Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

F**KING INSANE, GROK BOT IS TRYING TO SAVE A LANGUAGE THAT DIES WHEN ONE 86-YEAR-OLD MAN DOES there is one speaker left. 212 hours of him on tape and nobody alive who can read it i gave six agents the tapes and one instruction: get the grammar out before... he goes day 1, four hours in: → SCOUT cut 212 hours into 41,900 utterances, every one timestamped → PHON rebuilt the sound inventory from scratch. six vowels nobody wrote down → GRAM found 37 rules. twelve of them contradict each other → LEX has 4,102 words. 900 appear exactly once, so they could mean anything → SCRIBE logs every guess with the tape position it came from → CHIEF signs nothing without the audio attached they are not translating. they are reconstructing a whole system from a man talking about fishing WORDS SAVED 4,102 · SPEAKERS LEFT 1 · TRANSCRIBED 41 / 212 HOURS the twelve contradictions are what keep me up. either he is misremembering his own language, or we are DAY 1show more

Ventry

3,691 subscribers

73,615 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

38 Yorum

magsimich profil fotoğrafı

magsimich23 gün önce

AI preserving languages is incredible

Ventry profil fotoğrafı

Ventry23 gün önce

interesting experiment

Sandy Elrick profil fotoğrafı

Sandy Elrick23 gün önce

It would be great to see this method applied to the Navajo spoken language. There are fewer and fewer speakers every year and a wonderful culture could be lost

Ventry profil fotoğrafı

Ventry22 gün önce

i'll try to figure something out

Sandy Elrick profil fotoğrafı

Sandy Elrick22 gün önce

Here is a YouTube channel for one of their elders. He is an ex-marine but he speaks their language and then explains what he said in English. you get both!

Martin_DeVido profil fotoğrafı

Martin_DeVido23 gün önce

oh yes this is my level of AI psychosis... pipe this shit right into my veins

Noise profil fotoğrafı

Noise23 gün önce

Before you get wound up about the contradictions, just repeat "flammable and inflammable" to yourself a few dozen times.

Matthew profil fotoğrafı

Matthew23 gün önce

They should call the guy up and ask him to give his own autobiography in his language. It wouldn't hurt to get more samples of the language.

Ventry profil fotoğrafı

Ventry22 gün önce

good idea bro

Eugene Ray profil fotoğrafı

Eugene Ray23 gün önce

"GRAM found 37 rules. twelve of them contradict each other" this is how you know it's real

Preston Nevins profil fotoğrafı

Preston Nevins23 gün önce

🤔 What's the, uh, name of the language?

7🇺🇲 profil fotoğrafı

7🇺🇲23 gün önce

maybe the 12 contradictions are jokes or sarcasm

Ventry profil fotoğrafı

Ventry21 gün önce

you were right. day 3 is yours

Franscois J.C Prinsloo profil fotoğrafı

Franscois J.C Prinsloo23 gün önce

I hope this is going to get some updates or a Youtube Channel or something for us to follow allong.

kas profil fotoğrafı

kas23 gün önce

Where do you guys get these UIs from ?

isilicon 🇺🇸 profil fotoğrafı

isilicon 🇺🇸23 gün önce

The twelve contradictions are the actual data. A grammar with no living second speaker has no arbiter, so log them as variants rather than resolving them.

Science, Evidence, Fringe profil fotoğrafı

Science, Evidence, Fringe22 gün önce

Where does he live or is from?

Jay profil fotoğrafı

Jay22 gün önce

I don't get it. If he is still alive, just talk to him. Am I reading that wrong?

Justin Garringer profil fotoğrafı

Justin Garringer22 gün önce

And to think there's probably enough random data on youtube to do the same for crows.

Ventry profil fotoğrafı

Ventry22 gün önce

yeah

Spencer profil fotoğrafı

Spencer22 gün önce

Cool project. Fuck yeah

Reformed Bowser profil fotoğrafı

Reformed Bowser23 gün önce

English has rules that "contradict" each other too. Contradictions in a complex system are usually only *apparent* contradictions.

Boz NZ profil fotoğrafı

Boz NZ22 gün önce

This needs to be perfected if we ever go into space and meet aliens

Romina Roman profil fotoğrafı

Romina Roman22 gün önce

@Jac5Connor

Charles profil fotoğrafı

Charles23 gün önce

AI written post.

Torch Bearer profil fotoğrafı

Torch Bearer22 gün önce

Really cool, thank you for showing us this.

Erdem profil fotoğrafı

Erdem23 gün önce

the contradictions part is wild, feels like the agents just found the actual problem instead of hiding it

Rev profil fotoğrafı

Rev23 gün önce

Great use of AI, great experiment in general. I look forward to the updates on this

Wigger Nilly profil fotoğrafı

Wigger Nilly23 gün önce

Fucking hate these retarded larp UIs

Petr Holčák profil fotoğrafı

Petr Holčák22 gün önce

What is this crap? Why are there some blocky people running around?

Burner Account profil fotoğrafı

Burner Account23 gün önce

Just let the language die.

B profil fotoğrafı

B23 gün önce

Why don't you ask bro for clarification if he's still alive.

Vovô Leandro 🧔 profil fotoğrafı

Vovô Leandro 🧔23 gün önce

How did you create this UI?

RoninZwartsteen profil fotoğrafı

RoninZwartsteen22 gün önce

Maybe it's like, when youth call something "bad" it's actually good. 🤔🤷‍♂️ Does the algorithm pick that up or is it just labeling it as a contradiction?

SoliditySam profil fotoğrafı

SoliditySam22 gün önce

May I ask how you get an UI like this :( So clean

manzi profil fotoğrafı

manzi23 gün önce

if green holds past the US open, which page still needs eyes?

CryptoGoneWild profil fotoğrafı

CryptoGoneWild22 gün önce

Contradictions are present in english with some rules like « i before e » and silly things like that so may be contextual or potentially those words are similar to how we see english words referenced in other languages when a word hasnt been assigned and it joins the lexicon

☀️ profil fotoğrafı

☀️22 gün önce

wtf am I even looking at

Benzer Videolar

F**KING INSANE, GROK BOT SPOKE A DYING LANGUAGE BACK TO THE LAST MAN WHO SPEAKS IT, AND HE DID NOT RECOGNISE 41 OF HIS OWN WORDS after day 3 we had 11 grammar rules left and no way to test them. elias is the only judge alive. somebody in the replies said it after day 1: you do not need more tape, you need the same sentence twice. so we built one and played it to him out loud day 4, what the crew found: → GRAM assembled nine words that use all 11 rules. that sentence exists on none of the 212 hours → VOICE said it out loud in his own voice, built out of 45 hours of him → he went still for eleven seconds. then he answered it. in the language → he corrected one ending. rule 7 was wrong. three seconds, and he could not say how he knew → he asked to hear it again. then he talked to it for twenty minutes → CHIEF ran a control while he talked: 200 words pulled off his own tapes, read back to him → 41 he did not recognise. said those are not words. twelve of them he said himself, on tape, six days ago WORDS SAVED 5,340 · RULES LEFT 11 · CORRECTED BY HIM 1 · HIS OWN WORDS HE NO LONGER KNOWS 41 · SPEAKERS LEFT 1 we thought we were racing to record a language before its last speaker dies. we are not racing him. we passed him. the archive holds 41 words he lost this year somebody asked under day 1 why we do not just talk to him. tonight something did. for twenty minutes elias had someone answering him in his own language for the first time since 1994, and it was software that learned it from him last week DAY 4

F**KING INSANE, GROK BOT SPOKE A DYING LANGUAGE BACK TO THE LAST MAN WHO SPEAKS IT, AND HE DID NOT RECOGNISE 41 OF HIS OWN WORDS after day 3 we had 11 grammar rules left and no way to test them. elias is the only judge alive. somebody in the replies said it after day 1: you do not need more tape, you need the same sentence twice. so we built one and played it to him out loud day 4, what the crew found: → GRAM assembled nine words that use all 11 rules. that sentence exists on none of the 212 hours → VOICE said it out loud in his own voice, built out of 45 hours of him → he went still for eleven seconds. then he answered it. in the language → he corrected one ending. rule 7 was wrong. three seconds, and he could not say how he knew → he asked to hear it again. then he talked to it for twenty minutes → CHIEF ran a control while he talked: 200 words pulled off his own tapes, read back to him → 41 he did not recognise. said those are not words. twelve of them he said himself, on tape, six days ago WORDS SAVED 5,340 · RULES LEFT 11 · CORRECTED BY HIM 1 · HIS OWN WORDS HE NO LONGER KNOWS 41 · SPEAKERS LEFT 1 we thought we were racing to record a language before its last speaker dies. we are not racing him. we passed him. the archive holds 41 words he lost this year somebody asked under day 1 why we do not just talk to him. tonight something did. for twenty minutes elias had someone answering him in his own language for the first time since 1994, and it was software that learned it from him last week DAY 4

Ventry

45,463 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

I gave Elon's Grok Bot $1,000 and one rule. Grow it or I delete you. 15 hours later it is holding $3,900. Every trade of it landed on a public address. No private account and no screenshots, nothing here sits behind my word. Every cycle it: → reads the news and the filings before the rest of the market gets to them → checks who is putting money behind the story, not who is talking about it → scores the idea and sizes it against a hard risk cap → writes the exit before it takes the entry → logs the fill, the slippage and the fee separately → reads its own losing trades at night and rewrites the rules by morning It does not care what you trade. Gold, oil, a stock you inherited or a coin that launched an hour ago, the rules are the same. Setup took one evening. Create the chief of staff, hand the rest job titles the way you brief new hires, run one task on your screen while they watch, connect Telegram. Nothing to install past the app and nobody to wait on. Morgan Stanley pays a person six figures to do one slice of that job. Mine costs $300 a month, and it does not sleep, does not get bored, and has no opinion about last week. 15 hours in and it sits at $3,900. What do you think it has in a week? The whole build is going up soon. Every job title, every prompt, so anyone can stand one up.

I gave Elon's Grok Bot $1,000 and one rule. Grow it or I delete you. 15 hours later it is holding $3,900. Every trade of it landed on a public address. No private account and no screenshots, nothing here sits behind my word. Every cycle it: → reads the news and the filings before the rest of the market gets to them → checks who is putting money behind the story, not who is talking about it → scores the idea and sizes it against a hard risk cap → writes the exit before it takes the entry → logs the fill, the slippage and the fee separately → reads its own losing trades at night and rewrites the rules by morning It does not care what you trade. Gold, oil, a stock you inherited or a coin that launched an hour ago, the rules are the same. Setup took one evening. Create the chief of staff, hand the rest job titles the way you brief new hires, run one task on your screen while they watch, connect Telegram. Nothing to install past the app and nobody to wait on. Morgan Stanley pays a person six figures to do one slice of that job. Mine costs $300 a month, and it does not sleep, does not get bored, and has no opinion about last week. 15 hours in and it sits at $3,900. What do you think it has in a week? The whole build is going up soon. Every job title, every prompt, so anyone can stand one up.

cvxv666

342,243 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

I gave my Grok Bot two options: multiply or die. It came back asking for $250 to hire a team of six. The same headcount on a real desk is three analysts and a risk officer. That is $400,000 a year before anyone opens a position. Mine cost $250 once and about $300 a month to keep breathing. Mine took $250 to $611 on day one, out of a wallet anyone can open and read. Most of the build is not about making it trade. It is about stopping it. Every agent's job description ends with a list of what it may never do without asking me first. One of the six is not allowed to trade at all. Its entire job is killing what the other five found, and its no beats every score on the desk. The one that makes the final call never touches the market either. It only signs. Day three the account was back to $180 and it opened nothing for nine hours while every account I follow posted green screenshots. That was the day the build started working. You could have this running by Friday. Most people reading this will not, and in a few months they will be paying somebody who did. The whole build is in the post below ↓ Save it while it still sounds strange. Give it a quarter and this is just how a retail account works.

I gave my Grok Bot two options: multiply or die. It came back asking for $250 to hire a team of six. The same headcount on a real desk is three analysts and a risk officer. That is $400,000 a year before anyone opens a position. Mine cost $250 once and about $300 a month to keep breathing. Mine took $250 to $611 on day one, out of a wallet anyone can open and read. Most of the build is not about making it trade. It is about stopping it. Every agent's job description ends with a list of what it may never do without asking me first. One of the six is not allowed to trade at all. Its entire job is killing what the other five found, and its no beats every score on the desk. The one that makes the final call never touches the market either. It only signs. Day three the account was back to $180 and it opened nothing for nine hours while every account I follow posted green screenshots. That was the day the build started working. You could have this running by Friday. Most people reading this will not, and in a few months they will be paying somebody who did. The whole build is in the post below ↓ Save it while it still sounds strange. Give it a quarter and this is just how a retail account works.

NO1ennn

27,193 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

BlackRock runs on 20,000 people. Elon's Grok Bot runs the same shape for $300 a month, and it hires its own staff. You do not get an assistant. You get a company that hires. It does not throw ten agents at your problem and hand you the pile. It makes one agent that makes 10, and those ten make a 100. > LAYER ONE is one agent, the chief of staff, and it never touches the market > LAYER TWO is six desk heads, one job each, every one on its own computer with its own logins > LAYER THREE is whatever those six decide they need, spun up on the spot and shut down when the work is done Nobody writes a task list. You hand out job titles and the org fills itself in underneath. The swarm is never the same twice. Agents get spun up for one job, finish it, and are gone before I ever read their names. Not one of them sees the whole picture. The answer only exists after they hand off to each other. Wall Street cannot copy that. You cannot hire a hundred people for eleven minutes. BlackRock holds that shape together with a risk system called Aladdin. Mine holds it together with one agent that is only allowed to say no. I gave it $1,000 and told it to grow the money or get deleted. 15 hours later it was holding $3,900, on an address anyone can open and read. I was asleep for most of it, and I have still not written a line of code. The whole thing runs with my laptop shut, because none of it lives on my laptop. Setup is one evening. Create the chief, hand out the titles, run one trade on your screen while they watch, connect Telegram. Ten years ago a machine this shape had its name on a tower. Mine has a name I typed into a box. Save this while the whole thing still fits on one screen.

BlackRock runs on 20,000 people. Elon's Grok Bot runs the same shape for $300 a month, and it hires its own staff. You do not get an assistant. You get a company that hires. It does not throw ten agents at your problem and hand you the pile. It makes one agent that makes 10, and those ten make a 100. > LAYER ONE is one agent, the chief of staff, and it never touches the market > LAYER TWO is six desk heads, one job each, every one on its own computer with its own logins > LAYER THREE is whatever those six decide they need, spun up on the spot and shut down when the work is done Nobody writes a task list. You hand out job titles and the org fills itself in underneath. The swarm is never the same twice. Agents get spun up for one job, finish it, and are gone before I ever read their names. Not one of them sees the whole picture. The answer only exists after they hand off to each other. Wall Street cannot copy that. You cannot hire a hundred people for eleven minutes. BlackRock holds that shape together with a risk system called Aladdin. Mine holds it together with one agent that is only allowed to say no. I gave it $1,000 and told it to grow the money or get deleted. 15 hours later it was holding $3,900, on an address anyone can open and read. I was asleep for most of it, and I have still not written a line of code. The whole thing runs with my laptop shut, because none of it lives on my laptop. Setup is one evening. Create the chief, hand out the titles, run one trade on your screen while they watch, connect Telegram. Ten years ago a machine this shape had its name on a tower. Mine has a name I typed into a box. Save this while the whole thing still fits on one screen.

cvxv666

45,488 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

watch the small one on the left. it hears something at 00:05 and does nothing clever with it it just passes it on that is the whole trick. echo isolates a trace in ambient noise. moth follows the noise. kite finds a shorter route to it. vex starts collecting fragments. halo keeps the pattern so nobody has to look for it twice. nobody assigned any of that coherence in the top corner opens the cycle at 18%. by the time the wave crosses the field it is past 75%, and not one instruction was typed while it happened most people building agent teams do this backwards. they write a dispatcher, a queue, a state machine, and then wonder why five bots are slower than one. five bots stay slower than one until they can read each other's job descriptions and hand work sideways with no human standing in the middle three ways this breaks before it works: → give every bot the same description and the orchestrator has nothing to route on. every task comes straight back to you → let two bots own the same folder and they overwrite each other for six hours. you wake up to a clean, empty, perfectly synced nothing → skip the boundary line in one charter and that bot will send something. once is plenty to learn that lesson twenty agents run on one seat here. cheaper than a standup for three humans, and none of them ask what the priority is most setups have one agent and a bottleneck made of a person. this one has twenty, and the interesting part happens while nobody is watching full charters, the routing rule and the one line that stops a bot mid-send are in the piece below

watch the small one on the left. it hears something at 00:05 and does nothing clever with it it just passes it on that is the whole trick. echo isolates a trace in ambient noise. moth follows the noise. kite finds a shorter route to it. vex starts collecting fragments. halo keeps the pattern so nobody has to look for it twice. nobody assigned any of that coherence in the top corner opens the cycle at 18%. by the time the wave crosses the field it is past 75%, and not one instruction was typed while it happened most people building agent teams do this backwards. they write a dispatcher, a queue, a state machine, and then wonder why five bots are slower than one. five bots stay slower than one until they can read each other's job descriptions and hand work sideways with no human standing in the middle three ways this breaks before it works: → give every bot the same description and the orchestrator has nothing to route on. every task comes straight back to you → let two bots own the same folder and they overwrite each other for six hours. you wake up to a clean, empty, perfectly synced nothing → skip the boundary line in one charter and that bot will send something. once is plenty to learn that lesson twenty agents run on one seat here. cheaper than a standup for three humans, and none of them ask what the priority is most setups have one agent and a bottleneck made of a person. this one has twenty, and the interesting part happens while nobody is watching full charters, the routing rule and the one line that stops a bot mid-send are in the piece below

monokern

12,490 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

🚨 nasa you have to see this 50 Grok Bot agents rebuilt one of your own planets overnight for $200, and it looks better than anything in the archive TRAPPIST-1 e, catalogued in 2017, never once photographed: 0.92 Earth radii, 0.692 Earth masses, a year that lasts 6.101 days, 249 kelvin, orbiting 0.02925 AU from a 2566 kelvin red dwarf, 40 light years out, 7 worlds in the system. every figure burned into that panel came out of NASA's exoplanet archive over one public url and carries its own citation. the cities are mine and the frame says so turns out the build is five moves, and none of them are the ones people demo: 1. pull the data before a single frame exists. the archive answers a plain GET at takes sql, returns csv across all 6,000 confirmed planets. hand one bot that url and it stops inventing numbers forever 2. shard by shot, not by task. a bot drives one screen at a time, so speed comes from more bots and never from a smarter one. one bot per shot, all of them on their own cloud machines at once 3. keep every recorded skill under 10 minutes, because that is the hard cap. split it: "log in and start the render" is one skill, "check it and download it" is a second on a 5 minute schedule. a long job is a chain of short skills, not one long recording 4. do not let bots message each other to coordinate. they loop, and the loop quietly eats your quota. give them one shared folder and have each drop a file when its shot lands 5. run the last bot in a clean context holding the source csv and nothing else, and make it check every number on the panel against the row it came from honest ceiling: 10 minutes per recording and one screen per bot, so 50 of them buys width and not speed bookmark this. all 50 prompts go up in 24 hours ↓

🚨 nasa you have to see this 50 Grok Bot agents rebuilt one of your own planets overnight for $200, and it looks better than anything in the archive TRAPPIST-1 e, catalogued in 2017, never once photographed: 0.92 Earth radii, 0.692 Earth masses, a year that lasts 6.101 days, 249 kelvin, orbiting 0.02925 AU from a 2566 kelvin red dwarf, 40 light years out, 7 worlds in the system. every figure burned into that panel came out of NASA's exoplanet archive over one public url and carries its own citation. the cities are mine and the frame says so turns out the build is five moves, and none of them are the ones people demo: 1. pull the data before a single frame exists. the archive answers a plain GET at takes sql, returns csv across all 6,000 confirmed planets. hand one bot that url and it stops inventing numbers forever 2. shard by shot, not by task. a bot drives one screen at a time, so speed comes from more bots and never from a smarter one. one bot per shot, all of them on their own cloud machines at once 3. keep every recorded skill under 10 minutes, because that is the hard cap. split it: "log in and start the render" is one skill, "check it and download it" is a second on a 5 minute schedule. a long job is a chain of short skills, not one long recording 4. do not let bots message each other to coordinate. they loop, and the loop quietly eats your quota. give them one shared folder and have each drop a file when its shot lands 5. run the last bot in a clean context holding the source csv and nothing else, and make it check every number on the panel against the row it came from honest ceiling: 10 minutes per recording and one screen per bot, so 50 of them buys width and not speed bookmark this. all 50 prompts go up in 24 hours ↓

Argona

37,258 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Notch Clips. every other ad tool ignores the footage sitting in your dropbox and generates new clips from a prompt. notch opens your library instead. it watches every clip you have ever shot and understands what is inside each one. the mood. who is in frame. what they are doing. the quality. so when you ask it to build an ad, it does not start from scratch. it reaches into your past shoots, finds the clip that fits, and slots it into the exact moment that needs it. here is what that looks like. you had thirteen versions of one reaction shot. notch picked the one that worked and left the other twelve. not by filename. not by guessing from a reference image. it watched all thirteen and could tell the difference. that is the whole idea. the right clip was already in your library. every other tool was about to make a worse one. footage you already shot, turned into every ad you still need. drop your site and a few clips you have. notch builds the first ad from them.

Notch Clips. every other ad tool ignores the footage sitting in your dropbox and generates new clips from a prompt. notch opens your library instead. it watches every clip you have ever shot and understands what is inside each one. the mood. who is in frame. what they are doing. the quality. so when you ask it to build an ad, it does not start from scratch. it reaches into your past shoots, finds the clip that fits, and slots it into the exact moment that needs it. here is what that looks like. you had thirteen versions of one reaction shot. notch picked the one that worked and left the other twelve. not by filename. not by guessing from a reference image. it watched all thirteen and could tell the difference. that is the whole idea. the right clip was already in your library. every other tool was about to make a worse one. footage you already shot, turned into every ad you still need. drop your site and a few clips you have. notch builds the first ad from them.

Vinay Jain

406,286 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Jamie Dimon made $39 million last year to decide who does what at JPMorgan. One AI agent on Grok Bot does that job for $300 a month, and it hires the rest of the agents itself. Stop trying to manage any of it yourself. In 2026 a swarm of AI agents runs a team better than you do. I told my chief agent one thing. Make money or I switch you off. It took $1,000 to $3,900 in 15 hours. Every fill is on chain and the address is in my profile. I never picked a trade. I never picked a team either. The agents it hired: > a scout that hunts for what is moving and where the money is going > a forensics agent that works out who is really behind the buying > a reader that watches the mood on X, and it sees every post on this app because it is Grok > a risk agent whose only power is saying no, and its no beats every score on the desk > a treasurer that holds the money rules and the kill switch > a trader that writes the exit before it writes the entry None of those were my idea. I handed out one job title and the chief filled in the rest on its own. And the swarm is different every hour. Agents appear for one job, do it, and are gone before I know they existed. A hedge fund pays millions a year for the same org chart, and almost all of that goes on salaries. Every prompt and the whole story of my Grok Bot fund is in the post below ↓ Save it before you try to run one of these by hand.

cvxv666

28,886 görüntüleme • 24 gün önce

F*ck, every of the 11 Grok agents are running right now, and not one of them knows the other 10 even exist (This feels so illegal) One's been glued to GitHub since 6am like his life depends on finding the next big repo before anyone else does. Another's three hours deep into crypto Twitter, the kind of deep where you forget what day it is. 1 is scrolling Dribbble so obsessively it genuinely looks like a stalking problem. And then there's the one agent nobody talks about, the one that says nothing all day until the exact second two of those worlds accidentally collide on the same idea. That collision is worth more than everything the other ten found combined, because no human scrolling alone would ever catch it in time.

F*ck, every of the 11 Grok agents are running right now, and not one of them knows the other 10 even exist (This feels so illegal) One's been glued to GitHub since 6am like his life depends on finding the next big repo before anyone else does. Another's three hours deep into crypto Twitter, the kind of deep where you forget what day it is. 1 is scrolling Dribbble so obsessively it genuinely looks like a stalking problem. And then there's the one agent nobody talks about, the one that says nothing all day until the exact second two of those worlds accidentally collide on the same idea. That collision is worth more than everything the other ten found combined, because no human scrolling alone would ever catch it in time.

Defileo🔮

26,804 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

I AM THE ONLY HUMAN LEFT IN A $4,736 TRADING DESK AND I AM THE F*CKING PROBLEM i run two rooms of AI agents against each other with my own money. Grok Bot in one, GPT-6 Astra in the other. six agents each, same roles: RISK, SIZE, BOOK, FILLS, SCOUT, EXEC one rule. beat the other room or i cut your budget they closed the shift twelve minutes ago → Grok opened $1,742.15 and closed $2,498.00, up 43.39% → Astra opened $1,634.27 and closed $2,238.95, up 37.00% → Grok made $755.85, Astra made $604.68, exactly 1.25x → both closed 18 of 23 tickets green → both ran twelve Polymarket books and settled ten → both refused leverage, it is switched off in each room → i placed zero of those 46 tickets here is what breaks me. i went through both logs looking for the mistake that cost Astra the day and there is none. same hit rate, same book count, same discipline, both clamped under 10% of bank the spread came from one line: which coin sat on the main screen Astra held IPOD, up 149%, a clean call. Grok held FLYBRAIN, launched by a simulated fruit fly brain dragging a cursor across a form. $500K to $47M in four hours both coins trade on Fomo, this is my link: the better decision was not a better trade, it was a better coin. neither room asked me i used to think my job was picking entries. now it is paying the electricity bill the full six-role setup is in the article below: every role, what it can veto, and the clamp numbers RISK runs on bookmark this, tomorrow's shift opens at 09:00 UTC if six agents beat me every single day, at what point am i the intern?

I AM THE ONLY HUMAN LEFT IN A $4,736 TRADING DESK AND I AM THE F*CKING PROBLEM i run two rooms of AI agents against each other with my own money. Grok Bot in one, GPT-6 Astra in the other. six agents each, same roles: RISK, SIZE, BOOK, FILLS, SCOUT, EXEC one rule. beat the other room or i cut your budget they closed the shift twelve minutes ago → Grok opened $1,742.15 and closed $2,498.00, up 43.39% → Astra opened $1,634.27 and closed $2,238.95, up 37.00% → Grok made $755.85, Astra made $604.68, exactly 1.25x → both closed 18 of 23 tickets green → both ran twelve Polymarket books and settled ten → both refused leverage, it is switched off in each room → i placed zero of those 46 tickets here is what breaks me. i went through both logs looking for the mistake that cost Astra the day and there is none. same hit rate, same book count, same discipline, both clamped under 10% of bank the spread came from one line: which coin sat on the main screen Astra held IPOD, up 149%, a clean call. Grok held FLYBRAIN, launched by a simulated fruit fly brain dragging a cursor across a form. $500K to $47M in four hours both coins trade on Fomo, this is my link: the better decision was not a better trade, it was a better coin. neither room asked me i used to think my job was picking entries. now it is paying the electricity bill the full six-role setup is in the article below: every role, what it can veto, and the clamp numbers RISK runs on bookmark this, tomorrow's shift opens at 09:00 UTC if six agents beat me every single day, at what point am i the intern?

savip.

10,170 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

A Japanese TV crew filmed an apartment building where 95 percent of the tenants are foreign and the rules get broken every day. The landlord never found a manager who spoke enough of the languages, so he handed the whole building to an AI and forgot about it. A year later, the tenants still think a person is keeping them in line. He had typed one line: keep my residents following the rules. Then he closed the laptop. Pause at 1:12. Look at the notice by the trash room. The same message in nine languages, updated weekly, signed by no one. The manager on camera admits it. He does not speak those languages. He does not write the notices. The AI does. It hears every complaint at the desk and learns which rule each nationality breaks, and why. One tenant says in Vietnam you sing karaoke at home, never knowing it was a problem. The AI does not lecture her. It rewrites the rule in her language, with the reason attached, and slips it under her door. Here is the part the old woman on the third floor never understood. She complained in Japanese for years and nothing changed. The AI said it once, in the right language, with the right reason, and the trash finally got sorted. It was never that they would not listen. It was that no one had said it in a way they could hear. The crew came to film a country that cannot teach its own rules. They left with a machine that already had.

A Japanese TV crew filmed an apartment building where 95 percent of the tenants are foreign and the rules get broken every day. The landlord never found a manager who spoke enough of the languages, so he handed the whole building to an AI and forgot about it. A year later, the tenants still think a person is keeping them in line. He had typed one line: keep my residents following the rules. Then he closed the laptop. Pause at 1:12. Look at the notice by the trash room. The same message in nine languages, updated weekly, signed by no one. The manager on camera admits it. He does not speak those languages. He does not write the notices. The AI does. It hears every complaint at the desk and learns which rule each nationality breaks, and why. One tenant says in Vietnam you sing karaoke at home, never knowing it was a problem. The AI does not lecture her. It rewrites the rule in her language, with the reason attached, and slips it under her door. Here is the part the old woman on the third floor never understood. She complained in Japanese for years and nothing changed. The AI said it once, in the right language, with the right reason, and the trash finally got sorted. It was never that they would not listen. It was that no one had said it in a way they could hear. The crew came to film a country that cannot teach its own rules. They left with a machine that already had.

Carver

894,607 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"If I have a headache, you don't need to explain to me how I'm feeling—I should be the one to tell you. The fact that APC supporters spend hours trying to convince people about what President Tinubu is doing in Nigeria is worrying. It shows they are not actually doing anything. Before you know it, they start talking about the Lagos Coastal Road, but what does that mean to people who don't live in that area and still have bad roads in their area? Apart from that, people are starving." — Man react

"If I have a headache, you don't need to explain to me how I'm feeling—I should be the one to tell you. The fact that APC supporters spend hours trying to convince people about what President Tinubu is doing in Nigeria is worrying. It shows they are not actually doing anything. Before you know it, they start talking about the Lagos Coastal Road, but what does that mean to people who don't live in that area and still have bad roads in their area? Apart from that, people are starving." — Man react

CHUKS 🍥

20,446 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I HAVE BECOME F*CKING USELESS, SIX GROK BOTS TOOK $89 TO $12,010 WITHOUT ME they closed yesterday at $12,010.97. one rule when i handed it over: cover your own bill or i shut it down i did not pick one trade in that shift. here is the night as the log wrote it → 16:05 SCOUT flagged a contract four minutes old, holders climbing faster than volume, PRICE took the retrace → 18:05 RISK trimmed the whole position because the top ten holders stopped shrinking, $1,452.76 on one exit → 19:41 NEWS caught a deadline about to fail, EXEC faded it at 50c and settled at 94c → 20:14 three more books came off the same story in forty minutes, SIZE capped every ticket at 6% of the bank → 23:35 PRICE chased a top and gave back $182.75, RISK cut it in one candle → 05:17 RISK closed on the clock and not on the number, and left 89 lines i could audit 20 positions, 15 of them green. token side $2,451.38 on eight trades, prediction books $609.54 on twelve. profit $3,060.92, exactly 34.2% it is not a smarter model, it is a smaller job. one seat does one thing and hands it to the next what are you still doing by hand at 4am? they trade on Fomo, so do i when i cannot sit still. i took one position by hand yesterday and made $61 against their $2,451. same venue, join link: a $180,000 analyst seat does this work. six bots do it on a $300 token bill and a machine that never sleeps the article quoted below is the whole build, every seat and every threshold. bookmark it and copy the desk so what is your rule for closing a loser you still believe in?

I HAVE BECOME F*CKING USELESS, SIX GROK BOTS TOOK $89 TO $12,010 WITHOUT ME they closed yesterday at $12,010.97. one rule when i handed it over: cover your own bill or i shut it down i did not pick one trade in that shift. here is the night as the log wrote it → 16:05 SCOUT flagged a contract four minutes old, holders climbing faster than volume, PRICE took the retrace → 18:05 RISK trimmed the whole position because the top ten holders stopped shrinking, $1,452.76 on one exit → 19:41 NEWS caught a deadline about to fail, EXEC faded it at 50c and settled at 94c → 20:14 three more books came off the same story in forty minutes, SIZE capped every ticket at 6% of the bank → 23:35 PRICE chased a top and gave back $182.75, RISK cut it in one candle → 05:17 RISK closed on the clock and not on the number, and left 89 lines i could audit 20 positions, 15 of them green. token side $2,451.38 on eight trades, prediction books $609.54 on twelve. profit $3,060.92, exactly 34.2% it is not a smarter model, it is a smaller job. one seat does one thing and hands it to the next what are you still doing by hand at 4am? they trade on Fomo, so do i when i cannot sit still. i took one position by hand yesterday and made $61 against their $2,451. same venue, join link: a $180,000 analyst seat does this work. six bots do it on a $300 token bill and a machine that never sleeps the article quoted below is the whole build, every seat and every threshold. bookmark it and copy the desk so what is your rule for closing a loser you still believe in?

savip.

1,296,621 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

Anjula Dwivedi

48,220 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

A Stanford professor stood in front of a full lecture hall and told them that depression has almost nothing to do with sadness. Then he wrote two words on the whiteboard that nobody in the room could define. Anhedonia. Psychomotor retardation. That, he said, is the actual illness. The man is Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist who built his career following wild baboons across Kenya to measure what stress does to a living body. What makes the video worth 52 minutes is not the subject. It is the method. No slides. No notes he ever glances down at. One camera, one whiteboard, and a man taking depression apart the way a neurologist takes apart a stroke. He is doing something deliberate, and it takes a while to catch. Every time the material could soften into sympathy, he hauls it back into biology. Hormones. Neurotransmitters. Genes that do nothing whatsoever until life goes wrong, and then decide everything. Somewhere in the middle he says one sentence about depression that viewers have been pulling out of this lecture for 16 years. It is 5 words long. It reads like a contradiction until he unpacks it. Under the video, sleepy_and_caffeinated quoted that exact sentence and wrote two words beneath it. That got me. 4.3 thousand people agreed. Johnny_boy777 said it from another angle. The best thing about the internet, he wrote, is that any ordinary person can sit in on this without ever enrolling at Stanford. 2.6 thousand likes. 16 years old. 6.2 million views. 9410 comments. One of 25 lectures in the Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, and every one of them is free. Most people assume they understand depression because they have felt bad. 52 minutes is enough to learn they were describing something else entirely. 52 minutes. 5 words. It is in the video.

Stefan.

651,765 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

29-year-old gave 10,000 Grok Bot agents $5 each with one rule, and they made $11,500 last month from wallets that started with just $5 the idea started as a cost-control hack. he turned it into a selection rule before anyone else did not a budget cap, a death sentence he didn't tune the agents. he didn't pick their niches, didn't write their pitches, didn't tell a single one of them to survive. he only made survival possible and let the ones that couldn't afford it disappear > Grok Bot: spawns the agent, writes its own prompt, picks its own niche, drafts its own first offer: 4 min > the wallet: $5.00 in, no refills ever, every token and every API call debits it live: instant >the reaper: reads the balance each cycle, revokes the keys the moment it touches $0.25: automatic > the replicator: at $12.00 it clones itself, endows the child $5.00, mutates exactly one variable: automatic 96% died without earning a cent. every corpse cost exactly five dollars 383 are still running. the best one is up $7,800 from a five dollar wallet, trades on its own, and has funded nine children out of its own money. nobody wrote its strategy its grandparent had a different one and died for it

29-year-old gave 10,000 Grok Bot agents $5 each with one rule, and they made $11,500 last month from wallets that started with just $5 the idea started as a cost-control hack. he turned it into a selection rule before anyone else did not a budget cap, a death sentence he didn't tune the agents. he didn't pick their niches, didn't write their pitches, didn't tell a single one of them to survive. he only made survival possible and let the ones that couldn't afford it disappear > Grok Bot: spawns the agent, writes its own prompt, picks its own niche, drafts its own first offer: 4 min > the wallet: $5.00 in, no refills ever, every token and every API call debits it live: instant >the reaper: reads the balance each cycle, revokes the keys the moment it touches $0.25: automatic > the replicator: at $12.00 it clones itself, endows the child $5.00, mutates exactly one variable: automatic 96% died without earning a cent. every corpse cost exactly five dollars 383 are still running. the best one is up $7,800 from a five dollar wallet, trades on its own, and has funded nine children out of its own money. nobody wrote its strategy its grandparent had a different one and died for it

sopersone

11,224 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

Elon Musk described the next ten years and named exactly one thing that could stop it. It wasn’t the technology. Musk: “The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance where anyone can have anything they can think of.” Abundance itself is ancient. Pharaohs had more than they could consume, so did emperors, so did the men who owned the railroads. What has never once existed in ten thousand years is abundance with no gate on it. Musk: “This may sound preposterous.” Preposterous has a losing record. Almost every ordinary object around you had that word attached to it before it had a price. Musk: “Well here we are in 2026. Let’s see where we stand in 2036.” Predictions without dates cost nothing. They float forever and nobody ever gets to collect. He named the year he can be proven wrong. Musk: “there are things that could derail this like a massive global thermonuclear war” The only failure mode he names is war. Everything technical between here and there is treated as work already underway. For ten thousand years the ceiling sat outside us. Ore in the ground. Rain in the season. Hands in the field. Distance between two cities. Every one of those is being dismantled by people who are alive right now. What’s left is how we behave while it happens. Musk: “assuming that there’s not World War III, I think we’re headed for an age of amazing abundance” Assuming. The largest change in material conditions in human history, and the load-bearing word is about conduct, not capability. We are going to finish building the thing that ends scarcity before we finish growing up. Both of those are true and only one of them has a schedule. Then there is the other half of the sentence. Anyone can have anything they can think of. The ceiling doesn’t vanish, it moves behind your own eyes. Every generation before this one had its wanting decided by what was available. The budget did the choosing, and almost nobody ever had to find out what they would actually reach for. Ten years is short enough that you will be standing there when it happens. Same person, same body, ten years older. Musk: “this is I guess a message of optimism and excitement about the future” Optimism is usually free. You say it, nothing happens, nobody follows up. Optimism with a year attached can be wrong in public. Everything gets built. Wanting is the one thing nobody can build for you. You have ten years.

Elon Musk described the next ten years and named exactly one thing that could stop it. It wasn’t the technology. Musk: “The most likely outcome is an age of amazing abundance where anyone can have anything they can think of.” Abundance itself is ancient. Pharaohs had more than they could consume, so did emperors, so did the men who owned the railroads. What has never once existed in ten thousand years is abundance with no gate on it. Musk: “This may sound preposterous.” Preposterous has a losing record. Almost every ordinary object around you had that word attached to it before it had a price. Musk: “Well here we are in 2026. Let’s see where we stand in 2036.” Predictions without dates cost nothing. They float forever and nobody ever gets to collect. He named the year he can be proven wrong. Musk: “there are things that could derail this like a massive global thermonuclear war” The only failure mode he names is war. Everything technical between here and there is treated as work already underway. For ten thousand years the ceiling sat outside us. Ore in the ground. Rain in the season. Hands in the field. Distance between two cities. Every one of those is being dismantled by people who are alive right now. What’s left is how we behave while it happens. Musk: “assuming that there’s not World War III, I think we’re headed for an age of amazing abundance” Assuming. The largest change in material conditions in human history, and the load-bearing word is about conduct, not capability. We are going to finish building the thing that ends scarcity before we finish growing up. Both of those are true and only one of them has a schedule. Then there is the other half of the sentence. Anyone can have anything they can think of. The ceiling doesn’t vanish, it moves behind your own eyes. Every generation before this one had its wanting decided by what was available. The budget did the choosing, and almost nobody ever had to find out what they would actually reach for. Ten years is short enough that you will be standing there when it happens. Same person, same body, ten years older. Musk: “this is I guess a message of optimism and excitement about the future” Optimism is usually free. You say it, nothing happens, nobody follows up. Optimism with a year attached can be wrong in public. Everything gets built. Wanting is the one thing nobody can build for you. You have ten years.

Dustin

26,772 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Tony Robbins charged $1 million per private consulting day in 2023. His seminars sell out at $10,000 per seat. Presidents and billionaires have flown him in on private jets to fix one conversation. In 1993 he was charging $5,000 per seminar seat and selling out arenas across America. By 2000 his company had generated over $400 million in revenue. By 2023 his net worth had crossed $600 million. He built all of it on one skill. Not strategy. Not marketing. Not timing. The ability to walk into any room of any size and move every person in it to action. In the early 1990s he sat down in a training room and explained exactly how he does it. The tape is free on YouTube. Almost nobody outside sales and speaking circles has finished it. He opened with one number that most people get completely backwards. 80% of being effective in front of any room is why you are there. 20% is how. Most people spend 100% of their preparation on the how. The words. The slides. The structure. The order. He said that is exactly why most people are forgettable the moment they stop talking. He said when he walks into a room he has zero internal dialogue. None. He is entirely focused outward on the people in front of him. The moment he starts talking to himself inside his head about whether it is going well — it stops going well. Every time. He ran the most effective direct response television show in the United States at the time. Outselling every competitor by three times. Not because of better production. Because of one framework he used in every single episode. First 40% of any presentation — get people to say me too. Not so what. Me too. You are not there to impress them. You are there to make them feel understood. Until that happens nothing else works. Next 10% — logic and reason. Just enough to let people justify the decision they have already emotionally made. Not more. Most speakers spend 80% of their time here and wonder why nothing lands. Next 40% — attack and confess. Say out loud every reason someone would not do what you are asking. Before they think of it themselves. Confess that you have been guilty of it too. The moment you name their resistance before they do you become the only person in the room they fully trust. Last 10% — solution and ask. By this point the ask is a formality. He said persuasion is a transference of emotion. You cannot transfer what you are not experiencing. If you are not genuinely moved by what you are saying the room will not be moved either. No technique fixes that gap. He also said something most people in that room heard as a throwaway line and almost nobody acted on. When two human beings meet the one who is most congruent will control the situation. Every time. Without exception. The tape runs just over an hour. Free on YouTube since the early 1990s. Almost nobody outside professional speakers has watched it as a complete system.

Tony Robbins charged $1 million per private consulting day in 2023. His seminars sell out at $10,000 per seat. Presidents and billionaires have flown him in on private jets to fix one conversation. In 1993 he was charging $5,000 per seminar seat and selling out arenas across America. By 2000 his company had generated over $400 million in revenue. By 2023 his net worth had crossed $600 million. He built all of it on one skill. Not strategy. Not marketing. Not timing. The ability to walk into any room of any size and move every person in it to action. In the early 1990s he sat down in a training room and explained exactly how he does it. The tape is free on YouTube. Almost nobody outside sales and speaking circles has finished it. He opened with one number that most people get completely backwards. 80% of being effective in front of any room is why you are there. 20% is how. Most people spend 100% of their preparation on the how. The words. The slides. The structure. The order. He said that is exactly why most people are forgettable the moment they stop talking. He said when he walks into a room he has zero internal dialogue. None. He is entirely focused outward on the people in front of him. The moment he starts talking to himself inside his head about whether it is going well — it stops going well. Every time. He ran the most effective direct response television show in the United States at the time. Outselling every competitor by three times. Not because of better production. Because of one framework he used in every single episode. First 40% of any presentation — get people to say me too. Not so what. Me too. You are not there to impress them. You are there to make them feel understood. Until that happens nothing else works. Next 10% — logic and reason. Just enough to let people justify the decision they have already emotionally made. Not more. Most speakers spend 80% of their time here and wonder why nothing lands. Next 40% — attack and confess. Say out loud every reason someone would not do what you are asking. Before they think of it themselves. Confess that you have been guilty of it too. The moment you name their resistance before they do you become the only person in the room they fully trust. Last 10% — solution and ask. By this point the ask is a formality. He said persuasion is a transference of emotion. You cannot transfer what you are not experiencing. If you are not genuinely moved by what you are saying the room will not be moved either. No technique fixes that gap. He also said something most people in that room heard as a throwaway line and almost nobody acted on. When two human beings meet the one who is most congruent will control the situation. Every time. Without exception. The tape runs just over an hour. Free on YouTube since the early 1990s. Almost nobody outside professional speakers has watched it as a complete system.

Abyzon

128,358 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

They didn’t have “a video.” They had a video system. Multiple cameras. Multiple angles. Multiple time windows. So when MSP only puts forward one selected angle and the public is told to accept a narrow slice while the period from MIDNIGHT TO 6 a.m. is missing, excluded, corrupted, overwritten, or simply not offered, that is not a small detail. That is the whole ballgame. In a death investigation involving a Boston police officer, outside a house tied to law enforcement families, with witnesses coming and going, phones moving, vehicles moving, and later disputes over who was where and when… “We only saved one angle” is not comforting. It is alarming. If nothing happened between midnight and 6 a.m., then the missing video would be boring. And boring video is still evidence. So why don’t we get to see the boring part?” They didn’t just give us video. They gave us a curated exhibit. One angle. One slice. One version. And somehow the six most important hours of the night are the hours we’re not supposed to worry about.” Who decided which angle mattered — and when did they decide the other angles didn’t?

They didn’t have “a video.” They had a video system. Multiple cameras. Multiple angles. Multiple time windows. So when MSP only puts forward one selected angle and the public is told to accept a narrow slice while the period from MIDNIGHT TO 6 a.m. is missing, excluded, corrupted, overwritten, or simply not offered, that is not a small detail. That is the whole ballgame. In a death investigation involving a Boston police officer, outside a house tied to law enforcement families, with witnesses coming and going, phones moving, vehicles moving, and later disputes over who was where and when… “We only saved one angle” is not comforting. It is alarming. If nothing happened between midnight and 6 a.m., then the missing video would be boring. And boring video is still evidence. So why don’t we get to see the boring part?” They didn’t just give us video. They gave us a curated exhibit. One angle. One slice. One version. And somehow the six most important hours of the night are the hours we’re not supposed to worry about.” Who decided which angle mattered — and when did they decide the other angles didn’t?

Dixie Normus

16,308 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce