Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

MIT Professor David Autor just explained why Wall-E is the optimistic scenario, and the alternative should terrify you. Autor: “Whenever I watch the movie I think, well that’s the good scenario.” Wall-E shows 300-pound humans floating in chairs drinking Big Gulps. Looks dystopian. Autor sees what we’re actually heading...

r0ck3t23's profile picture

Dustin

32,946 subscribers

23,532 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Mo Gawdat, ex-CBO Google: For the first time, we may see massive unemployment (30%-50%) not from crisis, but because machines outperform human labor. Capitalism could come to an end in his perspective. That cuts to the core of capitalism: a system built on hiring labor to produce and sell at a profit. If production moves toward near-zero cost, labor arbitrage disappears, and with it, the foundation of pricing and markets. But the real paradox is this: capitalism depends not just on production, but on consumption. AI boosts output while removing workers, undermining the very demand the system needs to survive. As intelligence becomes abundant and production cheap, we’re entering a world where work may no longer define value—and where capitalism itself has to evolve or break.
1:59

Mo Gawdat, ex-CBO Google: For the first time, we may see massive unemployment (30%-50%) not from crisis, but because machines outperform human labor. Capitalism could come to an end in his perspective. That cuts to the core of capitalism: a system built on hiring labor to produce and sell at a profit. If production moves toward near-zero cost, labor arbitrage disappears, and with it, the foundation of pricing and markets. But the real paradox is this: capitalism depends not just on production, but on consumption. AI boosts output while removing workers, undermining the very demand the system needs to survive. As intelligence becomes abundant and production cheap, we’re entering a world where work may no longer define value—and where capitalism itself has to evolve or break.

Chubby♨️

54,009 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The Albanese Labor Government's introduction of new misinformation and disinformation legislation is just a renewed attack on freedom of speech in Australia. This terrible bill will be strongly opposed by One Nation Australia! Labor has never understood freedom of speech or how it works, and people always fear what they don’t understand. That’s why Labor wants to shut down freedom of speech. That’s why Labor wants to give itself the power to decide what is misinformation and disinformation, and use this power to silence honest debate and honest criticism. Labor is appalled at the very notion that Australians still have the right to say things that Labor doesn’t agree with. Labor doesn’t trust the Australian people to sort out truth from fiction for themselves. With this bill, Labor shows its contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Labor will use this power to silence dissent. If you speak the truth that gender ideology is contrived nonsense, or that climate change is a scam, or that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful – Labor will have the power to silence you. This bill is all the evidence this country needs to have a good, hard look at enshrining the right to free speech in the Constitution. One Nation tried to move an inquiry to kick start this process. Labor opposed it along with those other staunch opponents of free speech in Australia, the Greens. When are Australians going to wake up and understand these parties for what they are? They despise democracy and the principles which underpin its foundations. There is no democracy in Australia without freedom of speech, its most important principle. One Nation will always fight to protect true freedom of speech in our continual efforts to defend Australian democracy.
2:00

The Albanese Labor Government's introduction of new misinformation and disinformation legislation is just a renewed attack on freedom of speech in Australia. This terrible bill will be strongly opposed by One Nation Australia! Labor has never understood freedom of speech or how it works, and people always fear what they don’t understand. That’s why Labor wants to shut down freedom of speech. That’s why Labor wants to give itself the power to decide what is misinformation and disinformation, and use this power to silence honest debate and honest criticism. Labor is appalled at the very notion that Australians still have the right to say things that Labor doesn’t agree with. Labor doesn’t trust the Australian people to sort out truth from fiction for themselves. With this bill, Labor shows its contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Labor will use this power to silence dissent. If you speak the truth that gender ideology is contrived nonsense, or that climate change is a scam, or that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful – Labor will have the power to silence you. This bill is all the evidence this country needs to have a good, hard look at enshrining the right to free speech in the Constitution. One Nation tried to move an inquiry to kick start this process. Labor opposed it along with those other staunch opponents of free speech in Australia, the Greens. When are Australians going to wake up and understand these parties for what they are? They despise democracy and the principles which underpin its foundations. There is no democracy in Australia without freedom of speech, its most important principle. One Nation will always fight to protect true freedom of speech in our continual efforts to defend Australian democracy.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

112,702 просмотров • 1 год назад

Elon Musk and Peter Diamandis just described the end of the economic model every civilization in history was built on. Not a recession. Not a depression. The end of scarcity itself. Musk: “I call AI and robotics the supersonic tsunami.” Not a wave you see coming. A wave that arrives before the sound does. Diamandis: “Labor becomes the cost of capex and electricity. AI is basically intelligence available at a de minimis price.” When intelligence costs almost nothing, the labor inside every product turns into an electricity bill. Diamandis: “You’re able to produce almost anything. Things get down to basic costs of materials and electricity.” Not cheaper production. Nearly free production. Every price you have ever paid was mostly labor. The labor to design it. To build it. To move it. To sell it. Take labor out and the price of almost everything falls toward the cost of the atoms it’s made of. Diamandis: “People can have whatever stuff they want, whatever services they need.” That sentence isn’t utopian. It’s a description of what stops being necessary. Every economic system in history was designed to solve one problem. Allocation under scarcity. Who gets what when there isn’t enough for everyone. Markets. Currencies. Taxation. Wages. Supply chains. Trade policy. All of it. Machinery for rationing. They’re describing a world where that problem stops existing. Musk: “If your output of goods and services increases faster than the money supply, you will have deflation.” Not the deflation economists fear. Not collapsing demand. Supply going infinite while demand stays human. Musk: “Governments will actually be pushing to increase money supply.” Printing at full speed and still losing to how fast AI drives the cost of everything down. Musk: “They won’t be able to waste the money fast enough. Which is saying something for government.” That’s not an economy in crisis. That’s an economy outrunning the instruments built to read it. Musk: “Productivity is going to improve dramatically. I think we may see high double-digit output of goods and services.” Double-digit productivity growth, sustained indefinitely. Numbers that break every economic model we have. Musk: “We have to be a little careful about how economists measure things.” Not because the numbers are wrong. Because the measurements were designed for a world that’s ending. Almost every economic crisis in history came from not having enough. The crisis nobody has a framework for is having too much. Every empire, every currency, every power structure ran on the same assumption. That there would never be enough to go around. That wasn’t a policy. That was the ground everything else stood on. Two men just described what happens when the ground gives way and nothing has been built to replace it. Every definition of value we have ever used was a measure of scarcity. We’re about to need one that isn’t. We spent ten thousand years fighting over a pie we assumed was fixed. We’re about to find out what happens when the pie has no edge.
2:43

Elon Musk and Peter Diamandis just described the end of the economic model every civilization in history was built on. Not a recession. Not a depression. The end of scarcity itself. Musk: “I call AI and robotics the supersonic tsunami.” Not a wave you see coming. A wave that arrives before the sound does. Diamandis: “Labor becomes the cost of capex and electricity. AI is basically intelligence available at a de minimis price.” When intelligence costs almost nothing, the labor inside every product turns into an electricity bill. Diamandis: “You’re able to produce almost anything. Things get down to basic costs of materials and electricity.” Not cheaper production. Nearly free production. Every price you have ever paid was mostly labor. The labor to design it. To build it. To move it. To sell it. Take labor out and the price of almost everything falls toward the cost of the atoms it’s made of. Diamandis: “People can have whatever stuff they want, whatever services they need.” That sentence isn’t utopian. It’s a description of what stops being necessary. Every economic system in history was designed to solve one problem. Allocation under scarcity. Who gets what when there isn’t enough for everyone. Markets. Currencies. Taxation. Wages. Supply chains. Trade policy. All of it. Machinery for rationing. They’re describing a world where that problem stops existing. Musk: “If your output of goods and services increases faster than the money supply, you will have deflation.” Not the deflation economists fear. Not collapsing demand. Supply going infinite while demand stays human. Musk: “Governments will actually be pushing to increase money supply.” Printing at full speed and still losing to how fast AI drives the cost of everything down. Musk: “They won’t be able to waste the money fast enough. Which is saying something for government.” That’s not an economy in crisis. That’s an economy outrunning the instruments built to read it. Musk: “Productivity is going to improve dramatically. I think we may see high double-digit output of goods and services.” Double-digit productivity growth, sustained indefinitely. Numbers that break every economic model we have. Musk: “We have to be a little careful about how economists measure things.” Not because the numbers are wrong. Because the measurements were designed for a world that’s ending. Almost every economic crisis in history came from not having enough. The crisis nobody has a framework for is having too much. Every empire, every currency, every power structure ran on the same assumption. That there would never be enough to go around. That wasn’t a policy. That was the ground everything else stood on. Two men just described what happens when the ground gives way and nothing has been built to replace it. Every definition of value we have ever used was a measure of scarcity. We’re about to need one that isn’t. We spent ten thousand years fighting over a pie we assumed was fixed. We’re about to find out what happens when the pie has no edge.

Dustin

57,271 просмотров • 22 дней назад

$PLTR CEO Alex Karp is ripping analysts to SHREDS right now on CNBC 🔮🔥 “Intelligent people learn from their mistakes… everyone else becomes an analyst or an advisor. “Do you want to believe what the librarian says about a book or do you want to go out in the world and see if it works? “They have a huge opinion about how to handle LLMs. It’s completely theoretical and idiotic. If you want to manage LLMs or AI, the infrastructure that allows you to manage them is where the actual value is. “People have been saying we are overvalued for 20 years. People have been saying our products wouldn’t make us profitable. That we would not be able to become a juggernaut. That we would not become GAAP profitable. That we wouldn’t get on the S&P. Keep saying that about us. We love it. It discourages people from doing anything like what we’re doing. And we are winning.”
2:26

$PLTR CEO Alex Karp is ripping analysts to SHREDS right now on CNBC 🔮🔥 “Intelligent people learn from their mistakes… everyone else becomes an analyst or an advisor. “Do you want to believe what the librarian says about a book or do you want to go out in the world and see if it works? “They have a huge opinion about how to handle LLMs. It’s completely theoretical and idiotic. If you want to manage LLMs or AI, the infrastructure that allows you to manage them is where the actual value is. “People have been saying we are overvalued for 20 years. People have been saying our products wouldn’t make us profitable. That we would not be able to become a juggernaut. That we would not become GAAP profitable. That we wouldn’t get on the S&P. Keep saying that about us. We love it. It discourages people from doing anything like what we’re doing. And we are winning.”

Jawwwn

1,198,605 просмотров • 1 год назад

Sanders: You know why Trump has a nucleus of support? People say, “I go out and I vote every two years. You tell me to vote every four years. So what? I’m going nowhere. Democracy is not working. You know what I need? I need a strong guy. I don’t give a damn about the Constitution, the rule of law. Give me some guy who’s going to crack some heads.” It’s not just in this country. You’re seeing this all over the world. So what we have got to do is make democracy work for working people. If tomorrow, God willing, we passed a Medicare for All single-payer system so everybody in this country could get quality health care, people would say, “Huh, you know what? Democracy, that ain’t a bad idea.” “I just took my kid to the doctor. We had an operation. It didn’t cost me. That’s pretty good. And you know what? My kid is going to college now, a really good school, and it’s tuition-free. I like democracy.” So democracy is more than just having elections every two or four years. It is delivering for the people. And the problem that we’re having right now is that because the oligarchs increasingly control our democracy, democracy can’t deliver.
1:51

Sanders: You know why Trump has a nucleus of support? People say, “I go out and I vote every two years. You tell me to vote every four years. So what? I’m going nowhere. Democracy is not working. You know what I need? I need a strong guy. I don’t give a damn about the Constitution, the rule of law. Give me some guy who’s going to crack some heads.” It’s not just in this country. You’re seeing this all over the world. So what we have got to do is make democracy work for working people. If tomorrow, God willing, we passed a Medicare for All single-payer system so everybody in this country could get quality health care, people would say, “Huh, you know what? Democracy, that ain’t a bad idea.” “I just took my kid to the doctor. We had an operation. It didn’t cost me. That’s pretty good. And you know what? My kid is going to college now, a really good school, and it’s tuition-free. I like democracy.” So democracy is more than just having elections every two or four years. It is delivering for the people. And the problem that we’re having right now is that because the oligarchs increasingly control our democracy, democracy can’t deliver.

Acyn

157,888 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

AOC: Mr. Bezos’s newspaper was not happy that I discussed abuses of market power and scale. And I think there are quite a lot of billionaires—I mean, there aren’t a lot of billionaires in an absolute sense, but the proportion of billionaires upset with my comments is quite high. And I think that, to a working person and to working people, “earn” means something: the calluses on your hands, the aches in your joints, the way that we earn our way through school, through our first job. And I think that we are in an emperor-with-no-clothes moment when it comes to the American economy and our democracy. The Virginia redistricting maps were just overturned this morning by judges that are largely financed by a movement of billionaires. And American inequality is at an absolute peak. We have to ask ourselves if this is how we want to live as a society—if we want 3,400 people to be prioritized over well more than 300 million. And when we question the legitimacy of that power structure, the people at the top are going to be very mad. And the little hobby newspapers that they’ve bought—which they love to say are making the quality of everything better. Jeff Bezos purchased the The Washington Post. He laid off some of the highly qualified journalists that made it an American institution so that he could turn it into a mouthpiece that launders his personal agenda and opinions. And he is using it because, for a lot of folks, it’s not enough to be powerful—they have to be loved. And he then uses this mouthpiece to take aim at politicians who want to question the deeply unequal and unjust distribution of power in America. They want to continue to undercut, threaten, and punish those who say: democracy belongs at the ballot box—economic power, political power—and that power should belong to the people of this country, not the very few.
3:29

AOC: Mr. Bezos’s newspaper was not happy that I discussed abuses of market power and scale. And I think there are quite a lot of billionaires—I mean, there aren’t a lot of billionaires in an absolute sense, but the proportion of billionaires upset with my comments is quite high. And I think that, to a working person and to working people, “earn” means something: the calluses on your hands, the aches in your joints, the way that we earn our way through school, through our first job. And I think that we are in an emperor-with-no-clothes moment when it comes to the American economy and our democracy. The Virginia redistricting maps were just overturned this morning by judges that are largely financed by a movement of billionaires. And American inequality is at an absolute peak. We have to ask ourselves if this is how we want to live as a society—if we want 3,400 people to be prioritized over well more than 300 million. And when we question the legitimacy of that power structure, the people at the top are going to be very mad. And the little hobby newspapers that they’ve bought—which they love to say are making the quality of everything better. Jeff Bezos purchased the The Washington Post. He laid off some of the highly qualified journalists that made it an American institution so that he could turn it into a mouthpiece that launders his personal agenda and opinions. And he is using it because, for a lot of folks, it’s not enough to be powerful—they have to be loved. And he then uses this mouthpiece to take aim at politicians who want to question the deeply unequal and unjust distribution of power in America. They want to continue to undercut, threaten, and punish those who say: democracy belongs at the ballot box—economic power, political power—and that power should belong to the people of this country, not the very few.

Acyn

25,639 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

We had a frozen conflict in the east of Ukraine for years after Russia’s occupation of Crimea in 2014. We tried to speak with Russia. But we heard nothing but lies from them. No truth. We can’t trust them. They just want to destroy and kill all of us. In 2022 we saw them attack us again. And this wasn’t just war, but terrorism. Clear terrorism. They killed not only the army, but people. They committed horrible atrocities. Russia must leave our territory. After that the world can switch to diplomacy. And our Peace Formula provides a good opportunity for that. What is the alternative? To give Putin the possibility to kill all of us? To destroy our nation and all that we have? This is not only a matter of Ukraine. This is a matter of security in Europe. The matter of NATO unity. Because after Ukraine, Russia will attack NATO countries. Some people say the alternative is to give Putin what he wants and stop the war. What does that mean? Giving him 30 percent of our land? What to do with the people in the temporary occupied territories? Or with the thousands of people who have been killed by Putin and his army? Forget about them? No accountability? No tribunal? I know what to do. We have to be strong. I believe that European countries and the United States believe in our power, our humanity, our attitude toward people and democracy. The alternative is to give a pass to autocrats, give a chance to tyranny, give them the opportunity to destroy democracy and the world. I don’t see any alternative to Ukrainian victory. And I do believe in the unity of the world and its support for Ukraine and democracy. I do believe and trust our people and our warriors. Watch my full interview with Kristen Welker at Meet the Press.
42:54

We had a frozen conflict in the east of Ukraine for years after Russia’s occupation of Crimea in 2014. We tried to speak with Russia. But we heard nothing but lies from them. No truth. We can’t trust them. They just want to destroy and kill all of us. In 2022 we saw them attack us again. And this wasn’t just war, but terrorism. Clear terrorism. They killed not only the army, but people. They committed horrible atrocities. Russia must leave our territory. After that the world can switch to diplomacy. And our Peace Formula provides a good opportunity for that. What is the alternative? To give Putin the possibility to kill all of us? To destroy our nation and all that we have? This is not only a matter of Ukraine. This is a matter of security in Europe. The matter of NATO unity. Because after Ukraine, Russia will attack NATO countries. Some people say the alternative is to give Putin what he wants and stop the war. What does that mean? Giving him 30 percent of our land? What to do with the people in the temporary occupied territories? Or with the thousands of people who have been killed by Putin and his army? Forget about them? No accountability? No tribunal? I know what to do. We have to be strong. I believe that European countries and the United States believe in our power, our humanity, our attitude toward people and democracy. The alternative is to give a pass to autocrats, give a chance to tyranny, give them the opportunity to destroy democracy and the world. I don’t see any alternative to Ukrainian victory. And I do believe in the unity of the world and its support for Ukraine and democracy. I do believe and trust our people and our warriors. Watch my full interview with Kristen Welker at Meet the Press.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

980,747 просмотров • 2 лет назад

$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”
3:50

$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

27,317 просмотров • 13 дней назад

.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.
3:08

.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 просмотров • 2 лет назад

🇺🇸🇬🇧 ELON: WITHOUT FREE SPEECH, THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY, JUST LOOK AT BRITAIN "We need to have a public square where there’s true freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there’s not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. And if you can’t make an informed vote, you don’t have a real democracy. So the purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. No left-wing voices have been banned or anything like that, or suppressed. What we’re trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country so that there can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas and hopefully not provoke violence. And I think that’s fundamental. It’s why it’s the First Amendment, because people came from countries where they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. And in fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain." Source: Elon Musk, Baron Capital, Ron Baron
1:24

🇺🇸🇬🇧 ELON: WITHOUT FREE SPEECH, THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY, JUST LOOK AT BRITAIN "We need to have a public square where there’s true freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there’s not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. And if you can’t make an informed vote, you don’t have a real democracy. So the purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. No left-wing voices have been banned or anything like that, or suppressed. What we’re trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country so that there can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas and hopefully not provoke violence. And I think that’s fundamental. It’s why it’s the First Amendment, because people came from countries where they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. And in fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain." Source: Elon Musk, Baron Capital, Ron Baron

Mario Nawfal

111,316 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

What happens when AGI nukes jobs? Let's look at the macroeconomics of the future! Have you ever stopped to ask how money actually gets into your pocket? Not the work you do to earn it, but the actual plumbing of the economy that pushes purchasing power from the top of the financial system down to your bank account. Right now, that plumbing is designed around a single, potentially fragile pipe called the job market. And that pipe may be about to spring some serious leaks. In our current system, the circulation of money is what economists might call labor-mediated. It starts at the top with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, which create liquidity and lend it to businesses. Those businesses take that capital and, crucially, hire people. This is the critical transmission step that makes everything else possible. The primary mechanism for distributing money to regular households is wages. You sell your time, the business pays you, and that is how purchasing power reaches the bottom of the pyramid. The entire system relies on a core assumption: that businesses need human labor to grow. When companies borrow money to expand, they hire more people, and money circulates through the economy. Households spend their wages, businesses earn revenue, and the cycle continues. It is an elegant design that has powered industrial economies for over a century. But we are entering an era where that foundational assumption is beginning to fail. As automation and artificial intelligence allow companies to produce more with fewer people, the link between business growth and hiring weakens. A company can now take a loan to deploy a fleet of robots or implement a sophisticated AI system and produce massive value without hiring a single new employee. The productivity gains are real, but the wages never materialize. This creates a structural problem that goes beyond unemployment statistics. When the wage pipe narrows, money gets stuck at the corporate level or circulates only among asset owners. The purchasing power that once flowed to millions of households instead pools in corporate treasuries and financial markets. The money exists, but the transmission mechanism that delivers it to ordinary people is broken. This is the core economic challenge of what some are calling the post-labor economy. It is not that there will be no jobs at all, but that jobs will cease to be the reliable, universal distribution mechanism for economic participation. If we do not redesign the plumbing, we risk an economy where productivity soars while most people are locked out of the gains. The framework of Post-Labor Economics proposes a fundamentally different way to wire the machine. Instead of relying on wages to move money to people, we shift to a capital-mediated cycle. In this new regime, the circulation of money can bypass the labor market entirely when necessary. The value generated by automated production does not just sit in corporate treasuries. Instead, it flows into shared ownership vehicles like sovereign wealth funds, social wealth funds, and community asset trusts. The key insight here is that ownership becomes the new channel for distribution. Rather than earning income by selling labor time, households receive income because they hold a stake in the productive machinery of society. When the robots get more productive, ordinary people get paid more, not less. This is not redistribution in the traditional sense. It is a redesign of who owns what and how returns flow. This shift also requires new infrastructure. Open payment rails and digital public infrastructure become essential for sending money directly to citizen wallets. Think of systems like India’s UPI or Brazil’s Pix, which can move small payments to millions of people instantly and cheaply. Without this kind of infrastructure, distributing dividends to an entire population would be slow, expensive, and dependent on private gatekeepers who extract fees at every step. The tax base must also evolve. You cannot fund a society by taxing payrolls if there are no payrolls. Post-Labor Economics proposes shifting the tax base from labor income toward land, resources, data, and automation itself. Levies on the value added by machines, land value taxes that capture economic rent, and resource royalties become the new foundation of public revenue. This money is then recycled back into the shared ownership vehicles that pay out to citizens. One of the most important effects of this redesign is maintaining what economists call the velocity of money. In the current system, if money concentrates among the wealthy, velocity drops because rich people cannot possibly spend all their income. They save it, and it sits idle in financial assets. By systematically moving money from high-saving entities like corporations and billionaires to high-consuming entities like ordinary households, the new system keeps money circulating through the real economy. Think of it as building a permanent detour around a blocked road. Today, if the job market is blocked by automation, the flow of money stops reaching households, and the economy stalls. Demand collapses, businesses lose customers, and a vicious cycle begins. In a Post-Labor Economics world, we build a direct line from national productivity to your digital wallet, ensuring the economy keeps moving even when traditional employment contracts. The Federal Reserve and central banks still manage the supply of money at the top. The basic mechanics of monetary policy do not disappear. But the path that money takes to get to you changes fundamentally. It stops being primarily a reward for labor you perform and starts being a dividend on the society you help constitute. It is a shift from earning your keep to owning your share. This is not utopian speculation. It is a structural necessity for an economy that wants to keep functioning as technology reshapes the relationship between capital and labor. The question is not whether we will need new distribution mechanisms, but whether we will build them in time. The plumbing of the twentieth-century economy served us well, but the water pressure is changing. We need new pipes.
21:49

What happens when AGI nukes jobs? Let's look at the macroeconomics of the future! Have you ever stopped to ask how money actually gets into your pocket? Not the work you do to earn it, but the actual plumbing of the economy that pushes purchasing power from the top of the financial system down to your bank account. Right now, that plumbing is designed around a single, potentially fragile pipe called the job market. And that pipe may be about to spring some serious leaks. In our current system, the circulation of money is what economists might call labor-mediated. It starts at the top with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, which create liquidity and lend it to businesses. Those businesses take that capital and, crucially, hire people. This is the critical transmission step that makes everything else possible. The primary mechanism for distributing money to regular households is wages. You sell your time, the business pays you, and that is how purchasing power reaches the bottom of the pyramid. The entire system relies on a core assumption: that businesses need human labor to grow. When companies borrow money to expand, they hire more people, and money circulates through the economy. Households spend their wages, businesses earn revenue, and the cycle continues. It is an elegant design that has powered industrial economies for over a century. But we are entering an era where that foundational assumption is beginning to fail. As automation and artificial intelligence allow companies to produce more with fewer people, the link between business growth and hiring weakens. A company can now take a loan to deploy a fleet of robots or implement a sophisticated AI system and produce massive value without hiring a single new employee. The productivity gains are real, but the wages never materialize. This creates a structural problem that goes beyond unemployment statistics. When the wage pipe narrows, money gets stuck at the corporate level or circulates only among asset owners. The purchasing power that once flowed to millions of households instead pools in corporate treasuries and financial markets. The money exists, but the transmission mechanism that delivers it to ordinary people is broken. This is the core economic challenge of what some are calling the post-labor economy. It is not that there will be no jobs at all, but that jobs will cease to be the reliable, universal distribution mechanism for economic participation. If we do not redesign the plumbing, we risk an economy where productivity soars while most people are locked out of the gains. The framework of Post-Labor Economics proposes a fundamentally different way to wire the machine. Instead of relying on wages to move money to people, we shift to a capital-mediated cycle. In this new regime, the circulation of money can bypass the labor market entirely when necessary. The value generated by automated production does not just sit in corporate treasuries. Instead, it flows into shared ownership vehicles like sovereign wealth funds, social wealth funds, and community asset trusts. The key insight here is that ownership becomes the new channel for distribution. Rather than earning income by selling labor time, households receive income because they hold a stake in the productive machinery of society. When the robots get more productive, ordinary people get paid more, not less. This is not redistribution in the traditional sense. It is a redesign of who owns what and how returns flow. This shift also requires new infrastructure. Open payment rails and digital public infrastructure become essential for sending money directly to citizen wallets. Think of systems like India’s UPI or Brazil’s Pix, which can move small payments to millions of people instantly and cheaply. Without this kind of infrastructure, distributing dividends to an entire population would be slow, expensive, and dependent on private gatekeepers who extract fees at every step. The tax base must also evolve. You cannot fund a society by taxing payrolls if there are no payrolls. Post-Labor Economics proposes shifting the tax base from labor income toward land, resources, data, and automation itself. Levies on the value added by machines, land value taxes that capture economic rent, and resource royalties become the new foundation of public revenue. This money is then recycled back into the shared ownership vehicles that pay out to citizens. One of the most important effects of this redesign is maintaining what economists call the velocity of money. In the current system, if money concentrates among the wealthy, velocity drops because rich people cannot possibly spend all their income. They save it, and it sits idle in financial assets. By systematically moving money from high-saving entities like corporations and billionaires to high-consuming entities like ordinary households, the new system keeps money circulating through the real economy. Think of it as building a permanent detour around a blocked road. Today, if the job market is blocked by automation, the flow of money stops reaching households, and the economy stalls. Demand collapses, businesses lose customers, and a vicious cycle begins. In a Post-Labor Economics world, we build a direct line from national productivity to your digital wallet, ensuring the economy keeps moving even when traditional employment contracts. The Federal Reserve and central banks still manage the supply of money at the top. The basic mechanics of monetary policy do not disappear. But the path that money takes to get to you changes fundamentally. It stops being primarily a reward for labor you perform and starts being a dividend on the society you help constitute. It is a shift from earning your keep to owning your share. This is not utopian speculation. It is a structural necessity for an economy that wants to keep functioning as technology reshapes the relationship between capital and labor. The question is not whether we will need new distribution mechanisms, but whether we will build them in time. The plumbing of the twentieth-century economy served us well, but the water pressure is changing. We need new pipes.

David Shapiro (L/0)

33,268 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

If you’re angry about the state of the country, or even the world, Nick Fuentes says there’s nothing wrong with you. “I think it’s all the more reason in 2026 we have to double down and say: this isn’t spite…We are not malcontents. We are not freaks. We are not people who are not well-adjusted. I think everyone is realizing we want to fight for our civilization. We want to have a civilization.” “Not only is there nothing wrong with that, that’s actually the only normal position. That is the normal, healthy, righteous disposition.” “It’s not about hating the Indians that are coming here. It’s not about hating Islam or Muslims. It’s not about hating jews. It’s not about hating anybody. It’s about loving our home.” “The things that are killing our country are: mass migration, feminism, and our jewish oligarchy. Our country is not dying, it’s being murdered. Our country is being murdered by these things. Without them we would thrive.”
6:53

If you’re angry about the state of the country, or even the world, Nick Fuentes says there’s nothing wrong with you. “I think it’s all the more reason in 2026 we have to double down and say: this isn’t spite…We are not malcontents. We are not freaks. We are not people who are not well-adjusted. I think everyone is realizing we want to fight for our civilization. We want to have a civilization.” “Not only is there nothing wrong with that, that’s actually the only normal position. That is the normal, healthy, righteous disposition.” “It’s not about hating the Indians that are coming here. It’s not about hating Islam or Muslims. It’s not about hating jews. It’s not about hating anybody. It’s about loving our home.” “The things that are killing our country are: mass migration, feminism, and our jewish oligarchy. Our country is not dying, it’s being murdered. Our country is being murdered by these things. Without them we would thrive.”

Fractured Light

71,618 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Tucker Carlson Drops F-Bomb In Fiery Take on The Joe Rogan Experience “If I get another f*cking lecture from Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) about ‘defending democracy’... then I’m going to go crazy.” Tucker says the system is “not even a close approximation of a democracy” because “When they stand up and pass a $60 billion funding bill for Ukraine, when 70% of the population doesn’t want it, when they’re ignoring the actual problems in our country, like the economy and the border, and they’re hauling in Congress over the weekend to pass something that people don’t want while ignoring the things that people do want. And if they do the same kind of thing again and again for, like, 50 years, and they call it a democracy, that will drive you insane because it’s just too dishonest.” Tucker Carlson urged them to stop lying about our “democracy” because this is how the government really works: “Why not just say, ‘We don’t give a shit what you want. We are getting something out of this Ukraine funding, whether it’s the thrill of being masters of the universe or whether it’s money from the defense contractors, whatever we’re getting out of it is more important to us than your opinion. This is not self-government. You don’t run this country. We do. Shut up and obey.’ If they at least said that, you’d be like, ‘Okay, I get it. Those are the terms.’ But if I get another f*cking lecture from Joe Scarborough about ‘defending democracy’ when this is not a democracy, it’s not even a close approximation of a democracy, then I’m going to go crazy because I just can’t deal with the lying.”
1:46

Tucker Carlson Drops F-Bomb In Fiery Take on The Joe Rogan Experience “If I get another f*cking lecture from Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) about ‘defending democracy’... then I’m going to go crazy.” Tucker says the system is “not even a close approximation of a democracy” because “When they stand up and pass a $60 billion funding bill for Ukraine, when 70% of the population doesn’t want it, when they’re ignoring the actual problems in our country, like the economy and the border, and they’re hauling in Congress over the weekend to pass something that people don’t want while ignoring the things that people do want. And if they do the same kind of thing again and again for, like, 50 years, and they call it a democracy, that will drive you insane because it’s just too dishonest.” Tucker Carlson urged them to stop lying about our “democracy” because this is how the government really works: “Why not just say, ‘We don’t give a shit what you want. We are getting something out of this Ukraine funding, whether it’s the thrill of being masters of the universe or whether it’s money from the defense contractors, whatever we’re getting out of it is more important to us than your opinion. This is not self-government. You don’t run this country. We do. Shut up and obey.’ If they at least said that, you’d be like, ‘Okay, I get it. Those are the terms.’ But if I get another f*cking lecture from Joe Scarborough about ‘defending democracy’ when this is not a democracy, it’s not even a close approximation of a democracy, then I’m going to go crazy because I just can’t deal with the lying.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,559,437 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Newsom: We've got to completely shift gears — in terms of now dominating, flooding the zone — but also becoming the party that is empathetic. It’s not about power, dominance, and aggression. It’s about empathy. It’s about compassion. It’s about collaboration. Those are the superpowers. Meiselas: If you listen to also what MAGA say, they go, “Empathy is for weak people.” Quite the opposite. You know how MAGA likes to call themselves a “alpha, alpha, alpha,” which is bullshit. First off, if you call yourself alpha, that’s weird to begin with. But when I grew up, the “alphas” would be the people who would stand up against the bullies and tell the bullies, “No, that’s not how you behave.” And you would put your arm around the marginalized or the people who were being bullied. But right now, this idea of the bully has been glorified, and we have to disabuse people of that notion and say, “Nah, that’s weakness.” That’s weakness, to your point, masquerading as strength. But that’s not how we should treat human beings. And stop blaming the problems, the complexities, on transgender people. We can’t abandon communities. I just think that we have to proudly support communities that have been under attack—’cause they’re human beings, dammit. And we gotta say, “We’re here with you. We’re here with you every step of the way, and we’re fighting for you.”
1:12

Newsom: We've got to completely shift gears — in terms of now dominating, flooding the zone — but also becoming the party that is empathetic. It’s not about power, dominance, and aggression. It’s about empathy. It’s about compassion. It’s about collaboration. Those are the superpowers. Meiselas: If you listen to also what MAGA say, they go, “Empathy is for weak people.” Quite the opposite. You know how MAGA likes to call themselves a “alpha, alpha, alpha,” which is bullshit. First off, if you call yourself alpha, that’s weird to begin with. But when I grew up, the “alphas” would be the people who would stand up against the bullies and tell the bullies, “No, that’s not how you behave.” And you would put your arm around the marginalized or the people who were being bullied. But right now, this idea of the bully has been glorified, and we have to disabuse people of that notion and say, “Nah, that’s weakness.” That’s weakness, to your point, masquerading as strength. But that’s not how we should treat human beings. And stop blaming the problems, the complexities, on transgender people. We can’t abandon communities. I just think that we have to proudly support communities that have been under attack—’cause they’re human beings, dammit. And we gotta say, “We’re here with you. We’re here with you every step of the way, and we’re fighting for you.”

MeidasTouch

66,962 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Sam Altman: "I'm not a jobs doomer at all. I think there are gonna be tons of jobs.” If we could go back to 2019 and show people our latest model, not only would they say that it's AGI, they would say that the economy would have been completely upended. And that has not happened. Anytime you're that wrong and that confident, which I think we were as a field, you have to update. AI is just very jagged. It's like superhuman genius in some ways, like dumb toddler in others. And people have, so far, extremely complementary skills to AI. It’s not taste…the world may need a new kind of word for the kind of judgment that people are very good at that AIs seem to really deeply struggle with. You can go hire an AI consultant right now or talk to an AI sales rep or hire an AI engineer. And somehow most people seem to still really prefer interacting with a human. I definitely would rather engage with a person than engage with an AI for almost everything. Human values have value because they're human. We are deeply hardwired to care about people.”
2:08

Sam Altman: "I'm not a jobs doomer at all. I think there are gonna be tons of jobs.” If we could go back to 2019 and show people our latest model, not only would they say that it's AGI, they would say that the economy would have been completely upended. And that has not happened. Anytime you're that wrong and that confident, which I think we were as a field, you have to update. AI is just very jagged. It's like superhuman genius in some ways, like dumb toddler in others. And people have, so far, extremely complementary skills to AI. It’s not taste…the world may need a new kind of word for the kind of judgment that people are very good at that AIs seem to really deeply struggle with. You can go hire an AI consultant right now or talk to an AI sales rep or hire an AI engineer. And somehow most people seem to still really prefer interacting with a human. I definitely would rather engage with a person than engage with an AI for almost everything. Human values have value because they're human. We are deeply hardwired to care about people.”

Invest Like the Best

20,730 просмотров • 17 дней назад

One of the Muslim lads just sent me this: “I’m showing you this because I want to show you that not every Muslim live the same lives as most people think most of us are just normal people who want to get on with our life and want to show our humour like this girl here. She went to what was apparently the most “racist” area according to some polls and decided to make their day by wearing a niqab and she got nothing but smiles back this can only suggest that the media are the ones creating division not normal people like us if we want to create a society where we can move forward normal working class people from all backgrounds need to have a conversation where everyone will be heard. Most people especially the media portray woman who wear the headscarf as those who don’t “integrate” and can’t speak English apparently but this girl in the video opposed all of that and she’s quite funny to be honest but also helps the community which is what we should do.”
0:44

One of the Muslim lads just sent me this: “I’m showing you this because I want to show you that not every Muslim live the same lives as most people think most of us are just normal people who want to get on with our life and want to show our humour like this girl here. She went to what was apparently the most “racist” area according to some polls and decided to make their day by wearing a niqab and she got nothing but smiles back this can only suggest that the media are the ones creating division not normal people like us if we want to create a society where we can move forward normal working class people from all backgrounds need to have a conversation where everyone will be heard. Most people especially the media portray woman who wear the headscarf as those who don’t “integrate” and can’t speak English apparently but this girl in the video opposed all of that and she’s quite funny to be honest but also helps the community which is what we should do.”

Around Liverpool

21,921 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.
1:27

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

David Senra

27,043 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад