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.

IN 1986 MIT FILMED A LECTURE THAT OPENS BY TELLING YOU COMPUTER SCIENCE IS NOT A SCIENCE AND HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTERS 72 minutes from Hal Abelson and Gerald Sussman, the lecture an entire generation of engineers calls the one that rewired how they think. ->... The line that lands: computer science is about computers the way astronomy is about telescopes. The tool was never the point. The real subject was always one thing -- controlling complexity. Everything else is detail. Forty years later it reads like a prophecy. AI writes the syntax now. What's left is exactly what they taught: taming complexity nobody can hold in their head. The language was never the skill -> the thinking was. This is where you learn it. Most people chase the newest framework. The ones who watched this think on a level frameworks can't touch. Bookmark & Watch today it, this one's a legend ↓show more

slash1s

12,212 subscribers

362,357 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Health & Wellness Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

22,107 views • 2 months ago

IN 1985 ONE OF THE GREATEST PHYSICISTS WHO EVER LIVED SAT DOWN TO EXPLAIN HOW COMPUTERS ACTUALLY WORK AND TOLD A ROOM FULL OF ENGINEERS THE MACHINE IS COMPLETELY DUMB 76 minutes from Richard Feynman, still called the clearest explanation of what a computer really is ever given. -> The idea that lands: a computer is just a very, very fast, very, very dumb file clerk. It doesn't think. It follows tiny simple rules, billions of times a second. All the complexity you're in awe of comes from stacking simple things. There's no magic underneath. There never was. Forty years later everyone calls the model "Intelligent". Feynman already told you what it really is: speed, not thought. Being amazed by the machine was never the point -> understanding what it's actually doing is. Most people are dazzled by what AI says. The ones who watched this know exactly what's happening underneath. Bookmark & Watch it today. This one's a legend ↓

IN 1985 ONE OF THE GREATEST PHYSICISTS WHO EVER LIVED SAT DOWN TO EXPLAIN HOW COMPUTERS ACTUALLY WORK AND TOLD A ROOM FULL OF ENGINEERS THE MACHINE IS COMPLETELY DUMB 76 minutes from Richard Feynman, still called the clearest explanation of what a computer really is ever given. -> The idea that lands: a computer is just a very, very fast, very, very dumb file clerk. It doesn't think. It follows tiny simple rules, billions of times a second. All the complexity you're in awe of comes from stacking simple things. There's no magic underneath. There never was. Forty years later everyone calls the model "Intelligent". Feynman already told you what it really is: speed, not thought. Being amazed by the machine was never the point -> understanding what it's actually doing is. Most people are dazzled by what AI says. The ones who watched this know exactly what's happening underneath. Bookmark & Watch it today. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

260,353 views • 2 months ago

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE THAT QUIETLY BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY AI MODEL YOU'VE EVER USED AND ALMOST NO ONE WAS TAUGHT TO SEE IT THAT WAY 39 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years -- the linear algebra course an entire generation of engineers and data scientists grew up on. -> The shift it creates: you stop seeing matrices as boring grids of numbers and start seeing them as the language of space, data, and motion itself. School drilled you to crunch matrices by hand and never told you why. Strang shows you what they actually mean. Every neural net, every embedding, every model you prompt is linear algebra running underneath. The math you skipped is the engine of the thing you use all day. Memorizing the steps was never the skill -> seeing what the numbers do is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people fear linear algebra and move on. The ones who watched this see straight into how AI actually works. Bookmark & Watch it today, this one's a legend ↓

slash1s

433,431 views • 2 months ago

IN 1982 GRACE HOPPER WALKED INTO THE NSA AND EXPLAINED THE NEXT 40 YEARS OF COMPUTING 48 minutes from the woman who invented the compiler -- the first person who made a machine understand human words. -> The idea that lands: stop bending humans to the machine. Bend the machine to humans. She built the first compiler when the experts swore computers could only crunch numbers. She wanted you to write in plain words and let the machine handle the translation. Forty years later you barely write code at all -- you tell the model what you want in plain English and it writes it for you. The compiler was step one. The LLM is the same idea, finished. Memorizing syntax was never the skill -- saying clearly what you actually want is. This is where that idea was born. Most people think talking to your computer in plain English started in 2023. The ones who watch this know a Navy admiral called it in 1982. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓

IN 1982 GRACE HOPPER WALKED INTO THE NSA AND EXPLAINED THE NEXT 40 YEARS OF COMPUTING 48 minutes from the woman who invented the compiler -- the first person who made a machine understand human words. -> The idea that lands: stop bending humans to the machine. Bend the machine to humans. She built the first compiler when the experts swore computers could only crunch numbers. She wanted you to write in plain words and let the machine handle the translation. Forty years later you barely write code at all -- you tell the model what you want in plain English and it writes it for you. The compiler was step one. The LLM is the same idea, finished. Memorizing syntax was never the skill -- saying clearly what you actually want is. This is where that idea was born. Most people think talking to your computer in plain English started in 2023. The ones who watch this know a Navy admiral called it in 1982. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓

slash1s

61,013 views • 2 months ago

IN 2011 ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AI STOOD AT AN MIT BOARD AND EXPLAINED WHY A MIND IS NOT ONE SMART THING -- IT'S A CROWD OF TINY DUMB PARTS THAT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING A lecture from Marvin Minsky, the man who helped invent artificial intelligence, on his life's idea: the Society of Mind. -> The idea that lands: there is no single "You" inside your head. Just hundreds of simple processes, each almost mindless, working together until thinking appears. No magic. No spark. Intelligence is what happens when enough dumb parts are wired the right way. Forty years later that's exactly what an AI model is: billions of tiny switches, none of them smart, somehow producing something that looks like it thinks. Being amazed by intelligence was never the point -> understanding how it's assembled is. Most people think a mind is a mystery. The ones who watched this see the machinery underneath. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

IN 2011 ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AI STOOD AT AN MIT BOARD AND EXPLAINED WHY A MIND IS NOT ONE SMART THING -- IT'S A CROWD OF TINY DUMB PARTS THAT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING A lecture from Marvin Minsky, the man who helped invent artificial intelligence, on his life's idea: the Society of Mind. -> The idea that lands: there is no single "You" inside your head. Just hundreds of simple processes, each almost mindless, working together until thinking appears. No magic. No spark. Intelligence is what happens when enough dumb parts are wired the right way. Forty years later that's exactly what an AI model is: billions of tiny switches, none of them smart, somehow producing something that looks like it thinks. Being amazed by intelligence was never the point -> understanding how it's assembled is. Most people think a mind is a mystery. The ones who watched this see the machinery underneath. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

43,005 views • 2 months ago

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE ON THE ABSTRACT IDEA YOU PROBABLY HATED IN COLLEGE -- THE EXACT MATH GOOGLE LATER USED TO RANK THE ENTIRE INTERNET 50 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years, on eigenvalues -- the one idea most students memorize and never understand. -> The shift it creates: an eigenvector is just the direction a system doesn't twist, only stretches. Find those, and a tangled mess of equations falls apart into something simple. You were drilled to compute them by hand and never told what they were for. Google's entire empire started here. PageRank is one giant eigenvector problem and the same math now sits inside PCA, recommendations, and how models find structure in data. Computing eigenvalues was never the skill -> understanding what they reveal is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people filed this under "Useless college math". The ones who watched this see it running quietly inside half the tech they touch. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

IN 1999 MIT FILMED A MATH LECTURE ON THE ABSTRACT IDEA YOU PROBABLY HATED IN COLLEGE -- THE EXACT MATH GOOGLE LATER USED TO RANK THE ENTIRE INTERNET 50 minutes from Gilbert Strang, who taught this at MIT for over 60 years, on eigenvalues -- the one idea most students memorize and never understand. -> The shift it creates: an eigenvector is just the direction a system doesn't twist, only stretches. Find those, and a tangled mess of equations falls apart into something simple. You were drilled to compute them by hand and never told what they were for. Google's entire empire started here. PageRank is one giant eigenvector problem and the same math now sits inside PCA, recommendations, and how models find structure in data. Computing eigenvalues was never the skill -> understanding what they reveal is. This is where it finally clicks. Most people filed this under "Useless college math". The ones who watched this see it running quietly inside half the tech they touch. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

38,405 views • 2 months ago

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE LANGUAGE RUNNING EVERY WEBSITE YOU USE IS A MINEFIELD AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WAS EVER TAUGHT WHICH PARTS ARE SAFE An hour from Douglas Crockford, the man who invented JSON, on the good parts of JavaScript buried under a pile of blunders nobody warned you about. -> The moment it lands, every weird bug makes sense. The language never had time to be polished. It went global in months, bad parts and all, and you inherited every one of them. Global variables. Silent semicolon insertion. eval. Coercion that turns a simple comparison into a coin flip. Most people never learned to avoid them -- they just lose hours and blame themselves. Writing JavaScript that runs was never the skill -> knowing which half of it to never touch is. And when an AI agent happily generates the bad parts at scale, the person who knows the safe subset is the one who catches it before it ships. Everyone writes JavaScript. Almost no one was shown the line between the parts that save you and the parts that quietly burn you. Bookmark and Watch it ↓

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE LANGUAGE RUNNING EVERY WEBSITE YOU USE IS A MINEFIELD AND THAT ALMOST NO ONE WAS EVER TAUGHT WHICH PARTS ARE SAFE An hour from Douglas Crockford, the man who invented JSON, on the good parts of JavaScript buried under a pile of blunders nobody warned you about. -> The moment it lands, every weird bug makes sense. The language never had time to be polished. It went global in months, bad parts and all, and you inherited every one of them. Global variables. Silent semicolon insertion. eval. Coercion that turns a simple comparison into a coin flip. Most people never learned to avoid them -- they just lose hours and blame themselves. Writing JavaScript that runs was never the skill -> knowing which half of it to never touch is. And when an AI agent happily generates the bad parts at scale, the person who knows the safe subset is the one who catches it before it ships. Everyone writes JavaScript. Almost no one was shown the line between the parts that save you and the parts that quietly burn you. Bookmark and Watch it ↓

slash1s

13,073 views • 2 months ago

A dead MIT professor accidentally destroyed the $20 billion executive coaching industry with one hour of lecture, and ten million people have already watched him do it. He filmed it once in January 2018 and died eighteen months later. Executive coaches charge fifteen thousand dollars a session to teach a third of what he covered in that one hour for free. His name was Patrick Winston. He ran the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory from 1972 to 1997 and wrote the AI textbook every computer science major in the world read for thirty years. Every January for four decades, he gave a lecture called "How to Speak." His entire framework fits on a napkin. Do not read. Be in the image. Keep images simple. Eliminate clutter. Start with an empathetic connection. End with a punch line the audience can repeat over dinner. Never open with a joke. Never end with "thank you." That last rule alone has probably cost the executive coaching industry a hundred million dollars. "Your success in life will be determined largely by your ability to speak, your ability to write, and the quality of your ideas. In that order." That is the actual opening line of the lecture. Winston believed it strongly enough to spend fifty years teaching computer scientists how to talk. Founders spend $80,000 on an MBA and then hire a communications coach to teach them the same material Winston filmed once for free. Engineers write brilliant code and lose promotions to teammates who watched this lecture on the train. The lecture is free on MIT OpenCourseWare. The textbook is free on his page. Winston died in 2019. Almost none of the ten million viewers have actually implemented the four rules on the napkin. The napkin is free. The willingness to actually use it in your next meeting is the entire edge.

A dead MIT professor accidentally destroyed the $20 billion executive coaching industry with one hour of lecture, and ten million people have already watched him do it. He filmed it once in January 2018 and died eighteen months later. Executive coaches charge fifteen thousand dollars a session to teach a third of what he covered in that one hour for free. His name was Patrick Winston. He ran the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory from 1972 to 1997 and wrote the AI textbook every computer science major in the world read for thirty years. Every January for four decades, he gave a lecture called "How to Speak." His entire framework fits on a napkin. Do not read. Be in the image. Keep images simple. Eliminate clutter. Start with an empathetic connection. End with a punch line the audience can repeat over dinner. Never open with a joke. Never end with "thank you." That last rule alone has probably cost the executive coaching industry a hundred million dollars. "Your success in life will be determined largely by your ability to speak, your ability to write, and the quality of your ideas. In that order." That is the actual opening line of the lecture. Winston believed it strongly enough to spend fifty years teaching computer scientists how to talk. Founders spend $80,000 on an MBA and then hire a communications coach to teach them the same material Winston filmed once for free. Engineers write brilliant code and lose promotions to teammates who watched this lecture on the train. The lecture is free on MIT OpenCourseWare. The textbook is free on his page. Winston died in 2019. Almost none of the ten million viewers have actually implemented the four rules on the napkin. The napkin is free. The willingness to actually use it in your next meeting is the entire edge.

Isa

538,103 views • 23 days ago

MIT GAVE DEBUGGING ITS OWN FULL LECTURE -- BECAUSE MOST DEVS STILL HUNT BUGS WITH PRINT STATEMENTS LIKE IT'S 1995 54 minutes that take the thing you do every single day, badly, and show you the tools schools never bothered to teach. -> The moment it lands, you realize "add a print, run it, add another print" was never debugging. It was guessing with extra steps. Most people never learned the real toolkit. A proper debugger, breakpoints, tracing what the program actually does instead of what you assume it does. In 2026 guessing isn't good enough -> the bug is buried in code you didn't even write, and printf won't find it for you. An AI agent will generate hundreds of lines in seconds. When one of them quietly breaks, finding it runs on exactly the skills in this lecture. Anyone can add a print statement. The person who can actually trace a bug to its source is the one who ships while everyone else guesses. Bookmark & Watch it ↓

MIT GAVE DEBUGGING ITS OWN FULL LECTURE -- BECAUSE MOST DEVS STILL HUNT BUGS WITH PRINT STATEMENTS LIKE IT'S 1995 54 minutes that take the thing you do every single day, badly, and show you the tools schools never bothered to teach. -> The moment it lands, you realize "add a print, run it, add another print" was never debugging. It was guessing with extra steps. Most people never learned the real toolkit. A proper debugger, breakpoints, tracing what the program actually does instead of what you assume it does. In 2026 guessing isn't good enough -> the bug is buried in code you didn't even write, and printf won't find it for you. An AI agent will generate hundreds of lines in seconds. When one of them quietly breaks, finding it runs on exactly the skills in this lecture. Anyone can add a print statement. The person who can actually trace a bug to its source is the one who ships while everyone else guesses. Bookmark & Watch it ↓

slash1s

10,864 views • 2 months ago

💡 Did you know the “chemical imbalance” explanation for antidepressants was never grounded in real science? And psychiatrists have admitted they keep telling their patients this because it makes them more likely to take medication. “The chemical imbalance story was pushed for decades, largely by the drug industry.” “It was never grounded in real science.” “And all of this is spilt out into the media… after numerous big review articles came out saying that there was no link between low serotonin and depression.” “‘In truth, the chemical imbalance notion was always kind of an urban legend… never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.’” “Many psychiatrists say this to patients because it makes them more likely to accept a medication and it moves the visits faster.” “Telling someone that they have a chemical imbalance can be a really quick way to kind of educate them about why they need to take a medication.” “It just smooths over the process.” “It’s essentially a lie.” “It teaches them to think that their suffering is caused by a broken brain and that the solution is a pill.” “And when you try and pretend that it boils down to a single thing that you can fix with a drug, you’re misleading patients.” Dr. Josef

💡 Did you know the “chemical imbalance” explanation for antidepressants was never grounded in real science? And psychiatrists have admitted they keep telling their patients this because it makes them more likely to take medication. “The chemical imbalance story was pushed for decades, largely by the drug industry.” “It was never grounded in real science.” “And all of this is spilt out into the media… after numerous big review articles came out saying that there was no link between low serotonin and depression.” “‘In truth, the chemical imbalance notion was always kind of an urban legend… never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.’” “Many psychiatrists say this to patients because it makes them more likely to accept a medication and it moves the visits faster.” “Telling someone that they have a chemical imbalance can be a really quick way to kind of educate them about why they need to take a medication.” “It just smooths over the process.” “It’s essentially a lie.” “It teaches them to think that their suffering is caused by a broken brain and that the solution is a pill.” “And when you try and pretend that it boils down to a single thing that you can fix with a drug, you’re misleading patients.” Dr. Josef

Children’s Health Defense

28,507 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk says every job done at a computer is going like lightning. The last time this happened, the people it happened to came out ahead. Musk: “Anything that is digital, which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning.” Most people in his position soften that. He said it on a podcast without hedging once. Musk: “Just like digital computers took over the job of people doing manual calculations.” Computer was a job title before it was a machine. Rooms full of people working out by hand the arithmetic that kept aircraft in the air and put rockets past the atmosphere. The machines arrived and the title disappeared. Everyone who held it kept working. Dorothy Vaughan taught herself to program the IBM brought in to replace her section, then ran it. Katherine Johnson stopped doing arithmetic and started calculating the path to the moon. Musk: “But much faster.” Speed is the part everyone hears as the threat. It is closer to mercy. They spent years in limbo while an institution worked out what to do with them. Faster means less time waiting for permission to matter. The machine takes the part of your work that was already mechanical, the part you could write down as a procedure. What survives is the judgment about what is worth doing, which never fit in a procedure to begin with. The obvious objection is scale. Manual calculation was one occupation, and this reaches every screen in every industry at once. That same breadth is why the tools are everywhere. They needed an institution to put them on the new machine. Nobody is waiting on that now. The thing doing the replacing runs on a laptop and answers to whoever opens it. Musk gets called a doomer for saying this out loud. Telling people while there is still time to move is the opposite of that. The arithmetic left the building. The people who had been doing it went to the moon.

Elon Musk says every job done at a computer is going like lightning. The last time this happened, the people it happened to came out ahead. Musk: “Anything that is digital, which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning.” Most people in his position soften that. He said it on a podcast without hedging once. Musk: “Just like digital computers took over the job of people doing manual calculations.” Computer was a job title before it was a machine. Rooms full of people working out by hand the arithmetic that kept aircraft in the air and put rockets past the atmosphere. The machines arrived and the title disappeared. Everyone who held it kept working. Dorothy Vaughan taught herself to program the IBM brought in to replace her section, then ran it. Katherine Johnson stopped doing arithmetic and started calculating the path to the moon. Musk: “But much faster.” Speed is the part everyone hears as the threat. It is closer to mercy. They spent years in limbo while an institution worked out what to do with them. Faster means less time waiting for permission to matter. The machine takes the part of your work that was already mechanical, the part you could write down as a procedure. What survives is the judgment about what is worth doing, which never fit in a procedure to begin with. The obvious objection is scale. Manual calculation was one occupation, and this reaches every screen in every industry at once. That same breadth is why the tools are everywhere. They needed an institution to put them on the new machine. Nobody is waiting on that now. The thing doing the replacing runs on a laptop and answers to whoever opens it. Musk gets called a doomer for saying this out loud. Telling people while there is still time to move is the opposite of that. The arithmetic left the building. The people who had been doing it went to the moon.

Dustin

33,223 views • 21 days ago

Ten million people have watched an MIT professor accidentally destroy the executive coaching industry. He filmed the lecture once in January 2018 and died eighteen months later. Executive coaches charge fifteen thousand dollars a session to teach a third of what he covered in one hour for free. His name was Patrick Winston. He ran the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory from 1972 to 1997 and wrote the AI textbook every computer science major in the world read for thirty years. Every January for four decades, he gave a lecture called "How to Speak." His entire framework fits on a napkin. Do not read. Be in the image. Keep images simple. Eliminate clutter. Start with an empathetic connection. End with a punch line the audience can repeat over dinner. Never open with a joke. Never end with "thank you." That last rule alone has probably cost the executive coaching industry a hundred million dollars. "Your success in life will be determined largely by your ability to speak, your ability to write, and the quality of your ideas. In that order." That is the actual opening line of the lecture. Winston believed it strongly enough to spend fifty years teaching computer scientists how to talk. Founders spend $80,000 on an MBA and then hire a communications coach to teach them the same material Winston filmed once for free. Engineers write brilliant code and lose promotions to teammates who watched this lecture on the train. The lecture is free on MIT OpenCourseWare. The textbook is free on his page. Winston died in 2019. Almost none of the ten million viewers have actually implemented the four rules on the napkin. The napkin is free. The willingness to actually use it in your next meeting is the entire edge.

Ten million people have watched an MIT professor accidentally destroy the executive coaching industry. He filmed the lecture once in January 2018 and died eighteen months later. Executive coaches charge fifteen thousand dollars a session to teach a third of what he covered in one hour for free. His name was Patrick Winston. He ran the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory from 1972 to 1997 and wrote the AI textbook every computer science major in the world read for thirty years. Every January for four decades, he gave a lecture called "How to Speak." His entire framework fits on a napkin. Do not read. Be in the image. Keep images simple. Eliminate clutter. Start with an empathetic connection. End with a punch line the audience can repeat over dinner. Never open with a joke. Never end with "thank you." That last rule alone has probably cost the executive coaching industry a hundred million dollars. "Your success in life will be determined largely by your ability to speak, your ability to write, and the quality of your ideas. In that order." That is the actual opening line of the lecture. Winston believed it strongly enough to spend fifty years teaching computer scientists how to talk. Founders spend $80,000 on an MBA and then hire a communications coach to teach them the same material Winston filmed once for free. Engineers write brilliant code and lose promotions to teammates who watched this lecture on the train. The lecture is free on MIT OpenCourseWare. The textbook is free on his page. Winston died in 2019. Almost none of the ten million viewers have actually implemented the four rules on the napkin. The napkin is free. The willingness to actually use it in your next meeting is the entire edge.

Lumen

200,025 views • 22 days ago

The CEO of OpenAI said something that should terrify every coder alive. Sam Altman was asked: "What is the most important skill people should learn in the age of AI?" His answer was not what anyone expected. He said learning to program, the thing every career advisor has drilled into an entire generation is "no longer obviously the right thing." So what does he think actually matters now? Four things and all of them are soft skills. And none of them taught in any computer science program on Earth. Become a high agency, act without being told. Make things happen on your own. Get good at generating ideas because when AI can execute anything, the person who knows what to build wins. Be very resilient, things will break constantly in a world moving at this speed. Be very adaptable, the world is rewriting itself every few months. Keep up or get left behind. But here is the part that changes everything. Altman says these skills are not just personality traits you are born with. They are learnable and deeply learnable. He watched people completely transform in three month bootcamps when he was a startup investor. That was, in his own words, "a big update" to how he sees the world. Now think about what this really means. The CEO of a company worth hundreds of billions is telling the world, the moat is no longer what you know. It is how you think and how you move and the old playbook is dead. The people who understand this right now have a massive head start. Everyone else is studying for a test that no longer exists.

The CEO of OpenAI said something that should terrify every coder alive. Sam Altman was asked: "What is the most important skill people should learn in the age of AI?" His answer was not what anyone expected. He said learning to program, the thing every career advisor has drilled into an entire generation is "no longer obviously the right thing." So what does he think actually matters now? Four things and all of them are soft skills. And none of them taught in any computer science program on Earth. Become a high agency, act without being told. Make things happen on your own. Get good at generating ideas because when AI can execute anything, the person who knows what to build wins. Be very resilient, things will break constantly in a world moving at this speed. Be very adaptable, the world is rewriting itself every few months. Keep up or get left behind. But here is the part that changes everything. Altman says these skills are not just personality traits you are born with. They are learnable and deeply learnable. He watched people completely transform in three month bootcamps when he was a startup investor. That was, in his own words, "a big update" to how he sees the world. Now think about what this really means. The CEO of a company worth hundreds of billions is telling the world, the moat is no longer what you know. It is how you think and how you move and the old playbook is dead. The people who understand this right now have a massive head start. Everyone else is studying for a test that no longer exists.

StockMarket.News

168,255 views • 6 months ago

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 views • 1 month ago

The Anchormen cover the Air Force One story with President Trump being covertly moved to another plane: GAETZ: “The press, they are losing their minds over it. I just think like, “look man, this is a guy who uses every tool. This is a guy who’s always thinking. This is a team that’s always thinking.” “Is this a scandal for the White House, or is this the agile Donald Trump? Can you imagine Joe Biden having to do this? The agile Donald Trump maneuvering the food cart to safety.” POLLACK: “I think the funny thing was the press pivoted so quickly because they were like, “well yeah, it was a security concern.” They’re like, “but you let us go on the airplane”! Thats what they’re upset about. They’re upset because they got on the airplane and nobody snuck them out of the back door. What’s so funny is it tells you how important the press think they are.” WATCH NOW:

The Anchormen cover the Air Force One story with President Trump being covertly moved to another plane: GAETZ: “The press, they are losing their minds over it. I just think like, “look man, this is a guy who uses every tool. This is a guy who’s always thinking. This is a team that’s always thinking.” “Is this a scandal for the White House, or is this the agile Donald Trump? Can you imagine Joe Biden having to do this? The agile Donald Trump maneuvering the food cart to safety.” POLLACK: “I think the funny thing was the press pivoted so quickly because they were like, “well yeah, it was a security concern.” They’re like, “but you let us go on the airplane”! Thats what they’re upset about. They’re upset because they got on the airplane and nobody snuck them out of the back door. What’s so funny is it tells you how important the press think they are.” WATCH NOW:

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz

120,761 views • 20 days ago

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Doc Malik

11,609 views • 6 months ago

🚨 PALANTIR FOUNDER PETER THIEL IS TALKING ABOUT “RESURRECTING THE DEAD” — AND THE WAY HE DESCRIBES THE ANTICHRIST IS SETTING OFF ALARMS This wasn’t random. Thiel brought up a real movement that believed science could “physically resurrect all the dead people” and said there was a time it felt possible. Then he connects it to Christianity: “If the promise of Christianity is a physical resurrection… then science could offer that too.” Then it turns dark. Thiel says: “The slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety.” “The Antichrist probably presents as a great humanitarian… a great philanthropist… an effective altruist.” Not evil. Not obvious. Trusted. “Perhaps we should fear the Antichrist… more than Armageddon.” Think about that. A man talking about: • Bringing the dead back through science • Recreating religious prophecy • A global figure who gains power by “helping” humanity All in the same breath. And he’s not describing it like a theory. He’s describing it like something that could actually happen. So when someone like this starts laying it out, is he warning you… or telling you what’s coming? If you had to name one person today that fits this… who is it?

🚨 PALANTIR FOUNDER PETER THIEL IS TALKING ABOUT “RESURRECTING THE DEAD” — AND THE WAY HE DESCRIBES THE ANTICHRIST IS SETTING OFF ALARMS This wasn’t random. Thiel brought up a real movement that believed science could “physically resurrect all the dead people” and said there was a time it felt possible. Then he connects it to Christianity: “If the promise of Christianity is a physical resurrection… then science could offer that too.” Then it turns dark. Thiel says: “The slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety.” “The Antichrist probably presents as a great humanitarian… a great philanthropist… an effective altruist.” Not evil. Not obvious. Trusted. “Perhaps we should fear the Antichrist… more than Armageddon.” Think about that. A man talking about: • Bringing the dead back through science • Recreating religious prophecy • A global figure who gains power by “helping” humanity All in the same breath. And he’s not describing it like a theory. He’s describing it like something that could actually happen. So when someone like this starts laying it out, is he warning you… or telling you what’s coming? If you had to name one person today that fits this… who is it?

HustleBitch

123,470 views • 4 months ago