Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

How does Benchmark rationalize not being in any of the core model providers? "It f**king sucks. It's a complete and utter failure on our part. You can't be in a situation where you have a chance to make a 30x on scaled capital in four or five years and...

117,791 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Naval Ravikant on why it's 10,000 iterations, not 10,000 hours: "The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life. And there are two parts to that: one is getting what you want, so you know how to get it. And the second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place." Naval believes most people are proceeding unconsciously through life. As he puts it: "If you're not careful you can end up in a place in life not only that you don't want to be, but one that you didn't even mean to get to. Usually, people end up there because they are going on autopilot with societal expectations or people's expectations. Out of guilt or mimetic desire, our desires are picked up from other people." On how little time we spend deciding: "We run on these four-year cycles. You go join a startup, you vest your stock over four years. College you go for four years, high school you go for four years. These are very long cycles, the amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with? Very short. Very, very short." He continues: "We spend three months deciding, one month deciding on a job where we're going to be for 10 years or 5 years. People decide frivolously which city to live in and that's going to decide who their friends are, what their jobs are, their opportunity, their weather, their food supply, their air supply, quality of life. It's such an important decision but people spend so little time thinking it through." His rule: "I would argue that if you're making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through. Like really thinking it. 25% of the time." On the secretary theorem: "The optimal time to search is somewhere around a third of the way through. You take the best person you've worked with and try to find someone that good or better. By the time you've got about a third of the way through, you have seen enough that you now have a sense of what the bar is. Then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough." But here's the catch: "It's actually not time-based; it's not based on one-third of the time, it's iteration-based. The number of candidates, the number of shots you took on goal. So you want to have lots and lots of iterations. You need to bail out quickly, and you need to be decisive quickly." On failed relationships: "If you go back and you look through failed relationships, probably the biggest regret will be staying in the relationship after you knew it was over. The moment you knew it wasn't going to work out, you should have moved on." His reframe of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours: "I would say it's actually 10,000 iterations to Mastery. It's not actually 10,000; it's some unknown number, but it's about the number of iterations that drives a learning curve. Iteration is not repetition—repetition is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with a learning and then doing another version of it. That's error correction." On modern society: "Modern society is far more forgiving of failure. Once you find the one business you're meant to plow into and compound returns, it's okay if you had 50 small failed ventures or 50 small failed job interviews. The number of failures doesn't matter." His approach: "You want to be skeptical about specific things—every specific opportunity is probably a fail. But you want to be optimistic in the general. Something in here is going to work out. You want to investigate and explore very, very quickly until you find the match. And then you have to be willing to go all in." On labels: "Labels like pessimist, optimist, cynic, introvert, extrovert, these are very self-limiting. Don't define yourself by trauma or PTSD because then you lock it into your identity and you're just going to loop on it. It's better to stay flexible because reality is always changing and you have to be able to adapt to it." Spend a year deciding. Take 10,000 iterations. Then go all in.

Jaynit

68,707 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce