正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Hawaii tried to make your concealed carry permit basically worthless. You could have the permit. You could pass the process. You could legally carry. But the second you walked into a gas station, grocery store, restaurant, or parking lot on private property… Your gun became illegal unless the owner... gave you permission first. That’s not a right. That’s a permission slip. The Supreme Court just struck it down 6–3. And this matters way beyond Hawaii. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California — they’ve all been playing the same game: Give you the right on paper. Then make it illegal almost everywhere you’d actually use it. The Court just flipped the default back. You can carry unless the property owner says no. So here’s the question: Should your carry permit work by default… Or should you have to ask permission at every single door? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still thinks these laws are about “safety.” America HAT:show more

Colion Noir

590,657 subscribers

41,029 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育健康养生

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Trump says he’s working on national reciprocity. Carry in all 50 states. And this is about to expose a lot of people. Because if your driver’s license works when you cross state lines… Why shouldn’t your carry permit? If you’re trusted to protect your life in Texas, why does that right disappear the second you land in New York, California, or New Jersey? An imaginary line on a map should not erase your right to defend yourself. And this is where the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” crowd always tells on themselves. Because national reciprocity is the easy one. This isn’t even the AR-15 fight. This isn’t the magazine fight. This is just saying: If you went through the process, got licensed, and followed the law, your permit should be recognized nationwide. That is actual common sense. So watch who fights this. Because the people who oppose national reciprocity were never defending the Second Amendment. They were defending control. Now be honest: Should your carry permit work in all 50 states like your driver’s license? Or should every state get to decide whether your right to protect yourself disappears at the border? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still says, “I support the 2A, but…”

Trump says he’s working on national reciprocity. Carry in all 50 states. And this is about to expose a lot of people. Because if your driver’s license works when you cross state lines… Why shouldn’t your carry permit? If you’re trusted to protect your life in Texas, why does that right disappear the second you land in New York, California, or New Jersey? An imaginary line on a map should not erase your right to defend yourself. And this is where the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” crowd always tells on themselves. Because national reciprocity is the easy one. This isn’t even the AR-15 fight. This isn’t the magazine fight. This is just saying: If you went through the process, got licensed, and followed the law, your permit should be recognized nationwide. That is actual common sense. So watch who fights this. Because the people who oppose national reciprocity were never defending the Second Amendment. They were defending control. Now be honest: Should your carry permit work in all 50 states like your driver’s license? Or should every state get to decide whether your right to protect yourself disappears at the border? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still says, “I support the 2A, but…”

Colion Noir

62,487 次观看 • 3 个月前

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law in a 6-3 ruling that barred people with concealed-carry permits from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public — such as stores, restaurants, hotels, malls, and gas stations — unless the property owner gave explicit permission. In the case Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s “default ban” violates the Second Amendment. The law required gun owners to obtain verbal consent or see a posted sign allowing firearms before carrying on such properties. Massive win!

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law in a 6-3 ruling that barred people with concealed-carry permits from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public — such as stores, restaurants, hotels, malls, and gas stations — unless the property owner gave explicit permission. In the case Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s “default ban” violates the Second Amendment. The law required gun owners to obtain verbal consent or see a posted sign allowing firearms before carrying on such properties. Massive win!

RedWave Press

191,912 次观看 • 3 个月前

The Trump DOJ just filed with the Supreme Court to END state laws banning public carry. Let that sink in. States have been pretending to “allow” the 2A… then banning carry everywhere you’d actually need it. 🧐 The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s not negotiable. It’s not a second-class right. 👇 Question for you: Should SCOTUS strike down these public-carry bans? Yes or no? 💥 Early Black Friday Deal: FAFO Drop (NEW Design) FAFO isn’t about violence. It’s about refusing to be a victim — the same principle this case is fighting for. 🖤 NEW FAFO Collection + 20% OFF Black Friday 🔗 (Code auto-applies.) Wear the message. Live the message.

The Trump DOJ just filed with the Supreme Court to END state laws banning public carry. Let that sink in. States have been pretending to “allow” the 2A… then banning carry everywhere you’d actually need it. 🧐 The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s not negotiable. It’s not a second-class right. 👇 Question for you: Should SCOTUS strike down these public-carry bans? Yes or no? 💥 Early Black Friday Deal: FAFO Drop (NEW Design) FAFO isn’t about violence. It’s about refusing to be a victim — the same principle this case is fighting for. 🖤 NEW FAFO Collection + 20% OFF Black Friday 🔗 (Code auto-applies.) Wear the message. Live the message.

Colion Noir

174,667 次观看 • 10 个月前

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a **9-0 win**. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a 9-0 win. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

Colion Noir

57,611 次观看 • 3 个月前

Canada has almost every gun law American anti-gunners keep begging for. Magazine limits. Registration. Strict licensing. Regular citizens basically can’t carry. And when a gunman opened fire in Montreal, what was the government’s plan for everybody else? Lock your doors. Stay inside. Hide and hope. That’s it. The criminal still had a gun. The cops still had guns. The law-abiding people got a text alert telling them to wait and pray the door held. That’s the part nobody wants to admit. Gun control doesn’t make evil disappear. It just decides who’s allowed to fight back when evil shows up. So be honest: If a gunman is outside your home, your grocery store, or your kid’s park… Do you want a text alert? Or do you want the ability to defend yourself? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks Canada is the model America should copy. Extended Father's Day Sale: Code 2ADAD

Canada has almost every gun law American anti-gunners keep begging for. Magazine limits. Registration. Strict licensing. Regular citizens basically can’t carry. And when a gunman opened fire in Montreal, what was the government’s plan for everybody else? Lock your doors. Stay inside. Hide and hope. That’s it. The criminal still had a gun. The cops still had guns. The law-abiding people got a text alert telling them to wait and pray the door held. That’s the part nobody wants to admit. Gun control doesn’t make evil disappear. It just decides who’s allowed to fight back when evil shows up. So be honest: If a gunman is outside your home, your grocery store, or your kid’s park… Do you want a text alert? Or do you want the ability to defend yourself? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks Canada is the model America should copy. Extended Father's Day Sale: Code 2ADAD

Colion Noir

139,681 次观看 • 3 个月前

“Why do you need an AR-15?” Ask the police. Because they have them. They have the rifles. They have the 30-round magazines. They have the gear politicians keep saying is too dangerous for you. And nobody asks them why they need it. Why? Because the answer is obvious: They carry it to confront violent people. But here’s the part everyone skips… Who meets that violent person first? You do. The cop shows up after the threat starts. You’re the one already there. No badge. No backup. No radio. No team. And the Supreme Court has already said police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual. So if the state keeps these tools for the people who arrive second… Why does it want to take them from the person who has to survive first? That’s the question. Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still asks, “Why do you need that?”

“Why do you need an AR-15?” Ask the police. Because they have them. They have the rifles. They have the 30-round magazines. They have the gear politicians keep saying is too dangerous for you. And nobody asks them why they need it. Why? Because the answer is obvious: They carry it to confront violent people. But here’s the part everyone skips… Who meets that violent person first? You do. The cop shows up after the threat starts. You’re the one already there. No badge. No backup. No radio. No team. And the Supreme Court has already said police do not have a constitutional duty to protect you as an individual. So if the state keeps these tools for the people who arrive second… Why does it want to take them from the person who has to survive first? That’s the question. Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still asks, “Why do you need that?”

Colion Noir

147,795 次观看 • 3 个月前

This is a blatant abuse of the First Amendment. Free speech restrains the government. It does not give you permission to trespass, disrupt private property, or hijack a church service. Churches have rights too. The right to worship. The right to assemble. The right to be left alone. Your rights end where other people’s rights begin.. Calling illegal behavior “journalism” or “protest” doesn’t magically make it legal.

This is a blatant abuse of the First Amendment. Free speech restrains the government. It does not give you permission to trespass, disrupt private property, or hijack a church service. Churches have rights too. The right to worship. The right to assemble. The right to be left alone. Your rights end where other people’s rights begin.. Calling illegal behavior “journalism” or “protest” doesn’t magically make it legal.

Jeffery Mead

235,767 次观看 • 8 个月前

Don’t install charging unless you care about it ChargePoint this is insane that this station in Halifax, NC has been down for so long Can you reach out to the owner and ask them to fix it or reclaim the station and get it running on your own?

Don’t install charging unless you care about it ChargePoint this is insane that this station in Halifax, NC has been down for so long Can you reach out to the owner and ask them to fix it or reclaim the station and get it running on your own?

Kyle Conner

69,945 次观看 • 2 个月前

A husband and wife spent $12,804.63 on carry permits. And they still cannot carry everywhere. That should bother people. Because at some point, you have to ask: Is this a right… or is it a subscription plan? One of the most revealing lines was when he said he viewed the money as “insurance.” A man with a federal firearms license and a gun business is spending five figures to insure himself against his own government. Now that issue is in front of the Supreme Court. A truck driver has carry permits from Florida and Georgia. Two states already vetted him. But when he crosses into Minnesota, he has to lock the gun up because Minnesota will not honor either permit. And here is the twist: Historically, travelers were often given more leeway to carry, not less. So how did we get from that… to a man losing his carry rights every time his route crosses a state line? Be honest: Should your right to carry stop at the border, or should states have to honor valid permits from other states?

A husband and wife spent $12,804.63 on carry permits. And they still cannot carry everywhere. That should bother people. Because at some point, you have to ask: Is this a right… or is it a subscription plan? One of the most revealing lines was when he said he viewed the money as “insurance.” A man with a federal firearms license and a gun business is spending five figures to insure himself against his own government. Now that issue is in front of the Supreme Court. A truck driver has carry permits from Florida and Georgia. Two states already vetted him. But when he crosses into Minnesota, he has to lock the gun up because Minnesota will not honor either permit. And here is the twist: Historically, travelers were often given more leeway to carry, not less. So how did we get from that… to a man losing his carry rights every time his route crosses a state line? Be honest: Should your right to carry stop at the border, or should states have to honor valid permits from other states?

Colion Noir

72,215 次观看 • 9 天前

A Facebook Marketplace dirt bike sale ended with a man dead. And the hardest part is this: He was right. He got handed fake money. He had every reason to be angry. He had every reason to feel disrespected. But being right didn’t keep him alive. That’s the lesson. If somebody scams you, robs you, or runs off with your property, your ego is going to scream at you to chase them. Don’t. Get the plate. Get the description. Get video if you can. Call the police. Go home to your family. Because the person willing to scam you in your own driveway may also be the person willing to shoot you over nothing. And once you chase, corner, or confront them, the situation can flip fast — legally and physically. This isn’t victim blaming. This is survival. Being right is worth a lot. It is not worth dying over. Would you chase someone who just scammed you on Facebook Marketplace — or would you let it go and call police? Drop your answer below, and send this to somebody who sells anything online.

A Facebook Marketplace dirt bike sale ended with a man dead. And the hardest part is this: He was right. He got handed fake money. He had every reason to be angry. He had every reason to feel disrespected. But being right didn’t keep him alive. That’s the lesson. If somebody scams you, robs you, or runs off with your property, your ego is going to scream at you to chase them. Don’t. Get the plate. Get the description. Get video if you can. Call the police. Go home to your family. Because the person willing to scam you in your own driveway may also be the person willing to shoot you over nothing. And once you chase, corner, or confront them, the situation can flip fast — legally and physically. This isn’t victim blaming. This is survival. Being right is worth a lot. It is not worth dying over. Would you chase someone who just scammed you on Facebook Marketplace — or would you let it go and call police? Drop your answer below, and send this to somebody who sells anything online.

Colion Noir

40,085 次观看 • 3 个月前

Thailand just gave America a warning. Two shootings happened in less than a week. And within days, the Prime Minister suspended new permits to purchase firearms. No new law. No long debate. No vote from the people. He said it, and the legal pathway to buying a gun shut down. That is what happens when gun ownership is permission instead of a right. And here’s the part that makes the entire crackdown collapse on itself: Thailand already has an estimated 10.3 million guns in circulation. Only about 6 million are registered. That leaves more than 4 million guns already off the books. So the government’s solution is to stop the people still trying to follow the rules. The criminals keep what they already have. The illegal guns stay where they are. And the person who doesn’t have a gun yet just got told they can’t legally get one. That is why the Second Amendment matters. A bad week should not be enough for the government to take away a right. Because if you need permission to exercise it, it was never really a right. Do you think America is protected from this, or are some states already trying a smaller version of it? Drop your answer below.

Thailand just gave America a warning. Two shootings happened in less than a week. And within days, the Prime Minister suspended new permits to purchase firearms. No new law. No long debate. No vote from the people. He said it, and the legal pathway to buying a gun shut down. That is what happens when gun ownership is permission instead of a right. And here’s the part that makes the entire crackdown collapse on itself: Thailand already has an estimated 10.3 million guns in circulation. Only about 6 million are registered. That leaves more than 4 million guns already off the books. So the government’s solution is to stop the people still trying to follow the rules. The criminals keep what they already have. The illegal guns stay where they are. And the person who doesn’t have a gun yet just got told they can’t legally get one. That is why the Second Amendment matters. A bad week should not be enough for the government to take away a right. Because if you need permission to exercise it, it was never really a right. Do you think America is protected from this, or are some states already trying a smaller version of it? Drop your answer below.

Colion Noir

48,280 次观看 • 27 天前

A judge told him to stay away. He came anyway. That’s the part people don’t want to deal with. A court order does not stand in your driveway. It does not lock the door. It does not put a hand on somebody’s chest and say, “not today.” It takes a person who has already shown that boundaries are optional, hands him a document explaining that this boundary is very important, and then it hopes. In Fort Worth, police say one man was not supposed to be on the property because of a court order. He showed up anyway. Then gunfire erupted. I’m not pretending I know who drew first or who was legally right in every second of that fight. But I do know this: Paperwork did not stop him. So stop letting people convince you that a court order is a self-defense plan. It may help legally. It may create a record. It may matter after the fact. But when the person shows up anyway, the only thing standing there is you and whatever you built your safety around. Would you trust the paper, or would you want options? Drop your answer below.

A judge told him to stay away. He came anyway. That’s the part people don’t want to deal with. A court order does not stand in your driveway. It does not lock the door. It does not put a hand on somebody’s chest and say, “not today.” It takes a person who has already shown that boundaries are optional, hands him a document explaining that this boundary is very important, and then it hopes. In Fort Worth, police say one man was not supposed to be on the property because of a court order. He showed up anyway. Then gunfire erupted. I’m not pretending I know who drew first or who was legally right in every second of that fight. But I do know this: Paperwork did not stop him. So stop letting people convince you that a court order is a self-defense plan. It may help legally. It may create a record. It may matter after the fact. But when the person shows up anyway, the only thing standing there is you and whatever you built your safety around. Would you trust the paper, or would you want options? Drop your answer below.

Colion Noir

19,587 次观看 • 1 个月前

You are under no obligation to be the person you were five minutes ago. ⏲️ None of us are finished products. We are all works in progress, constantly being shaped by our choices, our habits, the standards we choose to live by, and the environment around us. If you don't like who you are today, or if you aspire to become more tomorrow, you can make that decision right now. Not next week. Not next year. Right now. Identity is not fixed. It is fluid. It isn't something you find, it's something you build. Your identity is just a lagging indicator of your habits. So stop obsessing over who you are and start focusing on what you do. Do the things the person you want to become would do. Make the choices they would make. Carry yourself the way they would carry themselves. Become who you are by acting like who you want to be. via Green Bay Packers DC Jonathan Gannon 🧀

You are under no obligation to be the person you were five minutes ago. ⏲️ None of us are finished products. We are all works in progress, constantly being shaped by our choices, our habits, the standards we choose to live by, and the environment around us. If you don't like who you are today, or if you aspire to become more tomorrow, you can make that decision right now. Not next week. Not next year. Right now. Identity is not fixed. It is fluid. It isn't something you find, it's something you build. Your identity is just a lagging indicator of your habits. So stop obsessing over who you are and start focusing on what you do. Do the things the person you want to become would do. Make the choices they would make. Carry yourself the way they would carry themselves. Become who you are by acting like who you want to be. via Green Bay Packers DC Jonathan Gannon 🧀

Josh Chambers

16,741 次观看 • 3 个月前

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 次观看 • 1 年前

Good Products are Opinionated. “Every great founder I’ve seen up close, or even from afar, is highly opinionated and they’re almost dictatorial in how they run things. Also, early-stage teams are opinionated. And the products they build are opinionated. Opinionated means they have a strong vision for what it should and should not do. If you don’t have a strong vision of what it should and should not do, then you end up with a giant mess of competing features. jack Dorsey has a great phrase: “Limit the number of details and make every detail perfect.” And that’s especially important in consumer products. You have to be extremely opinionated. All the best products in consumer-land get there through simplicity. You could argue the recent success of ChatGPT and similar AI chatbots is because they’re even simpler than Google. Google looked like the simplest product you could possibly build. It was just a box. But even that box had limitations in what you could do. You were trained not to talk to it conversationally. You would enter keywords and you had to be careful with those keywords. You couldn’t just ask a question outright and get a sensible answer. It wouldn’t do proper synonym matching, and then it would spit you back a whole bunch of results. That was complicated. You’d have to sift through and figure out which ones were ads, which ones were real, were they sorted correctly, and then you’d have to click through and read it. ChatGPT and the chatbot simplified that even further. You just talk to it like a human—use your voice or you type and it gives you back a straight answer. It might not always be right, but it’s good enough, and it gives you back a straight answer in text or voice or images or whatever you prefer. So it simplifies what we looked at as the simplest product on the Internet, which was formerly Google, and makes it even simpler. And you just cannot make a product that’s simple enough. To be simple, you have to be extremely opinionated. You have to remove everything that doesn’t match your opinion of what the product should be doing. You have to meticulously remove every single click, every single extra button, every single setting. In fact, things in the settings menu are an indication that you’ve abdicated your responsibility to the user. Choices for the user are an abdication of your responsibility. Maybe for legal or important reasons, you can have a few of these, but you should struggle and resist against every single choice the user has to make. In the age of TikTok and ChatGPT, that’s more obvious than ever. People don’t want to make choices. They don’t want the cognitive load. They want you to figure out what the right defaults are and what they should be doing and looking at, and they want you to present it to them.”

Good Products are Opinionated. “Every great founder I’ve seen up close, or even from afar, is highly opinionated and they’re almost dictatorial in how they run things. Also, early-stage teams are opinionated. And the products they build are opinionated. Opinionated means they have a strong vision for what it should and should not do. If you don’t have a strong vision of what it should and should not do, then you end up with a giant mess of competing features. jack Dorsey has a great phrase: “Limit the number of details and make every detail perfect.” And that’s especially important in consumer products. You have to be extremely opinionated. All the best products in consumer-land get there through simplicity. You could argue the recent success of ChatGPT and similar AI chatbots is because they’re even simpler than Google. Google looked like the simplest product you could possibly build. It was just a box. But even that box had limitations in what you could do. You were trained not to talk to it conversationally. You would enter keywords and you had to be careful with those keywords. You couldn’t just ask a question outright and get a sensible answer. It wouldn’t do proper synonym matching, and then it would spit you back a whole bunch of results. That was complicated. You’d have to sift through and figure out which ones were ads, which ones were real, were they sorted correctly, and then you’d have to click through and read it. ChatGPT and the chatbot simplified that even further. You just talk to it like a human—use your voice or you type and it gives you back a straight answer. It might not always be right, but it’s good enough, and it gives you back a straight answer in text or voice or images or whatever you prefer. So it simplifies what we looked at as the simplest product on the Internet, which was formerly Google, and makes it even simpler. And you just cannot make a product that’s simple enough. To be simple, you have to be extremely opinionated. You have to remove everything that doesn’t match your opinion of what the product should be doing. You have to meticulously remove every single click, every single extra button, every single setting. In fact, things in the settings menu are an indication that you’ve abdicated your responsibility to the user. Choices for the user are an abdication of your responsibility. Maybe for legal or important reasons, you can have a few of these, but you should struggle and resist against every single choice the user has to make. In the age of TikTok and ChatGPT, that’s more obvious than ever. People don’t want to make choices. They don’t want the cognitive load. They want you to figure out what the right defaults are and what they should be doing and looking at, and they want you to present it to them.”

Naval

473,127 次观看 • 9 个月前

🤣African science at work,you may choose to believe or not,but it's real.If your goat is troubling you,just lie it down by the side and tie cloth as if u want to carry load on your head and put it on the goats head🤷🏾‍♂️. The goat will remain there until you remove it. QED

🤣African science at work,you may choose to believe or not,but it's real.If your goat is troubling you,just lie it down by the side and tie cloth as if u want to carry load on your head and put it on the goats head🤷🏾‍♂️. The goat will remain there until you remove it. QED

OLUSEYE 🪽

2,804,213 次观看 • 3 年前

"150 years ago you didn't have to ask permission from the government to: Go fishing, own a property, build on your property, start a business, hunt, cut hair, protest, or even just set up a lemonade stand." "And now you virtually can't do anything without asking for the government's permission first." "Hate to break it to you, but you're a free range human on a tax farm."

"150 years ago you didn't have to ask permission from the government to: Go fishing, own a property, build on your property, start a business, hunt, cut hair, protest, or even just set up a lemonade stand." "And now you virtually can't do anything without asking for the government's permission first." "Hate to break it to you, but you're a free range human on a tax farm."

Wide Awake Media

79,369 次观看 • 1 年前