Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

17,286 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Sales 101 from Alex Hormozi He says: "The Pain is the Pitch." The clearer you can describe a potential customer's pain, the more they'll assume you have the cure. People will get so focused on their solution that they'll forget to talk about the customer's problem. "When I talk about The Pain is the Pitch, here's what I mean: I want to get really concrete about the specific moments someone experiences pain. I remember when Leila and I were completely broke—I had just lost everything, and we'd decided to stop pursuing the gym business. During that tough 30-day period, I looked at her journey. She'd lost 100 pounds, which was incredibly compelling, while my own fitness story was pretty unremarkable—I've had a six-pack my whole life, and no one cared about that. So I decided to write Leila's story. After reading it, she laughed and said, "This is more compelling than when I lived it!" Even though I hadn't experienced her struggles firsthand, I captured specific moments she shared—like wearing cover-ups to the beach because she felt self-conscious, experiencing painful thigh chafing from being overweight, or always stepping to the back or side in photos to avoid attention. Those moments of pain are powerful. Anyone who's experienced something similar immediately thinks, "I never want to feel that way again." If you can accurately describe your prospect's pain in their own language, using specific moments from their experiences, you'll persuade them that you deeply understand their reality. You won't even have to make bold promises—your insight alone convinces them you're capable. For example, if I'm speaking to a business owner making $10 million a year, I pinpoint exactly what's going wrong in their IT department, their sales, their marketing, and HR. They'll quickly see I understand their exact challenges and think, 'He can't possibly know this pain so well without knowing how to solve it.' And that's why the pain is the pitch." Alex Hormozi

David Perell

36,530 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman said something recently that most people skimmed and immediately forgot. That was a mistake. Altman: “If it’s me and X hundred GPUs, we can do the work of a whole software team.” Not twice as fast. Not three times as efficient. One person. One team’s output. Zero team. The entire architecture of the modern company was built to solve a single problem. Coordinating human labor. Org charts. Management layers. Hiring pipelines. Performance reviews. HR departments. Slack channels with forty people and no decisions. Every piece of corporate infrastructure exists because humans are slow, expensive, and need to be organized. Remove the coordination problem and the infrastructure collapses on contact. We spent two years debating whether AI makes workers more productive. That was the wrong debate entirely. 2x productivity is a raise. One person replacing an entire team is a structural extinction event. Altman: “You start to hear people say I’m able to do the work of a whole team with these tools.” This is not a productivity story. This is a headcount story. Every company on Earth is currently valued on the assumption that scaling output requires scaling people. That assumption is wrong. It was always wrong. We just never had the tool to prove it. The company that figures this out first does not get a competitive advantage. It gets an irreversible one. One operator. Hundreds of GPUs. The output of a team that no longer needs to exist. No salaries. No standups. No friction. Most people will read Altman’s words, nod, and scroll past. A small number will understand that something structural just shifted beneath them. They will build accordingly. The companies that define the next decade will not be the ones with the most people. They will be the ones with the fewest people who understood what compute replaced. For a hundred years, you needed more people to do more work. That was never a strategy. It was a constraint we mistook for a law. The org chart was a monument to human limitation. The limitation just vanished. And everything built on top of it is now standing on nothing.

Dustin

26,721 views • 5 months ago

We had a detailed representation before the Election Commission. We told them, and we demonstrated according to us, beyond doubt and beyond any matter of controversy, that the RO has passed a perverse order. The Election Commission's own law, the Representation of the People Act, has Section 33A, which says that disclosure is required only in those cases where the punishment is more than two years, and above all, only in those cases where charges have been framed. The process of framing charges is a judicial process. A judge frames charges. Now, as any kindergarten or first-year law student knows, the first step is a private complaint. That private complaint may be baseless and may have no legs to stand on. The second stage is the taking of cognizance by the magistrate, which is a judicial and independent process. Ms. Natarajan only received a notice to appear before the court and explain why cognizance should not be taken. That means the notice she received was before any cognizance was taken. Without cognizance, no criminal case exists in the eyes of the law. There is no criminal case merely because I allege something against somebody else without cognizance being taken. They have rejected Ms. Natarajan's nomination despite the non-existence of even cognizance, which means there was no criminal case that she could have disclosed. Whereas Section 33A, says that after cognizance is taken, there will be an investigation. After the investigation, there will be a charge sheet. The RO's order uses the word "sangyan." Sangyan means cognizance. There was no cognizance taken. Ultimately, we also pointed out to the Election Commission that it has a huge reservoir of power under Article 324. It is a constitutional power, an untrammable power and an inherent power. It is the power to do justice and the power to right wrongs. We hope and trust that the Election Commission will realize that this creates a very bad, distorted, non-level playing field. A non-level playing field strikes at the heart of democracy. A violation of that strikes further at the heart of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we have requested them for an immediate decision. We have come on the day of withdrawal. There is sufficient time. This is a completely egregious, blatant, patently unlawful order, without any basis in law, and it should be set aside immediately. That is our request. : Abhishek Singhvi ji Chairperson, AICC Law, RTI & HR Dept.

Congress

42,100 views • 3 months ago