Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Google researcher LaurieWired warns the shift from C++ to Python in universities is creating programmers who don't understand how computers actually work: "When I was in college getting my CS degree, my year was one of the last years that was using C++ as the core language for teaching...

MTSlive's profile picture

MTS

490,163 subscribers

1,867,180 просмотров • 8 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологииОбразованиеНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Most C Programmers don't have a clue as to how the CPU works. Here is a lecture from my course on the C Language that introduces how to visualise the CPU as a C (or general software) Programmer.... More Details are at: Being able to model the behaviour of CPU provides a solid base to reason about your code. The summary is - - The CPU is a state machine which maintains it's states in registers. - It has busses to memory for requesting data/instruction read/writes. - Interrupts to attend to events. I discuss this and more in my course on the C Language.
11:41

Most C Programmers don't have a clue as to how the CPU works. Here is a lecture from my course on the C Language that introduces how to visualise the CPU as a C (or general software) Programmer.... More Details are at: Being able to model the behaviour of CPU provides a solid base to reason about your code. The summary is - - The CPU is a state machine which maintains it's states in registers. - It has busses to memory for requesting data/instruction read/writes. - Interrupts to attend to events. I discuss this and more in my course on the C Language.

Piyush Itankar

28,019 просмотров • 1 год назад

Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) on the costs of abstraction: "It's compiled away. This is why I talk about zero overhead abstraction. And people are beginning to take me to task for that because that's underestimating the ability of the C++ compiler. We can do negative overhead abstraction." Ryan: "What if you're really good at writing assembly and had all the time in the world to write it?" Bjarne: "If you are very smart and you have infinite time, you can do better. By and large, we are not as smart as the optimizers anymore, and we don't have infinite time."
0:36

Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) on the costs of abstraction: "It's compiled away. This is why I talk about zero overhead abstraction. And people are beginning to take me to task for that because that's underestimating the ability of the C++ compiler. We can do negative overhead abstraction." Ryan: "What if you're really good at writing assembly and had all the time in the world to write it?" Bjarne: "If you are very smart and you have infinite time, you can do better. By and large, we are not as smart as the optimizers anymore, and we don't have infinite time."

Ryan Peterman

145,117 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Why did so many languages copy async/await from C#? Anders Hejlsberg(Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of TypeScript, C# & Turbo Pascal - on what they got right with the design: #1 - async/await was designed to solve a common problem in the event-loop model: "A lot of languages are built around cooperative multitasking in the sense that they have an event loop that sits and dispatches events. Then you handle the event and then you yield back to the event handler loop. And it all runs in a single thread cooperatively. The problem with that is if you then want to do some long running work: how do I stop in the middle of this piece of long running work and yield back to the event loop cooperatively? And then when my result is ready, I can come back and continue executing here." #2 - state machines are the solution, but hard to build: "Well, in order to do that in an inverted architecture like that, you have to build a state machine. State machines are notoriously hard for people to implement because you've got to move all of your state off of the stack into objects. And then you have this big case statement that envelopes your entire logic. It's a nightmare to figure out. But, the transformation from serially executing code into a state machine, its continuation-passing-style translation is actually one that you can do in a machine-based fashion." #3 - compilers are good at writing state machines: "You can have the compiler write the state machine if you introduce syntax that allows you to indicate where you want to yield. And that's what await is. Await is basically saying, I want to yield here, and I want to yield this promise, and then when the promise completes, I want you to come back here and continue executing. Then the compiler writes a state machine around it and it actually turns it into this big switch statement and moves all of the state that survives across the await into something that's heap allocated. So it can be brought back. And doing all of that work is something that compilers are great at. And so that was sort of the idea that we have this new style of programming where we're using promises or the equivalent of promises and the ability to yield and then we have callbacks. But trying to write your program in that style, that's also what JavaScript suffered from a lot. It's like all this callback style stuff. With Async and Await, you get the illusion that you're just writing normal sequential code and then the compiler does the painful transformation for you. That turns out to be really useful."
3:13

Why did so many languages copy async/await from C#? Anders Hejlsberg(Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of TypeScript, C# & Turbo Pascal - on what they got right with the design: #1 - async/await was designed to solve a common problem in the event-loop model: "A lot of languages are built around cooperative multitasking in the sense that they have an event loop that sits and dispatches events. Then you handle the event and then you yield back to the event handler loop. And it all runs in a single thread cooperatively. The problem with that is if you then want to do some long running work: how do I stop in the middle of this piece of long running work and yield back to the event loop cooperatively? And then when my result is ready, I can come back and continue executing here." #2 - state machines are the solution, but hard to build: "Well, in order to do that in an inverted architecture like that, you have to build a state machine. State machines are notoriously hard for people to implement because you've got to move all of your state off of the stack into objects. And then you have this big case statement that envelopes your entire logic. It's a nightmare to figure out. But, the transformation from serially executing code into a state machine, its continuation-passing-style translation is actually one that you can do in a machine-based fashion." #3 - compilers are good at writing state machines: "You can have the compiler write the state machine if you introduce syntax that allows you to indicate where you want to yield. And that's what await is. Await is basically saying, I want to yield here, and I want to yield this promise, and then when the promise completes, I want you to come back here and continue executing. Then the compiler writes a state machine around it and it actually turns it into this big switch statement and moves all of the state that survives across the await into something that's heap allocated. So it can be brought back. And doing all of that work is something that compilers are great at. And so that was sort of the idea that we have this new style of programming where we're using promises or the equivalent of promises and the ability to yield and then we have callbacks. But trying to write your program in that style, that's also what JavaScript suffered from a lot. It's like all this callback style stuff. With Async and Await, you get the illusion that you're just writing normal sequential code and then the compiler does the painful transformation for you. That turns out to be really useful."

The Pragmatic Engineer

13,258 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Really appreciate how thoughtful Jordan Burroughs is here about why he never made the transition to MMA: "I really considered it, like heavily considered it. One of the hardest parts about growing older, Ariel, is that you have to let dreams die. There are certain things that, when you're young and when you're hungry... you believe you can do it all... As you get older, you start to realize that, man, this may have passed for me. At the heart of why I wanted to go to MMA was the glamour. It was the celebrities ringside, it was the big paydays, it was the global recognition, and it wasn't the purity. Being a Christian... I thought that transition would be more about what I could get and who I could become, and I just don't think it would have been good for my faith, for my family, or for my marriage. That lifestyle would not have been healthy for a family man."
6:44

Really appreciate how thoughtful Jordan Burroughs is here about why he never made the transition to MMA: "I really considered it, like heavily considered it. One of the hardest parts about growing older, Ariel, is that you have to let dreams die. There are certain things that, when you're young and when you're hungry... you believe you can do it all... As you get older, you start to realize that, man, this may have passed for me. At the heart of why I wanted to go to MMA was the glamour. It was the celebrities ringside, it was the big paydays, it was the global recognition, and it wasn't the purity. Being a Christian... I thought that transition would be more about what I could get and who I could become, and I just don't think it would have been good for my faith, for my family, or for my marriage. That lifestyle would not have been healthy for a family man."

Ariel Helwani

1,077,431 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Nick Saban says one of the biggest mistakes leaders make when their environment changes is sitting around complaining about the new rules, and says his philosophy was that complaining is actually a distraction to the solution, so you should always spend that energy figuring out how to adapt “You have to be flexible, number one. If you’re flexible, then you have a willingness to adapt. And I think your willingness to adapt is really, really important because things are changing.” “There’s a lot of changes that are ongoing that you have to adapt to. And I think that rather than complain about it, which a lot of people sit around and complain…” “Complaining is actually a distraction to the solution. I think that you’ve got to spend most of your time trying to figure out, ‘What is the solution? How can we adapt?’” “That’s the way we’ve tried to look at all these challenges, to try to improve the quality of the program that we have.”
1:44

Nick Saban says one of the biggest mistakes leaders make when their environment changes is sitting around complaining about the new rules, and says his philosophy was that complaining is actually a distraction to the solution, so you should always spend that energy figuring out how to adapt “You have to be flexible, number one. If you’re flexible, then you have a willingness to adapt. And I think your willingness to adapt is really, really important because things are changing.” “There’s a lot of changes that are ongoing that you have to adapt to. And I think that rather than complain about it, which a lot of people sit around and complain…” “Complaining is actually a distraction to the solution. I think that you’ve got to spend most of your time trying to figure out, ‘What is the solution? How can we adapt?’” “That’s the way we’ve tried to look at all these challenges, to try to improve the quality of the program that we have.”

Josh Chambers

615,087 просмотров • 3 дней назад

KAT when asked what it's like being the best 3PT shooter ever for a big man: "It's an honor. I worked on my game. When I was younger, that wasn't something that was supposed to happen. You're laughed at. You're told, What are you doing? You're wasting your time. You're never going to make it to college doing that. A lot of people are going to tell you no, what they think you need to do to make it to the NBA, to do all these things. But at the end of the day, you got to walk on your own path, write your own story. And that's what I did. I continue to work on my game, continue to work on my shot. People come back to me and give me all the congrats and congratulations and all this love for something they didn't help with; they told me to do the opposite. So that's how life always goes. Everyone got an opinion until someone actually does the work. Us two, we did the work, and they're going to have to watch our story be written without them having a chapter in it"
1:11

KAT when asked what it's like being the best 3PT shooter ever for a big man: "It's an honor. I worked on my game. When I was younger, that wasn't something that was supposed to happen. You're laughed at. You're told, What are you doing? You're wasting your time. You're never going to make it to college doing that. A lot of people are going to tell you no, what they think you need to do to make it to the NBA, to do all these things. But at the end of the day, you got to walk on your own path, write your own story. And that's what I did. I continue to work on my game, continue to work on my shot. People come back to me and give me all the congrats and congratulations and all this love for something they didn't help with; they told me to do the opposite. So that's how life always goes. Everyone got an opinion until someone actually does the work. Us two, we did the work, and they're going to have to watch our story be written without them having a chapter in it"

Oh No He Didn't

124,809 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

ELON MUSK REVEALS WHY HE FOUNDED OPENAI "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, who used to be a close friend of mine, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI This really came to a head when at my birthday party, in front of a large group of people, called me a specist for favoring humanity over computers. I found that troubling I was like, 'Larry, what side are you on? It sounds like you're on the side of the computers, but you really need to be on team humanity here, you know.' After that, I was like, 'Okay, this is it. We’ve gotta have some counterbalance to Google because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not So, I thought, 'What’s the opposite of Google?' It would be an open-source non-profit. And that’s where the word 'open' in OpenAI comes from it means open source. I provided all the money beginning like, whatever, the series A, B, C rounds and recruited the key people and taught them everything I know I actually even got them the deal with Microsoft to donate some time from Azure. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever And the reason I actually turned down the offer for shares is because I felt like, 'What do you mean, shares in what?' Non-profits aren't supposed to have shares, at least last time I checked They’re not supposed to be vehicles for self-enrichment. So that's why I turned down the offer of shares, because it didn't seem morally or legally defensible"
1:36

ELON MUSK REVEALS WHY HE FOUNDED OPENAI "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, who used to be a close friend of mine, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI This really came to a head when at my birthday party, in front of a large group of people, called me a specist for favoring humanity over computers. I found that troubling I was like, 'Larry, what side are you on? It sounds like you're on the side of the computers, but you really need to be on team humanity here, you know.' After that, I was like, 'Okay, this is it. We’ve gotta have some counterbalance to Google because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not So, I thought, 'What’s the opposite of Google?' It would be an open-source non-profit. And that’s where the word 'open' in OpenAI comes from it means open source. I provided all the money beginning like, whatever, the series A, B, C rounds and recruited the key people and taught them everything I know I actually even got them the deal with Microsoft to donate some time from Azure. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever And the reason I actually turned down the offer for shares is because I felt like, 'What do you mean, shares in what?' Non-profits aren't supposed to have shares, at least last time I checked They’re not supposed to be vehicles for self-enrichment. So that's why I turned down the offer of shares, because it didn't seem morally or legally defensible"

X Freeze

53,613 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)
3:50

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)

Startup Archive

45,584 просмотров • 1 год назад

While I didn’t catch the entire broadcast last night, I did see this part and there’s a chance this is what Trump really didn’t like: I've been to 100 of these things. I have to tell you, the energy in the room was really, really low. The place was not packed, the seats were full, but the back half of the convention center was empty. And I was going around talking to people, doing interviews, and usually at a Trump rally, you have to scratch kind of hard and ask four or 5 or 6 questions to get the people who were there to say anything sort of nuanced or, um, you know, truthful about how they really feel about something going on with him. On this one, it was like one question, how do you think it's going so far? And a lot of them were saying things like the economy's not as good as I thought it was going to be…. And these are people wearing t-shirts with pictures of his face.
1:00

While I didn’t catch the entire broadcast last night, I did see this part and there’s a chance this is what Trump really didn’t like: I've been to 100 of these things. I have to tell you, the energy in the room was really, really low. The place was not packed, the seats were full, but the back half of the convention center was empty. And I was going around talking to people, doing interviews, and usually at a Trump rally, you have to scratch kind of hard and ask four or 5 or 6 questions to get the people who were there to say anything sort of nuanced or, um, you know, truthful about how they really feel about something going on with him. On this one, it was like one question, how do you think it's going so far? And a lot of them were saying things like the economy's not as good as I thought it was going to be…. And these are people wearing t-shirts with pictures of his face.

Acyn

126,351 просмотров • 7 часов назад

Stripe's John Collison thinks people who think AI means the death of software engineering are "all high, honestly." "All these people calling the death of software engineering are smoking something." "You're able to work with AI so much better if you understand the underlying concepts, and you're so much better prepared for that." "To be really effective working with AI, you need to understand what it's doing, and what's going on under the hood. You need to understand the model, and the memory. And then you have your harnesses, and you've got your skills, and how they all interact."
1:39

Stripe's John Collison thinks people who think AI means the death of software engineering are "all high, honestly." "All these people calling the death of software engineering are smoking something." "You're able to work with AI so much better if you understand the underlying concepts, and you're so much better prepared for that." "To be really effective working with AI, you need to understand what it's doing, and what's going on under the hood. You need to understand the model, and the memory. And then you have your harnesses, and you've got your skills, and how they all interact."

TBPN

43,395 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Geno Auriemma shares how he explains success to his players and why showing up isn't enough. "If you go to class and you do average work, you're gonna get a C. That's why it's called average." "If you want a B, you have to do more work. If you want an A, you have to do even more work and you have to give up stuff." You get what you earn in life. "You have to sacrifice. Maybe you can't do all the things that everybody else does." It means if you want more then you have to be willing to do more. "If you're just happy getting Bs all your life, there's nothing wrong with that either. But you're never gonna get the satisfaction of what it feels like to get an A." Then he connected it to basketball: "If you just wanna be average, then you do average work. If you wanna be a little bit above average then you do a little more work." "If you wanna get As in basketball, then you gotta do stuff that other people aren't willing to do - especially if you have the talent like we do. We have talent." It means bring a mindset of excellence to everything that you do. Excellence isn't the goal - it's the standard you set. Then he called out the entitlement problem: "Some of these younger guys coming out of high school, man, they wanna show up and go, 'I'm here. Where's my 3.7?'" "Like my father used to say, 'I got your 3.7 right here.'" Showing up doesn't earn you anything. Doing the work does. You get the grade you earn - in school, in basketball, and in life. It's easy to be average...successful people look to compete in everything they do. (🎥UCTV Sports )
1:20

Geno Auriemma shares how he explains success to his players and why showing up isn't enough. "If you go to class and you do average work, you're gonna get a C. That's why it's called average." "If you want a B, you have to do more work. If you want an A, you have to do even more work and you have to give up stuff." You get what you earn in life. "You have to sacrifice. Maybe you can't do all the things that everybody else does." It means if you want more then you have to be willing to do more. "If you're just happy getting Bs all your life, there's nothing wrong with that either. But you're never gonna get the satisfaction of what it feels like to get an A." Then he connected it to basketball: "If you just wanna be average, then you do average work. If you wanna be a little bit above average then you do a little more work." "If you wanna get As in basketball, then you gotta do stuff that other people aren't willing to do - especially if you have the talent like we do. We have talent." It means bring a mindset of excellence to everything that you do. Excellence isn't the goal - it's the standard you set. Then he called out the entitlement problem: "Some of these younger guys coming out of high school, man, they wanna show up and go, 'I'm here. Where's my 3.7?'" "Like my father used to say, 'I got your 3.7 right here.'" Showing up doesn't earn you anything. Doing the work does. You get the grade you earn - in school, in basketball, and in life. It's easy to be average...successful people look to compete in everything they do. (🎥UCTV Sports )

Coach AJ 🎯 Mental Fitness

150,629 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

👽🔥 New Dylan - Biologics🔥👽 "There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. One of those being biologics." ~DB "The agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." ~DB Firsthand witnesses to the Legacy program, "would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die." ~DB "When I was still in government...I brought the people who worked on [the biological analysis of non-human bodies] to The Hill." ~Grusch ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Did you physically see photos? Did you physically see these documents?" Dylan Borland: "No, but because of how much was given to me in relay that the individuals that had relayed it, they were doing so because they were genuinely concerned for their life, because their careers were taken, their houses were broken into. I mean, computers taken, mailboxes gone through. And again, they knew what I was going through at this time. They had given me enough information, and the agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." Corbell: "So he's got his firsthand experience of this tech, but then this is something George and I hear a lot. Which is, in the Legacy, when you're kind of put into the bad camp - you know, you're under scrutiny now - that there are these people that are threatening you, and you do feel afraid for your life. And we'll get to it, but there are some things that occurred to you as this gets kind of deeper and deeper with what's happening. "But just to be clear: So you're in a place where there's some sort of purgatory going on. Everybody has clearance, but they're in this sort of purgatory. You're in this sort of purgatory?" Borland: "A few of us, yep." Corbell: "And then, people directly involved in the Legacy program are afraid for their lives, so they're telling you so that at least somebody at their level can take that information if something bad happens to them?" Borland: "I think it was definitely that, but it was also, this is such an isolating, lonely experience, especially for young people to be exposed to the reality of this. If you already don't have the acknowledgement that it's a possibility, like if you're...I don't want to say closed minded. If you're an average Joe Blow going through life, and then all of a sudden this pops up on your radar, and you're seeing physical proof of it, you probably take a step back and go, 'whoa.' So you have that aspect, then these same people have that aspect of it, and they also have the aspect of their government destroying them." (In other words, people like us would be excited to see proof of what we all suspect. But someone new to the topic might freak out a bit.) George Knapp: "So they are going through the same thing you are." Borland "Exactly." Knapp: "Their clearances are in limbo, home break ins, threats..." Borland: "When I come into contact with these people, they had had to resign from their government position and take a contracting job for less money. They were, basically, blacklisted for six months. The only reason they ended up getting a job was because somebody on the Legacy program had hooked them up after six months. And they ended up where I was at, and they heard me talking all this stuff, and they're like, 'Oh, you ended up here too, buddy. So, uh, what the hell is going on here?' Knapp: "It's like the island of bad toys or something like that." Borland: "Yeah." Knapp: "You know, put them all in one basket." Borland: "After I saw what I saw, and I've experienced what I've experienced, I kind of...I think most of us have, taken the delve into all of this material (points toward a bookshelf full of what appear to be UFO books). And you're like, 'I know this is true, I know this is true, I know this is true. Who else is saying these true things? Who else is relaying information I know to be true, to try and make sense of your own life?' "Um, they were aware of what I was talking about. I don't know the capacity in which they were briefed in. There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. Um, one of those being biologics." ~~~ (This is the best anecdote we have about government officials being briefed on bodies.) Joe Rogan: "When it comes to these...actual entities...do we have an understanding of how many of them we're talking about, and the variety of them?" Grusch: "There is a variety and we have a certain number of (laughs) different things... I talked to people who were familiar with the biological analysis of everything. So we have some idea, not a complete picture because it's like, you know, looking at it, it's like, well I don't even understand the physiology at all. It's like, what the heck? It's like, way different, right? So..." Rogan: "Is there a description of this physiology?" Grusch: "Yeah, no, I was in the room when uhhh... I gotta be careful, I don't wanna... I was in Washington, DC with a very number of senior people that work for members of Congress (Senate staffers seems like a safe bet ~Joe). Put it that way. When I was still in government. And I brought the people who worked on that stuff to The Hill. And this is why the members were so confident to put out the Schumer amendment and stuff. And, I was like, 'Please explain.' And they went into all those details and stuff. And I remember (laughs) some of the professional staff members were like, 'Whoa.' Like they were like, in G-Loc, right? Cause, I mean, and like, a total world bubble got burst right there for a lot of people." Source, with video... ~Back to Dylan~ Knapp: "You think there's a storehouse of that information that anybody would have put something away in case something bad happened to them? And do you know what happened to these people?" Borland: "You know the ones that I know still continue in the government. Um, I think they continue in classified-operations programs." Knapp: "They're not coming forward." Borland: "They would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die. And that's...it really sucks for me coming forward, because I only came forward because I sincerely believed they were going to die. Sucks."
3:47

👽🔥 New Dylan - Biologics🔥👽 "There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. One of those being biologics." ~DB "The agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." ~DB Firsthand witnesses to the Legacy program, "would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die." ~DB "When I was still in government...I brought the people who worked on [the biological analysis of non-human bodies] to The Hill." ~Grusch ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Did you physically see photos? Did you physically see these documents?" Dylan Borland: "No, but because of how much was given to me in relay that the individuals that had relayed it, they were doing so because they were genuinely concerned for their life, because their careers were taken, their houses were broken into. I mean, computers taken, mailboxes gone through. And again, they knew what I was going through at this time. They had given me enough information, and the agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." Corbell: "So he's got his firsthand experience of this tech, but then this is something George and I hear a lot. Which is, in the Legacy, when you're kind of put into the bad camp - you know, you're under scrutiny now - that there are these people that are threatening you, and you do feel afraid for your life. And we'll get to it, but there are some things that occurred to you as this gets kind of deeper and deeper with what's happening. "But just to be clear: So you're in a place where there's some sort of purgatory going on. Everybody has clearance, but they're in this sort of purgatory. You're in this sort of purgatory?" Borland: "A few of us, yep." Corbell: "And then, people directly involved in the Legacy program are afraid for their lives, so they're telling you so that at least somebody at their level can take that information if something bad happens to them?" Borland: "I think it was definitely that, but it was also, this is such an isolating, lonely experience, especially for young people to be exposed to the reality of this. If you already don't have the acknowledgement that it's a possibility, like if you're...I don't want to say closed minded. If you're an average Joe Blow going through life, and then all of a sudden this pops up on your radar, and you're seeing physical proof of it, you probably take a step back and go, 'whoa.' So you have that aspect, then these same people have that aspect of it, and they also have the aspect of their government destroying them." (In other words, people like us would be excited to see proof of what we all suspect. But someone new to the topic might freak out a bit.) George Knapp: "So they are going through the same thing you are." Borland "Exactly." Knapp: "Their clearances are in limbo, home break ins, threats..." Borland: "When I come into contact with these people, they had had to resign from their government position and take a contracting job for less money. They were, basically, blacklisted for six months. The only reason they ended up getting a job was because somebody on the Legacy program had hooked them up after six months. And they ended up where I was at, and they heard me talking all this stuff, and they're like, 'Oh, you ended up here too, buddy. So, uh, what the hell is going on here?' Knapp: "It's like the island of bad toys or something like that." Borland: "Yeah." Knapp: "You know, put them all in one basket." Borland: "After I saw what I saw, and I've experienced what I've experienced, I kind of...I think most of us have, taken the delve into all of this material (points toward a bookshelf full of what appear to be UFO books). And you're like, 'I know this is true, I know this is true, I know this is true. Who else is saying these true things? Who else is relaying information I know to be true, to try and make sense of your own life?' "Um, they were aware of what I was talking about. I don't know the capacity in which they were briefed in. There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. Um, one of those being biologics." ~~~ (This is the best anecdote we have about government officials being briefed on bodies.) Joe Rogan: "When it comes to these...actual entities...do we have an understanding of how many of them we're talking about, and the variety of them?" Grusch: "There is a variety and we have a certain number of (laughs) different things... I talked to people who were familiar with the biological analysis of everything. So we have some idea, not a complete picture because it's like, you know, looking at it, it's like, well I don't even understand the physiology at all. It's like, what the heck? It's like, way different, right? So..." Rogan: "Is there a description of this physiology?" Grusch: "Yeah, no, I was in the room when uhhh... I gotta be careful, I don't wanna... I was in Washington, DC with a very number of senior people that work for members of Congress (Senate staffers seems like a safe bet ~Joe). Put it that way. When I was still in government. And I brought the people who worked on that stuff to The Hill. And this is why the members were so confident to put out the Schumer amendment and stuff. And, I was like, 'Please explain.' And they went into all those details and stuff. And I remember (laughs) some of the professional staff members were like, 'Whoa.' Like they were like, in G-Loc, right? Cause, I mean, and like, a total world bubble got burst right there for a lot of people." Source, with video... ~Back to Dylan~ Knapp: "You think there's a storehouse of that information that anybody would have put something away in case something bad happened to them? And do you know what happened to these people?" Borland: "You know the ones that I know still continue in the government. Um, I think they continue in classified-operations programs." Knapp: "They're not coming forward." Borland: "They would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die. And that's...it really sucks for me coming forward, because I only came forward because I sincerely believed they were going to die. Sucks."

Joe Murgia

61,078 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Morgan Housel will never use AI to write. To him, it defeats the whole purpose of writing. "The process of writing is what gets the author thinking. When they write a book, they didn't have all that knowledge in their head. They started out with one brave sentence, and then that taught them something. If you're using any kind of LLM to do any of the broad structure for you, you're not actually thinking. You stripped out everything that was good about writing." He'll use it for research, as a "Google on steroids." But even then he argues that the research process is different: "When you're doing the reps of research, it's gonna hit you in a different way."
1:23

Morgan Housel will never use AI to write. To him, it defeats the whole purpose of writing. "The process of writing is what gets the author thinking. When they write a book, they didn't have all that knowledge in their head. They started out with one brave sentence, and then that taught them something. If you're using any kind of LLM to do any of the broad structure for you, you're not actually thinking. You stripped out everything that was good about writing." He'll use it for research, as a "Google on steroids." But even then he argues that the research process is different: "When you're doing the reps of research, it's gonna hit you in a different way."

David Perell Clips

13,721 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...
1:59

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...

Simon Ateba

2,818,632 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Creator of C#, Anders Hejlsberg(Anders Hejlsberg), on the design goals that shaped the language and why standardisation was a goal from the beginning: “The overarching thing was this power and productivity of C++ with the ease of use of Visual Basic. We knew we wanted to build an object oriented language. We wanted managed code or byte code so we could target different runtime environments. We wanted garbage collection and exception handling, but also things like a unified object system where, and that's true in C#, anything can be assigned to an object. If it's a value type, we box it. And it's a self-describing object. So, reflection: you can ask an object, ‘what are you’? And you can get all of the facts about it at runtime, and you can dynamically manipulate it in ways that just don't exist in a lot of other environments. We wanted a language that made this new model of properties, methods and events first class because that was how components were built as opposed to just sort of functions and procedures and even objects. And we wanted to create a language that was standardised. We wanted to give this language to a standardisation committee and try to level the playing field there. And all of those things were sort of like what was rolled up in C#”
1:43

Creator of C#, Anders Hejlsberg(Anders Hejlsberg), on the design goals that shaped the language and why standardisation was a goal from the beginning: “The overarching thing was this power and productivity of C++ with the ease of use of Visual Basic. We knew we wanted to build an object oriented language. We wanted managed code or byte code so we could target different runtime environments. We wanted garbage collection and exception handling, but also things like a unified object system where, and that's true in C#, anything can be assigned to an object. If it's a value type, we box it. And it's a self-describing object. So, reflection: you can ask an object, ‘what are you’? And you can get all of the facts about it at runtime, and you can dynamically manipulate it in ways that just don't exist in a lot of other environments. We wanted a language that made this new model of properties, methods and events first class because that was how components were built as opposed to just sort of functions and procedures and even objects. And we wanted to create a language that was standardised. We wanted to give this language to a standardisation committee and try to level the playing field there. And all of those things were sort of like what was rolled up in C#”

The Pragmatic Engineer

18,332 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️
2:34

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,619,969 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Robert Pattinson making a drink inspired by THE BATMAN. "So this is an Old Fashioned, the granddaddy of drinks, for The Batman, the granddaddy of superheroes and the most relevant and important. [...] Well since I started doing the part, you look into the kind of legacy of it. So many people have seen it, there's characters that look like the Batman in like ancient civilizations. I mean there's something about that face that's a very deep and primal thing. It connects to people, it connects to children, it connects to adults, and then the legacy of the movies as well. [...] It seemed like one of those parts that was, it's like climbing Everest or something. Like you kind of, you don't really feel like it's a possibility but I felt something in my heart but I really, really wanted to do it."
2:49

Robert Pattinson making a drink inspired by THE BATMAN. "So this is an Old Fashioned, the granddaddy of drinks, for The Batman, the granddaddy of superheroes and the most relevant and important. [...] Well since I started doing the part, you look into the kind of legacy of it. So many people have seen it, there's characters that look like the Batman in like ancient civilizations. I mean there's something about that face that's a very deep and primal thing. It connects to people, it connects to children, it connects to adults, and then the legacy of the movies as well. [...] It seemed like one of those parts that was, it's like climbing Everest or something. Like you kind of, you don't really feel like it's a possibility but I felt something in my heart but I really, really wanted to do it."

Robert Pattinson Photos | Fansite

24,280 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад