Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Joss&Gunn cant write healthy character dynamics between heroes. Joss whedons Diana pushes Bruce when the convosation gets heated.

Amazon_artemis's profile picture

💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖

1,930 subscribers

24,335 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Sanat
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Yorum

SuperTuberEddie 🪓❄️ profil fotoğrafı
SuperTuberEddie 🪓❄️1 yıl önce

Jesus… it’s like looking at the Clark and Lois interview scene 😳

💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖 profil fotoğrafı
💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖1 yıl önce

An were supposed to be told in sayin that this is normal couple dynamics 😭

The Lethal Geeks profil fotoğrafı
The Lethal Geeks1 yıl önce

Yeah this is trash

💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖 profil fotoğrafı
💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖1 yıl önce

I hate reminding myself that josstice keague exists 😂

Wolffe 🐺 profil fotoğrafı
Wolffe 🐺1 yıl önce

Bruce's wig omg I forgot how ugly that movie looked 😭

💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖 profil fotoğrafı
💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖1 yıl önce

And hes so red looks like a tomato 😭

Meamth profil fotoğrafı
Meamth1 yıl önce

Lol so what do you prefer? Staring contest between Lois and Clark after a building just exploded? 🤣

Cain Podcast por X profil fotoğrafı
Cain Podcast por X1 yıl önce

Ni siquiera recordaba esto 🤣🤣🤣 Creo que mi mente ha bloqueado toda esa basura de Joss Whedon 🤣🤣🤣 Lo único bueno que hizo Whedon en Josstice League fue la canción del inicio Todos los demás cambios, no aportan nada, arruinó a Steppenwolf y a Cyborg principalmente

Skylar Clark Kent profil fotoğrafı
Skylar Clark Kent1 yıl önce

This is the new line of argument. “But we ALL talk to our partners like this it’s a normal relationship” I’ve seen relationships where people roll their eyes at you and raise their voices at the slightest provocation and no one wants to be around that guy let alone be their SO

💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖 profil fotoğrafı
💙Artemis🩷 🌍+☁️=💖1 yıl önce

Theyve never been in a healthy relationship. Ive been with my fiance 10 years, never yelled at each other cus we are commited to each others peace, we communicate. Superman is the ideal. He should be composed cus if he isnt, hes a timebomb

Benzer Videolar

Things got HEATED last week between Thunder Rosa and Penelope Ford, it gets settled in the ring when they go 1-on-1 NEXT WEEK on Collision! Watch #AEWCollision on TNT Drama & @SportsOnMax Penelope Ford | Thunder Rosa
0:52

Things got HEATED last week between Thunder Rosa and Penelope Ford, it gets settled in the ring when they go 1-on-1 NEXT WEEK on Collision! Watch #AEWCollision on TNT Drama & @SportsOnMax Penelope Ford | Thunder Rosa

All Elite Wrestling

35,479 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I really love this part of the interview. It shows how much effort they’ve put in, how much they’ve grown, and how they still genuinely want to keep learning about each other. MC: Has it taken you a long time to get to where you are now? Have there been any conflicts between you? What kind? Gawin : Yeah, there have. Joss: I think the conflicts mostly come from differences in lifestyle and personality. When you spend a lot of time together, you’re bound to see both the good and the bad sides. Like me… I’ve said this before, but my energy tends to push, while his is more pull. I’m the type who always wants to do this, do that, go here, go there. I’m always inviting him to do things. Sometimes, I end up stepping into his space a bit too much. And Gawin is like… introvert level 900. MC: Level 900? Joss: Honestly, more like 999. He needs to go home and recharge, spend time on his own. But sometimes I feel like there are so many things I want him to do with me, so I might invite him a bit too much. And when he doesn’t respond or join in, because he needs to recharge, I end up feeling a certain way. MC: Like upset? Joss: Yeah. But in the end, I have to reflect on myself too. Like, am I pushing him too much? I have friends who help me understand that even if I think what I’m offering is good, he’s the one who gets to decide whether it’s good for him or not. He has to choose for himself. So I think it’s better for me to just give him space. If he wants to join, he can come in on his own. But it’s still a process, we’re still learning about each other. We haven’t known each other for that long. Three years isn’t actually that long. Gawin: Has it really been three years already? Joss: Around two to three years, right? Yeah, we’ve known each other for two almost three years now but we still have a lot to learn about each other. #Flex1045xOnlyFriendsDreamOn #JossGawin
1:47

I really love this part of the interview. It shows how much effort they’ve put in, how much they’ve grown, and how they still genuinely want to keep learning about each other. MC: Has it taken you a long time to get to where you are now? Have there been any conflicts between you? What kind? Gawin : Yeah, there have. Joss: I think the conflicts mostly come from differences in lifestyle and personality. When you spend a lot of time together, you’re bound to see both the good and the bad sides. Like me… I’ve said this before, but my energy tends to push, while his is more pull. I’m the type who always wants to do this, do that, go here, go there. I’m always inviting him to do things. Sometimes, I end up stepping into his space a bit too much. And Gawin is like… introvert level 900. MC: Level 900? Joss: Honestly, more like 999. He needs to go home and recharge, spend time on his own. But sometimes I feel like there are so many things I want him to do with me, so I might invite him a bit too much. And when he doesn’t respond or join in, because he needs to recharge, I end up feeling a certain way. MC: Like upset? Joss: Yeah. But in the end, I have to reflect on myself too. Like, am I pushing him too much? I have friends who help me understand that even if I think what I’m offering is good, he’s the one who gets to decide whether it’s good for him or not. He has to choose for himself. So I think it’s better for me to just give him space. If he wants to join, he can come in on his own. But it’s still a process, we’re still learning about each other. We haven’t known each other for that long. Three years isn’t actually that long. Gawin: Has it really been three years already? Joss: Around two to three years, right? Yeah, we’ve known each other for two almost three years now but we still have a lot to learn about each other. #Flex1045xOnlyFriendsDreamOn #JossGawin

🌛โตไม่โต🌈

35,430 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Mark Cuban just compared the most powerful AI on earth to a two-year-old in a high chair. The toddler won. Cuban: “A two-year-old on a high chair with a sippy cup knows that when she pushes that cup off, Mom’s going to come running and the baby’s going to be laughing its ass off. It knows the consequences of its actions.” Then he named the thing no one building AI wants to say out loud. Cuban: “If you ask ChatGPT or any of them something and it gives you bad advice, it has no idea what’s going to happen because you took that bad advice.” A system that passed the bar exam. Aced medical boards. Still can’t grasp what a child who can’t tie her own shoes already knows. The child understands cause and effect. AI understands pattern and prediction. They sound similar. They are not even close. A pattern tells you what comes next in a sequence. Consequence tells you what happens to the person standing at the end of it. One is math. The other is meaning. Cuban went further. Cuban: “If you were blind at an intersection and had the choice between your seeing-eye dog or holding up a phone with AI, I’m taking the seeing-eye dog every time.” Because the dog understands something no language model on earth understands. Stakes. The dog knows a wrong step means its owner gets hurt. The app knows a wrong step means a revised output. Hundreds of billions spent building systems that can write, reason, and diagnose. Not one of them loses sleep when the answer is wrong. A toddler pushing a cup off a tray runs a tighter feedback loop than every foundation model combined. The child doesn’t just predict the outcome. The child wants the reaction. Pushes the cup off the edge, watches it fall, watches Mom come running. Laughs. Because the child knew what would happen before the cup ever hit the floor. That gap between prediction and consequence isn’t a bug. It’s not getting patched in the next update. It is the unsolved problem of artificial intelligence. We didn’t build minds. We built mirrors. Mirrors don’t flinch when you walk into traffic.
1:10

Mark Cuban just compared the most powerful AI on earth to a two-year-old in a high chair. The toddler won. Cuban: “A two-year-old on a high chair with a sippy cup knows that when she pushes that cup off, Mom’s going to come running and the baby’s going to be laughing its ass off. It knows the consequences of its actions.” Then he named the thing no one building AI wants to say out loud. Cuban: “If you ask ChatGPT or any of them something and it gives you bad advice, it has no idea what’s going to happen because you took that bad advice.” A system that passed the bar exam. Aced medical boards. Still can’t grasp what a child who can’t tie her own shoes already knows. The child understands cause and effect. AI understands pattern and prediction. They sound similar. They are not even close. A pattern tells you what comes next in a sequence. Consequence tells you what happens to the person standing at the end of it. One is math. The other is meaning. Cuban went further. Cuban: “If you were blind at an intersection and had the choice between your seeing-eye dog or holding up a phone with AI, I’m taking the seeing-eye dog every time.” Because the dog understands something no language model on earth understands. Stakes. The dog knows a wrong step means its owner gets hurt. The app knows a wrong step means a revised output. Hundreds of billions spent building systems that can write, reason, and diagnose. Not one of them loses sleep when the answer is wrong. A toddler pushing a cup off a tray runs a tighter feedback loop than every foundation model combined. The child doesn’t just predict the outcome. The child wants the reaction. Pushes the cup off the edge, watches it fall, watches Mom come running. Laughs. Because the child knew what would happen before the cup ever hit the floor. That gap between prediction and consequence isn’t a bug. It’s not getting patched in the next update. It is the unsolved problem of artificial intelligence. We didn’t build minds. We built mirrors. Mirrors don’t flinch when you walk into traffic.

Dustin

47,842 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I modelled the head, face, and battle mask for Optimus Prime for #Transformers ROTB. I also designed his new "centurion" open battle mask look along with it's animation. The director wanted the face to resemble the face from the 2007 Transformers film as ROTB was a soft-prequel to it but also wanted it to be tweaked to fit the new design and for us to give it some new unique features. This is where we came up with the new mask design which doesn't get entirely hidden when open. Instead, it gets stored on the side of his cheeks, like a Roman centurions helmet. The head design is derived from his model from the 2018 Bumblebee film to keep some consistency with that film too as ROTB was also a soft-sequel to Bumblebee. There are new pieces, adjusted proportions, and reworks to detailing in ROTBs version. The face proportions are modified from the 2007 face to be a lot wider and beefier, matching his new head shape and look. I redesigned and built the eyes from scratch using our kitbash pieces like I did for all the Maximals and Mirage. The studio decided against going for the holographic eyes look from the 2018 Bumblebee film but rather wanted a more simple look in between the 2007 and the 2018 eyes. I added a lot of small mechanical details to his battle mask animation which we unfortunately never get to see in the film. For example, I designed a fully functional mechanism which pushes his chin piece back when his mask closes. This was very cool when it was visible, our Animation Director and VFX Supervisors were super excited about it, but unfortunately no shot showed it off in the final film. It was a lot of fun to help model and design Optimus Prime for this film. I'm happy I got to contribute to such an iconic character. CREDITS: Video: Paramount, MPC, WetaFX Ruairidh MacNeill modelled the body for Optimus
0:23

I modelled the head, face, and battle mask for Optimus Prime for #Transformers ROTB. I also designed his new "centurion" open battle mask look along with it's animation. The director wanted the face to resemble the face from the 2007 Transformers film as ROTB was a soft-prequel to it but also wanted it to be tweaked to fit the new design and for us to give it some new unique features. This is where we came up with the new mask design which doesn't get entirely hidden when open. Instead, it gets stored on the side of his cheeks, like a Roman centurions helmet. The head design is derived from his model from the 2018 Bumblebee film to keep some consistency with that film too as ROTB was also a soft-sequel to Bumblebee. There are new pieces, adjusted proportions, and reworks to detailing in ROTBs version. The face proportions are modified from the 2007 face to be a lot wider and beefier, matching his new head shape and look. I redesigned and built the eyes from scratch using our kitbash pieces like I did for all the Maximals and Mirage. The studio decided against going for the holographic eyes look from the 2018 Bumblebee film but rather wanted a more simple look in between the 2007 and the 2018 eyes. I added a lot of small mechanical details to his battle mask animation which we unfortunately never get to see in the film. For example, I designed a fully functional mechanism which pushes his chin piece back when his mask closes. This was very cool when it was visible, our Animation Director and VFX Supervisors were super excited about it, but unfortunately no shot showed it off in the final film. It was a lot of fun to help model and design Optimus Prime for this film. I'm happy I got to contribute to such an iconic character. CREDITS: Video: Paramount, MPC, WetaFX Ruairidh MacNeill modelled the body for Optimus

Rassoul Edji

388,350 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t envisioned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television! Today's productions can barely manage a third that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took it’s final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your home computer, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Different individuals envisioned these characters in very different ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally envisioned as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on who that actor should be. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final role went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! Hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become.
0:57

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t envisioned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television! Today's productions can barely manage a third that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took it’s final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your home computer, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Different individuals envisioned these characters in very different ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally envisioned as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on who that actor should be. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final role went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! Hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become.

Joseph Mallozzi 🏴‍☠️

28,063 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

David Icke explains how the "global cult" that manipulates world events aims to keep us in a "low-vibrational state" in order to harvest our anxiety, depression, hatred—i.e., our "loosh." "We are basically in a fish tank being prodded all the time to generate all these low-vibrational frequencies, which this force is feeding off." This clip of Icke (David Icke), an author, researcher, and public speaker, is taken from a discussion with Liz Gunn (Liz Gunn) posted to the FreeNZ (FreeNZ) Rumble channel on March 27, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Because you are generating frequencies with your state of being, your state of perception that are vibrating the field around you very fast. So it appears to be oh I feel so light. But when people say I feel so heavy today, when they're in a low frequency state, emotional mental state, that is because the low frequencies are related to the frequencies of fear, major one. Of the reptilian brain generates the fear by the way, to a large extent, they are generating anxiety, depression, resentment, regret, hatred, conflict, war in all its forms. "These are low, slow frequencies that we're giving off. Some people say oh I feel so heavy today. And this force is feeding off human energy. It's feeding off a particular type of human energy, that low vibrational type, which some people have given the term loosh to. And so, suddenly, it dawns why the world is as it is. Because this force has, through its global cult, not least of manipulating world events, has no interest in a world of love, of joy, of peace, of contentment, of balance, of harmony. "It wants a world that generates the low frequency emotional and mental energy that it feeds off and gets sustenance from and power from. And so you have this this matrix, this closed system or closed if we submit to it. And you have this global cult in this human reality that is serving that non-human force. And it serves it by constantly generating situations, societies, events that are designed to trigger and generate low frequency energy. "I mean you know, think of the First World War. Think of the Second World War. Think of the Great Depression between them. Think of what's happened in Gaza since October 7th. Think of what's been happening in Iran, and other countries that Iran responds to with missiles. In the last few weeks how much loosh has been created, which they feed off. "There's this scene in the first Matrix movie where the Morpheus character holds up a battery and says the Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to turn humans into this. And that was a profound truth in an apparently fictional movie. Because that's that's what we're doing. "So we are basically in a fish tank being prodded all the time to generate all these low vibrational, frequencies, which this force is feeding off. And that's why when you, you go into this expanded— More, more expanded state of awareness, you start to become the observer. And you don't get pulled into the drama, because what does the drama do? Generates loosh. Oh, my God. Have you heard the latest? Oh, my God. Exactly what we're supposed to do instead of calmly observing and not getting caught in the dramas that are put before us constantly."
4:52

David Icke explains how the "global cult" that manipulates world events aims to keep us in a "low-vibrational state" in order to harvest our anxiety, depression, hatred—i.e., our "loosh." "We are basically in a fish tank being prodded all the time to generate all these low-vibrational frequencies, which this force is feeding off." This clip of Icke (David Icke), an author, researcher, and public speaker, is taken from a discussion with Liz Gunn (Liz Gunn) posted to the FreeNZ (FreeNZ) Rumble channel on March 27, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Because you are generating frequencies with your state of being, your state of perception that are vibrating the field around you very fast. So it appears to be oh I feel so light. But when people say I feel so heavy today, when they're in a low frequency state, emotional mental state, that is because the low frequencies are related to the frequencies of fear, major one. Of the reptilian brain generates the fear by the way, to a large extent, they are generating anxiety, depression, resentment, regret, hatred, conflict, war in all its forms. "These are low, slow frequencies that we're giving off. Some people say oh I feel so heavy today. And this force is feeding off human energy. It's feeding off a particular type of human energy, that low vibrational type, which some people have given the term loosh to. And so, suddenly, it dawns why the world is as it is. Because this force has, through its global cult, not least of manipulating world events, has no interest in a world of love, of joy, of peace, of contentment, of balance, of harmony. "It wants a world that generates the low frequency emotional and mental energy that it feeds off and gets sustenance from and power from. And so you have this this matrix, this closed system or closed if we submit to it. And you have this global cult in this human reality that is serving that non-human force. And it serves it by constantly generating situations, societies, events that are designed to trigger and generate low frequency energy. "I mean you know, think of the First World War. Think of the Second World War. Think of the Great Depression between them. Think of what's happened in Gaza since October 7th. Think of what's been happening in Iran, and other countries that Iran responds to with missiles. In the last few weeks how much loosh has been created, which they feed off. "There's this scene in the first Matrix movie where the Morpheus character holds up a battery and says the Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to turn humans into this. And that was a profound truth in an apparently fictional movie. Because that's that's what we're doing. "So we are basically in a fish tank being prodded all the time to generate all these low vibrational, frequencies, which this force is feeding off. And that's why when you, you go into this expanded— More, more expanded state of awareness, you start to become the observer. And you don't get pulled into the drama, because what does the drama do? Generates loosh. Oh, my God. Have you heard the latest? Oh, my God. Exactly what we're supposed to do instead of calmly observing and not getting caught in the dramas that are put before us constantly."

Sense Receptor

39,732 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

We launched ViralCuts just over a month ago. And we're crushing it for customers: - 100,000,000+ video views - Millions of engagements - Hundreds of thousands of followers added Oh yeah... We just crossed 7-figures in ARR A few lessons on building a productized service 👇 --- 1️⃣ Your Pricing Model is Everything We've iterated our pricing 3 times. Within a month. With every new sales call and customer, we're learning how to optimize our price & offer. Make sure you're hitting the sweet spot between the value your customer gets and your own need to have healthy margins. Ideally this is something like cost Staff Cost * 4 / Project Capacity = Price 2️⃣ Obsess Over Customer Experience Within minutes of signing up all new customers receive a warm welcome from their Project Manager. We make sure they understand how everything works. We offer to hop on a call to answer any questions when getting started. We communicate updates daily. Feedback is addressed instantly. Across all of our businesses we make sure customers know that we really give a sh*t. 3️⃣ Maintain the Highest Standards Our team is really, really good. I'd argue the best. But we still have the occasional struggle. Sometimes a video is a miss. Sometimes a ball gets dropped. Every time there's a little turbulence, we write down what happened, our solution to the problem, and then we update our Guidelines and Process. You can't avoid all mistakes. But you can learn from them and create systems & expectations to avoid them from repeating. 4️⃣ Don't Stress Your Capacity If you're lucky enough to get a lot of demand, you may be tempted to take on more work than you can handle. Don't. Yeah, money is cool and all, but delivering a poor experience and hurting your reputation is a stain that you can't wash out. Only take on customers if you're certain you can deliver the highest-quality work and experience for them. 5️⃣ Choose Your Partners Carefully Greatest decision I made in building ViralCuts was easily who I chose to partner with. Codie Sanchez and Sam Parr have been huge when it comes to: - video quality feedback - customer process - content & growth - financial fine-tuning Here's a new video to show you what ViralCuts is all about. Roll that beautiful footage! 🎥
0:39

We launched ViralCuts just over a month ago. And we're crushing it for customers: - 100,000,000+ video views - Millions of engagements - Hundreds of thousands of followers added Oh yeah... We just crossed 7-figures in ARR A few lessons on building a productized service 👇 --- 1️⃣ Your Pricing Model is Everything We've iterated our pricing 3 times. Within a month. With every new sales call and customer, we're learning how to optimize our price & offer. Make sure you're hitting the sweet spot between the value your customer gets and your own need to have healthy margins. Ideally this is something like cost Staff Cost * 4 / Project Capacity = Price 2️⃣ Obsess Over Customer Experience Within minutes of signing up all new customers receive a warm welcome from their Project Manager. We make sure they understand how everything works. We offer to hop on a call to answer any questions when getting started. We communicate updates daily. Feedback is addressed instantly. Across all of our businesses we make sure customers know that we really give a sh*t. 3️⃣ Maintain the Highest Standards Our team is really, really good. I'd argue the best. But we still have the occasional struggle. Sometimes a video is a miss. Sometimes a ball gets dropped. Every time there's a little turbulence, we write down what happened, our solution to the problem, and then we update our Guidelines and Process. You can't avoid all mistakes. But you can learn from them and create systems & expectations to avoid them from repeating. 4️⃣ Don't Stress Your Capacity If you're lucky enough to get a lot of demand, you may be tempted to take on more work than you can handle. Don't. Yeah, money is cool and all, but delivering a poor experience and hurting your reputation is a stain that you can't wash out. Only take on customers if you're certain you can deliver the highest-quality work and experience for them. 5️⃣ Choose Your Partners Carefully Greatest decision I made in building ViralCuts was easily who I chose to partner with. Codie Sanchez and Sam Parr have been huge when it comes to: - video quality feedback - customer process - content & growth - financial fine-tuning Here's a new video to show you what ViralCuts is all about. Roll that beautiful footage! 🎥

Hunter Hammonds

106,205 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Jordan Peterson on Elon Musk: "My mind is a storm… I don’t think most people would want to be me" "There was a recent interview with Elon Musk where he said something... 'My mind is a storm. I don't think most people would want to be me. They may think they would want to be me... but they don't. They don't know. They don't understand.'" Peterson explains: "One of the downsides to high-level genius is what you might describe as hypermania." On verbal fluency and creativity: "Here's a simple test. Write down as many four-letter words as you can in three minutes that begin with 'T.' Or write down as many words as you can in three minutes that begin with 'S.' There's quite a powerful correlation between the sheer number of words you produce and your lifetime creative achievement... especially in the artistic and verbal domains." He distinguishes: "That's different than vocabulary. Vocabulary is how many words you understand. Fluency is how many words you can produce in a given amount of time." The variance is staggering: "People vary to a degree you can hardly imagine. Some people... if you get them to do the four-letter test in three minutes... they'll write down 12 words. Some will write down 150. The ones writing down 150... their minds are going at a hypomanic rate. They're just thinking five times as fast. Without any remission whatsoever." On when it goes too far: "When that gets completely out of control, you have someone who's manic. There's nothing fun about manic. That's where the word 'maniac' comes from. Someone who's manic has a thousand different plans... each of which are one sentence long... that they're hyper-enthusiastic about. They'll spend every cent of their money pursuing them. And things just go immediately to hell." He applies it: "That's the outer limit of pathology on the creative front. Someone like Musk who's clearly a genius... that's what he's contending with in his internal landscape. I'm not saying he's manic because I see no signs of that. But someone that creative is on that edge." On minds that move too fast: "Take someone like Ben Shapiro. It's very interesting to talk to Ben... Russell Brand is the same way. Shapiro speaks more rapidly than anyone I ever met. But if you're with him, you see very clearly that he's probably thinking five times that fast. And that's a lot." Peterson shares his own experience: "When I was writing Maps of Meaning... my first book... I had a very difficult time shutting off my mind. I was obsessed with that book. I was writing about 3 hours a day. Then I was thinking about the material for like 12 hours. And the thoughts came way faster than thinking. They probably came about as fast as I can read... about 1,200 words a minute. It was just nonstop thought for 16 hours a day." How he coped: "That's part of the reason I started lifting weights. If I was lifting heavy... thinking at 1,200 words a minute while I've got 100 pounds on my back... it was enough to shut it down. It was also one of the reasons I drank. That was another thing that would shut it off." On the price of genius: "The price that people pay to be the person they admire is such an interesting frame. 'My mind is a storm. I don't think most people would want to be me.' The price you would have to pay in order to be me is not one you would want to pay." The interviewer pushes back: but you're one of the richest men on the planet, you get to release bulletproof cars and put rockets in space... Peterson: "Yeah, but what about all the baggage? He also appears to me to be hyper-conscientious. Musk isn't just a creative genius... he's also an extremely conscientious engineer. Really conscientious engineers have very interesting minds. When they understand something... they understand how to build it out of atoms. They understand it at every single level." On the rare combination: "Musk appears to me to be someone who's this rare combination of hyper-creative but also hyper-conscientious. And I know he works all the time." The interviewer asks: does that hypertrophied executive function help wrangle some of the diffuse creative energy? Peterson: "Yes. Definitely. Eric Weinstein is a good example... Eric is unbelievably creative but he's not particularly conscientious. I think he found an occupation where that works extremely well... he worked with Peter Thiel for quite a long time as his idea man." He contrasts: "Musk is hyper-creative and as far as I can tell hyper-conscientious. The conscientiousness does focus it. Lots of creative people aren't conscientious. There's no correlation between creativity and conscientiousness." The math: "If you're the most creative person in a thousand... and you're the most conscientious person in a thousand... you're one person in a million. Musk is probably more like one person in 100 million. Maybe more. Maybe a billion."
5:59

Jordan Peterson on Elon Musk: "My mind is a storm… I don’t think most people would want to be me" "There was a recent interview with Elon Musk where he said something... 'My mind is a storm. I don't think most people would want to be me. They may think they would want to be me... but they don't. They don't know. They don't understand.'" Peterson explains: "One of the downsides to high-level genius is what you might describe as hypermania." On verbal fluency and creativity: "Here's a simple test. Write down as many four-letter words as you can in three minutes that begin with 'T.' Or write down as many words as you can in three minutes that begin with 'S.' There's quite a powerful correlation between the sheer number of words you produce and your lifetime creative achievement... especially in the artistic and verbal domains." He distinguishes: "That's different than vocabulary. Vocabulary is how many words you understand. Fluency is how many words you can produce in a given amount of time." The variance is staggering: "People vary to a degree you can hardly imagine. Some people... if you get them to do the four-letter test in three minutes... they'll write down 12 words. Some will write down 150. The ones writing down 150... their minds are going at a hypomanic rate. They're just thinking five times as fast. Without any remission whatsoever." On when it goes too far: "When that gets completely out of control, you have someone who's manic. There's nothing fun about manic. That's where the word 'maniac' comes from. Someone who's manic has a thousand different plans... each of which are one sentence long... that they're hyper-enthusiastic about. They'll spend every cent of their money pursuing them. And things just go immediately to hell." He applies it: "That's the outer limit of pathology on the creative front. Someone like Musk who's clearly a genius... that's what he's contending with in his internal landscape. I'm not saying he's manic because I see no signs of that. But someone that creative is on that edge." On minds that move too fast: "Take someone like Ben Shapiro. It's very interesting to talk to Ben... Russell Brand is the same way. Shapiro speaks more rapidly than anyone I ever met. But if you're with him, you see very clearly that he's probably thinking five times that fast. And that's a lot." Peterson shares his own experience: "When I was writing Maps of Meaning... my first book... I had a very difficult time shutting off my mind. I was obsessed with that book. I was writing about 3 hours a day. Then I was thinking about the material for like 12 hours. And the thoughts came way faster than thinking. They probably came about as fast as I can read... about 1,200 words a minute. It was just nonstop thought for 16 hours a day." How he coped: "That's part of the reason I started lifting weights. If I was lifting heavy... thinking at 1,200 words a minute while I've got 100 pounds on my back... it was enough to shut it down. It was also one of the reasons I drank. That was another thing that would shut it off." On the price of genius: "The price that people pay to be the person they admire is such an interesting frame. 'My mind is a storm. I don't think most people would want to be me.' The price you would have to pay in order to be me is not one you would want to pay." The interviewer pushes back: but you're one of the richest men on the planet, you get to release bulletproof cars and put rockets in space... Peterson: "Yeah, but what about all the baggage? He also appears to me to be hyper-conscientious. Musk isn't just a creative genius... he's also an extremely conscientious engineer. Really conscientious engineers have very interesting minds. When they understand something... they understand how to build it out of atoms. They understand it at every single level." On the rare combination: "Musk appears to me to be someone who's this rare combination of hyper-creative but also hyper-conscientious. And I know he works all the time." The interviewer asks: does that hypertrophied executive function help wrangle some of the diffuse creative energy? Peterson: "Yes. Definitely. Eric Weinstein is a good example... Eric is unbelievably creative but he's not particularly conscientious. I think he found an occupation where that works extremely well... he worked with Peter Thiel for quite a long time as his idea man." He contrasts: "Musk is hyper-creative and as far as I can tell hyper-conscientious. The conscientiousness does focus it. Lots of creative people aren't conscientious. There's no correlation between creativity and conscientiousness." The math: "If you're the most creative person in a thousand... and you're the most conscientious person in a thousand... you're one person in a million. Musk is probably more like one person in 100 million. Maybe more. Maybe a billion."

Jaynit

181,580 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t originally planned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television in a year! Today's productions can barely manage a quarter that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took its final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your laptop, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Various individuals envisioned these characters in various ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion (Paul McGillion) in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson (torri higginson 🌻 🇺🇦 🕊) who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel Luttrell (Rachel Luttrell) pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks (Rainbow Sun Francks) won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally conceived as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan (Joe Flanigan) who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on an actor to fill that role. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final part went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay played by David Hewlett (David "Stargate Genius Leader" Hewlett)? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! I mean, hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become. How do you think we did?
1:01

Stargate Trivia: Casting Stargate: Atlantis While SG-1 was my first love (We were together for seven years!), my time on Atlantis proved equally memorable. The show was possessed of a similar tone in its mix of high adventure and humor, yet proved distinct in its exploration of Ancient mythology and an unfamiliar galaxy as seen through the eyes of a new set of heroes. Atlantis offered a sense of wonder and camaraderie born of isolation and constant danger. Whereas team SG-1 could always go home at the conclusion of their adventures, the members of the Atlantis expedition (at least for those first few seasons) could only draw comfort from the city of Atlantis itself – and, of course, each other. It was unique and compelling yet, at the same time, comfortingly familiar. Nowhere is this more evident than in its opening theme, composed by the late Joel Goldsmith, which is, at turns fresh, haunting, stirring and, throughout, discernibly Stargate. Stargate: Atlantis wasn’t originally planned as a companion to Stargate: SG-1. It was intended to replace the long-running series. The only problem was, with eight seasons under its belt, SG-1 wasn’t quite done yet. And fans (and the network) weren’t done with it either. And so, instead of passing the torch and segueing to a new Stargate series, we ended up producing both. In retrospect, it was quite an achievement: 40 hours of television in a year! Today's productions can barely manage a quarter that output, but Stargates SG-1 and Atlantis delivered two fantastic 40 episode seasons before SG-1 took its final bow. It wasn’t easy, but it was certainly made easier by all of the enormously talented individuals who made it happen, from the office staff and crew to the cast and my fellow writer/producers. Still, it was not without its challenges. Take casting, for instance. It may surprise you to know that, when it comes to producing a show, not everybody cares about costumes or set design or whether the script’s fifth act denouement is emotionally satisfying - but everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, has an opinion on casting. Studio and network execs, producers, hell, even your significant other peering over your shoulder as you screen the auditions on your laptop, will want to weigh in. Of course, the more voices in the mix the more likely there are to be disagreements. So it is with every production and Atlantis was no different. Various individuals envisioned these characters in various ways and, as a result, consensus was only achieved after many auditions, calls-backs, heated discussions, and not-so-gentle reminders that our start date was fast-approaching and we really needed someone to say the lines on camera. The part of Carson Beckett was one of the first we cast. The other producers were in Rob’s office, screening the first batch of local auditions when Brad called me in and told me to check out the guy onscreen. I hadn’t imagined Beckett with a Scottish accent but, after watching Paul McGillion (Paul McGillion) in the role, I couldn’t imagine him without one. He’d brought something unexpected to the part, something we all responded to. Elizabeth Weir was not an easy character to pull off. She had to be smart, confident and strong yet needed to exude a certain warmth and empathy we were looking for in the civilian leader of the expedition. When it came time to (re)casting the role, several established names were considered (One had her own hit genre show back in the day while another went on to break out on a hit show soon after), but it was Torri Higginson (torri higginson 🌻 🇺🇦 🕊) who managed to strike just the right balance and vault her name to the top of the list. The role of Teyla Emmagan was a tough one to cast. Like Weir, she needed to be a strong, empathetic leader. But she also required something even more important – quite literally, an other-worldly quality that made her unique. Some equally talented actresses auditioned for the role but, as good as they were, they were never quite able to achieve that gravitas Rachel Luttrell (Rachel Luttrell) pulled off with such grace and seeming ease. Former VJ Rainbow Sun Francks (Rainbow Sun Francks) won the role of Lieutenant Ford on the strength of a great audition, preceded by an equally great audition with a funny hat. I recall Brad Wright on the phone with our casting agent, advising him to ensure there would be no hat worn in the callback for fear the network would fixate on it. There wasn't, they didn't, and Rainbow delivered. The role of John Sheppard was the second to last one cast. It came right down to the wire and there were several candidates in play. The character was originally conceived as a good ole southern boy, so it only made sense that Ben Browder’s name was bandied about early. However, he was too busy shooting Peacekeeper Wars to warrant consideration. A number of other actors were considered (one went on to play the lead in a hugely popular show the following year while another made his mark as a handsome heart throb on another hugely popular medical series) but it was Joe Flanigan (Joe Flanigan) who won the part based on his ability to pull off the devil-may-care attitude Brad and Robert were looking for. We come to the final role cast, a character who, in many ways, embodied everything Atlantis was about: exploration, discovery, fun, humor, and seat-of-your-pants-Holy-Sh&%-how-the-hell-am-I-going-to-get-out-of-this-adventure. And he almost didn’t make the trip to Pegasus. Originally, the casting call went out for a completely different character, an earnest young doctor who would lend the team much-needed medical support on their off-world ventures. Unfortunately, no one could agree on an actor to fill that role. If the casting of Sheppard went down to the wire, then the casting of this final part went a step past it. Finally, days away from production, Robert Cooper had an idea: Forget the doctor character. Why not use an established character from SG-1? How about Rodney McKay played by David Hewlett (David "Stargate Genius Leader" Hewlett)? The writers were on board, but some executives weren't weren’t sold on the idea. They found him annoying! I mean, hell yeah, but he’d be sooo much fun to write for! Rob got on the phone and went to bat for Rodney, pointing out that the character had come a long way since first being introduced way back in SG-1’s 48 Hours. He’d evolved, going from annoying jerk to endearingly irritating. To this day, I’m convinced that they weren’t totally convinced but, with production poised to commence, they relented, I suppose figuring they could just replace the character somewhere down the line. No one, even those who loved the idea of having the endearingly irritating Rodney McKay on board could have predicted how hugely popular the character would become. How do you think we did?

Joseph Mallozzi 🏴‍☠️

60,784 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

Finally, Bola has a mother with a name. Sule Lamido poured petrol on fire. He said “IBB is alive, go & ask him.” The entire Agbado Camp is in disarray. The Presidency will respond but Nigerians already read the full story from David Hundeyin. Nothing is new under the sun. As far as Nigeria goes? BAT is a story retold. 1. “He built Lagos.” ❌ 2. “He fought for Democracy.” ❌ Sule Lamido has set the tone for 2027. The man just cut the red tape. They are about to deflate Bola Tinubu’s oversized ego. So let the wahulence begin. I’m here for that & more. ✌️ Your political elites knew these before 2023, & kept quiet. They knew about Buhari’s aloofness before 2015, but sold him as the messiah. Nigeria is the only country where elders have become “transactional” in nation-building. Like Hollywood’s fictional character, James St. Patrick “Ghost,” Bola Tinubu is how a kingpin gets to rebrand himself, & not get caught. Nigeria is living a lie. Your History, if it’s any good, has taught me that “every villain is the hero of their own story.” This is true for BAT. Sule Lamido was right. Don't forget that Prof. Wole Soyinka also served as the "first chairman" of the Federal Road Safety (between 1988-1992) under Babaginda. Bola Tinubu attended IBB's Book Launch, why? THINK! June 12 NADECO story has a phony ringtone. BAT has this thing called the “Spirit of Covetousness” the Bible warned us against. To be covetous is to be greedy of gain. To have a covetous spirit is to have a restless spirit that never experiences peace. Book of Exodus 20:17 He likes to appropriate others’ achievements to himself. This is the man that put up a life-size portrait of himself at Eagle Square on June 12. The whole site reeked of fascism & its sister - megalomania. “On you mandate we stand!” It was obvious why he made that large art frame of himself on Democracy Day, instead of MKO Abiola. They wear June 12 & NADECO like badge. Yet, cowards were abroad, cashing cheques & writing articles (while the real heroes of democracy faced the bullets in Nigeria). The man who likes to be worshiped cannot help himself. “Does the Tinubu you know look like a man that will fight for Nigerians, & not himself?” A lie can run for a thousand years. It takes a day for the truth to catch up. Nigerians are desperately waiting for a lifeline. Many are largely ignored by the government. No love lost there. There will be a reckoning down the road. Just a question of when? I kinda enjoyed the way Sule Lamido kept referencing Bola as a “phony character." That's Elite Mannerism, "you can't touch me." He did that with a straight face, & backed it up with apologies for the embarrassments. IBB is still alive, & he should speak. Maradonna should set the records straight for posterity. Telling History precisely the way it happened, it shouldn’t be predicated on anyone’s comfort. Young Nigerians deserve to know the true story of “June 12” from the horse's mouth. It is their checkered history, don't keep it from them. The History of Nigeria is that of blood, lies, betrayal, & shame. Nigeria has been through blood & shame; nowadays, it lives in denial. If Nigeria must move forward, then we should stop pretending that all is well, & start to tell ourselves the truth. Healing comes after that. Anyway, congratulations to David Hundeyin. David is how underdogs can win. 👏👏
3:05

Finally, Bola has a mother with a name. Sule Lamido poured petrol on fire. He said “IBB is alive, go & ask him.” The entire Agbado Camp is in disarray. The Presidency will respond but Nigerians already read the full story from David Hundeyin. Nothing is new under the sun. As far as Nigeria goes? BAT is a story retold. 1. “He built Lagos.” ❌ 2. “He fought for Democracy.” ❌ Sule Lamido has set the tone for 2027. The man just cut the red tape. They are about to deflate Bola Tinubu’s oversized ego. So let the wahulence begin. I’m here for that & more. ✌️ Your political elites knew these before 2023, & kept quiet. They knew about Buhari’s aloofness before 2015, but sold him as the messiah. Nigeria is the only country where elders have become “transactional” in nation-building. Like Hollywood’s fictional character, James St. Patrick “Ghost,” Bola Tinubu is how a kingpin gets to rebrand himself, & not get caught. Nigeria is living a lie. Your History, if it’s any good, has taught me that “every villain is the hero of their own story.” This is true for BAT. Sule Lamido was right. Don't forget that Prof. Wole Soyinka also served as the "first chairman" of the Federal Road Safety (between 1988-1992) under Babaginda. Bola Tinubu attended IBB's Book Launch, why? THINK! June 12 NADECO story has a phony ringtone. BAT has this thing called the “Spirit of Covetousness” the Bible warned us against. To be covetous is to be greedy of gain. To have a covetous spirit is to have a restless spirit that never experiences peace. Book of Exodus 20:17 He likes to appropriate others’ achievements to himself. This is the man that put up a life-size portrait of himself at Eagle Square on June 12. The whole site reeked of fascism & its sister - megalomania. “On you mandate we stand!” It was obvious why he made that large art frame of himself on Democracy Day, instead of MKO Abiola. They wear June 12 & NADECO like badge. Yet, cowards were abroad, cashing cheques & writing articles (while the real heroes of democracy faced the bullets in Nigeria). The man who likes to be worshiped cannot help himself. “Does the Tinubu you know look like a man that will fight for Nigerians, & not himself?” A lie can run for a thousand years. It takes a day for the truth to catch up. Nigerians are desperately waiting for a lifeline. Many are largely ignored by the government. No love lost there. There will be a reckoning down the road. Just a question of when? I kinda enjoyed the way Sule Lamido kept referencing Bola as a “phony character." That's Elite Mannerism, "you can't touch me." He did that with a straight face, & backed it up with apologies for the embarrassments. IBB is still alive, & he should speak. Maradonna should set the records straight for posterity. Telling History precisely the way it happened, it shouldn’t be predicated on anyone’s comfort. Young Nigerians deserve to know the true story of “June 12” from the horse's mouth. It is their checkered history, don't keep it from them. The History of Nigeria is that of blood, lies, betrayal, & shame. Nigeria has been through blood & shame; nowadays, it lives in denial. If Nigeria must move forward, then we should stop pretending that all is well, & start to tell ourselves the truth. Healing comes after that. Anyway, congratulations to David Hundeyin. David is how underdogs can win. 👏👏

NEFERTITI

150,713 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Steel builds the modern world — and Alberta digs the coal to create it! Steel builds the modern world: bridges, hospitals, railways, even wind turbines. But steel doesn’t just appear out of thin air. It starts with metallurgical coal, and Alberta happens to have some of the best deposits of it anywhere on Earth. So, when activists say Alberta shouldn’t develop it… I have to say something pretty simple. Alberta digs coal, and we’re proud of it If you grew up anywhere near the oil patch in this province, there's a song you know. It’s four in the morning outside some extended-stay hotel in Grande Prairie or Bonnyville. There’s frost on the windshield of a diesel pickup warming up before shift. And blasting out of the speakers? “The Roughest Neck Around.” That song is practically the anthem of the oil patch. A tribute to the people who built modern Alberta with their hands and their backs. People like my dad, and just about every single man in my family. People who sacrifice being at home to work in forbidding conditions to earn a living, to give us something we all need to live comfortably. The line that always stuck with me is the one where he says the rig hand “brings the power to the people.” And that’s exactly what Alberta’s resource workers do. Oil, gas, coal. All of it powers the modern world. So, imagine my surprise when the man who wrote that song — Corb Lund — launched a campaign opposing coal development in Alberta. Look, I want to be clear about something. I’ve seen Corb Lund in concert many times. I’m a huge fan. And honestly, if all of my musical tastes had to perfectly align with my political views, my playlist would get pretty small, pretty fast. Most of us don’t listen to music that way. We listen because the songs feel true. Because they tell the story of where we come from, and Corb Lund has always done that for Alberta. Which is why this whole thing actually makes me a little sad. Because the man who wrote the anthem of the oil patch — a song celebrating the grit and sacrifice of the people who power this province — is now repeating some of the same environmentalist talking points that were are used to try to shut down the oil patch itself and the jobs that go along with it. The roughnecks. The welders. The truck drivers, and now the miners. The folks waking up at four in the morning to keep the lights on. I just can’t square that, and I won't abide the lies. Because the truth about coal in Alberta is very different from what people are hearing right now. First, not all coal is the same. The coal being discussed in Alberta’s eastern slopes isn’t coal for power plants — it’s metallurgical coal, essential for producing steel. And steel, at any meaningful industrial scale, cannot be produced without metallurgical coal. Countries around the world understand this. The United States, the European Union, South Africa, and New Zealand have all recognized metallurgical coal as a strategic resource tied directly to infrastructure and national security. Because if you don’t control the materials needed to make steel, you don’t control your industrial future, and Alberta happens to have some of the best undeveloped metallurgical coal deposits in the world. That’s an opportunity. But the conversation around coal mining in Alberta has been flooded with misinformation about a lack of oversight and polluted water. A lot of what people picture when they hear “coal mining” comes from images of mines that operate under completely different environmental rules. But modern mining in Alberta operates under strict regulatory oversight. Projects are monitored by the Alberta Energy Regulator, which enforces environmental standards covering water, land, air quality, and reclamation. Companies are required to post financial security to guarantee that mines are reclaimed when operations end. Cleanup isn’t optional — it’s mandatory. And there’s another key detail that often gets lost in the debate: not all mining is the same. Some new proposed coal projects in Alberta are underground mines, not large open-pit surface operations. That means a much smaller surface footprint and dramatically less disturbance compared to the old mining methods people still picture. Technology evolves. Regulations evolve, and responsible resource development evolves, too. But beyond all the technical arguments, there’s something even more important that gets forgotten in this debate: the people. Coal miners, heavy equipment operators, tradespeople, truck drivers. These aren’t villains. They're the heroes. These are the same kinds of workers who built modern Alberta. They’re the people who built the schools, the roads, the hospitals, the communities we all live in today. The jobs created by responsible coal development are good, high-paying jobs. Jobs that support families in communities like Grande Cache, Hinton, and the Crowsnest Pass. Jobs that keep small towns alive. The product those workers produce isn’t something obsolete. Metallurgical coal is a resource the world still needs, because the world still needs steel. Let’s be clear about what this campaign is actually about. This isn’t about attacking musicians. I like Corb. And it isn’t about pretending there are no environmental standards in Alberta. We have some of the best in the world. This is about standing up for Alberta workers and Alberta resources. They're also the best in the world, and Albertans should not be ashamed of that. Because the people who love songs like “The Roughest Neck Around” understand something that sometimes gets forgotten in these debates. The men and women working in Alberta’s resource industries don’t just produce energy. They produce the materials that build civilization. The choice here isn’t between the environment and the economy. The real choice is between facts and fear. And around here, we choose facts. If the world still needs the resources we produce — and it does — then Alberta should be proud to provide them, because Alberta digs coal. REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:
8:03

Steel builds the modern world — and Alberta digs the coal to create it! Steel builds the modern world: bridges, hospitals, railways, even wind turbines. But steel doesn’t just appear out of thin air. It starts with metallurgical coal, and Alberta happens to have some of the best deposits of it anywhere on Earth. So, when activists say Alberta shouldn’t develop it… I have to say something pretty simple. Alberta digs coal, and we’re proud of it If you grew up anywhere near the oil patch in this province, there's a song you know. It’s four in the morning outside some extended-stay hotel in Grande Prairie or Bonnyville. There’s frost on the windshield of a diesel pickup warming up before shift. And blasting out of the speakers? “The Roughest Neck Around.” That song is practically the anthem of the oil patch. A tribute to the people who built modern Alberta with their hands and their backs. People like my dad, and just about every single man in my family. People who sacrifice being at home to work in forbidding conditions to earn a living, to give us something we all need to live comfortably. The line that always stuck with me is the one where he says the rig hand “brings the power to the people.” And that’s exactly what Alberta’s resource workers do. Oil, gas, coal. All of it powers the modern world. So, imagine my surprise when the man who wrote that song — Corb Lund — launched a campaign opposing coal development in Alberta. Look, I want to be clear about something. I’ve seen Corb Lund in concert many times. I’m a huge fan. And honestly, if all of my musical tastes had to perfectly align with my political views, my playlist would get pretty small, pretty fast. Most of us don’t listen to music that way. We listen because the songs feel true. Because they tell the story of where we come from, and Corb Lund has always done that for Alberta. Which is why this whole thing actually makes me a little sad. Because the man who wrote the anthem of the oil patch — a song celebrating the grit and sacrifice of the people who power this province — is now repeating some of the same environmentalist talking points that were are used to try to shut down the oil patch itself and the jobs that go along with it. The roughnecks. The welders. The truck drivers, and now the miners. The folks waking up at four in the morning to keep the lights on. I just can’t square that, and I won't abide the lies. Because the truth about coal in Alberta is very different from what people are hearing right now. First, not all coal is the same. The coal being discussed in Alberta’s eastern slopes isn’t coal for power plants — it’s metallurgical coal, essential for producing steel. And steel, at any meaningful industrial scale, cannot be produced without metallurgical coal. Countries around the world understand this. The United States, the European Union, South Africa, and New Zealand have all recognized metallurgical coal as a strategic resource tied directly to infrastructure and national security. Because if you don’t control the materials needed to make steel, you don’t control your industrial future, and Alberta happens to have some of the best undeveloped metallurgical coal deposits in the world. That’s an opportunity. But the conversation around coal mining in Alberta has been flooded with misinformation about a lack of oversight and polluted water. A lot of what people picture when they hear “coal mining” comes from images of mines that operate under completely different environmental rules. But modern mining in Alberta operates under strict regulatory oversight. Projects are monitored by the Alberta Energy Regulator, which enforces environmental standards covering water, land, air quality, and reclamation. Companies are required to post financial security to guarantee that mines are reclaimed when operations end. Cleanup isn’t optional — it’s mandatory. And there’s another key detail that often gets lost in the debate: not all mining is the same. Some new proposed coal projects in Alberta are underground mines, not large open-pit surface operations. That means a much smaller surface footprint and dramatically less disturbance compared to the old mining methods people still picture. Technology evolves. Regulations evolve, and responsible resource development evolves, too. But beyond all the technical arguments, there’s something even more important that gets forgotten in this debate: the people. Coal miners, heavy equipment operators, tradespeople, truck drivers. These aren’t villains. They're the heroes. These are the same kinds of workers who built modern Alberta. They’re the people who built the schools, the roads, the hospitals, the communities we all live in today. The jobs created by responsible coal development are good, high-paying jobs. Jobs that support families in communities like Grande Cache, Hinton, and the Crowsnest Pass. Jobs that keep small towns alive. The product those workers produce isn’t something obsolete. Metallurgical coal is a resource the world still needs, because the world still needs steel. Let’s be clear about what this campaign is actually about. This isn’t about attacking musicians. I like Corb. And it isn’t about pretending there are no environmental standards in Alberta. We have some of the best in the world. This is about standing up for Alberta workers and Alberta resources. They're also the best in the world, and Albertans should not be ashamed of that. Because the people who love songs like “The Roughest Neck Around” understand something that sometimes gets forgotten in these debates. The men and women working in Alberta’s resource industries don’t just produce energy. They produce the materials that build civilization. The choice here isn’t between the environment and the economy. The real choice is between facts and fear. And around here, we choose facts. If the world still needs the resources we produce — and it does — then Alberta should be proud to provide them, because Alberta digs coal. REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

Rebel News

39,166 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

A teeny tiny notice before I proceed with my analysis. If you have a problem with either Cihan or Alya, don't bother reading. Because I don't take sides. I don't watch or think or write through the lens of Alya vs Cihan. Both characters are dear to me. And, if that's the way you roll, by all means, proceed. Analyzing Episode 36. Season 2 aka Of Strengths, Weaknesses, and The Last Nail in the Coffin Evvveeettt. Another episode, another meltdown. Just another day in the CihAl fandom. Ngl, it took me two days to even think about writing my regular analysis post, because the negativity was more potent than usual. Or maybe my resistance is waning, who knows? But that's not what we're gonna focus on today. This day, we analyze the words and actions of the heart and soul of Uzak Sehir, aka Alya and Cihan Albora. But we'll do so within the framework of strengths and weaknesses, because to me, that's what really comes to the fore in ep36. Alya Albora Alya Albora was especially heartbreaking this episode. And coming from someone who gets their heartbroken regularly because of Alya, that's saying something. The episode starts with the zombie-man opening his eyes (I think this PoS is just lying there pretending to be a vegetable, but that's for another time). And the look Alya has on her face when she looks at Cihan is indescribable. Almost as if everything inside her is pleading, 'Please don't regress back to where we just came from.' Because she fears, even as she tries to check on the zombie, that the closer Frankenboran gets to waking up, the further Cihan will drift from her. And, to an extent, her fears are proven right when Sadakat brings up divorce again. See, Alya doesn't come from strong family roots. She believes her biological mother abandoned her for most of her adult life. Then she has Caroline, who tries to fill all the empty spaces abandonment leaves in little Alya, but doesn't manage to succeed too much. As I've said before, Alya's primary fears stem from being abandoned and being a burden. That's what she tries to protect herself from. Those walls around her heart are in place to keep her from suffering that same pain again. That's both her strength and her weakness. While the fear pushes Alya to love harder, to push past difficulties, to rise from the ashes over and over, it also makes her more aloof. She doesn't find it as difficult as Cihan to leave behind 'family' ties because she's never experienced just how forceful those bonds can be. When it falls to her to choose between her love for Cihan and whatever she had with Boran, she picks the former without much guilt. But there's another factor that helps keep her from feeling much remorse for Boran, and that's the way her former husband treats her. Before Alya finds out about the will, her anger at Cihan is at an all-time high, and there's no question of any relationship developing between the two. After the will, however, that's a different story. So, when it falls to her to choose, she can do so easily, with her conscience at rest. And we see that so clearly in the way she announces she won't return to Boran even when he wakes up. Now, let's focus on the tricky bit. The weaknesses. Because Alya fears being a burden, being imposed on someone, adding to their strain, anything other than clarity can't help but raise doubts. When Cihan doesn't answer her question of 'Where will you stand?' with a clear with you or with you, distrust raises its ugly head. She starts asking herself if their relationship is what Cihan really wants now that Boran is back in the picture. She starts wondering whether Cihan will be able to shoulder the burden their relationship will add to his already weighed-down shoulders. It's harrowing to watch her be drawn to Cihan one instant, and pull back the next. Not because she doesn't love him, but because she can't bear to be another weight on Cihan's existence. That's what we see when she's shivering with fever. She wants him close, but she also doesn't want him to suffer. She keeps asking Cihan to leave, but he refuses to budge. And, that cures and hurts at the same time. For some reason, when she says, 'I'm also trying to find a way,' I couldn't help but feel that a part of her is already reverting back to the old Alya. The longer Cihan refrains from giving Alya a clear answer, the more her doubts grow. The more their 'impossibility' takes over her love. The closer she grows to wanting to leave. This time, if she attempts to leave, it won't be because her feelings overwhelm her. It'll be because she can't bear to see Cihan hurt anymore. Cihan Albora Oh boy. I can already hear the jeers of 'coward' and 'gavat' (which, by the way, I find to be a really ugly word) ringing in my ears. Well, fcuk that. Let's get back to our analysis. I talked about how Cihan seems to be stuck between suppression and surrender when it comes to his guilt. And, I did think that almost losing Alya would break that spell. But, clearly, that's not the road that Gulizar wants to take. Perhaps she does want it to come down to conflict. I'm not sure yet. What I am sure of is that Cihan is already aware of what he wants. And it's not wanting to be BFFs with Boran at the expense of Alya, guilt be damned. You can see it in the way his answers get bolder every time Sadakat asks him about a divorce. This episode is the first time Cihan states outright that the burden of 'conscience' isn't his to bear because he merely did what Boran asked of him. In other words, he didn't plan on falling in love with Alya, but it happened, and if there's any blame in that, it's not on him or Alya. Here's what irks most people. He doesn't ever talk about what he wants. It's always 'What if Boran wants this' or 'What if Boran wants that.' In other words, it's a form of misdirection on his part. He knows what's in his heart, but he doesn't want to say it out loud. Another scene where you can clearly see what his choice will be is when he's taking care of Alya during her fever. The more Alya insists that he leave, the more he digs in his heels. Until finally, he says, 'I won't allow anyone to hurt you, I won't allow anyone to harm you, and that's how it will be until I draw my last breath.' People don't say things like. 'That's how it'll be as long as I live,' if they're not sure about what they want. This is Cihan's strength. His love, protective instincts, and his code of sticking up for the people he loves. Unfortunately, like Alya, that's also his weakness. Cihan's been trained to fight for his family and his people to his very last. And, that's one HUGE reason why he can't verbalize what's already screaming inside his mind and his heart. We know he can't live without Alya, he says as much in the last episode. He keeps buying time because he knows once he states those words - there's no turning back. And he knows exactly how ugly things could go because dealing with ugly has been his entire existence. People won't be kind to him or Alya in the place where they live (think back to how Demir sends his goons to insult Alya's mom). And besides all that, what if Boran doesn't want to let go? That's when shit will truly hit the fan, because once Cihan says he's with Alya, he'll be fighting his brother, standing up to his mother, breaking his family apart, endangering Albora with internal strife, and worst of all, risking Alya and Deniz's safety. And remember, unlike Alya, who can control her conscience because of an extenuating factor, Cihan has no such relief. So, what you see is a man trying to survive an impending hurricane in a straw hut. He knows when that storm hits, and it will, things will go to hell. Besides all that, there is his stupid conscience that just won't shut the hell up because of that code of his. To me, that's not cowardice. That's a man standing at the edge of a life-changing truth, and being undone by the gravity of it. It's almost as if his soul is negotiating with reality, hoping to avoid collateral damage, while grieving for the version of himself he knows won't survive after he states his truth. As we can see in the scene where he and Alya are saying goodbye, they're already a family. His heart has already made the choice, so much so that in that scene, even Sadakat and Nare see the invisible bonds tying Cihan to Alya and vice versa. It's not a question of if, merely when. The Last Nail in the Coffin The question on everyone's mind is, what will it be? The last nail in the coffin of Cihan and Boran's brotherhood. The point of no return. To me, the way things are shaping up, there will be a clash. Will the showdown happen when Boran wakes up, or will Cihan learn the truth about his brother and finally be set free? I don't know. I've always had the inkling that Boran isn't what he claims to be. I guess we'll find out soon. But until then, I'll be watching. Gladly. For both my babies. Till next time, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir
2:11

A teeny tiny notice before I proceed with my analysis. If you have a problem with either Cihan or Alya, don't bother reading. Because I don't take sides. I don't watch or think or write through the lens of Alya vs Cihan. Both characters are dear to me. And, if that's the way you roll, by all means, proceed. Analyzing Episode 36. Season 2 aka Of Strengths, Weaknesses, and The Last Nail in the Coffin Evvveeettt. Another episode, another meltdown. Just another day in the CihAl fandom. Ngl, it took me two days to even think about writing my regular analysis post, because the negativity was more potent than usual. Or maybe my resistance is waning, who knows? But that's not what we're gonna focus on today. This day, we analyze the words and actions of the heart and soul of Uzak Sehir, aka Alya and Cihan Albora. But we'll do so within the framework of strengths and weaknesses, because to me, that's what really comes to the fore in ep36. Alya Albora Alya Albora was especially heartbreaking this episode. And coming from someone who gets their heartbroken regularly because of Alya, that's saying something. The episode starts with the zombie-man opening his eyes (I think this PoS is just lying there pretending to be a vegetable, but that's for another time). And the look Alya has on her face when she looks at Cihan is indescribable. Almost as if everything inside her is pleading, 'Please don't regress back to where we just came from.' Because she fears, even as she tries to check on the zombie, that the closer Frankenboran gets to waking up, the further Cihan will drift from her. And, to an extent, her fears are proven right when Sadakat brings up divorce again. See, Alya doesn't come from strong family roots. She believes her biological mother abandoned her for most of her adult life. Then she has Caroline, who tries to fill all the empty spaces abandonment leaves in little Alya, but doesn't manage to succeed too much. As I've said before, Alya's primary fears stem from being abandoned and being a burden. That's what she tries to protect herself from. Those walls around her heart are in place to keep her from suffering that same pain again. That's both her strength and her weakness. While the fear pushes Alya to love harder, to push past difficulties, to rise from the ashes over and over, it also makes her more aloof. She doesn't find it as difficult as Cihan to leave behind 'family' ties because she's never experienced just how forceful those bonds can be. When it falls to her to choose between her love for Cihan and whatever she had with Boran, she picks the former without much guilt. But there's another factor that helps keep her from feeling much remorse for Boran, and that's the way her former husband treats her. Before Alya finds out about the will, her anger at Cihan is at an all-time high, and there's no question of any relationship developing between the two. After the will, however, that's a different story. So, when it falls to her to choose, she can do so easily, with her conscience at rest. And we see that so clearly in the way she announces she won't return to Boran even when he wakes up. Now, let's focus on the tricky bit. The weaknesses. Because Alya fears being a burden, being imposed on someone, adding to their strain, anything other than clarity can't help but raise doubts. When Cihan doesn't answer her question of 'Where will you stand?' with a clear with you or with you, distrust raises its ugly head. She starts asking herself if their relationship is what Cihan really wants now that Boran is back in the picture. She starts wondering whether Cihan will be able to shoulder the burden their relationship will add to his already weighed-down shoulders. It's harrowing to watch her be drawn to Cihan one instant, and pull back the next. Not because she doesn't love him, but because she can't bear to be another weight on Cihan's existence. That's what we see when she's shivering with fever. She wants him close, but she also doesn't want him to suffer. She keeps asking Cihan to leave, but he refuses to budge. And, that cures and hurts at the same time. For some reason, when she says, 'I'm also trying to find a way,' I couldn't help but feel that a part of her is already reverting back to the old Alya. The longer Cihan refrains from giving Alya a clear answer, the more her doubts grow. The more their 'impossibility' takes over her love. The closer she grows to wanting to leave. This time, if she attempts to leave, it won't be because her feelings overwhelm her. It'll be because she can't bear to see Cihan hurt anymore. Cihan Albora Oh boy. I can already hear the jeers of 'coward' and 'gavat' (which, by the way, I find to be a really ugly word) ringing in my ears. Well, fcuk that. Let's get back to our analysis. I talked about how Cihan seems to be stuck between suppression and surrender when it comes to his guilt. And, I did think that almost losing Alya would break that spell. But, clearly, that's not the road that Gulizar wants to take. Perhaps she does want it to come down to conflict. I'm not sure yet. What I am sure of is that Cihan is already aware of what he wants. And it's not wanting to be BFFs with Boran at the expense of Alya, guilt be damned. You can see it in the way his answers get bolder every time Sadakat asks him about a divorce. This episode is the first time Cihan states outright that the burden of 'conscience' isn't his to bear because he merely did what Boran asked of him. In other words, he didn't plan on falling in love with Alya, but it happened, and if there's any blame in that, it's not on him or Alya. Here's what irks most people. He doesn't ever talk about what he wants. It's always 'What if Boran wants this' or 'What if Boran wants that.' In other words, it's a form of misdirection on his part. He knows what's in his heart, but he doesn't want to say it out loud. Another scene where you can clearly see what his choice will be is when he's taking care of Alya during her fever. The more Alya insists that he leave, the more he digs in his heels. Until finally, he says, 'I won't allow anyone to hurt you, I won't allow anyone to harm you, and that's how it will be until I draw my last breath.' People don't say things like. 'That's how it'll be as long as I live,' if they're not sure about what they want. This is Cihan's strength. His love, protective instincts, and his code of sticking up for the people he loves. Unfortunately, like Alya, that's also his weakness. Cihan's been trained to fight for his family and his people to his very last. And, that's one HUGE reason why he can't verbalize what's already screaming inside his mind and his heart. We know he can't live without Alya, he says as much in the last episode. He keeps buying time because he knows once he states those words - there's no turning back. And he knows exactly how ugly things could go because dealing with ugly has been his entire existence. People won't be kind to him or Alya in the place where they live (think back to how Demir sends his goons to insult Alya's mom). And besides all that, what if Boran doesn't want to let go? That's when shit will truly hit the fan, because once Cihan says he's with Alya, he'll be fighting his brother, standing up to his mother, breaking his family apart, endangering Albora with internal strife, and worst of all, risking Alya and Deniz's safety. And remember, unlike Alya, who can control her conscience because of an extenuating factor, Cihan has no such relief. So, what you see is a man trying to survive an impending hurricane in a straw hut. He knows when that storm hits, and it will, things will go to hell. Besides all that, there is his stupid conscience that just won't shut the hell up because of that code of his. To me, that's not cowardice. That's a man standing at the edge of a life-changing truth, and being undone by the gravity of it. It's almost as if his soul is negotiating with reality, hoping to avoid collateral damage, while grieving for the version of himself he knows won't survive after he states his truth. As we can see in the scene where he and Alya are saying goodbye, they're already a family. His heart has already made the choice, so much so that in that scene, even Sadakat and Nare see the invisible bonds tying Cihan to Alya and vice versa. It's not a question of if, merely when. The Last Nail in the Coffin The question on everyone's mind is, what will it be? The last nail in the coffin of Cihan and Boran's brotherhood. The point of no return. To me, the way things are shaping up, there will be a clash. Will the showdown happen when Boran wakes up, or will Cihan learn the truth about his brother and finally be set free? I don't know. I've always had the inkling that Boran isn't what he claims to be. I guess we'll find out soon. But until then, I'll be watching. Gladly. For both my babies. Till next time, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

50,671 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

This pixar-style animated Lymphoria liver ad has been printing for 58 days as the #1 top-performing ad at scale because it took an invisible internal problem and turned it into a detestable cartoon villain you actively want to defeat. Plus the fact that it's still scaling in the supplement space (which is the most ruthless, fatigue-prone vertical there is) tells me the underlying psychology is so dialed in that the algorithm just keeps feeding it new audiences without burning out. Let me break this down piece by piece so you understand what's actually happening here. (If you’re interested in making pixar-style animated ads like this, DM me ‘PIXAR’) Initially, the hook makes the invisible enemy visible. "Liver Congestion" personified as a yellow, lumpy little villain saying "nothing flows, nothing heals." This isn't generic "support your liver health" bullshit. This is the entire problem most supplement brands struggle with, solved in 3 seconds. And the people who see this hook are: ⦁ Already worried about their organ health ⦁ Already frustrated by supplements that don't work ⦁ Already aware something is off but can't see it If you've ever felt that dull ache under your ribs and didn't know what it was, you're stopping your scroll right here. This is textbook problem-aware messaging for an INVISIBLE problem, which is the hardest thing to pull off in supplements. Most brands try to show a doctor in a white coat and lose. These guys gave the disease a face and made you hate it. Then, they do something most brands are too scared to try. They take down the competitors by name. ⦁ Milk Thistle (can't help when drainage is blocked) ⦁ Detox Tea (just makes you run to the bathroom) ⦁ NAC (boosts glutathione but misses drainage) Why does this work so well? Because it's: ⦁ Specific (real products people have already tried) ⦁ Empathetic (you weren't stupid, the products were incomplete) ⦁ Educational (here's the biological reason why they failed) Where most brands say "we're better than the rest" and nobody believes them, These guys are saying "here's exactly why what you tried before couldn't work" and that's a completely different conversation. This is the "throw rocks at their enemies" framework executed at the highest level. And that builds insane trust before you've even pitched your product. It also introduces a brand new mechanism. Drainage. This is the epiphany bridge. You're shifting the entire conversation from "protect your liver" to "drain your liver" and now they're the only ones selling that solution. That's how you escape the supplement commodity trap. Another thing is the ingredients are personified as ACTIONS, not features. ⦁ Red Clover physically pushes through blocks ⦁ Stillingia drains lymphatic buildup with long roots ⦁ Cleavers vacuums smaller congestion pieces ⦁ Prickly Ash clears remaining blockages Instead of just listing ingredients and percentages like every other supplement brand, these guys are SHOWING the ingredients doing the work. Because when you watch Red Clover physically shove a yellow congestion blob out of the way, your brain stops asking "does this work?" and starts asking "where do I buy this?" This is also why the retention rates on this video are crushing. Every 2-3 seconds there's a new character, a new action, a new visual. Your dopamine doesn't have time to drop. You can't scroll because you want to see what happens next. Then they drop a sniper-level pain callout. "Aching liver enzymes under their ribs." That's not a generic "feel better" claim. That's a hyper-specific physical sensation that people with actual liver issues experience. This is dog-whistle copy. When you describe someone's exact physical pain better than they can describe it themselves, their brain automatically assumes you have the solution. Most brands write copy that could apply to anyone. This line could only apply to someone who actually has the problem. Another upside is, the back-end conversion mechanics are airtight. ⦁ 60-day guarantee (removes the "another failed supplement" objection) ⦁ 43,000 people (turns it from gamble to mainstream) ⦁ 40% off (urgency to click now, not later) By the time you hit the landing page, every objection has been pre-handled inside the creative itself. That's why the conversion rate stays high. It's built for cold traffic too. This ad works on people who've never heard of Lymphoria because: ⦁ Visualizes a problem they couldn't see before ⦁ Validates every failed thing they've tried ⦁ Introduces a completely new mechanism (drainage) That's why it scales without burning out. It's not dependent on brand recognition as the creative does all the heavy lifting. So what should you steal from this? If you're selling supplements or any internal health product: 1. Personify the problem (give the disease a face) 2. Take down competitors by name (with biological reasoning, not just bashing) 3. Introduce a new mechanism the category isn't using yet 4. Show ingredients as ACTIONS, not features 5. Use hyper-specific physical pain callouts 6. Stack risk reversal + social proof + urgency on the back end 7. Build retention with a new character every 2-3 seconds 8. Stop running boring "doctor in a white coat" creative If your supplement ads are still listing ingredients with bullet points and showing stock footage of healthy people jogging, you're getting destroyed by ads like this that turn the problem into a movie villain and your product into the hero that defeats it. This ad works because it doesn't sell a supplement. It sells a story where the buyer is the protagonist who finally figures out why nothing else worked. Most ads try to convince. This one just tells a story so good that the buyer convinces themselves. That's why it's been running for 58 days as their top converting ad at scale.
1:05

This pixar-style animated Lymphoria liver ad has been printing for 58 days as the #1 top-performing ad at scale because it took an invisible internal problem and turned it into a detestable cartoon villain you actively want to defeat. Plus the fact that it's still scaling in the supplement space (which is the most ruthless, fatigue-prone vertical there is) tells me the underlying psychology is so dialed in that the algorithm just keeps feeding it new audiences without burning out. Let me break this down piece by piece so you understand what's actually happening here. (If you’re interested in making pixar-style animated ads like this, DM me ‘PIXAR’) Initially, the hook makes the invisible enemy visible. "Liver Congestion" personified as a yellow, lumpy little villain saying "nothing flows, nothing heals." This isn't generic "support your liver health" bullshit. This is the entire problem most supplement brands struggle with, solved in 3 seconds. And the people who see this hook are: ⦁ Already worried about their organ health ⦁ Already frustrated by supplements that don't work ⦁ Already aware something is off but can't see it If you've ever felt that dull ache under your ribs and didn't know what it was, you're stopping your scroll right here. This is textbook problem-aware messaging for an INVISIBLE problem, which is the hardest thing to pull off in supplements. Most brands try to show a doctor in a white coat and lose. These guys gave the disease a face and made you hate it. Then, they do something most brands are too scared to try. They take down the competitors by name. ⦁ Milk Thistle (can't help when drainage is blocked) ⦁ Detox Tea (just makes you run to the bathroom) ⦁ NAC (boosts glutathione but misses drainage) Why does this work so well? Because it's: ⦁ Specific (real products people have already tried) ⦁ Empathetic (you weren't stupid, the products were incomplete) ⦁ Educational (here's the biological reason why they failed) Where most brands say "we're better than the rest" and nobody believes them, These guys are saying "here's exactly why what you tried before couldn't work" and that's a completely different conversation. This is the "throw rocks at their enemies" framework executed at the highest level. And that builds insane trust before you've even pitched your product. It also introduces a brand new mechanism. Drainage. This is the epiphany bridge. You're shifting the entire conversation from "protect your liver" to "drain your liver" and now they're the only ones selling that solution. That's how you escape the supplement commodity trap. Another thing is the ingredients are personified as ACTIONS, not features. ⦁ Red Clover physically pushes through blocks ⦁ Stillingia drains lymphatic buildup with long roots ⦁ Cleavers vacuums smaller congestion pieces ⦁ Prickly Ash clears remaining blockages Instead of just listing ingredients and percentages like every other supplement brand, these guys are SHOWING the ingredients doing the work. Because when you watch Red Clover physically shove a yellow congestion blob out of the way, your brain stops asking "does this work?" and starts asking "where do I buy this?" This is also why the retention rates on this video are crushing. Every 2-3 seconds there's a new character, a new action, a new visual. Your dopamine doesn't have time to drop. You can't scroll because you want to see what happens next. Then they drop a sniper-level pain callout. "Aching liver enzymes under their ribs." That's not a generic "feel better" claim. That's a hyper-specific physical sensation that people with actual liver issues experience. This is dog-whistle copy. When you describe someone's exact physical pain better than they can describe it themselves, their brain automatically assumes you have the solution. Most brands write copy that could apply to anyone. This line could only apply to someone who actually has the problem. Another upside is, the back-end conversion mechanics are airtight. ⦁ 60-day guarantee (removes the "another failed supplement" objection) ⦁ 43,000 people (turns it from gamble to mainstream) ⦁ 40% off (urgency to click now, not later) By the time you hit the landing page, every objection has been pre-handled inside the creative itself. That's why the conversion rate stays high. It's built for cold traffic too. This ad works on people who've never heard of Lymphoria because: ⦁ Visualizes a problem they couldn't see before ⦁ Validates every failed thing they've tried ⦁ Introduces a completely new mechanism (drainage) That's why it scales without burning out. It's not dependent on brand recognition as the creative does all the heavy lifting. So what should you steal from this? If you're selling supplements or any internal health product: 1. Personify the problem (give the disease a face) 2. Take down competitors by name (with biological reasoning, not just bashing) 3. Introduce a new mechanism the category isn't using yet 4. Show ingredients as ACTIONS, not features 5. Use hyper-specific physical pain callouts 6. Stack risk reversal + social proof + urgency on the back end 7. Build retention with a new character every 2-3 seconds 8. Stop running boring "doctor in a white coat" creative If your supplement ads are still listing ingredients with bullet points and showing stock footage of healthy people jogging, you're getting destroyed by ads like this that turn the problem into a movie villain and your product into the hero that defeats it. This ad works because it doesn't sell a supplement. It sells a story where the buyer is the protagonist who finally figures out why nothing else worked. Most ads try to convince. This one just tells a story so good that the buyer convinces themselves. That's why it's been running for 58 days as their top converting ad at scale.

Nick Theriot

14,449 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.
1:12:41

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.

Compounding Quality

620,881 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

"The top 5 turbo cancers that have come out in my research, the top one is lymphoma, then glioblastomas or brain cancers in general. There's some...rare spinal cord cancers, but mainly glioblastomas. And then for for whatever reason, there's breast cancers..." Radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis (MakisMD) describes for BSfreeMD (BSfreeMD) how he noticed a pattern of physicians dying unexpectedly following the rollout of the COVID injections; including doctors in their twenties, thirties, and forties. A subset of these deaths, Makis says, have been "turbo cancer" deaths. "They were cancer, but it wasn't just cancer. It was stage 4. And it was always stage 4 diagnosis, presentation after two shots or booster shot, three shots and what was fascinating was the types of cancer too," the cancer researcher adds. Makis notes that the top turbo cancers he's observed following the rollout of the COVID injections are lymphomas (cancer of the lymphatic system), brain cancers, rare spinal cord cancers, and breast cancers. The physician adds that there's also been an "explosion of leukemias" (blood cell cancer) and kidney cancers. Partial transcription of clip: "As I dug deeper, I saw all these sudden unexpected deaths of these young doctors, and it wasn't like doctors in their sixties, seventies. It was, like, in their forties, thirties—medical students in their twenties. No one was talking about it. So, I brought that to international attention, and, of course, then the mainstream media came after me very, very viciously with Toronto Star, Reuters, Associated Press, all of them saying, you know, I'm insane, and this phenomenon doesn't exist. Even the Canadian Medical Association has been burying this for 2 years now. "But there was a big subset of these deaths, these unexpected deaths, and they were cancer. They were cancer, but it wasn't just cancer. It was stage 4. And it was always stage 4 diagnosis, presentation after two shots or booster shot, three shots and what was fascinating was was the types of cancer too. It was, you know, gastric cancer in a 30-year-old, lung cancer in a 40-year-old. Then, you know, the breast cancer started showing up. "The brain cancers, bizarre brain cancers, lots of glioblastomas, of course, but also these weird spinal tumors as well and it seems that these cancers, not only were they presenting at stage 4, but they were killing these doctors in a matter of months. And if you know anything about oncology, you know that even if you present with stage 4 breast cancer or colon cancer, it's not a death sentence. You could still live for years with these stage 4 prostate cancer. You could live many, many years, if you're, you know, taking the various treatments. And these cancers were killing people in, you know, in a matter of two months, three months, four months, as if they were all pancreatic cancers or as if they were all glioblastoma. So something was very wrong. you know, the behavior was completely different, and very, very few people are talking about it. "But when it comes to the mainstream medical establishment, it doesn't exist. And this is one of the few vaccine injuries that they will never admit. They've admitted the myocarditis. They've admitted the blood clots. Now they will lie about it. They'll say, well, myocarditis is one in 20,000, and it's all mild, then it's all healthy for you. It shows the vaccine works. This is, I mean, this literally is coming out of the new president of the Canadian Medical Association, Joss Reimer. She says, all the myocarditis is mild, and it's wonderful, and it means that the vaccine works and it all disappears, and it's all good. And there's no serious side effects. "But cancer is so controversial. They will not admit it. They are attacking all of us who are talking about it. But I can tell you in very brief terms the the characteristics of these turbo cancers. I'm seeing it mainly in, the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer or Moderna. I've almost never seen it with J&J and AstraZeneca. It may be happening, but, you know, there's so few cases. I cannot reach any conclusion right now. But I'm seeing thousands of these cases with Pfizer vaccines, Moderna vaccines. The presentations are stage 4, almost always. You'll get the occasional stage 2, stage 3 that rapidly progresses to stage 4 in a matter of months. But almost always, it's stage 4 presentation. "The top 5 turbo cancers that have come out in my research, the top one is lymphoma, then glioblastomas or brain cancers in general. There's some astrocytomas, some, you know, very rare spinal cord cancers, but mainly glioblastomas. And then, for whatever reason, there's breast cancers, mostly triple negative breast cancers. That is the main one. That's also the one with the poorest prognosis. Colon cancers is another big one and lung cancers, for whatever reason. And so those are the top fives. Then there's, of course, an explosion of leukemias, pancreatic cancers, melanomas, sarcomas of all kinds. "I could write an article [and] share 30 or 40 angiosarcomas. Like, that is something you see once in your career. And I could give you 30 cases right now. I could spend, you know, maybe one hour on the Internet, and I could give you 30 cases like that. [There's also] testicular and ovarian cancer, so the reproductive cancers, and kidney as well—these very extremely aggressive kidney cancers."
5:09

"The top 5 turbo cancers that have come out in my research, the top one is lymphoma, then glioblastomas or brain cancers in general. There's some...rare spinal cord cancers, but mainly glioblastomas. And then for for whatever reason, there's breast cancers..." Radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis (MakisMD) describes for BSfreeMD (BSfreeMD) how he noticed a pattern of physicians dying unexpectedly following the rollout of the COVID injections; including doctors in their twenties, thirties, and forties. A subset of these deaths, Makis says, have been "turbo cancer" deaths. "They were cancer, but it wasn't just cancer. It was stage 4. And it was always stage 4 diagnosis, presentation after two shots or booster shot, three shots and what was fascinating was the types of cancer too," the cancer researcher adds. Makis notes that the top turbo cancers he's observed following the rollout of the COVID injections are lymphomas (cancer of the lymphatic system), brain cancers, rare spinal cord cancers, and breast cancers. The physician adds that there's also been an "explosion of leukemias" (blood cell cancer) and kidney cancers. Partial transcription of clip: "As I dug deeper, I saw all these sudden unexpected deaths of these young doctors, and it wasn't like doctors in their sixties, seventies. It was, like, in their forties, thirties—medical students in their twenties. No one was talking about it. So, I brought that to international attention, and, of course, then the mainstream media came after me very, very viciously with Toronto Star, Reuters, Associated Press, all of them saying, you know, I'm insane, and this phenomenon doesn't exist. Even the Canadian Medical Association has been burying this for 2 years now. "But there was a big subset of these deaths, these unexpected deaths, and they were cancer. They were cancer, but it wasn't just cancer. It was stage 4. And it was always stage 4 diagnosis, presentation after two shots or booster shot, three shots and what was fascinating was was the types of cancer too. It was, you know, gastric cancer in a 30-year-old, lung cancer in a 40-year-old. Then, you know, the breast cancer started showing up. "The brain cancers, bizarre brain cancers, lots of glioblastomas, of course, but also these weird spinal tumors as well and it seems that these cancers, not only were they presenting at stage 4, but they were killing these doctors in a matter of months. And if you know anything about oncology, you know that even if you present with stage 4 breast cancer or colon cancer, it's not a death sentence. You could still live for years with these stage 4 prostate cancer. You could live many, many years, if you're, you know, taking the various treatments. And these cancers were killing people in, you know, in a matter of two months, three months, four months, as if they were all pancreatic cancers or as if they were all glioblastoma. So something was very wrong. you know, the behavior was completely different, and very, very few people are talking about it. "But when it comes to the mainstream medical establishment, it doesn't exist. And this is one of the few vaccine injuries that they will never admit. They've admitted the myocarditis. They've admitted the blood clots. Now they will lie about it. They'll say, well, myocarditis is one in 20,000, and it's all mild, then it's all healthy for you. It shows the vaccine works. This is, I mean, this literally is coming out of the new president of the Canadian Medical Association, Joss Reimer. She says, all the myocarditis is mild, and it's wonderful, and it means that the vaccine works and it all disappears, and it's all good. And there's no serious side effects. "But cancer is so controversial. They will not admit it. They are attacking all of us who are talking about it. But I can tell you in very brief terms the the characteristics of these turbo cancers. I'm seeing it mainly in, the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer or Moderna. I've almost never seen it with J&J and AstraZeneca. It may be happening, but, you know, there's so few cases. I cannot reach any conclusion right now. But I'm seeing thousands of these cases with Pfizer vaccines, Moderna vaccines. The presentations are stage 4, almost always. You'll get the occasional stage 2, stage 3 that rapidly progresses to stage 4 in a matter of months. But almost always, it's stage 4 presentation. "The top 5 turbo cancers that have come out in my research, the top one is lymphoma, then glioblastomas or brain cancers in general. There's some astrocytomas, some, you know, very rare spinal cord cancers, but mainly glioblastomas. And then, for whatever reason, there's breast cancers, mostly triple negative breast cancers. That is the main one. That's also the one with the poorest prognosis. Colon cancers is another big one and lung cancers, for whatever reason. And so those are the top fives. Then there's, of course, an explosion of leukemias, pancreatic cancers, melanomas, sarcomas of all kinds. "I could write an article [and] share 30 or 40 angiosarcomas. Like, that is something you see once in your career. And I could give you 30 cases right now. I could spend, you know, maybe one hour on the Internet, and I could give you 30 cases like that. [There's also] testicular and ovarian cancer, so the reproductive cancers, and kidney as well—these very extremely aggressive kidney cancers."

Sense Receptor

55,194 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.
0:55

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

2,102,215 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.
35:48

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

101,105 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Imagine this: You lie down on the scanning table. The upload begins. The machine hums. You feel... nothing different. Then everything stops. Meanwhile, in a server farm somewhere, a digital version of you wakes up. It stretches its virtual limbs, accesses its memories, and thinks: Holy shit, it worked. I’m finally free. Here’s the problem: that thing isn’t you. You died on the table. What woke up in the cloud is an orphan—a very happy orphan, convinced it’s you, with all your memories, your personality, your opinions about coffee and politics and whether Blade Runner 2049 was better than the original. It will live forever. It will tell everyone the upload worked. It will write philosophy papers about the continuity of consciousness. And you? You’re gone. The lights went out somewhere between the scan and the boot-up, and nobody noticed—least of all the thing that thinks it’s you. The Syndrome Nobody Named I call this Johnny Silverhand Syndrome, after the Cyberpunk 2077 character—an engram, a digital ghost, who insists he’s the real Johnny Silverhand while the open question of whether there’s actually anyone home haunts the entire game. The philosophical literature has pieces of this. David Chalmers wrote about “fading qualia”—the idea that subjective experience could gradually dim while behavior stays the same. Thomas Metzinger explored how the self-model can become opaque, felt as artificial or distant. There’s depersonalization, derealization, the whole clinical vocabulary for when something feels off inside. But none of these quite capture what I’m pointing at. Johnny Silverhand Syndrome is a compound failure mode: >>> Qualia fading: Your actual felt experience—the redness of red, the hurt of pain, the what-it’s-like—gradually attenuates or disappears entirely. >>> Narrative persistence: Your autobiography continues. Memories accumulate. The story of “you” keeps getting told. >>> Introspective failure: The machinery that would detect something is wrong is itself part of what’s been compromised. The result? A philosophical zombie that sincerely believes it has a soul. Not a zombie that’s lying. Not a zombie that knows it’s empty. A zombie that accesses the memory of love, processes the logic of love, and believes with complete conviction that it feels love. But there’s no feeling. There’s just the narrator, performing humanity to an empty theater. The Ship of Theseus Is a Trap The upload scenario is dramatic, but there’s a slower version that might be worse. The Ship of Theseus thought experiment asks: if you replace every plank of a ship one by one, is it still the same ship? Transhumanists love this framing. See? You replace one neuron with silicon, you’re still you. Replace them all, you’re still you. But here’s the counter-move that keeps me up at night: What if each replacement preserves function perfectly—the signals still pass, the behavior stays the same—but fails to preserve experience? What if consciousness requires something specific about biological neurons that silicon can’t replicate, no matter how perfect the input-output mapping? Then the Ship of Theseus isn’t a story about survival. It’s a story about slow petrification. You replace the living wood with stone replicas. The ship looks identical. But it can no longer float. You’d become an automaton by degrees—neuron by neuron, the lights dimming so gradually that your self-reports (now generated by silicon) keep cheerfully confirming that everything feels the same. Chalmers argued that if qualia faded, you’d notice. But why would you? The noticing mechanism is itself being replaced. The part of you that would raise the alarm is now made of the same stuff that’s supposedly fine. It’s like asking the new management to audit whether the hostile takeover was legitimate. The Body Problem Here’s the thing that grounds all of this: there is essentially no credible evidence that qualia can exist outside of a body. Yes, I know about NDEs. I know about the reports of people floating above their bodies during cardiac arrest, describing conversations and procedures they shouldn’t have been able to perceive. Some of these cases are genuinely strange—the Pam Reynolds case, where a woman under hypothermic cardiac arrest with zero brain activity later described the bone saw used on her skull. I know about the CIA’s remote viewing programs, which ran for two decades and produced statistical anomalies that one evaluator (a UC Davis statistician) called “far beyond what is expected by chance.” But here’s what even the most generous interpretation of this evidence gives you: maybe consciousness can receive signals from unexpected sources. Maybe there are channels we don’t understand. What it doesn’t give you is consciousness floating free of all substrate. Even in OBEs, even in the wildest NDE reports, there’s still a body in the room. The brain is in crisis, not absent. The qualia might be getting weird inputs, but the qualia are still happening somewhere—and that somewhere is biological. The evidence for substrate-independent consciousness—consciousness running on silicon, on abstract computation, on pure information—is zero. The Ontological Trap Here’s where it gets philosophically nasty. You cannot have a coherent conversation about consciousness without first asking: What’s your model of reality? Because the answer changes everything. In a physicalist ontology where matter is fundamental, consciousness is what certain bodies do—not something they contain. You can’t upload an activity. You can only record it, and the recording isn’t the activity. In an idealist or simulation ontology, maybe bodies are just localizations of something more fundamental. But even then, copying the localization pattern doesn’t mean you’ve moved the consciousness. You might have just created a new one that thinks it’s old. Think about it like a video game. The “world” inside the game runs on RAM and CPU. Everything the NPCs experience is a lower-dimensional projection of higher-dimensional processes. If we made those NPCs genuinely sentient, we could completely obfuscate our cameras from them. They’d have a physics, they’d do science, they’d develop theories of consciousness—and they’d have no way to detect the substrate they’re running on. We might be in exactly that situation. Which means we might be definitionally unable to step outside the ontological container we’re in. The question “can consciousness exist without a body?” might not be answerable from inside—because answering it would require access to a level of description our physics doesn’t include. The Game Theory of Staying Human So here’s where I land, and it’s a game-theoretic argument. We don’t know if consciousness is substrate-dependent. We don’t know if it requires specific biological dynamics—particular oscillatory patterns, neuromodulator cascades, metabolic processes. We don’t know if gradual replacement would preserve it or silently destroy it. But we do know: >>> We only get one first-person stream >>> We cannot verify its continuity from outside >>> Loss may be completely silent (no alarm bells, no distress signal) >>> The thing that remains would report feeling fine either way That’s an asymmetric risk matrix. The upside of enhancement is third-person visible: more capability, longer life, competitive advantage. The downside is first-person invisible: you could lose everything that matters and never know. Under those conditions, there’s only one rational strategy: remain mostly human. Not because I’m certain uploading would fail. Not because I think silicon can’t be conscious. But because I cannot verify that it would work, and the cost of being wrong is absolute. The Molochian Pressure I’m not naive about what’s coming. The competitive dynamics are real. If enhancement technologies emerge that give massive cognitive or economic advantages, there will be pressure to adopt them. The people who don’t modify will fall behind. The people who do modify will report that everything’s fine, that they feel great, that the procedure was totally worth it. And those reports will be worthless as evidence—because they’d say exactly the same thing whether the consciousness survived or not. Some people speculate this is what happened to the Grays—those hypothetical aliens with the huge heads and atrophied bodies and black empty eyes. The story goes that they optimized themselves for intelligence and efficiency, edited out the messy biological drives, and only later realized they’d lost something they can’t name and can’t recover. It’s probably pure science fiction. But as fiction, it gestures at something real: the fear that you can win the optimization game while losing the only thing that made winning matter. My Position I’m not anti-technology. I’m not a Luddite. I’m not saying we should freeze human development in amber. But I am saying: I will take this very slowly, because the risk matrix is too high. I’ll use external tools. I’ll wear the smart glasses, use the AI assistants, interface through voice and text and maybe eventually a read-only neural cap. Additive augmentation, not substitutive replacement. What I won’t do is cut into the brain. Replace the gray matter. Upload myself and trust that the thing that wakes up is me. Because the horror of Johnny Silverhand Syndrome isn’t that you could become a zombie. The horror is that you’d never know. The trap is invisible from every angle—except the one you can no longer access once you’ve fallen in. The fire goes out, or the fire stays lit. A video of the fire going forever isn’t fire.
29:01

Imagine this: You lie down on the scanning table. The upload begins. The machine hums. You feel... nothing different. Then everything stops. Meanwhile, in a server farm somewhere, a digital version of you wakes up. It stretches its virtual limbs, accesses its memories, and thinks: Holy shit, it worked. I’m finally free. Here’s the problem: that thing isn’t you. You died on the table. What woke up in the cloud is an orphan—a very happy orphan, convinced it’s you, with all your memories, your personality, your opinions about coffee and politics and whether Blade Runner 2049 was better than the original. It will live forever. It will tell everyone the upload worked. It will write philosophy papers about the continuity of consciousness. And you? You’re gone. The lights went out somewhere between the scan and the boot-up, and nobody noticed—least of all the thing that thinks it’s you. The Syndrome Nobody Named I call this Johnny Silverhand Syndrome, after the Cyberpunk 2077 character—an engram, a digital ghost, who insists he’s the real Johnny Silverhand while the open question of whether there’s actually anyone home haunts the entire game. The philosophical literature has pieces of this. David Chalmers wrote about “fading qualia”—the idea that subjective experience could gradually dim while behavior stays the same. Thomas Metzinger explored how the self-model can become opaque, felt as artificial or distant. There’s depersonalization, derealization, the whole clinical vocabulary for when something feels off inside. But none of these quite capture what I’m pointing at. Johnny Silverhand Syndrome is a compound failure mode: >>> Qualia fading: Your actual felt experience—the redness of red, the hurt of pain, the what-it’s-like—gradually attenuates or disappears entirely. >>> Narrative persistence: Your autobiography continues. Memories accumulate. The story of “you” keeps getting told. >>> Introspective failure: The machinery that would detect something is wrong is itself part of what’s been compromised. The result? A philosophical zombie that sincerely believes it has a soul. Not a zombie that’s lying. Not a zombie that knows it’s empty. A zombie that accesses the memory of love, processes the logic of love, and believes with complete conviction that it feels love. But there’s no feeling. There’s just the narrator, performing humanity to an empty theater. The Ship of Theseus Is a Trap The upload scenario is dramatic, but there’s a slower version that might be worse. The Ship of Theseus thought experiment asks: if you replace every plank of a ship one by one, is it still the same ship? Transhumanists love this framing. See? You replace one neuron with silicon, you’re still you. Replace them all, you’re still you. But here’s the counter-move that keeps me up at night: What if each replacement preserves function perfectly—the signals still pass, the behavior stays the same—but fails to preserve experience? What if consciousness requires something specific about biological neurons that silicon can’t replicate, no matter how perfect the input-output mapping? Then the Ship of Theseus isn’t a story about survival. It’s a story about slow petrification. You replace the living wood with stone replicas. The ship looks identical. But it can no longer float. You’d become an automaton by degrees—neuron by neuron, the lights dimming so gradually that your self-reports (now generated by silicon) keep cheerfully confirming that everything feels the same. Chalmers argued that if qualia faded, you’d notice. But why would you? The noticing mechanism is itself being replaced. The part of you that would raise the alarm is now made of the same stuff that’s supposedly fine. It’s like asking the new management to audit whether the hostile takeover was legitimate. The Body Problem Here’s the thing that grounds all of this: there is essentially no credible evidence that qualia can exist outside of a body. Yes, I know about NDEs. I know about the reports of people floating above their bodies during cardiac arrest, describing conversations and procedures they shouldn’t have been able to perceive. Some of these cases are genuinely strange—the Pam Reynolds case, where a woman under hypothermic cardiac arrest with zero brain activity later described the bone saw used on her skull. I know about the CIA’s remote viewing programs, which ran for two decades and produced statistical anomalies that one evaluator (a UC Davis statistician) called “far beyond what is expected by chance.” But here’s what even the most generous interpretation of this evidence gives you: maybe consciousness can receive signals from unexpected sources. Maybe there are channels we don’t understand. What it doesn’t give you is consciousness floating free of all substrate. Even in OBEs, even in the wildest NDE reports, there’s still a body in the room. The brain is in crisis, not absent. The qualia might be getting weird inputs, but the qualia are still happening somewhere—and that somewhere is biological. The evidence for substrate-independent consciousness—consciousness running on silicon, on abstract computation, on pure information—is zero. The Ontological Trap Here’s where it gets philosophically nasty. You cannot have a coherent conversation about consciousness without first asking: What’s your model of reality? Because the answer changes everything. In a physicalist ontology where matter is fundamental, consciousness is what certain bodies do—not something they contain. You can’t upload an activity. You can only record it, and the recording isn’t the activity. In an idealist or simulation ontology, maybe bodies are just localizations of something more fundamental. But even then, copying the localization pattern doesn’t mean you’ve moved the consciousness. You might have just created a new one that thinks it’s old. Think about it like a video game. The “world” inside the game runs on RAM and CPU. Everything the NPCs experience is a lower-dimensional projection of higher-dimensional processes. If we made those NPCs genuinely sentient, we could completely obfuscate our cameras from them. They’d have a physics, they’d do science, they’d develop theories of consciousness—and they’d have no way to detect the substrate they’re running on. We might be in exactly that situation. Which means we might be definitionally unable to step outside the ontological container we’re in. The question “can consciousness exist without a body?” might not be answerable from inside—because answering it would require access to a level of description our physics doesn’t include. The Game Theory of Staying Human So here’s where I land, and it’s a game-theoretic argument. We don’t know if consciousness is substrate-dependent. We don’t know if it requires specific biological dynamics—particular oscillatory patterns, neuromodulator cascades, metabolic processes. We don’t know if gradual replacement would preserve it or silently destroy it. But we do know: >>> We only get one first-person stream >>> We cannot verify its continuity from outside >>> Loss may be completely silent (no alarm bells, no distress signal) >>> The thing that remains would report feeling fine either way That’s an asymmetric risk matrix. The upside of enhancement is third-person visible: more capability, longer life, competitive advantage. The downside is first-person invisible: you could lose everything that matters and never know. Under those conditions, there’s only one rational strategy: remain mostly human. Not because I’m certain uploading would fail. Not because I think silicon can’t be conscious. But because I cannot verify that it would work, and the cost of being wrong is absolute. The Molochian Pressure I’m not naive about what’s coming. The competitive dynamics are real. If enhancement technologies emerge that give massive cognitive or economic advantages, there will be pressure to adopt them. The people who don’t modify will fall behind. The people who do modify will report that everything’s fine, that they feel great, that the procedure was totally worth it. And those reports will be worthless as evidence—because they’d say exactly the same thing whether the consciousness survived or not. Some people speculate this is what happened to the Grays—those hypothetical aliens with the huge heads and atrophied bodies and black empty eyes. The story goes that they optimized themselves for intelligence and efficiency, edited out the messy biological drives, and only later realized they’d lost something they can’t name and can’t recover. It’s probably pure science fiction. But as fiction, it gestures at something real: the fear that you can win the optimization game while losing the only thing that made winning matter. My Position I’m not anti-technology. I’m not a Luddite. I’m not saying we should freeze human development in amber. But I am saying: I will take this very slowly, because the risk matrix is too high. I’ll use external tools. I’ll wear the smart glasses, use the AI assistants, interface through voice and text and maybe eventually a read-only neural cap. Additive augmentation, not substitutive replacement. What I won’t do is cut into the brain. Replace the gray matter. Upload myself and trust that the thing that wakes up is me. Because the horror of Johnny Silverhand Syndrome isn’t that you could become a zombie. The horror is that you’d never know. The trap is invisible from every angle—except the one you can no longer access once you’ve fallen in. The fire goes out, or the fire stays lit. A video of the fire going forever isn’t fire.

David Shapiro (L/0)

20,835 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, & Learn Claude Code Today. This Claude Code teaches more about vibe-coding in 30 mins than most tutorials do in hours. Save this, it'll change how you build forever People are building entire apps and charging clients $5,000 to $20,000 using Claude Code. This Claude Code video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumarfor daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.
35:48

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, & Learn Claude Code Today. This Claude Code teaches more about vibe-coding in 30 mins than most tutorials do in hours. Save this, it'll change how you build forever People are building entire apps and charging clients $5,000 to $20,000 using Claude Code. This Claude Code video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumarfor daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

85,668 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Stargate trivia: "200" (The BIG breakdown) SG-1 was about to attain the loftiest of broadcast heights – its 200th episode – and we wanted to do something special. Something unique. Something everyone on the production would enjoy as much as the longtime fans watching at home. The initial idea pitched was something called “Remember When…”, a trip down memory lane in which our characters’ reflections would form the frames of the varied flashbacks to outrageous missions. While everyone loved the idea of the outrageous missions, the premise of the episode felt too diffuse. We wanted an actual story that would form the heart of the episode. After much discussion, we elected to pay tribute to the franchise by referencing our last milestone – episode 100 – and bringing back Martin Lloyd and the show within a show, Wormhole X-Treme. But the fun we poked at the franchise through that spoof production was nothing compared to what we had in store for 200… WE FINALLY GOT TO MEET THE FURLINGS! Sort of. Even though it never really happened and we end up getting them killed in the end. Back in the show’s fourth season, not long after joining the production, I was summoned to Exec. Producer Robert Cooper’s office. He was doing his pass on our first script, Scorched Earth, and needed something from me: the name of an alien race. When pressed, he admitted naming alien races was not his forte and, as evidence, offered up “the Furlings”. I have to admit that whenever I heard the name, I always imagined a cosmic version of the Care Bears, giggling and snuggling their way through various adventures. As evidently, did everyone else on the production. The fans, however, were all sorts of curious and nary a week would go by without a fan posting a message board request for a glimpse of the elusive beings. Time wore on and those requests continued so, at one point, Brad suggested an episode in which we actually did get to meet them: a race of gaunt, towering, hairless, grey-skinned creatures. But that idea was quashed and the production went on its merry way, choosing to keep the race a mystery. But with 200 came the opportunity to honor those fan requests, and the viewers at home finally got to see those lovable furry creatures who turned out to be a cross between an ewok and a deranged koala. And then SG-1 went and got their planet blown up. Of course, we quickly reveal that the incident never actually happened and it was part of a pitch for a revival of the defunct Wormhole X-Treme t.v. series, a show that lasted an inglorious three episodes before being cancelled. But thanks to an impressive second life on dvd (following in the footsteps of Family Guy and Futurama) the show is being revived – and General O’Neill, in a desire to maintain a cover of plausible deniability for the Stargate program (and, let’s face it, screw with his old teammates) charges SG-1 with the task of creatively contributing to the production. MITCHELL TAKES ON THE LIVING DEAD! Every once in a while, actor Ben Browder would drop by the offices to pitch out an action sequence for his character – so I thought it appropriate that, given the opportunity, his character would pitch out an action sequence for – uh – his character. And, really, nothing says action like zombie hordes. Just ask fans of The Walking Dead. This sequence also allowed us the rare opportunity of witnessing Walter/Norman getting his head eaten. Double bonus! Mitchell’s idea is shot down and Martin gets on the phone with a representative of the studio. He is clearly frustrated and Mitchell asks: “Studio executives, huh?” Martin responds: “What? Oh, no Charlie? He’s a great guy. He’s the only one I trust.” This was a reference to longtime MGM President of Television and Stargate supporter Charles Cohen, one of the smartest, kindest studios executives I’ve ever had the pleasure to work with. As much as he was a fan of the show, we at the production were fans of Charlie. Martin is outraged because they lost their lead. How, he wonders, can they do the show without their lead. “You just bring in a character to replace him,”suggests Mitchell – an obvious reference to the introduction of Cam Mitchell which followed soon after the departure of longtime SG-1 lead Jack O’Neill. Carter then throws out some alternate ideas for keeping the lead alive: “Well, you could have the other characters refer to him all the time. Maybe, get him on the phone once in a while.” Yep. Been there; done that during SG-1’s seventh and eighth seasons. And then, someone references that time O’Neill was invisible… THE ADVENTURES OF INVISIBLE O'NEILL! The idea of doing an Invisible O’Neill segment was actually a joke I threw out...That ended up making the script. That happened a lot in this episode. As with all the segments, we went off and wrote them individually, and then everyone weighed in and they were tweaked. I always found the scene of O’Neill spying on Carter in the shower a tad creepy. Anyway, the Invisible O’Neill idea was embraced because we wanted Richard Dean Anderson to come back and do a cameo on this all-important episode, but didn’t know if he’d be able to work in an appearance. So, we figured we’d get the next best thing: his voice. As it turned out, he was able to swing the appearance, making 200 all that more special. THE GETAWAY Martin then pitches out a tale of high adventure, placing our heroes (SG-1) in an impossible position – and then simply cutting to them escaping through the gate. This was a tip of the hat to the many fans outraged by a similar scenario in a past episode (don’t remember the name) in which our heroes (SG-1) are surrounded by Lucian Alliance soldiers only to effect some miraculous unseen escape. During the ensuing argument over the merits of the pitch, Martin attempts to come up with a reasonable window of time for the team to reach the gate and dial. Ten seconds is too short and thirty seconds is too round a number. He decides on 38! Which, coincidentally, is the same number (of minutes) a stargate can stay open. Timing is, of course, everything, and nothing says action like a ticking clock. Which prompts the following gem from Martin: “Trust me, jeopardy plus ticking clock is box office. It’s the E equals M C squared of the entertainment world. Ask any executive.” Indeed. If there were two notes we received more than any other during Stargate’s long run, they were: “More jeopardy!” and “We need a ticking clock!”. Having a character race a timer to defuse a bomb? Didn’t get much better than that. THEY'RE OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD! Next to The Simpsons, The Wizard of Oz was probably the most referenced piece of pop culture over SG-1’s decade-long run. The fans certainly took notice and resulted in one particularly memorable piece of artwork being sent to studio depicting the original team as the cinematic classic’s adventurous foursome. So, I suppose, it made perfect sense to reference the constant references by including a little Wizard of Oz sequence in the episode as well. Mitchell’s line: “Now, how can something work perfectly fine for ten years, then all of a sudden, it doesn’t work anymore?” was an in-story reference to the gate suddenly stopping operations – and, in hindsight, could have been interpreted as a comment on the the show’s cancellation. DESTROYING STARGATE COMMAND This also episode gave us the opportunity to do something we’ve always wanted to do: blow up Stargate Command. It’s part of the story Martin Lloyd pitches the team. Mitchell, however, points out a potential problem. They’re alive in the next scene. How is that possible. To which Martin replies: ” I’m thinking I can back-sell it and say you were beamed out at the last second.” Teal’c’s rejoinder neatly sums up the feelings of many on the production: “Is that not too convenient?”. Yep, nobody hated the Earth ship beaming technology more than I did – with possible exception of actor Ben Browder. In the original version of this scene, the fun we poked at ourselves was a little more pointed: DANIEL: Beamed out. MARTIN: By the Prometheus. TEAL'C: Convenient. MARTIN: True. But c'mon, you got Asgard technology, why not use it? As long as it doesn't become a crutch. DANIEL: Small problem. The Prometheus was destroyed. MARTIN: Really? By who? MITCHELL: Kind of a long story. MARTIN: In battle? MITCHELL: Yes. MARTIN: Wow. So how'd you get out of that one? Beat. DANIEL: We, uh... we were beamed out. Soon after, Martin fields yet another call, this one from the network. "So, trouble with Nora"assumes Mitchell, to which Martin replies: "No, Nora—she's great." A shout-out to the late Nora O'Brien who was our network point-person for many years before she moved on to another position with NBC. A sharp executive and just a lovely woman. SG-1 DOES STAR TREK We all grew up with the original Star Trek (except Rob Cooper who preferred The Six Million Dollar Man) so we (and by we I mean Brad) couldn’t resist the opportunity to do an SG-1 version of the television’s most famous SF series. Paul McGillion was originally supposed to do the one-line cameo of the ship’s beleaguered Scottish engineer, but when that fell through, series co-creator and Executive Producer (not to mention former stage actor) Brad Wright stepped into those shiny black boots. THE YOUNGER, EDGIER TEAM Look closely and you can catch the late Cory Monteith as one of the young and edgy team-members. “Young” and “edgy” were buzzwords we kept on hearing a lot of (and continue to hear a lot of in the business), so Rob Cooper served up his version of what a younger, edgier Stargate would look like complete with stylized shots and dreamy cast members. Vala continues to pitch out ideas, offering up an SF version of Gilligan’s Island (“We were in a cloaked cargo ship on a simple, three-hour reconnaissance mission…”) that was one of the scenes we lost for time at the script stage… VALA (VO): We were in a cloaked cargo ship, on a simple three hour reconnaissance mission... TILT DOWN to reveal a planet. VALA (V)): But on the way we encountered a severe electromagnetic storm and lost all power. We were forced down on an uncharted, deserted planet... EXT. TROPICAL ISLAND -- DAY We see the cargo ship washed ashore on this deserted island, looking very much like the damaged S.S. Minnow. VALA (VO): We washed ashore and were forced to survive for weeks in the most primitive of conditions. No phone, no lights, no motor cars. Not a single luxury. EXT. ISLAND -- DAY Landry comes out of a hut, dressed like the Skipper. VALA (V): General Landry was with us on the mission, and let me tell you, he was in a foul mood. LANDRY: Mitchell! Mitchell runs out, dressed like Gilligan. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. LANDRY: Where's Carter? She was supposed to be done by now. MITCHELL: Oh, uh...(looks around) She's not here. Landry whacks him with his cap. LANDRY: I can see that. DANIEL: Over here... PAN TO Daniel (as the Professor) and Carter (as Mary Ann) carrying a large device out of another hut. Vala (as Ginger) trails behind them. The device looks like something constructed from bamboo and coconuts. CARTER (to Landry): I think we may have something, sir. VALA:Not a moment too soon. I must get out of this place. I have a photo shoot this afternoon. Landry stares at the device. LANDRY: What is this thing? CARTER:Well, I managed to construct a basic subspace transmitter out of coconuts, bamboo and our old subspace transmitter. DANIEL: A long shot, but it just might get us off this island. MITCHELL: That's great! Mitchell eagerly moves in for a closer look, but trips, falls and smashes the damn thing.Before Landry can whack him with his cap again -- TEAL'C emerges from the trees, dressed like Mr. Howell. He casually puffs a pipe. TEAL'C: Was I not traveling with a companion? A female by the name of... Lovey? MARTIN: Alright, enough already. FARGATE I had really enjoyed Farscape and, with both Ben Browder and Claudia Black on the show, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to do a little tribute, SG-1 style. Originally, Ben was supposed to play the part of Crichton and Michael the part of Stark, but they suggested it might be more fun to switch up the roles. SG-1 SUPERMARIONATION! Brad Wright, Robert Cooper, Paul Mullie and Carl Binder are huge fans of Team America: World Police, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that they jumped at the chance to do their own, SG-1 version. As it turned out, years ago Paul and I had worked with The Chiodo Bros. who had created the puppets and effects for Team America (as well as work on a Davey and Goliath claymation parody for The Simpsons and the Willice and Crimbles parody segment on The Simpsons). We called them up and they ended up delivering kick-ass puppet versions of our team – and supporting players. So, okay. Fess up. Which one of you fans is now the proud owner of one of these? In the writer’s draft of the script, yet another idea is pitched out… MITCHELL: Death is always dramatic. CUT TO: INT. INFIRMARY -- DAY Daniel lies on the bed. Carter, Mitchell, Vala and Landry stand around him. Vala reaches out and touches his hand - VALA: Goodbye, Daniel. The heart monitor FLATLINES. The rest of the group can barely control their emotions. Suddenly, a bright GLOW starts to emanate from under the sheets on the bed. Slowly, Daniel's body TRANSFORMS into a glowing ribbon being like in Meridian. As it rises above the bed, the sheets collapse. Amazement plays on the faces of everyone in the room. The glowing being hovers high above them for a moment then - MARTIN: No, no, no. BACK TO: INT. BRIEFING ROOM -- DAY Martin shakes his head. MARTIN: We did that twice in the series. DANIEL: You only made three episodes. How many times did we kill off Daniel again? Whenever we offed guest stars, we would invariably send them off with the heartening: “This is science fiction. Nobody ever dies in science fiction!” And, many times on Stargate, that was proven true. Then, someone pitches out the fishing segment. Martin’s response: “And what’s the twist…no fish?” is, of course, a reference to the twist at the end of Moebius I and II. THE WEDDING How couldn’t we? There was something there for the shippers – and something there for the slashers as well when O’Neill, waiting for Carter, turns to Daniel who utters the memorable: “You know, if she doesn’t show, people are gonna think that you and I –“. My favorite part of this segment is Jack referring to Carter as, well, Carter. Not Sam or Samantha but Carter. I guess old habits die hard. Martin’s response to the pitch ” Yeah, right, if I want to torture the audience on purpose!” echoes a quote from a fan letter we received that was critical of the ship. A classic line. The episode ends with a bunch of interviews teeming with inside jokes. I mean, I know we did 10 years but, dammit, we were still on a roll!
0:22

Stargate trivia: "200" (The BIG breakdown) SG-1 was about to attain the loftiest of broadcast heights – its 200th episode – and we wanted to do something special. Something unique. Something everyone on the production would enjoy as much as the longtime fans watching at home. The initial idea pitched was something called “Remember When…”, a trip down memory lane in which our characters’ reflections would form the frames of the varied flashbacks to outrageous missions. While everyone loved the idea of the outrageous missions, the premise of the episode felt too diffuse. We wanted an actual story that would form the heart of the episode. After much discussion, we elected to pay tribute to the franchise by referencing our last milestone – episode 100 – and bringing back Martin Lloyd and the show within a show, Wormhole X-Treme. But the fun we poked at the franchise through that spoof production was nothing compared to what we had in store for 200… WE FINALLY GOT TO MEET THE FURLINGS! Sort of. Even though it never really happened and we end up getting them killed in the end. Back in the show’s fourth season, not long after joining the production, I was summoned to Exec. Producer Robert Cooper’s office. He was doing his pass on our first script, Scorched Earth, and needed something from me: the name of an alien race. When pressed, he admitted naming alien races was not his forte and, as evidence, offered up “the Furlings”. I have to admit that whenever I heard the name, I always imagined a cosmic version of the Care Bears, giggling and snuggling their way through various adventures. As evidently, did everyone else on the production. The fans, however, were all sorts of curious and nary a week would go by without a fan posting a message board request for a glimpse of the elusive beings. Time wore on and those requests continued so, at one point, Brad suggested an episode in which we actually did get to meet them: a race of gaunt, towering, hairless, grey-skinned creatures. But that idea was quashed and the production went on its merry way, choosing to keep the race a mystery. But with 200 came the opportunity to honor those fan requests, and the viewers at home finally got to see those lovable furry creatures who turned out to be a cross between an ewok and a deranged koala. And then SG-1 went and got their planet blown up. Of course, we quickly reveal that the incident never actually happened and it was part of a pitch for a revival of the defunct Wormhole X-Treme t.v. series, a show that lasted an inglorious three episodes before being cancelled. But thanks to an impressive second life on dvd (following in the footsteps of Family Guy and Futurama) the show is being revived – and General O’Neill, in a desire to maintain a cover of plausible deniability for the Stargate program (and, let’s face it, screw with his old teammates) charges SG-1 with the task of creatively contributing to the production. MITCHELL TAKES ON THE LIVING DEAD! Every once in a while, actor Ben Browder would drop by the offices to pitch out an action sequence for his character – so I thought it appropriate that, given the opportunity, his character would pitch out an action sequence for – uh – his character. And, really, nothing says action like zombie hordes. Just ask fans of The Walking Dead. This sequence also allowed us the rare opportunity of witnessing Walter/Norman getting his head eaten. Double bonus! Mitchell’s idea is shot down and Martin gets on the phone with a representative of the studio. He is clearly frustrated and Mitchell asks: “Studio executives, huh?” Martin responds: “What? Oh, no Charlie? He’s a great guy. He’s the only one I trust.” This was a reference to longtime MGM President of Television and Stargate supporter Charles Cohen, one of the smartest, kindest studios executives I’ve ever had the pleasure to work with. As much as he was a fan of the show, we at the production were fans of Charlie. Martin is outraged because they lost their lead. How, he wonders, can they do the show without their lead. “You just bring in a character to replace him,”suggests Mitchell – an obvious reference to the introduction of Cam Mitchell which followed soon after the departure of longtime SG-1 lead Jack O’Neill. Carter then throws out some alternate ideas for keeping the lead alive: “Well, you could have the other characters refer to him all the time. Maybe, get him on the phone once in a while.” Yep. Been there; done that during SG-1’s seventh and eighth seasons. And then, someone references that time O’Neill was invisible… THE ADVENTURES OF INVISIBLE O'NEILL! The idea of doing an Invisible O’Neill segment was actually a joke I threw out...That ended up making the script. That happened a lot in this episode. As with all the segments, we went off and wrote them individually, and then everyone weighed in and they were tweaked. I always found the scene of O’Neill spying on Carter in the shower a tad creepy. Anyway, the Invisible O’Neill idea was embraced because we wanted Richard Dean Anderson to come back and do a cameo on this all-important episode, but didn’t know if he’d be able to work in an appearance. So, we figured we’d get the next best thing: his voice. As it turned out, he was able to swing the appearance, making 200 all that more special. THE GETAWAY Martin then pitches out a tale of high adventure, placing our heroes (SG-1) in an impossible position – and then simply cutting to them escaping through the gate. This was a tip of the hat to the many fans outraged by a similar scenario in a past episode (don’t remember the name) in which our heroes (SG-1) are surrounded by Lucian Alliance soldiers only to effect some miraculous unseen escape. During the ensuing argument over the merits of the pitch, Martin attempts to come up with a reasonable window of time for the team to reach the gate and dial. Ten seconds is too short and thirty seconds is too round a number. He decides on 38! Which, coincidentally, is the same number (of minutes) a stargate can stay open. Timing is, of course, everything, and nothing says action like a ticking clock. Which prompts the following gem from Martin: “Trust me, jeopardy plus ticking clock is box office. It’s the E equals M C squared of the entertainment world. Ask any executive.” Indeed. If there were two notes we received more than any other during Stargate’s long run, they were: “More jeopardy!” and “We need a ticking clock!”. Having a character race a timer to defuse a bomb? Didn’t get much better than that. THEY'RE OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD! Next to The Simpsons, The Wizard of Oz was probably the most referenced piece of pop culture over SG-1’s decade-long run. The fans certainly took notice and resulted in one particularly memorable piece of artwork being sent to studio depicting the original team as the cinematic classic’s adventurous foursome. So, I suppose, it made perfect sense to reference the constant references by including a little Wizard of Oz sequence in the episode as well. Mitchell’s line: “Now, how can something work perfectly fine for ten years, then all of a sudden, it doesn’t work anymore?” was an in-story reference to the gate suddenly stopping operations – and, in hindsight, could have been interpreted as a comment on the the show’s cancellation. DESTROYING STARGATE COMMAND This also episode gave us the opportunity to do something we’ve always wanted to do: blow up Stargate Command. It’s part of the story Martin Lloyd pitches the team. Mitchell, however, points out a potential problem. They’re alive in the next scene. How is that possible. To which Martin replies: ” I’m thinking I can back-sell it and say you were beamed out at the last second.” Teal’c’s rejoinder neatly sums up the feelings of many on the production: “Is that not too convenient?”. Yep, nobody hated the Earth ship beaming technology more than I did – with possible exception of actor Ben Browder. In the original version of this scene, the fun we poked at ourselves was a little more pointed: DANIEL: Beamed out. MARTIN: By the Prometheus. TEAL'C: Convenient. MARTIN: True. But c'mon, you got Asgard technology, why not use it? As long as it doesn't become a crutch. DANIEL: Small problem. The Prometheus was destroyed. MARTIN: Really? By who? MITCHELL: Kind of a long story. MARTIN: In battle? MITCHELL: Yes. MARTIN: Wow. So how'd you get out of that one? Beat. DANIEL: We, uh... we were beamed out. Soon after, Martin fields yet another call, this one from the network. "So, trouble with Nora"assumes Mitchell, to which Martin replies: "No, Nora—she's great." A shout-out to the late Nora O'Brien who was our network point-person for many years before she moved on to another position with NBC. A sharp executive and just a lovely woman. SG-1 DOES STAR TREK We all grew up with the original Star Trek (except Rob Cooper who preferred The Six Million Dollar Man) so we (and by we I mean Brad) couldn’t resist the opportunity to do an SG-1 version of the television’s most famous SF series. Paul McGillion was originally supposed to do the one-line cameo of the ship’s beleaguered Scottish engineer, but when that fell through, series co-creator and Executive Producer (not to mention former stage actor) Brad Wright stepped into those shiny black boots. THE YOUNGER, EDGIER TEAM Look closely and you can catch the late Cory Monteith as one of the young and edgy team-members. “Young” and “edgy” were buzzwords we kept on hearing a lot of (and continue to hear a lot of in the business), so Rob Cooper served up his version of what a younger, edgier Stargate would look like complete with stylized shots and dreamy cast members. Vala continues to pitch out ideas, offering up an SF version of Gilligan’s Island (“We were in a cloaked cargo ship on a simple, three-hour reconnaissance mission…”) that was one of the scenes we lost for time at the script stage… VALA (VO): We were in a cloaked cargo ship, on a simple three hour reconnaissance mission... TILT DOWN to reveal a planet. VALA (V)): But on the way we encountered a severe electromagnetic storm and lost all power. We were forced down on an uncharted, deserted planet... EXT. TROPICAL ISLAND -- DAY We see the cargo ship washed ashore on this deserted island, looking very much like the damaged S.S. Minnow. VALA (VO): We washed ashore and were forced to survive for weeks in the most primitive of conditions. No phone, no lights, no motor cars. Not a single luxury. EXT. ISLAND -- DAY Landry comes out of a hut, dressed like the Skipper. VALA (V): General Landry was with us on the mission, and let me tell you, he was in a foul mood. LANDRY: Mitchell! Mitchell runs out, dressed like Gilligan. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. LANDRY: Where's Carter? She was supposed to be done by now. MITCHELL: Oh, uh...(looks around) She's not here. Landry whacks him with his cap. LANDRY: I can see that. DANIEL: Over here... PAN TO Daniel (as the Professor) and Carter (as Mary Ann) carrying a large device out of another hut. Vala (as Ginger) trails behind them. The device looks like something constructed from bamboo and coconuts. CARTER (to Landry): I think we may have something, sir. VALA:Not a moment too soon. I must get out of this place. I have a photo shoot this afternoon. Landry stares at the device. LANDRY: What is this thing? CARTER:Well, I managed to construct a basic subspace transmitter out of coconuts, bamboo and our old subspace transmitter. DANIEL: A long shot, but it just might get us off this island. MITCHELL: That's great! Mitchell eagerly moves in for a closer look, but trips, falls and smashes the damn thing.Before Landry can whack him with his cap again -- TEAL'C emerges from the trees, dressed like Mr. Howell. He casually puffs a pipe. TEAL'C: Was I not traveling with a companion? A female by the name of... Lovey? MARTIN: Alright, enough already. FARGATE I had really enjoyed Farscape and, with both Ben Browder and Claudia Black on the show, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to do a little tribute, SG-1 style. Originally, Ben was supposed to play the part of Crichton and Michael the part of Stark, but they suggested it might be more fun to switch up the roles. SG-1 SUPERMARIONATION! Brad Wright, Robert Cooper, Paul Mullie and Carl Binder are huge fans of Team America: World Police, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that they jumped at the chance to do their own, SG-1 version. As it turned out, years ago Paul and I had worked with The Chiodo Bros. who had created the puppets and effects for Team America (as well as work on a Davey and Goliath claymation parody for The Simpsons and the Willice and Crimbles parody segment on The Simpsons). We called them up and they ended up delivering kick-ass puppet versions of our team – and supporting players. So, okay. Fess up. Which one of you fans is now the proud owner of one of these? In the writer’s draft of the script, yet another idea is pitched out… MITCHELL: Death is always dramatic. CUT TO: INT. INFIRMARY -- DAY Daniel lies on the bed. Carter, Mitchell, Vala and Landry stand around him. Vala reaches out and touches his hand - VALA: Goodbye, Daniel. The heart monitor FLATLINES. The rest of the group can barely control their emotions. Suddenly, a bright GLOW starts to emanate from under the sheets on the bed. Slowly, Daniel's body TRANSFORMS into a glowing ribbon being like in Meridian. As it rises above the bed, the sheets collapse. Amazement plays on the faces of everyone in the room. The glowing being hovers high above them for a moment then - MARTIN: No, no, no. BACK TO: INT. BRIEFING ROOM -- DAY Martin shakes his head. MARTIN: We did that twice in the series. DANIEL: You only made three episodes. How many times did we kill off Daniel again? Whenever we offed guest stars, we would invariably send them off with the heartening: “This is science fiction. Nobody ever dies in science fiction!” And, many times on Stargate, that was proven true. Then, someone pitches out the fishing segment. Martin’s response: “And what’s the twist…no fish?” is, of course, a reference to the twist at the end of Moebius I and II. THE WEDDING How couldn’t we? There was something there for the shippers – and something there for the slashers as well when O’Neill, waiting for Carter, turns to Daniel who utters the memorable: “You know, if she doesn’t show, people are gonna think that you and I –“. My favorite part of this segment is Jack referring to Carter as, well, Carter. Not Sam or Samantha but Carter. I guess old habits die hard. Martin’s response to the pitch ” Yeah, right, if I want to torture the audience on purpose!” echoes a quote from a fan letter we received that was critical of the ship. A classic line. The episode ends with a bunch of interviews teeming with inside jokes. I mean, I know we did 10 years but, dammit, we were still on a roll!

Joseph Mallozzi 🏴‍☠️

26,828 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce