正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Sudhir Chaudhary asked BJP’s new IT Cell chief Deepak Mhaske the question everyone wanted: > "How will you take on the CJP & its style of operation?" Mhaske refused to treat it as a street fight. If a page raises issues, answer them. That is democracy. Do not turn... every exchange into a contest. He also addressed the harder point. > Crude, low-brow content travels faster. The cheaper the language, the quicker it goes viral. His reply was simple. FRIVOLOUS content can grab a headline for a day. Facts last longer. Lies have no legs. That is the uncommon line from the new IT chief. Not matching abuse with abuse. Waiting for the noise to fade and letting the record remain.show more

The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️)

146,029 subscribers

159,674 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

TRUST TRUMP, HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING! Reporter… What does the oil deal do for us? Trump’s answer was not a consultant memo. Prices are coming down. He would not promise the drop lands before Election Day. He said people are smart enough to know why we went into Iran in the first place. That is the whole fight in one exchange. Short term, energy is the grocery bill, the commute, the factory, the farm. When oil is expensive, everything behind it gets expensive. Long term, a country that begs the world for energy is a country that gets pushed around. A country that produces it, moves it, and keeps the Strait from being a weapon writes its own prices. He is not running from the Iran decision. He is tying it to the pump. Do not let them separate the two. Cheap energy is not a talking point. It is whether working families get to keep more of what they earn.

TRUST TRUMP, HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING! Reporter… What does the oil deal do for us? Trump’s answer was not a consultant memo. Prices are coming down. He would not promise the drop lands before Election Day. He said people are smart enough to know why we went into Iran in the first place. That is the whole fight in one exchange. Short term, energy is the grocery bill, the commute, the factory, the farm. When oil is expensive, everything behind it gets expensive. Long term, a country that begs the world for energy is a country that gets pushed around. A country that produces it, moves it, and keeps the Strait from being a weapon writes its own prices. He is not running from the Iran decision. He is tying it to the pump. Do not let them separate the two. Cheap energy is not a talking point. It is whether working families get to keep more of what they earn.

Gunther Eagleman™

53,391 次观看 • 25 天前

THE THREE MOST OVERLOOKED LINES IN A GROK BOT CHARTER ARE THE ONES THAT KEEP YOU IN CHARGE. approval is not a feature Chief levels into. it is a wall he cannot climb even if you ask him to. Rule 6, verbatim: "Approval belongs to the human, not to me. I never approve another bot's irreversible action. Only you do." i watch people hand Chief broader approval scopes every week thinking it is the upgrade path. it is not the upgrade path. it is the delegation chain forming behind you. the rule splits approval along three axes, and every one of them is the boundary: 1. own action vs another bot's action › Chief can sign off on delivering what he made himself. the moment he approves a sibling bot's action, the human is out of the loop. 2. reversible vs irreversible › anything Chief can undo in under one minute is his to run. anything he cannot is parked for you, without exception. 3. with Reports-to check vs through the chain › approval that reads a Reports-to line asks who the human is. approval that inherits from a previous bot's approval never asks. if Chief signed off on a publish, a payment or a send that you did not personally see, you are not running one bot with a boundary. you are running a chain that ends where nobody is checking. paste those three sentences into your charter, exactly as written. no synonyms, no softening.

THE THREE MOST OVERLOOKED LINES IN A GROK BOT CHARTER ARE THE ONES THAT KEEP YOU IN CHARGE. approval is not a feature Chief levels into. it is a wall he cannot climb even if you ask him to. Rule 6, verbatim: "Approval belongs to the human, not to me. I never approve another bot's irreversible action. Only you do." i watch people hand Chief broader approval scopes every week thinking it is the upgrade path. it is not the upgrade path. it is the delegation chain forming behind you. the rule splits approval along three axes, and every one of them is the boundary: 1. own action vs another bot's action › Chief can sign off on delivering what he made himself. the moment he approves a sibling bot's action, the human is out of the loop. 2. reversible vs irreversible › anything Chief can undo in under one minute is his to run. anything he cannot is parked for you, without exception. 3. with Reports-to check vs through the chain › approval that reads a Reports-to line asks who the human is. approval that inherits from a previous bot's approval never asks. if Chief signed off on a publish, a payment or a send that you did not personally see, you are not running one bot with a boundary. you are running a chain that ends where nobody is checking. paste those three sentences into your charter, exactly as written. no synonyms, no softening.

kocer

19,297 次观看 • 18 天前

🚨ELON MUSK: "If the margin of victory is high enough, it can exceed any type of cheating that can take place. We have to aim for a margin that it is impossible to have any shenanigans. If there's any voting issues you see, post it on X, let's shine a light on it. The brighter the light, the harder it will be to cheat."

🚨ELON MUSK: "If the margin of victory is high enough, it can exceed any type of cheating that can take place. We have to aim for a margin that it is impossible to have any shenanigans. If there's any voting issues you see, post it on X, let's shine a light on it. The brighter the light, the harder it will be to cheat."

Autism Capital 🧩

1,432,904 次观看 • 1 年前

Listen closely to every single word. Let them sink in. How does it make you feel? Now, take that feeling and imagine living through it—day after day, with no escape—while the world’s leaders turn a blind eye. Imagine the weight of that silence, the betrayal of inaction. This isn’t just a story or a headline; it’s reality for so many. And the question remains: How long will the world stand by and do nothing? There is no neutrality in the face of oppression. If you stand with injustice, you are complicit. The world must take a stand—silence is not an option.

Listen closely to every single word. Let them sink in. How does it make you feel? Now, take that feeling and imagine living through it—day after day, with no escape—while the world’s leaders turn a blind eye. Imagine the weight of that silence, the betrayal of inaction. This isn’t just a story or a headline; it’s reality for so many. And the question remains: How long will the world stand by and do nothing? There is no neutrality in the face of oppression. If you stand with injustice, you are complicit. The world must take a stand—silence is not an option.

Robert Martin 🇵🇸

24,644 次观看 • 1 年前

The goal for the new Grok powered 𝕏 algorithm: "It should be possible for somebody to post content as a new user with no followers and if that content is intrinsically excellent, it can be seen by a lot of people. That's our goal."

The goal for the new Grok powered 𝕏 algorithm: "It should be possible for somebody to post content as a new user with no followers and if that content is intrinsically excellent, it can be seen by a lot of people. That's our goal."

DogeDesigner

199,465 次观看 • 6 个月前

A Dead Mother Is Not a Campaign Asset. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some lines, once crossed, do not make you brave. They only tell the country what you have run out of. A video arrived on the feed late yesterday afternoon. It should have been forgettable — another clip, another stage, another attempt to turn politics into a skit. It was not forgettable. Because behind the laughter sat something older and uglier than partisan rivalry: the decision to keep using a late mother’s name, face, and memory as material. Heeraben Modi is not a slogan. She is not a character in an AI dream. She was a woman who lived ninety-nine years, raised a son the old-fashioned way, and left the world without asking to be drafted into anyone’s content calendar. To pull her back for a few seconds of applause is not fearlessness. It is poverty of argument wearing the mask of courage. First they made a joke of the Italian Prime Minister. Then they reached for the one person who cannot answer back. That sequence is not coincidence. It is a habit. When a party cannot defeat a man on work, it tries to diminish him through the people he cannot protect anymore. That is not strategy. That is smallness with a camera. The Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary job. It is the second most serious chair in Indian public life. It exists so that power can be questioned with steel, not with mimicry. Rahul Gandhi holds that chair and still does not seem to feel its weight. Decorum is not feudal courtesy. Ethics are not a luxury for the winning side. They are the last proof that you are fit to ask for power at all. It is permitted to lose elections. It is not permitted to lose the sense of what must remain untouched. You may mock a man’s English. You may mock his manner, his hugs, his accent, the way he walks into a room. A democracy can survive ridicule. It begins to rot when grief is turned into theatre and a mother’s silence is treated as consent. If even a tenth of this energy had gone into labour — the unglamorous, unfilmed, unfunny labour that actually builds a political life — the Congress might not now be explaining why its official handles look like a comedy page. Narendra Modi can be opposed. His record can be attacked. His government can be torn apart line by line. That is the work. This is the escape from work. Cheap theatrics buy a laugh that dies in thirty seconds. Character is what remains when the clip stops trending. Congress is not being finished by its opponents. It is finishing itself — loudly, publicly, and with a smile — by teaching the country that nothing is sacred once the crowd wants a show. A mother is not a punchline. An office is not a stage. And a party that no longer knows the difference is not rising. It is rehearsing its own burial, one viral second at a time. S Gurumurthy

A Dead Mother Is Not a Campaign Asset. ~ ~ Some lines, once crossed, do not make you brave. They only tell the country what you have run out of. A video arrived on the feed late yesterday afternoon. It should have been forgettable — another clip, another stage, another attempt to turn politics into a skit. It was not forgettable. Because behind the laughter sat something older and uglier than partisan rivalry: the decision to keep using a late mother’s name, face, and memory as material. Heeraben Modi is not a slogan. She is not a character in an AI dream. She was a woman who lived ninety-nine years, raised a son the old-fashioned way, and left the world without asking to be drafted into anyone’s content calendar. To pull her back for a few seconds of applause is not fearlessness. It is poverty of argument wearing the mask of courage. First they made a joke of the Italian Prime Minister. Then they reached for the one person who cannot answer back. That sequence is not coincidence. It is a habit. When a party cannot defeat a man on work, it tries to diminish him through the people he cannot protect anymore. That is not strategy. That is smallness with a camera. The Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary job. It is the second most serious chair in Indian public life. It exists so that power can be questioned with steel, not with mimicry. Rahul Gandhi holds that chair and still does not seem to feel its weight. Decorum is not feudal courtesy. Ethics are not a luxury for the winning side. They are the last proof that you are fit to ask for power at all. It is permitted to lose elections. It is not permitted to lose the sense of what must remain untouched. You may mock a man’s English. You may mock his manner, his hugs, his accent, the way he walks into a room. A democracy can survive ridicule. It begins to rot when grief is turned into theatre and a mother’s silence is treated as consent. If even a tenth of this energy had gone into labour — the unglamorous, unfilmed, unfunny labour that actually builds a political life — the Congress might not now be explaining why its official handles look like a comedy page. Narendra Modi can be opposed. His record can be attacked. His government can be torn apart line by line. That is the work. This is the escape from work. Cheap theatrics buy a laugh that dies in thirty seconds. Character is what remains when the clip stops trending. Congress is not being finished by its opponents. It is finishing itself — loudly, publicly, and with a smile — by teaching the country that nothing is sacred once the crowd wants a show. A mother is not a punchline. An office is not a stage. And a party that no longer knows the difference is not rising. It is rehearsing its own burial, one viral second at a time. S Gurumurthy

Kishore Subramanian

21,204 次观看 • 6 天前

A senior Ayatollah in Iran issued the ruling in plain language. Anyone who says he is not a Muslim must be beheaded. His words: “We will kill you, and we will kill you good.” That is not a street preacher. That is the religious system of the Islamic Republic — the same doctrine written into its apostasy law. They say it. The West calls you a bigot for repeating it. Is it “Islamophobic” to quote their own sentence? Let the world hear it.

A senior Ayatollah in Iran issued the ruling in plain language. Anyone who says he is not a Muslim must be beheaded. His words: “We will kill you, and we will kill you good.” That is not a street preacher. That is the religious system of the Islamic Republic — the same doctrine written into its apostasy law. They say it. The West calls you a bigot for repeating it. Is it “Islamophobic” to quote their own sentence? Let the world hear it.

Yossi BenYakar

10,722 次观看 • 19 天前

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Dustin

17,133 次观看 • 1 个月前

[WATCH] The question before the Court is short, and it is a question of law. When a political party has completed the Commission’s prescribed forms and uploaded its lists onto the Commission’s own system before the hour, has that party submitted its lists? The movement says it has. The Commission says it has not. That is a disagreement between a political party and a public institution about what a statute means, and this country built a specialist court for precisely that. The Electoral Court will decide it. The ANC will abide by what the courts decide. I say that now, before judgment, so that nobody need ask afterwards. I want to address the judgment the Electoral Court handed down on Friday in the matter of the UDF Party, because it has been reported as a blow to the ANC. The Court held that the Commission has no power to exempt one party from a deadline that binds all others. The African National Congress agrees with that. We have never asked for an exemption. We have never asked for an extension. We are not asking for one now. What the UDF asked for and what the ANC asks for are different things, and Friday’s judgment is the clearest statement yet of that difference. And to those who have warned the Commission against giving the ANC “preferential treatment”, I say this plainly. The ANC wants none. Whatever relief the Court grants, the movement has asked that it apply to every affected party on the same terms — to the forty-four other parties as much as to us. If the ANC succeeds, two thousand and ninety-three candidates who are not ours succeed with us. That is the only kind of relief this movement would accept. Now let me speak about the Electoral Commission again. The Electoral Commission is a Chapter Nine institution of our Constitution. The African National Congress, more than any other organisation in this country, argued for it, negotiated it and built it. Through seven national elections and six local elections, the ANC has accepted every substantive result the Commission has declared — including the result of 2024, which took from this movement the majority it had held for thirty years. We accepted it on the night. We did not go to a stage and call the Commission a thief. That record is who we are, and it is not for sale in a dispute over six councils. So let me be clear about what the ANC is doing and what it is not doing. The ANC is not attacking the Electoral Commission. The ANC disagrees with the Commission on a point of law, and it has taken that disagreement to the court that Parliament created to hear it. Disagreement in a court is how a democracy respects an institution. Disagreement on a stage, with slogans, is how a democracy weakens one. The movement has chosen the court, respectfully. There are parties in this country who have used this matter to relitigate their own grievances against the Commission. The ANC will not join them, and it will not be used by them. Where the Commission is attacked for doing its work, this movement will defend it, as it has always defended it. We have a responsibility to the institutions of this state that the Commission’s other critics do not carry, and we will carry it even while we are in court against it. And there is a responsibility on all of us that goes beyond this matter. Forty-five parties used one channel and had challenges. That is a fact about the channel, whatever the Court decides about the law. After this election the ANC will go to the Party Liaison Committee and propose, for every party, that the electronic route carry a receipt; that its final step be prescribed in regulation, published in the Gazette, where every party can read it, and not only in software; and that a party be able to see the record of what the Commission holds from it. Not so that the ANC is spared next time. So that no party, large or small, ever again stands where forty-five parties stand this morning. #ANCMediaBriefing #SGMbalulaSpeaks #LGE2026VoteANC

[WATCH] The question before the Court is short, and it is a question of law. When a political party has completed the Commission’s prescribed forms and uploaded its lists onto the Commission’s own system before the hour, has that party submitted its lists? The movement says it has. The Commission says it has not. That is a disagreement between a political party and a public institution about what a statute means, and this country built a specialist court for precisely that. The Electoral Court will decide it. The ANC will abide by what the courts decide. I say that now, before judgment, so that nobody need ask afterwards. I want to address the judgment the Electoral Court handed down on Friday in the matter of the UDF Party, because it has been reported as a blow to the ANC. The Court held that the Commission has no power to exempt one party from a deadline that binds all others. The African National Congress agrees with that. We have never asked for an exemption. We have never asked for an extension. We are not asking for one now. What the UDF asked for and what the ANC asks for are different things, and Friday’s judgment is the clearest statement yet of that difference. And to those who have warned the Commission against giving the ANC “preferential treatment”, I say this plainly. The ANC wants none. Whatever relief the Court grants, the movement has asked that it apply to every affected party on the same terms — to the forty-four other parties as much as to us. If the ANC succeeds, two thousand and ninety-three candidates who are not ours succeed with us. That is the only kind of relief this movement would accept. Now let me speak about the Electoral Commission again. The Electoral Commission is a Chapter Nine institution of our Constitution. The African National Congress, more than any other organisation in this country, argued for it, negotiated it and built it. Through seven national elections and six local elections, the ANC has accepted every substantive result the Commission has declared — including the result of 2024, which took from this movement the majority it had held for thirty years. We accepted it on the night. We did not go to a stage and call the Commission a thief. That record is who we are, and it is not for sale in a dispute over six councils. So let me be clear about what the ANC is doing and what it is not doing. The ANC is not attacking the Electoral Commission. The ANC disagrees with the Commission on a point of law, and it has taken that disagreement to the court that Parliament created to hear it. Disagreement in a court is how a democracy respects an institution. Disagreement on a stage, with slogans, is how a democracy weakens one. The movement has chosen the court, respectfully. There are parties in this country who have used this matter to relitigate their own grievances against the Commission. The ANC will not join them, and it will not be used by them. Where the Commission is attacked for doing its work, this movement will defend it, as it has always defended it. We have a responsibility to the institutions of this state that the Commission’s other critics do not carry, and we will carry it even while we are in court against it. And there is a responsibility on all of us that goes beyond this matter. Forty-five parties used one channel and had challenges. That is a fact about the channel, whatever the Court decides about the law. After this election the ANC will go to the Party Liaison Committee and propose, for every party, that the electronic route carry a receipt; that its final step be prescribed in regulation, published in the Gazette, where every party can read it, and not only in software; and that a party be able to see the record of what the Commission holds from it. Not so that the ANC is spared next time. So that no party, large or small, ever again stands where forty-five parties stand this morning. #ANCMediaBriefing #SGMbalulaSpeaks #LGE2026VoteANC

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

14,913 次观看 • 17 天前

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

3,009,160 次观看 • 1 个月前

THIS IS FALSE!!!! “Feelin’ It” was NEVER a Camp Lo record and Jay never got it in exchange for “Luchini.” It was originally a Ski SOLO record featuring Geechi Suede from Camp Lo and Mecca on the hook. Ski had a verse and wrote the hook. He played it for Jay and Jay wanted it for “Reasonable Doubt.” He offered to buy it and also asked for Ski’s blessing to use his flow on parts of the song. Ski accepted the offer, Jay wrote 3 new verses and kept Mecca on the hook.

THIS IS FALSE!!!! “Feelin’ It” was NEVER a Camp Lo record and Jay never got it in exchange for “Luchini.” It was originally a Ski SOLO record featuring Geechi Suede from Camp Lo and Mecca on the hook. Ski had a verse and wrote the hook. He played it for Jay and Jay wanted it for “Reasonable Doubt.” He offered to buy it and also asked for Ski’s blessing to use his flow on parts of the song. Ski accepted the offer, Jay wrote 3 new verses and kept Mecca on the hook.

Luis

28,942 次观看 • 2 个月前

Peter Steinberger just realized he destroyed the internet. Now he’s blocking his own creation. Steinberger built OpenClaw. An open-source AI agent framework that lets anyone deploy autonomous content generation. Then he watched what it did to his own timeline. Steinberger: “Content is now so cheap. Eyeballs are the expensive part.” For twenty years the internet ran on one equation. Content was scarce. Attention was abundant. His invention flipped it overnight. When the cost of generating a thought drops to zero, the content loses all value. What becomes scarce is the human willing to read it. The only luxury asset left on social media isn’t what you create. It’s who you can convince to look. Steinberger: “As soon as it smells like AI, I block. Zero-tolerance policy.” Let that land for a second. The man who open-sourced the tools for infinite autonomous content generation has a zero-tolerance policy for autonomous content generation. He didn’t just release the flood. He handed everyone a hose. Then built a wall around his own house. He finds it genuinely triggering to invest time reading a post only to realize he was never talking to a person. Not because the content was bad. Because the psychological contract was broken. When you read something, you assume a human mind spent time writing it. That assumption is the foundation of every meaningful exchange on the internet. AI breaks it silently. Without announcement. Without warning. Which raises the question Steinberger hasn’t fully answered. If the psychological contract matters enough to enforce zero tolerance on his own timeline, why release the tool that breaks it for everyone else’s? Steinberger: “It should very clearly be marked that they are doing stuff on my behalf and it’s not me.” His solution is structural. AI agents get their own explicitly marked accounts. Every automated post labeled. The line between human and machine drawn clearly enough that readers can choose which side they engage with. Because right now that line doesn’t exist. Partly because of what he built. When bots talk to bots at scale, when automated content floods timelines faster than humans can produce or consume it, the social web doesn’t evolve. It collapses into a void of machines performing humanity for an audience that isn’t there. The winner of this era won’t be whoever generates the most content. It will be whoever protects human attention from infinite machine noise while everyone else drowns in it. The guy who released the flood is now building the levee. Make of that what you will.

Peter Steinberger just realized he destroyed the internet. Now he’s blocking his own creation. Steinberger built OpenClaw. An open-source AI agent framework that lets anyone deploy autonomous content generation. Then he watched what it did to his own timeline. Steinberger: “Content is now so cheap. Eyeballs are the expensive part.” For twenty years the internet ran on one equation. Content was scarce. Attention was abundant. His invention flipped it overnight. When the cost of generating a thought drops to zero, the content loses all value. What becomes scarce is the human willing to read it. The only luxury asset left on social media isn’t what you create. It’s who you can convince to look. Steinberger: “As soon as it smells like AI, I block. Zero-tolerance policy.” Let that land for a second. The man who open-sourced the tools for infinite autonomous content generation has a zero-tolerance policy for autonomous content generation. He didn’t just release the flood. He handed everyone a hose. Then built a wall around his own house. He finds it genuinely triggering to invest time reading a post only to realize he was never talking to a person. Not because the content was bad. Because the psychological contract was broken. When you read something, you assume a human mind spent time writing it. That assumption is the foundation of every meaningful exchange on the internet. AI breaks it silently. Without announcement. Without warning. Which raises the question Steinberger hasn’t fully answered. If the psychological contract matters enough to enforce zero tolerance on his own timeline, why release the tool that breaks it for everyone else’s? Steinberger: “It should very clearly be marked that they are doing stuff on my behalf and it’s not me.” His solution is structural. AI agents get their own explicitly marked accounts. Every automated post labeled. The line between human and machine drawn clearly enough that readers can choose which side they engage with. Because right now that line doesn’t exist. Partly because of what he built. When bots talk to bots at scale, when automated content floods timelines faster than humans can produce or consume it, the social web doesn’t evolve. It collapses into a void of machines performing humanity for an audience that isn’t there. The winner of this era won’t be whoever generates the most content. It will be whoever protects human attention from infinite machine noise while everyone else drowns in it. The guy who released the flood is now building the levee. Make of that what you will.

Dustin

89,937 次观看 • 7 个月前