Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Peter Thiel's advice to early-stage startups: "One basic frame is that if you're starting a company, you always start small. So how do you get to monopoly when you're small? Answer, you start with a very small market. And the conventional business thing is always you want to go...

Founder_Mode_'s profile picture

Founder Mode

169,409 subscribers

39,870 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & PoliticsFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Peter Thiel on the importance of starting with a small market “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition. Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he uses clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion dollar market as an example: “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” Video source: Y Combinator (2014)
3:57

Peter Thiel on the importance of starting with a small market “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition. Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he uses clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion dollar market as an example: “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Startup Archive

71,793 views • 8 months ago

Q: Is it better to target a small market or a large one? In the clip below, Peter Thiel (billionaire venture capitalist and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir) describes his framework for evaluating markets: “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition.” He continues: “Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he used clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion-dollar market as an example. “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” You can then expand concentrically from there. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!
4:31

Q: Is it better to target a small market or a large one? In the clip below, Peter Thiel (billionaire venture capitalist and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir) describes his framework for evaluating markets: “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition.” He continues: “Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he used clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion-dollar market as an example. “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” You can then expand concentrically from there. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

84,096 views • 2 years ago

Q: Is it better to target a small market or a large one? In the clip below, Peter Thiel (billionaire venture capitalist and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir) describes his framework for evaluating markets: “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition.” He continues: “Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he uses clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion dollar market as an example. “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” You can then expand concentrically from there.
4:31

Q: Is it better to target a small market or a large one? In the clip below, Peter Thiel (billionaire venture capitalist and co-founder of PayPal and Palantir) describes his framework for evaluating markets: “It’s always a big mistake going after a giant market on day 1. That’s typically evidence that you haven’t defined the categories correctly, and there’s going to be too much competition.” He continues: “Almost all of the successful companies in Silicon Valley had some model of starting with small markets and expanding.” Amazon started with books eBay started with Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies PayPal started with power-sellers on eBay Facebook started with Harvard “What’s very counterintuitive about many of these companies is that they often start with markets so small that most people don’t think they’re valuable at all.” The opposite of this is companies that start out targeting really big markets, and he uses clean tech companies in 2005-2008 trying to capture a small percentage of a trillion dollar market as an example. “Once you’re a minnow in a vast ocean, that’s not a good place to be. It means you have tons of competitors, and you don’t even know who all of the competitors are.” As Thiel puts it: “You want to be a one-of-a-kind company where it’s the only one in a small ecosystem… large existing markets typically mean you have tons of competition and it’s very hard to differentiate.” You can then expand concentrically from there.

Michael McGuiness

1,534,639 views • 2 years ago

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."
2:15

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

38,974 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”
2:43

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,320 views • 4 months ago

Elon Musk: Radical deregulation is necessary in Europe. If that means leaving the EU, it means leaving the EU. “Europe is overregulated. There are too many rules and regulations that make it very difficult to create a company and do too much to protect large companies at the expense of small to medium-sized companies. So, the net result is you have a bunch of very small companies in Europe and then it's small number of very large companies, but then not much in the middle. So, there needs to be a way to go from being a small company if you're making great products and services to be able to scale to ultimately become a big company. But you have effectively regulatory capture by the large corporations in Europe. They don't really want to reduce the regulatory burden and they like the fact that the regulations effectively protect their duopolies or monopolies in some cases. So really, I think it's up to the government to say no, we have to foster small companies and allow them to compete and reduce regulations because the regulatory situation in Europe is stifling and Brussels is amplifying that greatly. So you have both the local regulations, the country regulations and then you have the EU regulations. There's so many regulations in Europe, it makes it extremely difficult to start a company and be successful. So, I think radical deregulation is necessary in Europe. And if that means leaving the EU, it means leaving the EU.” From: Interview with Matteo Salvini, April 5, 2025
1:39

Elon Musk: Radical deregulation is necessary in Europe. If that means leaving the EU, it means leaving the EU. “Europe is overregulated. There are too many rules and regulations that make it very difficult to create a company and do too much to protect large companies at the expense of small to medium-sized companies. So, the net result is you have a bunch of very small companies in Europe and then it's small number of very large companies, but then not much in the middle. So, there needs to be a way to go from being a small company if you're making great products and services to be able to scale to ultimately become a big company. But you have effectively regulatory capture by the large corporations in Europe. They don't really want to reduce the regulatory burden and they like the fact that the regulations effectively protect their duopolies or monopolies in some cases. So really, I think it's up to the government to say no, we have to foster small companies and allow them to compete and reduce regulations because the regulatory situation in Europe is stifling and Brussels is amplifying that greatly. So you have both the local regulations, the country regulations and then you have the EU regulations. There's so many regulations in Europe, it makes it extremely difficult to start a company and be successful. So, I think radical deregulation is necessary in Europe. And if that means leaving the EU, it means leaving the EU.” From: Interview with Matteo Salvini, April 5, 2025

ELON CLIPS

29,261 views • 1 year ago

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”
2:44

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”

Startup Archive

36,050 views • 1 year ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”
3:10

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 6 months ago

Pavel Durov on why he hasn't had depression in 20 years: "I normally never have depression. I don't remember having depression in the last 20 years, at least maybe when I was a teenager." Pavel's approach to difficult emotions is completely counterintuitive. As he puts it: "I'm a human being like everybody else. I do get to experience emotions and some of them are not very pleasant. But I believe that it's the responsibility of every one of us to cope with these emotions and to learn to work through them." On what creates depression: "Self-discipline is particularly important because without it, how can you overcome this seemingly endless loop of negativity or despair that ultimately leads to depression for some people?" His method: "One of the reasons I don't have depression is I start doing things. I identify the problem, I can see a solution, and I start executing the strategy. If you are stuck in this loop of being worried about something, nothing's ever going to change." The mistake people make: "People often make this mistake thinking 'Oh, I should just have some rest and then regain energy.' This is not how it works. You gain energy by doing something. So you start doing something, then it happens. You feel motivated, you feel inspired, and then ultimately you do something else a little bit more." He continues: "The whole point is to do first and then feel, not feel and then do. Going to the gym is a good example. There are many days when you don't want to start working out. But you have to overcome this initial reluctance and then you get to a point that you enjoy it and you think 'Oh my god, it was such a good idea to come to gym today.'" Action creates energy, not the other way around.
2:23

Pavel Durov on why he hasn't had depression in 20 years: "I normally never have depression. I don't remember having depression in the last 20 years, at least maybe when I was a teenager." Pavel's approach to difficult emotions is completely counterintuitive. As he puts it: "I'm a human being like everybody else. I do get to experience emotions and some of them are not very pleasant. But I believe that it's the responsibility of every one of us to cope with these emotions and to learn to work through them." On what creates depression: "Self-discipline is particularly important because without it, how can you overcome this seemingly endless loop of negativity or despair that ultimately leads to depression for some people?" His method: "One of the reasons I don't have depression is I start doing things. I identify the problem, I can see a solution, and I start executing the strategy. If you are stuck in this loop of being worried about something, nothing's ever going to change." The mistake people make: "People often make this mistake thinking 'Oh, I should just have some rest and then regain energy.' This is not how it works. You gain energy by doing something. So you start doing something, then it happens. You feel motivated, you feel inspired, and then ultimately you do something else a little bit more." He continues: "The whole point is to do first and then feel, not feel and then do. Going to the gym is a good example. There are many days when you don't want to start working out. But you have to overcome this initial reluctance and then you get to a point that you enjoy it and you think 'Oh my god, it was such a good idea to come to gym today.'" Action creates energy, not the other way around.

Jaynit

546,947 views • 5 months ago

Naval Ravikant on why it's 10,000 iterations, not 10,000 hours: "The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life. And there are two parts to that: one is getting what you want, so you know how to get it. And the second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place." Naval believes most people are proceeding unconsciously through life. As he puts it: "If you're not careful you can end up in a place in life not only that you don't want to be, but one that you didn't even mean to get to. Usually, people end up there because they are going on autopilot with societal expectations or people's expectations. Out of guilt or mimetic desire, our desires are picked up from other people." On how little time we spend deciding: "We run on these four-year cycles. You go join a startup, you vest your stock over four years. College you go for four years, high school you go for four years. These are very long cycles, the amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with? Very short. Very, very short." He continues: "We spend three months deciding, one month deciding on a job where we're going to be for 10 years or 5 years. People decide frivolously which city to live in and that's going to decide who their friends are, what their jobs are, their opportunity, their weather, their food supply, their air supply, quality of life. It's such an important decision but people spend so little time thinking it through." His rule: "I would argue that if you're making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through. Like really thinking it. 25% of the time." On the secretary theorem: "The optimal time to search is somewhere around a third of the way through. You take the best person you've worked with and try to find someone that good or better. By the time you've got about a third of the way through, you have seen enough that you now have a sense of what the bar is. Then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough." But here's the catch: "It's actually not time-based; it's not based on one-third of the time, it's iteration-based. The number of candidates, the number of shots you took on goal. So you want to have lots and lots of iterations. You need to bail out quickly, and you need to be decisive quickly." On failed relationships: "If you go back and you look through failed relationships, probably the biggest regret will be staying in the relationship after you knew it was over. The moment you knew it wasn't going to work out, you should have moved on." His reframe of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours: "I would say it's actually 10,000 iterations to Mastery. It's not actually 10,000; it's some unknown number, but it's about the number of iterations that drives a learning curve. Iteration is not repetition—repetition is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with a learning and then doing another version of it. That's error correction." On modern society: "Modern society is far more forgiving of failure. Once you find the one business you're meant to plow into and compound returns, it's okay if you had 50 small failed ventures or 50 small failed job interviews. The number of failures doesn't matter." His approach: "You want to be skeptical about specific things—every specific opportunity is probably a fail. But you want to be optimistic in the general. Something in here is going to work out. You want to investigate and explore very, very quickly until you find the match. And then you have to be willing to go all in." On labels: "Labels like pessimist, optimist, cynic, introvert, extrovert, these are very self-limiting. Don't define yourself by trauma or PTSD because then you lock it into your identity and you're just going to loop on it. It's better to stay flexible because reality is always changing and you have to be able to adapt to it." Spend a year deciding. Take 10,000 iterations. Then go all in.
10:05

Naval Ravikant on why it's 10,000 iterations, not 10,000 hours: "The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life. And there are two parts to that: one is getting what you want, so you know how to get it. And the second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place." Naval believes most people are proceeding unconsciously through life. As he puts it: "If you're not careful you can end up in a place in life not only that you don't want to be, but one that you didn't even mean to get to. Usually, people end up there because they are going on autopilot with societal expectations or people's expectations. Out of guilt or mimetic desire, our desires are picked up from other people." On how little time we spend deciding: "We run on these four-year cycles. You go join a startup, you vest your stock over four years. College you go for four years, high school you go for four years. These are very long cycles, the amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with? Very short. Very, very short." He continues: "We spend three months deciding, one month deciding on a job where we're going to be for 10 years or 5 years. People decide frivolously which city to live in and that's going to decide who their friends are, what their jobs are, their opportunity, their weather, their food supply, their air supply, quality of life. It's such an important decision but people spend so little time thinking it through." His rule: "I would argue that if you're making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through. Like really thinking it. 25% of the time." On the secretary theorem: "The optimal time to search is somewhere around a third of the way through. You take the best person you've worked with and try to find someone that good or better. By the time you've got about a third of the way through, you have seen enough that you now have a sense of what the bar is. Then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough." But here's the catch: "It's actually not time-based; it's not based on one-third of the time, it's iteration-based. The number of candidates, the number of shots you took on goal. So you want to have lots and lots of iterations. You need to bail out quickly, and you need to be decisive quickly." On failed relationships: "If you go back and you look through failed relationships, probably the biggest regret will be staying in the relationship after you knew it was over. The moment you knew it wasn't going to work out, you should have moved on." His reframe of Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours: "I would say it's actually 10,000 iterations to Mastery. It's not actually 10,000; it's some unknown number, but it's about the number of iterations that drives a learning curve. Iteration is not repetition—repetition is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with a learning and then doing another version of it. That's error correction." On modern society: "Modern society is far more forgiving of failure. Once you find the one business you're meant to plow into and compound returns, it's okay if you had 50 small failed ventures or 50 small failed job interviews. The number of failures doesn't matter." His approach: "You want to be skeptical about specific things—every specific opportunity is probably a fail. But you want to be optimistic in the general. Something in here is going to work out. You want to investigate and explore very, very quickly until you find the match. And then you have to be willing to go all in." On labels: "Labels like pessimist, optimist, cynic, introvert, extrovert, these are very self-limiting. Don't define yourself by trauma or PTSD because then you lock it into your identity and you're just going to loop on it. It's better to stay flexible because reality is always changing and you have to be able to adapt to it." Spend a year deciding. Take 10,000 iterations. Then go all in.

Jaynit

68,707 views • 5 months ago

Sam Altman: “One of the few arbitrage opportunities left in the market is time” “I don’t think you can beat the market in a lot of ways, but the one way I do is by making a long-term commitment to something. My new belief on how long I should hold stock in the best companies I invest in is forever. And I think in a world where people are increasingly focused on the tick and the quarterly earnings cycle, you should try to go in the other direction. This is a great way to generate value and wealth.” Sam continues: “And so I think that when you’re thinking about a startup, it’s really worthwhile to think about something you’re willing to make a very long-term commitment to because that is where the current void in the market is. You get paid as a founder for the wealth you create for other people… The best companies just create massive amounts of value for the world, and then they capture some of that for themselves. But they capture far less than they create, and they do it over a very long period of time. So if you’re going to be one of those companies, I think you want to make a super long-term commitment to yourself and others that are going to work on it with you… It is worth waiting because you will make far more money over the long term by doing this company really well than a bunch of short term things along the way.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)
1:44

Sam Altman: “One of the few arbitrage opportunities left in the market is time” “I don’t think you can beat the market in a lot of ways, but the one way I do is by making a long-term commitment to something. My new belief on how long I should hold stock in the best companies I invest in is forever. And I think in a world where people are increasingly focused on the tick and the quarterly earnings cycle, you should try to go in the other direction. This is a great way to generate value and wealth.” Sam continues: “And so I think that when you’re thinking about a startup, it’s really worthwhile to think about something you’re willing to make a very long-term commitment to because that is where the current void in the market is. You get paid as a founder for the wealth you create for other people… The best companies just create massive amounts of value for the world, and then they capture some of that for themselves. But they capture far less than they create, and they do it over a very long period of time. So if you’re going to be one of those companies, I think you want to make a super long-term commitment to yourself and others that are going to work on it with you… It is worth waiting because you will make far more money over the long term by doing this company really well than a bunch of short term things along the way.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Startup Archive

49,283 views • 1 year ago

Qullamaggie on Feeling Like a Genius, It's The Market Not You “A melt-up market is when everything is going straight up. And it becomes too easy to make money. You start feeling like a genius — that’s a melt-up market. Trust me, you are not a genius. None of you. It’s the market, not you. No, it’s true. It’s true. Most of my money has come from periods when the market is really good. You just have to line your trading with a period where the market is really good. You know, you gotta be aggressive when the market is really good. Your job is to identify good setups in a good market — and then let the market take care of the rest. Too many people think they are the shit just because they’re making a lot of money. But that’s not really true. It’s the market, not you.”
0:56

Qullamaggie on Feeling Like a Genius, It's The Market Not You “A melt-up market is when everything is going straight up. And it becomes too easy to make money. You start feeling like a genius — that’s a melt-up market. Trust me, you are not a genius. None of you. It’s the market, not you. No, it’s true. It’s true. Most of my money has come from periods when the market is really good. You just have to line your trading with a period where the market is really good. You know, you gotta be aggressive when the market is really good. Your job is to identify good setups in a good market — and then let the market take care of the rest. Too many people think they are the shit just because they’re making a lot of money. But that’s not really true. It’s the market, not you.”

Lone

13,720 views • 19 days ago

Jeff Bezos on what founders need to understand about brands “I think our most important piece of intellectual property is our brand name,” Jeff Bezos says of Amazon. “And I think this is very important for anybody who is going to start a company or market an invention to understand — brands for companies are like reputations for people. Reputations are hard earned and easily lost.” Jeff continues: “We’ve worked very hard to earn trust. You can’t ask for trust. You have to do it the hard way, one step at a time. You make a promise, and then you fulfill that promise. You say ‘We’ll deliver this to you tomorrow,’ and then you actually deliver it tomorrow. And if you do that over and over again, then ultimately you can instill your company’s name with a reputation. Sometimes people talk about brands in this very amorphous way, but for me, I like to think of it as a person — what is the reputation that that person has and how have they earned that reputation?”
1:09

Jeff Bezos on what founders need to understand about brands “I think our most important piece of intellectual property is our brand name,” Jeff Bezos says of Amazon. “And I think this is very important for anybody who is going to start a company or market an invention to understand — brands for companies are like reputations for people. Reputations are hard earned and easily lost.” Jeff continues: “We’ve worked very hard to earn trust. You can’t ask for trust. You have to do it the hard way, one step at a time. You make a promise, and then you fulfill that promise. You say ‘We’ll deliver this to you tomorrow,’ and then you actually deliver it tomorrow. And if you do that over and over again, then ultimately you can instill your company’s name with a reputation. Sometimes people talk about brands in this very amorphous way, but for me, I like to think of it as a person — what is the reputation that that person has and how have they earned that reputation?”

Startup Archive

12,543 views • 4 months ago

Sam Altman explains why “how big is your market?” is a terrible question for investors to ask “The question that investors usually ask is: ‘How big is your market?’ I think this is a terrible question. You would never ask a startup, ‘How big is your current revenue?’ and make your investment decision based off of that. You’d want to know how it was going to grow. It’s the same thing for markets.” Sam continues: “The markets that are best for startups are markets that are small today and going to grow explosively over the next 10 years.” The other factor Sam has found to be predictive of startup success is whether or not the startup has already captured a significant part of some small market: “Airbnb by the end of YC had captured a significant amount of pre-existing apartment renters in New York City. Stripe had captured nearly 100% of YC companies in their current batch that wanted to process payments. We look for something like that, but you don’t always see it.” Video source: Khosla Ventures (2021)
0:52

Sam Altman explains why “how big is your market?” is a terrible question for investors to ask “The question that investors usually ask is: ‘How big is your market?’ I think this is a terrible question. You would never ask a startup, ‘How big is your current revenue?’ and make your investment decision based off of that. You’d want to know how it was going to grow. It’s the same thing for markets.” Sam continues: “The markets that are best for startups are markets that are small today and going to grow explosively over the next 10 years.” The other factor Sam has found to be predictive of startup success is whether or not the startup has already captured a significant part of some small market: “Airbnb by the end of YC had captured a significant amount of pre-existing apartment renters in New York City. Stripe had captured nearly 100% of YC companies in their current batch that wanted to process payments. We look for something like that, but you don’t always see it.” Video source: Khosla Ventures (2021)

Startup Archive

154,455 views • 6 months ago

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."
2:28

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 views • 4 months ago

Jensen Huang: "People with really high expectations have very low resilience." "I think one of my great advantages is that I have very low expectations. And I mean that. Most of the Stanford graduates have very high expectations. And you deserve to have high expectations because you came from a great school. You were very successful. You're top of your class. Obviously, you were able to pay for tuition. And then you're graduating from one of the finest institutions on the planet. You're surrounded by other kids that are just incredible. You naturally have very high expectations. People with very high expectations have very low resilience. And unfortunately, resilience matters in success. I don't know how to teach it to you except for I hope suffering happens to you. And I was fortunate that I grew up with my parents providing a condition for us to be successful on the one hand, but there were plenty of opportunities for setbacks and suffering. And to this day, I use the phrase pain and suffering inside our company with great glee. And I mean that. Boy, this is going to cause a lot of pain and suffering. And I mean that in a happy way, because you want to train, you want to refine the character of your company. You want greatness out of them. And greatness is not intelligence. Greatness comes from character, and character isn't formed out of smart people. It's formed out of people who suffered. And so if I could wish upon you, I don't know how to do it. For all of you Stanford students, I wish upon you ample doses of pain and suffering."
1:39

Jensen Huang: "People with really high expectations have very low resilience." "I think one of my great advantages is that I have very low expectations. And I mean that. Most of the Stanford graduates have very high expectations. And you deserve to have high expectations because you came from a great school. You were very successful. You're top of your class. Obviously, you were able to pay for tuition. And then you're graduating from one of the finest institutions on the planet. You're surrounded by other kids that are just incredible. You naturally have very high expectations. People with very high expectations have very low resilience. And unfortunately, resilience matters in success. I don't know how to teach it to you except for I hope suffering happens to you. And I was fortunate that I grew up with my parents providing a condition for us to be successful on the one hand, but there were plenty of opportunities for setbacks and suffering. And to this day, I use the phrase pain and suffering inside our company with great glee. And I mean that. Boy, this is going to cause a lot of pain and suffering. And I mean that in a happy way, because you want to train, you want to refine the character of your company. You want greatness out of them. And greatness is not intelligence. Greatness comes from character, and character isn't formed out of smart people. It's formed out of people who suffered. And so if I could wish upon you, I don't know how to do it. For all of you Stanford students, I wish upon you ample doses of pain and suffering."

Founder Mode

1,083,430 views • 4 months ago

Chamath and Larry Summers Debate the Market Reaction to Trump's Tariffs Lawrence H. Summers: "If this is such a terrific thing, why do markets think it's so terrible for the American economy?" "Maybe the market's just completely wrong ... but the job of markets is to look forward." "It's to look passed the immediate." "It's to see what the long run consequences are going to be." "And markets are making a pretty devastatingly negative judgment on this step." Chamath Palihapitiya: " Larry, that's not true." " So let's just establish a couple facts about 'the markets.'" "Number one, there are two markets and they behave totally differently, and sometimes inversely to each other." "There's the stock market and there's the bond market." 1) Stocks: mean reversion "With respect to the stock market, what they are debating, and you're right Larry, is what is the effective long-term rate of return a dollar needs to generate in order to pay me back that dollar?" "That is what the fundamental stock market does." "And what we've seen for many years with trade imbalances, trade deficits, and close-to-zero interest rates, of which more of that happened under Democrats than Republicans, we have allowed the stock market to inflate past historical averages." " What we've actually seen happen in the last week is what most people would call mean reversion." "The stock market is still way above where it was last year, two years ago, three years ago." "What has happened is that the forward multiples have compressed. So that's number one. That's a fact." 2) Bonds: it's possible a major trade blew up "And then with respect to bonds, what we are seeing now is there are two very complicated issues." "In the last two days, we saw one part of the bond market totally get out of whack." "And what we know is that the yields changed materially in a very acute way, which is atypical of how the bond market typically digests a philosophical change in approach to policy." " What we heard in the last 24 hours is a lot of this move may have been attributed to an enormous levered bet on US treasuries by a Japanese hedge fund." " It will take three, and four, and five, and six weeks for us to really know." 3) Private credit: something to watch closely " Separately, what we do know, though, where the structural complexity of the market — and this is where, Larry, I agree with you — is acute and important to observe is in the credit markets for private companies." "And that is where you have to pay a lot of attention."
2:18

Chamath and Larry Summers Debate the Market Reaction to Trump's Tariffs Lawrence H. Summers: "If this is such a terrific thing, why do markets think it's so terrible for the American economy?" "Maybe the market's just completely wrong ... but the job of markets is to look forward." "It's to look passed the immediate." "It's to see what the long run consequences are going to be." "And markets are making a pretty devastatingly negative judgment on this step." Chamath Palihapitiya: " Larry, that's not true." " So let's just establish a couple facts about 'the markets.'" "Number one, there are two markets and they behave totally differently, and sometimes inversely to each other." "There's the stock market and there's the bond market." 1) Stocks: mean reversion "With respect to the stock market, what they are debating, and you're right Larry, is what is the effective long-term rate of return a dollar needs to generate in order to pay me back that dollar?" "That is what the fundamental stock market does." "And what we've seen for many years with trade imbalances, trade deficits, and close-to-zero interest rates, of which more of that happened under Democrats than Republicans, we have allowed the stock market to inflate past historical averages." " What we've actually seen happen in the last week is what most people would call mean reversion." "The stock market is still way above where it was last year, two years ago, three years ago." "What has happened is that the forward multiples have compressed. So that's number one. That's a fact." 2) Bonds: it's possible a major trade blew up "And then with respect to bonds, what we are seeing now is there are two very complicated issues." "In the last two days, we saw one part of the bond market totally get out of whack." "And what we know is that the yields changed materially in a very acute way, which is atypical of how the bond market typically digests a philosophical change in approach to policy." " What we heard in the last 24 hours is a lot of this move may have been attributed to an enormous levered bet on US treasuries by a Japanese hedge fund." " It will take three, and four, and five, and six weeks for us to really know." 3) Private credit: something to watch closely " Separately, what we do know, though, where the structural complexity of the market — and this is where, Larry, I agree with you — is acute and important to observe is in the credit markets for private companies." "And that is where you have to pay a lot of attention."

The All-In Podcast

98,290 views • 1 year ago

Dr. Sabine Hazan: "When we started looking at Bifidobacteria, we realized that Bifidobacteria was absent in kids with autism. That Bifidobacteria was absent in Alzheimer's. Bifidobacteria was absent in long haulers, vaccine injured, Lyme patients, Crohn's patients, invasive cancer." "So and then when you look at who has Bifidobacteria, the newborns have a lot of Bifidobacteria. Old people have zero Bifidobacteria. Nursing home, dying, zero Bifidobacteria. The process of aging is really this loss of Bifidobacteria. I think we have, you know, expanded." "If you look at and you believe the bible, you know, people lived a lot longer. In the olden days during biblical times than we are right now. We're barely making it to to seventy, eighty and and not really healthy seventy, eighty. You know, the mind starts going. So is the mind starting to go because of the loss of Bifidobacteria? And when you start looking at, well, what improves Bifidobacteria? "So our lab discovered vitamin C improves Bifidobacteria. Our lab discovered bovine immunoglobulins, the blood of the cow spun around that clear stuff, provided that the cow doesn't is not, you know, is not on a lot of antibiotics, is not given a lot of hormones, is not given, like, thousands of of vaccines." "So when you start looking at all that, you start seeing the importance of Bifidobacteria, and you you start seeing like, even me, you know, with ProgenaBiome, looking at the stool samples before the pandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic, there is a lot of disappearance of Bifidobacteria." "Is that why we're having an increase in Alzheimer's, increase in cancer? Or have we demolished this Bifidobacteria? So to me, that's a very important microbe that I believe is, our longevity." "If we can retain it, and it's not easy to retain in a world that's toxic in a way and in a world where we are, you know, put you know, given media full of stress, where we are divided, where we are, you know, constantly nervous of the next pandemic or the next virus, you know, it's it's almost like this bottle that you're shaking and it's full of gas, and you just need to put it on the on the counter and let it just calm down. So, yes, I think that's it's a very important microbe."
2:34

Dr. Sabine Hazan: "When we started looking at Bifidobacteria, we realized that Bifidobacteria was absent in kids with autism. That Bifidobacteria was absent in Alzheimer's. Bifidobacteria was absent in long haulers, vaccine injured, Lyme patients, Crohn's patients, invasive cancer." "So and then when you look at who has Bifidobacteria, the newborns have a lot of Bifidobacteria. Old people have zero Bifidobacteria. Nursing home, dying, zero Bifidobacteria. The process of aging is really this loss of Bifidobacteria. I think we have, you know, expanded." "If you look at and you believe the bible, you know, people lived a lot longer. In the olden days during biblical times than we are right now. We're barely making it to to seventy, eighty and and not really healthy seventy, eighty. You know, the mind starts going. So is the mind starting to go because of the loss of Bifidobacteria? And when you start looking at, well, what improves Bifidobacteria? "So our lab discovered vitamin C improves Bifidobacteria. Our lab discovered bovine immunoglobulins, the blood of the cow spun around that clear stuff, provided that the cow doesn't is not, you know, is not on a lot of antibiotics, is not given a lot of hormones, is not given, like, thousands of of vaccines." "So when you start looking at all that, you start seeing the importance of Bifidobacteria, and you you start seeing like, even me, you know, with ProgenaBiome, looking at the stool samples before the pandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic, there is a lot of disappearance of Bifidobacteria." "Is that why we're having an increase in Alzheimer's, increase in cancer? Or have we demolished this Bifidobacteria? So to me, that's a very important microbe that I believe is, our longevity." "If we can retain it, and it's not easy to retain in a world that's toxic in a way and in a world where we are, you know, put you know, given media full of stress, where we are divided, where we are, you know, constantly nervous of the next pandemic or the next virus, you know, it's it's almost like this bottle that you're shaking and it's full of gas, and you just need to put it on the on the counter and let it just calm down. So, yes, I think that's it's a very important microbe."

Camus

179,672 views • 1 year ago

Howard Marks just gave a warning about the current stock market environment, boldly claiming we are in a stock market bubble Here's what he said: "It does seem that stocks are expensive relative to what I call fundamentals or you might call reality. The outstanding reason is that there hasn't been a serious market correction in 16 years. So people get out of the habit of thinking about market corrections. The biggest single mistake I've been thinking a lot - what is the biggest single mistake investors make? And I've concluded that it is that they conclude that the way things are today is the way it will always be. And the things that have been happening will always continue to happen. Whereas reversion to the mean is much more likely. So I just think that it's worked very well. Being an equity investor has worked very well. Doing it on leverage has worked even better. Concentrating in a few stocks has gone very well. Investors are by nature optimistic, and that optimism dies hard. And I just think that the fluctuations of the market are mostly related to psychological fluctuations, and people go from neutrality to liking stocks to liking them a lot to liking them a ton to liking them too much. And that's the continuation that creates bubbles. And you know where we probably in the early days of that when you talk about liking these assets a little bit too much."
3:10

Howard Marks just gave a warning about the current stock market environment, boldly claiming we are in a stock market bubble Here's what he said: "It does seem that stocks are expensive relative to what I call fundamentals or you might call reality. The outstanding reason is that there hasn't been a serious market correction in 16 years. So people get out of the habit of thinking about market corrections. The biggest single mistake I've been thinking a lot - what is the biggest single mistake investors make? And I've concluded that it is that they conclude that the way things are today is the way it will always be. And the things that have been happening will always continue to happen. Whereas reversion to the mean is much more likely. So I just think that it's worked very well. Being an equity investor has worked very well. Doing it on leverage has worked even better. Concentrating in a few stocks has gone very well. Investors are by nature optimistic, and that optimism dies hard. And I just think that the fluctuations of the market are mostly related to psychological fluctuations, and people go from neutrality to liking stocks to liking them a lot to liking them a ton to liking them too much. And that's the continuation that creates bubbles. And you know where we probably in the early days of that when you talk about liking these assets a little bit too much."

Triple Net Investor

43,865 views • 10 months ago