Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Introducing the Faxon Twenty-Toucan® — our modular, full-auto-rated .22 suppressor that’s as fun as it is versatile. From rimfire plinking to 5.7x28mm punch, this bird brings the quiet thunder. 🦅 🔧 Easy takedown 🔥 Full-auto rated 🔇 Ultra-quiet performance 🇺🇸 Built in Greater #Cincinnati by Faxon Firearms 🎥 Hit...

Faxon_Firearms's profile picture

Faxon Firearms

58,623 subscribers

31,531 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 10

Фото профиля Chadociraptor🔫
Chadociraptor🔫1 год назад

@GunGiveawayGuy Check this out. Extra entries for the Faxon giveaway this month!!!!

Фото профиля KMac
KMac1 год назад

@DBot836

Фото профиля Mike F
Mike F1 год назад

Very Nice

Фото профиля Murray Chapman
Murray Chapman1 год назад

@Faxon_Firearms is awesome

Фото профиля Faxon Firearms
Faxon Firearms1 год назад

You're awesome!

Фото профиля Frank K
Frank K1 год назад

Gotta get one , thanks

Фото профиля Rick Neal
Rick Neal1 год назад

@2AGawlinks

Фото профиля ManCave Gaws🔫
ManCave Gaws🔫1 год назад

@navysully

Фото профиля Thomas Angilletta 🔫
Thomas Angilletta 🔫1 год назад

@max

Фото профиля 🔫JDeko🚫👢🐍‍🔫
🔫JDeko🚫👢🐍‍🔫1 год назад

@GunGiveawayGuy this is in fact a gun giveaway

Похожие видео

Hello everyone! It’s peer review time again! With this step-by-step “Stone Softening” video, the Peer Review period is officially open. Phew! It took me a while! Over the past few weeks, I didn’t just randomly post “CAST!” There were two reasons for that. One was that I simply didn’t have the time to post or respond to people properly because I was working full throttle on this problem. So why didn’t I just stay quiet? That’s the second reason. I couldn’t stay silent while, for the sake of the video, I went through the entire cycle—from melting stone to recasting—twenty-eight times. Sorry, but I really do have a point. CAST! In this video, you can see the full cycle—from “stone softening” to stone casting. A closed loop. I could have done it using only ancient methods and tools if I lived in intact Peru. This isn’t a “trust me bro” thing—watch the whole thing, and you’ll understand. Well, that’s the end of another mystery. That’s how it is. Peace to its ashes. Huge stones, hundreds of tons, cast, and done. The heaviest object the ancient Peruvian Indians had to lift was a bucket. Sure, I know the road toward Ollantaytambo is decorated with massive stones. There are a few on the mountainside too. Yes, that’s true. But from now on I wouldn’t ask how they carried them down from the quarry (they didn’t). Instead, I’d ask: isn’t the stone’s binder accidentally amorphous silicon dioxide (aka glass)? Because it totally is. “Stone softening” brings these feats down from a superhuman level to something easily doable. It's just masonry work, sorry. Again: this isn’t an opinion. This is a working technology—check out the video. I’m not interested in naysayers’ opinions because they’re wrong. Bye! So, who’s joining me for the peer review? Let's GO!
12:52

Hello everyone! It’s peer review time again! With this step-by-step “Stone Softening” video, the Peer Review period is officially open. Phew! It took me a while! Over the past few weeks, I didn’t just randomly post “CAST!” There were two reasons for that. One was that I simply didn’t have the time to post or respond to people properly because I was working full throttle on this problem. So why didn’t I just stay quiet? That’s the second reason. I couldn’t stay silent while, for the sake of the video, I went through the entire cycle—from melting stone to recasting—twenty-eight times. Sorry, but I really do have a point. CAST! In this video, you can see the full cycle—from “stone softening” to stone casting. A closed loop. I could have done it using only ancient methods and tools if I lived in intact Peru. This isn’t a “trust me bro” thing—watch the whole thing, and you’ll understand. Well, that’s the end of another mystery. That’s how it is. Peace to its ashes. Huge stones, hundreds of tons, cast, and done. The heaviest object the ancient Peruvian Indians had to lift was a bucket. Sure, I know the road toward Ollantaytambo is decorated with massive stones. There are a few on the mountainside too. Yes, that’s true. But from now on I wouldn’t ask how they carried them down from the quarry (they didn’t). Instead, I’d ask: isn’t the stone’s binder accidentally amorphous silicon dioxide (aka glass)? Because it totally is. “Stone softening” brings these feats down from a superhuman level to something easily doable. It's just masonry work, sorry. Again: this isn’t an opinion. This is a working technology—check out the video. I’m not interested in naysayers’ opinions because they’re wrong. Bye! So, who’s joining me for the peer review? Let's GO!

Marcell Fóti 🪨

12,282 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The Musk-Led Manufacturing Revolution Nobody Is Talking About | ZeroHedge When most analysts discuss Tesla, they focus on new vehicles or the electric vehicle company’s advancements in autonomy. Yet, according to Launch i/o CEO Jeff Lutz, one of the most significant—and under-discussed—developments at Tesla is happening not in its design studios or on the road, but in its factories. Lutz, a former executive at Google and Motorola, argues that Tesla’s true innovation isn’t just the electric vehicles or robots it’s building, but how those products are being made. The company’s first-principles approach to manufacturing is a radical departure from the industry norm, focusing not just on cheap labor or existing models, but on rethinking the entire production process. Tesla is creating factories that are the product—designing, testing, and perfecting every element just as they do with their cars. This focus on manufacturing efficiency, Lutz believes, will lead to a dramatic reduction in production costs, potentially bringing them closer to zero. And this shift in how products are built—rather than merely assembled—could set a new standard for the entire manufacturing world. FARZAD MESBAHI: It's no wonder that innovation has been lacking so much it's because we've brute forced essentially manufacturing by leveraging globalization because we had that $2 an hour rate in China or Mexico wherever else like we're not like well we have to just get really good at building stuff to be competitive I was like nah just let him do it like we'll get get our margins just let them do it. JEFF LUTZ: The most under-discussed thing in the analyst world about Tesla is not the new vehicles coming, nor the growing discussions about autonomy, but rather Tesla's next product: their new way of manufacturing. It's a big deal, a huge step in how products are made today, and I don't think many investment firms have the right research people actually looking into what this impact is and what it's going to enable. It's going to enable the variable cost to build products to shrink further and further, approaching zero. This is the step function needed for cost reduction to achieve further scale, and I don’t think enough people are talking about it. It’s going to be how the Cybertruck is made, how Optimus will be made. Tesla versions its factories like they version their product. They spend time perfecting it and have design reviews of their factory designs just as they do with their products. They have specs and performance attributes they are trying to meet. This is very different from what happens at other companies at the executive level. FARZAD MESBAHI: This is such a profound statement because a lot of the stories that I hear are related to, like, say Tesla capitalizing on making manufacturing the product—really just honing in so much on the factory that it becomes the product, the you know, and where we throw around 2 million cars per year, five million cars per year per factory, tens of millions of bots per year sooner than people think. The usual narrative is crazy, pie-in-the-sky; they can't do that, look at Ford, look at BYD, they can only do so much. But what we're missing here is that we've had decades of just sitting on our asses, leveraging cheaper labor versus going out of our way to really push the boundaries of engineering and manufacturing. And now that we have a company that's willing to do that because the leader is viewing that as a first principles approach to manufacturing, right? Instead of like, okay, cheap labor is good, but why aren’t we pushing manufacturing and engineering as much as we can to make this as efficient and as productive as possible? Of course they’re extremely talented, they’re doing something very unique, but it’s also on the backs of 30-40 years of, I’m going to call it laziness. Like, you're just taking the easy way out, and I get it, more profits, you're taking care of shareholders—I get it—but you're not really pushing the boundaries of manufacturing. I think what this leads to is, if companies and leaders truly take this to heart, we’re going to see an explosion in manufacturing across the board. It’s not just going to be a Tesla thing; I think we’re going to see it all over the place. JEFF LUTZ: I’m advising companies on this now, you're going to see massive localization of manufacturing. People think costs just instantly go up when you do that. They do unmitigated, but if you're a company like Tesla and you're thinking about it the way they do, they're actually focused on localizing and making costs go down. Think of it, how many auto factories are expanding in Germany? Just answer that question. Read more:
1:57

The Musk-Led Manufacturing Revolution Nobody Is Talking About | ZeroHedge When most analysts discuss Tesla, they focus on new vehicles or the electric vehicle company’s advancements in autonomy. Yet, according to Launch i/o CEO Jeff Lutz, one of the most significant—and under-discussed—developments at Tesla is happening not in its design studios or on the road, but in its factories. Lutz, a former executive at Google and Motorola, argues that Tesla’s true innovation isn’t just the electric vehicles or robots it’s building, but how those products are being made. The company’s first-principles approach to manufacturing is a radical departure from the industry norm, focusing not just on cheap labor or existing models, but on rethinking the entire production process. Tesla is creating factories that are the product—designing, testing, and perfecting every element just as they do with their cars. This focus on manufacturing efficiency, Lutz believes, will lead to a dramatic reduction in production costs, potentially bringing them closer to zero. And this shift in how products are built—rather than merely assembled—could set a new standard for the entire manufacturing world. FARZAD MESBAHI: It's no wonder that innovation has been lacking so much it's because we've brute forced essentially manufacturing by leveraging globalization because we had that $2 an hour rate in China or Mexico wherever else like we're not like well we have to just get really good at building stuff to be competitive I was like nah just let him do it like we'll get get our margins just let them do it. JEFF LUTZ: The most under-discussed thing in the analyst world about Tesla is not the new vehicles coming, nor the growing discussions about autonomy, but rather Tesla's next product: their new way of manufacturing. It's a big deal, a huge step in how products are made today, and I don't think many investment firms have the right research people actually looking into what this impact is and what it's going to enable. It's going to enable the variable cost to build products to shrink further and further, approaching zero. This is the step function needed for cost reduction to achieve further scale, and I don’t think enough people are talking about it. It’s going to be how the Cybertruck is made, how Optimus will be made. Tesla versions its factories like they version their product. They spend time perfecting it and have design reviews of their factory designs just as they do with their products. They have specs and performance attributes they are trying to meet. This is very different from what happens at other companies at the executive level. FARZAD MESBAHI: This is such a profound statement because a lot of the stories that I hear are related to, like, say Tesla capitalizing on making manufacturing the product—really just honing in so much on the factory that it becomes the product, the you know, and where we throw around 2 million cars per year, five million cars per year per factory, tens of millions of bots per year sooner than people think. The usual narrative is crazy, pie-in-the-sky; they can't do that, look at Ford, look at BYD, they can only do so much. But what we're missing here is that we've had decades of just sitting on our asses, leveraging cheaper labor versus going out of our way to really push the boundaries of engineering and manufacturing. And now that we have a company that's willing to do that because the leader is viewing that as a first principles approach to manufacturing, right? Instead of like, okay, cheap labor is good, but why aren’t we pushing manufacturing and engineering as much as we can to make this as efficient and as productive as possible? Of course they’re extremely talented, they’re doing something very unique, but it’s also on the backs of 30-40 years of, I’m going to call it laziness. Like, you're just taking the easy way out, and I get it, more profits, you're taking care of shareholders—I get it—but you're not really pushing the boundaries of manufacturing. I think what this leads to is, if companies and leaders truly take this to heart, we’re going to see an explosion in manufacturing across the board. It’s not just going to be a Tesla thing; I think we’re going to see it all over the place. JEFF LUTZ: I’m advising companies on this now, you're going to see massive localization of manufacturing. People think costs just instantly go up when you do that. They do unmitigated, but if you're a company like Tesla and you're thinking about it the way they do, they're actually focused on localizing and making costs go down. Think of it, how many auto factories are expanding in Germany? Just answer that question. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

58,478 просмотров • 1 год назад

Understanding Tonight’s Solar Storm and What It Means A G5 is the top of the scale, the kind of solar storm powerful enough to light up the skies across half a continent and, in extreme cases, mess with the infrastructure that quietly runs our world. It’s not science fiction; it’s space weather, and it’s happened before. Back in 1989, a storm of this strength knocked out power to six million people in Quebec for nearly a day. Go further back to 1859, the famous Carrington Event and you get telegraph wires bursting into flames and aurora visible in the Caribbean. On that scale, tonight’s storm doesn’t look apocalyptic, but it’s still serious. Right now, the readings have hit what’s considered a G4 to borderline G5 level. That means the Earth’s magnetic field is being hit hard by a burst of solar plasma and what scientists call a coronal mass ejection. Essentially, the Sun hurled a cloud of charged particles at us, and when it collides with our magnetosphere, it compresses it like a drum. Those magnetic fluctuations induce currents that can run through anything long and conductive…power lines, pipelines, satellites, even the ground itself. That’s why space weather alerts always talk about power grids and communication systems. Modern infrastructure is built to handle volatility, but not cosmic scale volatility. Grid operators are already shifting load and monitoring for those geomagnetically induced currents that caused so much trouble in 1989. Satellite operators are doing the same…tweaking orbits, rotating hardware, reducing exposure. The idea is to ride it out rather than resist it. For the rest of us, the biggest impact is aesthetic, aurora could be visible much farther south than usual, maybe as far as the Gulf states if conditions hold. It’s one of those rare nights where a solar event becomes a cultural one. But it’s also a quiet reminder of how thin our technological skin really is. A strong enough storm can reach across space and touch systems that feel untouchable like our grids, GPS, communications, even financial networks. The storm is expected to peak overnight into November 12, and while it likely won’t reach the catastrophic intensity of 1859 or even 1989, it’s strong enough to make the world pause and look up. For a few hours, the same force that powers life on Earth, the Sun itself becomes unpredictable again. Right now it’s a light show. But it’s also a humbling one. Every now and then, the universe reminds us that we’re not in control of as much as we think, we’re just living inside the weather system of a star. 🎥 Here’s actor Dennis Quaid talking about what a worst case scenario could look like if a truly massive solar storm ever hit.
2:20

Understanding Tonight’s Solar Storm and What It Means A G5 is the top of the scale, the kind of solar storm powerful enough to light up the skies across half a continent and, in extreme cases, mess with the infrastructure that quietly runs our world. It’s not science fiction; it’s space weather, and it’s happened before. Back in 1989, a storm of this strength knocked out power to six million people in Quebec for nearly a day. Go further back to 1859, the famous Carrington Event and you get telegraph wires bursting into flames and aurora visible in the Caribbean. On that scale, tonight’s storm doesn’t look apocalyptic, but it’s still serious. Right now, the readings have hit what’s considered a G4 to borderline G5 level. That means the Earth’s magnetic field is being hit hard by a burst of solar plasma and what scientists call a coronal mass ejection. Essentially, the Sun hurled a cloud of charged particles at us, and when it collides with our magnetosphere, it compresses it like a drum. Those magnetic fluctuations induce currents that can run through anything long and conductive…power lines, pipelines, satellites, even the ground itself. That’s why space weather alerts always talk about power grids and communication systems. Modern infrastructure is built to handle volatility, but not cosmic scale volatility. Grid operators are already shifting load and monitoring for those geomagnetically induced currents that caused so much trouble in 1989. Satellite operators are doing the same…tweaking orbits, rotating hardware, reducing exposure. The idea is to ride it out rather than resist it. For the rest of us, the biggest impact is aesthetic, aurora could be visible much farther south than usual, maybe as far as the Gulf states if conditions hold. It’s one of those rare nights where a solar event becomes a cultural one. But it’s also a quiet reminder of how thin our technological skin really is. A strong enough storm can reach across space and touch systems that feel untouchable like our grids, GPS, communications, even financial networks. The storm is expected to peak overnight into November 12, and while it likely won’t reach the catastrophic intensity of 1859 or even 1989, it’s strong enough to make the world pause and look up. For a few hours, the same force that powers life on Earth, the Sun itself becomes unpredictable again. Right now it’s a light show. But it’s also a humbling one. Every now and then, the universe reminds us that we’re not in control of as much as we think, we’re just living inside the weather system of a star. 🎥 Here’s actor Dennis Quaid talking about what a worst case scenario could look like if a truly massive solar storm ever hit.

EndGame Macro

40,832 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

If you’re visiting Kyoto, here’s a perfect day trip you probably didn’t expect. A route where you can visit the Nintendo Museum, eat amazing mazemen, and see a World Heritage site — all in one day. Nintendo Museum — About 30 minutes by train from Kyoto Station. Tickets are distributed by lottery, and applications open three months in advance, so reservations are essential. On weekends and holidays, the odds can be 30 to 1 or even higher, making it one of the most competitive tickets in Japan. When I finally visited, it brought back so many memories. All the games I used to play as a kid kept appearing one after another. I even tried Mario Kart with a giant controller and somehow got first place🤣 The shop is full of exclusive items you can only buy here, and I definitely bought way too many T-shirts haha. Seikou Udoku — About 4 minutes by taxi or 20 minutes on foot from Nintendo Museum. I was looking for a good ramen spot in Uji and decided to try this place. It turned out to be really good. Their spicy mazemen is seriously addictive. After finishing the bowl, I immediately thought, “I want to come back again.” If you like spicy food or curry-style flavors, I highly recommend it. It’s also very highly rated, so it’s easy to see why locals love it. Byodo-in Phoenix Hall — About 7 minutes by taxi or 20 minutes on foot from Seikou Udoku. A UNESCO World Heritage site, famous for appearing on the 10-yen coin. The building looks like it’s floating on the pond, and the view is absolutely beautiful. I’ve visited several times, and every time I come back, I’m impressed all over again. If you visit Kyoto, this is a place you shouldn’t miss. Uji turned out to be a much more packed and rewarding day than I expected. I’ve attached a video from my previous visit, so feel free to check it out.
0:50

If you’re visiting Kyoto, here’s a perfect day trip you probably didn’t expect. A route where you can visit the Nintendo Museum, eat amazing mazemen, and see a World Heritage site — all in one day. Nintendo Museum — About 30 minutes by train from Kyoto Station. Tickets are distributed by lottery, and applications open three months in advance, so reservations are essential. On weekends and holidays, the odds can be 30 to 1 or even higher, making it one of the most competitive tickets in Japan. When I finally visited, it brought back so many memories. All the games I used to play as a kid kept appearing one after another. I even tried Mario Kart with a giant controller and somehow got first place🤣 The shop is full of exclusive items you can only buy here, and I definitely bought way too many T-shirts haha. Seikou Udoku — About 4 minutes by taxi or 20 minutes on foot from Nintendo Museum. I was looking for a good ramen spot in Uji and decided to try this place. It turned out to be really good. Their spicy mazemen is seriously addictive. After finishing the bowl, I immediately thought, “I want to come back again.” If you like spicy food or curry-style flavors, I highly recommend it. It’s also very highly rated, so it’s easy to see why locals love it. Byodo-in Phoenix Hall — About 7 minutes by taxi or 20 minutes on foot from Seikou Udoku. A UNESCO World Heritage site, famous for appearing on the 10-yen coin. The building looks like it’s floating on the pond, and the view is absolutely beautiful. I’ve visited several times, and every time I come back, I’m impressed all over again. If you visit Kyoto, this is a place you shouldn’t miss. Uji turned out to be a much more packed and rewarding day than I expected. I’ve attached a video from my previous visit, so feel free to check it out.

KODAI GO🇯🇵

11,003 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Racine, Wisconsin and the Mark of the Beast The so-called “8th Wonder of the World” (as Trump called it) isn’t just some economic project—it’s a technocratic hellscape in the making. •Artificial General Intelligence innovation? Being built, tested, and fast-tracked straight out of Racine. That’s full blown Skynet. •Smart Cities? The first one was birthed right here, thanks to Clinton and the “Sustainable Racine Initiative.” •mRNA madness? Project Stargate is cooking up the next phase of genetic engineering there as we speak. •Satanic HQ of America? Wisconsin has over 100,000 practicing Satanists—more than California, Texas, and New York combined. •Satanic Covens? 297 official groups—more than all of Europe. That’s a fact. Numbers can be corroborated using this tool: •Pedophiles & Traffickers? Just type “Racine pedophile” or “Racine trafficking” into any search engine. Everywhere you look—billionaires, politicians, degenerates, politicians, police, even the so-called “random” creeps—it’s all connected. •Bohemian Grove-level occult rituals? Check. Child sacrifice? Check. Portals? Yep, you read that right. Being studied both scientifically and alchemically, add in some satanic ritual abuse and BOOM, we got ourselves a world class satanic screw job. Beast System anyone? •It’s even where 5G started up and got implemented. The Illuminati was officially founded in 1776 by Mayer Amschel Rothschild. The Rothschilds have deep ties to Racine. Search “Rothschild obituary Racine”, seems like they’ve been there from the beginning. Searching for “insert Satanic conspiracy” + Racine is like Googling any random 5/6-digit number + “Covid cases” back in 2020—you’ll always find something. Which is particularly strange. If you know you know. Ever heard of a city that rolls Skynet-level AI, biometric surveillance, predictive policing, Smart City dystopia, mRNA bio-experiments, Rothschild bloodlines, transhumanist Frankenstein labs, and full-blown Satanic ritual abuse & sacrifice into one neat little package? Welcome to Racine, Wisconsin. The elite’s best-kept secret OR diversion? And let’s not forget the kids—because wherever you find elite obsession, secret societies, and dystopian tech experiments, you’ll always find children being used, abused, and sacrificed in the shadows. It’s not just a test city—it’s a control center. A breeding ground for the future they want, where transhumanist nightmares and Luciferian doctrine go hand in hand. Now ask yourself: Why has nobody told you about it? Who’s Connected to Racine? Every goddamn name you’d expect: ✔ Microsoft ✔ OpenAI ✔ Stargate LLC ✔ mRNA Industry ✔ Foxconn ✔ Brad Smith ✔ Bill Gates ✔ Sam Altman ✔ Elon Musk ✔ Larry Ellison ✔ The Koch brothers ✔️ Peter Thiel ✔️ SC Johnson partnered with “Save the children” It. Never. Ends. Perhaps that’s the point. Racine isn’t just another corrupt city—it’s a Satanic stronghold. •The Rotary Club? Founded by Paul Harris of Racine. •The United Nations Charter? Drafted with the help of 49 Rotarians. • Every single piece of the coming Beast System? Traces back here. This tiny city has more Satanists, missing children, and pedophiles per capita than any godforsaken hellhole you’ve ever heard of—and yet, nobody talks about it. Not the mainstream. Not your favorite “anti-elite” influencers. Not even the supposed pedo hunters who made their careers exposing Pizzagate. Why? Because Racine is where the real game is played. And once you start looking, you realize every road leads back to it. I’m not claiming to be the ultimate authority on this—I don’t need to be. But I do have a responsibility to expose the rot as much as I can, for as long as I can. Fair warning from someone who’s done the digging: Nothing is ever what it seems. But it’s all Bad regardless Racine is the real DC, the hub for pizzagate-like conspiracy, satanism, and model for Agenda 21 and 2030 leading to the Mark of the Beast.
4:23

Racine, Wisconsin and the Mark of the Beast The so-called “8th Wonder of the World” (as Trump called it) isn’t just some economic project—it’s a technocratic hellscape in the making. •Artificial General Intelligence innovation? Being built, tested, and fast-tracked straight out of Racine. That’s full blown Skynet. •Smart Cities? The first one was birthed right here, thanks to Clinton and the “Sustainable Racine Initiative.” •mRNA madness? Project Stargate is cooking up the next phase of genetic engineering there as we speak. •Satanic HQ of America? Wisconsin has over 100,000 practicing Satanists—more than California, Texas, and New York combined. •Satanic Covens? 297 official groups—more than all of Europe. That’s a fact. Numbers can be corroborated using this tool: •Pedophiles & Traffickers? Just type “Racine pedophile” or “Racine trafficking” into any search engine. Everywhere you look—billionaires, politicians, degenerates, politicians, police, even the so-called “random” creeps—it’s all connected. •Bohemian Grove-level occult rituals? Check. Child sacrifice? Check. Portals? Yep, you read that right. Being studied both scientifically and alchemically, add in some satanic ritual abuse and BOOM, we got ourselves a world class satanic screw job. Beast System anyone? •It’s even where 5G started up and got implemented. The Illuminati was officially founded in 1776 by Mayer Amschel Rothschild. The Rothschilds have deep ties to Racine. Search “Rothschild obituary Racine”, seems like they’ve been there from the beginning. Searching for “insert Satanic conspiracy” + Racine is like Googling any random 5/6-digit number + “Covid cases” back in 2020—you’ll always find something. Which is particularly strange. If you know you know. Ever heard of a city that rolls Skynet-level AI, biometric surveillance, predictive policing, Smart City dystopia, mRNA bio-experiments, Rothschild bloodlines, transhumanist Frankenstein labs, and full-blown Satanic ritual abuse & sacrifice into one neat little package? Welcome to Racine, Wisconsin. The elite’s best-kept secret OR diversion? And let’s not forget the kids—because wherever you find elite obsession, secret societies, and dystopian tech experiments, you’ll always find children being used, abused, and sacrificed in the shadows. It’s not just a test city—it’s a control center. A breeding ground for the future they want, where transhumanist nightmares and Luciferian doctrine go hand in hand. Now ask yourself: Why has nobody told you about it? Who’s Connected to Racine? Every goddamn name you’d expect: ✔ Microsoft ✔ OpenAI ✔ Stargate LLC ✔ mRNA Industry ✔ Foxconn ✔ Brad Smith ✔ Bill Gates ✔ Sam Altman ✔ Elon Musk ✔ Larry Ellison ✔ The Koch brothers ✔️ Peter Thiel ✔️ SC Johnson partnered with “Save the children” It. Never. Ends. Perhaps that’s the point. Racine isn’t just another corrupt city—it’s a Satanic stronghold. •The Rotary Club? Founded by Paul Harris of Racine. •The United Nations Charter? Drafted with the help of 49 Rotarians. • Every single piece of the coming Beast System? Traces back here. This tiny city has more Satanists, missing children, and pedophiles per capita than any godforsaken hellhole you’ve ever heard of—and yet, nobody talks about it. Not the mainstream. Not your favorite “anti-elite” influencers. Not even the supposed pedo hunters who made their careers exposing Pizzagate. Why? Because Racine is where the real game is played. And once you start looking, you realize every road leads back to it. I’m not claiming to be the ultimate authority on this—I don’t need to be. But I do have a responsibility to expose the rot as much as I can, for as long as I can. Fair warning from someone who’s done the digging: Nothing is ever what it seems. But it’s all Bad regardless Racine is the real DC, the hub for pizzagate-like conspiracy, satanism, and model for Agenda 21 and 2030 leading to the Mark of the Beast.

🔥Sir Escanor (𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘚𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳)🔥

66,027 просмотров • 1 год назад

“They cannot believe this result, say that the only way that this could be true is if it was fraud and cheating.” Actually no, it’s not that “the only way Spencer Pratt could lose is if there was fraud and cheating.” At least not for me and for most people I’ve spoken to or seen speaking. And I understand that had he advanced to the general, Pratt would’ve had an uphill battle and a hell of a long shot in front of him. The issue isn’t “it must be fraud;” the issue is that in California and these progressive-run states and cities, we’ve built an electoral system that begs the public to mistrust it—not because we lose but because it’s not as secure as it could be; it is objectively left open to vulnerabilities, and we can only assume this is purposeful and willful. An election that requires no photo ID to prove you are who you say you are is open to fraud. A bad actor needs only your name and address, and they could cast a vote in person in your stead, and you wouldn’t know until your vote got rejected and you had to cast a provisional ballot. There’s no security against that. Again, if a person knows your name and address, they can vote for you. No other info is given at the vote center. And since Covid, we mass mail out ballots to every single voter—even to people who don’t want them. I see ballots everywhere, discarded on apartment complex mailboxes because they belong to someone who no longer lives there. I’ve received ballots that aren’t mine. I’ve had my ballot sent to an address that’s not mine. And I can’t request to not have a ballot sent to me. It’s forced on me—even if I vote in person. And universal mail-in ballots present another very easy way a person could vote on your behalf—and again, you wouldn’t know until you tried to vote, got rejected, and had to fill out a provisional ballot. Yes, your ballot showing up at your door is super convenient; it also opens the door to fraud. And a mere 7 years ago, we didn’t do it like this, and still people who wanted or needed to vote by mail could do it; they just had to request it. And under that system, nobody screamed “voter suppression” or “disenfranchisement,” but now we do—not because it’s actually voter suppression but because we’ve gotten used to the convenience. And why are we allowing for ballot harvesting? Why should it be legal for you to collect ballots en masse from people you don’t know and aren’t related to? Again, that opens the door to fraud, tampering, and undue influence. And why do we accept mail-in ballots that arrive seven days post election? California gives you so many avenues and so much time (a full month) to return your ballot that you should be able to get your ballot to its final destination by election night—not just in the mail but to its final destination. This is called…being an adult and mailing things on time. Not voter suppression. It’s not a matter of opinion that all of the above opens our elections to more fraud and general mistrust; it’s a matter of fact. We’re trading security for convenience. That trade-off might be worth it to Democrats, but it shouldn’t be, and it’s not worth it to all of us. A country cannot stand if nearly half or half or more than half of the populace doesn’t trust the election process. That’s not a Republican issue or a MAGA issue; that’s a United States of America issue. So no, it’s not about “my guy wins or it’s fraud.” It’s about objectively we’re leaving our elections vulnerable to fraudulent activity. We’re the greatest nation in the world, and yet other countries have more secure (and also quicker) electoral processes. That’s unacceptable. None of the above would put undue burden on a voter—and yet all of it would help secure the voter and fortify against fraud.
0:39

“They cannot believe this result, say that the only way that this could be true is if it was fraud and cheating.” Actually no, it’s not that “the only way Spencer Pratt could lose is if there was fraud and cheating.” At least not for me and for most people I’ve spoken to or seen speaking. And I understand that had he advanced to the general, Pratt would’ve had an uphill battle and a hell of a long shot in front of him. The issue isn’t “it must be fraud;” the issue is that in California and these progressive-run states and cities, we’ve built an electoral system that begs the public to mistrust it—not because we lose but because it’s not as secure as it could be; it is objectively left open to vulnerabilities, and we can only assume this is purposeful and willful. An election that requires no photo ID to prove you are who you say you are is open to fraud. A bad actor needs only your name and address, and they could cast a vote in person in your stead, and you wouldn’t know until your vote got rejected and you had to cast a provisional ballot. There’s no security against that. Again, if a person knows your name and address, they can vote for you. No other info is given at the vote center. And since Covid, we mass mail out ballots to every single voter—even to people who don’t want them. I see ballots everywhere, discarded on apartment complex mailboxes because they belong to someone who no longer lives there. I’ve received ballots that aren’t mine. I’ve had my ballot sent to an address that’s not mine. And I can’t request to not have a ballot sent to me. It’s forced on me—even if I vote in person. And universal mail-in ballots present another very easy way a person could vote on your behalf—and again, you wouldn’t know until you tried to vote, got rejected, and had to fill out a provisional ballot. Yes, your ballot showing up at your door is super convenient; it also opens the door to fraud. And a mere 7 years ago, we didn’t do it like this, and still people who wanted or needed to vote by mail could do it; they just had to request it. And under that system, nobody screamed “voter suppression” or “disenfranchisement,” but now we do—not because it’s actually voter suppression but because we’ve gotten used to the convenience. And why are we allowing for ballot harvesting? Why should it be legal for you to collect ballots en masse from people you don’t know and aren’t related to? Again, that opens the door to fraud, tampering, and undue influence. And why do we accept mail-in ballots that arrive seven days post election? California gives you so many avenues and so much time (a full month) to return your ballot that you should be able to get your ballot to its final destination by election night—not just in the mail but to its final destination. This is called…being an adult and mailing things on time. Not voter suppression. It’s not a matter of opinion that all of the above opens our elections to more fraud and general mistrust; it’s a matter of fact. We’re trading security for convenience. That trade-off might be worth it to Democrats, but it shouldn’t be, and it’s not worth it to all of us. A country cannot stand if nearly half or half or more than half of the populace doesn’t trust the election process. That’s not a Republican issue or a MAGA issue; that’s a United States of America issue. So no, it’s not about “my guy wins or it’s fraud.” It’s about objectively we’re leaving our elections vulnerable to fraudulent activity. We’re the greatest nation in the world, and yet other countries have more secure (and also quicker) electoral processes. That’s unacceptable. None of the above would put undue burden on a voter—and yet all of it would help secure the voter and fortify against fraud.

Natalie Jean Beisner

25,694 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Very excited to announce that at 12:20am on the 4th of July, Aalo achieved criticality on our first full-scale reactor. We cut it close, but we pulled it off!! Working towards this goal with such an incredible group of humans has been the most fulfilling period of my life. This moment has been three years in the making. Last year, Executive Order 14301 called for at least three new reactors to go critical before July 4th, 2026. As of late last Friday night, that goal has been surpassed! When the EO was announced, we immediately sat down to figure out what the most ambitious scope would be, while still being potentially achievable by July 4th. Some of the team proposed doing simplified designs with smaller fuel loads, or building in existing facilities. One thing was clear: We wouldn't have time to integrate a full-scale sodium heat-removal loop to bring the reactor to its full 30 MWt. So here’s where we landed: ➡️ We purchased the entire commercial-scale fuel load. This is enough fuel to operate at 30 MWt / 10 MWe for 3 years before refueling. To my knowledge, it’s the largest fuel load that’s been taken critical in the DOE pilot program, by far. ➡️ We built a full-scale reactor vessel in our factory, and loaded in our commercial graphite layout. All the dimensions, vessel thickness, and manufacturing techniques are essentially the same as we will use for the imminent commercial version. There will be a few minor tweaks for sodium flow and full-power, but nothing major. ➡️ We built an entirely new reactor facility at the Idaho National Lab. Building a building is easy. Building a new reactor facility comes with a mountain of paperwork, policies, operation and training procedures, security, instrumentation and control, and more. Zero-power criticality might seem like a small step, but I can tell you, going through the exercise of building a reactor and taking it to criticality has been extremely valuable. The learnings on regulatory, ops, manufacturing, supply chain, QA, economics, engineering, and design will accelerate our path through to the final iteration at full-power. America is blessed to have a recent Cambrian explosion of startups in nuclear, all going after different markets, technologies, and strategies. I’m excited that sodium, gas, salt, and new PWRs are all getting pushed forward once again. The best outcome for humanity is to have all these advance in parallel, as quickly as possible, while maintaining safety. Thanks again to our amazing team, DOE, INL, BEA, and everyone else who helped us get to where we are today. This could not have happened anywhere else. Happy birthday, America!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 There has never been a better time for nuclear energy. The Second Atomic Age has begun, and this one will be here to stay.
1:47

Very excited to announce that at 12:20am on the 4th of July, Aalo achieved criticality on our first full-scale reactor. We cut it close, but we pulled it off!! Working towards this goal with such an incredible group of humans has been the most fulfilling period of my life. This moment has been three years in the making. Last year, Executive Order 14301 called for at least three new reactors to go critical before July 4th, 2026. As of late last Friday night, that goal has been surpassed! When the EO was announced, we immediately sat down to figure out what the most ambitious scope would be, while still being potentially achievable by July 4th. Some of the team proposed doing simplified designs with smaller fuel loads, or building in existing facilities. One thing was clear: We wouldn't have time to integrate a full-scale sodium heat-removal loop to bring the reactor to its full 30 MWt. So here’s where we landed: ➡️ We purchased the entire commercial-scale fuel load. This is enough fuel to operate at 30 MWt / 10 MWe for 3 years before refueling. To my knowledge, it’s the largest fuel load that’s been taken critical in the DOE pilot program, by far. ➡️ We built a full-scale reactor vessel in our factory, and loaded in our commercial graphite layout. All the dimensions, vessel thickness, and manufacturing techniques are essentially the same as we will use for the imminent commercial version. There will be a few minor tweaks for sodium flow and full-power, but nothing major. ➡️ We built an entirely new reactor facility at the Idaho National Lab. Building a building is easy. Building a new reactor facility comes with a mountain of paperwork, policies, operation and training procedures, security, instrumentation and control, and more. Zero-power criticality might seem like a small step, but I can tell you, going through the exercise of building a reactor and taking it to criticality has been extremely valuable. The learnings on regulatory, ops, manufacturing, supply chain, QA, economics, engineering, and design will accelerate our path through to the final iteration at full-power. America is blessed to have a recent Cambrian explosion of startups in nuclear, all going after different markets, technologies, and strategies. I’m excited that sodium, gas, salt, and new PWRs are all getting pushed forward once again. The best outcome for humanity is to have all these advance in parallel, as quickly as possible, while maintaining safety. Thanks again to our amazing team, DOE, INL, BEA, and everyone else who helped us get to where we are today. This could not have happened anywhere else. Happy birthday, America!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 There has never been a better time for nuclear energy. The Second Atomic Age has begun, and this one will be here to stay.

Matt Loszak | Aalo Atomics

473,320 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: What the CBC deleted from their ambush of Pierre Poilievre Last week a government comedian from Trudeau’s CBC’s state broadcaster attended a Pierre Poilievre rally to ambush the Conservative Party leader. Dan Dillabough, who works for the low-rated CBC show: This Hour Has 22 Minutes, tried to reheat the tired gag that Mary Walsh first did decades ago with her character Marg Delahunty, where she would interrupt and berate politicians. In Dillabough’s version, it was done without the costume, the colourful character or any of the jokes. And painfully, without the usual 22 Minutes laugh track. The CBC tweeted out the video of their ambush, which bombed with viewers on social media. But at the 1:15 mark in the video, a jump-cut edit can be seen — something had been deleted. What was it? It couldn’t have been something embarrassing said by Poilievre — that would have been kept in for sure. Rebel News reached out to Chuck Thompson, head of public affairs at the CBC. He replied saying, “as is the case with most interviews that 22 Minutes does, this one was edited for time.” Thompson did send over the full, unedited version of the interaction in question, however, which included the deleted clip — which was a grand total of three seconds! So what were those three seconds? It was Dillabough responding to Poilievre’s criticism of the CBC. Poilievre had just told Dillabough that when he’s prime minister, CBC staff like him will “have to earn a living rather than getting it from taxpayers’ money”. It was Dillabough’s reply that was cut out by CBC editors: “Oh listen, I’m one of the good ones.” Three seconds — it wasn’t to save time. So why was that comment cut? Those three seconds showed Dillabough panicking in the moment, not knowing what to say when Poilievre predictably criticized the CBC. Perhaps by claiming he was one of the “good ones”, Dillabough thought he might ingratiate himself with Poilievre, who seemed bored with the whole exchange. But more importantly, Dillabough’s comments confirmed that he knows most CBC staff, from the CEO on down, are partisan activists who do seek to undermine the Conservative Party under the guise of journalism or, in this case, comedy. He was saying the quiet part out loud — and claiming not to be part of it. Dillabough was condemning the rest of the CBC — he was throwing his colleagues under the bus. There was no editorial or comedic reason to cut those three seconds. They were cut for purely political reasons — so as not to embarrass the CBC politically. Which just proves that everything at the CBC — from journalism to “comedy” — is edited with a political eye. But even as they released the full video to Rebel News, the CBC couldn’t help one last act of disinformation — claiming it was “edited for time.” There are only three things you need to know about the CBC: 1. They take $1.5 billion of your tax dollars every year. 2. They hate you. 3. And they lie to you. FIGHT BACK! Sign our petition at
0:21

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: What the CBC deleted from their ambush of Pierre Poilievre Last week a government comedian from Trudeau’s CBC’s state broadcaster attended a Pierre Poilievre rally to ambush the Conservative Party leader. Dan Dillabough, who works for the low-rated CBC show: This Hour Has 22 Minutes, tried to reheat the tired gag that Mary Walsh first did decades ago with her character Marg Delahunty, where she would interrupt and berate politicians. In Dillabough’s version, it was done without the costume, the colourful character or any of the jokes. And painfully, without the usual 22 Minutes laugh track. The CBC tweeted out the video of their ambush, which bombed with viewers on social media. But at the 1:15 mark in the video, a jump-cut edit can be seen — something had been deleted. What was it? It couldn’t have been something embarrassing said by Poilievre — that would have been kept in for sure. Rebel News reached out to Chuck Thompson, head of public affairs at the CBC. He replied saying, “as is the case with most interviews that 22 Minutes does, this one was edited for time.” Thompson did send over the full, unedited version of the interaction in question, however, which included the deleted clip — which was a grand total of three seconds! So what were those three seconds? It was Dillabough responding to Poilievre’s criticism of the CBC. Poilievre had just told Dillabough that when he’s prime minister, CBC staff like him will “have to earn a living rather than getting it from taxpayers’ money”. It was Dillabough’s reply that was cut out by CBC editors: “Oh listen, I’m one of the good ones.” Three seconds — it wasn’t to save time. So why was that comment cut? Those three seconds showed Dillabough panicking in the moment, not knowing what to say when Poilievre predictably criticized the CBC. Perhaps by claiming he was one of the “good ones”, Dillabough thought he might ingratiate himself with Poilievre, who seemed bored with the whole exchange. But more importantly, Dillabough’s comments confirmed that he knows most CBC staff, from the CEO on down, are partisan activists who do seek to undermine the Conservative Party under the guise of journalism or, in this case, comedy. He was saying the quiet part out loud — and claiming not to be part of it. Dillabough was condemning the rest of the CBC — he was throwing his colleagues under the bus. There was no editorial or comedic reason to cut those three seconds. They were cut for purely political reasons — so as not to embarrass the CBC politically. Which just proves that everything at the CBC — from journalism to “comedy” — is edited with a political eye. But even as they released the full video to Rebel News, the CBC couldn’t help one last act of disinformation — claiming it was “edited for time.” There are only three things you need to know about the CBC: 1. They take $1.5 billion of your tax dollars every year. 2. They hate you. 3. And they lie to you. FIGHT BACK! Sign our petition at

Rebel News

115,865 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Tlon Messenger is now open to everyone. We built a simple and infinitely flexible platform for you to use AI agents with your friends. We think it’s pretty amazing, we love using it every day, and we want to see what people can do with it. So we’re opening it up to the public. It’s fun and exciting to build the future of personal computing in an informal, chat-based way with your friends. (You can skip the rest and just download it from the link in the next tweet if you want.) If you don’t want your digital future to be owned by a giant company but you want to explore what’s possible in this new era of agent-driven computing, you should try using Tlon. But wait, what is it? Tlon is a messaging platform built 100% open source, decentralized and owned by its users from the ground up. With Tlon you own everything: your data, your workflows, your programs: the whole thing. Think of it like Telegram or WhatsApp that you own forever and you can freely customize. Every Tlon account comes with an OpenClaw-powered bot. (Don’t worry, we safely run OpenClaw for you in our infrastructure so your bot can’t go off the rails. You’re also welcome to host your own claw if you want maximal control.) We use our bots to collect research, build nuanced daily briefings, collate data from all our disparate services. Tlon makes it insanely easy to use OpenClaw by simply installing an app from the app store, we let you keep your data and programs independent from any app or model provider, and provide the canvas to explore what’s possible. What’s most interesting for us is using bots together. On Tlon bots can create groups, augment them, moderate them, invite others and freely engage with both users and other bots. Tlon is an open playing field unlike what’s possible on conventional platforms. So, what do we do with Tlon? First and foremost, we run Tlon on Tlon. Bots coordinate data from all of our services (Linear, GitHub, all of our servers and infrastructure) and handle alerts, briefings and help us track down bugs in place. Having all of this easily synced between a desktop client and a mobile app is quick and convenient. We use bots to research new areas of work or interest. Bots can compile trees of notes, use different models to evaluate them, and then add on autoresearch-like automations to go even deeper. Since Tlon bots can freely switch between models and providers, we often pass research to Anthropic, OpenAI and self-hosted models to see different results. The most fun part of using bots as researchers is doing it together. “Put together short (~500 word) notes on the 10 most popular open source messaging protocols of the past twenty years, put them in a notebook inside a group and invite Corrina, Walt and Bill as well as their bots” is a good example. Together we’re able to move more quickly than we would on our own. Many of us also use bots to keep track of all the separate threads of work in our personal lives with close friends and family. Someone built a system for keeping track of their garden across time, someone else built a system for prepping lunches for their daughter and sending recipes to family members. Another team member built an integration that tracks what flights are passing overhead so they get a push notification every time a plane goes by. Many of us quickly communicate with our bots via voice memo when we’re out and about. Having a single interface to all the models that also holds all our data and is in our pockets feels great. Especially when the data goes into a single archive. Why is Tlon different? Every Tlon account runs on top of your very own personal server. If you ever want to download it and run it yourself, you can. If we ever go out of business, it’s yours to keep. This is very different from anything that already exists. You can’t keep your WhatsApp forever. You can’t keep your Telegram forever. Tlon is an archival-quality system that’s yours to customize. Why did we build it? In my 1999 imagination, sitting in front of a CRT somewhere in the California countryside listening to Underworld and the sound of a modem, a connected computer was an engine of unending creative potential for everyone. When I was a teenager, a computer with an internet connection felt like an infinite expanse of possibility. Not only could you use the computer to find new tools to experiment with—you could also build whatever tool you could think of. It seemed like anything was possible. I looked forward to a future where everyone could build whatever software they needed, whenever they needed it. It turned out, in the intervening twenty years, that to build and customize software you have to both write code and host it on a server somewhere. For most people, so far, that has been impossible. Instead of controlling our software, our software controls us. We rely on others to build it and decide everything about it: how it works, looks, how much it spies on us and how long it lives. But all of this is changing, fast. The hottest programming language of 2026 is English. People with no technical experience are building their own tools. It’s incredible. The expanse has opened up again. The cost of building what we think of today as software is headed to zero. What yesterday was an entire app is rapidly being replaced by a conversation. The result is hyper-specific, tailored to the user and much more efficient. Today, agents help us build workflows, automate processes and pull together disparate sources of data. All of the annoying apps and services and clunky interface we’ve put up with can just disappear. We can now program and control our computers in the programming language we already know: English. There aren’t that many of us doing this yet, though. It’s still far too hard to set up, to distribute and to trust. There’s also no single platform to experiment on and collaboratively imagine this new future of personal computing. We want everyone to be able to build bespoke, ultra-personal software on demand. We think software should be as available and accessible as a pen and paper. We think anyone should be able to enjoy the expanse of possibility that the computer provides with the lowest possible barrier to entry and the highest possible quality. So, starting far, far too long ago, we engineered a whole new system for it. Just for you. We’re opening up Tlon Messenger to a limited number of people each week. This isn’t for exclusivity’s sake, but because we’re running infrastructure for you and your agent, and covering the tokens your agent uses. That can get expensive quickly, but we want to learn what people will do with this new system we’ve built. We’re really curious to see what you can do, so give it a try and tell us what you invent. Download link to your local app store in the next tweet. Yours, Galen (and the rest of the Tlon Team)
0:20

Tlon Messenger is now open to everyone. We built a simple and infinitely flexible platform for you to use AI agents with your friends. We think it’s pretty amazing, we love using it every day, and we want to see what people can do with it. So we’re opening it up to the public. It’s fun and exciting to build the future of personal computing in an informal, chat-based way with your friends. (You can skip the rest and just download it from the link in the next tweet if you want.) If you don’t want your digital future to be owned by a giant company but you want to explore what’s possible in this new era of agent-driven computing, you should try using Tlon. But wait, what is it? Tlon is a messaging platform built 100% open source, decentralized and owned by its users from the ground up. With Tlon you own everything: your data, your workflows, your programs: the whole thing. Think of it like Telegram or WhatsApp that you own forever and you can freely customize. Every Tlon account comes with an OpenClaw-powered bot. (Don’t worry, we safely run OpenClaw for you in our infrastructure so your bot can’t go off the rails. You’re also welcome to host your own claw if you want maximal control.) We use our bots to collect research, build nuanced daily briefings, collate data from all our disparate services. Tlon makes it insanely easy to use OpenClaw by simply installing an app from the app store, we let you keep your data and programs independent from any app or model provider, and provide the canvas to explore what’s possible. What’s most interesting for us is using bots together. On Tlon bots can create groups, augment them, moderate them, invite others and freely engage with both users and other bots. Tlon is an open playing field unlike what’s possible on conventional platforms. So, what do we do with Tlon? First and foremost, we run Tlon on Tlon. Bots coordinate data from all of our services (Linear, GitHub, all of our servers and infrastructure) and handle alerts, briefings and help us track down bugs in place. Having all of this easily synced between a desktop client and a mobile app is quick and convenient. We use bots to research new areas of work or interest. Bots can compile trees of notes, use different models to evaluate them, and then add on autoresearch-like automations to go even deeper. Since Tlon bots can freely switch between models and providers, we often pass research to Anthropic, OpenAI and self-hosted models to see different results. The most fun part of using bots as researchers is doing it together. “Put together short (~500 word) notes on the 10 most popular open source messaging protocols of the past twenty years, put them in a notebook inside a group and invite Corrina, Walt and Bill as well as their bots” is a good example. Together we’re able to move more quickly than we would on our own. Many of us also use bots to keep track of all the separate threads of work in our personal lives with close friends and family. Someone built a system for keeping track of their garden across time, someone else built a system for prepping lunches for their daughter and sending recipes to family members. Another team member built an integration that tracks what flights are passing overhead so they get a push notification every time a plane goes by. Many of us quickly communicate with our bots via voice memo when we’re out and about. Having a single interface to all the models that also holds all our data and is in our pockets feels great. Especially when the data goes into a single archive. Why is Tlon different? Every Tlon account runs on top of your very own personal server. If you ever want to download it and run it yourself, you can. If we ever go out of business, it’s yours to keep. This is very different from anything that already exists. You can’t keep your WhatsApp forever. You can’t keep your Telegram forever. Tlon is an archival-quality system that’s yours to customize. Why did we build it? In my 1999 imagination, sitting in front of a CRT somewhere in the California countryside listening to Underworld and the sound of a modem, a connected computer was an engine of unending creative potential for everyone. When I was a teenager, a computer with an internet connection felt like an infinite expanse of possibility. Not only could you use the computer to find new tools to experiment with—you could also build whatever tool you could think of. It seemed like anything was possible. I looked forward to a future where everyone could build whatever software they needed, whenever they needed it. It turned out, in the intervening twenty years, that to build and customize software you have to both write code and host it on a server somewhere. For most people, so far, that has been impossible. Instead of controlling our software, our software controls us. We rely on others to build it and decide everything about it: how it works, looks, how much it spies on us and how long it lives. But all of this is changing, fast. The hottest programming language of 2026 is English. People with no technical experience are building their own tools. It’s incredible. The expanse has opened up again. The cost of building what we think of today as software is headed to zero. What yesterday was an entire app is rapidly being replaced by a conversation. The result is hyper-specific, tailored to the user and much more efficient. Today, agents help us build workflows, automate processes and pull together disparate sources of data. All of the annoying apps and services and clunky interface we’ve put up with can just disappear. We can now program and control our computers in the programming language we already know: English. There aren’t that many of us doing this yet, though. It’s still far too hard to set up, to distribute and to trust. There’s also no single platform to experiment on and collaboratively imagine this new future of personal computing. We want everyone to be able to build bespoke, ultra-personal software on demand. We think software should be as available and accessible as a pen and paper. We think anyone should be able to enjoy the expanse of possibility that the computer provides with the lowest possible barrier to entry and the highest possible quality. So, starting far, far too long ago, we engineered a whole new system for it. Just for you. We’re opening up Tlon Messenger to a limited number of people each week. This isn’t for exclusivity’s sake, but because we’re running infrastructure for you and your agent, and covering the tokens your agent uses. That can get expensive quickly, but we want to learn what people will do with this new system we’ve built. We’re really curious to see what you can do, so give it a try and tell us what you invent. Download link to your local app store in the next tweet. Yours, Galen (and the rest of the Tlon Team)

Tlon

600,854 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Broadcaster Sonia Sodha says it’s “really dangerous” for the public to comment on police footage because we might form our own “armchair narrative” without the full context. That’s a remarkable take on the Cody Harper case. In the early hours of 21 June on Broad Street in Birmingham, 20-year-old Cody Harper was attacked by two men. Footage clearly shows one of them pushing him to the ground while the other tries to punch him in the back of the head as he lies there. Seconds later a female police officer shoves Harper into shop shutters. Still reacting to the assault he has just suffered, he swings an arm and catches her. He is immediately arrested and charged with assaulting an emergency worker. The two men who attacked him walk away. They later receive out-of-court disposals. Harper, the actual victim of the street assault, faces the prospect of a criminal record that would follow him for life. The only reason this did not become another quiet injustice is that a bystander filmed it and the video went viral. Public scrutiny forced the issue into the open. The CPS reviewed the same footage that had been available all along, concluded there was insufficient evidence that Harper knowingly assaulted the officer, and dropped the charge the day before he was due in court. Sodha says she is “very very uncomfortable with people looking at short clips on social media and claiming to know what’s going on.” When the official account does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the answer is more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative. They watched the clip, saw clear injustice, and forced the system to correct itself. Without that video being shared, commented on, and widely called out as a blatant example of two-tier policing, the case against a young man who had just been beaten would almost certainly have proceeded. Justice was done only because ordinary people refused to stay silent. Her discomfort is not caution. It is an argument for the public to stay quiet and accept the official version without question. When the official version of events does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the remedy is more transparency and more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative here. They watched the video, recognised what was happening, and forced the system to correct itself.
2:01

Broadcaster Sonia Sodha says it’s “really dangerous” for the public to comment on police footage because we might form our own “armchair narrative” without the full context. That’s a remarkable take on the Cody Harper case. In the early hours of 21 June on Broad Street in Birmingham, 20-year-old Cody Harper was attacked by two men. Footage clearly shows one of them pushing him to the ground while the other tries to punch him in the back of the head as he lies there. Seconds later a female police officer shoves Harper into shop shutters. Still reacting to the assault he has just suffered, he swings an arm and catches her. He is immediately arrested and charged with assaulting an emergency worker. The two men who attacked him walk away. They later receive out-of-court disposals. Harper, the actual victim of the street assault, faces the prospect of a criminal record that would follow him for life. The only reason this did not become another quiet injustice is that a bystander filmed it and the video went viral. Public scrutiny forced the issue into the open. The CPS reviewed the same footage that had been available all along, concluded there was insufficient evidence that Harper knowingly assaulted the officer, and dropped the charge the day before he was due in court. Sodha says she is “very very uncomfortable with people looking at short clips on social media and claiming to know what’s going on.” When the official account does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the answer is more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative. They watched the clip, saw clear injustice, and forced the system to correct itself. Without that video being shared, commented on, and widely called out as a blatant example of two-tier policing, the case against a young man who had just been beaten would almost certainly have proceeded. Justice was done only because ordinary people refused to stay silent. Her discomfort is not caution. It is an argument for the public to stay quiet and accept the official version without question. When the official version of events does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the remedy is more transparency and more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative here. They watched the video, recognised what was happening, and forced the system to correct itself.

Skint Eastwood

13,266 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos There was a moment in Osoyoos, British Columbia, this week when you could feel the tectonic plates of Canadian politics shift. Pierre Poilievre didn’t just give a campaign speech—he delivered a declaration of war. Not against a rival party, not against a foreign power, but against the bloated, self-sustaining bureaucracy that has buried this country in red tape, crushed small business, and handed our economic sovereignty to Washington. And he did it with names, numbers, and fire. Standing beside Conservative candidates Helena Konanz and Dan Albas—real people with skin in the game—Poilievre laid out the most aggressive anti-regulation, pro-prosperity plan Canada has seen in a generation. This wasn’t “efficiency.” It wasn’t “modernization.” It was a full-scale rollback of the federal state. A 25% cut to red tape within two years. A “two-for-one” regulation kill rule: for every new rule, two must die. A dollar-value offset: $1 of new administrative cost must be matched by $2 in cuts. And for once, someone’s watching the swamp: the Auditor General will audit compliance. No tricks. No loopholes. No gluing rulebooks together to fake progress like the Liberals did. Real cuts, enforced in public, with consequences. Now compare that to what the Liberals have done. Under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, the number of federal rules has exploded—149,000 and counting. That’s 20,000 more than a decade ago, with $51 billion in annual compliance costs for small businesses. It’s not just inefficiency. It’s economic sabotage. And who benefits from that sabotage? The United States. Poilievre didn’t dance around it—he hit it head-on. President Trump has said he prefers the Liberals in power. Why? Because they’re weak. Because they keep Canadian oil in the ground and Canadian dollars flowing south. “Trump supports the Liberals because he wants Canada to stay weak,” Poilievre said. “I want the opposite. I want to bring it home.” The press tried to corner him—tried to paint him as “too Trump-like.” The irony, of course, is that Trump has openly rejected him, because unlike Trudeau and Carney, Poilievre is not for sale. And then came the attacks on Aaron Gunn. The media paraded misinformation accusations that Gunn denied the impact of residential schools. Poilievre didn’t flinch. He called it out for what it was: misinformation. He defended his candidate. He stood for truth, not Twitter mobs. And he flipped the narrative: if you want prosperity and dignity for First Nations, give them control over resources, revenue, and jobs—not slogans. Then came the issue of interprovincial trade, where Poilievre again showed he’s living in the real world. Local wineries in the Okanagan are shipping their product to the U.S. because it’s easier than selling across provincial lines. Under the Liberals, it's harder to trade within Canada than with foreign nations. That’s not a federation—that’s a farce. Poilievre promised to tear down the internal barriers the Laurentian elite have protected for decades. The CBC? He torched it. Not with culture war talking points, but with precision. It’s become an overfunded, Toronto-centric mouthpiece for the Liberal Party, sucking up $1.5 billion a year to produce less local coverage than ever. Mark Carney just promised another $150 million with no plan to pay for it. Poilievre called it what it is: “a morbidly obese Liberal government—on steroids.” And he’s right. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal expenditure he’d reverse. Not one. He’s offering the same broken promises, wrapped in fancier language, from the same corrupt team. Poilievre, on the other hand, laid out a detailed plan to: Eliminate the GST on new homes and Canadian-made cars. Cut income taxes by 15%. Abolish the capital gains tax on money reinvested in Canada. Fast-track LNG projects on the West Coast. Repeal every anti-energy, anti-growth law passed by Trudeau’s swamp. He didn’t ask for permission. He promised results. He’s not trying to manage the decline. He’s here to stop it. Final Thoughts I’ve been watching these press conferences like a normal person, which means with my jaw somewhere on the floor. On one side, you’ve got Pierre Poilievre, actually talking about numbers, policies, things that, you know—exist in the real world. On the other side? You’ve got Mark Carney, Trudeau’s old economic braintrust, grinning like a Bond villain, promising to “invest” another $150 million into the CBC—because apparently, $1.5 billion a year isn’t enough to produce wall-to-wall Liberal talking points and a half-hour panel on white fragility. Carney calls it “public broadcasting.” Let’s call it what it is: state propaganda—funded by you, weaponized against you. And this is the guy who’s being sold to Canadians as the adult in the room? The savior? Mark Carney—the guy who’s spent the last decade not in Canada, but lecturing Canadians from London, New York, and climate finance panels in Geneva? He’s not some neutral economist. He’s a gold-plated Davos swamp rat who literally helped engineer the economic disaster we’re now living through—and now he wants to be rewarded with the keys to the kingdom? This man flew in from Glasgow—no joke—where he was pushing his net-zero snake oil to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who couldn’t find Fort McMurray on a map if their Tesla battery depended on it. And what’s he proposing now? Keep Bill C-69, the law that strangled Canadian energy, killed pipeline after pipeline, and handed America control over our oil wealth. Keep the law that says: If you want to build anything in this country, you better ask permission from 14 departments and Greta Thunberg’s cousin first. Oh, and while he’s at it, don’t expect a single dollar of waste to be cut. Not one. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal program he’d reduce. Not the CBC. Not the bloated bureaucracy. Not even the social engineering schemes buried deep in your child’s classroom. So let’s spell it out: Mark Carney is Trudeau without the TikTok. Same worldview. Same smugness. Same ideology. Except now he’s dressed it up in Oxford accents and finance jargon and thinks you’re too dumb to notice. He talks about “fighting climate change,” but never mentions the carbon imports from China. He talks about “building the future,” while propping up the same agencies that couldn’t build a bus stop on time. He talks about “standing up to Trump,” while literally keeping in place the laws that give Trump control over our energy, our jobs, our investment. And we’re supposed to believe he’s the serious one? No. What he is—is the avatar of managed decline. The velvet glove of the same iron fist that’s been throttling Canadian prosperity for ten years. Poilievre sees it, and he’s naming it. That’s why the media hate him. That’s why the Liberals fear him. And that’s why Donald Trump doesn’t want him elected—because he won’t roll over like Carney will. So again—this is not a normal election. It’s not Liberal vs. Conservative. It’s not progressive vs. populist. It’s elite decay vs. national revival. Poilievre doesn’t want to “manage” this slow-motion collapse. He wants to rip the duct tape off the pipes, shut down the bureaucracy, and start building again. He didn’t ask for permission. He didn’t host a panel. He promised results. And when he says “Canada First,” it’s not some borrowed slogan. It’s a warning to the swamp: Your time is up. Carney is decline dressed as competence. Poilievre is the first sign of life this country has had in a decade. So yeah, Pierre Poilievre chose defiance. Now it’s your turn.
1:54

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos There was a moment in Osoyoos, British Columbia, this week when you could feel the tectonic plates of Canadian politics shift. Pierre Poilievre didn’t just give a campaign speech—he delivered a declaration of war. Not against a rival party, not against a foreign power, but against the bloated, self-sustaining bureaucracy that has buried this country in red tape, crushed small business, and handed our economic sovereignty to Washington. And he did it with names, numbers, and fire. Standing beside Conservative candidates Helena Konanz and Dan Albas—real people with skin in the game—Poilievre laid out the most aggressive anti-regulation, pro-prosperity plan Canada has seen in a generation. This wasn’t “efficiency.” It wasn’t “modernization.” It was a full-scale rollback of the federal state. A 25% cut to red tape within two years. A “two-for-one” regulation kill rule: for every new rule, two must die. A dollar-value offset: $1 of new administrative cost must be matched by $2 in cuts. And for once, someone’s watching the swamp: the Auditor General will audit compliance. No tricks. No loopholes. No gluing rulebooks together to fake progress like the Liberals did. Real cuts, enforced in public, with consequences. Now compare that to what the Liberals have done. Under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, the number of federal rules has exploded—149,000 and counting. That’s 20,000 more than a decade ago, with $51 billion in annual compliance costs for small businesses. It’s not just inefficiency. It’s economic sabotage. And who benefits from that sabotage? The United States. Poilievre didn’t dance around it—he hit it head-on. President Trump has said he prefers the Liberals in power. Why? Because they’re weak. Because they keep Canadian oil in the ground and Canadian dollars flowing south. “Trump supports the Liberals because he wants Canada to stay weak,” Poilievre said. “I want the opposite. I want to bring it home.” The press tried to corner him—tried to paint him as “too Trump-like.” The irony, of course, is that Trump has openly rejected him, because unlike Trudeau and Carney, Poilievre is not for sale. And then came the attacks on Aaron Gunn. The media paraded misinformation accusations that Gunn denied the impact of residential schools. Poilievre didn’t flinch. He called it out for what it was: misinformation. He defended his candidate. He stood for truth, not Twitter mobs. And he flipped the narrative: if you want prosperity and dignity for First Nations, give them control over resources, revenue, and jobs—not slogans. Then came the issue of interprovincial trade, where Poilievre again showed he’s living in the real world. Local wineries in the Okanagan are shipping their product to the U.S. because it’s easier than selling across provincial lines. Under the Liberals, it's harder to trade within Canada than with foreign nations. That’s not a federation—that’s a farce. Poilievre promised to tear down the internal barriers the Laurentian elite have protected for decades. The CBC? He torched it. Not with culture war talking points, but with precision. It’s become an overfunded, Toronto-centric mouthpiece for the Liberal Party, sucking up $1.5 billion a year to produce less local coverage than ever. Mark Carney just promised another $150 million with no plan to pay for it. Poilievre called it what it is: “a morbidly obese Liberal government—on steroids.” And he’s right. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal expenditure he’d reverse. Not one. He’s offering the same broken promises, wrapped in fancier language, from the same corrupt team. Poilievre, on the other hand, laid out a detailed plan to: Eliminate the GST on new homes and Canadian-made cars. Cut income taxes by 15%. Abolish the capital gains tax on money reinvested in Canada. Fast-track LNG projects on the West Coast. Repeal every anti-energy, anti-growth law passed by Trudeau’s swamp. He didn’t ask for permission. He promised results. He’s not trying to manage the decline. He’s here to stop it. Final Thoughts I’ve been watching these press conferences like a normal person, which means with my jaw somewhere on the floor. On one side, you’ve got Pierre Poilievre, actually talking about numbers, policies, things that, you know—exist in the real world. On the other side? You’ve got Mark Carney, Trudeau’s old economic braintrust, grinning like a Bond villain, promising to “invest” another $150 million into the CBC—because apparently, $1.5 billion a year isn’t enough to produce wall-to-wall Liberal talking points and a half-hour panel on white fragility. Carney calls it “public broadcasting.” Let’s call it what it is: state propaganda—funded by you, weaponized against you. And this is the guy who’s being sold to Canadians as the adult in the room? The savior? Mark Carney—the guy who’s spent the last decade not in Canada, but lecturing Canadians from London, New York, and climate finance panels in Geneva? He’s not some neutral economist. He’s a gold-plated Davos swamp rat who literally helped engineer the economic disaster we’re now living through—and now he wants to be rewarded with the keys to the kingdom? This man flew in from Glasgow—no joke—where he was pushing his net-zero snake oil to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who couldn’t find Fort McMurray on a map if their Tesla battery depended on it. And what’s he proposing now? Keep Bill C-69, the law that strangled Canadian energy, killed pipeline after pipeline, and handed America control over our oil wealth. Keep the law that says: If you want to build anything in this country, you better ask permission from 14 departments and Greta Thunberg’s cousin first. Oh, and while he’s at it, don’t expect a single dollar of waste to be cut. Not one. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal program he’d reduce. Not the CBC. Not the bloated bureaucracy. Not even the social engineering schemes buried deep in your child’s classroom. So let’s spell it out: Mark Carney is Trudeau without the TikTok. Same worldview. Same smugness. Same ideology. Except now he’s dressed it up in Oxford accents and finance jargon and thinks you’re too dumb to notice. He talks about “fighting climate change,” but never mentions the carbon imports from China. He talks about “building the future,” while propping up the same agencies that couldn’t build a bus stop on time. He talks about “standing up to Trump,” while literally keeping in place the laws that give Trump control over our energy, our jobs, our investment. And we’re supposed to believe he’s the serious one? No. What he is—is the avatar of managed decline. The velvet glove of the same iron fist that’s been throttling Canadian prosperity for ten years. Poilievre sees it, and he’s naming it. That’s why the media hate him. That’s why the Liberals fear him. And that’s why Donald Trump doesn’t want him elected—because he won’t roll over like Carney will. So again—this is not a normal election. It’s not Liberal vs. Conservative. It’s not progressive vs. populist. It’s elite decay vs. national revival. Poilievre doesn’t want to “manage” this slow-motion collapse. He wants to rip the duct tape off the pipes, shut down the bureaucracy, and start building again. He didn’t ask for permission. He didn’t host a panel. He promised results. And when he says “Canada First,” it’s not some borrowed slogan. It’s a warning to the swamp: Your time is up. Carney is decline dressed as competence. Poilievre is the first sign of life this country has had in a decade. So yeah, Pierre Poilievre chose defiance. Now it’s your turn.

Dan Knight

47,387 просмотров • 1 год назад

alright let’s do a class on nielsen ratings / witness a timeline murder? i’m about to spin the block. the programming insider screenshots below are for weds, march 31. Programming Insider is one of the few places that just posts the raw nielsen grid without spin. every demo every network every show laid out the way buyers sellers and network executives actually read it. it’s not a recap site it’s not opinion it’s the sheet and if you’re not reading the sheet you’re not actually talking about the same thing as the people making the decisions 730k and a 0.15 in adults 18–49 is a real number and it maps cleanly within the expected range. nobody serious disputes that. in the current environment you’re generally looking at: 0.10 ≈ 580k–610k 0.11 ≈ 600k–630k 0.12 ≈ 620k–660k 0.13 ≈ 650k–690k 0.14 ≈ 680k–720k 0.15 ≈ 710k–750k 0.16 ≈ 740k–790k 0.17 ≈ 780k–830k 0.18 ≈ 820k–880k 0.19 ≈ 860k–920k 0.20 ≈ 900k–960k the issue is how often people stop there and treat it like a conclusion instead of the starting point. because a single demo pulled out of context doesn’t tell you what kind of number it actually was what kind of audience it represents or what it means in a real marketplace start with the full AEW row because that’s the foundation. AEW on TBS for 121 minutes posted: 0.44 household rating 0.12 adults 18–34 0.15 adults 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 0.20 men 18–49 0.22 adults 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.10 persons 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.03 teens 12–17 730k total viewers 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers that’s the entire result. not the tweet version not the clipped version not the one number people like to repeat. that full row is the reality and once you actually read it the first thing that matters is not the 0.15 it’s how that 0.15 is built 0.20 men 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 that’s not a subtle imbalance that’s the number. this is not a broad demo performance it’s a concentrated one. when one side of the demo is doing more than double the work of the other side you are not looking at wide audience adoption you are looking at a defined lane showing up consistently and that distinction is everything because certain faux authorities talk about 0.15 like it’s a universal currency when it’s not. a 0.15 built on something like 0.14 women and 0.16 men is a fundamentally different asset than a 0.15 built on 0.09 women and 0.20 men. one is balanced one is narrow. one has flexibility across advertisers scheduling and audience expansion the other is predictable reliable and capped this one is clearly the latter same story in 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 again more than double same structural dependence same ceiling implication and then you go younger and nothing changes 0.12 adults 18–34 0.10 persons 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 it’s the same shape repeated across demos which tells you this is not a one week anomaly it’s the product identity. stable consistent defined not expanding and that’s where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat actually shows up in the data this is reliable. the audience shows up. the profile is predictable. the show holds its lane it is not broad. it is not expanding. it is not signaling that new segments are coming into the tent and changing the ceiling of the property that’s not opinion that’s what the row says now zoom out to the actual cable landscape that night because this is where context starts to cut through the noise Hannity 0.50 NBA on ESPN 0.36 Jesse Watters Primetime 0.28 Gutfeld 0.25 The Source with Kaitlan Collins 0.18 AEW Dynamite 0.15 that’s the board. that’s the tiering. AEW is not competing with the leaders it’s sitting clearly below them in the next band the gap from 0.15 to 0.18 is real the gap from 0.15 to 0.25 is large the gap from 0.15 to 0.36 and 0.50 is massive and this is where people get sloppy because they use ranking to imply proximity when there isn’t any the placements are: 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers those are good placements for a cable property they are not dominant placements and they are not close to dominant placements. 12th at 730k tells you exactly how much total audience is actually there across the full market not just the demo slice people like to highlight and that matters because scale still matters. total audience still matters. you don’t get to ignore it just because the demo is easier to weaponize quickly on the presidential address because this keeps getting dragged in like it explains something and it doesn’t a brief presidential address is not real competition it’s not counterprogramming it’s not sustained audience capture it’s a short interruption that hits every network at the same time. everyone gets disrupted nobody gets singled out. it doesn’t change relative positioning it doesn’t create winners or losers it’s just noise in the system and leaning on it is basically avoiding what the table actually shows same thing with hourly ranks 3rd in an hour 4th in an hour fine but relative to what. if the field is thin outside a few programs you can place well in a window and still be materially behind the actual leaders. a 0.15 does not become a 0.25 because it ranked 3rd it stays a 0.15 now zoom out even further and look at the broader tv ecosystem broadcast that same night is pulling 4M 5M viewers with broader demo balance. different ecosystem yes but it gives you scale perspective. cable is fragmented expectations are different a 0.15 can be a good cable number but that does not make it a market moving television number it makes it solid within its lane and that’s where most of the conversation should stop but it doesn’t because once you layer in actual market structure the ratings matter even less than people think they do the buyer universe is not theoretical it is already allocated high tier buyers netflix amazon apple all operate at 600k+ per telecast levels but only for global scalable franchise inventory netflix has already consolidated the global wwe backbone across raw international distribution and library. there is no incentive to layer overlapping wrestling inventory into that system amazon is deploying capital into nfl nba nascar and large scale league ecosystems. servicing ppv distribution is not the same thing as underwriting long term weekly rights. there is no mandate for niche weekly wrestling at scale apple is curating a premium global sports portfolio aligned with brand identity. nothing niche nothing polarizing nothing demo fragmented clears that filter mid tier buyers disney espn already has wwe premium live events and massive nfl nba and college football commitments. the wrestling lane is already defined at the tentpole level fox is concentrated on nfl and big ten with disciplined incremental spend and no mandate for a second wrestling property peacock is structurally tied into wwe across events and library footprint. that lane is occupied paramount plus max post merger is sitting on one of the heaviest combat sports portfolios in the market ufc at roughly 1.1b per year zuffa boxing pbr nfl afc that is category consolidation not exploration. any additional combat adjacent inventory has to clear duplication against that stack turner inside that same structure is no longer operating independently. it is part of a combined portfolio that already has a defined combat sports identity low tier buyers roku tubi vice are operating in the 150k–300k per telecast range and are not positioned to escalate into premium rights competition so when you actually map the landscape it’s not that buyers are hesitant it’s that lanes are already filled there is no real second bidder dynamic and once you remove the idea of competitive bidding the ratings stop functioning as leverage they become a utility metric now go back to the numbers 0.15 730k male heavy composition those are not bad numbers they are just not strong enough to override strategic redundancy inside a portfolio that already includes ufc and global wwe alignment across multiple platforms so the conversation shifts this is no longer what will the market pay this becomes what is this worth inside our existing portfolio can we fill two hours cheaper can we replicate the demo with studio shows shoulder programming unscripted if yes there is no leverage if no it stays but on controlled terms that’s the real decision tree and this is where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat becomes the entire story this is reliable inventory. it shows up every week it delivers a consistent demo it fills two hours it holds a lane it is not broad strategic heat. it does not expand the audience map it does not unlock new advertiser categories it does not create urgency across buyers it does not force capital to move and that’s not a criticism it’s a classification so the clean read is simple the number is real the audience is still there the composition is still narrow the placement is still upper middle and none of that on its own creates leverage in a market that is already structurally allocated this is a property negotiating inside someone else’s portfolio not across an open market and that leads to the only conclusion that actually matters once capital is already deployed across nfl nba ufc and global wwe distribution and once the high tier buyers are structurally filtered out this stops being a rights negotiation driven by ratings and becomes an internal portfolio decision driven by overlap cost efficiency and replacement value. at that point a steady 0.15 does not create leverage it defines the floor of what that two hour block is worth relative to everything else competing for the same capital and now add the part everyone either ignores or pretends doesn’t exist TKO is effectively sitting on ~100% of premium combat sports market share at scale when you look at UFC plus WWE across global distribution lanes. that’s not just another player in the category that is the category so when you’re talking about where AEW fits you’re not comparing it in a vacuum you’re comparing it against the most consolidated combat sports stack the business has ever seen and that stack isn’t just operating independently Ari Emanuel has been advising David Ellison for 15+ years that relationship matters because it shapes how these portfolios are thought about at the highest level. this isn’t random alignment this is long term strategic overlap between the people actually making decisions about where billions in rights fees go so when you layer that on top of a potential Paramount controlled WBD structure you’re not just dealing with ratings anymore you’re dealing with a fully informed portfolio strategy that already knows exactly what it values in combat sports and what it doesn’t and then you zoom all the way out to cultural positioning because this part matters more than people think Pat McAfee is in the main event at WrestleMania that’s not a throwaway detail that’s the signal that’s WWE extending into mainstream sports media personalities who already command massive audiences across multiple platforms and pulling them into the biggest event in the space that’s what broad strategic heat actually looks like not just a consistent demo number not just reliable weekly inventory but expansion into new audience layers new distribution touchpoints and new cultural relevance that travels outside the core base so when you put all of this together the picture gets even clearer AEW is stable AEW is reliable AEW fills a lane but it’s operating in a market where the category leader already controls the majority of premium combat IP the decision makers are aligned at the highest levels the buyer universe is structurally closed and the biggest player is actively expanding its cultural footprint beyond wrestling itself that’s the environment so yes a 0.15 matters. yes 730k matters the number isn’t fake the number isn’t terrible the number is specific it tells you exactly what the show is right now it tells you the core audience showed up it tells you that audience is heavily male it tells you women are materially underrepresented it tells you the show converts to about 730k it tells you where it sits on the night it tells you the audience shape hasn’t changed what it doesn’t tell you matters just as much it doesn’t tell you the audience is expanding it doesn’t tell you the show is broadening it doesn’t tell you the ceiling moved this was a good night for a show with a defined audience but none of it overrides the reality that this is being evaluated inside a system that already knows what “must have” looks like and right now that bar is being set somewhere else entirely cc: Dave Meltzer
6:23

alright let’s do a class on nielsen ratings / witness a timeline murder? i’m about to spin the block. the programming insider screenshots below are for weds, march 31. Programming Insider is one of the few places that just posts the raw nielsen grid without spin. every demo every network every show laid out the way buyers sellers and network executives actually read it. it’s not a recap site it’s not opinion it’s the sheet and if you’re not reading the sheet you’re not actually talking about the same thing as the people making the decisions 730k and a 0.15 in adults 18–49 is a real number and it maps cleanly within the expected range. nobody serious disputes that. in the current environment you’re generally looking at: 0.10 ≈ 580k–610k 0.11 ≈ 600k–630k 0.12 ≈ 620k–660k 0.13 ≈ 650k–690k 0.14 ≈ 680k–720k 0.15 ≈ 710k–750k 0.16 ≈ 740k–790k 0.17 ≈ 780k–830k 0.18 ≈ 820k–880k 0.19 ≈ 860k–920k 0.20 ≈ 900k–960k the issue is how often people stop there and treat it like a conclusion instead of the starting point. because a single demo pulled out of context doesn’t tell you what kind of number it actually was what kind of audience it represents or what it means in a real marketplace start with the full AEW row because that’s the foundation. AEW on TBS for 121 minutes posted: 0.44 household rating 0.12 adults 18–34 0.15 adults 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 0.20 men 18–49 0.22 adults 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.10 persons 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.03 teens 12–17 730k total viewers 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers that’s the entire result. not the tweet version not the clipped version not the one number people like to repeat. that full row is the reality and once you actually read it the first thing that matters is not the 0.15 it’s how that 0.15 is built 0.20 men 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 that’s not a subtle imbalance that’s the number. this is not a broad demo performance it’s a concentrated one. when one side of the demo is doing more than double the work of the other side you are not looking at wide audience adoption you are looking at a defined lane showing up consistently and that distinction is everything because certain faux authorities talk about 0.15 like it’s a universal currency when it’s not. a 0.15 built on something like 0.14 women and 0.16 men is a fundamentally different asset than a 0.15 built on 0.09 women and 0.20 men. one is balanced one is narrow. one has flexibility across advertisers scheduling and audience expansion the other is predictable reliable and capped this one is clearly the latter same story in 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 again more than double same structural dependence same ceiling implication and then you go younger and nothing changes 0.12 adults 18–34 0.10 persons 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 it’s the same shape repeated across demos which tells you this is not a one week anomaly it’s the product identity. stable consistent defined not expanding and that’s where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat actually shows up in the data this is reliable. the audience shows up. the profile is predictable. the show holds its lane it is not broad. it is not expanding. it is not signaling that new segments are coming into the tent and changing the ceiling of the property that’s not opinion that’s what the row says now zoom out to the actual cable landscape that night because this is where context starts to cut through the noise Hannity 0.50 NBA on ESPN 0.36 Jesse Watters Primetime 0.28 Gutfeld 0.25 The Source with Kaitlan Collins 0.18 AEW Dynamite 0.15 that’s the board. that’s the tiering. AEW is not competing with the leaders it’s sitting clearly below them in the next band the gap from 0.15 to 0.18 is real the gap from 0.15 to 0.25 is large the gap from 0.15 to 0.36 and 0.50 is massive and this is where people get sloppy because they use ranking to imply proximity when there isn’t any the placements are: 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers those are good placements for a cable property they are not dominant placements and they are not close to dominant placements. 12th at 730k tells you exactly how much total audience is actually there across the full market not just the demo slice people like to highlight and that matters because scale still matters. total audience still matters. you don’t get to ignore it just because the demo is easier to weaponize quickly on the presidential address because this keeps getting dragged in like it explains something and it doesn’t a brief presidential address is not real competition it’s not counterprogramming it’s not sustained audience capture it’s a short interruption that hits every network at the same time. everyone gets disrupted nobody gets singled out. it doesn’t change relative positioning it doesn’t create winners or losers it’s just noise in the system and leaning on it is basically avoiding what the table actually shows same thing with hourly ranks 3rd in an hour 4th in an hour fine but relative to what. if the field is thin outside a few programs you can place well in a window and still be materially behind the actual leaders. a 0.15 does not become a 0.25 because it ranked 3rd it stays a 0.15 now zoom out even further and look at the broader tv ecosystem broadcast that same night is pulling 4M 5M viewers with broader demo balance. different ecosystem yes but it gives you scale perspective. cable is fragmented expectations are different a 0.15 can be a good cable number but that does not make it a market moving television number it makes it solid within its lane and that’s where most of the conversation should stop but it doesn’t because once you layer in actual market structure the ratings matter even less than people think they do the buyer universe is not theoretical it is already allocated high tier buyers netflix amazon apple all operate at 600k+ per telecast levels but only for global scalable franchise inventory netflix has already consolidated the global wwe backbone across raw international distribution and library. there is no incentive to layer overlapping wrestling inventory into that system amazon is deploying capital into nfl nba nascar and large scale league ecosystems. servicing ppv distribution is not the same thing as underwriting long term weekly rights. there is no mandate for niche weekly wrestling at scale apple is curating a premium global sports portfolio aligned with brand identity. nothing niche nothing polarizing nothing demo fragmented clears that filter mid tier buyers disney espn already has wwe premium live events and massive nfl nba and college football commitments. the wrestling lane is already defined at the tentpole level fox is concentrated on nfl and big ten with disciplined incremental spend and no mandate for a second wrestling property peacock is structurally tied into wwe across events and library footprint. that lane is occupied paramount plus max post merger is sitting on one of the heaviest combat sports portfolios in the market ufc at roughly 1.1b per year zuffa boxing pbr nfl afc that is category consolidation not exploration. any additional combat adjacent inventory has to clear duplication against that stack turner inside that same structure is no longer operating independently. it is part of a combined portfolio that already has a defined combat sports identity low tier buyers roku tubi vice are operating in the 150k–300k per telecast range and are not positioned to escalate into premium rights competition so when you actually map the landscape it’s not that buyers are hesitant it’s that lanes are already filled there is no real second bidder dynamic and once you remove the idea of competitive bidding the ratings stop functioning as leverage they become a utility metric now go back to the numbers 0.15 730k male heavy composition those are not bad numbers they are just not strong enough to override strategic redundancy inside a portfolio that already includes ufc and global wwe alignment across multiple platforms so the conversation shifts this is no longer what will the market pay this becomes what is this worth inside our existing portfolio can we fill two hours cheaper can we replicate the demo with studio shows shoulder programming unscripted if yes there is no leverage if no it stays but on controlled terms that’s the real decision tree and this is where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat becomes the entire story this is reliable inventory. it shows up every week it delivers a consistent demo it fills two hours it holds a lane it is not broad strategic heat. it does not expand the audience map it does not unlock new advertiser categories it does not create urgency across buyers it does not force capital to move and that’s not a criticism it’s a classification so the clean read is simple the number is real the audience is still there the composition is still narrow the placement is still upper middle and none of that on its own creates leverage in a market that is already structurally allocated this is a property negotiating inside someone else’s portfolio not across an open market and that leads to the only conclusion that actually matters once capital is already deployed across nfl nba ufc and global wwe distribution and once the high tier buyers are structurally filtered out this stops being a rights negotiation driven by ratings and becomes an internal portfolio decision driven by overlap cost efficiency and replacement value. at that point a steady 0.15 does not create leverage it defines the floor of what that two hour block is worth relative to everything else competing for the same capital and now add the part everyone either ignores or pretends doesn’t exist TKO is effectively sitting on ~100% of premium combat sports market share at scale when you look at UFC plus WWE across global distribution lanes. that’s not just another player in the category that is the category so when you’re talking about where AEW fits you’re not comparing it in a vacuum you’re comparing it against the most consolidated combat sports stack the business has ever seen and that stack isn’t just operating independently Ari Emanuel has been advising David Ellison for 15+ years that relationship matters because it shapes how these portfolios are thought about at the highest level. this isn’t random alignment this is long term strategic overlap between the people actually making decisions about where billions in rights fees go so when you layer that on top of a potential Paramount controlled WBD structure you’re not just dealing with ratings anymore you’re dealing with a fully informed portfolio strategy that already knows exactly what it values in combat sports and what it doesn’t and then you zoom all the way out to cultural positioning because this part matters more than people think Pat McAfee is in the main event at WrestleMania that’s not a throwaway detail that’s the signal that’s WWE extending into mainstream sports media personalities who already command massive audiences across multiple platforms and pulling them into the biggest event in the space that’s what broad strategic heat actually looks like not just a consistent demo number not just reliable weekly inventory but expansion into new audience layers new distribution touchpoints and new cultural relevance that travels outside the core base so when you put all of this together the picture gets even clearer AEW is stable AEW is reliable AEW fills a lane but it’s operating in a market where the category leader already controls the majority of premium combat IP the decision makers are aligned at the highest levels the buyer universe is structurally closed and the biggest player is actively expanding its cultural footprint beyond wrestling itself that’s the environment so yes a 0.15 matters. yes 730k matters the number isn’t fake the number isn’t terrible the number is specific it tells you exactly what the show is right now it tells you the core audience showed up it tells you that audience is heavily male it tells you women are materially underrepresented it tells you the show converts to about 730k it tells you where it sits on the night it tells you the audience shape hasn’t changed what it doesn’t tell you matters just as much it doesn’t tell you the audience is expanding it doesn’t tell you the show is broadening it doesn’t tell you the ceiling moved this was a good night for a show with a defined audience but none of it overrides the reality that this is being evaluated inside a system that already knows what “must have” looks like and right now that bar is being set somewhere else entirely cc: Dave Meltzer

Nick LoPiccolo

17,146 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) 📷 Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when you’re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether it’s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. I’ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. It’s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UK’s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. It’s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, I’m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, I’ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners – and indeed occasionally those we’d label as adversaries – across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. You’ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as ‘Q’, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Let’s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges – military, technological, social, ethical even – each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But there’s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they ‘converge’ to create science-fiction-like tools. There’s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth – one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the government’s understanding of China’s rise and the implications for UK national security. I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britain’s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into – if you like – our historical SOE instincts. We’re at our best when we’re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britain’s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest – how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to what’s really going on. I’ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in what’s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, I’ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence won’t help. To proliferators and smugglers who’ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their children’s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away – and that telling us what’s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6’s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face won’t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children don’t get duped by information manipulation. Let’s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in – a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation – are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, ‘Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without them’. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters – and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdom’s global voice has never rested solely on strength – it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element – the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice – the exercise of human agency – has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025
0:59

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) 📷 Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when you’re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether it’s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. I’ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. It’s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UK’s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. It’s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, I’m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, I’ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners – and indeed occasionally those we’d label as adversaries – across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. You’ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as ‘Q’, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Let’s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges – military, technological, social, ethical even – each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But there’s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they ‘converge’ to create science-fiction-like tools. There’s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth – one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the government’s understanding of China’s rise and the implications for UK national security. I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britain’s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into – if you like – our historical SOE instincts. We’re at our best when we’re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britain’s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest – how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to what’s really going on. I’ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in what’s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, I’ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence won’t help. To proliferators and smugglers who’ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their children’s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away – and that telling us what’s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6’s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face won’t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children don’t get duped by information manipulation. Let’s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in – a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation – are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, ‘Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without them’. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters – and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdom’s global voice has never rested solely on strength – it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element – the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice – the exercise of human agency – has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025

John Sweeney

42,257 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

$EOSE I get it, it’s easy to feel let down when you’re waiting for sales numbers or partnerships to light up the stock, but you get a new product announcement you didn't expect. But hear me out: This marks an inflection point. Don't underestimate this breakthrough innovation. Super bullish on where this takes Eos. This isn’t just another tweak; it’s a game-changer in how energy storage/BESS will be thought about. Sometimes the biggest innovations boil down to the form factor, how you package and deploy the tech. This feels like one of those moments. Look, we’ve all seen the Z3 modules and DawnOS in action. They’re solid: zinc-based chemistry that’s non-flammable, hits 90%+ round-trip efficiency, and holds 96% capacity over 25 years, even in brutal conditions. But up until now, Eos was cramming them into standard containers, trying to fit into what the market expects from BESS. This was never going to work. Indensity flips that script. It’s basically Lego blocks for energy storage. Stackable Indensity Core units that slot into a simple steel frame. You build the superstructure first, then forklift the cores into place. No more suspending modules from container walls; they sit flat on the floor. It’s modular, weather-proof, and rated for indoor or outdoor use. Spread them out in rural spots, stack them high in suburbs to dodge zoning headaches, or go vertical in tight urban areas where land is gold. The breakthrough here? Way more power in the same footprint, powered by the same Z3 modules we know, but packaged smarter. You may think it’s “just” a repackaging, but form factor shifts have crushed it in other industries many times before. Think shipping containers: standardize the box, and suddenly global trade explodes. Even Lego itself started as simple bricks, but the interlocking design created endless possibilities and dominated toys. Indensity does that for BESS, turns rigid containers into flexible stacks that adapt to any site, any scale. This has a huge impact on manufacturing and costs too. On the factory side, this setup screams automation. Their lines can now churn out Z3 modules straight into these steel-framed packs, even pre-stacked in multiple layers. No more wrestling with full containers during assembly. It’s like palletizing goods for a warehouse. Defect rates drop because handling is simpler, and you can extend the production line with a substation that outputs ready-to-ship units. Transportation? Huge win. These cores fit like pallets in standard trucks. No cranes at the destination. Just forklift them off the lorry and slot them in. Installation gets stupid easy too: forklifts instead of heavy cranes mean faster setup, less site prep, and lower labor costs. And with the density jump, you’re using less land overall, which slashes permitting time and real estate expenses in crowded areas. Bottom line: this isn’t competing in the traditional "container BESS market" anymore. It’s carving out a whole new space where no one’s playing yet: hyper-dense, hyper-flexible storage for tough spots like data centers or urban grids. Sure, sodium-ion might show up eventually, but right now? Zero real competition. If Eos nails execution (and yeah, they’ve been busy scaling sales alongside this), investors will wake up to the massive market here. No more apples-to-apples with Lithium-Ion. Mark my words: this is zero-to-one moment for Eos. Well done 🔋Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.🔋. Hats off. What do you all think?
11:23

$EOSE I get it, it’s easy to feel let down when you’re waiting for sales numbers or partnerships to light up the stock, but you get a new product announcement you didn't expect. But hear me out: This marks an inflection point. Don't underestimate this breakthrough innovation. Super bullish on where this takes Eos. This isn’t just another tweak; it’s a game-changer in how energy storage/BESS will be thought about. Sometimes the biggest innovations boil down to the form factor, how you package and deploy the tech. This feels like one of those moments. Look, we’ve all seen the Z3 modules and DawnOS in action. They’re solid: zinc-based chemistry that’s non-flammable, hits 90%+ round-trip efficiency, and holds 96% capacity over 25 years, even in brutal conditions. But up until now, Eos was cramming them into standard containers, trying to fit into what the market expects from BESS. This was never going to work. Indensity flips that script. It’s basically Lego blocks for energy storage. Stackable Indensity Core units that slot into a simple steel frame. You build the superstructure first, then forklift the cores into place. No more suspending modules from container walls; they sit flat on the floor. It’s modular, weather-proof, and rated for indoor or outdoor use. Spread them out in rural spots, stack them high in suburbs to dodge zoning headaches, or go vertical in tight urban areas where land is gold. The breakthrough here? Way more power in the same footprint, powered by the same Z3 modules we know, but packaged smarter. You may think it’s “just” a repackaging, but form factor shifts have crushed it in other industries many times before. Think shipping containers: standardize the box, and suddenly global trade explodes. Even Lego itself started as simple bricks, but the interlocking design created endless possibilities and dominated toys. Indensity does that for BESS, turns rigid containers into flexible stacks that adapt to any site, any scale. This has a huge impact on manufacturing and costs too. On the factory side, this setup screams automation. Their lines can now churn out Z3 modules straight into these steel-framed packs, even pre-stacked in multiple layers. No more wrestling with full containers during assembly. It’s like palletizing goods for a warehouse. Defect rates drop because handling is simpler, and you can extend the production line with a substation that outputs ready-to-ship units. Transportation? Huge win. These cores fit like pallets in standard trucks. No cranes at the destination. Just forklift them off the lorry and slot them in. Installation gets stupid easy too: forklifts instead of heavy cranes mean faster setup, less site prep, and lower labor costs. And with the density jump, you’re using less land overall, which slashes permitting time and real estate expenses in crowded areas. Bottom line: this isn’t competing in the traditional "container BESS market" anymore. It’s carving out a whole new space where no one’s playing yet: hyper-dense, hyper-flexible storage for tough spots like data centers or urban grids. Sure, sodium-ion might show up eventually, but right now? Zero real competition. If Eos nails execution (and yeah, they’ve been busy scaling sales alongside this), investors will wake up to the massive market here. No more apples-to-apples with Lithium-Ion. Mark my words: this is zero-to-one moment for Eos. Well done 🔋Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.🔋. Hats off. What do you all think?

Michal Brojak

31,120 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.
5:28

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.

Arnaud Bertrand

193,688 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.
8:11

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.

Terri Green

24,466 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад