Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Richard Feynman had a habit of pulling complicated things apart until he could see what was actually true. That instinct took him from the Manhattan Project to the Challenger investigation, where he exposed NASA’s failure to properly assess the risks involved. But what made Feynman fascinating wasn’t just the...

Freakonomics's profile picture

Freakonomics

582,753 subscribers

20,957 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Richard Feynman spent much of his life chasing questions that didn’t seem especially practical. Things like: Why do people dream? What happens to consciousness under psychedelics? What can curiosity lead you to, if you follow it far enough? This episode of Freakonomics Radio explores the stranger and more personal side of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist’s life — not just his work as a scientist, but the restless curiosity that seemed to drive almost everything he did. It’s the final chapter in our three-part Richard Feynman series. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.
1:17

Richard Feynman spent much of his life chasing questions that didn’t seem especially practical. Things like: Why do people dream? What happens to consciousness under psychedelics? What can curiosity lead you to, if you follow it far enough? This episode of Freakonomics Radio explores the stranger and more personal side of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist’s life — not just his work as a scientist, but the restless curiosity that seemed to drive almost everything he did. It’s the final chapter in our three-part Richard Feynman series. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

Freakonomics

10,693 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Steve Kerr explains that Phil Jackson taught him the way to coach talented players is to get out of their way “The way Phil coached Dennis really was the key to everything. It really informed me about what coaching was about.” “Phil demanded certain things of Dennis and then got out of his way. I saw how powerful that was.” “The idea of giving someone a vision and then letting them go. Then occasionally reining them back in. Show them the vision again. Letting them go again. That’s powerful. To me, that’s coaching. Because these players are artists, man. They’re so gifted at this level.” “If you’re going to call every play and try to orchestrate everything, you’re overthinking things. You’re not letting the players be who they really are.” “The way Phil handled Dennis was genius. Dennis was so excited to be part of the team, and he was so different. He connected with guys in strange ways. He wouldn’t say anything for a week.” “But there was just an energy from him where you knew, ‘That’s a good dude.’ You could tell he had a good soul. He was vulnerable in that way. He allowed you to see his soul and what he was about.” “But he didn’t communicate a whole lot. So you had to understand him. You had to get to know him a little bit.”
1:31

Steve Kerr explains that Phil Jackson taught him the way to coach talented players is to get out of their way “The way Phil coached Dennis really was the key to everything. It really informed me about what coaching was about.” “Phil demanded certain things of Dennis and then got out of his way. I saw how powerful that was.” “The idea of giving someone a vision and then letting them go. Then occasionally reining them back in. Show them the vision again. Letting them go again. That’s powerful. To me, that’s coaching. Because these players are artists, man. They’re so gifted at this level.” “If you’re going to call every play and try to orchestrate everything, you’re overthinking things. You’re not letting the players be who they really are.” “The way Phil handled Dennis was genius. Dennis was so excited to be part of the team, and he was so different. He connected with guys in strange ways. He wouldn’t say anything for a week.” “But there was just an energy from him where you knew, ‘That’s a good dude.’ You could tell he had a good soul. He was vulnerable in that way. He allowed you to see his soul and what he was about.” “But he didn’t communicate a whole lot. So you had to understand him. You had to get to know him a little bit.”

Josh Chambers

68,030 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Twelve years ago, Jeffrey A Tucker was convinced he had nothing to learn from a farmer. Today he believes that Joel Salatin is “all the things that Thomas Jefferson was”: “I stood back in the back as [Joel Salatin] began to talk, and he was railing against the way animals are raised and against the way they're slaughtered and the American food supply. I remember he would say things like: ‘we need to rediscover the chickenness of the chicken’… and this kind of stuff. I didn’t know what this guy's even talking about. Why is this guy even speaking? I couldn't understand it. Now, I'm all in. I just love it. …He reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. He was a great architect—and Joel Salatin is also an architect—kind of a scientist in a way, a great philosopher and writer, but also a farmer. That's what Joel is. He's all the things that Thomas Jefferson was.”
1:29

Twelve years ago, Jeffrey A Tucker was convinced he had nothing to learn from a farmer. Today he believes that Joel Salatin is “all the things that Thomas Jefferson was”: “I stood back in the back as [Joel Salatin] began to talk, and he was railing against the way animals are raised and against the way they're slaughtered and the American food supply. I remember he would say things like: ‘we need to rediscover the chickenness of the chicken’… and this kind of stuff. I didn’t know what this guy's even talking about. Why is this guy even speaking? I couldn't understand it. Now, I'm all in. I just love it. …He reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. He was a great architect—and Joel Salatin is also an architect—kind of a scientist in a way, a great philosopher and writer, but also a farmer. That's what Joel is. He's all the things that Thomas Jefferson was.”

Jan Jekielek

34,349 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

One of my favorite things about Skip was that you didn't really do an interview with Skip, you just started the camera and captured the magic. He had such an unbelievable ability to understand the moment and the need, and he filled in the lines as only he could. Here's part of the last sit-down interview that I did with Skip, at his home where he talks about what he wanted his legacy to be.
1:29

One of my favorite things about Skip was that you didn't really do an interview with Skip, you just started the camera and captured the magic. He had such an unbelievable ability to understand the moment and the need, and he filled in the lines as only he could. Here's part of the last sit-down interview that I did with Skip, at his home where he talks about what he wanted his legacy to be.

Michael Cauble

18,606 просмотров • 11 дней назад

Marc Andreessen on what made Steve Jobs great “There’s basically two stories about Steve you hear. One is that he was a saint and perfect in all regards, which was somewhat true. The other story that you hear is he was a screaming lunatic and would just run around, yell at people in elevators, fire people in meetings, and all these awful, horrible things… I think the reality was somewhere in the middle.” Marc continues: “At least what I saw — and what I’ve heard from people who worked with him for a very long time — was he was absolutely intolerant of anything less than first class work. If you brought him first class work, and you were top in your field, super diligent, on top of everything, had all the details figured out, and knew what you were doing, he was the best manager you were ever going to work with and the best CEO you were ever going to work with. And the thing that comes up from people who worked with him closely was, ‘I did the best work of my life working for him.’ Part of that is because he really appreciated and understood the quality of great work. And the other part was he didn’t tolerate anything less than that, which meant that everybody around you also hit that bar.” People forget though that Steve matured a lot along the way too. He had failures like the Lisa, which came before the Macintosh, and of course, he was fired before coming back to Apple 12 years later. “He learned a lot from the failures,” Marc explains. “And now everyone has forgotten about the failures, but you can read about them on Wikipedia.” Marc believes it was the 12 years he spent building NeXT and Pixar where Steve learned to be a great CEO before coming back to Apple: “People who knew him better than I did said he learned how to be a great CEO, not at Apple, but at NeXT, because he spent 12 years doing it the hard way where he wasn’t being showered with praise. He didn’t have the magic touch. The product fundamentally didn’t take. He had to pivot.” Marc tells a great story of Steve insisting on the NeXT computer being a perfect cube even though it would double the cost. He got his cube, but it was slow, expensive, and completely flopped: “Nobody wanted it. He pivoted the company to software. Nobody wanted the software… Anyway, the point is that was really hard… He had to try to figure out how to optimize it the hard way and retain a team through basically 12 years of failure.” Marc concludes: “People say he had this incredible growth and innovation skillset from Apple phase one. And then he had an incredible management skillset from the sort of wilderness years. And so by the time he came back to Apple in 1997 he at that point a great CEO, but maybe he wouldn’t have ever become the Steve Jobs that we know had he not gone through the hard period.” Video source: a16z speedrun 🧊 (2025)
3:49

Marc Andreessen on what made Steve Jobs great “There’s basically two stories about Steve you hear. One is that he was a saint and perfect in all regards, which was somewhat true. The other story that you hear is he was a screaming lunatic and would just run around, yell at people in elevators, fire people in meetings, and all these awful, horrible things… I think the reality was somewhere in the middle.” Marc continues: “At least what I saw — and what I’ve heard from people who worked with him for a very long time — was he was absolutely intolerant of anything less than first class work. If you brought him first class work, and you were top in your field, super diligent, on top of everything, had all the details figured out, and knew what you were doing, he was the best manager you were ever going to work with and the best CEO you were ever going to work with. And the thing that comes up from people who worked with him closely was, ‘I did the best work of my life working for him.’ Part of that is because he really appreciated and understood the quality of great work. And the other part was he didn’t tolerate anything less than that, which meant that everybody around you also hit that bar.” People forget though that Steve matured a lot along the way too. He had failures like the Lisa, which came before the Macintosh, and of course, he was fired before coming back to Apple 12 years later. “He learned a lot from the failures,” Marc explains. “And now everyone has forgotten about the failures, but you can read about them on Wikipedia.” Marc believes it was the 12 years he spent building NeXT and Pixar where Steve learned to be a great CEO before coming back to Apple: “People who knew him better than I did said he learned how to be a great CEO, not at Apple, but at NeXT, because he spent 12 years doing it the hard way where he wasn’t being showered with praise. He didn’t have the magic touch. The product fundamentally didn’t take. He had to pivot.” Marc tells a great story of Steve insisting on the NeXT computer being a perfect cube even though it would double the cost. He got his cube, but it was slow, expensive, and completely flopped: “Nobody wanted it. He pivoted the company to software. Nobody wanted the software… Anyway, the point is that was really hard… He had to try to figure out how to optimize it the hard way and retain a team through basically 12 years of failure.” Marc concludes: “People say he had this incredible growth and innovation skillset from Apple phase one. And then he had an incredible management skillset from the sort of wilderness years. And so by the time he came back to Apple in 1997 he at that point a great CEO, but maybe he wouldn’t have ever become the Steve Jobs that we know had he not gone through the hard period.” Video source: a16z speedrun 🧊 (2025)

Startup Archive

86,840 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Ellie James revealed that when she was 14 she dated a guy and thought she was going to spend the rest of her life with him. She said he was the first and only guy she had had s€x with at that time and she thought it'd remain like that. But when she grew older they made the decision to be open. She wanted to explore and have other experiences and it was just right cos it made her see the guy as her best friend. She was open to him, she could tell him things and that's what made her discover polyamory as the best for her.
2:03

Sensitive content

Ellie James revealed that when she was 14 she dated a guy and thought she was going to spend the rest of her life with him. She said he was the first and only guy she had had s€x with at that time and she thought it'd remain like that. But when she grew older they made the decision to be open. She wanted to explore and have other experiences and it was just right cos it made her see the guy as her best friend. She was open to him, she could tell him things and that's what made her discover polyamory as the best for her.

vision

218,306 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

today would have been Oliver Tree birthday . he brought me so much joy just to know a creator that loved and breathed his art 1000% every time I see him I felt like I wasn’t doing enough .. but it wasn’t just the work as a musician it was life . he lived it every moment to the fullest - he gave everything in his bones to making the world a better place with his music . a lot of people might have just been turned on to him that wasn’t familiar . and he would be so happy to see the impact he had .. at a great time with everyone looksmaxing, faking their way to the algorithm and making music for the money - he tried to steer humanity into a greater place where being the best version yourself is the greatest gift you can give... this is one of the demos we had - in retrospect it makes me cry to listen back to.. what a big heart this man had
0:39

today would have been Oliver Tree birthday . he brought me so much joy just to know a creator that loved and breathed his art 1000% every time I see him I felt like I wasn’t doing enough .. but it wasn’t just the work as a musician it was life . he lived it every moment to the fullest - he gave everything in his bones to making the world a better place with his music . a lot of people might have just been turned on to him that wasn’t familiar . and he would be so happy to see the impact he had .. at a great time with everyone looksmaxing, faking their way to the algorithm and making music for the money - he tried to steer humanity into a greater place where being the best version yourself is the greatest gift you can give... this is one of the demos we had - in retrospect it makes me cry to listen back to.. what a big heart this man had

diplo

179,946 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Dave Chappelle RECOUNTED the LIFE-CHANGING moment he saw the LEGENDARY Richard Pryor STRUGGLE through a performance, only to be met with an OVERWHELMING wave of LOVE from the audience, he also explained how that POWERFUL experience REDEFINED what FAME meant to him 👀❤️‍🩹 “People were crying and wiping tears out their eyes… it was the first time I had seen actual love bouncing off the walls… I knew that fame was one of the things I wanted, but whatever the hell that thing Richard had… that was it”
2:53

Dave Chappelle RECOUNTED the LIFE-CHANGING moment he saw the LEGENDARY Richard Pryor STRUGGLE through a performance, only to be met with an OVERWHELMING wave of LOVE from the audience, he also explained how that POWERFUL experience REDEFINED what FAME meant to him 👀❤️‍🩹 “People were crying and wiping tears out their eyes… it was the first time I had seen actual love bouncing off the walls… I knew that fame was one of the things I wanted, but whatever the hell that thing Richard had… that was it”

Frxmzy🔪

74,821 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Jordan Ott spoke to the conversation he had with Dillon Brooks midway through the third quarter. The latter was shouting at Ott about the previous possession where he had a mismatch and wasn’t found. “He told me I sucked in so many words that I messed up the last couple of possessions on who to get involved with him. He was right.” “A lot of times I’m just smiling. The emotion, the passion, the care factor from and really the rest of the guys too, especially in these types of environments. To be in those, it’s new for me.”
0:48

Jordan Ott spoke to the conversation he had with Dillon Brooks midway through the third quarter. The latter was shouting at Ott about the previous possession where he had a mismatch and wasn’t found. “He told me I sucked in so many words that I messed up the last couple of possessions on who to get involved with him. He was right.” “A lot of times I’m just smiling. The emotion, the passion, the care factor from and really the rest of the guys too, especially in these types of environments. To be in those, it’s new for me.”

Hayden Cilley

46,457 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Richard Feynman was asked in the 1980s whether machines will ever think. He answered in front of a small room, on camera, decades before anyone shipped a chatbot. Feynman won the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics. He also helped design the first parallel computers at Thinking Machines, so this isn't a physicist guessing about software. Every AI argument running in 2026 is a rerun of the question he takes apart here. He refuses the framing most people still use and rebuilds it from the machine up. Watch the section where he compares what machines do to what animals do. He doesn't answer yes or no. He shows why the question is shaped wrong, in plain sentences, no math. An AI researcher I know played it for his team before a roadmap meeting and killed 2 features by lunch. The footage sits free on YouTube, blurry, unedited. We built the machines. We still argue with a dead man's framing.
17:40

Richard Feynman was asked in the 1980s whether machines will ever think. He answered in front of a small room, on camera, decades before anyone shipped a chatbot. Feynman won the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics. He also helped design the first parallel computers at Thinking Machines, so this isn't a physicist guessing about software. Every AI argument running in 2026 is a rerun of the question he takes apart here. He refuses the framing most people still use and rebuilds it from the machine up. Watch the section where he compares what machines do to what animals do. He doesn't answer yes or no. He shows why the question is shaped wrong, in plain sentences, no math. An AI researcher I know played it for his team before a roadmap meeting and killed 2 features by lunch. The footage sits free on YouTube, blurry, unedited. We built the machines. We still argue with a dead man's framing.

Moysei

22,687 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Tupac was a performer through and through. At his core, he was an actor, a poet, and a thinker—not a gangster. Sure, he rapped about the streets and the struggles that came with them, but that was more about telling the stories of the people around him than living that life himself. He had the smarts and the charisma to pull people in, whether it was on stage, on screen, or in his music. He trained at the Baltimore School for the Arts, where he honed his craft, showing he was born to entertain. The "gangster" image? That was more about the industry and the media pushing a narrative than who Tupac really was at heart. Tupac was an artist first, using his voice and talent to speak for the people, share their pain, and make you feel something. He wasn’t about the gangster life—he was about the art and the message.
2:18

Tupac was a performer through and through. At his core, he was an actor, a poet, and a thinker—not a gangster. Sure, he rapped about the streets and the struggles that came with them, but that was more about telling the stories of the people around him than living that life himself. He had the smarts and the charisma to pull people in, whether it was on stage, on screen, or in his music. He trained at the Baltimore School for the Arts, where he honed his craft, showing he was born to entertain. The "gangster" image? That was more about the industry and the media pushing a narrative than who Tupac really was at heart. Tupac was an artist first, using his voice and talent to speak for the people, share their pain, and make you feel something. He wasn’t about the gangster life—he was about the art and the message.

Gerry

33,998 просмотров • 1 год назад

Carlos Alcaraz says he initially wasn’t sure if he was cramping or if it was an issue with his adductor during his match against Zverev, ‘I just told what happened to the physio & he decided to take a medical’ “I didn’t think it was cramps at all at the beginning. I didn’t know exactly what it was. I ran to a forehand and started to feel it in the right adductor. That’s why I called the physio. Because it was just that moment, the rest of the legs.. the left leg was good. Not good but decent. After that with all the stress I didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know if it was going to be worse or not. In that moment I just talked to the physio and said ‘Ok I just went to run to the forehand side and I started to feel the right adductor.’ He decided to take the medical time out and he did it. I just told what happened to the physio and he decided to take a medical.” (via Australian Open Press)
2:04

Carlos Alcaraz says he initially wasn’t sure if he was cramping or if it was an issue with his adductor during his match against Zverev, ‘I just told what happened to the physio & he decided to take a medical’ “I didn’t think it was cramps at all at the beginning. I didn’t know exactly what it was. I ran to a forehand and started to feel it in the right adductor. That’s why I called the physio. Because it was just that moment, the rest of the legs.. the left leg was good. Not good but decent. After that with all the stress I didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know if it was going to be worse or not. In that moment I just talked to the physio and said ‘Ok I just went to run to the forehand side and I started to feel the right adductor.’ He decided to take the medical time out and he did it. I just told what happened to the physio and he decided to take a medical.” (via Australian Open Press)

The Tennis Letter

516,912 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

David Eagleman (David Eagleman): When I was younger, one of the great mentors I got to work with was Francis Crick, who had won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA. As you may know, in the second half of Crick’s career, he turned from studying genetics to studying the brain—and specifically the question of how the physical stuff of the brain gives rise to consciousness. Now, Crick had a chalkboard that was full of ideas and equations, but the most striking thing to me was that right in the middle of the board, outlined in a big, thick rectangle, was a single word. And this word represented to him one of the central mysteries of biology. The word was meaning. In other words, he had a better understanding than most people on the planet of the vast and intricate biology that makes up the human brain, but he recognized that one of the key questions was: why does anything matter to your brain? Rebecca Newberger Goldstein (Rebecca Newberger Goldstein)-- author of the new book The Mattering Instinct--tackles this very question and more:
1:09

David Eagleman (David Eagleman): When I was younger, one of the great mentors I got to work with was Francis Crick, who had won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA. As you may know, in the second half of Crick’s career, he turned from studying genetics to studying the brain—and specifically the question of how the physical stuff of the brain gives rise to consciousness. Now, Crick had a chalkboard that was full of ideas and equations, but the most striking thing to me was that right in the middle of the board, outlined in a big, thick rectangle, was a single word. And this word represented to him one of the central mysteries of biology. The word was meaning. In other words, he had a better understanding than most people on the planet of the vast and intricate biology that makes up the human brain, but he recognized that one of the key questions was: why does anything matter to your brain? Rebecca Newberger Goldstein (Rebecca Newberger Goldstein)-- author of the new book The Mattering Instinct--tackles this very question and more:

Steven Pinker

27,860 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Watch Richard Feynman while he speaks. No one transmits this better than him. And it's a weird feeling or sense. Cicero and Darwin wrote about it. Jefferson preached it. Ben Graham lived it and so does Buffett. "I get a kick out of thinking about these things. I can't stop" We tend to believe that joy comes from physical activity or the senses (music, art, food), but those are not the only sources. Theoretical physicists are obsessed with what they do because they have true fun while doing it. Same thing with any kind of theorists, including investors. Greenblatt does it because of the pleasure of figuring something out. So did Feynman. When asked about his Nobel Prize, he said he didn't do it for the prize. It's 'the pleasure of finding the thing out' that does it for him. In one of his last interviews, Munger spoke about how he and Buffett had 'actual fun' while doing what they did. And what they did was a lot of thinking, with occasional decisions. That's why many of these guys were top of their fields. They enjoy(ed) thinking and selected endeavors that rewarded that.
1:15

Watch Richard Feynman while he speaks. No one transmits this better than him. And it's a weird feeling or sense. Cicero and Darwin wrote about it. Jefferson preached it. Ben Graham lived it and so does Buffett. "I get a kick out of thinking about these things. I can't stop" We tend to believe that joy comes from physical activity or the senses (music, art, food), but those are not the only sources. Theoretical physicists are obsessed with what they do because they have true fun while doing it. Same thing with any kind of theorists, including investors. Greenblatt does it because of the pleasure of figuring something out. So did Feynman. When asked about his Nobel Prize, he said he didn't do it for the prize. It's 'the pleasure of finding the thing out' that does it for him. In one of his last interviews, Munger spoke about how he and Buffett had 'actual fun' while doing what they did. And what they did was a lot of thinking, with occasional decisions. That's why many of these guys were top of their fields. They enjoy(ed) thinking and selected endeavors that rewarded that.

Giuliano

87,277 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Prince Harry is the worst kind of stupid: arrogant, spiteful, entitled, vindictive, shameless and profoundly disloyal. Meghan Markle is an outsider. She married into the Royal Family, saw the status, privilege and access that came with it, and has spent years trying to squeeze every last drop out of that connection. Nasty? Absolutely. Shameless? Without question. But at least you can understand the self-interest. Harry is different. Harry is family. He grew up inside that family. He knew his grandmother. He knew his father. He grew up beside William. He knew Catherine. He knew exactly who these people were long before Meghan ever walked through the palace gates. And what did he do with that knowledge? He sold it. Oprah. Netflix. Spare. Interviews. Court cases. Private conversations. Family arguments. Childhood memories. Nothing was off limits once there was money, publicity or a grievance to be squeezed out of it. Let’s kill one argument right here: Harry wasn’t some brave outsider exposing a terrible family. He was raised in that family. He was loved by that family. He was protected by that family. He was privileged by that family. He knew these people for decades. From the beginning, Harry and Meghan understood there was one enormous advantage on their side. The Royal Family was never going to fight them in the same way. The Palace wasn’t going to answer every accusation, every interview, every insinuation and every private detail dragged into the public. So they filled the silence with their version of events. The longer it went on, the more the contradictions piled up. Stories changed. Claims were challenged. Details didn’t always match. Yet the narrative kept being pushed because they knew the people on the other side were unlikely to engage in a public back-and-forth. That isn’t “speaking truth to power.” That is exploiting the restraint of a family that cannot, and should not, fight back in the same way. Harry knew exactly what he was doing. He knew his family would protect the institution, protect private family matters & refuse to turn the monarchy into a public mud-slinging contest. And he used that restraint against them. So when Meghan attacked his family, Harry wasn’t some clueless husband blindly repeating things he didn’t understand. He knew them. He chose to scheme beside her while she dragged them. He chose to add his own accusations. He chose the cameras, the contracts, the headlines & the victim narrative. He didn’t just leave. He turned his family into a business model. And the pattern didn’t stop with them. Harry has long treated his mother’s name & legacy as something he can leverage, brand, and redirect whenever it suits him. The same instinct that turned private family life into content has been applied to her memory and the causes once tied to it. Meghan married into the family & exploited the connection. Harry was born into it, benefited from it his entire life, knew exactly what he was betraying, and then sold the betrayal back to the world. That isn’t courage. That isn’t truth-telling. That isn’t “finding his voice.” It’s betrayal. A stranger can hurt you. But a family member who knows your history, knows your vulnerabilities, knows your private life, knows exactly where to hurt you, and then hands all of it to the world for money and attention? That is something else entirely. Harry didn’t just walk away from his family. He monetised attacking them. And somehow, after all of that, he still wants us to believe he’s the victim. No. He isn’t the victim. He tried to destroy their reputation, but the more Harry & Meghan talked, the more people started seeing them for exactly who they are. The contradictions piled up, the self-serving narrative became harder to ignore, & their credibility took the hit. The Royal Family didn’t expose Harry & Meghan. Harry & Meghan exposed themselves. And Harry is still angry that the world didn’t see the Royal Family through his evil eyes.
2:49

Prince Harry is the worst kind of stupid: arrogant, spiteful, entitled, vindictive, shameless and profoundly disloyal. Meghan Markle is an outsider. She married into the Royal Family, saw the status, privilege and access that came with it, and has spent years trying to squeeze every last drop out of that connection. Nasty? Absolutely. Shameless? Without question. But at least you can understand the self-interest. Harry is different. Harry is family. He grew up inside that family. He knew his grandmother. He knew his father. He grew up beside William. He knew Catherine. He knew exactly who these people were long before Meghan ever walked through the palace gates. And what did he do with that knowledge? He sold it. Oprah. Netflix. Spare. Interviews. Court cases. Private conversations. Family arguments. Childhood memories. Nothing was off limits once there was money, publicity or a grievance to be squeezed out of it. Let’s kill one argument right here: Harry wasn’t some brave outsider exposing a terrible family. He was raised in that family. He was loved by that family. He was protected by that family. He was privileged by that family. He knew these people for decades. From the beginning, Harry and Meghan understood there was one enormous advantage on their side. The Royal Family was never going to fight them in the same way. The Palace wasn’t going to answer every accusation, every interview, every insinuation and every private detail dragged into the public. So they filled the silence with their version of events. The longer it went on, the more the contradictions piled up. Stories changed. Claims were challenged. Details didn’t always match. Yet the narrative kept being pushed because they knew the people on the other side were unlikely to engage in a public back-and-forth. That isn’t “speaking truth to power.” That is exploiting the restraint of a family that cannot, and should not, fight back in the same way. Harry knew exactly what he was doing. He knew his family would protect the institution, protect private family matters & refuse to turn the monarchy into a public mud-slinging contest. And he used that restraint against them. So when Meghan attacked his family, Harry wasn’t some clueless husband blindly repeating things he didn’t understand. He knew them. He chose to scheme beside her while she dragged them. He chose to add his own accusations. He chose the cameras, the contracts, the headlines & the victim narrative. He didn’t just leave. He turned his family into a business model. And the pattern didn’t stop with them. Harry has long treated his mother’s name & legacy as something he can leverage, brand, and redirect whenever it suits him. The same instinct that turned private family life into content has been applied to her memory and the causes once tied to it. Meghan married into the family & exploited the connection. Harry was born into it, benefited from it his entire life, knew exactly what he was betraying, and then sold the betrayal back to the world. That isn’t courage. That isn’t truth-telling. That isn’t “finding his voice.” It’s betrayal. A stranger can hurt you. But a family member who knows your history, knows your vulnerabilities, knows your private life, knows exactly where to hurt you, and then hands all of it to the world for money and attention? That is something else entirely. Harry didn’t just walk away from his family. He monetised attacking them. And somehow, after all of that, he still wants us to believe he’s the victim. No. He isn’t the victim. He tried to destroy their reputation, but the more Harry & Meghan talked, the more people started seeing them for exactly who they are. The contradictions piled up, the self-serving narrative became harder to ignore, & their credibility took the hit. The Royal Family didn’t expose Harry & Meghan. Harry & Meghan exposed themselves. And Harry is still angry that the world didn’t see the Royal Family through his evil eyes.

Queen Esther

176,332 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Daniel Ek made >$5M at 22 and lived “that life” in the nightclubs of Stockholm to realize that all of it was just status games. So he returned to the things he loved: music and tech. So he started Spotify. The status games are a distraction from the fulfillment of building.
5:21

Daniel Ek made >$5M at 22 and lived “that life” in the nightclubs of Stockholm to realize that all of it was just status games. So he returned to the things he loved: music and tech. So he started Spotify. The status games are a distraction from the fulfillment of building.

Garry Tan

512,330 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The country was told Peter Lynch was a violent right wing extremist thug. Watch this video. Listen to what he says and how he says it and you will see that he was in fact just a softly spoken grandfather with concerns about the governance and future of his country that are shared by millions. He was put in prison and now he is dead. Shame on the state and the media that is supposed to protect people from tyranny, not facilitate it. RIP Peter.
1:27

Sensitive content

The country was told Peter Lynch was a violent right wing extremist thug. Watch this video. Listen to what he says and how he says it and you will see that he was in fact just a softly spoken grandfather with concerns about the governance and future of his country that are shared by millions. He was put in prison and now he is dead. Shame on the state and the media that is supposed to protect people from tyranny, not facilitate it. RIP Peter.

Andrew Bridgen

771,989 просмотров • 1 год назад

Watching this clip actually made me feel a lot better. Even though #JAMES was crying and trying to hold back his tears, I really think they were tears of happiness. The way he looked out at the fans and smiled… I could really feel how happy and touched he was, and how grateful he was for all the love he was getting. Honestly, just seeing that is enough for me. No matter what was going through his mind at that moment, I just want him to know that so many people love him and are always there cheering him on. I just want him to be happy and have nothing but good things come his way. And even when things get tough, I hope he’ll always have the strength to get through them. I’m so, so proud of you, JAMES 🥹❤️
2:06

Watching this clip actually made me feel a lot better. Even though #JAMES was crying and trying to hold back his tears, I really think they were tears of happiness. The way he looked out at the fans and smiled… I could really feel how happy and touched he was, and how grateful he was for all the love he was getting. Honestly, just seeing that is enough for me. No matter what was going through his mind at that moment, I just want him to know that so many people love him and are always there cheering him on. I just want him to be happy and have nothing but good things come his way. And even when things get tough, I hope he’ll always have the strength to get through them. I’m so, so proud of you, JAMES 🥹❤️

Yuis

19,680 просмотров • 9 дней назад