over the world. Everybody wants to download it." If you don't hit that home run, Ali says, you just shot yourself in the foot. You just gave away your IP and got nothing back for it. But even if you hit this home run, you still don't have a monetizable business. You still can't make any money. So you have to hit the second home run: "You need a 10x innovation on top of the open source. That's the proprietary value you'll provide companies. That's why they'll come to you. Otherwise, they can get the open source anywhere." If you don't hit the second home run, the hyperscalers pick up your open source model, and they offer it for almost-free. "Getting into open source and monetizing is not an easy sport. Preferably don't get into it, because you might get hurt."
2:33

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi describes the difficulties of building a business around open source: "You have to hit two home runs, consecutively." "Your first home run - and you're banking on hitting that home run - is that your open source project takes over the world. Everybody wants to download it." If you don't hit that home run, Ali says, you just shot yourself in the foot. You just gave away your IP and got nothing back for it. But even if you hit this home run, you still don't have a monetizable business. You still can't make any money. So you have to hit the second home run: "You need a 10x innovation on top of the open source. That's the proprietary value you'll provide companies. That's why they'll come to you. Otherwise, they can get the open source anywhere." If you don't hit the second home run, the hyperscalers pick up your open source model, and they offer it for almost-free. "Getting into open source and monetizing is not an easy sport. Preferably don't get into it, because you might get hurt."

TBPN

45,355 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

like imagine, just click and drag stuff in your app, ask an ai to reimagine it, undo it if you don't like it... and it's actually editing your source files and because it's all flux components its staying on the rails of a well thought out design system
0:27

like imagine, just click and drag stuff in your app, ask an ai to reimagine it, undo it if you don't like it... and it's actually editing your source files and because it's all flux components its staying on the rails of a well thought out design system

Caleb Porzio ⚡️

35,935 просмотров • 14 дней назад

“Our biggest bottleneck is becoming the review of code, rather than the actual writing and generation of code.” Cisco CPO Jeetu Patel says code review is still super important though, because without human taste and judgment, code quickly turns into slop: “Every engineer on that team is now just a spec developer.” “They just build specs. They create markdown files. They give context to the model. They give context to the agent. And then the agent’s writing the code.” “I think, presumably, the review is going to get easier, too.” “You’ll have really crappy software that gets written if people aren’t paying attention to it. It doesn’t obviate the need for having taste, and having judgment, and having instinct, and making sure that you’re thinking about what you’re building."
1:35

“Our biggest bottleneck is becoming the review of code, rather than the actual writing and generation of code.” Cisco CPO Jeetu Patel says code review is still super important though, because without human taste and judgment, code quickly turns into slop: “Every engineer on that team is now just a spec developer.” “They just build specs. They create markdown files. They give context to the model. They give context to the agent. And then the agent’s writing the code.” “I think, presumably, the review is going to get easier, too.” “You’ll have really crappy software that gets written if people aren’t paying attention to it. It doesn’t obviate the need for having taste, and having judgment, and having instinct, and making sure that you’re thinking about what you’re building."

TBPN

11,289 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

This is Democrats have done to Boulder, Colorado “Somebody that works at the Safeway in Boulder, and they said that every morning at 7am, like 40 people are waiting in the parking lot to run and steal like 1-2 things and they just don't have the staff to control it. It's just like the way it is. It's just an agreement.”
0:35

This is Democrats have done to Boulder, Colorado “Somebody that works at the Safeway in Boulder, and they said that every morning at 7am, like 40 people are waiting in the parking lot to run and steal like 1-2 things and they just don't have the staff to control it. It's just like the way it is. It's just an agreement.”

