Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

I don’t know; many people are stupid about this. Most mainstream sitcoms and dramas had a dramatic conceit that the people in them were living in a house, apartment, or whatever about one or two standard deviations of wealth higher than where they would actually be, in order to... facilitate a decent drama. A thousand-square-foot rancher with two or three kids in the same room and two realistically burned-out working-class parents (rather than one comically burned out Al Bundy) is not a very good sitcom either to write or to film. I remember a few of the shows playing on this dramatic conceit later. “Sex and the City” famously has a big excuse for why Carrie is in an apartment way too big for her income, and “Friends” does something similar with Monica’s apartment. But for the most part, “The Simpsons” or “Married... with Children” expect you to understand that the house is somewhat extravagant, or at least enlarged and cleaned up for television. I mean, just look at it. The Simpsons’ house is not literally a McMansion, but it is clearly huge for a one-income working-class cartoon family, and about 10 or 20 years before that kind of oversized suburban house became a standard cultural image. Now that I think about it, even “The Simpsons” plays on this:show more

CTrefugees

4,129 subscribers

123,821 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Comedy Arts Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"Two or three grand on average for rent" 🔊 ... "No one wants to live with roommates. That's not the answer" I thought that was the answer? Having one or two roommates (during your 20s) in an apartment or a house rental has been common for a long time. Until you get married, don't most people have roommates in your 20s? Yeah, rent and mortgages are crazy right now. But her claim about "no roommates" is not reasonable.

"Two or three grand on average for rent" 🔊 ... "No one wants to live with roommates. That's not the answer" I thought that was the answer? Having one or two roommates (during your 20s) in an apartment or a house rental has been common for a long time. Until you get married, don't most people have roommates in your 20s? Yeah, rent and mortgages are crazy right now. But her claim about "no roommates" is not reasonable.

Wall Street Mav

1,501,815 views • 2 years ago

This tiny New York City apartment, 80 x 150, goes for $650 a month! 🤯 She has no oven and her bed is up a ladder and there is about two to three feet of space from the bed to the ceiling. Her bathroom is actually outside the apartment down the hall. She has to walk past her neighbors to get to it. She goes up on the roof outside to get some space, do some work and maybe a little yoga. But get this, she has a dog! She said she sometimes leaves the dog in the apartment or she takes him to daycare. 🤔 I could not live like that. I could not sleep like that and I could not shower like that. And, I could not have a dog in such a small space. Many, many people said that she should not have a dog and should not be allowed to have a dog in such a tiny apartment. Do you think it is cruel to have the dog with her? Or , do you think that if the dog is getting love and fed, cares for and taken out, that’s her business? Have you ever seen a smaller apartment than this? Could you ever live like this?

This tiny New York City apartment, 80 x 150, goes for $650 a month! 🤯 She has no oven and her bed is up a ladder and there is about two to three feet of space from the bed to the ceiling. Her bathroom is actually outside the apartment down the hall. She has to walk past her neighbors to get to it. She goes up on the roof outside to get some space, do some work and maybe a little yoga. But get this, she has a dog! She said she sometimes leaves the dog in the apartment or she takes him to daycare. 🤔 I could not live like that. I could not sleep like that and I could not shower like that. And, I could not have a dog in such a small space. Many, many people said that she should not have a dog and should not be allowed to have a dog in such a tiny apartment. Do you think it is cruel to have the dog with her? Or , do you think that if the dog is getting love and fed, cares for and taken out, that’s her business? Have you ever seen a smaller apartment than this? Could you ever live like this?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

1,862,493 views • 2 months ago

WTH 😳 Yes, this is real. THIS IS INSANE. “This bill seeks to keep squatters out of our House. Democrats have fought for two hours for the right, I don't even know how to say this. For the right of people that don't belong in your house to stay in your house in the event that they you leave for a month or two and a squatter goes in and takes your house over. Democrats are fighting for the ability of those people to be able to stay in your house.”

WTH 😳 Yes, this is real. THIS IS INSANE. “This bill seeks to keep squatters out of our House. Democrats have fought for two hours for the right, I don't even know how to say this. For the right of people that don't belong in your house to stay in your house in the event that they you leave for a month or two and a squatter goes in and takes your house over. Democrats are fighting for the ability of those people to be able to stay in your house.”

🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅

21,708 views • 1 year ago

When I am at the gym and I see somebody’s water bottle there or a towel or something. I know they just stepped away for a moment and that the machine is occupied. Out of respect I won’t move it out of the way only for them to come back and have to explain themselves anyways. This young lady on the machine left her water bottle on it because she stepped away for a moment to use the restroom only for somebody else to come by and try to use it in her place. Would you have understood the etiquette or is it just a free for all? When I first started working out I was unfamiliar with the gym etiquette. Some people just got done with a hard set and need to stand up and walk for a few moneys or get a drink of water and they use it as their rest period so that they can go back at it. Interrupting that process is the same thing as booting them off the machine mid workout. It’s rude and uncalled for but why does it keep happening? I think what it is, is that some people are very judgmental, they see others and think that they are more serious about working out than the other person so that to them it means they are entitled to use it first because their workouts are more important. I used to let them do that to me but no more. I treat it as first come first serve, if they don’t want to wait then maybe they need to avoid the gym during peak hours. This is the very reason I work out in the middle of the night most of the time. I rather not be bothered and if I need to take my time I can, most of the time nobody else is even there anyways when I go.

When I am at the gym and I see somebody’s water bottle there or a towel or something. I know they just stepped away for a moment and that the machine is occupied. Out of respect I won’t move it out of the way only for them to come back and have to explain themselves anyways. This young lady on the machine left her water bottle on it because she stepped away for a moment to use the restroom only for somebody else to come by and try to use it in her place. Would you have understood the etiquette or is it just a free for all? When I first started working out I was unfamiliar with the gym etiquette. Some people just got done with a hard set and need to stand up and walk for a few moneys or get a drink of water and they use it as their rest period so that they can go back at it. Interrupting that process is the same thing as booting them off the machine mid workout. It’s rude and uncalled for but why does it keep happening? I think what it is, is that some people are very judgmental, they see others and think that they are more serious about working out than the other person so that to them it means they are entitled to use it first because their workouts are more important. I used to let them do that to me but no more. I treat it as first come first serve, if they don’t want to wait then maybe they need to avoid the gym during peak hours. This is the very reason I work out in the middle of the night most of the time. I rather not be bothered and if I need to take my time I can, most of the time nobody else is even there anyways when I go.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

176,262 views • 25 days ago

Marc Andreessen says he has visited Mar-a-Lago and that RFK Jr. is fully in control of the health agenda. “One of the things I learned is that RFK is really in charge of health for the country, and is working with the president.” “This whole MAHA thing he's very serious about and a lot of people, including a lot of the most qualified people I know in the field, are like, ‘yes it is long overdue that we look at the food system.’” “I'm actually very encouraged that this is now going to be a very big focus here and not just by the government, but I think also in the culture.”

Marc Andreessen says he has visited Mar-a-Lago and that RFK Jr. is fully in control of the health agenda. “One of the things I learned is that RFK is really in charge of health for the country, and is working with the president.” “This whole MAHA thing he's very serious about and a lot of people, including a lot of the most qualified people I know in the field, are like, ‘yes it is long overdue that we look at the food system.’” “I'm actually very encouraged that this is now going to be a very big focus here and not just by the government, but I think also in the culture.”

End Tribalism in Politics

330,349 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: I'll be long dead before we're really a multiplanet species. But at least I'd like to see us make great progress in this direction. “Why do these things? I think this is important for maximizing the probable lifespan of humanity or consciousness. Human civilization could come to an end for external reasons, like a giant meteor, or supervolcanoes, or extreme climate change. Or World War III, or, you know, any one of a number of reasons. But the probable lifespan of civilization and consciousness, as we know it, which we should really view as this very delicate thing, like a small candle in a vast darkness, that is what appears to be the case. We're in this vast darkness of space, and there's this little candle of consciousness that's only really come about after 4.5 billion years. And it could just go out. I think that's powerful, and I think a lot of people will be inspired by that vision. And so the reason you need the million people is because there has to be enough people there to do everything that you need to survive. The critical threshold is, if the ships from Earth stop coming for any reason, does the Mars city die out or not? We have to pass that. People talk about the great filters, the things that perhaps, you know, we talk about the Fermi paradox and where are the aliens, and, well, maybe there is various great filters that the aliens didn't pass, and so they eventually just cease to exist. And one of the great filters is becoming a multiplanet species. So we want to pass that filter. And I'll be long dead before this is a real thing, before it happens. But I'd like to at least see us make great progress in this direction.” Source: TED, April 6, 2022.

Elon Musk: I'll be long dead before we're really a multiplanet species. But at least I'd like to see us make great progress in this direction. “Why do these things? I think this is important for maximizing the probable lifespan of humanity or consciousness. Human civilization could come to an end for external reasons, like a giant meteor, or supervolcanoes, or extreme climate change. Or World War III, or, you know, any one of a number of reasons. But the probable lifespan of civilization and consciousness, as we know it, which we should really view as this very delicate thing, like a small candle in a vast darkness, that is what appears to be the case. We're in this vast darkness of space, and there's this little candle of consciousness that's only really come about after 4.5 billion years. And it could just go out. I think that's powerful, and I think a lot of people will be inspired by that vision. And so the reason you need the million people is because there has to be enough people there to do everything that you need to survive. The critical threshold is, if the ships from Earth stop coming for any reason, does the Mars city die out or not? We have to pass that. People talk about the great filters, the things that perhaps, you know, we talk about the Fermi paradox and where are the aliens, and, well, maybe there is various great filters that the aliens didn't pass, and so they eventually just cease to exist. And one of the great filters is becoming a multiplanet species. So we want to pass that filter. And I'll be long dead before this is a real thing, before it happens. But I'd like to at least see us make great progress in this direction.” Source: TED, April 6, 2022.

ELON CLIPS

35,997 views • 25 days ago

"I worked for the Speaker of the House. I worked for the President of the United States. One of the things you learn in those jobs is that ultimately no one is fully in charge of anything, and the world is very, very complex. I would read in the Washington Post how Republican leaders had all these plans and they were going to pull things this way or that way. And then I'd get to work and to say that no one had a plan would be a gross understatement. No one had any idea what was going to happen that afternoon. The idea that in a free society somebody is pulling the strings and someone has a nine-step plan and you're just a pawn in it is just very, very implausible. Our society doesn't really work that way. Our elites now are not ultra-competent. You can say a lot of things about them, but I would not say that we have ultra-competent leaders of any institution. I can see the appeal of wanting to believe that it's all a false flag or a plan. But when you actually see the system work—it's both good news and bad news—but nobody's in charge of everything."

"I worked for the Speaker of the House. I worked for the President of the United States. One of the things you learn in those jobs is that ultimately no one is fully in charge of anything, and the world is very, very complex. I would read in the Washington Post how Republican leaders had all these plans and they were going to pull things this way or that way. And then I'd get to work and to say that no one had a plan would be a gross understatement. No one had any idea what was going to happen that afternoon. The idea that in a free society somebody is pulling the strings and someone has a nine-step plan and you're just a pawn in it is just very, very implausible. Our society doesn't really work that way. Our elites now are not ultra-competent. You can say a lot of things about them, but I would not say that we have ultra-competent leaders of any institution. I can see the appeal of wanting to believe that it's all a false flag or a plan. But when you actually see the system work—it's both good news and bad news—but nobody's in charge of everything."

Michael Shermer

128,362 views • 2 years ago

I went on Pod Save America to talk about our one fight: is this the billionaires' world and we're just living in it, or is Texas a state that is by and for the people? I know which side I'm on.

I went on Pod Save America to talk about our one fight: is this the billionaires' world and we're just living in it, or is Texas a state that is by and for the people? I know which side I'm on.

Gina Hinojosa

37,516 views • 1 month ago

$This house literally looks like a shack and the owners originally listed it for $19 million dollars, yes million, later on they dropped it to $18 mil, would you spend $18 mil for this? When you think of a $18 million dollar home for most people this isn’t what they envision. Even if it is in Aspen Colorado, are you dropping that kind of coin on this? When I visited California, in the San Francisco area I was greeted by these historic looking houses, did they blow me away? No not at all but they were nice, many of them weren’t too modern though but I guess some people would say it adds to the charm. These houses were being listed for millions of dollars and I get it, California property is considered prime real estate in many of their neighborhoods but for me it’s not justifiable. In my mind I know what the house has to look like and have for me to consider it and a house like that isn’t it. I’m looking for a forever home in a few years so I’m keeping my eyes open but for now it amazes me that people even consider dropping that kind of money for a home that’s not even worth a fraction of what they are asking for them. Back to this house in Aspen, what would you expect to realistically pay for something like this? I saw $150k tops, what’s your guess?$

This house literally looks like a shack and the owners originally listed it for $19 million dollars, yes million, later on they dropped it to $18 mil, would you spend $18 mil for this? When you think of a $18 million dollar home for most people this isn’t what they envision. Even if it is in Aspen Colorado, are you dropping that kind of coin on this? When I visited California, in the San Francisco area I was greeted by these historic looking houses, did they blow me away? No not at all but they were nice, many of them weren’t too modern though but I guess some people would say it adds to the charm. These houses were being listed for millions of dollars and I get it, California property is considered prime real estate in many of their neighborhoods but for me it’s not justifiable. In my mind I know what the house has to look like and have for me to consider it and a house like that isn’t it. I’m looking for a forever home in a few years so I’m keeping my eyes open but for now it amazes me that people even consider dropping that kind of money for a home that’s not even worth a fraction of what they are asking for them. Back to this house in Aspen, what would you expect to realistically pay for something like this? I saw $150k tops, what’s your guess?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

118,174 views • 23 days ago

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."

dnap

2,324,809 views • 15 days ago

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 views • 6 months ago

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,029 views • 4 months ago

as I'm sure many of you have come to realize - "waking up" is very different from "understanding" why things in the world and on TV seem to be happening at a pace and in a way that you cannot affect or do anything about - nor can you look or walk away, for very long. that's the place I needed to get to in order to understand that we really are watching a scripted movie, that in fact, the only thing we can do is know about it, wake people up to it and enjoy the show - and PRAY. this clip encapsulates where it's all headed and why.

as I'm sure many of you have come to realize - "waking up" is very different from "understanding" why things in the world and on TV seem to be happening at a pace and in a way that you cannot affect or do anything about - nor can you look or walk away, for very long. that's the place I needed to get to in order to understand that we really are watching a scripted movie, that in fact, the only thing we can do is know about it, wake people up to it and enjoy the show - and PRAY. this clip encapsulates where it's all headed and why.

The Rubber Duck ™

32,584 views • 11 months ago

Most of you will hate me saying this, but I will say it anyway. The Democrats are in complete disarray and have no coherent message. No real solutions. Just anti-Trump rhetoric on a loop. And listen — I understand the anti-Trump sentiment. I share a lot of it. But that is not a governing platform. That is not a vision for the country. And it is not going to win elections. Talk to your constituents about affordability. About raising living standards. About the wealth gap that is tearing this country apart at the seams. Here’s the hard truth: If we don’t fix the wealth gap through traditional American capitalism, we will have a populist leader on the left or a populist leader on the right in perpetuity. And that is genuinely dangerous for the country. Trump looks imperious right now. Looks invincible. I understand why people are scared. But he’s got 36 months. He can do a lot of damage in 36 months. I won’t minimize that. But it is 36 months. The question is whether the opposition uses that time to build something real or spends it screaming into the void.

