Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
Let's get the weekend started off right😌 😈It's #FreakyFriday😈 Solo, Couple/Group, Missionary, Backshots, Threesomes + Toys 🤪 LETS SEE IT ALL!! FT: 👑 AMBER LEE💋♊️ FETCON AUG 7-9 😻+ ֆȶǟƈӼӼӼֆ Booking Now‼️ 💦
41,037 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
!["We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be. No matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is." ~Bengston (This is what Mick West said he doesn't find interesting and thus, he doesn't want to interview Bengston. The truth? IMO, he's scared shitless to take on Bengston as there's too much data to refute. Psi (or whatever this is) is real and this is one of the more interesting claims in the world. How could you NOT be interested in this? How about you, Michael Shermer?) "We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer." ~Bengston (It's the 1970s on Long Island. A skeptical Bill Bengston is working as a lifeguard at the town pool and meets a guy, Ben, who claims to be psychic. No matter what tests Bengston comes up with, Ben passes with flying colors. Then Ben starts healing people. But how to know if they were being healed with Ben's psi or something more prosaic? Did they change their diet? Supplements? Conventional medicine? Not everybody came back so it was very hard to know. So Bengston moves to the lab where Ben would try to cure mice of a cancer that has killed every mouse ever injected within 27 days max. At the last minute, Ben drops out and Bengston is forced to be the healer.) ~ Bill Bengston: "If you watch a few hundred healings, at first it's exhilarating, but after a while it's frustrating. Because you don't know what, why, where, when, any of those things that someone interested in serious inquiry might be interested in. You were just looking at people coming in, some benefit occurred. People leaving. Sometimes they didn't come back. Sometimes it took more than one treatment. Sometimes it happened pretty quick. I think I was the fastest ever (Bengston says Ben healed his back after one short treatment). But what did? "So you come in, you have x, it's a famous algebraic disease. You have x, and you leave better. Now maybe it's the multiple treatments, you know, whatever it may be. But you leave better. What did it? Was it time? Because people get better over time. Was it belief? I didn't think it was belief, because I wasn't a believer. I was an experiencer, but not a believer. Was it the food you ate, the food you stopped eating, the grapefruit you had in the morning? I can't...I don't have the head to wrap myself around clinical questions like that. I never know why something happens, because there's too many variables and such. "And so, after watching a couple hundred healings, taking part in a couple hundred healings, I decided to...I gotta go past this. And I ran into another guy who was watching this, somewhat parallel to me. A geologist, pretty well known (David Krinsley ~Joe). And we said, 'What can we do to test this? You know, the phenomenon is seriously interesting. What could we do to really test it so that if healing occurs, there's no viable counter hypothesis.' "And at the time, he was the head of the geology department at City University of New York, and he said, 'I got some favors owed me, let me see what I can find out in the biology department. I'm pretty good friends with the chairman of the biology department there.' "And so he met with the biology chair, and he said, 'Well, let me poke around in my department and see what we can do.' And he said, 'I got the perfect study. There's a mouse model of cancer that has 100% fatality. Never been an extension of life past a month after it's been injected with cancer. There's thousands of journal articles written about this mouse and this cancer. Everybody around the world knows this mouse and this cancer. If you're in oncology, you know this mouse and this cancer, and [there] has never been a cure.' "I said, 'Let's do it. Let's find out what we can do.' "And at the time, I had no idea what to expect. So I was thinking, 'Well, maybe we can extend the life towards a month. Maybe it won't be a normal curve distribution, maybe it'll be a negatively-skewed distribution. And maybe the mouse will live to the end of their lifespan and all that. "We had no idea what to expect. "So we got a cage of mice. I held the cage of mice for an hour at a time in the lab at Queens College, City University, and we watched as the tumors grew. And I was sure this was failing. And incidentally, I'm almost always wrong. I expected, if we got to the mice right after injection and we treated them a couple times, enough, every day - we didn't know - if we treated them every day, they wouldn't develop cancer. I was thinking, you know, it's something like radiation. You know, you go, 'Zzt, zzt,' and you zap the mice and the tumors, or the cancer cells die, or something along those lines. I was thinking conventional oncology. "And so, I put my hands around the cage of mice, treated them every day, the tumors started to grow anyway, and I wanted to call off the experiment. You know, it shows you how much I believe. I got talked into going a couple extra days, and the tumors developed these blackened areas. And I said, 'Let's call it off, didn't work. You know, we tried it. Didn't work.' "Go a couple more days. Tumors started to ulcerate, and so there was this raw part of a tumor. And I said, 'Would you pay attention? It doesn't work!' Couple more days. And then the tumors suddenly imploded, and the mice were cured. They weren't remitted, they were cured. And by that, I mean it wasn't a suppression of symptoms, it wasn't a temporary reduction in symptoms. It was...there was no cancer in the mouse at all. "And it's farther than that. We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer. Now that's reasonably interesting. "So, first thing you do is, I, as a skeptic, go, 'Umm, this doesn't make any sense (laughs). Let's do it again. But let's not do it with just me, let's do it with some volunteers.' "So I had a couple of faculty volunteers who thought this thing was insane, and they were right. So I had a couple of faculty volunteers, they got a couple of student volunteers. All non-believers, no experience in any of this hocus pocus. Taught 'em the little technique that I had developed. They treated the mice, the exact same pattern: Tumor grows, blackened area, ulceration, implosion, full lifespan cure. "We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be." (Both laugh) "It's just, you know, no matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is. You know, I deny this gravity, you know? I don't believe in gravity. There is gravity. I don't believe in this healing. There is healing. "I just finished, recently, my twentieth mouse experiment, I'm a little slow. I've done it in, I think, six medical schools, equal number of other biology labs. And I just finished at Tokyo University, multiple strains of cancer and details you don't care about. "And so, I have done, at this point, twenty mouse experiments, multiple medical schools, many cell experiments. I've done many experiments. That's the really short version. A hundred years truncated into a couple of paragraphs."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891577612453179483/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891542527817469952/pu/img/SlWpIJFWshTl1l69.jpg)
![Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1994972575768727743/amplify_video_thumb/1994972220930621440/img/_5CCZJyz89oDfqQJ.jpg)
!["Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer...[is] the largest case in the world...there's literally...trillions in potential damages." "The clinical trial data was manipulated...[Pfizer's] vaccine...increased all cause mortality...And...they hid deaths." (1/7) Warner Mendenhall (Warner Mendenhall), an activist, citizen, and lawyer representing Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson (Brook Jackson 💜), describes for Leslie Manookian (Leslie Manookian) of Health Freedom Defense Fund (Health Freedom Defense Fund) how the pharma giant conducted a "manipulated" clinical trial for its COVID injections. Mendenhall notes that Pfizer manipulated its "clinical trial" (which was really a "demonstration" of a clinical trial—see tweet 2), in various ways. First and foremost, by "[hiding] deaths" in the "shot" arm of the trial. Furthermore, Mendenhall notes that more people died in the "shot arm" of Pfizer's trial than in the placebo arm. (Indeed, the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action published by the FDA on November 8, 2021 for Pfizer's *supposedly* FDA approved injection, COMIRNATY, clearly stated that there were 21 deaths in the injection arm of the trial and 17 in the placebo arm—see tweet 5). Also note that while Mendenhall doesn't discuss this point in this clip, Trump's own Department of Justice requested—in 2025(!)—that Jackson's case against Pfizer be dismissed. "Trump sides with Pfizer!" Jackson wrote on X on April 28, 2025. "[Trump's] DOJ explained to the court that it has had continued access to the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial data and the vaccine is effective," Jackson added. Trump's DOJ asked the court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit against Pfizer, in part, because her case is "inconsistent with public policy" (see tweet 5). Furthermore, note that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself has called Pfizer's COVID-injection clinical trial "kabuki theater." Kennedy noted in an interview conducted in 2023 that the trial "was meaningless theater." He added that Pfizer's COVID injection "is a demonstration product, not a medical product" and that "the FDA has no authority over it." (See tweet 3.) ---------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We have a couple of cases that are very well known. Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer I think is the most well known. But it is something that we've had no mainstream coverage of. What could be the largest case in the world right now because there's literally hundreds, of billions, essentially trillions in potential damages that Pfizer would never be able to pay. "They'd be bankrupt if Brook Jackson is, successful in her case. That case is again, it's very simple. The clinical trial data was manipulated to show that this drug, was somewhat effective against COVID 19. They started with 43,000 people in the clinical trial, but the data that the FDA, made a decision on was only based on 170 people out of 43,000. So why, why only 170? "I think anyone would ask if you have 43,000 data points. It's because that came after they went through the data, you know, and basically manipulated it to where it showed a quote unquote 90 or 95% effectiveness rate. But if you go back to a little broader view of the data, you can see, right in the broader view that of the folks who didn't get the vaccine, there were 1800 who got COVID-19. "Of the folks who did get the supposed vaccine, there were like 1600 that got COVID 19. That is not a statistically relevant difference in any way and really doesn't show, any benefit from it. And then you look at all cause mortality. That's a normal thing to look at with any drug. What does it do to all cause mortality? If you take the drug, it should reduce all cause mortality. This didn't, when you took the vaccine, it increased all cause mortality among the vaccine arm. And I hate to use the word vaccine, but I'll do that as a shorthand here. "Let's make people understand that the shot arm had higher all cause mortality. So more people were dying if they got the drug than the ones if they didn't. That's just a good overall test of something. And then they hid deaths. So we knew there were deaths. They were hidden. And it's taken a lot of basically citizen and amateur research to go through all those tens of thousands of pages of Pfizer documents. But they found them and people who were injured in the trial. They managed to exclude them, and not count them as serious adverse events. "And we have a great one, great example is a gentleman out of Argentina who's contacted us, Augusto Roux. He's been fighting that issue in Argentina. And that site and Augusto Roux. And what he had to say to us was really interesting because they managed to enroll 4,000 people in a clinical trial in a couple of weeks. Get them run through, get the data and. And it was at a military hospital. And. And then on top of it all, there has been in the Argentine press an allegation of bribery. "And one of the chief researchers who by the way, wrote a, wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine is Fernando Pollock. He's who ran that clinical trial down there. He's well known to us in the United States. He's no longer licensed in the United States. I'm not sure exactly why. He has military and intelligence contacts, which makes me very curious. And he wrote this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has essentially been debunked since then about how effective this vaccine, trial. This vaccine was, based on the trial numbers. So all kinds of very interesting things on that case."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1924263528854139257/amplify_video_thumb/1924251021506662400/img/q0kaiEyTGGyJoUVV.jpg)
![HOW THE U.N. FOOLED THE WORLD ABOUT CHINA Westerners took over control of a United Nations body to claim the Chinese locked up a million or millions of people—but they had no evidence. The “MILLIONS” number was extrapolated from interviews with just 40 people, and they were not randomly selected, said Australian lawyer and researcher Jaq James from Geolaw Narratives. These clearly untrustworthy findings were then amplified by mainstream media reports quoting people from US groups paid to demonize China—with their membership and funding hidden from readers, our own research shows. The result is a massive scam on the world’s public. Four points: . 1. THEY HIDE THE NEED FOR DERADICALIZATION Point one: In mainstream reports about terrorist deradicalization efforts after the 9/11 attack, the 9/11 act of terrorism is mentioned. Same with the deradicalization efforts after the 7/7 terrorism act in London. But there were more than 130 brutal, acts of terror in China—that’s correct, more than 130 murderous acts in which large numbers of innocent people were killed by Uyghur separatists. But these are simply not mentioned in typical reports. Only the response is mentioned. By deliberately removing the huge number of acts of terror to which the Chinese are responding, western journalists make the Chinese look like they are taking arbitrary actions against the Uyghurs. Yet the truth is that they were doing what westerners also did, responding to terrorist acts. [Image shows clip of “French re-education camps” headline] You can see how unfair that is. . 2. ORIGIN OF ‘MILLION LOCKED UP’ CLAIMS Point two: The first claim that China had arbitrarily locked up a million people was exposed by independent journalists at The Grayzone, as coming from an extrapolation from just eight people. More damning still, that extrapolation came from CHRD, a notorious US-based demonization-of-China outfit funded by the US government. The second claim that million people had been locked up came from the UNOHCR, the UN's human rights office. They took interviews from just 40 people and extrapolated what they heard to claim one million people had been unfairly locked up, as Jaq James’ research shows. Ms James points out that the UN should have interviewed randomly selected individuals to get a fair picture. But by interviewing politically networked ones, they are guaranteed to get a biased image. Again, fundamentally unfair. . 3. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS Point three: This UN department had a leader, Michelle Bachelet, known for her appetite for justice and fairness. This meant she struggled with her staff—westerners who really controlled the operation. She insisted that their report be released alongside a response from China. Here we can see two reports – one from the UN group’s staff, and the response from China. The staff report was just 48 pages long. China’s reply was 120 pages long. How many western mainstream media outlets quoted the Chinese report, or even acknowledged its existence? Zero. Not one. Not. A. Single. One. . 4. IN WHICH WE DESTROY THE FINANCIAL TIMES Point four: The mainstream media write-ups about this subject hid the truth from readers in a shockingly deceitful way. Let’s take a look at a Financial Times article, which is fairly typical. It reinforces the UN group’s dubious findings with evidence which comes from “human rights experts and activists” – in other words, people paid by the US government to demonize China. The writers do NOT provide their names, just calling them “experts”. As Kyle Feranna said in his 2024 book: “Western NGOs, ostensibly concerned with human rights, disproportion¬ately focused on alleged violations in China despite much worse abuses occurring elsewhere in the world.” In other words, they weaponize human rights as tool to use against the Chinese. . GUANTANAMO BAY Then we get a quote from “Rushan Abbas of the Campaign for Uyghurs”. The Financial Times hides from its readers the fact that Ms Abbas was at the notorious Guantanamo Bay – not as a Muslim victim, but on the US side there. And the paper hides the fact that the Campaign for Uyghurs is financed by the NED, the CIA’s regime change spin off. These are absolutely key facts which change the whole tenor of the piece – and the FT is cheerfully deceiving its paying readers by omitting them. Abbas is quoted as saying, of the UN group’s western office staff, “without them, it would not have been released”. This reinforces many reports which say that Commissioner Michelle Bachelet did not want to release such an unfair report, but her staff, mostly westerners, pushed the unfair report out on her last day. . ANONYMOUS SOURCES Then the FT feature article quotes yet another person described as “an activist” and declines to provide his or her name. Then we go to yet another unnamed “human rights” officer. And then yes, a further unnamed “human rights” officer. And then we get a quote from an unnamed “person with knowledge”. And here we have another anonymous quote – a senior European diplomat. No name. I mean, there are so many unnamed sources in this piece, it would have been rejected at any decent journalism school. . OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY Now the FT piece breezily passes over a reference to the other side of the story by quote “China and 68 other countries”. This is hilarious. So if you are a demonizer, paid by the US State Department, you can get as many column inches in the FT as you like, with your name and funding hidden. But if you are 69 actual named countries defending China, giving the other side of the story—well, they’ll just mention it in passing. . THE REAL STORY Now, right at the bottom of the article we actually have a named person – and he actually tells the real story. “Bachelet was never really in full control of her office,” said Marc Limon. Now any journalist worth their salt would realize that that is the key quote in the whole article – and they would ask – okay, if she was not in charge of that UN group, WHO WAS? But the FT writers choose not to ask that awkward question. They don’t want to know. And they definitely don’t want their readers to know. . CLOSING LINE The FT writers close the article with a line from a quote “Uyghur journalist” who actually is named. She is Nuriman Abdureshid. So the reader is left thinking – oh, so they actually did manage to discuss this with someone in Xinjiang, someone with a name and a job. But what the FT "journalists" omit to tell the paper's long-suffering readers is that Ms Nuriman Abdureshid is associated with a group called Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a Washington DC group which demonizes China to such an extreme extent that even other anti-China groups avoid them out of sheer embarrassment. Do I have proof that Victims of Communism is backed by the government? Well, the AI which has taken over Google tells us that Victims of Communism has received funding from the US State Department to deal with human rights issues. Here’s what happens when we look up their funding to check the details. [CLICKS LINK] “SORRY YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED’. Ah yes, the famous US “free speech”. . A QUESTION I’m going to close with a question. Why is the political and media class in the west working so hard to fool the world about the Chinese? Why work so hard to demonize a country that is working hard to lift itself out of starvation level poverty? What don’t they want the world to know? Could it be that China is actually doing something right? Think about that – and we may all, one day, be on the road to peace. .](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2070014240581431742/amplify_video_thumb/2070012930083758080/img/U1NzaDJxmLJBcpd4.jpg)
!["What was in the middle of the hangar was an actual flying saucer. ~GR A Secret Revealed After 33 Years - Have We Cracked Gravity? "We got it from them." (Rogers retired in April of this year.) In 1992, Dr. Gregory Rogers, a chief flight surgeon (a physician who's responsible for the health of the aviation crew, including pilots) for NASA and an Air Force major who supported 33 space shuttle launches and was also an F-18 pilot, was at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (now called Cape Canaveral Space Force Station). He had a guide from EG&G with him but that doesn't seem relevant to what happened next. A major pulled him aside and said, "Hey Doc, I've got something to show you, I've got something even you have never seen." Josh Boswell broke this story in May. H/T: Sentinel News The major took him into an office with four computer stations, locked the door and closed the blinds. They both sat down, and on one of the computer screens, the major pulled up a video that showed a generic hangar. The screen had no markings on it. No classification markings, no location, time, date, etc. "What was in the middle of the hangar was an actual flying saucer." (This next quote isn't part of my video clip and is at 25:08 of the Chris Lehto interview.) "So I said, 'Where would we get a design like this?' And [the major] said, 'We got it from them (shows his thumb pointing up).' He did not explain what he meant, but obviously, he was referring to non-human technologies from off this planet." "There were two guys in lab cats to the bottom left, and then midway up the screen on the right side, there were three guys that looked like technicians in what I would call Tyvek suits, head-to-toe. And only their faces were shown. "And then some sort of a warning sound went off and everybody cleared out. And then, within a couple of minutes, the vehicle became active." "The vehicle itself was sort of a pearly white. There were no seams, rivets, windows, doors. Nothing that could be identified. It looked as though it was sort of a modified egg, if you just sort of shifted it around. "There was a tiny little area on top that protruded and there was a mast that came out. And on the mast, it looked like there were three umbilicals coming off." There were various, flat-black rectangles (horizontal and vatical). "I believe that these were made to monitor the movement of this craft." [Since] "it was perfectly pearly white, and it began to move, there was nothing there to show you that it was moving. So, just like any experimental aircraft, they put markings on it so you could monitor the motion. And that's what I believe these rectangles were. "There were electromagnetic discharges that told me that the vehicle had become active, and they were very peculiar. But I don't wish to describe them to anyone because, if this was a test-bed model, whatever the mechanisms were being used may still be active in more advanced craft, and I don't want to give out information that would be beneficial to those opposing the United States. But, as soon as it started to do this... (Video picks up again here. 👇🏼 ) "...it just sort of lifted off the floor. The floor looked like a concrete floor with like, some sort of rubber matt that had been on top of it." "It lifted off, just like a feather. It rose about three feet in the air and then just hung there. The next thing that it does is that it rotates 360 degrees, clockwise. As it rotated across, I could see the writing, 'U.S. Air Force.' And then it had an American flight insignia just above that." "It completed a 360-degree circle, paused, and then completed a 360-degree circle counterclockwise, so that it was in the same position it had started in. It moved to the left and right, it moved forward and backwards. It's just like, you know, you're testing your controls, making sure you have everything working. "And then, it rotated to a 45-degree angle of attack, if it were flying and the 12-o'clock position (where the U.S. Navy and flight insignia was located) was going forward. This was amazing. Fixed-wing aircraft can't do this. A helicopter can go to a 45-degree angle of attack, but it's going to be moving forward and lifting. This thing did not do that. And so, this shocked me more than anything else, because it did not move one centimeter as it moved to what would be a 45-degree angle of attack. So that just blew me away. "Just about that time, there's a knock on the door. The guy hits the buttons to turn the computer and screen off, and he says, 'Don't tell anyone I showed you this!' "Well, I'm gonna go around telling somebody that you showed me a flying saucer? Well he goes to the door, opens it - we were both majors - and so this Lt. Colonel and two other guys came in. And so the Lt. Colonel said, "What's going on in here that you had the doors locked?" To see how they got out of this pickle, and why Rogers didn't turn in the major for showing him a classified video, watch the rest of the clip. "Along the way, I thought, 'I can't tell this to anybody.' I didn't even tell it to my wife for 15 years. But, as long as I was associated with the [DoD], I did not want to risk what the repercussions were gonna be as soon as I told this story. ~~~ How far have our reverse engineering efforts progressed? This is from my August of 2023 post. "There are people who say we have reverse-engineered them and are flying them. I never found any support for that. And found a lot of support for saying we can’t figure it out. If we do, it would be in some program at a higher security level.” ~Michael Shellenberger ~~~ Former intel and defense contractor, and my friend, Michael Via, who I've interviewed multiple times, had his sighting of a silent, black, "majestic" triangle craft in 1992 in the Persian Gulf. He thinks it's our tech. ~~~ And then there's Nick Cook, the former aviator editor for Jane's Defence Weekly and a very respected, award-winning journalist, and author. His gut tells him that we (humans) may have cracked gravity. But he doesn't have the proof. "I found plenty of evidence the US had been trying, tho. I have no firm evidence now (who does?), but 20 years on from #THFZP, I think it is possible the antigrav issue has been cracked. Wish I could say this was more than a hunch, but this is all it is." ~Nick Cook A hunch. Possible. ~~~ And my favorite anecdote of all time, from another person I consider a friend. Retired Commander Will Miller: "I had a friend, a former military officer who worked with me. [He went to work at] the famous Groom Lake facility, Area 51 and he was out there for several years. As we all know, most folks that work out there have signed their lives away, never to disclose what goes on and for better or for worse, and this fella was no different. And over the three years I worked with him – and he knew my interest in things extraterrestrial and my work with CSETI – never once did he mention any of his work out at Groom Lake or any association between that and anything extraterrestrial. "And the day I was leaving the command, he took me aside and he said, 'You know, Will, some of the folks you talk with, maybe some CSETI researchers, may see objects that are doing, you know, Mach 9 and then suddenly make a right angle turn and you say, "Well, gosh, that’s got to be an extraterrestrial craft."' "And then he looked at me and he said, 'But it’s not.' And he just turned and walked away." ~Commander Will Miller (Retired) My original post is here: ~~~ One thing that Dr. Gregory Rogers said to Lehto really jumped out at me: "And then, it rotated to a 45-degree angle of attack." Numerous witnesses have reported craft tilting up at a 45-degree angle right before they shoot off at a high rate of speed. I wrote a long thread on it (which I can't find) and Danny Silva wrote an article on it several years ago. Here's a thread from Willy Sam that covers some of that. And if you Google "UFO tilt up 45 degrees," you'll find more. Did we figure out something about UFOs and tilting up?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1939420314737447294/amplify_video_thumb/1939387449588740097/img/Edi3P1nipVPwGc3I.jpg)