Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Struggling engineers identify with the craft. Thriving engineers identify more with the impact. - Gergely Orosz on SWEs in the era of vibecoding: "At my brother's company, he mandated his team: everyone’s using Claude Code, everyone needs to do prompting, and you need to generate your code." "Around 50%...

tbpn's profile picture

TBPN

653,122 subscribers

23,818 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

There is a massive advantage to hiring young people, and Shopify was the first company to figure it out, says Pragmatic Engineer's Gergely Orosz. "Shopify's Head of Engineering Farhan Thawar told me that he saw something interesting years back. Shopify was so early to AI. They got Copilot licenses for everyone, with no cost limit. But they didn't see many teams using it." "But there was this one team that was using it a lot more. There was an intern on the team. They onboarded the intern and gave the intern his two-week task and the intern was done in a day. And they're like, 'How did you do that?' He's like, 'Oh well I just used AI? What's next?'" "And suddenly the people on the team felt stupid, right? So they started to learn from the intern and use AI." "The next thing Farhan did was hire an intern for every single Shopify team. This is why Shopify had a thousand interns."
1:27

There is a massive advantage to hiring young people, and Shopify was the first company to figure it out, says Pragmatic Engineer's Gergely Orosz. "Shopify's Head of Engineering Farhan Thawar told me that he saw something interesting years back. Shopify was so early to AI. They got Copilot licenses for everyone, with no cost limit. But they didn't see many teams using it." "But there was this one team that was using it a lot more. There was an intern on the team. They onboarded the intern and gave the intern his two-week task and the intern was done in a day. And they're like, 'How did you do that?' He's like, 'Oh well I just used AI? What's next?'" "And suddenly the people on the team felt stupid, right? So they started to learn from the intern and use AI." "The next thing Farhan did was hire an intern for every single Shopify team. This is why Shopify had a thousand interns."

TBPN

135,588 views • 6 months ago

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."
2:04

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

The Pragmatic Engineer

39,011 views • 3 months ago

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."
1:12

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 views • 6 months ago

"We're trying to hire as many new grads as we can. We're finding that a lot of young people are agentmaxxing." - Replit founder Amjad Masad Amjad says that despite the “doom and gloom” around entry-level jobs, this is actually a “golden era” for young people who know how to use AI tools: "The roles are collapsing. We have designers shipping code, engineers shipping design, and salespeople shipping code." "The particular skill is not the bottleneck anymore. It is how ambitious you are, how generative you are, how creative you are, and how good you are at utilizing these tools." "So I think it's really a golden era for a lot of young people coming up right now in the job market. In our time, you would go and interview and become a Java J2EE software engineer doing global migrations. That was your title, right? It's no longer the case. We just want people to come and do things, and I think that's incredibly exciting."
1:49

"We're trying to hire as many new grads as we can. We're finding that a lot of young people are agentmaxxing." - Replit founder Amjad Masad Amjad says that despite the “doom and gloom” around entry-level jobs, this is actually a “golden era” for young people who know how to use AI tools: "The roles are collapsing. We have designers shipping code, engineers shipping design, and salespeople shipping code." "The particular skill is not the bottleneck anymore. It is how ambitious you are, how generative you are, how creative you are, and how good you are at utilizing these tools." "So I think it's really a golden era for a lot of young people coming up right now in the job market. In our time, you would go and interview and become a Java J2EE software engineer doing global migrations. That was your title, right? It's no longer the case. We just want people to come and do things, and I think that's incredibly exciting."

TBPN

47,144 views • 5 months ago

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)
1:15

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

97,145 views • 2 months ago

David Goggins: "It's so easy to be great nowadays because most people are weak" "People need purpose to perform. But you need to get to a point in your life where there's nothing on the docket, no race, no classes, no nothing and still perform to the highest level. Because one day, that thing's going to come up. And if you're not constantly performing without purpose, you're not going to be ready when the time comes." Goggins explains the real purpose: "We're all looking for this magical thing called purpose. But what's funny is the purpose never leaves us. Because the very purpose is you. You are always the purpose. If you wake up in the morning and you don't want to do something, you don't care enough about yourself. That's what you need to research. The number one purpose in life is to better oneself. That's the only purpose I need." On what gets him out of bed: "I know every other person ain't gonna do what I'm gonna do. That's how you level up. That fires me up. That makes me happy. There are so many people with ability who refuse to get off that couch. Refuse to study a few more hours. Refuse to go deeper, go further. That's where I gain the advantage." Goggins continues: "It's so easy to be great nowadays because most people are weak. Most people don't want to go that extra mile. Most people don't want to find that extra because it sucks. It's miserable. It's lonely. I used to hate that loneliness growing up. Now I thrive in it. That's the only place to be." On how to stop feeling sorry for yourself: "You have to want it. You have to want to be better. And it starts with this: you have to have pride in yourself. If you have no pride in yourself, I can't give it to you. Because you're always going to compromise. You're always going to fold. Always." Goggins shares how he holds himself accountable: "Every place I went in the military, there was this ethos about how we're going to live, how we're going to represent ourselves. I made one for myself on how I want to be. If people can make up a mission statement, an ethos they want to live by, and every morning wake up and hold themselves accountable to that mission, not a company's mission, your own, now you can work with somebody to get better. But until you know what you want to stand for, you will always just be sitting down. You'll never stand for anything." He concludes with his definition of "Roger that": "Received orders given. Expect results. Above and beyond. More than was expected. That's what Roger that means to me."
8:40

David Goggins: "It's so easy to be great nowadays because most people are weak" "People need purpose to perform. But you need to get to a point in your life where there's nothing on the docket, no race, no classes, no nothing and still perform to the highest level. Because one day, that thing's going to come up. And if you're not constantly performing without purpose, you're not going to be ready when the time comes." Goggins explains the real purpose: "We're all looking for this magical thing called purpose. But what's funny is the purpose never leaves us. Because the very purpose is you. You are always the purpose. If you wake up in the morning and you don't want to do something, you don't care enough about yourself. That's what you need to research. The number one purpose in life is to better oneself. That's the only purpose I need." On what gets him out of bed: "I know every other person ain't gonna do what I'm gonna do. That's how you level up. That fires me up. That makes me happy. There are so many people with ability who refuse to get off that couch. Refuse to study a few more hours. Refuse to go deeper, go further. That's where I gain the advantage." Goggins continues: "It's so easy to be great nowadays because most people are weak. Most people don't want to go that extra mile. Most people don't want to find that extra because it sucks. It's miserable. It's lonely. I used to hate that loneliness growing up. Now I thrive in it. That's the only place to be." On how to stop feeling sorry for yourself: "You have to want it. You have to want to be better. And it starts with this: you have to have pride in yourself. If you have no pride in yourself, I can't give it to you. Because you're always going to compromise. You're always going to fold. Always." Goggins shares how he holds himself accountable: "Every place I went in the military, there was this ethos about how we're going to live, how we're going to represent ourselves. I made one for myself on how I want to be. If people can make up a mission statement, an ethos they want to live by, and every morning wake up and hold themselves accountable to that mission, not a company's mission, your own, now you can work with somebody to get better. But until you know what you want to stand for, you will always just be sitting down. You'll never stand for anything." He concludes with his definition of "Roger that": "Received orders given. Expect results. Above and beyond. More than was expected. That's what Roger that means to me."

Jaynit

31,275 views • 4 months ago

🚨 JD VANCE NAILS IT ON BIDEN'S CANCER DIAGNOSIS: "We really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job [...] I don't think that he was in good enough health. In some ways, I blame him less than I blame the people around him." "You can separate the desire for him to have the right health outcome with the recognition that whether it was doctors or whether there were staffers around the former president, I don't think he was able to do a good job for the American people. And that's not politics. That's not because I disagreed with him on policy. That's because I don't think that he was in good enough health." "And why didn't the American people have a better sense of his health picture? Why didn't the American people have more accurate information about what he was actually dealing with? This is serious stuff." "This is the guy who carries around the nuclear football for the world's largest nuclear arsenal. This is not child's play." "And we can pray for good health, but also recognize that if you're not in good enough health to do the job, you shouldn't be doing the job." 💯 JD Vance
1:19

🚨 JD VANCE NAILS IT ON BIDEN'S CANCER DIAGNOSIS: "We really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job [...] I don't think that he was in good enough health. In some ways, I blame him less than I blame the people around him." "You can separate the desire for him to have the right health outcome with the recognition that whether it was doctors or whether there were staffers around the former president, I don't think he was able to do a good job for the American people. And that's not politics. That's not because I disagreed with him on policy. That's because I don't think that he was in good enough health." "And why didn't the American people have a better sense of his health picture? Why didn't the American people have more accurate information about what he was actually dealing with? This is serious stuff." "This is the guy who carries around the nuclear football for the world's largest nuclear arsenal. This is not child's play." "And we can pray for good health, but also recognize that if you're not in good enough health to do the job, you shouldn't be doing the job." 💯 JD Vance

Eric Daugherty

4,251,351 views • 1 year ago

.Darian Shirazi worries the promise of landing a tech job after college is at risk. "College, especially liberal arts, was formed for the process of being creative, thinking, philosophy, and writing. We've told people that they can go to college and get a good job at a tech company. I think that's in jeopardy currently." "Today, the mid-level engineers are managing coding agents in English. They're not even coding. At the senior level, the engineers are probably okay because we do need more code reviews and evaluations. But for entry-level positions, we've told a whole generation, including my generation, that they should go to college when I don't think that's necessary." "My hope is that we focus more on real trades like welding, plumbing, ceramics, and pottery. These are going to be more respected lines of work in the future as knowledge work gets completely replaced by AI." "I generally do worry about this because I don't know if colleges should be teaching computer science to everybody." "That being said, I think everyone should take a course to understand how AI and LLMs actually work. I think everyone should do their best to read the Transformer paper because it's kind of the Magna Carta of this generation."
2:07

.Darian Shirazi worries the promise of landing a tech job after college is at risk. "College, especially liberal arts, was formed for the process of being creative, thinking, philosophy, and writing. We've told people that they can go to college and get a good job at a tech company. I think that's in jeopardy currently." "Today, the mid-level engineers are managing coding agents in English. They're not even coding. At the senior level, the engineers are probably okay because we do need more code reviews and evaluations. But for entry-level positions, we've told a whole generation, including my generation, that they should go to college when I don't think that's necessary." "My hope is that we focus more on real trades like welding, plumbing, ceramics, and pottery. These are going to be more respected lines of work in the future as knowledge work gets completely replaced by AI." "I generally do worry about this because I don't know if colleges should be teaching computer science to everybody." "That being said, I think everyone should take a course to understand how AI and LLMs actually work. I think everyone should do their best to read the Transformer paper because it's kind of the Magna Carta of this generation."

TBPN

19,145 views • 3 months ago

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)
3:29

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

Joe Murgia

30,311 views • 8 months ago

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."
1:02

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."

Autism Capital 🧩

1,666,495 views • 1 year ago

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 views • 1 year ago

Back then, even when Gumayusi wasn't the starting player, it was his choice to go at the venue or not but he still chose to go because he thought it was important to be with the team and watch the matches. Q: It seems like it was tough when you were subbed out of the starting line up. Could you talk a bit more specifically about how you got through that period? Gumayusi: Usually, people say they “overcame” tough times, but lately my thinking has changed. I think that hardships aren't something you overcome, but they're something you endure. Q: On him going to the venue despite not being on the starting lineup back then Gumayusi: Actually, it was my choice whether to go or not. At first, it hurt, so I thought I didn’t want to go. But I realized that instead of thinking/dwelling on the situation negatively and doing nothing, it was more important to go there, be with the team and watch the matches. In the end, I think it was good that I went.
0:47

Back then, even when Gumayusi wasn't the starting player, it was his choice to go at the venue or not but he still chose to go because he thought it was important to be with the team and watch the matches. Q: It seems like it was tough when you were subbed out of the starting line up. Could you talk a bit more specifically about how you got through that period? Gumayusi: Usually, people say they “overcame” tough times, but lately my thinking has changed. I think that hardships aren't something you overcome, but they're something you endure. Q: On him going to the venue despite not being on the starting lineup back then Gumayusi: Actually, it was my choice whether to go or not. At first, it hurt, so I thought I didn’t want to go. But I realized that instead of thinking/dwelling on the situation negatively and doing nothing, it was more important to go there, be with the team and watch the matches. In the end, I think it was good that I went.

ye?

41,355 views • 7 months ago

Landon's message to Christian Pulisic: "This is an opportunity to help and to change your life forever. One of the biggest problems - I speak to people who are at U.S. Soccer. I speak to his sponsors. I speak to his teammates. I speak to the staff and the coaches. People are fed up with the way things are handled around him. And it's not necessarily him, but it's his agents, his family, his hangers-on, the people who are influencing. People are fed up with it. They treat people poorly. They do things poorly. It's always a 'no' whenever you wanna ask, 'Can we do an interview?' It's always a, 'No, you can't get near him.' He doesn't say 'hi' to the commentators who do all the games all the time when they walk by. All the other guys come over and shake hands and say, 'Hello.' There's just this sense about him that you can't get near him. And I actually don't think it's from him. I think it's from I think it's from the people around him."
2:17

Landon's message to Christian Pulisic: "This is an opportunity to help and to change your life forever. One of the biggest problems - I speak to people who are at U.S. Soccer. I speak to his sponsors. I speak to his teammates. I speak to the staff and the coaches. People are fed up with the way things are handled around him. And it's not necessarily him, but it's his agents, his family, his hangers-on, the people who are influencing. People are fed up with it. They treat people poorly. They do things poorly. It's always a 'no' whenever you wanna ask, 'Can we do an interview?' It's always a, 'No, you can't get near him.' He doesn't say 'hi' to the commentators who do all the games all the time when they walk by. All the other guys come over and shake hands and say, 'Hello.' There's just this sense about him that you can't get near him. And I actually don't think it's from him. I think it's from I think it's from the people around him."

Unfiltered Soccer

3,930,337 views • 1 month ago

Nick Saban got fired up. It was December 2014. A reporter asked about defensive lineman D.J. Pettway: “How gratifying is it to you to see him make the most of his second chance?” Saban launched into a speech every human needs to hear. (Pettway, who was dismissed from Alabama a year prior, returned to the program and earned his degree.) Here’s Saban on Second Chances: “There’s always a lot of criticism out there when somebody does something wrong. Everybody wants to know, how are you gonna punish the guy? “But there’s not enough, for 19 and 20 year old kids, people out there saying, why don’t you give them another chance. “Guy makes a mistake. Where do you want him to be? Want him to be in the street? Or do you want him to be here graduating? “Muhsin Muhammad played for me at Michigan State. Everybody in the school, every newspaper guy, everybody was killing the guy because he got in trouble and said there’s no way he should be on our team. I didn’t kick him off the team. I suspended him, I made him do stuff. “He graduated from Michigan State. He played 15 years in the league. He’s the president of a company now. He has 7 children, and his oldest daughter goes to Princeton. So, who was right? “I feel strong about this now. About all the criticism out there of every guy that’s 19 years old that makes a mistake and you all kill him. And then some people won’t stand up for him. “So my question to you is, where do you want him to be? “You want to condemn him to a life sentence? Or do you want the guy to have his children going to Princeton?” – It’s an important message in a world filled with hate. My takeaways: 1. Everyone makes mistakes. We just forget our own. 2. We tend to judge others who mess up. The better response is compassion. 3. Mistakes are teaching moments, first and foremost. Don’t waste that opportunity. 4. One mistake doesn’t (necessarily) make someone a bad person. Most people have the potential to learn, move on and do better. 5. That said, mistakes require accountability and carry consequences. You have to own them. 6. Second chances don’t guarantee third chances. 7. If you want to feel self-righteous, condemn someone. If you want to actually make a difference, love them. 8. The world needs more loving discipline. ||| Hope this is helpful. Follow me Teddy Mitrosilis for more writing. I’ll share more from Saban in my weekly newsletter →
2:06

Nick Saban got fired up. It was December 2014. A reporter asked about defensive lineman D.J. Pettway: “How gratifying is it to you to see him make the most of his second chance?” Saban launched into a speech every human needs to hear. (Pettway, who was dismissed from Alabama a year prior, returned to the program and earned his degree.) Here’s Saban on Second Chances: “There’s always a lot of criticism out there when somebody does something wrong. Everybody wants to know, how are you gonna punish the guy? “But there’s not enough, for 19 and 20 year old kids, people out there saying, why don’t you give them another chance. “Guy makes a mistake. Where do you want him to be? Want him to be in the street? Or do you want him to be here graduating? “Muhsin Muhammad played for me at Michigan State. Everybody in the school, every newspaper guy, everybody was killing the guy because he got in trouble and said there’s no way he should be on our team. I didn’t kick him off the team. I suspended him, I made him do stuff. “He graduated from Michigan State. He played 15 years in the league. He’s the president of a company now. He has 7 children, and his oldest daughter goes to Princeton. So, who was right? “I feel strong about this now. About all the criticism out there of every guy that’s 19 years old that makes a mistake and you all kill him. And then some people won’t stand up for him. “So my question to you is, where do you want him to be? “You want to condemn him to a life sentence? Or do you want the guy to have his children going to Princeton?” – It’s an important message in a world filled with hate. My takeaways: 1. Everyone makes mistakes. We just forget our own. 2. We tend to judge others who mess up. The better response is compassion. 3. Mistakes are teaching moments, first and foremost. Don’t waste that opportunity. 4. One mistake doesn’t (necessarily) make someone a bad person. Most people have the potential to learn, move on and do better. 5. That said, mistakes require accountability and carry consequences. You have to own them. 6. Second chances don’t guarantee third chances. 7. If you want to feel self-righteous, condemn someone. If you want to actually make a difference, love them. 8. The world needs more loving discipline. ||| Hope this is helpful. Follow me Teddy Mitrosilis for more writing. I’ll share more from Saban in my weekly newsletter →

Teddy Mitrosilis

2,448,313 views • 2 years ago

Founder & CEO of Replit ⠕ Amjad Masad on the 1000x engineer: “The buzzword in Silicon Valley has been the 10x engineer. 2-3 years ago, I talked about the 1000x engineer, highly leveraged by autonomous agents." "You're not just one person, you’re a team of engineers. Every engineer is a sort of manager now." "We're not at 1000x yet. But pretty soon, the difference between a great engineer who knows how to use AI tools and an okay or good one is going to be 100x.”
1:12

Founder & CEO of Replit ⠕ Amjad Masad on the 1000x engineer: “The buzzword in Silicon Valley has been the 10x engineer. 2-3 years ago, I talked about the 1000x engineer, highly leveraged by autonomous agents." "You're not just one person, you’re a team of engineers. Every engineer is a sort of manager now." "We're not at 1000x yet. But pretty soon, the difference between a great engineer who knows how to use AI tools and an okay or good one is going to be 100x.”

TBPN

77,617 views • 7 months ago

Kevin Durant can no longer be who the Houston Rockets are asking him to be, and that’s not his fault. He is on a team where he NEEDS another playmaker next to him to thrive. Once again finding himself in a situation where the roster isn’t the best for him.
1:21

Kevin Durant can no longer be who the Houston Rockets are asking him to be, and that’s not his fault. He is on a team where he NEEDS another playmaker next to him to thrive. Once again finding himself in a situation where the roster isn’t the best for him.

Erik Ruby

72,153 views • 5 months ago