Most of you will hate me saying this, but I will say it anyway. The Democrats are in complete disarray and have no coherent message. No real solutions. Just anti-Trump rhetoric on a loop. And listen — I understand the anti-Trump sentiment. I share a lot of it. But that is not a governing platform. That is not a vision for the country. And it is not going to win elections. Talk to your constituents about affordability. About raising living standards. About the wealth gap that is tearing this country apart at the seams. Here’s the hard truth: If we don’t fix the wealth gap through traditional American capitalism, we will have a populist leader on the left or a populist leader on the right in perpetuity. And that is genuinely dangerous for the country. Trump looks imperious right now. Looks invincible. I understand why people are scared. But he’s got 36 months. He can do a lot of damage in 36 months. I won’t minimize that. But it is 36 months. The question is whether the opposition uses that time to build something real or spends it screaming into the void.

Anthony Scaramucci

157,025 views • 4 months ago

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 views • 6 months ago

These two young women were out for a jog, they decided to stop at their local Starbucks for a drink of water. Starbucks has a new policy that they won’t even give you a free tap water unless you buy something. The young women were outraged that they would deny them water, do you agree they did it to stop abuse or is it just greed? Quite recently I was at a fast food place and the solution they have is quite brilliant. The fountain machine has a scanner on it, the cups have barcodes. The cups barcodes are only good for about 30 minutes and the water cups when you scan it only works on water. So people can’t ask for water cups anymore and fill it with soda or anything else they didn’t pay for. I’ve seen people complain about it but let’s be real, they are only complaining because now they can’t steal the sodas they didn’t want to pay for. I’ve worked in restaurants for a good chunk of my life and I have rarely seen people actually drink water while there. That’s why I know it could just all be a scam. Even in my last post I mentioned how parents were teaching their kids to steal the sodas. Others complain that it’s the restaurant being greedy, and in some instances I’m sure that could be the case. But I know everyone that is reading this post has seen what I’m talking about. Then the same people that are stealing complain why the price of food and drinks go up to combat the loss revenue. In a perfect world where people don’t steal, it would be fine but for now I think this is where we are headed.

These two young women were out for a jog, they decided to stop at their local Starbucks for a drink of water. Starbucks has a new policy that they won’t even give you a free tap water unless you buy something. The young women were outraged that they would deny them water, do you agree they did it to stop abuse or is it just greed? Quite recently I was at a fast food place and the solution they have is quite brilliant. The fountain machine has a scanner on it, the cups have barcodes. The cups barcodes are only good for about 30 minutes and the water cups when you scan it only works on water. So people can’t ask for water cups anymore and fill it with soda or anything else they didn’t pay for. I’ve seen people complain about it but let’s be real, they are only complaining because now they can’t steal the sodas they didn’t want to pay for. I’ve worked in restaurants for a good chunk of my life and I have rarely seen people actually drink water while there. That’s why I know it could just all be a scam. Even in my last post I mentioned how parents were teaching their kids to steal the sodas. Others complain that it’s the restaurant being greedy, and in some instances I’m sure that could be the case. But I know everyone that is reading this post has seen what I’m talking about. Then the same people that are stealing complain why the price of food and drinks go up to combat the loss revenue. In a perfect world where people don’t steal, it would be fine but for now I think this is where we are headed.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

384,681 views • 11 days ago

Jack Dorsey on becoming a better storyteller: "I found myself very early on thinking about something like thinking about this early idea for Twitter and saying to myself, I could build this awesome. You have those shower-like moments, or you're walking at midnight in some town in New York City, and you've got these amazing brand ideas. And then you start thinking, well, I could really start doing this if only X and if I had this person or if this technology existed or if this happened or this happened. And what I realized was that I was constantly making excuses for not working on it. And then the window had passed, and then I couldn't do anything. So I think it's really, really important to write it out or to draw it out or to code it. But you need to get it out of your head. And the reason you have to get it out of your head is that you need to be able to see it on a surface that is not in your mind. And once you can see it, and once you can step back from it, then you can also decide this passes my filter, my constraints, so maybe I can show it and share it with some other people. And then they will be like that's the stupidest idea ever and or that's somewhat interesting, but maybe this and this and this. So the sooner you can do that, then you have a lot of momentum around it, and you can really decide if you want to commit to it and work on it more or put it on the shelf for a later date. And the realization that I think everyone needs to have about that latter option, putting it on the shelf, is that you can come back to it and it will surface back up in another piece of work or another idea at some point in your life. So having that ability to close off a chapter and move on is really, really important. You can't have all these open threads, and that's what I realized I was doing. And that also encouraged me to really write more and to really think about what's the story? How are people coming to this? And like when I show my friends this, how are they going to react and I would write it down. I would actually treat it like a play. And when I realized that I was writing plays, I read a lot more plays for style and for substance and for technique and I think it's really good. I think there is another company that I have always looked towards for inspiration and I know a number of people in this room probably have a similar company in mind, which is Apple. Apple, I think, is run like a theater company. It has a great sense of pacing, has a great sense of story and has a great sense of execution and it's all about event-driven, it's all stage-driven, the stage being a billboard or the stage being a keynote or the stage being a product launch. All of it has a very, very cohesive end-to-end story. I mean you think about what happened when Steve Jobs came back to the company. The first thing he did was kill every product line the company was working on. And for two years,rs they had no product on the market whatsoever. All they had were a bunch of posters all around the world with Steve Jobs' heroes, and it said, think different. And it was just focused on bringing up the brand and making people aware of the brand again and how the brand is aligning to this particular feeling and story. And then they came out with the iMac and then built iTunes and then the iPod, and they realized that, wait a minute, people are carrying music on their phones now, so we better build a phone, an iPhone. And so this unfolding of the plot and the epic story has been very, very interesting to watch, especially if you look back to that time when he came back to the company. So I've learned a lot from that company and other companies that operate in a similar fashion."

Founder Mode

107,213 views • 7 months ago

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)

DepressedBergman

13,543 views • 7 months ago

This woman shows up a little later than everyone to the graduation ceremony. Rather that stand out of the way or take a seat way in the back she decodes she is going to stand at the rail in front of everyone and she is not sorry about it. The police were even called and they are not doing anything about it. Why do people think they are better than other people? Why do some act like they have zero respect for others? Would you ever do this? Ever? Do you think the police should have hauled her away?

This woman shows up a little later than everyone to the graduation ceremony. Rather that stand out of the way or take a seat way in the back she decodes she is going to stand at the rail in front of everyone and she is not sorry about it. The police were even called and they are not doing anything about it. Why do people think they are better than other people? Why do some act like they have zero respect for others? Would you ever do this? Ever? Do you think the police should have hauled her away?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

4,439,826 views • 2 months ago

"All these Soviet residential blocks look alike, they are an insult to the taste of the people!" is what I usually get. But would you rather be crammed in a communal space or have a private apartment the state gives you for free? The Soviet Union was one of the few countries that actually managed to solve the housing problem by mass-producing entire buildings like this one that took a month and a half to complete! At this rate, one house-building plant provided dwellings for 80,000 families annually in Moscow alone - isn't that huge?

"All these Soviet residential blocks look alike, they are an insult to the taste of the people!" is what I usually get. But would you rather be crammed in a communal space or have a private apartment the state gives you for free? The Soviet Union was one of the few countries that actually managed to solve the housing problem by mass-producing entire buildings like this one that took a month and a half to complete! At this rate, one house-building plant provided dwellings for 80,000 families annually in Moscow alone - isn't that huge?

Rina Lu🇷🇺

41,141 views • 7 months ago