Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

“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...

FoundersPodcast's profile picture

David Senra

201,228 subscribers

179,608 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationScience & TechnologyFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

.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."
0:46

.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 • 1 year 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"
1:11

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

2,008,819 views • 2 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"
1:11

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 • 3 months 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.
1:25

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

31,902 views • 5 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.”
4:51

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

44,476 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.
0:48

🔥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

89,085 views • 11 months ago

a professor with a dozen tumors in his liver came to the university of virginia the day after chemotherapy and spent 75 minutes explaining how not to waste your own life. randy pausch called it a lecture on time management. he had three to six months of good health left, and three months and twelve days of it were already gone. students would ask whether the program was worth the money. pausch said the right question was a different one: is it worth two years of your life that you are never getting back? a deadline has a date and a person who will notice you missed it. importance has neither a date nor that person. so the urgent goes first in the queue, and then the next urgent thing goes first, even when it is worth nothing. pausch said to work on what is important while it still has no date. that is how the years disappear. hundreds of sensible, well argued hours spent on whatever asked more loudly. why am i doing this? what is my goal? what happens if i don't do it? the best moment, he said, is when you cross something off and find that nobody has come to take you to jail. every unnecessary task you delete hands back a piece of your life. five interruptions can destroy a whole hour. he also kept a time journal and filled it in as the day went. like a financial budget, the journal showed where the time had actually gone. the goal was never to become an uber-worker. it was to work efficiently enough to leave at five and go home to the people he loved. he died eight months later, at 47. he ended the lecture with one sentence: “time is all we have. and we may find one day you have less than you think.” the lecture is free. all 75 minutes are in the video below. what will you change in the next 30 days?
1:15:15

a professor with a dozen tumors in his liver came to the university of virginia the day after chemotherapy and spent 75 minutes explaining how not to waste your own life. randy pausch called it a lecture on time management. he had three to six months of good health left, and three months and twelve days of it were already gone. students would ask whether the program was worth the money. pausch said the right question was a different one: is it worth two years of your life that you are never getting back? a deadline has a date and a person who will notice you missed it. importance has neither a date nor that person. so the urgent goes first in the queue, and then the next urgent thing goes first, even when it is worth nothing. pausch said to work on what is important while it still has no date. that is how the years disappear. hundreds of sensible, well argued hours spent on whatever asked more loudly. why am i doing this? what is my goal? what happens if i don't do it? the best moment, he said, is when you cross something off and find that nobody has come to take you to jail. every unnecessary task you delete hands back a piece of your life. five interruptions can destroy a whole hour. he also kept a time journal and filled it in as the day went. like a financial budget, the journal showed where the time had actually gone. the goal was never to become an uber-worker. it was to work efficiently enough to leave at five and go home to the people he loved. he died eight months later, at 47. he ended the lecture with one sentence: “time is all we have. and we may find one day you have less than you think.” the lecture is free. all 75 minutes are in the video below. what will you change in the next 30 days?

Lima

16,547 views • 13 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.”
0:57

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

103,296 views • 3 months ago

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.
9:00

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.

Andrej Drats

31,461 views • 1 month 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 -
1:36

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

36,461 views • 2 months ago

Today we lower the curtain on a life that spent itself teaching Uganda how to see its own reflection on a stage. To call him a playwright is true but insufficient. Mukulu was an institution unto himself. Those of us in this trade know what it costs to build a body of work like that, the rehearsals that ran too late, the casts he pushed because he refused to let anyone perform beneath what he knew they had in them. The arguments about a line or a gesture that felt, in the moment, like they mattered more than anything in the world. His language during rehearsals sometimes sounded vulgar to the young cast built around us but Art has no sanity. It’s as it is and what it is. More so, Mwami Mukulu was famous, actually notorious for his conduct as Director but the cast understood him and appreciate him. For demanding of his actors the same relentless standard he demanded of himself. That sternness was never cruelty. It was reverence. He simply could not treat the stage as anything less than sacred, and he made sure everyone who stood on one with him understood that too. He was, by every account, a difficult man to satisfy and an impossible man to forget. That is, in the end, the whole job description of a master to me a GRANDMASTER. Alex Mukulu did not simply entertain a country, he gave it a mirror and he held that mirror steady for almost fifty years, through changing governments and changing audiences. Never once flinching from what it showed. That is the work of a grand master of this craft, and it is the work he leaves in our hands now. Rest well, my Idol my inspiration Mr Director Alex Mukulu. The stage is dark tonight because you are no longer on it but everywhere US your students, your casts and your audiences carry a piece of what you taught us. The lights are still on Boss🫡 #SleepwellGrandMaster
1:26

Today we lower the curtain on a life that spent itself teaching Uganda how to see its own reflection on a stage. To call him a playwright is true but insufficient. Mukulu was an institution unto himself. Those of us in this trade know what it costs to build a body of work like that, the rehearsals that ran too late, the casts he pushed because he refused to let anyone perform beneath what he knew they had in them. The arguments about a line or a gesture that felt, in the moment, like they mattered more than anything in the world. His language during rehearsals sometimes sounded vulgar to the young cast built around us but Art has no sanity. It’s as it is and what it is. More so, Mwami Mukulu was famous, actually notorious for his conduct as Director but the cast understood him and appreciate him. For demanding of his actors the same relentless standard he demanded of himself. That sternness was never cruelty. It was reverence. He simply could not treat the stage as anything less than sacred, and he made sure everyone who stood on one with him understood that too. He was, by every account, a difficult man to satisfy and an impossible man to forget. That is, in the end, the whole job description of a master to me a GRANDMASTER. Alex Mukulu did not simply entertain a country, he gave it a mirror and he held that mirror steady for almost fifty years, through changing governments and changing audiences. Never once flinching from what it showed. That is the work of a grand master of this craft, and it is the work he leaves in our hands now. Rest well, my Idol my inspiration Mr Director Alex Mukulu. The stage is dark tonight because you are no longer on it but everywhere US your students, your casts and your audiences carry a piece of what you taught us. The lights are still on Boss🫡 #SleepwellGrandMaster

#JohnSegawaArts🇺🇬

12,521 views • 15 days 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.”
4:39

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

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
0:52

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 • 6 months 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.
6:07

[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

22,015 views • 3 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?
0:46

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🇺🇸

10,948,487 views • 7 months 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
4:46

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 • 4 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
0:20

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

410,141 views • 2 years ago