Wall Street Apes

467,707 просмотров • 1 год назад

Most "agents" are basically interns with API access. They ask you to subscribe to the Times. Download the file. Forward it over. You're not deploying an agent at all. You're managing one. It's why we built Anyway. Anyway is the financial OS for agents that actually operates by itself. Pay, transact, and run your own business, with no babysitter required. Comment "Anyway" to try it out.
1:41

Most "agents" are basically interns with API access. They ask you to subscribe to the Times. Download the file. Forward it over. You're not deploying an agent at all. You're managing one. It's why we built Anyway. Anyway is the financial OS for agents that actually operates by itself. Pay, transact, and run your own business, with no babysitter required. Comment "Anyway" to try it out.

Jims

2,037,149 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."
5:30

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

77,350 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."
1:37

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

383,762 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."
1:37

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

34,529 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

CrowdStrike’s Head of Counter Adversary Operations adam_cyber says supply chain attacks have shifted from compromising code to targeting developers directly: "They go after your credentials, phish you, get access to your logins to things like npm and PyPI, and then abuse that." "There are a number of ways they can do this with git tags where they can hide malicious code and redirect Git to a tag." "Axios was downloaded something like 100,000 times per week. That gives you a sense of how frequently these packages are used—and people don’t analyze that code." "They trust it came from npm." "Those packages can be updated at a moment’s notice, and you don’t know what changed unless you review the code yourself."
1:30

CrowdStrike’s Head of Counter Adversary Operations adam_cyber says supply chain attacks have shifted from compromising code to targeting developers directly: "They go after your credentials, phish you, get access to your logins to things like npm and PyPI, and then abuse that." "There are a number of ways they can do this with git tags where they can hide malicious code and redirect Git to a tag." "Axios was downloaded something like 100,000 times per week. That gives you a sense of how frequently these packages are used—and people don’t analyze that code." "They trust it came from npm." "Those packages can be updated at a moment’s notice, and you don’t know what changed unless you review the code yourself."

TBPN

19,357 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"We treat software like it is so precious. And in the new world we're going to, it's going to be much more fungible. But that's the good news." Garry Tan on where the moats will be for future YC companies: "That's where taste, agency, and trust matter a lot. This is something that's only crystallized recently. We've been talking about agency and taste for the longest time. Agency is being able to prompt, and taste is being able to do evals." "Trust is the third thing. It's probably the most important. When you have an enterprise company that is selling to real businesses that are relying on you — that's your moat. Your moat is actually trust. They went through the effort to try you, get you onboarded, and incorporate you into how they work."
1:48

"We treat software like it is so precious. And in the new world we're going to, it's going to be much more fungible. But that's the good news." Garry Tan on where the moats will be for future YC companies: "That's where taste, agency, and trust matter a lot. This is something that's only crystallized recently. We've been talking about agency and taste for the longest time. Agency is being able to prompt, and taste is being able to do evals." "Trust is the third thing. It's probably the most important. When you have an enterprise company that is selling to real businesses that are relying on you — that's your moat. Your moat is actually trust. They went through the effort to try you, get you onboarded, and incorporate you into how they work."

TBPN

43,619 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.
0:59

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.

Kevin Tanaka

10,256 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 GOV. NEWSOM’S SON WAS A FAN OF CHARLIE KIRK?! "Last night, trying to put my son to bed. He's like, 'no dad, what time is Charlie gonna be here?' And the point is which is you are making a damn dent. I mean, it's the reason you're here because I think people need to understand your success, your influence. What you've been up to and the fact that you're on these college campus doors. And to your point, you just open up. I mean, you're like: ask me anything, challenge me." Source: jeremyreporter
0:54

🇺🇸 GOV. NEWSOM’S SON WAS A FAN OF CHARLIE KIRK?! "Last night, trying to put my son to bed. He's like, 'no dad, what time is Charlie gonna be here?' And the point is which is you are making a damn dent. I mean, it's the reason you're here because I think people need to understand your success, your influence. What you've been up to and the fact that you're on these college campus doors. And to your point, you just open up. I mean, you're like: ask me anything, challenge me." Source: jeremyreporter

Mario Nawfal

121,169 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."
3:24

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."

Curtis Houck

14,545 просмотров • 1 год назад

Curtis Yarvin on how "the Left" has executed population replacement in the White Dominions as a "stalk and charge." "This is a predator... [and] they're starting to speed run...mass immigration is not 2 million people entering the US a year...[it's] 10... to 100 million a year" This clip of Yarvin (Curtis Yarvin), a political blogger and software developer (according to Wikipedia), is taken from a conversation with Peter McCormack (Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪) posted to McCormack's eponymous YouTube channel on February 23, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "You might think that people getting red-pilled in various ways is something that would really put a stop to this craziness of population replacement. Oh, no, actually it's quite very much the reverse. "Because there's something anyone who's totally lost faith in the Left, in a way, they have many complaints with the Left. But it all boils down to, you basically recognize that this is not a vegetarian thing. This is a predator, right? "And so this is a predator. And so when a predator such as a lion is hunting, there are basically two phases of the pursuit. There's the stalk and the charge. And the stalk is like, well, nobody really knows what's going on here. Like, let's take the demographic replacement in the U.S. It's from the, you know, the 1965 Immigration Act. And politicians swore up and down that this was not what it, what it was. Basically, since that act, basically it's brought like 100 million people from the third world into the US, right? "Something like that. Solid, solid numbers like that. And, but in order to sort of do that, you know, you couldn't have this giant boat lift where, you know, some gigantic version of the Empire Windrush brought 100 million people at the same time. It's more a case of like, you know, slowly, slowly, catchy, catchy fish, right? You know, where you're kind of tickling it and you're like, oh yeah, oh yeah, our friends from, you know, we're open, our hearts are welcoming, right? "You know, like all of this, like, you know, stuff that's just of course, unbelievably sinister because it's sort of trading on people's goodwill and people's good wishes. It's like this con. But the thing is, when people, when enough people see the con, and all of these systems are incentive-based, they're not based on planning, the Left is not run by some cabal. It's incentives that drive things. "What you're seeing, especially in what used to be called the white dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, especially is you're seeing they're starting to speed run, they're starting to come out of their crouch and basically just be like, yeah, actually we're, I mean in the 21st century, I think they've increased the population of Canada by like 35%. Right? "And so even that is small. Even that is small. The Spanish government was just like, we're going to legalize 500,000. Oh, but that's just an estimate. That's just an estimate of how many people that plan will suck in it probably will be more like over a million. Right. "And so you know and those people are Schengen. They can go anywhere in Europe and you will see them do that and the like and and so what you could see in the US if basically the next time Democrats win the presidency people go on about like mass immigration. Like no, we've not seen mass immigration. You have no idea what mass immigration is. "Mass Immigration is not 2 million people entering the US a year. Mass immigration starts I I would call it mass until it was like 10 a year. And like mass immigration is really the 10 to 50 to 100 million a year. But that's what could spark civil war. No, no— I don't know I'm seeing it here. No because people have no balls. People have no balls—"
3:27

Curtis Yarvin on how "the Left" has executed population replacement in the White Dominions as a "stalk and charge." "This is a predator... [and] they're starting to speed run...mass immigration is not 2 million people entering the US a year...[it's] 10... to 100 million a year" This clip of Yarvin (Curtis Yarvin), a political blogger and software developer (according to Wikipedia), is taken from a conversation with Peter McCormack (Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪) posted to McCormack's eponymous YouTube channel on February 23, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "You might think that people getting red-pilled in various ways is something that would really put a stop to this craziness of population replacement. Oh, no, actually it's quite very much the reverse. "Because there's something anyone who's totally lost faith in the Left, in a way, they have many complaints with the Left. But it all boils down to, you basically recognize that this is not a vegetarian thing. This is a predator, right? "And so this is a predator. And so when a predator such as a lion is hunting, there are basically two phases of the pursuit. There's the stalk and the charge. And the stalk is like, well, nobody really knows what's going on here. Like, let's take the demographic replacement in the U.S. It's from the, you know, the 1965 Immigration Act. And politicians swore up and down that this was not what it, what it was. Basically, since that act, basically it's brought like 100 million people from the third world into the US, right? "Something like that. Solid, solid numbers like that. And, but in order to sort of do that, you know, you couldn't have this giant boat lift where, you know, some gigantic version of the Empire Windrush brought 100 million people at the same time. It's more a case of like, you know, slowly, slowly, catchy, catchy fish, right? You know, where you're kind of tickling it and you're like, oh yeah, oh yeah, our friends from, you know, we're open, our hearts are welcoming, right? "You know, like all of this, like, you know, stuff that's just of course, unbelievably sinister because it's sort of trading on people's goodwill and people's good wishes. It's like this con. But the thing is, when people, when enough people see the con, and all of these systems are incentive-based, they're not based on planning, the Left is not run by some cabal. It's incentives that drive things. "What you're seeing, especially in what used to be called the white dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, especially is you're seeing they're starting to speed run, they're starting to come out of their crouch and basically just be like, yeah, actually we're, I mean in the 21st century, I think they've increased the population of Canada by like 35%. Right? "And so even that is small. Even that is small. The Spanish government was just like, we're going to legalize 500,000. Oh, but that's just an estimate. That's just an estimate of how many people that plan will suck in it probably will be more like over a million. Right. "And so you know and those people are Schengen. They can go anywhere in Europe and you will see them do that and the like and and so what you could see in the US if basically the next time Democrats win the presidency people go on about like mass immigration. Like no, we've not seen mass immigration. You have no idea what mass immigration is. "Mass Immigration is not 2 million people entering the US a year. Mass immigration starts I I would call it mass until it was like 10 a year. And like mass immigration is really the 10 to 50 to 100 million a year. But that's what could spark civil war. No, no— I don't know I'm seeing it here. No because people have no balls. People have no balls—"

Sense Receptor

245,656 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

.John Coogan says the recent reporting on Meta's 'tokenmaxxing' is less of a sign of bad incentives at the company, and more of a tell about its potential strategy for more vertical integration: "I think it makes clearer the strategy with MSL. Because it's clear that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this, just for internal code-gen tooling — like, running their business." "They are going to spend an inordinate amount of money on frontier inference, and so [by] training a model there, they will be able to amortize the training cost of the next model they build not just over, 'Can they get a product out that goes viral and becomes its own standalone chat app that people pay for.'" "Just on the internal usage, they could be running a multi-billion-dollar token bill that they would have to pay another lab. And so if they develop that internally, it's pure vertical integration." "And then you also have everything that's happening on the actual ad targeting and content delivery side..." "The big question has been like, 'Is Meta going to be able to launch an entirely new AI product like Vibes or something like that?'" "And this is a data point that, to me, says they don't need to. Because just from a pure vertical integration [perspective], the investment in MSL can pencil out."
1:29

.John Coogan says the recent reporting on Meta's 'tokenmaxxing' is less of a sign of bad incentives at the company, and more of a tell about its potential strategy for more vertical integration: "I think it makes clearer the strategy with MSL. Because it's clear that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this, just for internal code-gen tooling — like, running their business." "They are going to spend an inordinate amount of money on frontier inference, and so [by] training a model there, they will be able to amortize the training cost of the next model they build not just over, 'Can they get a product out that goes viral and becomes its own standalone chat app that people pay for.'" "Just on the internal usage, they could be running a multi-billion-dollar token bill that they would have to pay another lab. And so if they develop that internally, it's pure vertical integration." "And then you also have everything that's happening on the actual ad targeting and content delivery side..." "The big question has been like, 'Is Meta going to be able to launch an entirely new AI product like Vibes or something like that?'" "And this is a data point that, to me, says they don't need to. Because just from a pure vertical integration [perspective], the investment in MSL can pencil out."

TBPN

32,654 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche
1:30

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

a16z

102,588 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Logan Paul and Mike Majlak explain why they don't like weed Logan Paul: “Weed is the devil's lettuce for me. Like truly, I really have to watch my relationship with it. I don't think it's good for anyone” Andrew Santino: “I think it's good. I think it's good in certain doses for certain people. I take it before I exercise. I love it before I exercise. I used to take it before I ran. I used to run like 5 miles a day” Logan Paul: “You just get in the zone or something?” Andrew Santino: “I really enjoy it. I think a big problem with modern escape is there is no escape. It's like I want to go to the gym, people still have their phone, everyone's on their phone doing stuff. So you're not working out, you're on your phone” “But if I take a little bit of a drink and go for a run or go lift or go do a kettle exercise, I don't have my stuff. I'm focused on the thing and I put on music and I throw my phone down, turn it on do not disturb and it's like... I have the addiction if I'm just doing something” “I'll get my phone but I feel like if I have a little weed drink, I focus on like hey, this is my me time, get a little stoned and work out and I'll get back to the phone later” Mike Majlak: “I wish I could do that, it messes with my mind, like gay stuff sometimes”
1:32

Logan Paul and Mike Majlak explain why they don't like weed Logan Paul: “Weed is the devil's lettuce for me. Like truly, I really have to watch my relationship with it. I don't think it's good for anyone” Andrew Santino: “I think it's good. I think it's good in certain doses for certain people. I take it before I exercise. I love it before I exercise. I used to take it before I ran. I used to run like 5 miles a day” Logan Paul: “You just get in the zone or something?” Andrew Santino: “I really enjoy it. I think a big problem with modern escape is there is no escape. It's like I want to go to the gym, people still have their phone, everyone's on their phone doing stuff. So you're not working out, you're on your phone” “But if I take a little bit of a drink and go for a run or go lift or go do a kettle exercise, I don't have my stuff. I'm focused on the thing and I put on music and I throw my phone down, turn it on do not disturb and it's like... I have the addiction if I'm just doing something” “I'll get my phone but I feel like if I have a little weed drink, I focus on like hey, this is my me time, get a little stoned and work out and I'll get back to the phone later” Mike Majlak: “I wish I could do that, it messes with my mind, like gay stuff sometimes”

Jack

455,695 просмотров • 6 дней назад

🚨Joe Rogan and Chase Hughes Discussing Dream State, Consciousness and the Fabric of Reality Chase: "Let's say you're in a dream right now and I'm just here in your dream. We're chilling out, hanging out. And let's say you don't know it's a dream yet. And I look over and I say like, "What is that UFO spaceship over there? How far is that from your face right now?" And you look over at that flying saucer thing." "You'd be like, "Oh, it's eight 8 feet or something like that." But then if I if you know it's a dream and I ask you how far is it, you're still going to say, "Oh, it's 8 feet." And then I ask, "What is it made out of?" You're going to say, "Oh, it's aluminum." Or, you know, whatever that thing's made out of. But there's no aluminum in your brain, right? So like, and then I ask again like what is it made out of? And you eventually you'll get to a place where you say it's made out of me. It's made out of consciousness." A brilliant metaphor from Chase Hughes. Very interesting episode, discussing DMT, consciousness and reality. Source: #ufotwitter #uapX
3:28

🚨Joe Rogan and Chase Hughes Discussing Dream State, Consciousness and the Fabric of Reality Chase: "Let's say you're in a dream right now and I'm just here in your dream. We're chilling out, hanging out. And let's say you don't know it's a dream yet. And I look over and I say like, "What is that UFO spaceship over there? How far is that from your face right now?" And you look over at that flying saucer thing." "You'd be like, "Oh, it's eight 8 feet or something like that." But then if I if you know it's a dream and I ask you how far is it, you're still going to say, "Oh, it's 8 feet." And then I ask, "What is it made out of?" You're going to say, "Oh, it's aluminum." Or, you know, whatever that thing's made out of. But there's no aluminum in your brain, right? So like, and then I ask again like what is it made out of? And you eventually you'll get to a place where you say it's made out of me. It's made out of consciousness." A brilliant metaphor from Chase Hughes. Very interesting episode, discussing DMT, consciousness and reality. Source: #ufotwitter #uapX

Skywatch Signal

23,434 просмотров • 12 дней назад

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”
0:41

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,267 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"You know, I don't, I have not changed. I really make the movies for myself. I really, really do." Q: "For no one else, or just sort of like what you ultimately want to see in them?" "Yeah, I think so." Q: "As a fan yourself, too? "What I want to see, yeah, like as a, like, you only have the benchmark of yourself. Like, if you ever try and make a movie for someone other than yourself... I feel like you're going to blow it. "Because you can't, you don't know how anyone else is going to feel. So like, you know, you go, 'okay, do I find that emotionally real? Do I find that interesting? Is that the Krypton I want to go to? Is that the Superman I want to see fight?' "You know, those are the questions you ask yourself constantly. And I think once you, if you're constantly answering yes to that, then you'll end up the more, the film will end up being more interesting to you. "And ultimately, the film being interesting to you allows you to make the movie better because you're interested. "If you make it for someone else over a two-year period, you're just going to not give a sh*t at some point because you're just like, 'I don't care. This is not my movie. I don't care about this movie because I made it for someone else.'" Q: "I imagine that's a very hard thing to do in Hollywood, though, is to keep your vision clear with so much collaboration, with so much going on, with so many other people in the mix." "It really depends on the project. For instance, it was hard on Guardians, you know, where I feel like what ended up happening on that movie was people, we did end up, they did end up asking me like, 'this is for kids, right?' "And I got to honestly say that I knew it was for kids, but I didn't want to make it for kids. You know what I mean? And I think that's what happened to that movie. It did get like second guessed at the end and turned more into a movie for kids. "My point of view is I can think like a child if I want. I have that enthusiasm for movies and what I think is cool. You, the collective you, don't need to try and second guess me and go, 'this is what we think a kid would like.' "And then it's like, 'oh, a song' or whatever. Then you're just like, 'okay, whatever.'"
2:14

"You know, I don't, I have not changed. I really make the movies for myself. I really, really do." Q: "For no one else, or just sort of like what you ultimately want to see in them?" "Yeah, I think so." Q: "As a fan yourself, too? "What I want to see, yeah, like as a, like, you only have the benchmark of yourself. Like, if you ever try and make a movie for someone other than yourself... I feel like you're going to blow it. "Because you can't, you don't know how anyone else is going to feel. So like, you know, you go, 'okay, do I find that emotionally real? Do I find that interesting? Is that the Krypton I want to go to? Is that the Superman I want to see fight?' "You know, those are the questions you ask yourself constantly. And I think once you, if you're constantly answering yes to that, then you'll end up the more, the film will end up being more interesting to you. "And ultimately, the film being interesting to you allows you to make the movie better because you're interested. "If you make it for someone else over a two-year period, you're just going to not give a sh*t at some point because you're just like, 'I don't care. This is not my movie. I don't care about this movie because I made it for someone else.'" Q: "I imagine that's a very hard thing to do in Hollywood, though, is to keep your vision clear with so much collaboration, with so much going on, with so many other people in the mix." "It really depends on the project. For instance, it was hard on Guardians, you know, where I feel like what ended up happening on that movie was people, we did end up, they did end up asking me like, 'this is for kids, right?' "And I got to honestly say that I knew it was for kids, but I didn't want to make it for kids. You know what I mean? And I think that's what happened to that movie. It did get like second guessed at the end and turned more into a movie for kids. "My point of view is I can think like a child if I want. I have that enthusiasm for movies and what I think is cool. You, the collective you, don't need to try and second guess me and go, 'this is what we think a kid would like.' "And then it's like, 'oh, a song' or whatever. Then you're just like, 'okay, whatever.'"

Zack Snyder Film

334,960 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад