Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Peter Thiel on what he would look for if he was joining a startup Wharton professor Adam Grant asks Peter Thiel what he would look for if he was joining an early-stage startup. Thiel gives a simple response: “Do you like the people? Do you think you could become... good friends with these people? That’s such a critical part for getting these things to work.” He recalls interviewing with a law firm in New York early in his career and one partner telling him: “It’s a place where everybody hates everybody else, but we all make lots of money.” The partner viewed it as an illustration of how incredibly “professional” the firm was. But Thiel argues that we need more than just “professional” at work. Thiel elaborates more on this idea in his book Zero to One: “Why work with a group of people who don’t even like each other? Many seem to think it’s a sacrifice necessary for making money. But taking a merely professional view of the workplace, in which free agents check in and out on a transactional basis, is worse than cold: it’s not even rational. Since time is your most valuable asset, it’s odd to spend it working with people who don’t envision any long-term future together. If you can’t count durable relationships among the fruits of your time at work, you haven’t invested your time well—even in purely financial terms.” Video source: The Wharton School (2014)show more

Startup Archive

157,775 subscribers

60,844 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Peter Thiel explains his principle of only working on problems that wouldn’t get solved without you Thiel shares that he’s “a little bit skeptical” of social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurship is always ambiguous because it’s unclear what the word ‘social’ means. Social can mean that it’s ‘good for society’ or it can mean that it’s ‘good as seen by society’. In the second meaning, you often end up with something that many people are doing.” He gives education startups as an example of a social startup - it’s seen as objectively good and lots of people are working on it. Thiel contrasts this to a mission-oriented company: “A mission-oriented company is one where if you didn’t work on this problem, nobody would.” He gives the example of Elon Musk starting SpaceX with the mission of going to Mars and making humans interplanetary. If Elon wasn’t working on it, this problem might not get solved. Thiel believes this is an important principle in general: “We always want to do things where… if you weren’t working on it, it wouldn’t get solved. Always go for that sort of counterfactual meaning. You don’t want to ever be in a place where you’re just one of a hundred cogs in the machine… You want to be in a place where you’re doing something that can’t be easily replicated or replaced - either on an individual level or the level of a company.” Video source: The Wharton School (2014)

Peter Thiel explains his principle of only working on problems that wouldn’t get solved without you Thiel shares that he’s “a little bit skeptical” of social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurship is always ambiguous because it’s unclear what the word ‘social’ means. Social can mean that it’s ‘good for society’ or it can mean that it’s ‘good as seen by society’. In the second meaning, you often end up with something that many people are doing.” He gives education startups as an example of a social startup - it’s seen as objectively good and lots of people are working on it. Thiel contrasts this to a mission-oriented company: “A mission-oriented company is one where if you didn’t work on this problem, nobody would.” He gives the example of Elon Musk starting SpaceX with the mission of going to Mars and making humans interplanetary. If Elon wasn’t working on it, this problem might not get solved. Thiel believes this is an important principle in general: “We always want to do things where… if you weren’t working on it, it wouldn’t get solved. Always go for that sort of counterfactual meaning. You don’t want to ever be in a place where you’re just one of a hundred cogs in the machine… You want to be in a place where you’re doing something that can’t be easily replicated or replaced - either on an individual level or the level of a company.” Video source: The Wharton School (2014)

Startup Archive

39,468 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on how to identify great talent Peter Thiel is famous for discovering undervalued talent throughout his career. The most well-known example is PayPal, where he recruited people who went on to start companies like YouTube, LinkedIn, Yelp, Affirm, and Yammer. But he also recruited Alex Karp, his former classmate at Stanford Law School, to co-found Palantir with him 2003. Tyler Cowen asks Thiel what traits he looks for in undiscovered talent that everyone else overlooks. Thiel replies: “It’s very difficult to reduce it to any single trait. A lot of what you’re looking for are these almost zen-like opposites.” He gives a few examples: “You want people who are both really stubborn and really open-minded. That’s a little contradictory. You want people who are sort of really idiosyncratic and really different, but then who can work well together in teams… If you focus too much on one end of it, you tend to get it completely wrong… [I like to look for] these combinations of unusual traits.” Essentially he looks for idiosyncratic people with combinations of unusual traits that counterbalance those idiosyncrasies. Video source: Mercatus Center (2015)

Peter Thiel on how to identify great talent Peter Thiel is famous for discovering undervalued talent throughout his career. The most well-known example is PayPal, where he recruited people who went on to start companies like YouTube, LinkedIn, Yelp, Affirm, and Yammer. But he also recruited Alex Karp, his former classmate at Stanford Law School, to co-found Palantir with him 2003. Tyler Cowen asks Thiel what traits he looks for in undiscovered talent that everyone else overlooks. Thiel replies: “It’s very difficult to reduce it to any single trait. A lot of what you’re looking for are these almost zen-like opposites.” He gives a few examples: “You want people who are both really stubborn and really open-minded. That’s a little contradictory. You want people who are sort of really idiosyncratic and really different, but then who can work well together in teams… If you focus too much on one end of it, you tend to get it completely wrong… [I like to look for] these combinations of unusual traits.” Essentially he looks for idiosyncratic people with combinations of unusual traits that counterbalance those idiosyncrasies. Video source: Mercatus Center (2015)

Startup Archive

28,390 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on the most important lesson he learned building PayPal The early employees of PayPal went on to build incredible companies like Tesla, SpaceX, LinkedIn, YouTube, Palantir, Yelp, Yammer, and more. When asked about the factors that explain these outlier successes, Thiel suggests that it was probably a combination of several different things: an entrepreneurial culture, lots of strong personalities, and the early 2000s was a great time to start a company. But Thiel also says that the overarching lesson you learned working at PayPal—which had a lot of challenges but ended up succeeding—was: “You can build a great company, but it’s hard.” He contrasts this to the lessons you learn at most startups: “If you’re at a startup that fails, you will learn the lesson that it’s impossible to build a great company and that you should try something less ambitious the next time around. If you’re at a startup where things work too easily [such as Microsoft or Google], you learn the lesson that it’s actually easy to build a great company.” He continues: “Hard is somehow better than easy or impossible. If it’s easy, you don’t need to work hard. If it’s impossible, there’s no point in working hard. So easy and impossible converge to not working hard. Hard tells you you have to work hard.” Video source: This Week in Startups @jason (2015)

Peter Thiel on the most important lesson he learned building PayPal The early employees of PayPal went on to build incredible companies like Tesla, SpaceX, LinkedIn, YouTube, Palantir, Yelp, Yammer, and more. When asked about the factors that explain these outlier successes, Thiel suggests that it was probably a combination of several different things: an entrepreneurial culture, lots of strong personalities, and the early 2000s was a great time to start a company. But Thiel also says that the overarching lesson you learned working at PayPal—which had a lot of challenges but ended up succeeding—was: “You can build a great company, but it’s hard.” He contrasts this to the lessons you learn at most startups: “If you’re at a startup that fails, you will learn the lesson that it’s impossible to build a great company and that you should try something less ambitious the next time around. If you’re at a startup where things work too easily [such as Microsoft or Google], you learn the lesson that it’s actually easy to build a great company.” He continues: “Hard is somehow better than easy or impossible. If it’s easy, you don’t need to work hard. If it’s impossible, there’s no point in working hard. So easy and impossible converge to not working hard. Hard tells you you have to work hard.” Video source: This Week in Startups @jason (2015)

Startup Archive

105,347 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on why shortcuts worked perfectly for Boomers but are “deadly” if you’re a Millennial Thiel believes the effectiveness of “shortcuts” in life oscillates from generation to generation: “It’s a good idea to take shortcuts in a world where nobody takes shortcuts. In a world where everybody takes shortcuts, maybe the shortcut isn’t going to work and you’re actually better off figuring out the other thing.” He gives politics as an example: “The shortcut in politics is, ‘I’m not going to figure out what I think about the issues; I’m just going to look at the polls.’ The pollster was the one who was really for President, and that was an effective Boomer technique for many years. If you had a better pollster, you could more quickly get to where the crowd was going, and you didn’t need to waste time thinking about stuff. In a world where very few people are doing it, that can be a very good strategy. But by the time you get to the Millennials — when everyone’s been trained to take shortcuts — it doesn’t quite work.” Thiel continues: “It vaguely maps onto tracking. Tracking in school or tracking professionally is a shortcut to a successful career. Baby Boomers who stayed on track did quite well… you went to law school, you became a partner at a law firm, and the tracks worked. By the time we get to the Millennials, they know all the tracks you’re supposed to do, but the tracks work less well when everyone knows them and everyone’s doing the same thing. There are these similarities between the Millennials and the Boomers, but in practice it’s working really differently. The things that would’ve worked perfectly for you as a Boomer are deadly if you’re a Millennial.” Video source: Dave Rubin Dave RubinShow (2018)

Peter Thiel on why shortcuts worked perfectly for Boomers but are “deadly” if you’re a Millennial Thiel believes the effectiveness of “shortcuts” in life oscillates from generation to generation: “It’s a good idea to take shortcuts in a world where nobody takes shortcuts. In a world where everybody takes shortcuts, maybe the shortcut isn’t going to work and you’re actually better off figuring out the other thing.” He gives politics as an example: “The shortcut in politics is, ‘I’m not going to figure out what I think about the issues; I’m just going to look at the polls.’ The pollster was the one who was really for President, and that was an effective Boomer technique for many years. If you had a better pollster, you could more quickly get to where the crowd was going, and you didn’t need to waste time thinking about stuff. In a world where very few people are doing it, that can be a very good strategy. But by the time you get to the Millennials — when everyone’s been trained to take shortcuts — it doesn’t quite work.” Thiel continues: “It vaguely maps onto tracking. Tracking in school or tracking professionally is a shortcut to a successful career. Baby Boomers who stayed on track did quite well… you went to law school, you became a partner at a law firm, and the tracks worked. By the time we get to the Millennials, they know all the tracks you’re supposed to do, but the tracks work less well when everyone knows them and everyone’s doing the same thing. There are these similarities between the Millennials and the Boomers, but in practice it’s working really differently. The things that would’ve worked perfectly for you as a Boomer are deadly if you’re a Millennial.” Video source: Dave Rubin Dave RubinShow (2018)

Startup Archive

146,459 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on the difference between the best founders and “professional CEOs” In his book Zero To One, which is approaching its 10-year anniversary, Thiel wrote: “We need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.” And while he doesn’t believe there’s a simple magic formula for what a founder looks like, Thiel observes: “A lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity - their life’s project.” He contrasts this to Silicon Valley in the 1990s when lots of founders were replaced with professional CEOs. Thiel believes it made a big difference when it became more common for founders run the companies. He gives the example of a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg turning down a billion dollar acquisition from Yahoo: “If you had a professional CEO, it would have just been: ‘I can’t believe they’re offering us a billion dollars. I’m going to try not to be too eager. We better take the money and run.’” Video Source: The Aspen Institute

Peter Thiel on the difference between the best founders and “professional CEOs” In his book Zero To One, which is approaching its 10-year anniversary, Thiel wrote: “We need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.” And while he doesn’t believe there’s a simple magic formula for what a founder looks like, Thiel observes: “A lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity - their life’s project.” He contrasts this to Silicon Valley in the 1990s when lots of founders were replaced with professional CEOs. Thiel believes it made a big difference when it became more common for founders run the companies. He gives the example of a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg turning down a billion dollar acquisition from Yahoo: “If you had a professional CEO, it would have just been: ‘I can’t believe they’re offering us a billion dollars. I’m going to try not to be too eager. We better take the money and run.’” Video Source: The Aspen Institute

Startup Archive

90,936 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Peter Thiel: There is no wisdom of crowds Thiel suggests that the antithesis of his book Zero To One is Malcolm Gladwell’s The Wisdom of Crowds. “If you have to give credit to Malcolm Gladwell, the way the argument actually works in the wisdom of crowds is if you have a crowd of people and they independently make a judgement, you can average it out and you’ll get to a pretty good idea.” The classic example is asking a group of people to independently guess how many marbles are in a bag—the average answer will be pretty good. “But the problem is that in most cases, the decisions don’t end up getting made individually.” Thiel explains. “People are influenced by one another. And when you have a crowd dynamic in which people are drawing conclusions because they’re looking toward one another, that is where the crowd is untruth.” Thiel believes imitation is a deep part of human nature: “Kids learn language by copying their parents. It’s how culture is transmitted in our society. But it’s also how very many things go wrong.” Thiel believes you need to go against the crowd if you want to accomplish something truly great. He points out that many of the most successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley seem to be suffering from a mild form of Aspergers. Video source: Saïd Business School (2015)

Peter Thiel: There is no wisdom of crowds Thiel suggests that the antithesis of his book Zero To One is Malcolm Gladwell’s The Wisdom of Crowds. “If you have to give credit to Malcolm Gladwell, the way the argument actually works in the wisdom of crowds is if you have a crowd of people and they independently make a judgement, you can average it out and you’ll get to a pretty good idea.” The classic example is asking a group of people to independently guess how many marbles are in a bag—the average answer will be pretty good. “But the problem is that in most cases, the decisions don’t end up getting made individually.” Thiel explains. “People are influenced by one another. And when you have a crowd dynamic in which people are drawing conclusions because they’re looking toward one another, that is where the crowd is untruth.” Thiel believes imitation is a deep part of human nature: “Kids learn language by copying their parents. It’s how culture is transmitted in our society. But it’s also how very many things go wrong.” Thiel believes you need to go against the crowd if you want to accomplish something truly great. He points out that many of the most successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley seem to be suffering from a mild form of Aspergers. Video source: Saïd Business School (2015)

Startup Archive

457,561 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on the difference between the best founders and “professional CEOs” In his book Zero To One, Thiel wrote: “We need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.” And while he doesn’t believe there’s a simple magic formula for what a founder looks like, Thiel observes: “A lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity - their life’s project.” He contrasts this to Silicon Valley in the 1990s when lots of founders were replaced with professional CEOs. Thiel believes it made a big difference when it became more common for founders run the companies. He gives the example of a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg turning down a billion dollar acquisition from Yahoo: “If you had a professional CEO, it would have just been: ‘I can’t believe they’re offering us a billion dollars. I’m going to try not to be too eager. We better take the money and run.’” Source: The Aspen Institute (Jun 2024)

Peter Thiel on the difference between the best founders and “professional CEOs” In his book Zero To One, Thiel wrote: “We need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.” And while he doesn’t believe there’s a simple magic formula for what a founder looks like, Thiel observes: “A lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity - their life’s project.” He contrasts this to Silicon Valley in the 1990s when lots of founders were replaced with professional CEOs. Thiel believes it made a big difference when it became more common for founders run the companies. He gives the example of a 22 year old Mark Zuckerberg turning down a billion dollar acquisition from Yahoo: “If you had a professional CEO, it would have just been: ‘I can’t believe they’re offering us a billion dollars. I’m going to try not to be too eager. We better take the money and run.’” Source: The Aspen Institute (Jun 2024)

Startup Archive

26,078 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Max Levchin on how Peter Thiel reacted to losing his entire investment in Luke Nosek’s failed startup When assembling the found team for PayPal, Max Levchin wanted to recruit Luke Nosek. But he was worried at how Peter Thiel would react given that Peter lost his entire investment in Luke’s failed startup SmartCal: “I was certain that Luke and Peter would not get along because Luke had just lost all the money Peter invested in his startup… I never had investors up until this point, so I was really not familiar with the relationship you have” With trepidation he told Peter that Luke was really bright and worth trying to work with again. And he was surprised at Peter’s response: “Oh of course. I should’ve thought of that myself.” So you’re not mad it him? Max asked. “No, he’s brilliant.” Then Peter recruited Luke while Max recruited the rest of the PayPal founding team. After PayPal, Luke went on to work at Peter Thiel’s venture firm, Founders Fund. I think there’s a really important lesson here. Statistically, the vast majority of startups fail, and the best investors know how hard it is to build something brand new and innovative. Very few people succeed on the first go-around, and it’s not necessarily a reflection on you if your startup fails. Obviously you don’t want to fail, but as Vinod Khosla puts it: to do something exceptional, you have to be willing to fail.

Startup Archive

63,626 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Peter Thiel on what he doesn’t like about the Lean Startup Thiel believes there are merits to the Lean Startup, but he thinks founders today may have over-indexed on it: “I do think we tend to be dominated by a somewhat nihilistic bias where we claim not to know anything. And when you don’t know anything, you end up defaulting too much to the experimental search, A/B testing approach of ‘Let’s ask the customers.’ And I would say the problem with that is that the search space is simply way too big.” In practice, Thiel argues for a more definite view of the future: “This is an important problem that needs to be solved, and this is the set of things we have to combine in just this way to do it.” To be fair, Steve Blank—who pioneered the Lean Startup methodology—isn’t necessarily against this approach. Blank just recommends treating your assumptions as “a series of untested hypotheses.” But there’s clearly a balance between having a definite view of the future and rigorously trying to disprove your assumptions. As Thiel explains, many of the PayPal founding team’s initial assumptions were wrong: “At PayPal, our original business plan was to have payments on Palm Pilots, then it was wireless payments, then it was payments linked to email. So we had a few fairly big pivots in the first year. I’m not sure there’s anything especially virtuous about that — if you have a dumb idea, it’s important to change it — but it’s not virtuous to have a really bad idea in the first place.” Source: Saïd Business School (May 2015)

Peter Thiel on what he doesn’t like about the Lean Startup Thiel believes there are merits to the Lean Startup, but he thinks founders today may have over-indexed on it: “I do think we tend to be dominated by a somewhat nihilistic bias where we claim not to know anything. And when you don’t know anything, you end up defaulting too much to the experimental search, A/B testing approach of ‘Let’s ask the customers.’ And I would say the problem with that is that the search space is simply way too big.” In practice, Thiel argues for a more definite view of the future: “This is an important problem that needs to be solved, and this is the set of things we have to combine in just this way to do it.” To be fair, Steve Blank—who pioneered the Lean Startup methodology—isn’t necessarily against this approach. Blank just recommends treating your assumptions as “a series of untested hypotheses.” But there’s clearly a balance between having a definite view of the future and rigorously trying to disprove your assumptions. As Thiel explains, many of the PayPal founding team’s initial assumptions were wrong: “At PayPal, our original business plan was to have payments on Palm Pilots, then it was wireless payments, then it was payments linked to email. So we had a few fairly big pivots in the first year. I’m not sure there’s anything especially virtuous about that — if you have a dumb idea, it’s important to change it — but it’s not virtuous to have a really bad idea in the first place.” Source: Saïd Business School (May 2015)

Startup Archive

20,750 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Peter Thiel on why all trends are overrated and one-of-a-kind companies are underrated Peter Thiel is asked what students should study in college. He thinks this is similar to the question “what are future trends in technology?” “What I will say about trends in technology and areas of study is that they’re probably all overrated,” Thiel explains. “When you have something that can be reduced to a buzzword, it means that a lot of people are doing it and they’re somehow inadequately differentiated in that field.” On the other hand, Thiel believes that one-of-a-kind companies that don’t easily fit into an existing narrative or trend are underrated. He gives Airbnb as an example—any existing category would miss the uniqueness of the business. “Great companies always have this one-of-a-kind attribute,” Thiel observes. And he suspects that areas of study are similar: “If you’re in a big area of study, where everyone’s studying the same thing, you’re not adequately differentiating yourself from other people… I think people are spending too much time studying the things everybody else is studying, and they’re spending too little time studying more particular things that they’re really passionate about.” Video source: Northwestern Engineering (2014)

Peter Thiel on why all trends are overrated and one-of-a-kind companies are underrated Peter Thiel is asked what students should study in college. He thinks this is similar to the question “what are future trends in technology?” “What I will say about trends in technology and areas of study is that they’re probably all overrated,” Thiel explains. “When you have something that can be reduced to a buzzword, it means that a lot of people are doing it and they’re somehow inadequately differentiated in that field.” On the other hand, Thiel believes that one-of-a-kind companies that don’t easily fit into an existing narrative or trend are underrated. He gives Airbnb as an example—any existing category would miss the uniqueness of the business. “Great companies always have this one-of-a-kind attribute,” Thiel observes. And he suspects that areas of study are similar: “If you’re in a big area of study, where everyone’s studying the same thing, you’re not adequately differentiating yourself from other people… I think people are spending too much time studying the things everybody else is studying, and they’re spending too little time studying more particular things that they’re really passionate about.” Video source: Northwestern Engineering (2014)

Startup Archive

139,271 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel: world-class entrepreneurs are typically polymaths “I think that one kind of perspective for a lot of the world-class entrepreneurs is that they’re not specialists. They’re something closer to polymaths.” Thiel continues: “If you have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, he’d be able to speak with a surprising amount of understanding about a lot of things. He can speak about the details of the Facebook product. He can talk about the way people think about social media — the psychology and the way the culture is shifting. Management of the company, he has ideas on that. He has ideas on how [Facebook] fits into the bigger history of technology.” Thiel then contrasts this to a more typical academic view: “The academic view is that you’re sort of a narrow expert on one thing and that’s what you do. But it’s much more this polymath-like intellect that understands all these different things.” Video source: Dave Rubin Dave RubinShow (2018)

Peter Thiel: world-class entrepreneurs are typically polymaths “I think that one kind of perspective for a lot of the world-class entrepreneurs is that they’re not specialists. They’re something closer to polymaths.” Thiel continues: “If you have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, he’d be able to speak with a surprising amount of understanding about a lot of things. He can speak about the details of the Facebook product. He can talk about the way people think about social media — the psychology and the way the culture is shifting. Management of the company, he has ideas on that. He has ideas on how [Facebook] fits into the bigger history of technology.” Thiel then contrasts this to a more typical academic view: “The academic view is that you’re sort of a narrow expert on one thing and that’s what you do. But it’s much more this polymath-like intellect that understands all these different things.” Video source: Dave Rubin Dave RubinShow (2018)

Startup Archive

121,816 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

How Jeffrey Epstein rose from maths nerd, to a financial fixer for elites, to the boss of blackmail: ‘If you look at Epstein’s operation, what it looks like to me is that it’s a criminal operation on a number of different levels. Epstein is an interesting case because where does he come from? Well, he doesn’t come from a wealthy family. He doesn’t come from an influential family. He was a Long Island kid who was good at mathematics…he was a kind of smart, nerdy kid who made friends by doing their math homework. You’re not popular because you’re a jock. You’re not popular necessarily because you’re that good-looking or you dance well. You’re popular because you can do other people’s math homework and get them to pass. His whole career is ingratiating himself to wealthy, powerful people. What did he do as a financial advisor? Look at it. Just stand back and look at what he did. And what he did was that he helped them dodge taxes. He also helped them hide money. He could help people discover money that had been hidden abroad. He could help them hide money. If you do one, you can do the other. And that’s how he moved as a kind of fixer and arranger into the realm of the rich and powerful. And in that process, either he or other people who were working with him found out that these people can be compromised in a number of ways. And so then you start installing cameras in your residences, in the bedrooms and the bathrooms. There’s only one reason you do that. It’s fairly simple. The only reason why you collect all of this video information on your rich and powerful friends is to potentially use it as leverage against them. You don’t have to actually use it. You simply have to make them aware that you have it and could use it.’ -Prof. Richard Spence on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW:

How Jeffrey Epstein rose from maths nerd, to a financial fixer for elites, to the boss of blackmail: ‘If you look at Epstein’s operation, what it looks like to me is that it’s a criminal operation on a number of different levels. Epstein is an interesting case because where does he come from? Well, he doesn’t come from a wealthy family. He doesn’t come from an influential family. He was a Long Island kid who was good at mathematics…he was a kind of smart, nerdy kid who made friends by doing their math homework. You’re not popular because you’re a jock. You’re not popular necessarily because you’re that good-looking or you dance well. You’re popular because you can do other people’s math homework and get them to pass. His whole career is ingratiating himself to wealthy, powerful people. What did he do as a financial advisor? Look at it. Just stand back and look at what he did. And what he did was that he helped them dodge taxes. He also helped them hide money. He could help people discover money that had been hidden abroad. He could help them hide money. If you do one, you can do the other. And that’s how he moved as a kind of fixer and arranger into the realm of the rich and powerful. And in that process, either he or other people who were working with him found out that these people can be compromised in a number of ways. And so then you start installing cameras in your residences, in the bedrooms and the bathrooms. There’s only one reason you do that. It’s fairly simple. The only reason why you collect all of this video information on your rich and powerful friends is to potentially use it as leverage against them. You don’t have to actually use it. You simply have to make them aware that you have it and could use it.’ -Prof. Richard Spence on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW:

Going Underground

68,766 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Keith Rabois on the “one person, one problem" framework he learned from Peter Thiel “You need to spend a lot of time focusing people. This is something I learned from Peter Thiel. He used to insist at PayPal that every single person could only do exactly one thing. And we all rebelled. You feel like it’s insulting to be asked to do just one thing, but Peter would enforce this pretty strictly.” Thiel would say: “I will not talk to you about anything else except for this one thing that I’ve assigned to you. I don’t want to hear about how great your doing in this other area. Just focus until you conquer this one problem.” Keith explains: “The insight behind this is that most people will solve problems that they understand how to solve. Roughly speaking, they will solve B+ problems instead of A+ problems. A+ problems are high-impact problems for your company but they’re difficult—you don’t wake up in the morning with a solution to them, so you tend to procrastinate… If you have a company that’s always solving B+ problems, you’ll grow and add value, but you’ll never create the breakthrough idea because no one is spending 100% of their time banging their head against the wall every day until they solve it.” Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Keith Rabois on the “one person, one problem" framework he learned from Peter Thiel “You need to spend a lot of time focusing people. This is something I learned from Peter Thiel. He used to insist at PayPal that every single person could only do exactly one thing. And we all rebelled. You feel like it’s insulting to be asked to do just one thing, but Peter would enforce this pretty strictly.” Thiel would say: “I will not talk to you about anything else except for this one thing that I’ve assigned to you. I don’t want to hear about how great your doing in this other area. Just focus until you conquer this one problem.” Keith explains: “The insight behind this is that most people will solve problems that they understand how to solve. Roughly speaking, they will solve B+ problems instead of A+ problems. A+ problems are high-impact problems for your company but they’re difficult—you don’t wake up in the morning with a solution to them, so you tend to procrastinate… If you have a company that’s always solving B+ problems, you’ll grow and add value, but you’ll never create the breakthrough idea because no one is spending 100% of their time banging their head against the wall every day until they solve it.” Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Startup Archive

81,796 просмотров • 1 год назад

.Keith Rabois on the most important lesson he learned from Peter Thiel: You can’t hire anybody over 30. “Peter might not say it exactly the same way today, but basically, what he was trying to say is this: by the time you’re 30, everyone on the planet knows how to assess you pretty accurately. There are enough data points on your resume—back then, it was your resume, and today, it’s your LinkedIn profile—so that everybody can come to a consensus view about your abilities. But if you come to a consensus view about everybody’s abilities, guess what? Google is going to spend a lot of money on that person. Or OpenAI is going to spend a lot of money on that person. Or Meta is going to spend a lot of money on that person. And, when you’re a startup, you can’t outspend large companies that are very profitable or have infinite money like OpenAI. You need to be much more disciplined, much more frugal, and you may not even want to hire these people. The people who are motivated by that much compensation may not even be the right builders. I took that advice with me literally from November 2000, and I’ve been trying to apply it for 24 years now.”

Arjun Khemani

3,782,075 просмотров • 1 год назад

Peter Thiel just named the rule that decided if Elon Musk stayed or left. It has nothing to do with left or right. Thiel: "I've known Elon since 2000. He was never doctrinaire, but for the first 20 years, he was left of center." Tesla. Clean energy. Electric cars. About as left of center as it gets. Then the terms changed. Thiel: "This intellectual straitjacket where you're not allowed to have ideas. Even if you agree with 80%, it's never enough. You have to be 100%." No idea on Earth requires 100% agreement. Only power does. Thiel: "There's just no individuality left whatsoever." Thiel: "The Democratic Party, it's like the Empire. They're all Imperial stormtroopers. We're the ragtag Rebel Alliance." Not just him. Every institution that used to reward the odd ones now filters them out before they rise. He didn't change. The room did. Thiel: "It certainly seemed incredibly dangerous to me what he did, incredibly courageous." Thiel: "Elon gave people a great deal of cover." Not because he won the argument. Because he went first. The straitjacket only holds you if you believe you need permission. Everyone still wearing one is calling it a coat.

Peter Thiel just named the rule that decided if Elon Musk stayed or left. It has nothing to do with left or right. Thiel: "I've known Elon since 2000. He was never doctrinaire, but for the first 20 years, he was left of center." Tesla. Clean energy. Electric cars. About as left of center as it gets. Then the terms changed. Thiel: "This intellectual straitjacket where you're not allowed to have ideas. Even if you agree with 80%, it's never enough. You have to be 100%." No idea on Earth requires 100% agreement. Only power does. Thiel: "There's just no individuality left whatsoever." Thiel: "The Democratic Party, it's like the Empire. They're all Imperial stormtroopers. We're the ragtag Rebel Alliance." Not just him. Every institution that used to reward the odd ones now filters them out before they rise. He didn't change. The room did. Thiel: "It certainly seemed incredibly dangerous to me what he did, incredibly courageous." Thiel: "Elon gave people a great deal of cover." Not because he won the argument. Because he went first. The straitjacket only holds you if you believe you need permission. Everyone still wearing one is calling it a coat.

Dustin

510,098 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

.JD Vance rejects the notion that his relationship with Peter Thiel is about ushering in a high tech oligarchy. Instead, he credits Thiel for helping open his eyes to Christianity: “I was in law school. I was calling myself an atheist at the time. And [Thiel] came and gave a talk, and he talked more about spirituality and religion than he did about business or politics. And I sort of realized, whether you agree or disagree with this guy, his Christianity is much more interesting than the atheism of the people that I see surrounding me. Seeing this guy, who was smarter than anybody I had met, who was obviously very wealthy, very successful... realizing that this idea that I had in my head, that Christianity was for superstitious people and atheism was for smart people, and that was the categorization that I had made falsely. And there were a lot of people, Peter was one of them, who slowly, over time, revealed that to be fundamentally an arrogance that was deeply corrosive to my soul.”

.JD Vance rejects the notion that his relationship with Peter Thiel is about ushering in a high tech oligarchy. Instead, he credits Thiel for helping open his eyes to Christianity: “I was in law school. I was calling myself an atheist at the time. And [Thiel] came and gave a talk, and he talked more about spirituality and religion than he did about business or politics. And I sort of realized, whether you agree or disagree with this guy, his Christianity is much more interesting than the atheism of the people that I see surrounding me. Seeing this guy, who was smarter than anybody I had met, who was obviously very wealthy, very successful... realizing that this idea that I had in my head, that Christianity was for superstitious people and atheism was for smart people, and that was the categorization that I had made falsely. And there were a lot of people, Peter was one of them, who slowly, over time, revealed that to be fundamentally an arrogance that was deeply corrosive to my soul.”

Glenn Beck

69,811 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

MIND BLOWING 🤯 Patrick Wood connects J.D. Vance, Don Trump Jr., Charlie Kirk, and Peter Thiel via the 1789 capital firm. The firm's first investment? Tucker Carlson. Howse: "What do you think the goal and objective is of these folks? ...Technocracy?" Wood: "Absolutely." This clip of Patrick Wood (Patrick Wood), an economic and market forecaster, speaker, and author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, is taken from an interview with Brannon Howse (Brannon Howse) posted to YouTube on November 7, 2025. Note that Wood says that "We see Peter Thiel in everything going back at least 25 years, starting with the PayPal mafia. And now he's just everywhere you look. And all of a sudden he shows up here in this story where he's with J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He's everywhere, it seems like. And this is not a mistake for sure." ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Wood: "This is so deep at this point. I'm still kind of figuring out where all of these connections are. But we see John Don Jr. JD Vance, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson." Howse: "Wait a minute. Charlie Kirk was at this meeting? Wood: "Not exactly, but he was one of the first investors in the 1789 capital firm." Howse: "Was he really?" Wood: "Yes, he was. [And] this basically kind of debunks the idea that, he had a brush-in with Peter Thiel when he was in college, or before he went to college." Howse: "And you're, talking about JD Vance now?" Wood: "No, I'm talking about Charlie Kirk. Okay. Ch— Charlie Kirk, applied for a grant from Peter Thiel. He didn't get it, but nevertheless he was there, okay? When he was under 20 years old. So I would have dismissed that. Okay, he did it, he lost, and he didn't get anywhere. But now it comes out there was a relationship all along with Peter thiel because the 1789 capital fund included Peter Thiel as well. He's one of the architects of it, if you will. And he was a friend of all these people, including J.D. Vance. And of course J.D. Vance is his protege. But now it appears that Charlie Kirk knew exactly what he was doing with Peter Thiel and he dumped a lot of money into the 1789 capital fund." Howse: "And you have that documented?" Wood: "Yep. Well, it's in this doc. It's in this article. It said plainly, says he, he was one of the first investors." Howse: "And what was the— What is the goal of this organization that you say he and others were investing in?" Wood: "Well, this was, this is a venture capital company and you know, they invest in companies. Like the first investment they made was to fund What was Carlson's network? TCN, I think it was, right? ...That was their first investment. So their idea was to invest in non-Woke companies and that included I guess, TCN, that was the first thing they put money into. But they've invested in other companies since. So it's been very profitable for the people who did this. And now we see that Omeed Malik. Malik Perhaps, he's the CEO of 1789 Capital." Howse: "Let me go back to the article. It says, the impact of Rockbridge and Super PACS on the 2024 election is not well understood. Rockbridge's affiliated Super PAC. Turnout for America was one of a handful of groups that canvassed swing states on behalf of the Trump campaign, including Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Action. Turnout for America spent 34.5 million on the 2024 cycle, according to FCC records. Far less than the 261 million from Elon Musk and America's PAC. So what you're seeing is they worked very hard to get Donald Trump elected. Is this why we're seeing Donald Trump go so big with the Tech Bros?" Wood: "Apparently so. It seems. You know, it seems like this whole— This whole thing was architected by Peter Thiel in the first place. We document this in our book the Final Betrayal. We write a lot about Peter Thiel and documenting exactly where he came from, how he's done all this stuff, how he strategized. He's a master strategist for sure. But he was. We see Peter Thiel in everything going back at least 25 years, starting with the PayPal mafia. And now he's just everywhere you look. And all of a sudden he shows up here in this story where, where he's with J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He's everywhere, it seems like. And, this is not a mistake for sure." Howse: "So what do you think the goal and objective is of these folks? Is it just technocracy?" Wood: "Absolutely. Absolutely. So these people, they're. Well, they're one column for sure. There's other people who want to take over the country as well and take over the world. Like the old song says, everybody wants to take over the world." Howse: "Do you think it's possible that Charlie Kirk got into this and saw what was going on, was about to blow the whistle on any of this?" Wood: "This is a good possibility. I wouldn't say that outright, but I think I'm, I'm thinking it, Okay?"

MIND BLOWING 🤯 Patrick Wood connects J.D. Vance, Don Trump Jr., Charlie Kirk, and Peter Thiel via the 1789 capital firm. The firm's first investment? Tucker Carlson. Howse: "What do you think the goal and objective is of these folks? ...Technocracy?" Wood: "Absolutely." This clip of Patrick Wood (Patrick Wood), an economic and market forecaster, speaker, and author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, is taken from an interview with Brannon Howse (Brannon Howse) posted to YouTube on November 7, 2025. Note that Wood says that "We see Peter Thiel in everything going back at least 25 years, starting with the PayPal mafia. And now he's just everywhere you look. And all of a sudden he shows up here in this story where he's with J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He's everywhere, it seems like. And this is not a mistake for sure." ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Wood: "This is so deep at this point. I'm still kind of figuring out where all of these connections are. But we see John Don Jr. JD Vance, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson." Howse: "Wait a minute. Charlie Kirk was at this meeting? Wood: "Not exactly, but he was one of the first investors in the 1789 capital firm." Howse: "Was he really?" Wood: "Yes, he was. [And] this basically kind of debunks the idea that, he had a brush-in with Peter Thiel when he was in college, or before he went to college." Howse: "And you're, talking about JD Vance now?" Wood: "No, I'm talking about Charlie Kirk. Okay. Ch— Charlie Kirk, applied for a grant from Peter Thiel. He didn't get it, but nevertheless he was there, okay? When he was under 20 years old. So I would have dismissed that. Okay, he did it, he lost, and he didn't get anywhere. But now it comes out there was a relationship all along with Peter thiel because the 1789 capital fund included Peter Thiel as well. He's one of the architects of it, if you will. And he was a friend of all these people, including J.D. Vance. And of course J.D. Vance is his protege. But now it appears that Charlie Kirk knew exactly what he was doing with Peter Thiel and he dumped a lot of money into the 1789 capital fund." Howse: "And you have that documented?" Wood: "Yep. Well, it's in this doc. It's in this article. It said plainly, says he, he was one of the first investors." Howse: "And what was the— What is the goal of this organization that you say he and others were investing in?" Wood: "Well, this was, this is a venture capital company and you know, they invest in companies. Like the first investment they made was to fund What was Carlson's network? TCN, I think it was, right? ...That was their first investment. So their idea was to invest in non-Woke companies and that included I guess, TCN, that was the first thing they put money into. But they've invested in other companies since. So it's been very profitable for the people who did this. And now we see that Omeed Malik. Malik Perhaps, he's the CEO of 1789 Capital." Howse: "Let me go back to the article. It says, the impact of Rockbridge and Super PACS on the 2024 election is not well understood. Rockbridge's affiliated Super PAC. Turnout for America was one of a handful of groups that canvassed swing states on behalf of the Trump campaign, including Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Action. Turnout for America spent 34.5 million on the 2024 cycle, according to FCC records. Far less than the 261 million from Elon Musk and America's PAC. So what you're seeing is they worked very hard to get Donald Trump elected. Is this why we're seeing Donald Trump go so big with the Tech Bros?" Wood: "Apparently so. It seems. You know, it seems like this whole— This whole thing was architected by Peter Thiel in the first place. We document this in our book the Final Betrayal. We write a lot about Peter Thiel and documenting exactly where he came from, how he's done all this stuff, how he strategized. He's a master strategist for sure. But he was. We see Peter Thiel in everything going back at least 25 years, starting with the PayPal mafia. And now he's just everywhere you look. And all of a sudden he shows up here in this story where, where he's with J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He's everywhere, it seems like. And, this is not a mistake for sure." Howse: "So what do you think the goal and objective is of these folks? Is it just technocracy?" Wood: "Absolutely. Absolutely. So these people, they're. Well, they're one column for sure. There's other people who want to take over the country as well and take over the world. Like the old song says, everybody wants to take over the world." Howse: "Do you think it's possible that Charlie Kirk got into this and saw what was going on, was about to blow the whistle on any of this?" Wood: "This is a good possibility. I wouldn't say that outright, but I think I'm, I'm thinking it, Okay?"

Sense Receptor

27,796 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel on the importance of reducing internal conflict at a company In his book Zero to One, Peter Thiel stresses the importance of reducing internal conflict within your startup, and the best way to do that is through a clear division of responsibilities: “The best thing I did as a manager at PayPal was to make every person in the company responsible for doing just one thing. Every employee’s one thing was unique, and everyone knew I would evaluate him only on that one thing. I had started doing this just to simplify the task of managing people. But then I noticed a deeper result: defining roles reduced conflict. Most fights inside a company happen when colleagues compete for the same responsibilities. Startups face an especially high risk of this since job roles are fluid at the early stages. Eliminating competition makes it easier for everyone to build the kinds of long-term relationships that transcend mere professionalism. More than that, internal peace is what enables a startup to survive at all. When a startup fails, we often imagine it succumbing to predatory rivals in a competitive ecosystem. But every company is also its own ecosystem, and factional strife makes it vulnerable to outside threats. Internal conflict is like an autoimmune disease: the technical cause of death may be pneumonia, but the real cause remains hidden from plain view.” He elaborates on this a bit more in the clip below: “If you’re a sociopathic boss who wants to mistreat their employees, the formula for doing it is to tell two people to do the exact same thing. You will automatically generate a conflict out of nothing at all.” Video source: The Wharton School (2014)

Peter Thiel on the importance of reducing internal conflict at a company In his book Zero to One, Peter Thiel stresses the importance of reducing internal conflict within your startup, and the best way to do that is through a clear division of responsibilities: “The best thing I did as a manager at PayPal was to make every person in the company responsible for doing just one thing. Every employee’s one thing was unique, and everyone knew I would evaluate him only on that one thing. I had started doing this just to simplify the task of managing people. But then I noticed a deeper result: defining roles reduced conflict. Most fights inside a company happen when colleagues compete for the same responsibilities. Startups face an especially high risk of this since job roles are fluid at the early stages. Eliminating competition makes it easier for everyone to build the kinds of long-term relationships that transcend mere professionalism. More than that, internal peace is what enables a startup to survive at all. When a startup fails, we often imagine it succumbing to predatory rivals in a competitive ecosystem. But every company is also its own ecosystem, and factional strife makes it vulnerable to outside threats. Internal conflict is like an autoimmune disease: the technical cause of death may be pneumonia, but the real cause remains hidden from plain view.” He elaborates on this a bit more in the clip below: “If you’re a sociopathic boss who wants to mistreat their employees, the formula for doing it is to tell two people to do the exact same thing. You will automatically generate a conflict out of nothing at all.” Video source: The Wharton School (2014)

Startup Archive

58,213 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)

Startup Archive

45,584 просмотров • 1 год назад