Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Nassim Taleb ran a simple test: take two completely random, unrelated columns of numbers - noise, nothing else - and measure their correlation. with a small sample, you'll routinely see correlations of 0.4, 0.6, even higher. from pure randomness. now the trap. give a researcher many variables and few...

Dipper_pol's profile picture

0xDipper

6,367 subscribers

174,586 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.
50:03

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Rossst.03

77,501 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This man got rich on Wall Street by admitting he couldn't predict anything. Everyone else was forecasting the future. He bet they were all fooling themselves. Nassim Taleb started trading in the 80s and noticed something nobody wanted to hear: people are hopeless at randomness. They hit a lucky streak and call it skill. They spot a shape in the noise and bet everything on it. So he flipped it. He stopped guessing and started buying the cheap bets everyone threw away - the ones that pay nothing for years, then pay a fortune the day the rare disaster hits. When the market broke, he was holding them. Picture two men leaving the same office, both rich. One is a dentist. The other just survived a round of Russian roulette. From the street you can't tell them apart. Only one gets to come back tomorrow. Telling those two apart is the whole point of Fooled by Randomness. He explains it himself in the clip.
56:53

This man got rich on Wall Street by admitting he couldn't predict anything. Everyone else was forecasting the future. He bet they were all fooling themselves. Nassim Taleb started trading in the 80s and noticed something nobody wanted to hear: people are hopeless at randomness. They hit a lucky streak and call it skill. They spot a shape in the noise and bet everything on it. So he flipped it. He stopped guessing and started buying the cheap bets everyone threw away - the ones that pay nothing for years, then pay a fortune the day the rare disaster hits. When the market broke, he was holding them. Picture two men leaving the same office, both rich. One is a dentist. The other just survived a round of Russian roulette. From the street you can't tell them apart. Only one gets to come back tomorrow. Telling those two apart is the whole point of Fooled by Randomness. He explains it himself in the clip.

Quantex

65,812 просмотров • 21 дней назад

Nassim Taleb sat down with Daniel Kahneman - two of the sharpest minds on risk ever - and the takeaway was blunt: stop trying to be smart Kahneman's prospect theory explains why almost nobody can do what Taleb does We're wired to hate the steady trickle of small losses his strategy needs - even when one huge win more than pays for all of them So you structure it the other way: tiny safe bets plus a few wild ones, never the comfortable middle. "You'd rather be antifragile than intelligent - any time." "Trial and error is really just trial with small error." "Make your gains in small bites. Take your losses all at once." ~1 hr, free. two legends on risk, prediction, and how to win without forecasting ↓
1:13:51

Nassim Taleb sat down with Daniel Kahneman - two of the sharpest minds on risk ever - and the takeaway was blunt: stop trying to be smart Kahneman's prospect theory explains why almost nobody can do what Taleb does We're wired to hate the steady trickle of small losses his strategy needs - even when one huge win more than pays for all of them So you structure it the other way: tiny safe bets plus a few wild ones, never the comfortable middle. "You'd rather be antifragile than intelligent - any time." "Trial and error is really just trial with small error." "Make your gains in small bites. Take your losses all at once." ~1 hr, free. two legends on risk, prediction, and how to win without forecasting ↓

0xDipper

1,413,095 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Nassim Taleb asked a room full of quants: to trust an average, a normal bell curve needs ~30 data points. how many does an 80/20 "fat-tailed" world need? people guessed 200. 1,000. the real answer: 100 trillion. that's 10¹⁴ - because in fat-tailed data, one rare event dwarfs everything else, and until it shows up your sample is a lie. "you observe, you observe, you observe… until the crash." worse, the deception only runs one way. a wild distribution can disguise itself as calm - a calm one can't fake being wild. so the data almost always fools you downward, into thinking there's less risk than there is. the fix: stop estimating the average from the average. it doesn't work where it matters. ~25-min talk, free. Taleb on why your data is quietly lying about risk ↓
25:33

Nassim Taleb asked a room full of quants: to trust an average, a normal bell curve needs ~30 data points. how many does an 80/20 "fat-tailed" world need? people guessed 200. 1,000. the real answer: 100 trillion. that's 10¹⁴ - because in fat-tailed data, one rare event dwarfs everything else, and until it shows up your sample is a lie. "you observe, you observe, you observe… until the crash." worse, the deception only runs one way. a wild distribution can disguise itself as calm - a calm one can't fake being wild. so the data almost always fools you downward, into thinking there's less risk than there is. the fix: stop estimating the average from the average. it doesn't work where it matters. ~25-min talk, free. Taleb on why your data is quietly lying about risk ↓

0xDipper

204,184 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Gilbert Strang, the legendary mathematician who taught linear algebra for 61 years and became the most watched math professor in history: "I used to think a matrix was just a grid of numbers, until I proved that its rows and columns always agree on one number no matter how you look at them. That fact still feels like magic to me after sixty years." this is the exact proof sitting quietly underneath every factor model a risk desk trusts with real capital, and almost nobody outside a math department has ever seen it. strip away the notation and the idea is almost absurdly simple. take any matrix, any grid of numbers, and count how many of its rows are truly independent, meaning none of them can be built out of the others. now count the independent columns instead, a completely different question on the surface. those two numbers, row independence and column independence, always turn out exactly equal, no matter how large or lopsided the matrix is. nobody presenting a clean risk model out loud credits a decades old proof for the reason the math even holds together. zoom out to what this means for anything built on a grid of numbers today. a portfolio, a covariance matrix, a neural network's weights, all of them hide a true dimension smaller than their size suggests, and that hidden number is exactly what this proof pins down. the industry sells complexity as scale, more assets, more parameters, more rows and columns. but the real question was never how big the matrix is. it's how many independent directions are actually hiding inside it. the size of the grid was never the real story. it was the one number both sides of it were quietly agreeing on the whole time.
41:55

Gilbert Strang, the legendary mathematician who taught linear algebra for 61 years and became the most watched math professor in history: "I used to think a matrix was just a grid of numbers, until I proved that its rows and columns always agree on one number no matter how you look at them. That fact still feels like magic to me after sixty years." this is the exact proof sitting quietly underneath every factor model a risk desk trusts with real capital, and almost nobody outside a math department has ever seen it. strip away the notation and the idea is almost absurdly simple. take any matrix, any grid of numbers, and count how many of its rows are truly independent, meaning none of them can be built out of the others. now count the independent columns instead, a completely different question on the surface. those two numbers, row independence and column independence, always turn out exactly equal, no matter how large or lopsided the matrix is. nobody presenting a clean risk model out loud credits a decades old proof for the reason the math even holds together. zoom out to what this means for anything built on a grid of numbers today. a portfolio, a covariance matrix, a neural network's weights, all of them hide a true dimension smaller than their size suggests, and that hidden number is exactly what this proof pins down. the industry sells complexity as scale, more assets, more parameters, more rows and columns. but the real question was never how big the matrix is. it's how many independent directions are actually hiding inside it. the size of the grid was never the real story. it was the one number both sides of it were quietly agreeing on the whole time.

MindArch

18,494 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Yilin Wang, MIT mathematician and one of the leading minds on the geometry of randomness: "there is a precise number for how far a shape is from pure chance. Citadel pays $500,000 to people who compute it instead of guessing it." her field is the mathematics of random curves. flip enough coins and the path they trace is not shapeless. it has a precise geometry, and a number, the Loewner energy, that measures how far a curve sits from pure chance. a circle scores zero. it is the most natural thing randomness can draw. almost every shape you see on a chart scores near zero too. it is noise wearing a costume. this is the entire quant problem in one idea. the market draws millions of random curves, and only a vanishing few carry real structure. the edge is a rigorous way to tell the costume from the signal. Citadel pay $500,000 a year for people who can measure that difference instead of feeling it. the trader who falls in love with a pattern is admiring a curve that randomness would have drawn anyway. the shape was never the edge. the odds that randomness did not draw it were.
1:50:26

Yilin Wang, MIT mathematician and one of the leading minds on the geometry of randomness: "there is a precise number for how far a shape is from pure chance. Citadel pays $500,000 to people who compute it instead of guessing it." her field is the mathematics of random curves. flip enough coins and the path they trace is not shapeless. it has a precise geometry, and a number, the Loewner energy, that measures how far a curve sits from pure chance. a circle scores zero. it is the most natural thing randomness can draw. almost every shape you see on a chart scores near zero too. it is noise wearing a costume. this is the entire quant problem in one idea. the market draws millions of random curves, and only a vanishing few carry real structure. the edge is a rigorous way to tell the costume from the signal. Citadel pay $500,000 a year for people who can measure that difference instead of feeling it. the trader who falls in love with a pattern is admiring a curve that randomness would have drawn anyway. the shape was never the edge. the odds that randomness did not draw it were.

Rossst.03

57,143 просмотров • 1 день назад

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.
40:58

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Nassim Taleb: pick two people at random If their combined height is 4.1m, it's basically 2.05 + 2.05. If their combined wealth is $36M, it's almost never 18 + 18 - it's ~$1,000 and ~$36M. Height lives in "Mediocristan," where the average tells you everything. Wealth - and markets - live in "Extremistan," where one event dominates the whole picture. Ruin there never comes from a string of bad days. It comes from a single one. ~1hr lecture, free. The Black Swan author at Cambridge on why the statistics you were taught break exactly where it matters. Being right on average means nothing if one tail empties the account.
57:03

Nassim Taleb: pick two people at random If their combined height is 4.1m, it's basically 2.05 + 2.05. If their combined wealth is $36M, it's almost never 18 + 18 - it's ~$1,000 and ~$36M. Height lives in "Mediocristan," where the average tells you everything. Wealth - and markets - live in "Extremistan," where one event dominates the whole picture. Ruin there never comes from a string of bad days. It comes from a single one. ~1hr lecture, free. The Black Swan author at Cambridge on why the statistics you were taught break exactly where it matters. Being right on average means nothing if one tail empties the account.

0xDipper

728,251 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Taleb: the worst single-day loss in market history was "a small setback." Nvidia shed $589B in a day on the DeepSeek scare - the biggest one-day wipeout ever. his take: that's noise. the stock was up an order of magnitude. giving back 17% means nothing. the real lesson - the whole AI trade leaned on one chip, one story. and people only notice the falls, never the rises. "Something goes from 1 to 10, goes back to 9, people freak out." "now it's no longer flawless. You have a small little chip on the glass." "Google came out of nowhere and displaced Alta Vista." ~4 min, Taleb on why the crash is "the beginning," not the bottom ↓
4:13

Taleb: the worst single-day loss in market history was "a small setback." Nvidia shed $589B in a day on the DeepSeek scare - the biggest one-day wipeout ever. his take: that's noise. the stock was up an order of magnitude. giving back 17% means nothing. the real lesson - the whole AI trade leaned on one chip, one story. and people only notice the falls, never the rises. "Something goes from 1 to 10, goes back to 9, people freak out." "now it's no longer flawless. You have a small little chip on the glass." "Google came out of nowhere and displaced Alta Vista." ~4 min, Taleb on why the crash is "the beginning," not the bottom ↓

0xDipper

446,192 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Dave Ramsey reveals why 0 out of 10,167 millionaires got wealthy using credit card points Hala Taha: "A lot of people are really interested in points, especially Gen Z, millennials. We're all about our points, getting free travel, free hotel, free flights. Why is that still a hard line for you?" Dave Ramsey: "The data doesn't say that it works. There's two major problems with that. 78% of the airline miles are never redeemed." "There's tons of data out there that show that a credit card versus cash is 12 to 21% more spending. And if you add to it, 'Oh, I'm getting points'... I'll even increase my spending yet more." "You gave up a dollar to get a penny? How's that increase wealth?" "We did the largest study of millionaires ever done at Ramsey Research, 10,167 of them, and the number of them that said, 'I became a millionaire because of my points' is zero." "It's a game, and you're playing with a multi-billion dollar company who has more algorithms tracking your behavior patterns than you can even imagine, and believe me, they're not coming out on the short end of this."
3:07

Dave Ramsey reveals why 0 out of 10,167 millionaires got wealthy using credit card points Hala Taha: "A lot of people are really interested in points, especially Gen Z, millennials. We're all about our points, getting free travel, free hotel, free flights. Why is that still a hard line for you?" Dave Ramsey: "The data doesn't say that it works. There's two major problems with that. 78% of the airline miles are never redeemed." "There's tons of data out there that show that a credit card versus cash is 12 to 21% more spending. And if you add to it, 'Oh, I'm getting points'... I'll even increase my spending yet more." "You gave up a dollar to get a penny? How's that increase wealth?" "We did the largest study of millionaires ever done at Ramsey Research, 10,167 of them, and the number of them that said, 'I became a millionaire because of my points' is zero." "It's a game, and you're playing with a multi-billion dollar company who has more algorithms tracking your behavior patterns than you can even imagine, and believe me, they're not coming out on the short end of this."

Hala Taha

73,400 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

One thing you'll notice listening to women talk about divorce is it's always about them, not about their children. Divorce is harder on kids than the death of a parent. "What if I was wasting my time" - years later your kids will be dealing with the consequences of you "not wasting time." Statistically it's more likely they'll be doing that from prison (if dad's not in the picture - and so many women fight for that to be the case). If we had more people fighting to make a good home for their children instead of living their best life society would be a lot better than it is.
0:35

One thing you'll notice listening to women talk about divorce is it's always about them, not about their children. Divorce is harder on kids than the death of a parent. "What if I was wasting my time" - years later your kids will be dealing with the consequences of you "not wasting time." Statistically it's more likely they'll be doing that from prison (if dad's not in the picture - and so many women fight for that to be the case). If we had more people fighting to make a good home for their children instead of living their best life society would be a lot better than it is.

The Last Boy Scout

37,535 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher
1:29

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher

Steven Pinker

272,948 просмотров • 1 год назад

Registered nurse/whistleblower Michelle Spencer: "I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, [her] placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna... it's in the placenta... even if the father got it, the baby is affected." This clip of Spencer (Michelle Spencer) is taken from an interview with Jodi O'Malley (Jodi O'Malley) posted to the NursesOutLoud (Nurses Out Loud) Rumble channel on November 1, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "They have not investigated the dead babies. They— They did investigate briefly after my investigation, when I said, you have an obligation to investigate. They went back and they checked, and they found that all of the fetal demises, 95% of them had Covid-vaccinated mothers. So that is a huge amount. "And the other little percent, maybe the record of the mother wasn't in there, because over here in California, they're highly vaxxed. Yes, most of them did get vaccinated because the OB doctor pushes it on them every single time. So they're highly vaxxed. "And then also I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, a placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna. And if that's crazy, to be able to see that in an ultrasound. And if that patient, the mother, did not get COVID vaccine. The COVID vaccine, that means the father did, and it's in the placenta. So even if the father got it, the baby is affected. "And so there was— There's a huge correlation, it's like an obvious correlation between the COVID vaccine and these dead babies... One of my nursing friends told me a couple weeks after my investigation. She said, yeah, they went back and checked, and they found this correlation. And, she just told me to— Just by by mouth. By word of mouth. And so, now that I've been working with Greg, I've told him that. So he's gonna try to get an order for discovery to go back and check the fetal demises and the COVID-vaxxed mothers, to find the correlation, which is clearly there."
1:57

Registered nurse/whistleblower Michelle Spencer: "I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, [her] placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna... it's in the placenta... even if the father got it, the baby is affected." This clip of Spencer (Michelle Spencer) is taken from an interview with Jodi O'Malley (Jodi O'Malley) posted to the NursesOutLoud (Nurses Out Loud) Rumble channel on November 1, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "They have not investigated the dead babies. They— They did investigate briefly after my investigation, when I said, you have an obligation to investigate. They went back and they checked, and they found that all of the fetal demises, 95% of them had Covid-vaccinated mothers. So that is a huge amount. "And the other little percent, maybe the record of the mother wasn't in there, because over here in California, they're highly vaxxed. Yes, most of them did get vaccinated because the OB doctor pushes it on them every single time. So they're highly vaxxed. "And then also I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, a placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna. And if that's crazy, to be able to see that in an ultrasound. And if that patient, the mother, did not get COVID vaccine. The COVID vaccine, that means the father did, and it's in the placenta. So even if the father got it, the baby is affected. "And so there was— There's a huge correlation, it's like an obvious correlation between the COVID vaccine and these dead babies... One of my nursing friends told me a couple weeks after my investigation. She said, yeah, they went back and checked, and they found this correlation. And, she just told me to— Just by by mouth. By word of mouth. And so, now that I've been working with Greg, I've told him that. So he's gonna try to get an order for discovery to go back and check the fetal demises and the COVID-vaxxed mothers, to find the correlation, which is clearly there."

Sense Receptor

61,416 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

the camera being in a tight close up on both ilya and shane for the entirety of this scene, except for the moment when ilya is working up the courage to say he’s in love. it’s like for the whole conversation it’s just the two of them, there’s nobody else who matters, and then for a brief moment the shot widens as ilya considers the implications of the fact he’s in love with shane. the fact that the rest of the world DOES matter and will always be a presence in their relationship. we’ve been held in this moment between the two of them and by widening the shot, that intimacy is broken just for a second as we’re reminded that there is a world beyond the two of them and ilya is still in russia. what he’s doing is incredibly dangerous. then the camera tightens back into a close up as he realises he needs to say it anyway because all that matters is that he’s on the phone with shane and he’s in love with him. it really is just the two of them in this moment and he doesn’t want to let anyone else in.
3:26

the camera being in a tight close up on both ilya and shane for the entirety of this scene, except for the moment when ilya is working up the courage to say he’s in love. it’s like for the whole conversation it’s just the two of them, there’s nobody else who matters, and then for a brief moment the shot widens as ilya considers the implications of the fact he’s in love with shane. the fact that the rest of the world DOES matter and will always be a presence in their relationship. we’ve been held in this moment between the two of them and by widening the shot, that intimacy is broken just for a second as we’re reminded that there is a world beyond the two of them and ilya is still in russia. what he’s doing is incredibly dangerous. then the camera tightens back into a close up as he realises he needs to say it anyway because all that matters is that he’s on the phone with shane and he’s in love with him. it really is just the two of them in this moment and he doesn’t want to let anyone else in.

frances 🏒

294,736 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

before Nassim Taleb made his fortune shorting the 2008 collapse, an old veteran on the trading floor gave him a terrifying warning "he grabbed me, pointed to a guy across the room and said: 'you see ed over there? he made $7 million in 7 years... and he just lost it all in exactly 7 seconds'" that was the exact moment Taleb realized that 99% of wall street was playing a rigged game of russian roulette "average funds hide their risk to look smart - they make small, steady profits every single day, completely blind to the fact that one rare event will eventually wipe out their entire existence" "we do the exact opposite - we take tiny, calculated losses every day, and position our entire portfolio to make billions the second the system completely breaks" Taleb didn't build his empire by trying to predict the market. he built it by assuming everyone else is fragile, and waiting for the inevitable hurricane to destroy them watch his legendary stanford masterclass where he breaks down this exact realization
52:18

before Nassim Taleb made his fortune shorting the 2008 collapse, an old veteran on the trading floor gave him a terrifying warning "he grabbed me, pointed to a guy across the room and said: 'you see ed over there? he made $7 million in 7 years... and he just lost it all in exactly 7 seconds'" that was the exact moment Taleb realized that 99% of wall street was playing a rigged game of russian roulette "average funds hide their risk to look smart - they make small, steady profits every single day, completely blind to the fact that one rare event will eventually wipe out their entire existence" "we do the exact opposite - we take tiny, calculated losses every day, and position our entire portfolio to make billions the second the system completely breaks" Taleb didn't build his empire by trying to predict the market. he built it by assuming everyone else is fragile, and waiting for the inevitable hurricane to destroy them watch his legendary stanford masterclass where he breaks down this exact realization

ludoonchart

139,281 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Eric Schmidt says the real limit on AI is cash, and he puts one gigawatt of data center at roughly $50 billion: "A gigawatt data center costs something on the order of 50 billion with a B number." "How could these people in my industry be so crazy to raise all that money and build all the data centers? And the answer is they see the demand." "So absent an AI breakthrough algorithmically, which is a change to what is called the transformer architecture which is invented at Google, thank you, in 2017, we're sort of stuck with this cost structure." "And I think the real limit to AI is not energy. It's actually cash." "Because when you add up the cost of these, if you take 50, just round numbers, 50 billion a gigawatt, so 10 gigawatts is half a trillion dollars." "How many companies, countries, and so forth can hand an industry a trillion dollars of capital? Very, very few." Even at the low end of the published estimates, around $38 billion a gigawatt, his arithmetic still puts ten gigawatts in the hundreds of billions, so the conclusion holds. Very few balance sheets can carry that, which means most companies buying AI capacity over the next few years will be renting it from the handful that can. - Eric Schmidt (Eric Schmidt), Chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and CEO of Relativity Space, at the SCSP AI+ Expo (@SCSPAI), May 2026.
1:13

Eric Schmidt says the real limit on AI is cash, and he puts one gigawatt of data center at roughly $50 billion: "A gigawatt data center costs something on the order of 50 billion with a B number." "How could these people in my industry be so crazy to raise all that money and build all the data centers? And the answer is they see the demand." "So absent an AI breakthrough algorithmically, which is a change to what is called the transformer architecture which is invented at Google, thank you, in 2017, we're sort of stuck with this cost structure." "And I think the real limit to AI is not energy. It's actually cash." "Because when you add up the cost of these, if you take 50, just round numbers, 50 billion a gigawatt, so 10 gigawatts is half a trillion dollars." "How many companies, countries, and so forth can hand an industry a trillion dollars of capital? Very, very few." Even at the low end of the published estimates, around $38 billion a gigawatt, his arithmetic still puts ten gigawatts in the hundreds of billions, so the conclusion holds. Very few balance sheets can carry that, which means most companies buying AI capacity over the next few years will be renting it from the handful that can. - Eric Schmidt (Eric Schmidt), Chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and CEO of Relativity Space, at the SCSP AI+ Expo (@SCSPAI), May 2026.

Karl Mehta

42,986 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Hedge funds hand you $750K a year for a single skill: telling a real pattern from noise. I've spent a lifetime on it, and almost everyone has it flipped." this free lecture is the entire "find the signal" problem those firms are paying for, delivered at UCLA by the most awarded mathematician alive and put online for nothing. at the chalkboard it's plain. Tao's lifelong idea is that almost nothing is purely one thing. there's flawless structure, like a clock, and flawless randomness, like a coin toss, and nearly everything real sits somewhere between the two. the work is pulling them apart. the primes are the cleanest test. they look scattered and lawless, yet Tao and Ben Green proved they hold evenly spaced runs of any length you ask for. order was buried inside the apparent chaos the whole time. that's "signal detection" with the marketing stripped off. he gave this at UCLA and it has stayed free ever since. exactly the point of the article above: the mathematics those firms pay half a million for is public, written down and free to anyone tonight. the lecture costs nothing and anyone can press play. what no one can sell you is the judgment to tell when a pattern is real and when your own eyes invented it. that judgment is the entire job, and it takes years to earn.
45:02

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Hedge funds hand you $750K a year for a single skill: telling a real pattern from noise. I've spent a lifetime on it, and almost everyone has it flipped." this free lecture is the entire "find the signal" problem those firms are paying for, delivered at UCLA by the most awarded mathematician alive and put online for nothing. at the chalkboard it's plain. Tao's lifelong idea is that almost nothing is purely one thing. there's flawless structure, like a clock, and flawless randomness, like a coin toss, and nearly everything real sits somewhere between the two. the work is pulling them apart. the primes are the cleanest test. they look scattered and lawless, yet Tao and Ben Green proved they hold evenly spaced runs of any length you ask for. order was buried inside the apparent chaos the whole time. that's "signal detection" with the marketing stripped off. he gave this at UCLA and it has stayed free ever since. exactly the point of the article above: the mathematics those firms pay half a million for is public, written down and free to anyone tonight. the lecture costs nothing and anyone can press play. what no one can sell you is the judgment to tell when a pattern is real and when your own eyes invented it. that judgment is the entire job, and it takes years to earn.

Loran

790,142 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨Dr. Beatriz Villarroel Interview With Peter Skafish for the Sol Foundation The conversation turned from astronomy to something much stranger, and potentially historic. Villarroel’s team, working through the VASCO Project, had already published peer reviewed evidence of artificial reflective objects in Earth orbit before Sputnik. But she and collaborator Steven Bruehl have uncovered something else, a triangle of correlations linking transient sky events, above ground nuclear test detonations and well documented UAP sightings. “Steven Bruehl took the samples of nuclear tests, the VASCO transients, and the UFO catalog,” Villarroel explained. “He asked whether these coincidences during events like the 1952 Washington D.C. flap were statistically connected.” The result was a measurable correlation around 3 sigma between UFO events and nuclear tests, and similar correlations linking transients, UAPs and transients and nuclear detonations. That may sound subtle, but statistically, a 3 sigma signal means it’s very unlikely to be random noise, and it directly contradicts the claim that these photographic transients were simply plate defects. “If it were just plate defects, you wouldn’t see correlations appear in time with nuclear tests or UFO flaps,” she said. “This defies that hypothesis.” The idea that nuclear activity attracts non human observation has been part of UFO lore since the 1940s. Now, for the first time, there’s a data driven bridge between the legends and empirical evidence, connecting transient light events, nuclear detonations, and UAP activity. Skafish summed it up: “You don’t just have a correlation between two things, you’ve got a correlation between three, and in all directions.” Whether that means surveillance, energy resonance, or a reactive phenomenon isn’t yet clear. But Villarroel’s work gives future scientists a map of places and times where something, perhaps watching, perhaps responding, seems to manifest when humanity tampers with atomic fire. Watch The Full Interview Here: #BeatrizVillarroel #SolFoundation #VASCOProject #UAP #NuclearCorrelation #Disclosure #SkywatchSignal
3:05

🚨Dr. Beatriz Villarroel Interview With Peter Skafish for the Sol Foundation The conversation turned from astronomy to something much stranger, and potentially historic. Villarroel’s team, working through the VASCO Project, had already published peer reviewed evidence of artificial reflective objects in Earth orbit before Sputnik. But she and collaborator Steven Bruehl have uncovered something else, a triangle of correlations linking transient sky events, above ground nuclear test detonations and well documented UAP sightings. “Steven Bruehl took the samples of nuclear tests, the VASCO transients, and the UFO catalog,” Villarroel explained. “He asked whether these coincidences during events like the 1952 Washington D.C. flap were statistically connected.” The result was a measurable correlation around 3 sigma between UFO events and nuclear tests, and similar correlations linking transients, UAPs and transients and nuclear detonations. That may sound subtle, but statistically, a 3 sigma signal means it’s very unlikely to be random noise, and it directly contradicts the claim that these photographic transients were simply plate defects. “If it were just plate defects, you wouldn’t see correlations appear in time with nuclear tests or UFO flaps,” she said. “This defies that hypothesis.” The idea that nuclear activity attracts non human observation has been part of UFO lore since the 1940s. Now, for the first time, there’s a data driven bridge between the legends and empirical evidence, connecting transient light events, nuclear detonations, and UAP activity. Skafish summed it up: “You don’t just have a correlation between two things, you’ve got a correlation between three, and in all directions.” Whether that means surveillance, energy resonance, or a reactive phenomenon isn’t yet clear. But Villarroel’s work gives future scientists a map of places and times where something, perhaps watching, perhaps responding, seems to manifest when humanity tampers with atomic fire. Watch The Full Interview Here: #BeatrizVillarroel #SolFoundation #VASCOProject #UAP #NuclearCorrelation #Disclosure #SkywatchSignal

Skywatch Signal

16,527 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓
1:12:51

A PHYSICS PROFESSOR GAVE THE SAME LECTURE 1,742 TIMES TO WARN ABOUT ONE IDEA QUIETLY BREAKING THE HUMAN RACE. IT IS THE WORD EVERY AI LAB THROWS AROUND TODAY AND ALMOST NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. 72 minutes from Albert Bartlett, a University of Colorado physicist, on the one piece of math he called humanity's greatest blind spot. -> The idea that lands: a small steady percentage is never small. 7% a year sounds calm, but it doubles in a decade, doubles again in the next, and quietly runs away from you. He shows it with bacteria in a bottle, with money, with whole cities -- the same curve that looks flat for ages and then explodes almost overnight. Everyone calls that curve "Exponential". He proves most people hear it as "Fast" when it actually means something far more violent. Right now every lab and every headline calls AI exponential. This is the talk that shows you what the word truly does -- so you see both the hype and the real danger the way the math demands. You thought it was a boring math word. It was the whole story the entire time. Save this one. You'll never hear "Exponential" the same way ↓

slash1s

100,138 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Chamath: Fraud at this scale will end the American Empire if nothing is done “It is a crucible moment for American society.” “If nothing happens and we deem this kind of theft acceptable, it is the beginning of the end of the American Empire.” “It's just a level of disrespect and lack of care for this country.” “I will be waiting and observing how important it is to root this out, that's number one.” “The second, which is more tactical political calculus, this is an enormous opportunity for the Republican Party if they take this and run with this.” “Is there waste, fraud and abuse in every state? Absolutely. I don't think this is endemically a Democratic problem, but the scale of it is so gargantuan in these Democratic states that if the Republicans don't take advantage of it, I think it is a huge political miscalculation.” “So there is this tactical opportunity, which I think if you want to have a chance in the midterms and if you generally wanna have a chance to level-set the country, you must take this and run with it.” “And then separately, if as Friedberg says, it does die on the vine, it is the beginning of the end of the American Empire, unfortunately.”
1:21

Chamath: Fraud at this scale will end the American Empire if nothing is done “It is a crucible moment for American society.” “If nothing happens and we deem this kind of theft acceptable, it is the beginning of the end of the American Empire.” “It's just a level of disrespect and lack of care for this country.” “I will be waiting and observing how important it is to root this out, that's number one.” “The second, which is more tactical political calculus, this is an enormous opportunity for the Republican Party if they take this and run with this.” “Is there waste, fraud and abuse in every state? Absolutely. I don't think this is endemically a Democratic problem, but the scale of it is so gargantuan in these Democratic states that if the Republicans don't take advantage of it, I think it is a huge political miscalculation.” “So there is this tactical opportunity, which I think if you want to have a chance in the midterms and if you generally wanna have a chance to level-set the country, you must take this and run with it.” “And then separately, if as Friedberg says, it does die on the vine, it is the beginning of the end of the American Empire, unfortunately.”

The All-In Podcast

10,556,480 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад