Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

“Rockefeller would focus in on the highest priority. When he gets into the oil refining business it has no barriers to entry. It costs $1000 to start a refinery and only requires a few people to run it. And one thing he notices is that transportation is the largest... expense. It costs more to ship a barrel of oil, than to refine it. So if transportation is your highest priority that means the location of your refinery is key. The site that he chose was genius. He selected a location that was next to both the railroad and on the banks of a river. Why? Shipping by water was 50% cheaper than shipping by rail. If something is your top priority you should spend the majority of your time thinking about how to develop an edge there.” —From episode 405 “How Rockefeller Worked”show more

David Senra

194,507 subscribers

179,056 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Melvin: “The president repeatedly, though, did say that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one, and we are some 250 days into the administration.” Rubio: “That's not up to us to end the war. The Russians have to stop the war…What the president expressed is that it would be a priority of his. And it has been.” Melvin: “Repeatedly on the campaign trail, he said he would end it on day one. We're 246 days into the administration.” Rubio: “Which is an indication that he repeatedly said that he would make it a priority.”

Melvin: “The president repeatedly, though, did say that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one, and we are some 250 days into the administration.” Rubio: “That's not up to us to end the war. The Russians have to stop the war…What the president expressed is that it would be a priority of his. And it has been.” Melvin: “Repeatedly on the campaign trail, he said he would end it on day one. We're 246 days into the administration.” Rubio: “Which is an indication that he repeatedly said that he would make it a priority.”

The Bulwark

190,286 views • 9 months ago

.Secretary Linda McMahon: "When President Donald J. Trump took office and the Nation's Report Card scores came out... he not only was embarrassed, but he was angry by that, and he wanted to focus on making sure that education was a top priority—and the best way to do that was to get it back to the states."

.Secretary Linda McMahon: "When President Donald J. Trump took office and the Nation's Report Card scores came out... he not only was embarrassed, but he was angry by that, and he wanted to focus on making sure that education was a top priority—and the best way to do that was to get it back to the states."

Rapid Response 47

70,210 views • 11 months ago

Charlie Sheen reveals the cartel cut him off after he smoked over 4 pounds of cocaine in 3 weeks Charlie: "When the cartel says, 'Hey, your man is dealing. If we're supplying that kind of weight, your guy is a dealer and that's just the way it is'" "It looked like that to them, but he had to explain who their customer was and that it just wasn't something this guy would ever do" Graham: "And that was on the heels of smoking almost four and a half pounds of cocaine over three weeks" Charlie: "No, it wasn't snorting. It was smoking"

Sensitive content

Charlie Sheen reveals the cartel cut him off after he smoked over 4 pounds of cocaine in 3 weeks Charlie: "When the cartel says, 'Hey, your man is dealing. If we're supplying that kind of weight, your guy is a dealer and that's just the way it is'" "It looked like that to them, but he had to explain who their customer was and that it just wasn't something this guy would ever do" Graham: "And that was on the heels of smoking almost four and a half pounds of cocaine over three weeks" Charlie: "No, it wasn't snorting. It was smoking"

dank

6,148,042 views • 1 month ago

Charlie Sheen reveals the cartel cut him off after he smoked over 4 pounds of cocaine in 3 weeks Charlie: "When the cartel says, 'Hey, your man is dealing. If we're supplying that kind of weight, your guy is a dealer and that's just the way it is'" "It looked like that to them, but he had to explain who their customer was and that it just wasn't something this guy would ever do" Graham: "And that was on the heels of smoking almost four and a half pounds of cocaine over three weeks" Charlie: "No, it wasn't snorting. It was smoking"

Sensitive content

Charlie Sheen reveals the cartel cut him off after he smoked over 4 pounds of cocaine in 3 weeks Charlie: "When the cartel says, 'Hey, your man is dealing. If we're supplying that kind of weight, your guy is a dealer and that's just the way it is'" "It looked like that to them, but he had to explain who their customer was and that it just wasn't something this guy would ever do" Graham: "And that was on the heels of smoking almost four and a half pounds of cocaine over three weeks" Charlie: "No, it wasn't snorting. It was smoking"

Teddy - PolyBackTest.com

2,008,653 views • 25 days ago

Jensen Huang runs a $3 trillion company. He does not wear a watch. Jensen Huang: “Whatever I’m doing is the most important thing at the time.” The entire productivity industry just got dismantled by a man who refuses to track time. The market rewards packed calendars. Sixty-hour weeks. The performance of effort over the precision of focus. The architect of the global AI hardware monopoly rejected all of it. Kyoto summer. Suffocating heat. Air so humid it sits on your chest like a weight. A gardener squatting in front of an enormous temple garden. Picking individual pieces of dead moss. Basket nearly empty. Jensen Huang: “I said, ‘But it looks perfect.’ And he says, ‘No, if you look carefully there’s some dead moss.’” That gardener understood something most billion-dollar operators never will. Perfection is not a single act. It is the daily removal of what does not belong. You do not build a three-trillion-dollar compute engine by accepting “good enough.” You build it by finding the microscopic dead weight in your architecture and deleting it before it metastasizes. If you are rushing to ship faster, you are leaving dead moss in the system. Jensen Huang: “I said, ‘But your garden is enormous.’ And he says, ‘I have plenty of time.’” Most people keep adding. The ones who pull ahead keep cutting. Every task you accept that is not your highest priority is a tax on the one thing that actually matters. That tax compounds. Quietly. Daily. Until your entire operation is buried under obligations that looked important but were never essential. The people who burn out are not working too hard. They are working on too many things. That is a difference most will never recognize and fewer will ever act on. Jensen Huang: “If you prioritize your life, you don’t pile on a lot of things that are in the end not that meaningful to you.” He did not say manage your time better. He said delete everything that is not your life’s work. One is a scheduling adjustment. The other is a complete rewiring of how you operate. While competitors check watches, shift contexts, and bleed energy across a dozen fronts, they eliminate themselves. Quietly. Irreversibly. Jensen Huang: “If you prioritize your life properly and you dedicate yourself to that priority, you have plenty of time to do your life’s work.” One priority. Total focus. Infinite patience. The gardener in Kyoto was not rushing to finish. He was not optimizing for speed. He had the certainty that his single task was the only task. And that certainty made time irrelevant. Jensen Huang: “I have plenty of time.” The ones checking the clock have already lost.

Jensen Huang runs a $3 trillion company. He does not wear a watch. Jensen Huang: “Whatever I’m doing is the most important thing at the time.” The entire productivity industry just got dismantled by a man who refuses to track time. The market rewards packed calendars. Sixty-hour weeks. The performance of effort over the precision of focus. The architect of the global AI hardware monopoly rejected all of it. Kyoto summer. Suffocating heat. Air so humid it sits on your chest like a weight. A gardener squatting in front of an enormous temple garden. Picking individual pieces of dead moss. Basket nearly empty. Jensen Huang: “I said, ‘But it looks perfect.’ And he says, ‘No, if you look carefully there’s some dead moss.’” That gardener understood something most billion-dollar operators never will. Perfection is not a single act. It is the daily removal of what does not belong. You do not build a three-trillion-dollar compute engine by accepting “good enough.” You build it by finding the microscopic dead weight in your architecture and deleting it before it metastasizes. If you are rushing to ship faster, you are leaving dead moss in the system. Jensen Huang: “I said, ‘But your garden is enormous.’ And he says, ‘I have plenty of time.’” Most people keep adding. The ones who pull ahead keep cutting. Every task you accept that is not your highest priority is a tax on the one thing that actually matters. That tax compounds. Quietly. Daily. Until your entire operation is buried under obligations that looked important but were never essential. The people who burn out are not working too hard. They are working on too many things. That is a difference most will never recognize and fewer will ever act on. Jensen Huang: “If you prioritize your life, you don’t pile on a lot of things that are in the end not that meaningful to you.” He did not say manage your time better. He said delete everything that is not your life’s work. One is a scheduling adjustment. The other is a complete rewiring of how you operate. While competitors check watches, shift contexts, and bleed energy across a dozen fronts, they eliminate themselves. Quietly. Irreversibly. Jensen Huang: “If you prioritize your life properly and you dedicate yourself to that priority, you have plenty of time to do your life’s work.” One priority. Total focus. Infinite patience. The gardener in Kyoto was not rushing to finish. He was not optimizing for speed. He had the certainty that his single task was the only task. And that certainty made time irrelevant. Jensen Huang: “I have plenty of time.” The ones checking the clock have already lost.

Dustin

31,351 views • 3 months ago

$Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”$

Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”

Startup Archive

44,468 views • 2 years ago

🔥Drones have struck Russia’s largest oil refinery — the KINEF plant in the Leningrad region has been successfully hit. A fuel crisis is looming! Kirishinefteorgsintez is located more than 800 kilometers from the Ukrainian border and is one of the largest oil refineries in Russia. The plant, situated in the city of Kirishi in the Leningrad region, is a subsidiary of Surgutneftegaz. This is not the first attack on the refinery: it was previously targeted in March and September. After the last strike, the plant was forced to shut down a unit that provided up to 40% of its capacity.

🔥Drones have struck Russia’s largest oil refinery — the KINEF plant in the Leningrad region has been successfully hit. A fuel crisis is looming! Kirishinefteorgsintez is located more than 800 kilometers from the Ukrainian border and is one of the largest oil refineries in Russia. The plant, situated in the city of Kirishi in the Leningrad region, is a subsidiary of Surgutneftegaz. This is not the first attack on the refinery: it was previously targeted in March and September. After the last strike, the plant was forced to shut down a unit that provided up to 40% of its capacity.

NEXTA

88,929 views • 9 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg said something so quietly devastating that even he does not seem to understand what he gave away. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here.” He asked it as a rhetorical question. It stopped being rhetorical the moment he finished the sentence. A company was never a mind. It was a translation layer, built so one person’s vision could survive contact with a thousand strangers who would never fully understand it. Every meeting, every manager, every layer between an idea and the person executing it was the cost of that translation. We just called that cost the company, and mistook it for the value. Meta proved it this year. Thousands of roles cut. Thousands more reassigned into the machine that no longer needs a translator. Zuckerberg asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. There is a harder question underneath it. A company was never about being smarter than anyone. It was about reaching further than any one person’s hands could go alone. AI does not make you smarter than ten thousand people. It removes the only reason you ever needed ten thousand people. That does not measure what you are worth. It never did. It only ever measured how far your own mind could reach before it needed other people to carry it further. Reach used to cost a payroll. Now it costs your attention. The gate was never about intelligence. It was about who got to multiply themselves. For a hundred years, that gate opened for almost no one. Zuckerberg: “Instead of having relatively few people be able to harness the power of a 10,000-person organization… I think in the future almost everyone is going to have that.” He asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. You were never the ten thousand. You were always the one.

Mark Zuckerberg said something so quietly devastating that even he does not seem to understand what he gave away. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here.” He asked it as a rhetorical question. It stopped being rhetorical the moment he finished the sentence. A company was never a mind. It was a translation layer, built so one person’s vision could survive contact with a thousand strangers who would never fully understand it. Every meeting, every manager, every layer between an idea and the person executing it was the cost of that translation. We just called that cost the company, and mistook it for the value. Meta proved it this year. Thousands of roles cut. Thousands more reassigned into the machine that no longer needs a translator. Zuckerberg asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. There is a harder question underneath it. A company was never about being smarter than anyone. It was about reaching further than any one person’s hands could go alone. AI does not make you smarter than ten thousand people. It removes the only reason you ever needed ten thousand people. That does not measure what you are worth. It never did. It only ever measured how far your own mind could reach before it needed other people to carry it further. Reach used to cost a payroll. Now it costs your attention. The gate was never about intelligence. It was about who got to multiply themselves. For a hundred years, that gate opened for almost no one. Zuckerberg: “Instead of having relatively few people be able to harness the power of a 10,000-person organization… I think in the future almost everyone is going to have that.” He asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. You were never the ten thousand. You were always the one.

Dustin

45,276 views • 20 days ago

I love this idea from Jason Fried "Your only competition is your costs." Keep costs low, keep the team small, make stuff you want to use. You don't need the whole world: “A business is very simple. You got to make more than you spend. If you're making more than you spend, then your competition is your cost. That's what you're really in business against, how much it costs you to stay in business. It's not all the other alternatives that are on the market. You can't control what they're going to put out there, what they're going to price it at, all the things they're going to do. They're going to do what they're going to do. What I can control is how much it costs me to run my business, how much I sell my product for, and as long as I make more than I spend, I get to stay in business. And isn't that what this is all about, staying in business? That's what it's all about because I like this. I want to keep doing this. I can't keep doing it if I don't stay in business. I can't keep doing it if I make less than it costs me to make the things that I make. So I'm always thinking about the only competition I really have on an annual basis is to make sure that we make more as a company than it costs us to run the company. That's my real competition.”

I love this idea from Jason Fried "Your only competition is your costs." Keep costs low, keep the team small, make stuff you want to use. You don't need the whole world: “A business is very simple. You got to make more than you spend. If you're making more than you spend, then your competition is your cost. That's what you're really in business against, how much it costs you to stay in business. It's not all the other alternatives that are on the market. You can't control what they're going to put out there, what they're going to price it at, all the things they're going to do. They're going to do what they're going to do. What I can control is how much it costs me to run my business, how much I sell my product for, and as long as I make more than I spend, I get to stay in business. And isn't that what this is all about, staying in business? That's what it's all about because I like this. I want to keep doing this. I can't keep doing it if I don't stay in business. I can't keep doing it if I make less than it costs me to make the things that I make. So I'm always thinking about the only competition I really have on an annual basis is to make sure that we make more as a company than it costs us to run the company. That's my real competition.”

David Senra

102,993 views • 2 months ago

VIDEO | Malviya Nagar fire: AAP leader Somnath Bharti says, "Yesterday, it was reported that the fire brigade took about an hour to an hour and a half to arrive. The fire station that was built during my tenure, next to the Malviya Nagar Metro Station, is quite close to this location. I wanted to measure how much time it should actually take to travel from there to here. So, I just measured it myself using a stopwatch. It took exactly two and a half minutes. That means during the daytime, when there is traffic, it took only two and a half minutes. At 8 am, when traffic is lighter, it would take barely two minutes. So my question is, if the distance can be covered in two minutes, how did it take an hour or an hour and a half for the fire brigade to arrive? This is a question that the BJP's four-engine government cannot avoid answering. The fire brigade is under your responsibility. The MCD is under your responsibility. The Delhi government is under your responsibility. At every level, it is your administration." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

VIDEO | Malviya Nagar fire: AAP leader Somnath Bharti says, "Yesterday, it was reported that the fire brigade took about an hour to an hour and a half to arrive. The fire station that was built during my tenure, next to the Malviya Nagar Metro Station, is quite close to this location. I wanted to measure how much time it should actually take to travel from there to here. So, I just measured it myself using a stopwatch. It took exactly two and a half minutes. That means during the daytime, when there is traffic, it took only two and a half minutes. At 8 am, when traffic is lighter, it would take barely two minutes. So my question is, if the distance can be covered in two minutes, how did it take an hour or an hour and a half for the fire brigade to arrive? This is a question that the BJP's four-engine government cannot avoid answering. The fire brigade is under your responsibility. The MCD is under your responsibility. The Delhi government is under your responsibility. At every level, it is your administration." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

36,416 views • 1 month ago

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Doc Malik

11,609 views • 4 months ago

A 15 year old boy was hired to shovel part of a driveway for a local business. He spent hours doing it with a shovel. When it was time to pay up, the worker just offered him a plate of food instead of the $100 that they originally agreed upon. It wasn’t until the video was posted on social media and the owner received massive backlash from the community that he spoke out and claimed it was an employee that did it and offered to pay the boy. If this is true, should the person who did it be fired, or is he just saving face at this point?

A 15 year old boy was hired to shovel part of a driveway for a local business. He spent hours doing it with a shovel. When it was time to pay up, the worker just offered him a plate of food instead of the $100 that they originally agreed upon. It wasn’t until the video was posted on social media and the owner received massive backlash from the community that he spoke out and claimed it was an employee that did it and offered to pay the boy. If this is true, should the person who did it be fired, or is he just saving face at this point?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

10,948,074 views • 5 months ago

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”

Michael McGuiness

67,106 views • 2 years ago

Gituku: How come the prices on 14th April were determined late in the night? How come the President had to rush the following day to announce that the VAT was being reduced to 8%? One wonders why, because Parliament was in operation, it was in existence. It is possible in this country to recall people for a special sitting to conduct important business, even if it means impeaching a DP. Why didn’t we see that proactivity happening in the weeks to 14th April? The National Treasury CS has no power to reduce the VAT from whatever it is by the extent of 50%. He has only the power to reduce it up to 25% #CitizenNewsGang Sam Gituku

Gituku: How come the prices on 14th April were determined late in the night? How come the President had to rush the following day to announce that the VAT was being reduced to 8%? One wonders why, because Parliament was in operation, it was in existence. It is possible in this country to recall people for a special sitting to conduct important business, even if it means impeaching a DP. Why didn’t we see that proactivity happening in the weeks to 14th April? The National Treasury CS has no power to reduce the VAT from whatever it is by the extent of 50%. He has only the power to reduce it up to 25% #CitizenNewsGang Sam Gituku

Citizen TV Kenya

34,540 views • 2 months ago

BREAKING: A massive force is raging at the Tuapse, oil refinery in Krasnodar Krai, Russia after it was struck by Ukrainian drones. The refinery belonging to Rosneft is the only one located on the coast of the Black Sea & is one of the country’s largest

BREAKING: A massive force is raging at the Tuapse, oil refinery in Krasnodar Krai, Russia after it was struck by Ukrainian drones. The refinery belonging to Rosneft is the only one located on the coast of the Black Sea & is one of the country’s largest

Visegrád 24

410,111 views • 2 years ago

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 views • 2 months ago

In Canada, It is more expensive to ship province-to-province than to the U.S. Internal trade barriers add 8.3% to the cost of shipping, raising the cost of food, building supplies, and all that is shipped by truck—the primary means of shipping in Canada. During the campaign, the Liberals made big promises on demolishing internal trade barriers and delivering needed relief for our trucking industry. Given that, it was disappointing to hear the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, Chrystia Freeland, identify no real progress on this issue. As troubling economic indicators continue to emerge, it is more urgent than ever to break down these barriers to prosperity and unleash the potential of our trucking industry.

In Canada, It is more expensive to ship province-to-province than to the U.S. Internal trade barriers add 8.3% to the cost of shipping, raising the cost of food, building supplies, and all that is shipped by truck—the primary means of shipping in Canada. During the campaign, the Liberals made big promises on demolishing internal trade barriers and delivering needed relief for our trucking industry. Given that, it was disappointing to hear the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, Chrystia Freeland, identify no real progress on this issue. As troubling economic indicators continue to emerge, it is more urgent than ever to break down these barriers to prosperity and unleash the potential of our trucking industry.

Raquel Dancho

26,653 views • 1 year ago