Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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

Ana Sayfaya Dön

For every controversy, Meta’s default defence seems to be the same: “It was a technical glitch.” But a former Meta executive turned whistle-blower has punctured that narrative. Algorithms don’t create themselves. They are designed by people, trained on human choices, and operate within rules set by the company. Meta... show more

Amit Malviya

855,717 subscribers

26,987 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS WHY 𝕏 IS BECOMING THE ULTIMATE PLATFORM FOR TRUTH Something is broken in modern journalism Legacy media was built for a world where information had to be centralized, filtered by editors, printed on paper, and distributed to the public That world no longer exists Today, anyone can access information instantly. We no longer need a handful of editors deciding what matters and what does not This is why 𝕏 represents the future It enables citizen journalism, news by the people, for the people What makes this moment transformative is simple The public now decides the narrative The public decides what matters Legacy media concentrates power at the top Citizen journalism distributes it to everyone That shift is fundamental And it is why Elon encourages people to write, share, and report directly on 𝕏 Journalism is not dead It is being rebuilt by the public

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS WHY 𝕏 IS BECOMING THE ULTIMATE PLATFORM FOR TRUTH Something is broken in modern journalism Legacy media was built for a world where information had to be centralized, filtered by editors, printed on paper, and distributed to the public That world no longer exists Today, anyone can access information instantly. We no longer need a handful of editors deciding what matters and what does not This is why 𝕏 represents the future It enables citizen journalism, news by the people, for the people What makes this moment transformative is simple The public now decides the narrative The public decides what matters Legacy media concentrates power at the top Citizen journalism distributes it to everyone That shift is fundamental And it is why Elon encourages people to write, share, and report directly on 𝕏 Journalism is not dead It is being rebuilt by the public

X Freeze

524,098 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

18,357 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

Current violence in Kashmir did not erupt in isolation. Credible inputs indicate that elements backed by ISI exploited the situation to trigger unrest. What began as peaceful gatherings was deliberately hijacked by anti-national elements (ANEs) who pushed Shia and Sunni youth toward coordinated stone pelting on security forces. The intent was clear: provoke a reaction, create confrontation, capture selective visuals, and malign the image of forces maintaining law and order. Peaceful voices were sidelined. The narrative was engineered. Kashmir has seen this pattern before. When peaceful sentiment is manipulated for strategic optics, it is the common people who suffer the consequences. Stability is not threatened by peaceful protest. It is threatened when hidden hands turn it into orchestrated violence. What is equally concerning is the role of certain political actors. Leaders like Aga Ruhullah and Junaid Mattoo amplified provocative content on social media. Instead of calming tempers, they chose to inflame passions. Such conduct raises serious questions about whose interests they truly represent. History has shown that in every fort there emerges a “Mir Jafar”. The tragedy is that ordinary people end up paying the price for the ambitions and agendas of a few.

Current violence in Kashmir did not erupt in isolation. Credible inputs indicate that elements backed by ISI exploited the situation to trigger unrest. What began as peaceful gatherings was deliberately hijacked by anti-national elements (ANEs) who pushed Shia and Sunni youth toward coordinated stone pelting on security forces. The intent was clear: provoke a reaction, create confrontation, capture selective visuals, and malign the image of forces maintaining law and order. Peaceful voices were sidelined. The narrative was engineered. Kashmir has seen this pattern before. When peaceful sentiment is manipulated for strategic optics, it is the common people who suffer the consequences. Stability is not threatened by peaceful protest. It is threatened when hidden hands turn it into orchestrated violence. What is equally concerning is the role of certain political actors. Leaders like Aga Ruhullah and Junaid Mattoo amplified provocative content on social media. Instead of calming tempers, they chose to inflame passions. Such conduct raises serious questions about whose interests they truly represent. History has shown that in every fort there emerges a “Mir Jafar”. The tragedy is that ordinary people end up paying the price for the ambitions and agendas of a few.

Mike Lima

14,595 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

National does not accept that a life on welfare is as good as it gets for young people. 18 and 19-year-olds who don’t study or work, and can’t support themselves, need to be supported by their parents or guardians, not by the taxpayer.

National does not accept that a life on welfare is as good as it gets for young people. 18 and 19-year-olds who don’t study or work, and can’t support themselves, need to be supported by their parents or guardians, not by the taxpayer.

NZ National Party

47,800 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 GLOBAL SPEECH CONTROL AGENDA The United Nations is now openly calling for “coordinated global action” to police what it labels disinformation and hate speech online. Let that sink in. An unelected international body — with no democratic mandate over sovereign citizens — is proposing frameworks to regulate what billions of people are allowed to say, share, and believe on digital platforms. This is not about protecting truth. It is about controlling narrative. History shows that the institutions most eager to define “misinformation” are often the same ones that were wrong — or dishonest — about: • Wars • Public health policies • Economic decisions • Political legitimacy The danger is not false information alone. The danger is centralised authority deciding what counts as truth. Once speech is governed at a global level, dissent itself becomes a violation. The real question is no longer whether misinformation exists. The real question is: Who gets to decide what is true — and who gets silenced?

🚨 GLOBAL SPEECH CONTROL AGENDA The United Nations is now openly calling for “coordinated global action” to police what it labels disinformation and hate speech online. Let that sink in. An unelected international body — with no democratic mandate over sovereign citizens — is proposing frameworks to regulate what billions of people are allowed to say, share, and believe on digital platforms. This is not about protecting truth. It is about controlling narrative. History shows that the institutions most eager to define “misinformation” are often the same ones that were wrong — or dishonest — about: • Wars • Public health policies • Economic decisions • Political legitimacy The danger is not false information alone. The danger is centralised authority deciding what counts as truth. Once speech is governed at a global level, dissent itself becomes a violation. The real question is no longer whether misinformation exists. The real question is: Who gets to decide what is true — and who gets silenced?

Jim Ferguson

245,162 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

From Beirut’s iconic Raouché Rock last night, when it was turned into a giant projection of Martyr Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and Martyr Sayyed Hachem Safieddine. It was never really about a rock, it was a political provocation aimed squarely at Nawaf Salam, a gesture meant to remind the capital that the memory of the fallen cannot be erased by protocol or posture. In a city of rubble and resilience, such images claim the public square back for those who mourn, resist, and demand accountability.

From Beirut’s iconic Raouché Rock last night, when it was turned into a giant projection of Martyr Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and Martyr Sayyed Hachem Safieddine. It was never really about a rock, it was a political provocation aimed squarely at Nawaf Salam, a gesture meant to remind the capital that the memory of the fallen cannot be erased by protocol or posture. In a city of rubble and resilience, such images claim the public square back for those who mourn, resist, and demand accountability.

Marwa Osman || مروة عثمان

12,785 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

When breeze blow, VDM yansh open 👐🏾 This guy clearly state that we are worst than the politicians and that’s the reason why he rather support and stand on the mandate of Tinubu than to call for a revolution, because the people according to him doesn’t have the right mindset to govern themselves. This is just shifting blame away from those who actually hold power to blame the people who operate within systems created by the people in power. when those systems are corrupt or broken, society reflects it. That’s not proof that the people are worse; it’s proof that leadership has failed. Saying people can’t do better is also false. History shows that when citizens demand accountability, organize, and push for reform, systems improve. Dismissing them outright is not insight but defeatist thinking. VeryDarkMan is now a tool of excuse for the politicians for their inaction. He avoids responsibility and offers zero solution to the problems it claims to criticize.

When breeze blow, VDM yansh open 👐🏾 This guy clearly state that we are worst than the politicians and that’s the reason why he rather support and stand on the mandate of Tinubu than to call for a revolution, because the people according to him doesn’t have the right mindset to govern themselves. This is just shifting blame away from those who actually hold power to blame the people who operate within systems created by the people in power. when those systems are corrupt or broken, society reflects it. That’s not proof that the people are worse; it’s proof that leadership has failed. Saying people can’t do better is also false. History shows that when citizens demand accountability, organize, and push for reform, systems improve. Dismissing them outright is not insight but defeatist thinking. VeryDarkMan is now a tool of excuse for the politicians for their inaction. He avoids responsibility and offers zero solution to the problems it claims to criticize.

Death Note 📝

14,395 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

BREAKING: Trump is asked why he’s trying to implement price controls in America — price controls that Republicans have claimed to be “communism” when Democrats tried things like this. “It’s not price controls. What was price controls is what was before. They set a price and said ‘this is what we are going to pay.'" FACT CHECK: This is a form of price controls by the Executive Branch. Republicans are hypocrites. We all want drug prices lower, but call it what it is.

BREAKING: Trump is asked why he’s trying to implement price controls in America — price controls that Republicans have claimed to be “communism” when Democrats tried things like this. “It’s not price controls. What was price controls is what was before. They set a price and said ‘this is what we are going to pay.'" FACT CHECK: This is a form of price controls by the Executive Branch. Republicans are hypocrites. We all want drug prices lower, but call it what it is.

Ed Krassenstein

938,426 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Peter Thiel: “disruption” is a horrible buzzword “I don’t think that your goal in starting a company should be to disrupt or destroy a big company. Your goal is to create a successful company. ” He continues: “And this is why I really dislike ‘disruption’ as a buzzword. It is one of the most horrible, overused buzzwords. A disruptive person is someone who looks for trouble and finds it… Napster was a very disruptive company that set out to destroy the music industry… and a year later it was shut down by the government… I think one really shouldn’t take one’s bearings from destroying existing companies.” He argues that he and the PayPal team didn’t really aim to disrupt: “PayPal did create a new payment solution. On some level it constrained what the card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and Amex could do. On some level it extended what they could do. So they didn’t like us that much, but it wasn’t that hostile. It was not a zero-sum disruption dynamic.” He concludes: “I do think that in a lot of these areas, there’s room for growth and your success doesn’t require large existing companies to fail.”

Peter Thiel: “disruption” is a horrible buzzword “I don’t think that your goal in starting a company should be to disrupt or destroy a big company. Your goal is to create a successful company. ” He continues: “And this is why I really dislike ‘disruption’ as a buzzword. It is one of the most horrible, overused buzzwords. A disruptive person is someone who looks for trouble and finds it… Napster was a very disruptive company that set out to destroy the music industry… and a year later it was shut down by the government… I think one really shouldn’t take one’s bearings from destroying existing companies.” He argues that he and the PayPal team didn’t really aim to disrupt: “PayPal did create a new payment solution. On some level it constrained what the card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and Amex could do. On some level it extended what they could do. So they didn’t like us that much, but it wasn’t that hostile. It was not a zero-sum disruption dynamic.” He concludes: “I do think that in a lot of these areas, there’s room for growth and your success doesn’t require large existing companies to fail.”

Startup Archive

79,553 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

“When the Elephants fight, the grass suffers” - African proverb In this case the grass was a cabinet minister - Dharmendra Pradhan Meta and Google are locked in a battle to spread their business in India - their largest subscription base globally. Their algorithms are setting rules for politics. The Parliament is now discussing camera angles, the PM is making midnight reels and political handles are demanding a ban on Instagram and Meta The Cabinet Minister was a roadkill. The Government is trying regulation by innuendo and force as it has outsourced governance to APPs. Have been warning about this forever:

“When the Elephants fight, the grass suffers” - African proverb In this case the grass was a cabinet minister - Dharmendra Pradhan Meta and Google are locked in a battle to spread their business in India - their largest subscription base globally. Their algorithms are setting rules for politics. The Parliament is now discussing camera angles, the PM is making midnight reels and political handles are demanding a ban on Instagram and Meta The Cabinet Minister was a roadkill. The Government is trying regulation by innuendo and force as it has outsourced governance to APPs. Have been warning about this forever:

Pankaj Pachauri

24,893 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

🚨 NASA IS LIGHTING FIRES ON THE MOON — WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY HIDING UP THERE? This is becoming increasingly strange. While NASA and private companies push forward with new lunar missions, many are asking a serious question: Why are they conducting what appear to be fire or energy experiments on the moon? Some see it as nothing more than a massive money grab. Others like David Icke believe something far deeper is going on. That the moon may not be natural at all. That it was brought here, could be hollow, and is being used as a massive sensor or control system for humanity. The moon has long been surrounded by anomalies that defy conventional explanation. The official narrative has more holes than it has answers. And many of the public faces of these missions look and feel more like actors than explorers. Why the hell is NASA lighting fires on the moon, and what are they really using it for?

🚨 NASA IS LIGHTING FIRES ON THE MOON — WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY HIDING UP THERE? This is becoming increasingly strange. While NASA and private companies push forward with new lunar missions, many are asking a serious question: Why are they conducting what appear to be fire or energy experiments on the moon? Some see it as nothing more than a massive money grab. Others like David Icke believe something far deeper is going on. That the moon may not be natural at all. That it was brought here, could be hollow, and is being used as a massive sensor or control system for humanity. The moon has long been surrounded by anomalies that defy conventional explanation. The official narrative has more holes than it has answers. And many of the public faces of these missions look and feel more like actors than explorers. Why the hell is NASA lighting fires on the moon, and what are they really using it for?

HustleBitch

21,294 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

Parliament cannot script a judgement of a court. Parliament can only legislate and hold institutions, including Judiciary and Executive, accountable. Judgement writing, adjudication, is the sole prerogative of Judiciary, as much as legislation is that of the Parliament. But frequently we are seeing that the executive governance is by judicial orders. When the government is elected by people, it is accountable to Parliament. The government is accountable to the people at election. There is a principle of accountability in operation. In Parliament, you can ask questions, critical questions, because the governance is by the Executive. But if this executive governance is by Judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in elections? Time has come for our three institutions, Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, to blossom. And they blossom best when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good. It can upset the balance. The relationship between these three must be wholesome, soothing, one of deep understanding and coordination, not show of authority. #RajyaSabha

Parliament cannot script a judgement of a court. Parliament can only legislate and hold institutions, including Judiciary and Executive, accountable. Judgement writing, adjudication, is the sole prerogative of Judiciary, as much as legislation is that of the Parliament. But frequently we are seeing that the executive governance is by judicial orders. When the government is elected by people, it is accountable to Parliament. The government is accountable to the people at election. There is a principle of accountability in operation. In Parliament, you can ask questions, critical questions, because the governance is by the Executive. But if this executive governance is by Judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in elections? Time has come for our three institutions, Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, to blossom. And they blossom best when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good. It can upset the balance. The relationship between these three must be wholesome, soothing, one of deep understanding and coordination, not show of authority. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

434,985 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk on untraceable government payment systems: The main federal payments system, known as PAM, processes nearly $5 trillion a year, roughly $1 billion every hour When it was reviewed, payments could be sent without a categorization code and without any description No clear trail. No explanation. Essentially blank, untraceable checks This is the kind of thing that if it was done as a public company, the company would be immediately delisted and the executive team would be thrown in prison But this is just normal for the government That contrast says everything about the accountability gap

Elon Musk on untraceable government payment systems: The main federal payments system, known as PAM, processes nearly $5 trillion a year, roughly $1 billion every hour When it was reviewed, payments could be sent without a categorization code and without any description No clear trail. No explanation. Essentially blank, untraceable checks This is the kind of thing that if it was done as a public company, the company would be immediately delisted and the executive team would be thrown in prison But this is just normal for the government That contrast says everything about the accountability gap

X Freeze

241,815 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

ELON: THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT'S IMPORTANT, NOT A HANDFUL OF EDITORS "I don't think there should be a gatekeeping function by a small number of individuals. For newspapers in America, there are about five editors that decide what gets put on the front page, or what to focus on, or what not to focus on. And most of the other papers just copy them, essentially. But is that really what we want? Do we want a handful of people deciding what they think is important? Or should it be the people who decide what's important? And I think it should be sort of an organic thing, where the people decide what's important and what to focus on, not just a handful of editors. They don't like the fact that this power has been taken away from them. But I think it should be." Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024

ELON: THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT'S IMPORTANT, NOT A HANDFUL OF EDITORS "I don't think there should be a gatekeeping function by a small number of individuals. For newspapers in America, there are about five editors that decide what gets put on the front page, or what to focus on, or what not to focus on. And most of the other papers just copy them, essentially. But is that really what we want? Do we want a handful of people deciding what they think is important? Or should it be the people who decide what's important? And I think it should be sort of an organic thing, where the people decide what's important and what to focus on, not just a handful of editors. They don't like the fact that this power has been taken away from them. But I think it should be." Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024

Mario Nawfal

12,668,082 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Meta’s Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang just put a five-year countdown on the most consequential race in human history. Wang: “Mark and myself, we very strongly believe that this is a very special time in human history.” Not a decade. Not a generation. Five years. Wang: “The discoveries made over the next half-decade are going to be some of the most monumental discoveries that human civilization has ever made.” To run that race, Meta didn’t just build a new model. They built an entirely new division from scratch. Meta Superintelligence Labs. Designed from a blank slate. Singular focus. Wang: “What does the optimal team look like for the future of superintelligence?” The bottleneck to superintelligence isn’t compute anymore. It isn’t data. It’s the density of human genius in a single room. Wang: “Highest talent density. Bring the very best people together and build the best possible environment for them.” The AI arms race has shifted from hoarding GPUs to hoarding the smartest minds on earth. The first company to perfect that organizational structure will be the first company to reach superintelligence. But reaching it is only half the battle. Deploying what you built to the world is the other half. And here is where Meta’s advantage becomes almost unfair. Wang: “Three and a half billion people utilize our platforms every single day.” While every other AI lab is still trying to figure out how to get users to adopt their technology, Meta already has nearly half the planet locked into their ecosystem. MSL wasn’t built just to achieve scientific breakthroughs. Wang: “Build the products that will enable this technology to be deployed to billions and billions of people worldwide.” Whoever builds superintelligence first wins the race. Whoever distributes it to 3.5 billion people controls what comes after. Meta is positioning to do both.

Meta’s Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang just put a five-year countdown on the most consequential race in human history. Wang: “Mark and myself, we very strongly believe that this is a very special time in human history.” Not a decade. Not a generation. Five years. Wang: “The discoveries made over the next half-decade are going to be some of the most monumental discoveries that human civilization has ever made.” To run that race, Meta didn’t just build a new model. They built an entirely new division from scratch. Meta Superintelligence Labs. Designed from a blank slate. Singular focus. Wang: “What does the optimal team look like for the future of superintelligence?” The bottleneck to superintelligence isn’t compute anymore. It isn’t data. It’s the density of human genius in a single room. Wang: “Highest talent density. Bring the very best people together and build the best possible environment for them.” The AI arms race has shifted from hoarding GPUs to hoarding the smartest minds on earth. The first company to perfect that organizational structure will be the first company to reach superintelligence. But reaching it is only half the battle. Deploying what you built to the world is the other half. And here is where Meta’s advantage becomes almost unfair. Wang: “Three and a half billion people utilize our platforms every single day.” While every other AI lab is still trying to figure out how to get users to adopt their technology, Meta already has nearly half the planet locked into their ecosystem. MSL wasn’t built just to achieve scientific breakthroughs. Wang: “Build the products that will enable this technology to be deployed to billions and billions of people worldwide.” Whoever builds superintelligence first wins the race. Whoever distributes it to 3.5 billion people controls what comes after. Meta is positioning to do both.

Dustin

32,982 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)

Startup Archive

63,921 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Sadiq Khan’s call for Britain to rejoin the European Union is the logical endpoint of ‘liberal democracy’. The term itself is an oxymoron, how can a ‘democracy’ be liberal necessarily? Surely it is whatever the voters decide. Why can’t it be a conservative democracy? What it really means is that actual democracy - as in what most voters want - is continually qualified, mitigated, and reinterpreted by a liberal bureaucracy to achieve the outcomes they desire. The more tools the liberal bureaucracy has to do this the better for them; but the legal system and the Quangos are mere screwdrivers in the chest. The absolute sledgehammer is membership of the European Union. It adds a whole other layer of supra-national bureaucracy on top of the what we already have, it shrouds every policy every in a dense thicket of complex legislation entirely written by an unaccountable European executive, and it makes it impossible - often by treaty agreement! - to do anything that voters actually want. This is perfect for ‘liberal democracy’, and indeed Liberal Democrats, but is it what you actually want?

Sadiq Khan’s call for Britain to rejoin the European Union is the logical endpoint of ‘liberal democracy’. The term itself is an oxymoron, how can a ‘democracy’ be liberal necessarily? Surely it is whatever the voters decide. Why can’t it be a conservative democracy? What it really means is that actual democracy - as in what most voters want - is continually qualified, mitigated, and reinterpreted by a liberal bureaucracy to achieve the outcomes they desire. The more tools the liberal bureaucracy has to do this the better for them; but the legal system and the Quangos are mere screwdrivers in the chest. The absolute sledgehammer is membership of the European Union. It adds a whole other layer of supra-national bureaucracy on top of the what we already have, it shrouds every policy every in a dense thicket of complex legislation entirely written by an unaccountable European executive, and it makes it impossible - often by treaty agreement! - to do anything that voters actually want. This is perfect for ‘liberal democracy’, and indeed Liberal Democrats, but is it what you actually want?

David Starkey

16,305 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

#1 Elon Musk says the mission of Twitter 2.0 is to be the most reliable source of information and to provide citizens with a way to control the narrative: "The goal is to have Twitter be the best source of truth, the most timely and accurate source of truth, even if the truth is something we don't want to hear or unpleasant. Not just is something true or not, but what is the narrative. Most people don't appreciate that the media controls the narrative, so there are many things that could be talked about in the world, but only a few things can fit on the front page. But Twitter doesn't have a limitation like that, so the public can control the narrative, and the public can inform themselves as to what the narrative should be. That's a really big deal. It's a forum for citizen journalism or for the public to get together and communicate in a way that was never possible before so you can really know what's going on."

#1 Elon Musk says the mission of Twitter 2.0 is to be the most reliable source of information and to provide citizens with a way to control the narrative: "The goal is to have Twitter be the best source of truth, the most timely and accurate source of truth, even if the truth is something we don't want to hear or unpleasant. Not just is something true or not, but what is the narrative. Most people don't appreciate that the media controls the narrative, so there are many things that could be talked about in the world, but only a few things can fit on the front page. But Twitter doesn't have a limitation like that, so the public can control the narrative, and the public can inform themselves as to what the narrative should be. That's a really big deal. It's a forum for citizen journalism or for the public to get together and communicate in a way that was never possible before so you can really know what's going on."

KanekoaTheGreat

1,650,088 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce