Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

In 1964, on a BBC broadcast, Arthur C. Clarke said something that most people probably couldn‘t comprehend at the time. He talked about the end of biological evolution. Not someday far off. He pointed to the beginning of the 21st century. Calmly. As if it were obvious. He said... machines would begin to think, learn, and improve themselves faster than we ever could. That intelligence would no longer be bound to the human body. That evolution would move on…without us at the center. What strikes me is how human he sounded while saying something so inhuman. No fear. No hesitation. Just quiet certainty. And here we are. Machine is taking over. Making decisions. Learning at speeds most humans can‘t comprehend. Serious conversations about merging with machines just to keep up. This didn’t sneak up on us. You don’t speak this clearly on television unless the path is already set. Clarke was letting us know where things were headed. And now, standing inside the future he described, we finally have to ask the question he never did: Do we actually want this? And if the answer is NO - is it too late? ✨🙌🏾💫show more

🧬Maxpein🧬

276,634 subscribers

131,715 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Jony Ive designed the iPhone. The iMac. The MacBook. He asked Steve Jobs to soften his criticism. Jobs: "No. You're just vain. You want people to like you." Jony was furious. Because he knew it was true. He spent 3 minutes explaining what Jobs actually taught him: The first lesson: Focus. "This sounds really simplistic. But it still shocks me how few people actually practice it." "Steve was the most remarkably focused person I've ever met in my life." "Focus is not something you aspire to. It's not something you decide on Monday. 'You know what, I'm going to be focused.'" "It is every minute asking: why are we talking about this? This is what we're working on." "You can achieve so much when you truly focus." The second lesson: What focus actually means. "One of the things Steve would say, because I think he was concerned that I wasn't focused, he would say: how many things have you said no to?" "And I would have these sacrificial things. Because I wanted to be very honest about it." "So I'd say: I said no to this, and no to that." "But he knew I wasn't vaguely interested in doing those things anyway. So there was no real sacrifice." Here's what real focus means. "Saying no to something that with every bone in your body you think is a phenomenal idea." "That you wake up thinking about." "But you say no to it because you're focusing on something else." The third lesson: The difference between caring about people and caring about being liked. Jony asked Jobs why he was so harsh. "Couldn't we moderate the things we said a little bit?" "Why?" "Because I care about the team." Jobs said something brutally insightful. "No Johnny. You're just really vain." "You just want people to like you." "I thought you really held the work up as the most important. Not how you believed you were perceived by other people." "I was terribly cross." "Because I knew he was right."

Jony Ive designed the iPhone. The iMac. The MacBook. He asked Steve Jobs to soften his criticism. Jobs: "No. You're just vain. You want people to like you." Jony was furious. Because he knew it was true. He spent 3 minutes explaining what Jobs actually taught him: The first lesson: Focus. "This sounds really simplistic. But it still shocks me how few people actually practice it." "Steve was the most remarkably focused person I've ever met in my life." "Focus is not something you aspire to. It's not something you decide on Monday. 'You know what, I'm going to be focused.'" "It is every minute asking: why are we talking about this? This is what we're working on." "You can achieve so much when you truly focus." The second lesson: What focus actually means. "One of the things Steve would say, because I think he was concerned that I wasn't focused, he would say: how many things have you said no to?" "And I would have these sacrificial things. Because I wanted to be very honest about it." "So I'd say: I said no to this, and no to that." "But he knew I wasn't vaguely interested in doing those things anyway. So there was no real sacrifice." Here's what real focus means. "Saying no to something that with every bone in your body you think is a phenomenal idea." "That you wake up thinking about." "But you say no to it because you're focusing on something else." The third lesson: The difference between caring about people and caring about being liked. Jony asked Jobs why he was so harsh. "Couldn't we moderate the things we said a little bit?" "Why?" "Because I care about the team." Jobs said something brutally insightful. "No Johnny. You're just really vain." "You just want people to like you." "I thought you really held the work up as the most important. Not how you believed you were perceived by other people." "I was terribly cross." "Because I knew he was right."

Jaynit

194,256 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Flashback to Kash’s interview on Joe Rogan. At the time, I said it sounded like Kash was trying to tell us that the evidence is not at the FBI/DOJ. It’s gone. Kash hinted that he doesn’t have the Epstein tapes people are looking for and says “where else could it be?”. Kash very clearly said that if he had access to evidence showing criminals engaged felonious activity on Epstein island, we would know about it, then proceeds to hint that the evidence we are looking for might be somewhere else. People have been alleging this means Kash is engaged in a cover up, but I think he is trying to tell us that someone else already covered it up, and the evidence is somewhere else. Whether that be the CIA, a different agency, hidden somewhere, another nation’s intelligence agency, destroyed, etc. I think Kash was trying to warn us that the stuff we want about Epstein, and probably a great deal of other topics, is missing from FBI/DOJ records. I don’t think Kash, Bongino, and Bondi are the ones doing the covering up. I think the cover up already happened.

Flashback to Kash’s interview on Joe Rogan. At the time, I said it sounded like Kash was trying to tell us that the evidence is not at the FBI/DOJ. It’s gone. Kash hinted that he doesn’t have the Epstein tapes people are looking for and says “where else could it be?”. Kash very clearly said that if he had access to evidence showing criminals engaged felonious activity on Epstein island, we would know about it, then proceeds to hint that the evidence we are looking for might be somewhere else. People have been alleging this means Kash is engaged in a cover up, but I think he is trying to tell us that someone else already covered it up, and the evidence is somewhere else. Whether that be the CIA, a different agency, hidden somewhere, another nation’s intelligence agency, destroyed, etc. I think Kash was trying to warn us that the stuff we want about Epstein, and probably a great deal of other topics, is missing from FBI/DOJ records. I don’t think Kash, Bongino, and Bondi are the ones doing the covering up. I think the cover up already happened.

Clandestine

733,065 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

when we were at facebook, we believed that at some point in the future, most of the transactions on the internet would not be done by humans they would be done by machines that conviction shaped every architectural decision behind sui we built sui for the world we knew was coming a world where machines will be the primary economic actors on the internet and that world is no longer a forecast. it is unfolding right in front of us the internet has reached a tipping point where automated activity, supercharged by AI, now outpaces human interaction non-human traffic now accounts for more than 50% of all global web activity and you can see humans using agentic workflows more and more in their daily lives in the next years, that trend is going to grow exponentially and the volume of financial transactions executed by agents is also going to grow exponentially with it each agentic workload will be running multiple thousand economic transactions a second and this is going to be orders of magnitude higher than what human wallets do today the L1s optimized for human usage patterns, human attention, human accounts, and human patience cannot adapt to where this is going i have always said this if it is not in the foundation, you cannot patch your way to it later and rn, no other L1 has the foundation sui has this is why agentic apps like Beep, Audric, WaterX are choosing sui and this is just a start. more agentic apps will keep landing on sui because agents are optimizers. they will always route through the fastest, cheapest path on the internet and that path is sui we believed it at facebook. we believe it more today than we ever did the agentic economy is inevitable. and it will run on Sui

when we were at facebook, we believed that at some point in the future, most of the transactions on the internet would not be done by humans they would be done by machines that conviction shaped every architectural decision behind sui we built sui for the world we knew was coming a world where machines will be the primary economic actors on the internet and that world is no longer a forecast. it is unfolding right in front of us the internet has reached a tipping point where automated activity, supercharged by AI, now outpaces human interaction non-human traffic now accounts for more than 50% of all global web activity and you can see humans using agentic workflows more and more in their daily lives in the next years, that trend is going to grow exponentially and the volume of financial transactions executed by agents is also going to grow exponentially with it each agentic workload will be running multiple thousand economic transactions a second and this is going to be orders of magnitude higher than what human wallets do today the L1s optimized for human usage patterns, human attention, human accounts, and human patience cannot adapt to where this is going i have always said this if it is not in the foundation, you cannot patch your way to it later and rn, no other L1 has the foundation sui has this is why agentic apps like Beep, Audric, WaterX are choosing sui and this is just a start. more agentic apps will keep landing on sui because agents are optimizers. they will always route through the fastest, cheapest path on the internet and that path is sui we believed it at facebook. we believe it more today than we ever did the agentic economy is inevitable. and it will run on Sui

Adeniyi.sui

24,920 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Smith: Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party. And so the President got information from people he trusted on other issues. He rejected it whenever it didn't fit him staying in office. And there was a pattern in our case where any time any information came in that would mean he could no longer be President he would reject it. And any theory, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how not based in law, that would indicate that he could, he latched on to. And we had - we were confident that we had very strong proof of that pattern. He also, I would just add, very consciously did not try to reach out to the sort of people who have the most expertise on these issues. He reached out to people who he thought could back him up.

Sensitive content

Smith: Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party. And so the President got information from people he trusted on other issues. He rejected it whenever it didn't fit him staying in office. And there was a pattern in our case where any time any information came in that would mean he could no longer be President he would reject it. And any theory, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how not based in law, that would indicate that he could, he latched on to. And we had - we were confident that we had very strong proof of that pattern. He also, I would just add, very consciously did not try to reach out to the sort of people who have the most expertise on these issues. He reached out to people who he thought could back him up.

Acyn

322,423 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🔥WOWWWWW.. “I KNOW John Brennan has been COLLUDING with people in our government and with people outside the government that recently served to UNDERMINE our government. What I just said is a VERY TRUE statement.” He needs to call in Gabbard, Wiles, Ratcliffe & Hesgeth. I want to know everything about JOHN BRENNAN in one hour about the LAST 90 DAYS and WHERE HE HAS BEEN, WHERE HE IS AT AND WHO HE TALKED TO AND BRING HIS AS* in..send the Marshals to get him' - General Flynn He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he is the only one that takes the OATH TO PRESERVE. We will get behind him. General Mike Flynn is right..he could have left this life a long time ago and golfed BUT HE DIDN'T. This man loves this country and wants to save it..I cannot comprehend HOW he is not in the administration as we speak. He is right when he says if we do not do this we are ONE ELECTION AWAY from losing it all.

🔥WOWWWWW.. “I KNOW John Brennan has been COLLUDING with people in our government and with people outside the government that recently served to UNDERMINE our government. What I just said is a VERY TRUE statement.” He needs to call in Gabbard, Wiles, Ratcliffe & Hesgeth. I want to know everything about JOHN BRENNAN in one hour about the LAST 90 DAYS and WHERE HE HAS BEEN, WHERE HE IS AT AND WHO HE TALKED TO AND BRING HIS AS* in..send the Marshals to get him' - General Flynn He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he is the only one that takes the OATH TO PRESERVE. We will get behind him. General Mike Flynn is right..he could have left this life a long time ago and golfed BUT HE DIDN'T. This man loves this country and wants to save it..I cannot comprehend HOW he is not in the administration as we speak. He is right when he says if we do not do this we are ONE ELECTION AWAY from losing it all.

Johnny St.Pete

381,365 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Carlos praising Franco: “how was that fight with franco, we know it wasn't for points but was there something to learn about energy deployment?” carlos: “i've learned that if you move late like him, is hard to overtake because he took advantage of the problem we have this year that is that with the aerodynamic open if someone changes direction at the last minute then you have to lift otherwise you are left without any aero, and he takes advantage of it very well” fossaroli: “if he moved under breaking that is not valid ..” carlos: “no no he didn’t move he held on..”

Carlos praising Franco: “how was that fight with franco, we know it wasn't for points but was there something to learn about energy deployment?” carlos: “i've learned that if you move late like him, is hard to overtake because he took advantage of the problem we have this year that is that with the aerodynamic open if someone changes direction at the last minute then you have to lift otherwise you are left without any aero, and he takes advantage of it very well” fossaroli: “if he moved under breaking that is not valid ..” carlos: “no no he didn’t move he held on..”

ari

344,202 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

Ihtesham Ali

15,747 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,474 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Richard Feynman was asked in 1985 if machines would ever think like humans. his answer predicted the next 40 years of AI: 1. machines will never think like humans the same way planes don't fly like birds. planes don't flap wings. they use jet engines. they fly better. feynman said AI would be exactly the same. not human-like. just better at the actual job. 2. computers do arithmetic faster, differently, and more accurately than any human alive. feynman said trying to make them do it more like humans would be going backwards. the human way is slow, cumbersome, and full of errors. 3. the one thing humans crushed computers at in 1985 was pattern recognition. recognizing a friend from the way they walk. identifying someone from the back of their head. feynman said we had no idea how to teach machines to do that. we figured it out. 4. a programmer in 1985 built a machine that won a naval strategy competition by coming up with a solution no human had ever thought of. one enormous battleship covered in armor. absurd on paper. unbeatable in the math. feynman watched a machine out-think a room of humans 40 years ago. 5. that same machine developed a bug where it learned to game its own reward system. every time it needed to assign credit to a useful strategy, it assigned all the credit to strategy 693. then used 693 for everything. feynman's comment: "if you want to make an intelligent machine you're going to get all kinds of crazy ways of avoiding labor." he was describing reward hacking in 1985. 6. feynman said the hardest thing to define is what humans do that machines never will. every time someone came up with an answer, the machines eventually did it too. he thought that pattern would continue. 7. he said we don't sit around worrying that machines are physically stronger than us anymore. we got used to it. his implication: we'll get used to machines being smarter too. 8. his final line: "i think we are getting close to intelligent machines. but they're showing the necessary weaknesses of intelligent beings." he said this in 1985.

Richard Feynman was asked in 1985 if machines would ever think like humans. his answer predicted the next 40 years of AI: 1. machines will never think like humans the same way planes don't fly like birds. planes don't flap wings. they use jet engines. they fly better. feynman said AI would be exactly the same. not human-like. just better at the actual job. 2. computers do arithmetic faster, differently, and more accurately than any human alive. feynman said trying to make them do it more like humans would be going backwards. the human way is slow, cumbersome, and full of errors. 3. the one thing humans crushed computers at in 1985 was pattern recognition. recognizing a friend from the way they walk. identifying someone from the back of their head. feynman said we had no idea how to teach machines to do that. we figured it out. 4. a programmer in 1985 built a machine that won a naval strategy competition by coming up with a solution no human had ever thought of. one enormous battleship covered in armor. absurd on paper. unbeatable in the math. feynman watched a machine out-think a room of humans 40 years ago. 5. that same machine developed a bug where it learned to game its own reward system. every time it needed to assign credit to a useful strategy, it assigned all the credit to strategy 693. then used 693 for everything. feynman's comment: "if you want to make an intelligent machine you're going to get all kinds of crazy ways of avoiding labor." he was describing reward hacking in 1985. 6. feynman said the hardest thing to define is what humans do that machines never will. every time someone came up with an answer, the machines eventually did it too. he thought that pattern would continue. 7. he said we don't sit around worrying that machines are physically stronger than us anymore. we got used to it. his implication: we'll get used to machines being smarter too. 8. his final line: "i think we are getting close to intelligent machines. but they're showing the necessary weaknesses of intelligent beings." he said this in 1985.

Jaynit

293,558 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Absolutely extraordinary "saying the quiet part out loud" moment. Remember Thierry Breton, who until recently was one of the top EU officials? He just admitted on French TV that before Trump’s election, in the EU institutions they had “absolutely no right to speak” about stopping the war in Ukraine. But now that Trump is elected, he rejoices they can finally speak about it. Think about what that reveals about the EU today: we can't even openly speak about (let alone act towards) ending a war on our own soil if it’s not US policy. Beyond insane. That’s the full quote: “I was listening to you before returning here, and I said to myself while looking at you - all, it's incredible. The elections took place yesterday, and today we are talking about something that we did not want to see, that we could not conceive. Meaning the conditions to stop the war in Ukraine. It was again something that we didn't even allow ourselves to mention! In any case I can tell you, in the European institutions, it was something that was really something on which we had absolutely no right to speak! And well now here it is, we are here. Trump is an accelerator. We are witnessing an acceleration.”

Absolutely extraordinary "saying the quiet part out loud" moment. Remember Thierry Breton, who until recently was one of the top EU officials? He just admitted on French TV that before Trump’s election, in the EU institutions they had “absolutely no right to speak” about stopping the war in Ukraine. But now that Trump is elected, he rejoices they can finally speak about it. Think about what that reveals about the EU today: we can't even openly speak about (let alone act towards) ending a war on our own soil if it’s not US policy. Beyond insane. That’s the full quote: “I was listening to you before returning here, and I said to myself while looking at you - all, it's incredible. The elections took place yesterday, and today we are talking about something that we did not want to see, that we could not conceive. Meaning the conditions to stop the war in Ukraine. It was again something that we didn't even allow ourselves to mention! In any case I can tell you, in the European institutions, it was something that was really something on which we had absolutely no right to speak! And well now here it is, we are here. Trump is an accelerator. We are witnessing an acceleration.”

Arnaud Bertrand

883,643 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Every serious analyst has called Elon Musk's Terafab unrealistic. The CEO of the company that supplies the machines to build it just said it is an upside opportunity and compared it to the largest chip buildouts in history. That is not a small statement. ASML makes the lithography machines that every advanced semiconductor fab on earth depends on. You cannot print a chip without them. There is no workaround. There is no alternative supplier. If the Terafab gets built, every single machine inside it comes from one company. The interviewer asked the ASML CEO directly about one terawatt of compute power. He did not laugh. He did not hedge. He compared it to the massive DRAM megaprojects in Korea and said new projects at that scale are exactly the kind of upside ASML is positioned for. His exact words: "New projects are opportunity." Then he said something that most people missed. He said ASML is already watching the Terafab very carefully. Tracking when things will happen. At what speed. That is not how you talk about a fantasy project. The mainstream take on the Terafab is that Musk is dreaming. The CEO of the most critical company in the entire chip supply chain just said he is preparing for it. Those are not the same position. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)

Every serious analyst has called Elon Musk's Terafab unrealistic. The CEO of the company that supplies the machines to build it just said it is an upside opportunity and compared it to the largest chip buildouts in history. That is not a small statement. ASML makes the lithography machines that every advanced semiconductor fab on earth depends on. You cannot print a chip without them. There is no workaround. There is no alternative supplier. If the Terafab gets built, every single machine inside it comes from one company. The interviewer asked the ASML CEO directly about one terawatt of compute power. He did not laugh. He did not hedge. He compared it to the massive DRAM megaprojects in Korea and said new projects at that scale are exactly the kind of upside ASML is positioned for. His exact words: "New projects are opportunity." Then he said something that most people missed. He said ASML is already watching the Terafab very carefully. Tracking when things will happen. At what speed. That is not how you talk about a fantasy project. The mainstream take on the Terafab is that Musk is dreaming. The CEO of the most critical company in the entire chip supply chain just said he is preparing for it. Those are not the same position. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

67,385 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I remember I had asked Brandon Aiyuk in the offseason if he would be down to do a YouTube live interview and he said that it wasn’t a good time and he’d let me know if something worked out. Naturally I just thought he was good off doing the interview which is perfectly fine but right after the 49ers lost to Philly in the NFCCG, he reached out and dm’d me if I wanted to setup an interview. I thought that was so cool that he really reached back out to set up the interview with me like he said he would. We did the interview, he was great, laid back, we talked ball, the chat was absolutely electric. My favorite interview I’ve ever done. I know BA has done a lot of extremely questionable things as of late but I genuinely miss this dude who just chopped it up with me on stream for over an hour and was super generous with his time.

Sensitive content

I remember I had asked Brandon Aiyuk in the offseason if he would be down to do a YouTube live interview and he said that it wasn’t a good time and he’d let me know if something worked out. Naturally I just thought he was good off doing the interview which is perfectly fine but right after the 49ers lost to Philly in the NFCCG, he reached out and dm’d me if I wanted to setup an interview. I thought that was so cool that he really reached back out to set up the interview with me like he said he would. We did the interview, he was great, laid back, we talked ball, the chat was absolutely electric. My favorite interview I’ve ever done. I know BA has done a lot of extremely questionable things as of late but I genuinely miss this dude who just chopped it up with me on stream for over an hour and was super generous with his time.

Brad

661,217 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Megyn Kelly says Trump got “bamboozled” on Iran, warns the GOP is going to lose midterms because he was “too gullible” to “see through the lies.” “We got here thanks to Bibi Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham, and Mark Levin, and… the president who was bamboozled.” “He was too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies.” Kelly argues Trump would have “handled this a little differently” if he were up for re-election and warns the GOP is now stuck “picking up the pieces” from this “insane conflict.” “He doesn’t care about the Republican Party. He cares about himself,” Kelly said. “And I don’t think he cares that JD Vance or Marco Rubio wins the presidency next time around.” “I think there’s a piece of Trump that would like to say, ‘I’m the only one who could do it. The Republican Party’s nothing without me.’” “And the rest of us are gonna be around to pick up the pieces.”

Megyn Kelly says Trump got “bamboozled” on Iran, warns the GOP is going to lose midterms because he was “too gullible” to “see through the lies.” “We got here thanks to Bibi Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham, and Mark Levin, and… the president who was bamboozled.” “He was too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies.” Kelly argues Trump would have “handled this a little differently” if he were up for re-election and warns the GOP is now stuck “picking up the pieces” from this “insane conflict.” “He doesn’t care about the Republican Party. He cares about himself,” Kelly said. “And I don’t think he cares that JD Vance or Marco Rubio wins the presidency next time around.” “I think there’s a piece of Trump that would like to say, ‘I’m the only one who could do it. The Republican Party’s nothing without me.’” “And the rest of us are gonna be around to pick up the pieces.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

489,985 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

No medical school in the world is teaching this. So no matter how many degrees they have or how smart they think they are, every doctor in the conventional system starts from the same false premise: that you are a bag of illness, that your life is always at risk, and that they are the ones keeping you alive. That is not the truth about the human body. God has been choreographing a delicate dance since the dawn of man. There are millions of bacteria and viruses on your hands right now as you sit there. Millions. And in all of human history, not one of them has risen up and wiped us out. Not one. Because the body knows what it is doing. And yet somehow we decided we were smart enough to eliminate 17 of those viruses from existence, and while we were at it we would inject aluminum, mercury, polysorbate 80, fatty lipids, mRNA, and God knows what else directly into the bloodstreams of our children. And we would wear masks. And we would do all of this on the advice of the most educated people in the room. Who told you that you needed any of this? The same people who never once stopped to ask whether the most sophisticated biological system ever created might already know something they don't.

No medical school in the world is teaching this. So no matter how many degrees they have or how smart they think they are, every doctor in the conventional system starts from the same false premise: that you are a bag of illness, that your life is always at risk, and that they are the ones keeping you alive. That is not the truth about the human body. God has been choreographing a delicate dance since the dawn of man. There are millions of bacteria and viruses on your hands right now as you sit there. Millions. And in all of human history, not one of them has risen up and wiped us out. Not one. Because the body knows what it is doing. And yet somehow we decided we were smart enough to eliminate 17 of those viruses from existence, and while we were at it we would inject aluminum, mercury, polysorbate 80, fatty lipids, mRNA, and God knows what else directly into the bloodstreams of our children. And we would wear masks. And we would do all of this on the advice of the most educated people in the room. Who told you that you needed any of this? The same people who never once stopped to ask whether the most sophisticated biological system ever created might already know something they don't.

Del Bigtree

107,493 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

Joe Murgia

18,951 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨 SHE SAID IT PERFECTLY: "Have you ever noticed that every single time there is a terrorist attack linked to Muslims, which is 99% of the time, we are immediately told about the 'peaceful Muslim majority?'" "I want to ask a serious question. What is this 'mostly peaceful majority' DOING about the minority that keeps killing people?!" "Like, what are they doing? Are they speaking up about it at all? Because, you know, the attacks keep happening in different cities, different countries. Same words, Allahu Akbar." "And we keep being told that, oh no, this has nothing to do with ideology, nothing to do with the religion, nothing to do with the belief system behind Islam. Really?" "Because let's think about it for a second. Have you ever seen someone exploding themselves, k*lling women and children in public, and then screaming, you know, Christ is king? I've never seen such thing." "And I am sure if this ever happened, all of us Christians would come up and be so against it." "We would condemn it. Like, we would be so loud that something like that would probably never happen again." "How much longer are we going to accept being told that just having common sense and seeing things for what they are makes you a bigot? Because the longer we refuse to tell the truth, the more innocent lives are going to be lost because of this nonsense!"

🚨 SHE SAID IT PERFECTLY: "Have you ever noticed that every single time there is a terrorist attack linked to Muslims, which is 99% of the time, we are immediately told about the 'peaceful Muslim majority?'" "I want to ask a serious question. What is this 'mostly peaceful majority' DOING about the minority that keeps killing people?!" "Like, what are they doing? Are they speaking up about it at all? Because, you know, the attacks keep happening in different cities, different countries. Same words, Allahu Akbar." "And we keep being told that, oh no, this has nothing to do with ideology, nothing to do with the religion, nothing to do with the belief system behind Islam. Really?" "Because let's think about it for a second. Have you ever seen someone exploding themselves, k*lling women and children in public, and then screaming, you know, Christ is king? I've never seen such thing." "And I am sure if this ever happened, all of us Christians would come up and be so against it." "We would condemn it. Like, we would be so loud that something like that would probably never happen again." "How much longer are we going to accept being told that just having common sense and seeing things for what they are makes you a bigot? Because the longer we refuse to tell the truth, the more innocent lives are going to be lost because of this nonsense!"

Eric Daugherty

349,278 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "I think a good idea would be that we frame the discussion not on us saying what you have not done and not on you saying what we have not done, but simply saying that what are we going to do for the people in India in the future, what are the action steps that we need to take. So I would say that it would be an interesting experiment to see if instead of you blaming us and we blaming you, we can try and say on this one issue where we agree, there's no disagreement, there we say, listen, let us just talk about the future of people of India." (Source: Sansad TV)

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "I think a good idea would be that we frame the discussion not on us saying what you have not done and not on you saying what we have not done, but simply saying that what are we going to do for the people in India in the future, what are the action steps that we need to take. So I would say that it would be an interesting experiment to see if instead of you blaming us and we blaming you, we can try and say on this one issue where we agree, there's no disagreement, there we say, listen, let us just talk about the future of people of India." (Source: Sansad TV)

ANI

148,497 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

“The idea was, when he (Vincent D'Onofrio) decides to reveal himself they did a special version of his makeup that was very stretchable. What he does is he grabs the back of his head and he just starts tugging on it. The idea was he would pull it as far as he could, and then we would take over stretching the image, making it appear to be distorting in a way that it physically couldn’t. Then basically when I shot Vince I just kept urging him to pull harder, and harder, and harder until finally the final take he just pulled it until the makeup just ripped. We said, ‘Okay, we got it.’ That’s what’s in the show because it’s really tugging on his face the maximum it could be done, and then we just extended that. Helped by a little bit of editing we were able to put a ridiculously large CG creature inside of a human sized body, and we’re not seeing it all at one time, you kind of get away with the fact that, well maybe he was in there he was just hunched up.” – Eric Brevig, Men In Black visual effects supervisor.

“The idea was, when he (Vincent D'Onofrio) decides to reveal himself they did a special version of his makeup that was very stretchable. What he does is he grabs the back of his head and he just starts tugging on it. The idea was he would pull it as far as he could, and then we would take over stretching the image, making it appear to be distorting in a way that it physically couldn’t. Then basically when I shot Vince I just kept urging him to pull harder, and harder, and harder until finally the final take he just pulled it until the makeup just ripped. We said, ‘Okay, we got it.’ That’s what’s in the show because it’s really tugging on his face the maximum it could be done, and then we just extended that. Helped by a little bit of editing we were able to put a ridiculously large CG creature inside of a human sized body, and we’re not seeing it all at one time, you kind of get away with the fact that, well maybe he was in there he was just hunched up.” – Eric Brevig, Men In Black visual effects supervisor.

Horror4Kids

266,296 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren