Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Mark Zuckerberg: failure doesn’t matter. “The question is how much you win, when you win.” “Walter Isaacson wrote this biography of Einstein. One of the interesting things were all the theories he had that were wrong.” “People don’t remember those.” “We’re all going to get a lot of stuff... wrong, what matters are the intellectual and cultural contributions we make that help push stuff forward.” “We have a resilient company that is not afraid of failure.” “That allows us to take some big swings and tolerate being ridiculed for long periods of time.” “If you’re trying to do something that’s really new, people have to think it’s ridiculous. If they didn’t, someone else would’ve already done it.” “In creation, the upside is infinite.” “If you build something that hundreds of millions, or billions of people like, then that makes up for a lot of ideas that didn’t end up working.” Via Complexshow more

Jawwwn

30,959 subscribers

229,222 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

16 Comments

AIPonder3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson What Mark says is right

D**2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson In creation the upside is infinite is a crazy bar

Konstantin I. Gavrilov2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson What has he created, actually?

Jasper Saberi2 days ago

This sounds similar to what Bezos said: it’s like baseball, but the home runs are not limited to 4 points - they’re unbounded. The bottom line: we want to identify positive asymmetry situations and seize them. The risk in such situations is not taking enough risk. We need to think in terms of opportunity cost/feel the pain of foregone gain.

Adam Marcelo3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson He swung a bit too hard on the metaverse. We haven't forgotten that yet Mark.

Jennifer3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson Agreed with Mark, believe your dreams be passion driven wait as long as time take, never afraid about failure, keep trying never give up for your dreams, your time will come 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Kyle.Moon τ2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson This is actual wisdom and I think Mark has transformed as person post 2016 facebook fall out.

mathieu garcia2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson I really like Mark Zuckerberg, he is my favourite tech guys - i prefer largely his projects to the ones from other tech companies i ll not cite. They did a great jobs and yes their resilience showed building things can be set as example. Well done guzs!

Nyasha3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson true

UFO Crypto Dev (👽,Ξ)2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson SBF took this approach and ... failure DID end up mattering

Conner Seal3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson In the market place of ideas (and abundance producing companies) the failures are not counted at the end tally. The bad businesses & ideas got kicked out of competition and people are usually too focused on the winner and the implications thereof to focus obsessively on the past.

Fitz2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson Nah. What matters is our families.

Kaashika Prajaapat3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson I’m dyedea E taretaretaratatereeeeey Wt The The The New

Igor -D.Luffy3 days ago

@WalterIsaacson @grok source?

Bobby2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson Semper Fidelis

publius.btc2 days ago

@WalterIsaacson This is a showcase on why founders make the best company operators.

Related Videos

Rich Paul shuts down the narrative that signing LeBron comes with a lot of demands: “The things that perceive is so far from the truth. One of those things is like, okay. I think someone said, “Oh if you sign LeBron comes with all this, he doesn’t come with anything.” He comes with himself…. But again I think people have this idea that he’s asking for all these things. We were not raised like that just first and foremost. We were not raised like that. We were actually raised the opposite way don’t ask nobody for anything if you can’t get it yourself. Second part of that is, one thing he does ask for is to be in position to win and if being in position to win is a negative ask then what are you in teams sports in that case? Like I just don’t understand that you can’t have it both ways.” (Via Game Over)

Rich Paul shuts down the narrative that signing LeBron comes with a lot of demands: “The things that perceive is so far from the truth. One of those things is like, okay. I think someone said, “Oh if you sign LeBron comes with all this, he doesn’t come with anything.” He comes with himself…. But again I think people have this idea that he’s asking for all these things. We were not raised like that just first and foremost. We were not raised like that. We were actually raised the opposite way don’t ask nobody for anything if you can’t get it yourself. Second part of that is, one thing he does ask for is to be in position to win and if being in position to win is a negative ask then what are you in teams sports in that case? Like I just don’t understand that you can’t have it both ways.” (Via Game Over)

NBA Courtside

147,863 views • 2 months ago

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” ______________________________________ “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _______________________________________ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

Jack Prescott

31,665 views • 1 month ago

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,878 views • 1 year ago

Mark Zuckerberg, founder, chairman and CEO of Meta, on how he actually runs the company: "I basically don't believe in delegation." He starts by naming the assumption he's rejecting. "I think that there's sort of this theory that a lot of people have, which is like, all right, the job of a leader is you hire people and you delegate things to them." Zuckerberg doesn't operate that way. He's also clear that he can't personally handle everything: "My theory is there's so much going on across the company that I can't possibly get involved in all of it. So all these people are going to have a ton of stuff that they're going to do. But fundamentally, if there is a decision that I want to be involved with, I'm going to be involved in it." The distinction carries the whole argument. He reserves the right to review any call, and no layer of the org chart gets to tell him something is beneath him or outside his lane. His reasoning comes back to accountability: "I think that's generally a good way for founders to operate. If you're running the company and you're on the hook for everything and there's something that's important at whatever level of detail in the organization, I don't get the logic of saying 'I'm not going to be involved in that.'" That's the load-bearing line. If you're answerable for the output, opting out of the input makes no sense. Mark Zuckerberg does attach one condition, and it's a real one rather than a throwaway: "You want to have humility and know that if you're diving into some decision, you may not have the most context immediately." Diving in means showing up without pretending you already have the answer. The expectation extends across the whole company: "I generally think that you want to be able to just have the cultural expectation that things are not going to be so hierarchical and you're just going to dive into whatever you want."

Mark Zuckerberg, founder, chairman and CEO of Meta, on how he actually runs the company: "I basically don't believe in delegation." He starts by naming the assumption he's rejecting. "I think that there's sort of this theory that a lot of people have, which is like, all right, the job of a leader is you hire people and you delegate things to them." Zuckerberg doesn't operate that way. He's also clear that he can't personally handle everything: "My theory is there's so much going on across the company that I can't possibly get involved in all of it. So all these people are going to have a ton of stuff that they're going to do. But fundamentally, if there is a decision that I want to be involved with, I'm going to be involved in it." The distinction carries the whole argument. He reserves the right to review any call, and no layer of the org chart gets to tell him something is beneath him or outside his lane. His reasoning comes back to accountability: "I think that's generally a good way for founders to operate. If you're running the company and you're on the hook for everything and there's something that's important at whatever level of detail in the organization, I don't get the logic of saying 'I'm not going to be involved in that.'" That's the load-bearing line. If you're answerable for the output, opting out of the input makes no sense. Mark Zuckerberg does attach one condition, and it's a real one rather than a throwaway: "You want to have humility and know that if you're diving into some decision, you may not have the most context immediately." Diving in means showing up without pretending you already have the answer. The expectation extends across the whole company: "I generally think that you want to be able to just have the cultural expectation that things are not going to be so hierarchical and you're just going to dive into whatever you want."

Big Brain Business

45,196 views • 25 days ago

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)

Startup Archive

54,696 views • 8 months ago

Shuler: If you think about every industrial revolution we’ve been through, working people have helped us make that transition. It’s really because we’ve helped tame the technology and figured out how to use it in the most effective way. So I think your question about augmentation versus replacement is the big question we have. If we can all agree that this is about making our jobs better, safer, easier, and more productive, then we’re all in. But if you’re looking to de-skill, dehumanize, and replace workers, to put people out on the street with no path forward, then absolutely you’re going to have a revolution. So I think that’s something we all need to be very real about and think seriously about. If we’re going to have productivity gains, working people—the ones who make these industries happen—need to share in that. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion about that here. Of course, in terms of how we create policies, how we create tax infrastructure, whether or not we are redistributing—yes, that word is a dirty word around here—we need to talk about it and confront how we’re going to make sure working people share in the gains of these technologies. And if you look at the numbers of jobs, let’s talk about job quality. Yes, maybe there are a lot of jobs created, but what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are they jobs that can sustain a family? Is it a job where people can actually work one job? One job should be enough.

Shuler: If you think about every industrial revolution we’ve been through, working people have helped us make that transition. It’s really because we’ve helped tame the technology and figured out how to use it in the most effective way. So I think your question about augmentation versus replacement is the big question we have. If we can all agree that this is about making our jobs better, safer, easier, and more productive, then we’re all in. But if you’re looking to de-skill, dehumanize, and replace workers, to put people out on the street with no path forward, then absolutely you’re going to have a revolution. So I think that’s something we all need to be very real about and think seriously about. If we’re going to have productivity gains, working people—the ones who make these industries happen—need to share in that. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion about that here. Of course, in terms of how we create policies, how we create tax infrastructure, whether or not we are redistributing—yes, that word is a dirty word around here—we need to talk about it and confront how we’re going to make sure working people share in the gains of these technologies. And if you look at the numbers of jobs, let’s talk about job quality. Yes, maybe there are a lot of jobs created, but what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are they jobs that can sustain a family? Is it a job where people can actually work one job? One job should be enough.

Acyn

41,942 views • 8 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg on the importance of engineers if you’re building a technology company “We never thought about ourselves as a website or a social network or anything like that.” Mark believes many companies define themselves too narrowly: “It’s one of the things I observed as soon as I came out to [Silicon] Valley. All these companies that called themselves technology companies were not really set up that way. The CEO wasn’t technical. The board of directors had no one technical on it… And it’s like alright, if that’s your team, then you’re not a technology company.” He believes there’s a balance: “You don’t want everyone to be an engineer because there’s other things that matter too. But if you don’t have a high enough share of the company as engineers, then you’re not a technology company.” This makes sense when you view it in the context of Mark’s strategy for Meta: “I define our strategy as: If we can learn faster than every other company, we’re going to win. We’re going to build a better product than everyone else because we’re going to get it out first, we’re going to have a good feedback loop, and we’re going to learn what people like better than other people.” He concludes: “I think that’s basically the formula. Be a technology company. Build a good foundation. Learn from what other people are focused on in the world. And iterate as quickly as you can.” Video source: Acquired Podcast (2024)

Mark Zuckerberg on the importance of engineers if you’re building a technology company “We never thought about ourselves as a website or a social network or anything like that.” Mark believes many companies define themselves too narrowly: “It’s one of the things I observed as soon as I came out to [Silicon] Valley. All these companies that called themselves technology companies were not really set up that way. The CEO wasn’t technical. The board of directors had no one technical on it… And it’s like alright, if that’s your team, then you’re not a technology company.” He believes there’s a balance: “You don’t want everyone to be an engineer because there’s other things that matter too. But if you don’t have a high enough share of the company as engineers, then you’re not a technology company.” This makes sense when you view it in the context of Mark’s strategy for Meta: “I define our strategy as: If we can learn faster than every other company, we’re going to win. We’re going to build a better product than everyone else because we’re going to get it out first, we’re going to have a good feedback loop, and we’re going to learn what people like better than other people.” He concludes: “I think that’s basically the formula. Be a technology company. Build a good foundation. Learn from what other people are focused on in the world. And iterate as quickly as you can.” Video source: Acquired Podcast (2024)

Startup Archive

44,116 views • 10 months ago

Bret Weintein asks "what is this all really for?" "If you look at the push towards tokenization of assets, towards central bank digital currencies—that is programmable money that can be turned off if you displease the powers that be. If you look at the creation of these massive data centers, is that really about citizen use of AI? Maybe some of it is, but is it really about creating a storehouse of information that will allow you to be controlled and locked down? That’s certainly the impression I have. We didn’t have a discussion about any of this. This is happening, and then we have to react to it because it’s all on a freight train headed down the line… and we’re always playing defense. So it’s pretty frightening stuff. And at some level, we have a moral right to object. We’re not being given the opportunity to object..."

Bret Weintein asks "what is this all really for?" "If you look at the push towards tokenization of assets, towards central bank digital currencies—that is programmable money that can be turned off if you displease the powers that be. If you look at the creation of these massive data centers, is that really about citizen use of AI? Maybe some of it is, but is it really about creating a storehouse of information that will allow you to be controlled and locked down? That’s certainly the impression I have. We didn’t have a discussion about any of this. This is happening, and then we have to react to it because it’s all on a freight train headed down the line… and we’re always playing defense. So it’s pretty frightening stuff. And at some level, we have a moral right to object. We’re not being given the opportunity to object..."

The DarkHorse Podcast

324,177 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk on building a company: “There are periods where it’s just awful” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Source: Khan Academy (Apr 2013)

Elon Musk on building a company: “There are periods where it’s just awful” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Source: Khan Academy (Apr 2013)

Startup Archive

74,972 views • 2 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Startup Archive

326,115 views • 9 months ago

Ben Johnson: There’s a lot of people that did not think they were going to be in the Big 10 Tournament. Period. They could say they did, but they did not. There were a lot of people that did not think we’d win 7 games with a chance to win 8. Last year we won 9. If I would have told people we had a chance to win 8, they would have laughed at me, and called me crazy. I want our guys to take a ton of pride in that. To have people in the preseason have you picked last and to be that resilient, to keep fighting…I mean, that’s a character trait. #Gophers

Ben Johnson: There’s a lot of people that did not think they were going to be in the Big 10 Tournament. Period. They could say they did, but they did not. There were a lot of people that did not think we’d win 7 games with a chance to win 8. Last year we won 9. If I would have told people we had a chance to win 8, they would have laughed at me, and called me crazy. I want our guys to take a ton of pride in that. To have people in the preseason have you picked last and to be that resilient, to keep fighting…I mean, that’s a character trait. #Gophers

GopherHole.com

61,281 views • 1 year ago

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 views • 2 years ago

Palmer Luckey’s advice for founder-led communications “My advice to people would probably be to recognize that the value of your reputation is very high,” Anduril founder Palmer Luckey begins. “If people do not trust you; if they do not believe in what you’re saying; if they do not think that you’re a person worth listening to, they’re going to have a hard time working with you.” Palmer also argues that founders don’t need to be neutral: “You don’t need to be neutral. You can be a propagandist. You can advocate for a particular point of view . . . In general, people should recognize that if you say something where you caveat it and hedge it and basically end up saying something that most people would agree with, you might as well have said nothing at all.” He continues: “You are not going to build a following of people who say, ‘I just love Palmer’s right-down-the-middle, very-hedged takes that everyone agrees with.’ If you’re just restating common sentiment, it’s not going to get you anywhere . . . So one of the things I tell people is, ‘Make sure that when you’re saying something, you’re SAYING something. Make sure you’re trying to persuade and affect change.’ — maybe not in everybody, but in some people. If you make some people love what you’re saying and some people hate what you’re saying, that’s a lot better than having everybody lukewarm agree with you. Don’t waste your time communicating about the things everyone already agrees with you on. Focus on the things where you need to change their mind.” Source: Lulu Cheng Meservey (Sep 2025)

Palmer Luckey’s advice for founder-led communications “My advice to people would probably be to recognize that the value of your reputation is very high,” Anduril founder Palmer Luckey begins. “If people do not trust you; if they do not believe in what you’re saying; if they do not think that you’re a person worth listening to, they’re going to have a hard time working with you.” Palmer also argues that founders don’t need to be neutral: “You don’t need to be neutral. You can be a propagandist. You can advocate for a particular point of view . . . In general, people should recognize that if you say something where you caveat it and hedge it and basically end up saying something that most people would agree with, you might as well have said nothing at all.” He continues: “You are not going to build a following of people who say, ‘I just love Palmer’s right-down-the-middle, very-hedged takes that everyone agrees with.’ If you’re just restating common sentiment, it’s not going to get you anywhere . . . So one of the things I tell people is, ‘Make sure that when you’re saying something, you’re SAYING something. Make sure you’re trying to persuade and affect change.’ — maybe not in everybody, but in some people. If you make some people love what you’re saying and some people hate what you’re saying, that’s a lot better than having everybody lukewarm agree with you. Don’t waste your time communicating about the things everyone already agrees with you on. Focus on the things where you need to change their mind.” Source: Lulu Cheng Meservey (Sep 2025)

Startup Archive

78,576 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk on the first thing to do when starting a company “The goal with Tesla was really to try to show what electric cars can do because people had the wrong impression. We had to change people’s perception of an electric vehicle because they used to think of it as something that was slow and ugly with low range, kind of like a golf cart. That’s why we created the Tesla Roadster — to show that it can be fast, attractive, and long range… Until you actually have the physical object and they can drive it, it doesn’t really sink in for people.” Elon believe this principle is something all startup founders should take note of: “If you’re going to create a company, the first thing you should try to do is create a working prototype. Everything looks great on PowerPoint… But if you have an actual demonstration — even if it’s in primitive form — that’s much more effective for convincing people.”

Elon Musk on the first thing to do when starting a company “The goal with Tesla was really to try to show what electric cars can do because people had the wrong impression. We had to change people’s perception of an electric vehicle because they used to think of it as something that was slow and ugly with low range, kind of like a golf cart. That’s why we created the Tesla Roadster — to show that it can be fast, attractive, and long range… Until you actually have the physical object and they can drive it, it doesn’t really sink in for people.” Elon believe this principle is something all startup founders should take note of: “If you’re going to create a company, the first thing you should try to do is create a working prototype. Everything looks great on PowerPoint… But if you have an actual demonstration — even if it’s in primitive form — that’s much more effective for convincing people.”

Startup Archive

34,567 views • 9 months ago

Matt Damon participated in Howard Zinn's great "The People Speak" series, and read out a great speech by Zinn about the importance of civil disobedience, which is as apt today as when he first wrote it in 1970: "I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail, and the wrong people are out of jail. That the wrong people are in power, and the wrong people are out of power. I start from the supposition that all we have to do is think about the state of the world today, and realize that things are all upside down. If you don't think, if you listen to TV, read scholarly things, you actually begin to think that things are not so bad. Or that just little things are wrong. But you have to get a little detached, and then come back and look at the world, and you are horrified. So we have to start from that supposition—that things are really topsy-turvy. And our topic is topsy-turvy: civil disobedience. As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience, you are saying our problem is civil disobedience. That is not our problem…. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem."

Matt Damon participated in Howard Zinn's great "The People Speak" series, and read out a great speech by Zinn about the importance of civil disobedience, which is as apt today as when he first wrote it in 1970: "I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail, and the wrong people are out of jail. That the wrong people are in power, and the wrong people are out of power. I start from the supposition that all we have to do is think about the state of the world today, and realize that things are all upside down. If you don't think, if you listen to TV, read scholarly things, you actually begin to think that things are not so bad. Or that just little things are wrong. But you have to get a little detached, and then come back and look at the world, and you are horrified. So we have to start from that supposition—that things are really topsy-turvy. And our topic is topsy-turvy: civil disobedience. As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience, you are saying our problem is civil disobedience. That is not our problem…. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem."

☀️👀

297,607 views • 1 year ago

Paul ‘Triple H’ Levesque was asked about a comment Damian Priest made recently about the same talent being in the top spots, and answers Jamie Iovine’s question on how he feels about the current generation of stars going forward and the “changing of the guard” right now in WWE — “Look, I get that. If you’re the guy that wants to take the spot, it’s frustrating when there’s guys above you that have the spot. We’re in a period of time where there’s a lot of top performers in top spots that over time have earned those spots and are selling tickets and are incredibly popular. So you really have to do something. The narrative of ‘It’s my turn. I’ve been here for a while’. There’s no turns. That’s not how it works. You earn the spot. Believe me. If somebody is getting over more than somebody else, we move that person into the spot and move the other person down. But it’s not just that, it’s not just they’re getting the loud crowd reaction. Are they going to be good in the spot? Are they going to hold up their end of the bargain? Are they going to screw up if we give it to them? Are they going to make a mistake that we regret? — There’s all those things factored in. And I love the fact that sometimes, talent are like ‘Well, it’s frustrating.’ Great, that means work harder. Get yourself there. Figure it out. Figure out the way. Figure how it gets done. I’ve seen a million talent succeed because of what they do. Not because storyline or creative. ‘They gave them the spot’. 99% of the time in this business, the person gets over then gets the push. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You go do you then we follow it, because otherwise, most of the time, they will choke on it if it’s not what the fans believe in. Big believer in if you want the spot, go take it. Whenever anybody says ‘I don’t know why I’m not in that spot’…well I don’t know, are you more over than Cody? Roman? Punk? Liv? IYO? The people that are in that spot get there. Make those crowd reactions. Whatever you need to make it happen, that’s what we’re all here to do. I love that mentality because I think it makes people work harder, and if they’re not willing to work to get the spot then you shouldn’t have it anyway.” — via #SummerSlam Post-Show

Paul ‘Triple H’ Levesque was asked about a comment Damian Priest made recently about the same talent being in the top spots, and answers Jamie Iovine’s question on how he feels about the current generation of stars going forward and the “changing of the guard” right now in WWE — “Look, I get that. If you’re the guy that wants to take the spot, it’s frustrating when there’s guys above you that have the spot. We’re in a period of time where there’s a lot of top performers in top spots that over time have earned those spots and are selling tickets and are incredibly popular. So you really have to do something. The narrative of ‘It’s my turn. I’ve been here for a while’. There’s no turns. That’s not how it works. You earn the spot. Believe me. If somebody is getting over more than somebody else, we move that person into the spot and move the other person down. But it’s not just that, it’s not just they’re getting the loud crowd reaction. Are they going to be good in the spot? Are they going to hold up their end of the bargain? Are they going to screw up if we give it to them? Are they going to make a mistake that we regret? — There’s all those things factored in. And I love the fact that sometimes, talent are like ‘Well, it’s frustrating.’ Great, that means work harder. Get yourself there. Figure it out. Figure out the way. Figure how it gets done. I’ve seen a million talent succeed because of what they do. Not because storyline or creative. ‘They gave them the spot’. 99% of the time in this business, the person gets over then gets the push. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You go do you then we follow it, because otherwise, most of the time, they will choke on it if it’s not what the fans believe in. Big believer in if you want the spot, go take it. Whenever anybody says ‘I don’t know why I’m not in that spot’…well I don’t know, are you more over than Cody? Roman? Punk? Liv? IYO? The people that are in that spot get there. Make those crowd reactions. Whatever you need to make it happen, that’s what we’re all here to do. I love that mentality because I think it makes people work harder, and if they’re not willing to work to get the spot then you shouldn’t have it anyway.” — via #SummerSlam Post-Show

PW Chronicle

93,045 views • 1 month ago

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 views • 11 months ago

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says Jeffrey Epstein was a 'DEMON' When Asked About the Spiritual Nature of his Crimes Against Children. "I think that he was absolutely a demon." "This type of stuff exists when people refuse to believe in God. I think that this type of harm to children specifically is done because there’s a spiritual element of how pure children can be... and I think that it’s demonic and I don’t think that there’s any way that you can chalk it up. But I pray every day and I prayed before going into look at the files in and are still praying." "I just think that we all didn’t need to remember that... You can’t get complicit in this. If you say well, that’s it like this is just you know, gonna throw our hands up and not do anything... that’s part of the spiritual battle and that’s an attack you have to get involved in. You have to make sure that you’re always backing and on the right side of justice... and that is standing for children."

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says Jeffrey Epstein was a 'DEMON' When Asked About the Spiritual Nature of his Crimes Against Children. "I think that he was absolutely a demon." "This type of stuff exists when people refuse to believe in God. I think that this type of harm to children specifically is done because there’s a spiritual element of how pure children can be... and I think that it’s demonic and I don’t think that there’s any way that you can chalk it up. But I pray every day and I prayed before going into look at the files in and are still praying." "I just think that we all didn’t need to remember that... You can’t get complicit in this. If you say well, that’s it like this is just you know, gonna throw our hands up and not do anything... that’s part of the spiritual battle and that’s an attack you have to get involved in. You have to make sure that you’re always backing and on the right side of justice... and that is standing for children."

Benny Johnson

148,498 views • 7 months ago

Elon Musk explains why the CEO must work on the “most pernicious and painful problems” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Video source: Khan Academy

Elon Musk explains why the CEO must work on the “most pernicious and painful problems” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Video source: Khan Academy

Startup Archive

41,111 views • 2 years ago