Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Grace and Ashley had some (yuri) down time after finding a safe room... VA's: @RavennaNyaghty Nyaughty Meow VA OpenNSFW Models: KenjoNSFW🔞(C0MMISSIONS OPEN) MokujinH🔞 Void RM Abyss (Commissions Open) #REBH #nsfwtwtًً #nsfw

CuteGals4's profile picture

🔞 CuteGals 💖 Comms FULL

21,496 subscribers

785,894 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#REBH#nsfwtwtًً#nsfw
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Day trading used to feel like walking into a casino blindfolded every single morning. I’d sit there from 9:30 AM EST with five screens open, heart rate already elevated, chasing every little spike on the 1-minute chart, getting chopped up on fakeouts, revenge trading after a loss, and by 11 AM I was either up a little or down a lot — but always emotionally wrecked. My win rate hovered around 45-50%, commissions ate half my profits, and I constantly questioned whether I even had an edge or was just lucky on green days. About two months ago I integrated Intellectia’s real-time Day Trading Signals into my routine. Now I start the day by opening the app while the market is still pre-open. It gives me a prioritized list of high-probability setups — clean entries with stop levels, targets, confidence scores, and short reasoning (e.g., “volume breakout + sector rotation + RSI divergence”). I no longer scan 200 tickers; I focus on 3-5 signals that pass my own filter. Last week was a perfect example: Tuesday it flagged a clean long on a mid-cap tech name at 9:32 AM; I took it, trailed the stop, exited at +2.1% by 10:15 AM. Thursday had a short signal on an overextended small-cap — covered +1.8% in 40 minutes. Those two trades alone covered my weekly coffee budget and then some. The signals aren’t magic (nothing is), but they’re fast, data-driven, and remove 80% of the “where do I even look?” paralysis. My average hold time shortened, my risk per trade dropped, and I’m actually ending days in the green more consistently instead of bleeding out slowly. If you day trade and still feel like you’re always reacting instead of leading, give this a real week of testing — the clarity it brings is honestly addictive:
0:22

Day trading used to feel like walking into a casino blindfolded every single morning. I’d sit there from 9:30 AM EST with five screens open, heart rate already elevated, chasing every little spike on the 1-minute chart, getting chopped up on fakeouts, revenge trading after a loss, and by 11 AM I was either up a little or down a lot — but always emotionally wrecked. My win rate hovered around 45-50%, commissions ate half my profits, and I constantly questioned whether I even had an edge or was just lucky on green days. About two months ago I integrated Intellectia’s real-time Day Trading Signals into my routine. Now I start the day by opening the app while the market is still pre-open. It gives me a prioritized list of high-probability setups — clean entries with stop levels, targets, confidence scores, and short reasoning (e.g., “volume breakout + sector rotation + RSI divergence”). I no longer scan 200 tickers; I focus on 3-5 signals that pass my own filter. Last week was a perfect example: Tuesday it flagged a clean long on a mid-cap tech name at 9:32 AM; I took it, trailed the stop, exited at +2.1% by 10:15 AM. Thursday had a short signal on an overextended small-cap — covered +1.8% in 40 minutes. Those two trades alone covered my weekly coffee budget and then some. The signals aren’t magic (nothing is), but they’re fast, data-driven, and remove 80% of the “where do I even look?” paralysis. My average hold time shortened, my risk per trade dropped, and I’m actually ending days in the green more consistently instead of bleeding out slowly. If you day trade and still feel like you’re always reacting instead of leading, give this a real week of testing — the clarity it brings is honestly addictive:

Marry Evan

10,081 views • 4 months ago

Omo, this guy get mind o! 😳 Let me tell you the story of the guy being beaten in this video. He went to an FCMB branch pretending to be a customer who wanted to carry out a transaction. While inside the bank, he entered the restroom, climbed into the ceiling, and hid there until the staff closed for the day. After the workers left, he came down from the ceiling and allegedly hacked the bank's computer systems. Since there was no safe way for him to leave the premises without being noticed, he climbed back into the ceiling and remained there overnight. The next morning, when staff resumed work, one of them tried to use the restroom but found the door locked from the inside. After waiting for some time without any response, they alerted the security personnels, who forced the door open. When they entered, they noticed something unusual and eventually discovered the man hiding in the ceiling. Meanwhile, when the bank staff turned on their computers, the systems were displaying unusual prompts asking users to click "OK." It became apparent that the computers had been compromised. That's the guy in this video. The level of audacity was unbelievable. 😭💀🔥
2:07

Omo, this guy get mind o! 😳 Let me tell you the story of the guy being beaten in this video. He went to an FCMB branch pretending to be a customer who wanted to carry out a transaction. While inside the bank, he entered the restroom, climbed into the ceiling, and hid there until the staff closed for the day. After the workers left, he came down from the ceiling and allegedly hacked the bank's computer systems. Since there was no safe way for him to leave the premises without being noticed, he climbed back into the ceiling and remained there overnight. The next morning, when staff resumed work, one of them tried to use the restroom but found the door locked from the inside. After waiting for some time without any response, they alerted the security personnels, who forced the door open. When they entered, they noticed something unusual and eventually discovered the man hiding in the ceiling. Meanwhile, when the bank staff turned on their computers, the systems were displaying unusual prompts asking users to click "OK." It became apparent that the computers had been compromised. That's the guy in this video. The level of audacity was unbelievable. 😭💀🔥

𝕊𝕀𝕊𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕀𝔸ℕ𝕆 🇳🇬💐

163,141 views • 1 month ago

Dario asked governments to have an AI kill-switch. Then they used it on him. Three days after launching their most capable model, the US government sent Anthropic a letter at 5:21pm on a Friday. The order: pull it for every foreign national on earth, including their own non-citizen employees, effective immediately. Anthropic couldn't verify nationality in real time, so they shut it off for everyone. Today, five days after the shutdown, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis sat down for a working lunch with G7 leaders in Evian, France. The session title: ensuring the safe and rapid deployment of AI globally. Here is what is actually happening at that table. Altman is not there to negotiate. His pitch to every European leader in the room is that Western frontier AI is the safe alternative to Chinese open-source models. Amodei is there on biosecurity. On June 4, he co-signed a joint letter to Congress alongside Altman and Hassabis asking for mandatory synthetic-DNA screening across the industry. G7 is where you turn a domestic policy letter into a multilateral commitment that becomes the template for legislation in every member country. That is a significant prize, and it has nothing to do with the shutdown. The communiqué being drafted will be voluntary. The US blocked binding agreements before the summit began. France gets sovereignty language. The US keeps its industrial advantage intact. Everyone shakes hands. Meanwhile French PM Lecornu told Reuters today: "We cannot rely on tools developed by foreign powers. France must have its own tools." Every country watching this summit is drawing the same conclusion: you don't control AI if you don't control the infrastructure it runs on.
1:21

Dario asked governments to have an AI kill-switch. Then they used it on him. Three days after launching their most capable model, the US government sent Anthropic a letter at 5:21pm on a Friday. The order: pull it for every foreign national on earth, including their own non-citizen employees, effective immediately. Anthropic couldn't verify nationality in real time, so they shut it off for everyone. Today, five days after the shutdown, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis sat down for a working lunch with G7 leaders in Evian, France. The session title: ensuring the safe and rapid deployment of AI globally. Here is what is actually happening at that table. Altman is not there to negotiate. His pitch to every European leader in the room is that Western frontier AI is the safe alternative to Chinese open-source models. Amodei is there on biosecurity. On June 4, he co-signed a joint letter to Congress alongside Altman and Hassabis asking for mandatory synthetic-DNA screening across the industry. G7 is where you turn a domestic policy letter into a multilateral commitment that becomes the template for legislation in every member country. That is a significant prize, and it has nothing to do with the shutdown. The communiqué being drafted will be voluntary. The US blocked binding agreements before the summit began. France gets sovereignty language. The US keeps its industrial advantage intact. Everyone shakes hands. Meanwhile French PM Lecornu told Reuters today: "We cannot rely on tools developed by foreign powers. France must have its own tools." Every country watching this summit is drawing the same conclusion: you don't control AI if you don't control the infrastructure it runs on.

Shruti

49,659 views • 1 month ago

Aman Sanger on scaling Cursor to $100M in revenue in 12 months The four co-founders started working on Cursor in January 2023. “It was about 2-4 months of experimenting, trying different things and finding something that fit,” Aman recalls. “Then we shipped it and it had an okay launch.” The initial version of Cursor got some initial buzz because they shipped it with GPT-4 at a time where very few products were using Open AI’s latest model. But then usage tanked. The team began to doubt their approach after the failed launch. Aman explains: “The entirety of that summer was just incredibly slow growth, and that was somewhat demoralizing. The big question in our minds was, ‘Are we being too ambitious?’ We were trying to build this general purpose thing for all engineers, but with this really small team, maybe we should focus more narrowly on some particular use case like tests or bug detection.” But the fact that they were users of the product gave the team the confidence to keep going down their initial path: “The really magical thing about this product was that we were users of it. So we could iterate incredibly quickly, and we tried all these different things that summer. Then we found this core set of features that worked incredibly well.” The two key features were Command K for instructed edit ability and code-based indexing that let you ask questions about your whole code base. “After we integrated those two features and launched them, growth kind of just took off.” Aman continues: “A lot of the work of Cursor has been just experimenting with what is possible. For everything you see in the product, there’s like 10 failed experiments that didn’t work… All of our work for the first 6 months to a year was trying to find new ways to harness these models and make these models better for programming.” Another factor that contributed to Cursor’s success was their willingness to ship half-finished features: “We released these half-finished things, which a lot of our competitors refused to do. The first version of Copilot++ and Cursor Tab sucked. But once you release it to the world and see how people react to it, you can improve on it a ton… We biased toward releasing as soon as something shows signs of usefulness to the team.” Video source: Peak XV Partners (2025)
2:44

Aman Sanger on scaling Cursor to $100M in revenue in 12 months The four co-founders started working on Cursor in January 2023. “It was about 2-4 months of experimenting, trying different things and finding something that fit,” Aman recalls. “Then we shipped it and it had an okay launch.” The initial version of Cursor got some initial buzz because they shipped it with GPT-4 at a time where very few products were using Open AI’s latest model. But then usage tanked. The team began to doubt their approach after the failed launch. Aman explains: “The entirety of that summer was just incredibly slow growth, and that was somewhat demoralizing. The big question in our minds was, ‘Are we being too ambitious?’ We were trying to build this general purpose thing for all engineers, but with this really small team, maybe we should focus more narrowly on some particular use case like tests or bug detection.” But the fact that they were users of the product gave the team the confidence to keep going down their initial path: “The really magical thing about this product was that we were users of it. So we could iterate incredibly quickly, and we tried all these different things that summer. Then we found this core set of features that worked incredibly well.” The two key features were Command K for instructed edit ability and code-based indexing that let you ask questions about your whole code base. “After we integrated those two features and launched them, growth kind of just took off.” Aman continues: “A lot of the work of Cursor has been just experimenting with what is possible. For everything you see in the product, there’s like 10 failed experiments that didn’t work… All of our work for the first 6 months to a year was trying to find new ways to harness these models and make these models better for programming.” Another factor that contributed to Cursor’s success was their willingness to ship half-finished features: “We released these half-finished things, which a lot of our competitors refused to do. The first version of Copilot++ and Cursor Tab sucked. But once you release it to the world and see how people react to it, you can improve on it a ton… We biased toward releasing as soon as something shows signs of usefulness to the team.” Video source: Peak XV Partners (2025)

Startup Archive

56,166 views • 1 year ago

At 14, Jim Simons got a job putting away stock in a basement. He was so bad, they demoted him to floor sweeper. When he said he wanted to study math at MIT, his bosses laughed. He went on to make $100+ billion in trading profits. More than Buffett, Soros, & Dalio combined. In 2010, he spent 60 minutes at MIT explaining how a mathematician became the world's greatest trader: "They thought that was the funniest thing they had ever heard. The guy who couldn't remember where to put the sheep manure is going to be a mathematician at MIT." He applied to MIT. Got accepted. Studied mathematics. It went all right. After graduating, Simons took a job at the Institute for Defense Analysis. Secret government work. Good pay. Half your time on their work, half on your own mathematics. Then the Vietnam War happened. General Maxwell Taylor, the head of the organization, wrote an article in the New York Times about how victory was days away. Simons disagreed. He wrote a letter to the Times expressing that view. "They kindly published it." A few months later, a reporter asked to interview him about people who work for the defense department but oppose the war. Simons agreed. Told his local boss afterward. "He said, 'You did what?' And he picked up the phone and called General Maxwell Taylor." Silence on the other end. "He hung up. Looked at me. Said, 'You're fired.'" "I said, 'I'm fired? I'm a permanent member.'" "He said, 'I'll tell you the difference between a temporary member and a permanent member. A temporary member has a contract.'" "It was the first time, and happily the last time, I was ever fired." On starting Renaissance: Simons left mathematics at 38. Frustrated. Stuck on a problem he couldn't solve. He had some money from an investment that finally paid off. He invested that money. Found out he wasn't bad at it. He brought in the best modeler he knew. A guy named Lenny Baum. "Lenny started making models. But then he seemed to get less interested in models and more interested in reading the news." "Then he started having opinions on what was going to go up and what was going to go down. And he was right enough times." "I said okay, to hell with the modeling. Let's just try to make some money." What happened next: "We multiplied our investors' money by 12 in two years." "We were incredibly lucky." But in the back of his mind, he knew models were the answer. "If you're doing fundamental trading, one morning you come in, you feel like a genius. Your positions are all your way. You think, God, I'm really smart." "The next day you come in, they've gone against you, and you feel like an idiot." "It just didn't seem like a way to live your life." In 1988, he made the decision: 100% models. No human override. "Some firms say they have models. What they typically mean is the model advises the trader what to do. If he likes the advice, he'll take it. If he doesn't, he won't." "That's not science. You can't simulate that. How were you feeling when you got out of bed 13 years ago? Did you like what the model said?" "If you're going to trade using models, you slavishly use the models. You do whatever the hell it says. No matter how smart or dumb you might think it is at that moment." "That turned out to be a wonderful decision." On the secret sauce: "People always ask me, what's the secret? We're not the only quant firm in the world. But we seem to have done better than anybody." "The real secret sauce is that we start with great scientists. First-class people who've done first-class work." "Second, we provide people with a great infrastructure." "The most important thing is an open atmosphere. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. No compartmentalization." "And people get paid based on the overall profits. Not just on your work. Everyone has an interest in everyone else's success." "Those policies, no one of which seems so remarkable, turn out to be a pretty winning combination." On guiding principles: His wife told him to end with values. He said he wasn't sure he had any. "She assured me that I had some values, if only I could think hard about them." Here's what he came up with: 1. Do something new. "I don't like to run with the pack. For one thing, I'm not such a fast runner." "If you're one of n people all working on the same problem, I'd be last. But if you can think of a new problem that other people aren't working on, maybe that'll give you a chance." 2. Collaborate with the best people you possibly can. "That gives you some reach and some scope. And it's also fun to work with terrific people." 3. Be guided by beauty. "What's aesthetic is doing it right. Getting the right kind of people. Approaching the problem and doing it right." "It's a beautiful thing to do something right." 4. Don't give up. "Sometimes it's appropriate to be trying to do something for a hell of a long time." 5. Hope for some good luck.
51:28

At 14, Jim Simons got a job putting away stock in a basement. He was so bad, they demoted him to floor sweeper. When he said he wanted to study math at MIT, his bosses laughed. He went on to make $100+ billion in trading profits. More than Buffett, Soros, & Dalio combined. In 2010, he spent 60 minutes at MIT explaining how a mathematician became the world's greatest trader: "They thought that was the funniest thing they had ever heard. The guy who couldn't remember where to put the sheep manure is going to be a mathematician at MIT." He applied to MIT. Got accepted. Studied mathematics. It went all right. After graduating, Simons took a job at the Institute for Defense Analysis. Secret government work. Good pay. Half your time on their work, half on your own mathematics. Then the Vietnam War happened. General Maxwell Taylor, the head of the organization, wrote an article in the New York Times about how victory was days away. Simons disagreed. He wrote a letter to the Times expressing that view. "They kindly published it." A few months later, a reporter asked to interview him about people who work for the defense department but oppose the war. Simons agreed. Told his local boss afterward. "He said, 'You did what?' And he picked up the phone and called General Maxwell Taylor." Silence on the other end. "He hung up. Looked at me. Said, 'You're fired.'" "I said, 'I'm fired? I'm a permanent member.'" "He said, 'I'll tell you the difference between a temporary member and a permanent member. A temporary member has a contract.'" "It was the first time, and happily the last time, I was ever fired." On starting Renaissance: Simons left mathematics at 38. Frustrated. Stuck on a problem he couldn't solve. He had some money from an investment that finally paid off. He invested that money. Found out he wasn't bad at it. He brought in the best modeler he knew. A guy named Lenny Baum. "Lenny started making models. But then he seemed to get less interested in models and more interested in reading the news." "Then he started having opinions on what was going to go up and what was going to go down. And he was right enough times." "I said okay, to hell with the modeling. Let's just try to make some money." What happened next: "We multiplied our investors' money by 12 in two years." "We were incredibly lucky." But in the back of his mind, he knew models were the answer. "If you're doing fundamental trading, one morning you come in, you feel like a genius. Your positions are all your way. You think, God, I'm really smart." "The next day you come in, they've gone against you, and you feel like an idiot." "It just didn't seem like a way to live your life." In 1988, he made the decision: 100% models. No human override. "Some firms say they have models. What they typically mean is the model advises the trader what to do. If he likes the advice, he'll take it. If he doesn't, he won't." "That's not science. You can't simulate that. How were you feeling when you got out of bed 13 years ago? Did you like what the model said?" "If you're going to trade using models, you slavishly use the models. You do whatever the hell it says. No matter how smart or dumb you might think it is at that moment." "That turned out to be a wonderful decision." On the secret sauce: "People always ask me, what's the secret? We're not the only quant firm in the world. But we seem to have done better than anybody." "The real secret sauce is that we start with great scientists. First-class people who've done first-class work." "Second, we provide people with a great infrastructure." "The most important thing is an open atmosphere. Everybody knows what everybody else is doing. No compartmentalization." "And people get paid based on the overall profits. Not just on your work. Everyone has an interest in everyone else's success." "Those policies, no one of which seems so remarkable, turn out to be a pretty winning combination." On guiding principles: His wife told him to end with values. He said he wasn't sure he had any. "She assured me that I had some values, if only I could think hard about them." Here's what he came up with: 1. Do something new. "I don't like to run with the pack. For one thing, I'm not such a fast runner." "If you're one of n people all working on the same problem, I'd be last. But if you can think of a new problem that other people aren't working on, maybe that'll give you a chance." 2. Collaborate with the best people you possibly can. "That gives you some reach and some scope. And it's also fun to work with terrific people." 3. Be guided by beauty. "What's aesthetic is doing it right. Getting the right kind of people. Approaching the problem and doing it right." "It's a beautiful thing to do something right." 4. Don't give up. "Sometimes it's appropriate to be trying to do something for a hell of a long time." 5. Hope for some good luck.

Jaynit

73,710 views • 3 months ago

WILLIAMEST PRESSTOUR #WilliamEstFanconPressTour #Flex1045xWilliamEstFANCON 🎤: was there ever a moment when you were deeply touched by something he did but never told him? 🦈: actually, i can think of two things: one work-related and one personal. on the personal side, ever since we first met during songkran last year, i was out partying, right? and i went to sleep at his place. at the time, he couldn’t go out yet cause he wasn’t of age. but like, it was 3 a.m. and he still came down to pick me up even though he had already gone to sleep. and we had just met. i felt really touched. 🎸: at the time we went out together and i wasn’t old enough to go party, so i just went to some place that kids could go in during the day. then i went home to sleep and phi went out partying. 🦈: yes and i didn’t just stay for one night. i stayed like three nights, didn’t even book a hotel, just stayed at nong place. 🎸: and my eyes were like 😵‍💫 🦈: i started to feel bad. do you know what i did in return? 🤣 🎤: what did you do? 🎸: no, because i had to go downstairs, press the elevator, do a bunch of stuff, so i had to wake up. i went down to pick him up and he was just sitting there on the floor 🤣 🎤: sitting on the floor waiting? 🎸: yes, just sitting and resting there, waiting for me to come down. so we went back up. help him upstairs. not that i helped him up, he could walk by himself 🤣 then i went to bed and from my room, if the door wasn’t fully closed, you could see the sink. i’m the type who eats and washes dishes later. 🎤: you soak them first so they’re easier to clean later? 🎸: yes and then i saw him standing there at 3 a.m. doing the dishes 😭 🎤: washing dishes at 3 a.m.? 🎸: yes 😭 i was like, why did he do that? like it was fine, seriously. it wasn’t a big deal. but maybe he felt a bit guilty or something. but for me, i literally set an alarm, like, “okay, he’ll probably be back around this time,” so i set it and went down to get him. 🎤: maybe that was his version of saying thank you, right? 🦈: yes and the thing is, he never even told me that he saw me! like, i knew he’d probably fallen asleep or something, so i left the door cracked open because the lights were off just in case he could see. and yeah, turns out he did see. but he only told me months later, like way after songkran. 🎤: so he only just revealed now that he saw you washing the dishes? 🦈: i only found out because he teased me later, like, “you’ll end up washing dishes again soon” 🤣 that was how he teased. and back then i genuinely felt a bit bad, so i just wanted to do something to give back a little. and looking back, it’s so funny. 🦈: and then in thamepo, there was literally a dishwashing scene, so i joked like, “guess i can’t escape doing dishes for real.” 🤣
3:15

WILLIAMEST PRESSTOUR #WilliamEstFanconPressTour #Flex1045xWilliamEstFANCON 🎤: was there ever a moment when you were deeply touched by something he did but never told him? 🦈: actually, i can think of two things: one work-related and one personal. on the personal side, ever since we first met during songkran last year, i was out partying, right? and i went to sleep at his place. at the time, he couldn’t go out yet cause he wasn’t of age. but like, it was 3 a.m. and he still came down to pick me up even though he had already gone to sleep. and we had just met. i felt really touched. 🎸: at the time we went out together and i wasn’t old enough to go party, so i just went to some place that kids could go in during the day. then i went home to sleep and phi went out partying. 🦈: yes and i didn’t just stay for one night. i stayed like three nights, didn’t even book a hotel, just stayed at nong place. 🎸: and my eyes were like 😵‍💫 🦈: i started to feel bad. do you know what i did in return? 🤣 🎤: what did you do? 🎸: no, because i had to go downstairs, press the elevator, do a bunch of stuff, so i had to wake up. i went down to pick him up and he was just sitting there on the floor 🤣 🎤: sitting on the floor waiting? 🎸: yes, just sitting and resting there, waiting for me to come down. so we went back up. help him upstairs. not that i helped him up, he could walk by himself 🤣 then i went to bed and from my room, if the door wasn’t fully closed, you could see the sink. i’m the type who eats and washes dishes later. 🎤: you soak them first so they’re easier to clean later? 🎸: yes and then i saw him standing there at 3 a.m. doing the dishes 😭 🎤: washing dishes at 3 a.m.? 🎸: yes 😭 i was like, why did he do that? like it was fine, seriously. it wasn’t a big deal. but maybe he felt a bit guilty or something. but for me, i literally set an alarm, like, “okay, he’ll probably be back around this time,” so i set it and went down to get him. 🎤: maybe that was his version of saying thank you, right? 🦈: yes and the thing is, he never even told me that he saw me! like, i knew he’d probably fallen asleep or something, so i left the door cracked open because the lights were off just in case he could see. and yeah, turns out he did see. but he only told me months later, like way after songkran. 🎤: so he only just revealed now that he saw you washing the dishes? 🦈: i only found out because he teased me later, like, “you’ll end up washing dishes again soon” 🤣 that was how he teased. and back then i genuinely felt a bit bad, so i just wanted to do something to give back a little. and looking back, it’s so funny. 🦈: and then in thamepo, there was literally a dishwashing scene, so i joked like, “guess i can’t escape doing dishes for real.” 🤣

𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑎 ◡̈

73,933 views • 1 year ago

I just spoke with Todd Yetman, brother of Gregory, the man hunted down by FBI for J6 related offenses. The conversation was sad, infuriating, and in some instances, funny. First, he said the FBI staked out their home for THREE MONTHS prior to the raid on Wednesday am. (Todd, Greg, and another brother live together in the home their father built in NJ). After Todd and his other brother left for work after 6am, Greg left the house around 7am to go to work. They all work for same company. That's when armed FBI agents and SWAT vehicles surrounded Greg. "Greg walked out, froze in the face of guns drawn, and ran." A woman who lives with them heard the commotion. When she opened the door, she faced armed agents who told her to get on the ground. She thought they were being robbed. About 30 armed agents stormed the house and property. They threw flashbangs inside areas of the property including the garage. This resulted in broken windows of vehicles and a boat. "They went nutty, tore up the house, stuff scattered everywhere." Agents told Todd, after he returned to the house that afternoon from work, to open his gun safe. When he refused, they told him if he didn't, they would break it open. Although not a defendant, FBI took his guns and ammo. Todd confronted the agents, asking "who killed someone?" They treated my brother like a criminal, Todd said. Vehicles were everywhere blocking the driveway and parked around the property. FBI and local law enforcement used helicopters, drones, and search dogs to try to track down Greg. That's when Todd again confronted agents. "Go get Hunter, go get Joe Biden," Todd said. "Everyone of you is corrupt, you're all Joe Biden's puppets." He demanded to know why they were not arresting Antifa and BLM. They then asked him not to be rude, lol. News reporters were staked out near the house the entire time. The FBI asked Todd if the media tried to interview him. He said no, but he hoped they had. "They are as corrupt as you guys." Law enforcement issued an emergency bulletin to neighbors to shelter in place. Even the small town's mayor told residents Yetman was not a threat. Greg Yetman turned himself in this morning without incident. Todd doesn't know where his brother went the past 2 nights or where he is now. "He would give you the shirt off his back," Todd said. "He helps everyone." Greg, according to his brother, served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also worked as a guard at Gitmo. He's been a National Guardsman since--but he quit after refusing to take the Covid jab. "I am sick to my stomach," Todd said. "There will be no justice, that's the sad thing about it. I feel bad for the country and for my kids." As of tonight, DOJ has not yet filed any charging documents detailing Greg's offenses. Some reports claim Greg used pepper spray against police. Even so, this is not the normal protocol for arresting an individual accused of spraying police nearly 3 years later. This is all about optics and juicing DOJ's "domestic terror" data ahead of Trump's J6 trial--Jack Smith recently admitted in a motion that the trial would prove Trump was responsible for the events of January 6. Also, this account is consistent with other accounts of FBI raids against Jan 6 protesters. And Greg Yetman wasn't the only American arrested this week for Jan 6. Five others have been charged including 2 women on trespassing misdemeanors. DOJ boasted in a J6 update this week that more than 1,200 individuals have been arrested and charged over the four-hour disturbance. US Atty Matthew Graves warned the final count could exceed 2,000. Police state.
1:59

I just spoke with Todd Yetman, brother of Gregory, the man hunted down by FBI for J6 related offenses. The conversation was sad, infuriating, and in some instances, funny. First, he said the FBI staked out their home for THREE MONTHS prior to the raid on Wednesday am. (Todd, Greg, and another brother live together in the home their father built in NJ). After Todd and his other brother left for work after 6am, Greg left the house around 7am to go to work. They all work for same company. That's when armed FBI agents and SWAT vehicles surrounded Greg. "Greg walked out, froze in the face of guns drawn, and ran." A woman who lives with them heard the commotion. When she opened the door, she faced armed agents who told her to get on the ground. She thought they were being robbed. About 30 armed agents stormed the house and property. They threw flashbangs inside areas of the property including the garage. This resulted in broken windows of vehicles and a boat. "They went nutty, tore up the house, stuff scattered everywhere." Agents told Todd, after he returned to the house that afternoon from work, to open his gun safe. When he refused, they told him if he didn't, they would break it open. Although not a defendant, FBI took his guns and ammo. Todd confronted the agents, asking "who killed someone?" They treated my brother like a criminal, Todd said. Vehicles were everywhere blocking the driveway and parked around the property. FBI and local law enforcement used helicopters, drones, and search dogs to try to track down Greg. That's when Todd again confronted agents. "Go get Hunter, go get Joe Biden," Todd said. "Everyone of you is corrupt, you're all Joe Biden's puppets." He demanded to know why they were not arresting Antifa and BLM. They then asked him not to be rude, lol. News reporters were staked out near the house the entire time. The FBI asked Todd if the media tried to interview him. He said no, but he hoped they had. "They are as corrupt as you guys." Law enforcement issued an emergency bulletin to neighbors to shelter in place. Even the small town's mayor told residents Yetman was not a threat. Greg Yetman turned himself in this morning without incident. Todd doesn't know where his brother went the past 2 nights or where he is now. "He would give you the shirt off his back," Todd said. "He helps everyone." Greg, according to his brother, served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also worked as a guard at Gitmo. He's been a National Guardsman since--but he quit after refusing to take the Covid jab. "I am sick to my stomach," Todd said. "There will be no justice, that's the sad thing about it. I feel bad for the country and for my kids." As of tonight, DOJ has not yet filed any charging documents detailing Greg's offenses. Some reports claim Greg used pepper spray against police. Even so, this is not the normal protocol for arresting an individual accused of spraying police nearly 3 years later. This is all about optics and juicing DOJ's "domestic terror" data ahead of Trump's J6 trial--Jack Smith recently admitted in a motion that the trial would prove Trump was responsible for the events of January 6. Also, this account is consistent with other accounts of FBI raids against Jan 6 protesters. And Greg Yetman wasn't the only American arrested this week for Jan 6. Five others have been charged including 2 women on trespassing misdemeanors. DOJ boasted in a J6 update this week that more than 1,200 individuals have been arrested and charged over the four-hour disturbance. US Atty Matthew Graves warned the final count could exceed 2,000. Police state.

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

2,838,757 views • 2 years ago

My fox shooting garden defending AI robot is finally done and WORKING! 🤩 (Don’t worry it only shoots 💦 water) After months of slowly moving forward with each part I finished the last step to train a TensorFlow model on the footage of the 🦊 fox I collected hours of footage 📹 with the fox roaming around my garden, from this I labeled around 2000 images with the fox by hand ✋ Honestly, I was quite skeptical training the model was actually gonna work, maybe this was partly the reason I avoided working on this until the very end. If I couldn’t train a model to detect the fox, this whole robot would never be able to function properly. On the flipside though, with no previous experience in hardware or electronics there was a bit of a learning curve and I didn’t want to end up labeling thousands of images, training a TensorFlow model, only to fail on building the hardware. As I started building, I realized that mixing hardware and software adds quite another dimension to debugging things. At times I wasted hours debugging code in my IDE, only to realize the issue was somewhere in the electronics. Furthermore, combining this side project with a full time job and a young family, is not always easy. It can be quite frustrating, to know you only need 4 hours of concentrated effort for a small task, having to spread it out across a week of 20min increments. Then, a few months into the build I noticed the fox had stopped coming to my garden, in fact one day, I recorded her walking with 3 cute little 🐶 pups, and the next day I saw her moving out of my garden completely. Did she know I was building a robot? I had this strange mix of feelings, happy my garden was safe from poop and digging, happy she was safe with her pups, but how was I gonna finish this project if my robot had no fox to detect? For sure they would be back next year, I figured I could postpone the whole thing until next winter, but I also knew it was gonna be much harder to pick up momentum if I did let it sit there for six months. So I decided to keep working, hoping the fox would reappear,.. but she never did. As I finished labeling the footage and started training my model, I could finally see the mAP results, quantifying the precision of my object detection model. It was measuring at 78% across different metrics on detecting my fox. I quickly ran the model on some of the video footage I got from my fox. Inference speed took a hit, but it did a near perfect job detecting the fox, even when she was deep down in the grass or wizzing past in a motion blur. It took me by surprise how well it worked. With the default model I had to drop my confidence threshold way down to 15%, to recognize the fox as 🦜“bird” in one or two frames, with my custom model it followed the fox all the way down to the back of the garden! Still this didn’t solve the issue of there being no actual fox in my garden and how was I gonna wrap this project in a short timeframe. I played with the idea of putting a fox toy 🧸 on an RC 🚗 car, or borrowing a dog to run around the garden to test. Friends suggested I run around the garden in a fox costume.. what a ridiculous idea. I wasn’t really feeling the idea of running around the garden in a floppy cloth fox 🎭 costume, but had a look anyway. I came across these self inflating costumes. This actually could be perfect. Since it’s inflated, it would hold its shape super well, making it much easier to label, train and be recognized by my robot. So I got the costume and shot a time lapse of myself as a fox walking around the garden. I labeled it to around 600 images. Ran the model training again and got a mAP result of 82%. This was even better than my real fox! At this point I knew this was gonna work. So here’s the final 🎥 video, just having some fun with it. I’ll update here whenever the real fox does come back. On a final note, I’m looking for (remote) jobs in these fields of AI now: - object detection - visual generative AI - 3D (nerfs + gaussian splats) So if you know anything let me know! My DMs are open 😊
2:05

My fox shooting garden defending AI robot is finally done and WORKING! 🤩 (Don’t worry it only shoots 💦 water) After months of slowly moving forward with each part I finished the last step to train a TensorFlow model on the footage of the 🦊 fox I collected hours of footage 📹 with the fox roaming around my garden, from this I labeled around 2000 images with the fox by hand ✋ Honestly, I was quite skeptical training the model was actually gonna work, maybe this was partly the reason I avoided working on this until the very end. If I couldn’t train a model to detect the fox, this whole robot would never be able to function properly. On the flipside though, with no previous experience in hardware or electronics there was a bit of a learning curve and I didn’t want to end up labeling thousands of images, training a TensorFlow model, only to fail on building the hardware. As I started building, I realized that mixing hardware and software adds quite another dimension to debugging things. At times I wasted hours debugging code in my IDE, only to realize the issue was somewhere in the electronics. Furthermore, combining this side project with a full time job and a young family, is not always easy. It can be quite frustrating, to know you only need 4 hours of concentrated effort for a small task, having to spread it out across a week of 20min increments. Then, a few months into the build I noticed the fox had stopped coming to my garden, in fact one day, I recorded her walking with 3 cute little 🐶 pups, and the next day I saw her moving out of my garden completely. Did she know I was building a robot? I had this strange mix of feelings, happy my garden was safe from poop and digging, happy she was safe with her pups, but how was I gonna finish this project if my robot had no fox to detect? For sure they would be back next year, I figured I could postpone the whole thing until next winter, but I also knew it was gonna be much harder to pick up momentum if I did let it sit there for six months. So I decided to keep working, hoping the fox would reappear,.. but she never did. As I finished labeling the footage and started training my model, I could finally see the mAP results, quantifying the precision of my object detection model. It was measuring at 78% across different metrics on detecting my fox. I quickly ran the model on some of the video footage I got from my fox. Inference speed took a hit, but it did a near perfect job detecting the fox, even when she was deep down in the grass or wizzing past in a motion blur. It took me by surprise how well it worked. With the default model I had to drop my confidence threshold way down to 15%, to recognize the fox as 🦜“bird” in one or two frames, with my custom model it followed the fox all the way down to the back of the garden! Still this didn’t solve the issue of there being no actual fox in my garden and how was I gonna wrap this project in a short timeframe. I played with the idea of putting a fox toy 🧸 on an RC 🚗 car, or borrowing a dog to run around the garden to test. Friends suggested I run around the garden in a fox costume.. what a ridiculous idea. I wasn’t really feeling the idea of running around the garden in a floppy cloth fox 🎭 costume, but had a look anyway. I came across these self inflating costumes. This actually could be perfect. Since it’s inflated, it would hold its shape super well, making it much easier to label, train and be recognized by my robot. So I got the costume and shot a time lapse of myself as a fox walking around the garden. I labeled it to around 600 images. Ran the model training again and got a mAP result of 82%. This was even better than my real fox! At this point I knew this was gonna work. So here’s the final 🎥 video, just having some fun with it. I’ll update here whenever the real fox does come back. On a final note, I’m looking for (remote) jobs in these fields of AI now: - object detection - visual generative AI - 3D (nerfs + gaussian splats) So if you know anything let me know! My DMs are open 😊

Jeroen Pixel

55,797 views • 2 years ago

I have a story about addiction from a different perspective. A story where recovery was not possible. I have one sibling. An older brother. Everyone loved him. It was easy to love him. He died 10 years ago. It was a horrible death that took him 20 years to accomplish, dragging everyone who loved him along the way. He was an amazing musician. He didn't read music. No lessons. Hand him any instrument, and he can play it. He had a big heart. He was easily the funniest person I've ever known. And he is the only other human being who speaks fluent movie-script-quotes with precision and skill. But alcohol took over in his mid-20s. Bam Margera is just 2 years younger than my brother. He reminds me of my brother *so* much. Everything Bam and his family went through with his addiction is what my brother and family went through. My brother left high school because he was a gifted songwriter and musician. Bam left because he was a gifted skater. My brother was really into editing and producing films, and so is Bam. When Ryan Dunn died, and Bam went off the deep end, I was watching my brother do the same thing every time a strong emotion hit him, and he simply didn't know what to do with it. My brother was so beautiful on the outside, yet unrecognizable at the end. I can not tell you how many times my brother would go missing. Hundreds of times. He would sometimes go missing for up to a week. Then we'd get a call from the police or a hospital. Usually, the hospital would be first because he'd be near death. Then they would keep him on a 5150 at a mental health facility. Then he would come home. One time, he chased me with a knife in his hand, screaming he was going to kill me as I was running out of my parents' home on a cordless phone dialing 911. I found a fifth of vodka in his room and poured it down the drain. He went looking for it 20 minutes later, and it was empty...and I told him I poured it out. When I was 24 years old, I landed my first job that came with an office. My name was outside of it. I was stoked. I worked my ass off to get there. But there was no happiness at that time in my life. I remember my father calling me at work, sitting in that office, to say he was coming to pick me up because he knew where my brother, who had been missing for 4 days, was. The credit card he stole from my mother showed he was at a little oceanfront motel 10 minutes away. And I remember thinking to myself on the way over there...I have to open the motel room door. I can't let my dad see him hanging. It will destroy his life. I told my dad to wait about 10 feet to my left, and I opened the door, and there was my brother fashioning a sheet into a noose. Another time he went missing, and they found him on the roof of a building with the inside of his arms slashed from elbow to wrist, just lying in a pool of blood. Dark shit. Both of the insides of his arms were mutilated from being sliced open so many times. At least 30, if not more. He stopped wearing short-sleeved shirts in public about 10 years before he died. He got to the point of seizures when he withdrew and had alcohol-related dementia for the last 3 years of his life, which would come and go. Then one day, after 2 decades, he called my parents and said something was wrong. My parents went over to his place, ended up calling 911, the ambulance got there, and he started walking outside with assistance from paramedics and collapsed. In front of my parents. He was rushed to the hospital. I had not seen my brother for the last 9 years of his life. He disowned me. Because he felt he had to. He killed my dog when he got drunk 9 years before he died. No one knows if he meant to or not, he was so wasted. He couldn't face me after that. So he disowned me. And a piece of my heart died the day he did it. I talked to my parents right before they left to see what was wrong that day. The last thing I said to my dad was, "Do not let him die without me having an opportunity to say goodbye." My dad called me from the er 2 hours later and said, "You should come over now. He won't know you're here." When I got there, I was shocked at what I saw. He wasn't the right color. He was in a coma. Severe internal bleeding. On life support. It was jarring even after seeing him in a much similar state hundreds of times for such a long time. He was taken to the ICU 3 hours later, where they would transfuse blood by the bag damn near constantly, and it just shot out of his nose. It was bloody. A lot of blood. After about 6 hours, I told my parents to go home and get some rest. I would stay with him. And I talked to him like he was right there. Like one of the hundreds of pillow-fort slumber parties we had as kids. Like no time had passed, and his addiction never existed. I showed him pictures of my life over the past decade on my phone...just like he was there. But he wasn't there. And after 3 hours and extensive talks with several doctors and specialists, I had to make the decision to remove his life support. After my parents returned and said goodbye, I told them to wait out in the hall until he passed because I could not allow them to have the memory of him dying, and I returned to my brother's side, and said what I needed to say, bawling my heart out. I told them to turn off the machines, and I held him in my arms as he died. It took just over 7 minutes. And I just held him. I had Nine Inch Nails playing for him. One of his favorites thanks to Pretty Hate Machine. He was a fan for life after that. He was my best friend. But he was also someone I had to protect myself from if he was intoxicated. This is the end that usually becomes a reality for addicts and their families. Then there's someone like Bam Margera. He went to the same place my brother went to in his head. And he came back. Bam is one of the greatest comebacks ever and a story of recovery worth knowing. I see YouTube shorts of Bam skating again every day, and I'm so moved that I just sit here and cry. You can see his personality is back. You have no idea how rare that is. Their personality shows very little while they're in their addiction. Recovery stories are incredibly personal to so many people, including those who have gone through addiction with an addict because they love them so much...they'd see anything they had to see and endure anything they have to endure just to be there with them at their lowest point. Addicts are not monsters. The stuff they use to numb the pain they do not understand is the real monster. And when you put enough of that into a human being, they do things they would *never* do without it. People are not pure. We are more complex than that. We are good and bad. Light and dark. Right and wrong. Chaotic and serene. You will find that the answer to every question you have about life is usually "both" for a reason. Because one can not exist without the other. With recovery stories like Hunter Biden's and Bam Margera's out in the ether, more people will be less ignorant as to how this disease plays out, and that will do nothing but good for so many families struggling with this issue. Addiction isn't just for the addict. Addiction is for everyone who loves them, as well. It's just a different perspective of hell. So listen to recovery stories with renewed respect because most addicts end up the way it ended for the only sibling I'll ever have.
2:04

I have a story about addiction from a different perspective. A story where recovery was not possible. I have one sibling. An older brother. Everyone loved him. It was easy to love him. He died 10 years ago. It was a horrible death that took him 20 years to accomplish, dragging everyone who loved him along the way. He was an amazing musician. He didn't read music. No lessons. Hand him any instrument, and he can play it. He had a big heart. He was easily the funniest person I've ever known. And he is the only other human being who speaks fluent movie-script-quotes with precision and skill. But alcohol took over in his mid-20s. Bam Margera is just 2 years younger than my brother. He reminds me of my brother *so* much. Everything Bam and his family went through with his addiction is what my brother and family went through. My brother left high school because he was a gifted songwriter and musician. Bam left because he was a gifted skater. My brother was really into editing and producing films, and so is Bam. When Ryan Dunn died, and Bam went off the deep end, I was watching my brother do the same thing every time a strong emotion hit him, and he simply didn't know what to do with it. My brother was so beautiful on the outside, yet unrecognizable at the end. I can not tell you how many times my brother would go missing. Hundreds of times. He would sometimes go missing for up to a week. Then we'd get a call from the police or a hospital. Usually, the hospital would be first because he'd be near death. Then they would keep him on a 5150 at a mental health facility. Then he would come home. One time, he chased me with a knife in his hand, screaming he was going to kill me as I was running out of my parents' home on a cordless phone dialing 911. I found a fifth of vodka in his room and poured it down the drain. He went looking for it 20 minutes later, and it was empty...and I told him I poured it out. When I was 24 years old, I landed my first job that came with an office. My name was outside of it. I was stoked. I worked my ass off to get there. But there was no happiness at that time in my life. I remember my father calling me at work, sitting in that office, to say he was coming to pick me up because he knew where my brother, who had been missing for 4 days, was. The credit card he stole from my mother showed he was at a little oceanfront motel 10 minutes away. And I remember thinking to myself on the way over there...I have to open the motel room door. I can't let my dad see him hanging. It will destroy his life. I told my dad to wait about 10 feet to my left, and I opened the door, and there was my brother fashioning a sheet into a noose. Another time he went missing, and they found him on the roof of a building with the inside of his arms slashed from elbow to wrist, just lying in a pool of blood. Dark shit. Both of the insides of his arms were mutilated from being sliced open so many times. At least 30, if not more. He stopped wearing short-sleeved shirts in public about 10 years before he died. He got to the point of seizures when he withdrew and had alcohol-related dementia for the last 3 years of his life, which would come and go. Then one day, after 2 decades, he called my parents and said something was wrong. My parents went over to his place, ended up calling 911, the ambulance got there, and he started walking outside with assistance from paramedics and collapsed. In front of my parents. He was rushed to the hospital. I had not seen my brother for the last 9 years of his life. He disowned me. Because he felt he had to. He killed my dog when he got drunk 9 years before he died. No one knows if he meant to or not, he was so wasted. He couldn't face me after that. So he disowned me. And a piece of my heart died the day he did it. I talked to my parents right before they left to see what was wrong that day. The last thing I said to my dad was, "Do not let him die without me having an opportunity to say goodbye." My dad called me from the er 2 hours later and said, "You should come over now. He won't know you're here." When I got there, I was shocked at what I saw. He wasn't the right color. He was in a coma. Severe internal bleeding. On life support. It was jarring even after seeing him in a much similar state hundreds of times for such a long time. He was taken to the ICU 3 hours later, where they would transfuse blood by the bag damn near constantly, and it just shot out of his nose. It was bloody. A lot of blood. After about 6 hours, I told my parents to go home and get some rest. I would stay with him. And I talked to him like he was right there. Like one of the hundreds of pillow-fort slumber parties we had as kids. Like no time had passed, and his addiction never existed. I showed him pictures of my life over the past decade on my phone...just like he was there. But he wasn't there. And after 3 hours and extensive talks with several doctors and specialists, I had to make the decision to remove his life support. After my parents returned and said goodbye, I told them to wait out in the hall until he passed because I could not allow them to have the memory of him dying, and I returned to my brother's side, and said what I needed to say, bawling my heart out. I told them to turn off the machines, and I held him in my arms as he died. It took just over 7 minutes. And I just held him. I had Nine Inch Nails playing for him. One of his favorites thanks to Pretty Hate Machine. He was a fan for life after that. He was my best friend. But he was also someone I had to protect myself from if he was intoxicated. This is the end that usually becomes a reality for addicts and their families. Then there's someone like Bam Margera. He went to the same place my brother went to in his head. And he came back. Bam is one of the greatest comebacks ever and a story of recovery worth knowing. I see YouTube shorts of Bam skating again every day, and I'm so moved that I just sit here and cry. You can see his personality is back. You have no idea how rare that is. Their personality shows very little while they're in their addiction. Recovery stories are incredibly personal to so many people, including those who have gone through addiction with an addict because they love them so much...they'd see anything they had to see and endure anything they have to endure just to be there with them at their lowest point. Addicts are not monsters. The stuff they use to numb the pain they do not understand is the real monster. And when you put enough of that into a human being, they do things they would *never* do without it. People are not pure. We are more complex than that. We are good and bad. Light and dark. Right and wrong. Chaotic and serene. You will find that the answer to every question you have about life is usually "both" for a reason. Because one can not exist without the other. With recovery stories like Hunter Biden's and Bam Margera's out in the ether, more people will be less ignorant as to how this disease plays out, and that will do nothing but good for so many families struggling with this issue. Addiction isn't just for the addict. Addiction is for everyone who loves them, as well. It's just a different perspective of hell. So listen to recovery stories with renewed respect because most addicts end up the way it ended for the only sibling I'll ever have.

Nicole Minét

407,918 views • 1 month ago

I’ve been using GPT-5.6 Sol internally for the past two months, I've spent probably 25+ billion tokens. Here’s my review and comparison to Fable 5: > Let's start with the analogy because everyone seems to be giving theirs - GPT-5.6 is likely the last version of the GPT-5 training run series. It's kind of like an athlete at their peak. Through years of experience in the game, they've become the most reliable player and has the highest game IQ. But, there's no more room to grow. Fable on the other hand, being essentially the first version of a new training run, is the first round draft pick rookie. Raw talent mixed with the energy only a young person would have results in some incredible plays we didn't think possible, but also mistakes due to lack of experience. But that rookie will only improve and likely will be better than the veteran ever was because it's a new game and a new era. > GPT-5.6 is genuinely better at long, sustained work. With /goal, I've had it running complex projects for days with almost no intervention. It built a Minecraft-style game, kept adding features and mobs after the core game worked, and only stopped because I stopped the run. I never felt as though I had to jump in and guide it back to the right path. > It keeps finding useful work when you give it a concrete finish line. I had it recreate Excel with a loop. It inspected the real desktop excel app with Computer Use, comparing that against its own build, and closing the gaps. I stopped it after six days after it had built an incredible amount of functionality. > It's faster than other models in two different ways. The raw generation speed is higher, something OpenAI has been putting effort into. But it also takes a shorter path to solutions. It wanders less, changes less code, and generally knows how to get things done directly. In daily use, it feels about 2-3x times faster than Fable. That's my impression, not a controlled benchmark. The difference is large enough that I notice it constantly. > It works well across a wide range of tasks. I use it for one-line edits, quick questions, browser chores, and multi-day builds without changing my prompting style. Speaking of browser control, its the best ever I've used. To the point where I actually use it often. If a task lives on a website, GPT-5.6 usually opens the browser and does it there instead of asking for an API key or forcing everything through the terminal. When I switched back to GPT-5.5, it went straight to the command line even when the browser was clearly the better tool. > And it can handle real browser work, not just toy demos. During a data import, I had it monitor Supabase and resize instances as the load changed. It stayed on the dashboard, adjusted capacity, and checked the result without an API or a custom script. > I also gave it a full Google Workspace migration. It moved Forward Future from to preserved the old aliases, and configured MX, SPF, and DKIM. Before a consequential save, it stopped, explained exactly what would change, and waited for confirmation. > The reasoning setting matters a lot. Light is good for questions and small edits. High and Extra High are the sweet spots for serious work. Ultra usually takes longer than the extra thinking is worth and burns tokens. > I love that 5.6 is split into 3 sizes. Not only can you control speed and cost that way, but you still also have the thinking effort setting for each of them. Very precise controls. I just wish Codex automatically routed my prompts for me. > Its personality is blunt and a little bland. Claude feels warmer and more natural to talk to. GPT-5.6 is more clinical, but I like that for work. It gives me enough explanation and rarely pads the answer. I usually have to ask Fable to explain things more simply and/or more concise. > Its front-end taste has improved, but the default is predictable. Left alone, it turns websites into PowerPoint decks with huge statements and hard section breaks. The good news is that it takes design direction well and can revise without destroying the parts that already work. > It still makes confident mistakes. I asked it to rebuild parts of a system, and it told me the job was finished. Later, I found out it wasn't. Bits of its internal process also leak into the answer occasionally. > Claude Fable is more naturally autonomous on large, open-ended projects. GPT-5.6 is easier to reach for. I don't need to invent a huge project to justify using it. It works just as well for a small edit or browser chore. > GPT-5.6 is also cheaper. Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens. Fable costs $10 and $50. Cached input is cheaper too. Still, cost per finished task matters more than cost per token. > GPT-5.6 isn't the best at everything, and it still needs supervision. But it generates faster, wanders less, works at almost any scale, and wastes less of my time. It's the model I have the most confidence in to get the job done right the first time. I put together a full breakdown with all the tests, prompts, and examples on a site. You can read it here:
7:46

I’ve been using GPT-5.6 Sol internally for the past two months, I've spent probably 25+ billion tokens. Here’s my review and comparison to Fable 5: > Let's start with the analogy because everyone seems to be giving theirs - GPT-5.6 is likely the last version of the GPT-5 training run series. It's kind of like an athlete at their peak. Through years of experience in the game, they've become the most reliable player and has the highest game IQ. But, there's no more room to grow. Fable on the other hand, being essentially the first version of a new training run, is the first round draft pick rookie. Raw talent mixed with the energy only a young person would have results in some incredible plays we didn't think possible, but also mistakes due to lack of experience. But that rookie will only improve and likely will be better than the veteran ever was because it's a new game and a new era. > GPT-5.6 is genuinely better at long, sustained work. With /goal, I've had it running complex projects for days with almost no intervention. It built a Minecraft-style game, kept adding features and mobs after the core game worked, and only stopped because I stopped the run. I never felt as though I had to jump in and guide it back to the right path. > It keeps finding useful work when you give it a concrete finish line. I had it recreate Excel with a loop. It inspected the real desktop excel app with Computer Use, comparing that against its own build, and closing the gaps. I stopped it after six days after it had built an incredible amount of functionality. > It's faster than other models in two different ways. The raw generation speed is higher, something OpenAI has been putting effort into. But it also takes a shorter path to solutions. It wanders less, changes less code, and generally knows how to get things done directly. In daily use, it feels about 2-3x times faster than Fable. That's my impression, not a controlled benchmark. The difference is large enough that I notice it constantly. > It works well across a wide range of tasks. I use it for one-line edits, quick questions, browser chores, and multi-day builds without changing my prompting style. Speaking of browser control, its the best ever I've used. To the point where I actually use it often. If a task lives on a website, GPT-5.6 usually opens the browser and does it there instead of asking for an API key or forcing everything through the terminal. When I switched back to GPT-5.5, it went straight to the command line even when the browser was clearly the better tool. > And it can handle real browser work, not just toy demos. During a data import, I had it monitor Supabase and resize instances as the load changed. It stayed on the dashboard, adjusted capacity, and checked the result without an API or a custom script. > I also gave it a full Google Workspace migration. It moved Forward Future from to preserved the old aliases, and configured MX, SPF, and DKIM. Before a consequential save, it stopped, explained exactly what would change, and waited for confirmation. > The reasoning setting matters a lot. Light is good for questions and small edits. High and Extra High are the sweet spots for serious work. Ultra usually takes longer than the extra thinking is worth and burns tokens. > I love that 5.6 is split into 3 sizes. Not only can you control speed and cost that way, but you still also have the thinking effort setting for each of them. Very precise controls. I just wish Codex automatically routed my prompts for me. > Its personality is blunt and a little bland. Claude feels warmer and more natural to talk to. GPT-5.6 is more clinical, but I like that for work. It gives me enough explanation and rarely pads the answer. I usually have to ask Fable to explain things more simply and/or more concise. > Its front-end taste has improved, but the default is predictable. Left alone, it turns websites into PowerPoint decks with huge statements and hard section breaks. The good news is that it takes design direction well and can revise without destroying the parts that already work. > It still makes confident mistakes. I asked it to rebuild parts of a system, and it told me the job was finished. Later, I found out it wasn't. Bits of its internal process also leak into the answer occasionally. > Claude Fable is more naturally autonomous on large, open-ended projects. GPT-5.6 is easier to reach for. I don't need to invent a huge project to justify using it. It works just as well for a small edit or browser chore. > GPT-5.6 is also cheaper. Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens. Fable costs $10 and $50. Cached input is cheaper too. Still, cost per finished task matters more than cost per token. > GPT-5.6 isn't the best at everything, and it still needs supervision. But it generates faster, wanders less, works at almost any scale, and wastes less of my time. It's the model I have the most confidence in to get the job done right the first time. I put together a full breakdown with all the tests, prompts, and examples on a site. You can read it here:

Matthew Berman

186,712 views • 22 days ago

Suno's mission is to make it possible for everyone to make music. We imagine a future where music is a bigger, more valuable, and more meaningful part of people's lives than it even is today. Technology enables a future where the whole world can explore, create, and be active participants in an art form most have only ever consumed. From professional musicians seeking inspiration to friends and family writing songs for each other, we are exploring new ways to create, listen to, and experience music. So far, more than 12 million people are engaging with music in new ways that wouldn't be possible without Suno. We see this as early but promising progress. Major record labels see this vision as a threat to their business. Each and every time there's been innovation in music — from the earliest forms of recorded music, to sampling, to drum machines, to remixing, MP3s, and streaming music — the record labels have attempted to limit progress. They have spent decades attempting to control the terms of how we create and enjoy music, and this time is no different. So, it is perhaps not a surprise that on June 24th, members of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, filed a lawsuit against Suno, alleging that the data used in training our music generation technologies infringed on the copyrights of the major record labels that they represent. This lawsuit is fundamentally flawed on both the facts and the law, and is nothing more than yet another instance where they chose litigation over innovation. For starters, the major record labels clearly hold misconceptions about how our technology works. Suno helps people create music through a similar process to one humans have used forever: by learning styles, patterns, and forms (in essence, the "grammar" or music), and then inventing new music around them. The major record labels are trying to argue that neural networks are mere parrots — copying and repeating — when in reality model training looks a lot more like a kid learning to write new rock songs by listening religiously to rock music. Like that kid, Suno gets better the more our AI learns. We train our models on medium- and high-quality music we can find on the open internet — just as Google's Gemini, Microsoft's Copilot, Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and even Apple's new Apple Intelligence train their models on the open internet. Much of the open internet indeed contains copyrighted materials, and some of it is owned by major record labels. But, just like the kid writing their own rock songs after listening to the genre — or a teacher or a journalist reviewing existing materials to draw new insights — learning is not infringing. It never has been, and it is not now. The timing of this lawsuit was somewhat surprising. When this lawsuit landed, Suno was, in fact, having productive discussions with a number of the RIAA's major record label members to find ways of expanding the pie for music together. We did so not because we had to, but because we believe that the music industry could help us lead this expansion of opportunity for everyone, rather than resisting it. Whether this lawsuit is the result of over-eager lawyers throwing their weight around, or a conscious strategy to gain leverage in our commercial discussions, we believe that this lawsuit is an unnecessary impediment to a larger and more valuable future for music. This is particularly the case because Suno is a new kind of musical instrument, one that enables a new kind of creative process for everyone and opens new business opportunities for the industry. Suno is designed for original music, and we prize originality, both in how we build our product and in how people use it. People who use Suno are using the product to create their own, original music. They are not trying to recreate an existing song that can be heard somewhere else on the internet for free. But, even if they were trying to copy existing music, we have myriad controls in place to encourage originality and prevent duplicative use cases. We do so more aggressively than any other company in the industry, including other startups. Some of our originality-guarding features include checking for and preventing copyrighted content in audio uploads, and disallowing artist-based descriptions in requests to generate music. Why do we work to encourage originality? We do this because it makes for a more fun and engaging experience to create entirely original compositions on Suno. We do it because we think it makes Suno incredibly valuable to be a place where new musical talent can shine. AI allows anyone to realize the songs in their head, regardless of the money, equipment, or connections that they have. The future is an explosion of new artists that are creating music in new ways, building fan bases, finding new reasons to smile, and getting famous. We hope that the major record labels realize that we can build a stronger foundation for the music industry of tomorrow, together. With or without them, we will continue pursuing our mission on behalf of the many millions of music fans already creating with Suno, and all those who will in the coming months. We are excited and humbled to support this next generation of musicians and the music they create. --- 🎥: shing86 jams with Suno
0:28

Suno's mission is to make it possible for everyone to make music. We imagine a future where music is a bigger, more valuable, and more meaningful part of people's lives than it even is today. Technology enables a future where the whole world can explore, create, and be active participants in an art form most have only ever consumed. From professional musicians seeking inspiration to friends and family writing songs for each other, we are exploring new ways to create, listen to, and experience music. So far, more than 12 million people are engaging with music in new ways that wouldn't be possible without Suno. We see this as early but promising progress. Major record labels see this vision as a threat to their business. Each and every time there's been innovation in music — from the earliest forms of recorded music, to sampling, to drum machines, to remixing, MP3s, and streaming music — the record labels have attempted to limit progress. They have spent decades attempting to control the terms of how we create and enjoy music, and this time is no different. So, it is perhaps not a surprise that on June 24th, members of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, filed a lawsuit against Suno, alleging that the data used in training our music generation technologies infringed on the copyrights of the major record labels that they represent. This lawsuit is fundamentally flawed on both the facts and the law, and is nothing more than yet another instance where they chose litigation over innovation. For starters, the major record labels clearly hold misconceptions about how our technology works. Suno helps people create music through a similar process to one humans have used forever: by learning styles, patterns, and forms (in essence, the "grammar" or music), and then inventing new music around them. The major record labels are trying to argue that neural networks are mere parrots — copying and repeating — when in reality model training looks a lot more like a kid learning to write new rock songs by listening religiously to rock music. Like that kid, Suno gets better the more our AI learns. We train our models on medium- and high-quality music we can find on the open internet — just as Google's Gemini, Microsoft's Copilot, Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and even Apple's new Apple Intelligence train their models on the open internet. Much of the open internet indeed contains copyrighted materials, and some of it is owned by major record labels. But, just like the kid writing their own rock songs after listening to the genre — or a teacher or a journalist reviewing existing materials to draw new insights — learning is not infringing. It never has been, and it is not now. The timing of this lawsuit was somewhat surprising. When this lawsuit landed, Suno was, in fact, having productive discussions with a number of the RIAA's major record label members to find ways of expanding the pie for music together. We did so not because we had to, but because we believe that the music industry could help us lead this expansion of opportunity for everyone, rather than resisting it. Whether this lawsuit is the result of over-eager lawyers throwing their weight around, or a conscious strategy to gain leverage in our commercial discussions, we believe that this lawsuit is an unnecessary impediment to a larger and more valuable future for music. This is particularly the case because Suno is a new kind of musical instrument, one that enables a new kind of creative process for everyone and opens new business opportunities for the industry. Suno is designed for original music, and we prize originality, both in how we build our product and in how people use it. People who use Suno are using the product to create their own, original music. They are not trying to recreate an existing song that can be heard somewhere else on the internet for free. But, even if they were trying to copy existing music, we have myriad controls in place to encourage originality and prevent duplicative use cases. We do so more aggressively than any other company in the industry, including other startups. Some of our originality-guarding features include checking for and preventing copyrighted content in audio uploads, and disallowing artist-based descriptions in requests to generate music. Why do we work to encourage originality? We do this because it makes for a more fun and engaging experience to create entirely original compositions on Suno. We do it because we think it makes Suno incredibly valuable to be a place where new musical talent can shine. AI allows anyone to realize the songs in their head, regardless of the money, equipment, or connections that they have. The future is an explosion of new artists that are creating music in new ways, building fan bases, finding new reasons to smile, and getting famous. We hope that the major record labels realize that we can build a stronger foundation for the music industry of tomorrow, together. With or without them, we will continue pursuing our mission on behalf of the many millions of music fans already creating with Suno, and all those who will in the coming months. We are excited and humbled to support this next generation of musicians and the music they create. --- 🎥: shing86 jams with Suno

Suno

46,808 views • 2 years ago

Driving Gloves And The Spreadsheet That Conquered the World And Vanished In October 1979, weeks after VisiCalc shipped as the very first electronic spreadsheet for the Apple II, I was already teaching it in offices across New Jersey. Just a punk kid talking to suits No connections, no inside track just a me with the original disks and a room full of wide-eyed accountants who had never seen anything like it. Then, on the week Lotus 1-2-3 officially launched January 26, 1983, I walked into Computerland of Somerville as their external trainer. Snow on the ground, radiators hissing, and executives from some of New Jersey’s biggest companies treating every @ function and macro like sacred knowledge. I trained them on Release 1 straight out of the box. They all believed they were building something permanent. Back then, the spreadsheet was supposed to be the ultimate moat. Wall Street analysts, CIOs, and tech prophets declared it the forever business. Lotus was the killer app that sold the IBM PC. Profits looked eternal. No one, not a single person I trained, not a single expert writing in the trade press would have believed you if you said that one day nobody would care what brand of spreadsheet they used. “Good enough” was good enough? They would have laughed you out of the room. Yet that is exactly what happened. By the late 1980s Lotus had doubled down with Release 3. It was a technological leap 3D worksheets, better graphics, rewritten in C but it came at a steep price. The list price was $495, more than $1,330 in today’s dollars. And that was just the software. To run it “all in” you needed a high-end 286 or 386 PC, a hard disk, and at least 2 MB of RAM, hardware that typically cost $3,000 to $6,000 in 1989 (roughly $8,000 to $16,000 in today’s dollars). The full setup per workstation easily pushed the total investment to $4,000–$7,000 back then, or well over $10,000–$19,000 when adjusted for inflation. Companies paid it because they thought the moat was permanent. They were wrong. Microsoft Excel arrived: good enough, and perfectly timed with the Windows boom. Then came cheaper competitors, open-source, cloud spreadsheets, and finally free, ubiquitous options baked into every laptop and phone. The “spreadsheet market” as a distinct, high-margin category simply evaporated. Today, no one under forty even thinks about it. It’s infrastructure, like electricity or paper. Invisible. Commodity. The brand name that once defined an entire industry is a footnote. Look around your life right now and you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. We are not surrounded by the absolute best products, nor by the absolute cheapest. We are surrounded by the good enough ones that won. The operating system on your phone, the video app you use, the note-taking tool you open every day, none of them are perfect, but they are accessible, cheap or free, and they spread like wildfire until they became the default. That is precisely where we are headed with artificial intelligence. The smartest voices today insist AGI and ASI will remain scarce, proprietary, and eternally profitable. They talk about intelligence as the ultimate moat. I smile when I hear it because I’ve lived this exact story before, on those freezing mornings in Somerville, New Jersey. Coding AIs like Claude (or whatever comes next) will soon be so common, so freely available, and so embedded in everything that no one will pay premium prices for them, just as no one pays premium prices for spreadsheets anymore. The intelligence layer will become generic. Cheap. Everywhere. Invisible. “Good enough” always wins. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes and the rhyme this time is going to rewrite every industry, including the one that thinks it’s building the final, unassailable moat. The spreadsheet taught us that lesson the hard way. The AI era is about to teach it again, only faster. This video is peak 1980s vibe, remember to put on your driving gloves…
9:09

Driving Gloves And The Spreadsheet That Conquered the World And Vanished In October 1979, weeks after VisiCalc shipped as the very first electronic spreadsheet for the Apple II, I was already teaching it in offices across New Jersey. Just a punk kid talking to suits No connections, no inside track just a me with the original disks and a room full of wide-eyed accountants who had never seen anything like it. Then, on the week Lotus 1-2-3 officially launched January 26, 1983, I walked into Computerland of Somerville as their external trainer. Snow on the ground, radiators hissing, and executives from some of New Jersey’s biggest companies treating every @ function and macro like sacred knowledge. I trained them on Release 1 straight out of the box. They all believed they were building something permanent. Back then, the spreadsheet was supposed to be the ultimate moat. Wall Street analysts, CIOs, and tech prophets declared it the forever business. Lotus was the killer app that sold the IBM PC. Profits looked eternal. No one, not a single person I trained, not a single expert writing in the trade press would have believed you if you said that one day nobody would care what brand of spreadsheet they used. “Good enough” was good enough? They would have laughed you out of the room. Yet that is exactly what happened. By the late 1980s Lotus had doubled down with Release 3. It was a technological leap 3D worksheets, better graphics, rewritten in C but it came at a steep price. The list price was $495, more than $1,330 in today’s dollars. And that was just the software. To run it “all in” you needed a high-end 286 or 386 PC, a hard disk, and at least 2 MB of RAM, hardware that typically cost $3,000 to $6,000 in 1989 (roughly $8,000 to $16,000 in today’s dollars). The full setup per workstation easily pushed the total investment to $4,000–$7,000 back then, or well over $10,000–$19,000 when adjusted for inflation. Companies paid it because they thought the moat was permanent. They were wrong. Microsoft Excel arrived: good enough, and perfectly timed with the Windows boom. Then came cheaper competitors, open-source, cloud spreadsheets, and finally free, ubiquitous options baked into every laptop and phone. The “spreadsheet market” as a distinct, high-margin category simply evaporated. Today, no one under forty even thinks about it. It’s infrastructure, like electricity or paper. Invisible. Commodity. The brand name that once defined an entire industry is a footnote. Look around your life right now and you’ll see the same pattern everywhere. We are not surrounded by the absolute best products, nor by the absolute cheapest. We are surrounded by the good enough ones that won. The operating system on your phone, the video app you use, the note-taking tool you open every day, none of them are perfect, but they are accessible, cheap or free, and they spread like wildfire until they became the default. That is precisely where we are headed with artificial intelligence. The smartest voices today insist AGI and ASI will remain scarce, proprietary, and eternally profitable. They talk about intelligence as the ultimate moat. I smile when I hear it because I’ve lived this exact story before, on those freezing mornings in Somerville, New Jersey. Coding AIs like Claude (or whatever comes next) will soon be so common, so freely available, and so embedded in everything that no one will pay premium prices for them, just as no one pays premium prices for spreadsheets anymore. The intelligence layer will become generic. Cheap. Everywhere. Invisible. “Good enough” always wins. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes and the rhyme this time is going to rewrite every industry, including the one that thinks it’s building the final, unassailable moat. The spreadsheet taught us that lesson the hard way. The AI era is about to teach it again, only faster. This video is peak 1980s vibe, remember to put on your driving gloves…

Brian Roemmele

26,130 views • 2 months ago

As I said in my testimony, I used to practice witchcraft. I practiced spellcasting, burning candles, incense, fire rituals; and the one that took me years to heal from was a satanic pact I made out of ignorance. I want to share what I used to practice and believed in at the time, so you can see the drastic changes God made in my life and hw it was part of my salvation. Witchcraft is very real and dangerous. Please keep in mind it's been years since I practiced paganism, so I might misremember some things ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 My pagan belief and practices: I used to believe that nature is sacred and sufficient for spiritual protection, I also believed both demonic and heavenly forces are real. That God and angels existed in the same universe, but they wanted you to focus on them and nothing outside of christianity. And that demons are real and you can work with them as partners. I used to be terrified of the power angels had and always felt like they were angry with me, I was not scared of God though. He felt to me like a bystander who doesn't get a say in what I chose to do with my life at the time. My spellcasting rituals included gemstones and spices you find in a regular kitchen. Everything in nature has specific properties connected to forms of abundance, protection or curses. So whenever I worked with spells, I used to crush certain gemstones and mix them with other ingredients in a small jar, then activated it by sealing it with wax while setting a clear intention in mind. I used to carve sentences or words into candles and letting them burn until the word melted out. It's said to carry your intentions through a fire ritual, which are considered immensely powerful. I used to be interested in divination, but even as a pagan I didn't think any of those gods were real, so I never gave it a try. 💠 The regrettable pact: Now regarding the pact, there was one time I did a ritual with a pentagram and fire involved, I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper, with norse runes and pentagrams, and set it on fire (incredibly smart choice to start a fire indoors btw. The glass got too hot and I dropped it, it broke and spilled wax all over the carpets...) It created a pact that I struggled for years to break. I've only been freed from it this year after I begged God ceaslessly to free me from any pacts I formed in the past. These demonic pacts are very real and dangerous, it brought me so much suffering, I was stuck in loops for years trying to break free from it. I will not get into details because it's rather personal and I want to keep it that way... ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Why this is important to know as a christian: It's important to know how these rituals operate because then you understand how curses work, and why as a christian you don't have to fear them. Because a causeless curse can't reach you. Proverbs 26:2 "(...) an undeserved curse does not come to rest." Not all rituals are sacrificial or for cursing, a lot of them are also for blessings. There are very wicked ritual practices as well, but it's important to know that there is a difference. Witchcraft is real and the bible recognizes it. It can open portals and let entities into your house that you're not equipped to deal with. It's an unholy practice that God denounces very clearly, because we don't know the spiritual implications of such rituals and could doom ourselves in our ignorance. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; (...)" ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Final reflections: Looking back on it, the thought of practicing pagan rituals with the knowledge I have now feels the same as self sabotage; willingly allowing entities to enter my house and torment me when I can instead rely on the Lord to bring me peace and prosperity, and all I have to do is just follow his law and be christlike. The difference between paganism and christianity is self reliance over trusting God to provide everything you need. These two cannot coexist. I always felt like I had to perform rituals for my safety, anxiety etc. Meanwhile God provided me all of these just for putting my faith in him, our Heavenly Father is all mighty and full of grace in the name of Jesus. To my fellow christians, if you recently turned to Christ, or feel unease in your heart, pray for him to free you of any pacts you created by accident; ask him to cancel any assignments of the evil one upon you and give you protection in the name of Jesus. ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 In conclusion: I'm grateful for the amount of mercy and grace God showed me while I was in this phase of my life. At any point in time I could've passed and I would've been doomed for the rest of eternity, but my Father saw hope in me and gave me another chance, I am forever grateful that he saved me and I will never stop telling everyone what he has saved me from, and how much he's blessed me despite my sinful past. 🌊 This is part of my testimony, I hope this gives you another perspective into witchcraft and paganism, and a reminder that God keeps us safe from spiritual warfare every moment of the day. Stay strong in our Lord Christ! God bless you!💙 ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ (I want to emphasize that I'm not looking for a debate, I'm sharing my experience so the people who needed to hear this message can have another perspective they can use to strengthen their faith with!) Sorry for sounding a bit more aloof in this video, I'll try to improve on this for next time
5:51

As I said in my testimony, I used to practice witchcraft. I practiced spellcasting, burning candles, incense, fire rituals; and the one that took me years to heal from was a satanic pact I made out of ignorance. I want to share what I used to practice and believed in at the time, so you can see the drastic changes God made in my life and hw it was part of my salvation. Witchcraft is very real and dangerous. Please keep in mind it's been years since I practiced paganism, so I might misremember some things ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 My pagan belief and practices: I used to believe that nature is sacred and sufficient for spiritual protection, I also believed both demonic and heavenly forces are real. That God and angels existed in the same universe, but they wanted you to focus on them and nothing outside of christianity. And that demons are real and you can work with them as partners. I used to be terrified of the power angels had and always felt like they were angry with me, I was not scared of God though. He felt to me like a bystander who doesn't get a say in what I chose to do with my life at the time. My spellcasting rituals included gemstones and spices you find in a regular kitchen. Everything in nature has specific properties connected to forms of abundance, protection or curses. So whenever I worked with spells, I used to crush certain gemstones and mix them with other ingredients in a small jar, then activated it by sealing it with wax while setting a clear intention in mind. I used to carve sentences or words into candles and letting them burn until the word melted out. It's said to carry your intentions through a fire ritual, which are considered immensely powerful. I used to be interested in divination, but even as a pagan I didn't think any of those gods were real, so I never gave it a try. 💠 The regrettable pact: Now regarding the pact, there was one time I did a ritual with a pentagram and fire involved, I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper, with norse runes and pentagrams, and set it on fire (incredibly smart choice to start a fire indoors btw. The glass got too hot and I dropped it, it broke and spilled wax all over the carpets...) It created a pact that I struggled for years to break. I've only been freed from it this year after I begged God ceaslessly to free me from any pacts I formed in the past. These demonic pacts are very real and dangerous, it brought me so much suffering, I was stuck in loops for years trying to break free from it. I will not get into details because it's rather personal and I want to keep it that way... ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Why this is important to know as a christian: It's important to know how these rituals operate because then you understand how curses work, and why as a christian you don't have to fear them. Because a causeless curse can't reach you. Proverbs 26:2 "(...) an undeserved curse does not come to rest." Not all rituals are sacrificial or for cursing, a lot of them are also for blessings. There are very wicked ritual practices as well, but it's important to know that there is a difference. Witchcraft is real and the bible recognizes it. It can open portals and let entities into your house that you're not equipped to deal with. It's an unholy practice that God denounces very clearly, because we don't know the spiritual implications of such rituals and could doom ourselves in our ignorance. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; (...)" ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 Final reflections: Looking back on it, the thought of practicing pagan rituals with the knowledge I have now feels the same as self sabotage; willingly allowing entities to enter my house and torment me when I can instead rely on the Lord to bring me peace and prosperity, and all I have to do is just follow his law and be christlike. The difference between paganism and christianity is self reliance over trusting God to provide everything you need. These two cannot coexist. I always felt like I had to perform rituals for my safety, anxiety etc. Meanwhile God provided me all of these just for putting my faith in him, our Heavenly Father is all mighty and full of grace in the name of Jesus. To my fellow christians, if you recently turned to Christ, or feel unease in your heart, pray for him to free you of any pacts you created by accident; ask him to cancel any assignments of the evil one upon you and give you protection in the name of Jesus. ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ 💠 In conclusion: I'm grateful for the amount of mercy and grace God showed me while I was in this phase of my life. At any point in time I could've passed and I would've been doomed for the rest of eternity, but my Father saw hope in me and gave me another chance, I am forever grateful that he saved me and I will never stop telling everyone what he has saved me from, and how much he's blessed me despite my sinful past. 🌊 This is part of my testimony, I hope this gives you another perspective into witchcraft and paganism, and a reminder that God keeps us safe from spiritual warfare every moment of the day. Stay strong in our Lord Christ! God bless you!💙 ⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂⠁⠁⠂⠄⠄⠂ ⠂⠄⠄⠂☆ (I want to emphasize that I'm not looking for a debate, I'm sharing my experience so the people who needed to hear this message can have another perspective they can use to strengthen their faith with!) Sorry for sounding a bit more aloof in this video, I'll try to improve on this for next time

Saia 🎹🌊

16,974 views • 12 days ago

Akira Kurosawa on his experience watching 'Solaris' (1972) & drinking vodka with Andrei Tarkovsky in Moscow: "I met Tarkovsky for the first time when I attended my welcome luncheon at the Mosfilm during my first visit to Soviet Russia. He was small, thin, looked a little frail, and at the same time exceptionally intelligent, and unusually shrewd and sensitive. I thought he somehow resembled Toru Takemitsu, but I don’t know why. Then he excused himself saying, “I still have work to do,” and disappeared, and after a while I heard such a big explosion as to make all the glass windows of the dining hall tremble hard. Seeing me taken aback, the boss of the Mosfilm said with a meaningful smile: “You know another world war does not break out. Tarkovsky just launched a rocket. This work with Tarkovsky, however, has proved a Great War for me.” That was the way I knew Tarkovsky was shooting 'Solaris' (1972). After the luncheon party, I visited his set for Solaris. There it was. I saw a burnt down rocket was there at the corner of the space station set. I am sorry I forgot to ask him as to how he had shot the launching of the rocket on the set. The set of the satellite base was beautifully made at a huge cost, for it was all made up of thick duralumin. It glittered in its cold metallic silver light, and I found light rays of red, or blue or green delicately winking or waving from electric light bulbs buried in the gagues on the equipment lined up in there. And above on the ceiling of the corridor ran two duralumin rails from which hanged a small wheel of a camera which could move around freely inside the satellite base. Tarkovsky guided me around the set, explaining to me as cheerfully as a young boy who is given a golden opportunity to show someone his favorite toybox. Bondarchuk, who came with me, asked him about the cost of the set, and left his eyes wide open when Tarkovsky answered it. The cost was so huge: about six hundred million yen as to make Bondarchuk, who directed that grand spectacle of a movie “War and Peace,” agape in wonder. Now I came to fully realize why the boss of the Mosfilm said it was “a Great War for me.” But it takes a huge talent and effort to spend such a huge cost. Thinking “This is a tremendous task” I closely gazed at his back when he was leading me around the set in enthusiasm. Concerning Solaris, I find many people complaining that it is too long, but I do not think so. They especially find too lengthy the description of nature in the introductory scenes, but these layers of memory of farewell to this earthly nature submerge themselves deep below the bottom of the story after the main character has been sent in a rocket into the satellite station base in the universe, and they almost torture the soul of the viewer like a kind of irresistible nostalghia toward mother earth nature, which resembles homesickness. Without the presence of beautiful nature sequences on earth as a long introduction, you could not make the audience directly conceive the sense of having-no-way-out harboured by the people “jailed” inside the satellite base. I saw this film late at night in a preview room in Moscow for the first time, and soon I felt my heart aching in agony with a longing to returning to the earth as quickly as possible. Marvellous progress in science we have been enjoying, but where will it lead humanity after all? Sheer fearful emotion this film succeeds in conjuring up in our soul. Without it, a science fiction movie would be nothing more than a petty fancy. These thoughts came and went while I was gazing at the screen. Tarkovsky was together with me then. He was at the corner of the studio. When the film was over, he stood up, looking at me as if he felt timid. I said to him, “Very good. It makes me feel real fear.” Tarkovsky smiled shyly, but happily. And we toasted vodka at the restaurant in the Film Institute. Tarkovsky, who didn’t drink usually, drank a lot of vodka, and went so far as to turn off the speaker from which music had floated into the restaurant, and began to sing the theme of samurai from Seven Samurai at the top of his voice. As if to rival him, I joined in. For I was at that moment very happy to find myself living on Earth. Solaris makes a viewer feel this, and even this single fact shows us that Solaris is no ordinary SF film. It truly somehow provokes pure horror in our soul. And it is under the total grip of the deep insights of Tarkovsky. There must be many, many things still unknown to humanity in this world: the abyss of the cosmos which a man had to look into, strange visitors in the satellite base, time running in reverse, from death to life, strangely moving sense of levitation, his home which is in the mind of the main character in the satellite station is wet and soaked with water. It seems to me to be sweat and tears that in his heartbreaking agony he squeezed out of his whole being. And what makes us shudder is the shot of the location of Akasakamitsuke, Tokyo, Japan. By a skillful use of mirrors, he turned flows of head lights and tail lamps of cars, multiplied and amplified, into a vintage image of the future city. Every shot of Solaris bears witness to the almost dazzling talents inherent in Tarkovsky. Many people grumble that Tarkovsky’s films are difficult, but I don’t think so. His films just show how extraordinarily sensitive Tarkovsky is. He made a film titled 'Mirror' (1975) after Solaris. Mirror deals with his cherished memories in his childhood, and many people say again it is disturbingly difficult. Yes, at a glance, it seems to have no rational development in its storytelling. But we have to remember: it is impossible that in our soul our childhood memories should arrange themselves in a static, logical sequence. A strange train of fragments of early memory images shattered and broken can bring about the poetry in our infancy. Once you are convinced of its truthfulness, you may find Mirror the easiest film to understand. But Tarkovsky remains silent, without saying things like that at all. His very attitude makes me believe that he has wonderful potentials in his future. There can be no bright future for those who are ready to explain everything about their own film." ("Akira Kurosawa on watching ‘Solaris’ with Andrei Tarkovsky", Cinephilia & Beyond)
0:48

Akira Kurosawa on his experience watching 'Solaris' (1972) & drinking vodka with Andrei Tarkovsky in Moscow: "I met Tarkovsky for the first time when I attended my welcome luncheon at the Mosfilm during my first visit to Soviet Russia. He was small, thin, looked a little frail, and at the same time exceptionally intelligent, and unusually shrewd and sensitive. I thought he somehow resembled Toru Takemitsu, but I don’t know why. Then he excused himself saying, “I still have work to do,” and disappeared, and after a while I heard such a big explosion as to make all the glass windows of the dining hall tremble hard. Seeing me taken aback, the boss of the Mosfilm said with a meaningful smile: “You know another world war does not break out. Tarkovsky just launched a rocket. This work with Tarkovsky, however, has proved a Great War for me.” That was the way I knew Tarkovsky was shooting 'Solaris' (1972). After the luncheon party, I visited his set for Solaris. There it was. I saw a burnt down rocket was there at the corner of the space station set. I am sorry I forgot to ask him as to how he had shot the launching of the rocket on the set. The set of the satellite base was beautifully made at a huge cost, for it was all made up of thick duralumin. It glittered in its cold metallic silver light, and I found light rays of red, or blue or green delicately winking or waving from electric light bulbs buried in the gagues on the equipment lined up in there. And above on the ceiling of the corridor ran two duralumin rails from which hanged a small wheel of a camera which could move around freely inside the satellite base. Tarkovsky guided me around the set, explaining to me as cheerfully as a young boy who is given a golden opportunity to show someone his favorite toybox. Bondarchuk, who came with me, asked him about the cost of the set, and left his eyes wide open when Tarkovsky answered it. The cost was so huge: about six hundred million yen as to make Bondarchuk, who directed that grand spectacle of a movie “War and Peace,” agape in wonder. Now I came to fully realize why the boss of the Mosfilm said it was “a Great War for me.” But it takes a huge talent and effort to spend such a huge cost. Thinking “This is a tremendous task” I closely gazed at his back when he was leading me around the set in enthusiasm. Concerning Solaris, I find many people complaining that it is too long, but I do not think so. They especially find too lengthy the description of nature in the introductory scenes, but these layers of memory of farewell to this earthly nature submerge themselves deep below the bottom of the story after the main character has been sent in a rocket into the satellite station base in the universe, and they almost torture the soul of the viewer like a kind of irresistible nostalghia toward mother earth nature, which resembles homesickness. Without the presence of beautiful nature sequences on earth as a long introduction, you could not make the audience directly conceive the sense of having-no-way-out harboured by the people “jailed” inside the satellite base. I saw this film late at night in a preview room in Moscow for the first time, and soon I felt my heart aching in agony with a longing to returning to the earth as quickly as possible. Marvellous progress in science we have been enjoying, but where will it lead humanity after all? Sheer fearful emotion this film succeeds in conjuring up in our soul. Without it, a science fiction movie would be nothing more than a petty fancy. These thoughts came and went while I was gazing at the screen. Tarkovsky was together with me then. He was at the corner of the studio. When the film was over, he stood up, looking at me as if he felt timid. I said to him, “Very good. It makes me feel real fear.” Tarkovsky smiled shyly, but happily. And we toasted vodka at the restaurant in the Film Institute. Tarkovsky, who didn’t drink usually, drank a lot of vodka, and went so far as to turn off the speaker from which music had floated into the restaurant, and began to sing the theme of samurai from Seven Samurai at the top of his voice. As if to rival him, I joined in. For I was at that moment very happy to find myself living on Earth. Solaris makes a viewer feel this, and even this single fact shows us that Solaris is no ordinary SF film. It truly somehow provokes pure horror in our soul. And it is under the total grip of the deep insights of Tarkovsky. There must be many, many things still unknown to humanity in this world: the abyss of the cosmos which a man had to look into, strange visitors in the satellite base, time running in reverse, from death to life, strangely moving sense of levitation, his home which is in the mind of the main character in the satellite station is wet and soaked with water. It seems to me to be sweat and tears that in his heartbreaking agony he squeezed out of his whole being. And what makes us shudder is the shot of the location of Akasakamitsuke, Tokyo, Japan. By a skillful use of mirrors, he turned flows of head lights and tail lamps of cars, multiplied and amplified, into a vintage image of the future city. Every shot of Solaris bears witness to the almost dazzling talents inherent in Tarkovsky. Many people grumble that Tarkovsky’s films are difficult, but I don’t think so. His films just show how extraordinarily sensitive Tarkovsky is. He made a film titled 'Mirror' (1975) after Solaris. Mirror deals with his cherished memories in his childhood, and many people say again it is disturbingly difficult. Yes, at a glance, it seems to have no rational development in its storytelling. But we have to remember: it is impossible that in our soul our childhood memories should arrange themselves in a static, logical sequence. A strange train of fragments of early memory images shattered and broken can bring about the poetry in our infancy. Once you are convinced of its truthfulness, you may find Mirror the easiest film to understand. But Tarkovsky remains silent, without saying things like that at all. His very attitude makes me believe that he has wonderful potentials in his future. There can be no bright future for those who are ready to explain everything about their own film." ("Akira Kurosawa on watching ‘Solaris’ with Andrei Tarkovsky", Cinephilia & Beyond)

DepressedBergman

196,905 views • 7 months ago

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:
31:35

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

14,195 views • 8 months ago

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 views • 2 months ago

Mayorkas Comes Unglued When John Kennedy Confronts Him With Illegal Immigration Facts Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is facing a looming impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, had a 'meltdown' on Wednesday when Republican Congressman John Kennedy confronted him with several 'inconvenient' facts about illegal immigration under his tenure. "Mr. Secretary, I don't hate anybody," Kennedy said. "I look for grace wherever I can find it. And I certainly don't hate you. My chairman talked about the Woolly Mammoths in the room, and I'm glad he brought that up. The chairman's immigration bill was negotiated by two members of my party, Senator Langford and Senator McConnell, and I don't speak for either one. They're both good men. The chairman said that the Republicans who negotiated his bill trusted you and wanted you there." "And I'm not doubting his word," he continued. "It gives me no joy to say this us, but most Republicans don't trust you, and a vast majority of the American people don't trust you. That's why you've been impeached." "Now, my Democratic colleagues are going to try to sweep your impeachment under the rug and violate 200 years of Senate precedent in doing it," he added. "I don't think that they will be able to sweep the issue, maybe your impeachment, but not the issue under a rug as big as the United States of America." "Again, it gives me no joy in saying this," he went on. "I think, well, more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior and President Biden's behavior, our southern border is an open bleeding wound. I think they believe that our southern border is chaotic." "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political," he said. "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design and that all of this is intentional. And I think while a vast majority of the American people who don't trust you believe in immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration, and they think you do and they think President Biden does, and they think that's why the border is open." "And they think that your attitude and President Biden's attitude is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the President when you say that it's not your problem," he added. "I think that needed to be said. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the President allow into our country counts for Congressional district reapportionment?" "Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing," Mayorkas shot back. "Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?" Kennedy asked again. "Same answer," Mayorkas repeated. "Okay. You don't know," Kennedy replied. "I don't understand your question," Mayorkas said. "Never crossed your mind," Kennedy followed up. "The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous," Mayorkas claimed. "And if I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform and far more importantly that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform to stem illegal immigration, build lawful, safe and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system," he added. "And we only wish, we only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term..." "Mr. Secretary, you are using up my time," Kennedy interrupted. "You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it and I know it, that the more people you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for reapportionment and the more people that you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now, maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you've done nothing for four years, notta, zero." "Absolutely false," Mayorkas claimed. "Zilch," Kennedy reiterated. "And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants. And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it. I don't hate anyone, but that's why you've been impeached. And my colleagues may try to cover it up. They're going to try to cover it up, but they can't cover up the facts." President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' boss, on Wednesday said that he is 'examining' if he has the power to shut down the border. The dubious narrative was quickly exposed and deconstructed by X commentator KanekoaTheGreat. "Biden took 94 executive actions in his first 100 days to decimate border security — and has all the authority he needs to reverse course and end the border crisis," he noted. "On day one, he signed executive orders that incentivize illegal immigration: Paused Deportations; Suspended "Remain in Mexico"; Stopped Border Wall Construction. "Since these policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected," he added. House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Wednesday also proposed a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census. H.R. 7109, or the Equal Representation Act, would amend title 13 "to add a citizenship inquiry to the decennial census" and exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base for the 2030 census and any future census.
6:33

Mayorkas Comes Unglued When John Kennedy Confronts Him With Illegal Immigration Facts Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is facing a looming impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, had a 'meltdown' on Wednesday when Republican Congressman John Kennedy confronted him with several 'inconvenient' facts about illegal immigration under his tenure. "Mr. Secretary, I don't hate anybody," Kennedy said. "I look for grace wherever I can find it. And I certainly don't hate you. My chairman talked about the Woolly Mammoths in the room, and I'm glad he brought that up. The chairman's immigration bill was negotiated by two members of my party, Senator Langford and Senator McConnell, and I don't speak for either one. They're both good men. The chairman said that the Republicans who negotiated his bill trusted you and wanted you there." "And I'm not doubting his word," he continued. "It gives me no joy to say this us, but most Republicans don't trust you, and a vast majority of the American people don't trust you. That's why you've been impeached." "Now, my Democratic colleagues are going to try to sweep your impeachment under the rug and violate 200 years of Senate precedent in doing it," he added. "I don't think that they will be able to sweep the issue, maybe your impeachment, but not the issue under a rug as big as the United States of America." "Again, it gives me no joy in saying this," he went on. "I think, well, more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior and President Biden's behavior, our southern border is an open bleeding wound. I think they believe that our southern border is chaotic." "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political," he said. "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design and that all of this is intentional. And I think while a vast majority of the American people who don't trust you believe in immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration, and they think you do and they think President Biden does, and they think that's why the border is open." "And they think that your attitude and President Biden's attitude is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the President when you say that it's not your problem," he added. "I think that needed to be said. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the President allow into our country counts for Congressional district reapportionment?" "Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing," Mayorkas shot back. "Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?" Kennedy asked again. "Same answer," Mayorkas repeated. "Okay. You don't know," Kennedy replied. "I don't understand your question," Mayorkas said. "Never crossed your mind," Kennedy followed up. "The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous," Mayorkas claimed. "And if I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform and far more importantly that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform to stem illegal immigration, build lawful, safe and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system," he added. "And we only wish, we only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term..." "Mr. Secretary, you are using up my time," Kennedy interrupted. "You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it and I know it, that the more people you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for reapportionment and the more people that you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now, maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you've done nothing for four years, notta, zero." "Absolutely false," Mayorkas claimed. "Zilch," Kennedy reiterated. "And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants. And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it. I don't hate anyone, but that's why you've been impeached. And my colleagues may try to cover it up. They're going to try to cover it up, but they can't cover up the facts." President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' boss, on Wednesday said that he is 'examining' if he has the power to shut down the border. The dubious narrative was quickly exposed and deconstructed by X commentator KanekoaTheGreat. "Biden took 94 executive actions in his first 100 days to decimate border security — and has all the authority he needs to reverse course and end the border crisis," he noted. "On day one, he signed executive orders that incentivize illegal immigration: Paused Deportations; Suspended "Remain in Mexico"; Stopped Border Wall Construction. "Since these policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected," he added. House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Wednesday also proposed a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census. H.R. 7109, or the Equal Representation Act, would amend title 13 "to add a citizenship inquiry to the decennial census" and exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base for the 2030 census and any future census.

Kyle Becker

1,508,197 views • 2 years ago

//The Wire//2300Z September 11, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN REMAINS AT LARGE AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. MULTIPLE HOAX SWATTING INCIDENTS REPORTED AT UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE NATION. CUBAN ILLEGAL ARRESTED AFTER BRUTAL MURDER AT DALLAS HOTEL. SHOOTING REPORTED AT US NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- Utah: The situation regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to develop, with many new details coming to light overnight. At the moment, multiple individuals seem to be involved in this case in one way or another: One actual shooter, and many more persons that caused confusion during the initial reaction to the shooting. The individual identified as George Zinn was initially arrested after he verbally confessed to the crime, stating that he was the shooter. He screamed "I did it" and "shoot me" immediately as the shot was heard. This could have been a case of mental illness (as Zinn has a criminal history that reflects such and he was known to authorities for this kind of thing) or this could also have been an intentional act of diversion to allow the real shooter time to escape. Whatever the intent was, this did function as a diversionary tactic, and the shooter was able to egress from the area. Nevertheless, local reports state that Zinn was released from custody. Another unidentified individual was initially arrested at the scene as well, in possession of a pellet rifle. No further information regarding this individual's status at this time. Idaho: A fight broke out at a candlelight vigil at the Idaho Capitol (which was arranged to memorialize Charlie Kirk) when leftist activists began to interrupt proceedings. Several leftist demonstrators were removed after they attempted to gain entry to the crowd and scream obscenities during the vigil. Colorado: Yesterday afternoon a school shooting was reported at Evergreen High School near Denver. Local authorities state that Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot two students before taking his own life. Texas: Yesterday afternoon a woman was beheaded at a motel in Dallas. Local authorities state that Yordanis Cobo-Martinez, an illegal migrant from Cuba, murdered his employer (Chandra Nagamallaiah) with a machete after a brief argument at the Downtown Suites Hotel. Cobo-Martinez was arrested at the scene. Maryland: This afternoon, an active shooter was reported at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. This is a developing situation at this time, but initial reports indicate that a former Midshipmen returned to the institution to conduct the attack. Early reports indicate as many as 1-3 casualties, however the scene is still locked down at this time. More details to follow as information becomes available. USA: This afternoon the recent wave of swatting calls flared up again, with several calls being made around Boston this afternoon. An active shooter situation was reported at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), which turned out to be a hoax. Several other locations around Boston were also host to swatting incidents, which also were hoaxes. This morning a bomb threat was called in to the DNC headquarters in Washington, which was also confirmed to be a hoax. Throughout the afternoon the University of Central Florida also reported a similar hoax being called in at their campus. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: When it comes to risk assessment and mitigation, making decisions based on details that are speculative is acceptable if time is of the essence, such as when a high-profile assassin is still on the loose. However, it would be wise to focus on the details that help with that assessment, rather than getting dragged down rabbit holes that eat up time that we don't have. Panicking helps no one, and though it is a challenging skill to develop when the general mood is that of extreme anger, remaining calm and collected during a crisis is the option that will help the most people. The real distinction that must be noted is whether or not the persons that caused diversions, knew of the attack ahead of time. Several people were observed cheering in the crowd, George Zinn shouted and was tackled, and others were behaving suspiciously in and around the venue during the bedlam after the shooting. Right now there is not much linking all of these individuals together definitively, beyond the common goal of disrupting events. For a terror cell to be indicated, the individuals identified would have to know each other and have communicated ahead of time, which is not possible to determine at the moment based on open source information. The individual spotted on top of the roof before the shooting (the person who appears to have been the actual shooter) might not have been the actual shooter either. The exceptionally graphic video evidence of the attack might be playing tricks on the eyes; the wound that was visible in the video evidence so far may have in actuality been an exit wound for a shot that came from Kirk's 4 o' clock position. Some video evidence supports this, however much higher quality footage (such as from the professional media equipment recording the rally) will be necessary to determine if that is a viable line of investigative effort. Again, focusing on details that can help find the killer and eliminate future threats is worth the speculation, especially as the FBI has stated that they recovered the rifle used to conduct the attack from a wooded treeline near the campus. This rifle appears to have sported an optic which was mounted too far too the rear to provide a feasible shooting platform. This detail has caused many to doubt that this rifle was the one used in the shooting (as in, it's yet another decoy), or that the shooter did not have the experience to know that the scope was in the wrong position for it to be used properly. In short: If this rifle was used, the suspect is either of a very small body type (much smaller than the suspects sought so far), or they are now sporting a facial wound caused by the recoil of the firearm driving the scope into their face. Or, this rifle was not used at all, and whomever staged it did not have the forethought to position the scope correctly. As with most high-profile events like this, some discrepancy among the initial details is very much expected. However, there is a LOT of debate right now regarding whether or not the murder of Charlie Kirk was a professional assassination. Right now, all of the evidence in the public eye suggests that Kirk could have been killed in a more coordinated manner (as in more than one person might have been involved), but also by someone displaying very amateur tradecraft. On the other hand, if the multiple misdirections were deliberately planted to confuse and slow down investigative efforts, this would be a strong indicator of more organized planning. Sometimes the most likely explanation is the simplest, and based on the sheer number of people celebrating his murder the chances of this being one of the usual suspects is rather high, even though the door must remain open to other possibilities. The cold hard truth right now is that regardless of how Kirk was killed, he was killed for a reason. And right now there are millions of people celebrating his murder, both online and in the real world. It is this important observation that will have lasting impact for some time, both in terms of societal shift, but also in terms of real-world threats and security concerns. Charlie Kirk was a moderate conservative. Despite what the mainstream media says, he was one of the few conservative commentators willing to actually speak face-to-face with his opposition and debate them in open forum. He was not a politician or an elected official who could make policy; the most impact that he could possibly have had was simply to change minds by speaking to people. He could have made a living shouting his ideas from a safe podcast studio, but he chose instead to speak to people in person at these types of public debates over the years. There are a thousand people in the public eye more "radical" than he was, yet he was the one killed for it. Much like many other political assassinations throughout history, sometimes the more impactful events involve the removal of the last peaceful option, or the last peaceful moderate. Time will tell if this troubling idea is true, but it's possible that with Charlie Kirk died the last hope for reconciliation between a large portion of the United States. The knee-jerk reactions of this horrific murder being that of joy and celebration from a large number of people, is abhorrent to the degree of indicating that there is little chance of cooperation or lasting peace with a good portion of the nation. Regardless of one's political beliefs, this is a sobering reminder in the context of how millions of people are now openly calling for the violent murder of conservatives, solely for the crime of not being politically liberal. Even in "far-right" circles, which agreed with Kirk on nearly zero issues, the general mood is that of mourning. The *actual* "far-right" in this country has shown more decency for a man who they did not agree with and a man who has admonished them publicly, than most center-left personalities who have bloodlust in their hearts regarding this case. More broadly, this means that these types of attacks will unfortunately continue. Whether it's organic or not can be argued later, but what's clear is that most big voices on the political left are either openly calling for continued violence, or are behaving without a single shred of human decency. Most Democrat politicians interviewed today by the media on this event have become belligerent on the subject, with some going so far as to interrupt a moment of silence for Kirk at the Capitol. A similar incident was observed today at the European Parliament as well. There is already enough spin, distraction, commentary, and speculation regarding the exact details of the murder. What would be a more productive line of effort is to be aware of the societal atmospherics surrounding this case (as in the threats that continue to persist), but not dwelling on the evil that is consuming the world. Acknowledge where we are at, conduct risk assessments, and mitigate those risks as best you can. Despair and apathy will solve no problems, and there will be plenty of opportunity to keep focus on moving forward and doing good wherever possible. More details on this case will come in due time, but until then more localized threats and individuals that seek to continue this violence are a bigger priority to be aware of. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//
9:13

//The Wire//2300Z September 11, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN REMAINS AT LARGE AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. MULTIPLE HOAX SWATTING INCIDENTS REPORTED AT UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE NATION. CUBAN ILLEGAL ARRESTED AFTER BRUTAL MURDER AT DALLAS HOTEL. SHOOTING REPORTED AT US NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- Utah: The situation regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to develop, with many new details coming to light overnight. At the moment, multiple individuals seem to be involved in this case in one way or another: One actual shooter, and many more persons that caused confusion during the initial reaction to the shooting. The individual identified as George Zinn was initially arrested after he verbally confessed to the crime, stating that he was the shooter. He screamed "I did it" and "shoot me" immediately as the shot was heard. This could have been a case of mental illness (as Zinn has a criminal history that reflects such and he was known to authorities for this kind of thing) or this could also have been an intentional act of diversion to allow the real shooter time to escape. Whatever the intent was, this did function as a diversionary tactic, and the shooter was able to egress from the area. Nevertheless, local reports state that Zinn was released from custody. Another unidentified individual was initially arrested at the scene as well, in possession of a pellet rifle. No further information regarding this individual's status at this time. Idaho: A fight broke out at a candlelight vigil at the Idaho Capitol (which was arranged to memorialize Charlie Kirk) when leftist activists began to interrupt proceedings. Several leftist demonstrators were removed after they attempted to gain entry to the crowd and scream obscenities during the vigil. Colorado: Yesterday afternoon a school shooting was reported at Evergreen High School near Denver. Local authorities state that Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot two students before taking his own life. Texas: Yesterday afternoon a woman was beheaded at a motel in Dallas. Local authorities state that Yordanis Cobo-Martinez, an illegal migrant from Cuba, murdered his employer (Chandra Nagamallaiah) with a machete after a brief argument at the Downtown Suites Hotel. Cobo-Martinez was arrested at the scene. Maryland: This afternoon, an active shooter was reported at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. This is a developing situation at this time, but initial reports indicate that a former Midshipmen returned to the institution to conduct the attack. Early reports indicate as many as 1-3 casualties, however the scene is still locked down at this time. More details to follow as information becomes available. USA: This afternoon the recent wave of swatting calls flared up again, with several calls being made around Boston this afternoon. An active shooter situation was reported at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), which turned out to be a hoax. Several other locations around Boston were also host to swatting incidents, which also were hoaxes. This morning a bomb threat was called in to the DNC headquarters in Washington, which was also confirmed to be a hoax. Throughout the afternoon the University of Central Florida also reported a similar hoax being called in at their campus. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: When it comes to risk assessment and mitigation, making decisions based on details that are speculative is acceptable if time is of the essence, such as when a high-profile assassin is still on the loose. However, it would be wise to focus on the details that help with that assessment, rather than getting dragged down rabbit holes that eat up time that we don't have. Panicking helps no one, and though it is a challenging skill to develop when the general mood is that of extreme anger, remaining calm and collected during a crisis is the option that will help the most people. The real distinction that must be noted is whether or not the persons that caused diversions, knew of the attack ahead of time. Several people were observed cheering in the crowd, George Zinn shouted and was tackled, and others were behaving suspiciously in and around the venue during the bedlam after the shooting. Right now there is not much linking all of these individuals together definitively, beyond the common goal of disrupting events. For a terror cell to be indicated, the individuals identified would have to know each other and have communicated ahead of time, which is not possible to determine at the moment based on open source information. The individual spotted on top of the roof before the shooting (the person who appears to have been the actual shooter) might not have been the actual shooter either. The exceptionally graphic video evidence of the attack might be playing tricks on the eyes; the wound that was visible in the video evidence so far may have in actuality been an exit wound for a shot that came from Kirk's 4 o' clock position. Some video evidence supports this, however much higher quality footage (such as from the professional media equipment recording the rally) will be necessary to determine if that is a viable line of investigative effort. Again, focusing on details that can help find the killer and eliminate future threats is worth the speculation, especially as the FBI has stated that they recovered the rifle used to conduct the attack from a wooded treeline near the campus. This rifle appears to have sported an optic which was mounted too far too the rear to provide a feasible shooting platform. This detail has caused many to doubt that this rifle was the one used in the shooting (as in, it's yet another decoy), or that the shooter did not have the experience to know that the scope was in the wrong position for it to be used properly. In short: If this rifle was used, the suspect is either of a very small body type (much smaller than the suspects sought so far), or they are now sporting a facial wound caused by the recoil of the firearm driving the scope into their face. Or, this rifle was not used at all, and whomever staged it did not have the forethought to position the scope correctly. As with most high-profile events like this, some discrepancy among the initial details is very much expected. However, there is a LOT of debate right now regarding whether or not the murder of Charlie Kirk was a professional assassination. Right now, all of the evidence in the public eye suggests that Kirk could have been killed in a more coordinated manner (as in more than one person might have been involved), but also by someone displaying very amateur tradecraft. On the other hand, if the multiple misdirections were deliberately planted to confuse and slow down investigative efforts, this would be a strong indicator of more organized planning. Sometimes the most likely explanation is the simplest, and based on the sheer number of people celebrating his murder the chances of this being one of the usual suspects is rather high, even though the door must remain open to other possibilities. The cold hard truth right now is that regardless of how Kirk was killed, he was killed for a reason. And right now there are millions of people celebrating his murder, both online and in the real world. It is this important observation that will have lasting impact for some time, both in terms of societal shift, but also in terms of real-world threats and security concerns. Charlie Kirk was a moderate conservative. Despite what the mainstream media says, he was one of the few conservative commentators willing to actually speak face-to-face with his opposition and debate them in open forum. He was not a politician or an elected official who could make policy; the most impact that he could possibly have had was simply to change minds by speaking to people. He could have made a living shouting his ideas from a safe podcast studio, but he chose instead to speak to people in person at these types of public debates over the years. There are a thousand people in the public eye more "radical" than he was, yet he was the one killed for it. Much like many other political assassinations throughout history, sometimes the more impactful events involve the removal of the last peaceful option, or the last peaceful moderate. Time will tell if this troubling idea is true, but it's possible that with Charlie Kirk died the last hope for reconciliation between a large portion of the United States. The knee-jerk reactions of this horrific murder being that of joy and celebration from a large number of people, is abhorrent to the degree of indicating that there is little chance of cooperation or lasting peace with a good portion of the nation. Regardless of one's political beliefs, this is a sobering reminder in the context of how millions of people are now openly calling for the violent murder of conservatives, solely for the crime of not being politically liberal. Even in "far-right" circles, which agreed with Kirk on nearly zero issues, the general mood is that of mourning. The *actual* "far-right" in this country has shown more decency for a man who they did not agree with and a man who has admonished them publicly, than most center-left personalities who have bloodlust in their hearts regarding this case. More broadly, this means that these types of attacks will unfortunately continue. Whether it's organic or not can be argued later, but what's clear is that most big voices on the political left are either openly calling for continued violence, or are behaving without a single shred of human decency. Most Democrat politicians interviewed today by the media on this event have become belligerent on the subject, with some going so far as to interrupt a moment of silence for Kirk at the Capitol. A similar incident was observed today at the European Parliament as well. There is already enough spin, distraction, commentary, and speculation regarding the exact details of the murder. What would be a more productive line of effort is to be aware of the societal atmospherics surrounding this case (as in the threats that continue to persist), but not dwelling on the evil that is consuming the world. Acknowledge where we are at, conduct risk assessments, and mitigate those risks as best you can. Despair and apathy will solve no problems, and there will be plenty of opportunity to keep focus on moving forward and doing good wherever possible. More details on this case will come in due time, but until then more localized threats and individuals that seek to continue this violence are a bigger priority to be aware of. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

16,913 views • 10 months ago

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡
14:49

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡

Esther Crawford ✨

5,496,748 views • 3 years ago