Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

Sundar Pichai explains Google Search latency budgets: "I’ve always internalized speed as one of the distinguishing features of a great product. It almost always reflects the technical underpinnings of the product having been done well. It's easy to say you want low latency, but you're constantly adding capabilities. The... capability frontier is progressing. That's where it gets more complicated. But to give an example, Search they now have latency budgets, in the milliseconds. If you ship something which shaves off three milliseconds, you earn 1.5 milliseconds for your latency budget, and 1.5 milliseconds gets passed onto the user. Depending on what we think you're doing, some people may get a latency budget of 30 milliseconds or 10 milliseconds. That's how much we think it matters." Sundar Pichai Elad Gil John Collisonshow more

Stripe

285,109 subscribers

23,879 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The value of the work we're doing at Optimum is encapsulated quite well by the phrase "speed is money". In modern markets there are real economic advantages to latency reduction. This is nothing new. Wall Street firms have long been optimizing on latency, primarily through colocation and top of the line hardware. However, when it comes to decentralized systems, expensive hardware and geographic concentration are antithetical to their purpose. Therefore we should optimize decentralized network latency through software, which I'm thrilled about because it's exactly what I've spent the better part of the past 2 decades working on with Random Linear Network Coding. Now let’s talk about networking economics, the relationship between speed and money. First, it's important to note that users will only pay for low latency if it can be consistently guaranteed. Second, you can only make that latency guarantee for a certain number of users. This is a universal law of networking. We can model this relationship on a delay curve, shown below. The delay curve is determined by the utilization rate of the network, meaning how much traffic is flowing through the network divided by the network's throughput. As you approach a level of traffic equal to the available throughput, latency trends infinitely higher. On this delay curve we can impose some utility thresholds. These thresholds are the levels of latency which are important to different groups of users because of how that latency guarantee improves their economic outcomes. Finding the point on the curve where each threshold intersects will tell us what level of traffic we can guarantee that level of latency for. Essentially, there exists a finite supply of speed on a network and the highest utility users of that speed are willing to pay more for it. I like to think of this similarly to expedited shipping options on Amazon. This is why we say speed is money, and why we can create a Latency Marketplace. The only way to increase the supply of speed is to fundamentally increase network throughput. This is what we work on at Optimum by using Random Linear Network Coding. The same relationship between traffic and throughput still applies, but now the delay curve is shifted out further to the right. Now more traffic can be processed at the same latency, or the same traffic can be processed at a lower latency. More speed available to the network. More value unlocked for the network’s users. Crucially, that value is no longer only reserved for those who can afford to sit closest to the machine. Expanding the supply of speed widens who can reach each latency threshold, keeping the network's advantage decentralized rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. When nodes join Optimum and participate, they reap the benefits, but they also add to the capacity. Rather than vying against each other in a zero-sum game, nodes help themselves and others.

The value of the work we're doing at Optimum is encapsulated quite well by the phrase "speed is money". In modern markets there are real economic advantages to latency reduction. This is nothing new. Wall Street firms have long been optimizing on latency, primarily through colocation and top of the line hardware. However, when it comes to decentralized systems, expensive hardware and geographic concentration are antithetical to their purpose. Therefore we should optimize decentralized network latency through software, which I'm thrilled about because it's exactly what I've spent the better part of the past 2 decades working on with Random Linear Network Coding. Now let’s talk about networking economics, the relationship between speed and money. First, it's important to note that users will only pay for low latency if it can be consistently guaranteed. Second, you can only make that latency guarantee for a certain number of users. This is a universal law of networking. We can model this relationship on a delay curve, shown below. The delay curve is determined by the utilization rate of the network, meaning how much traffic is flowing through the network divided by the network's throughput. As you approach a level of traffic equal to the available throughput, latency trends infinitely higher. On this delay curve we can impose some utility thresholds. These thresholds are the levels of latency which are important to different groups of users because of how that latency guarantee improves their economic outcomes. Finding the point on the curve where each threshold intersects will tell us what level of traffic we can guarantee that level of latency for. Essentially, there exists a finite supply of speed on a network and the highest utility users of that speed are willing to pay more for it. I like to think of this similarly to expedited shipping options on Amazon. This is why we say speed is money, and why we can create a Latency Marketplace. The only way to increase the supply of speed is to fundamentally increase network throughput. This is what we work on at Optimum by using Random Linear Network Coding. The same relationship between traffic and throughput still applies, but now the delay curve is shifted out further to the right. Now more traffic can be processed at the same latency, or the same traffic can be processed at a lower latency. More speed available to the network. More value unlocked for the network’s users. Crucially, that value is no longer only reserved for those who can afford to sit closest to the machine. Expanding the supply of speed widens who can reach each latency threshold, keeping the network's advantage decentralized rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. When nodes join Optimum and participate, they reap the benefits, but they also add to the capacity. Rather than vying against each other in a zero-sum game, nodes help themselves and others.

Muriel Medard

30,518 views • 10 days ago

BREAKING: Did Polymarket just silently nuke the 500ms taker delay? Rumor has it the speed bump on crypto markets is GONE. No announcement, no changelog, nothing. The crazy part? It was never officially documented in the first place. I literally only found proof of its existence buried in a 3rd-party GitHub repo code Why this matters: - Takers/aggressive bots: You're eating MUCH faster now, which is great... if your latency is good - Makers/liquidity providers: You're about to get picked off way more often. RIP to anyone not updating quotes constantly - Arbitrage: The game just got 500ms faster. May the lowest-latency chad win Traders are already claiming they got wrecked overnight. Unless you asked Claude to update your OpenClaw configs for zero-latency, you are probably getting farmed right now See the execution speed for yourself:

BREAKING: Did Polymarket just silently nuke the 500ms taker delay? Rumor has it the speed bump on crypto markets is GONE. No announcement, no changelog, nothing. The crazy part? It was never officially documented in the first place. I literally only found proof of its existence buried in a 3rd-party GitHub repo code Why this matters: - Takers/aggressive bots: You're eating MUCH faster now, which is great... if your latency is good - Makers/liquidity providers: You're about to get picked off way more often. RIP to anyone not updating quotes constantly - Arbitrage: The game just got 500ms faster. May the lowest-latency chad win Traders are already claiming they got wrecked overnight. Unless you asked Claude to update your OpenClaw configs for zero-latency, you are probably getting farmed right now See the execution speed for yourself:

BuBBliK

110,516 views • 4 months ago

'The narrative of the last few years is that Lewis Hamilton is washed, but if you actually look at the numbers and the context, I know that's tough for some, that falls apart real quickly.' 'This comes off of the Mexican Grand Prix qualifying where he stuck it in P3. Since the summer break, Hamilton's average qualifying gap to Leclerc, one of the best single lap drivers in Formula 1, is just 30 milliseconds. That's right, 30 milliseconds. And here's the kicker. Leclerc is in his prime.' 'Hamilton is 40, in a brand new team, learning an entirely different car philosophy, working with a completely new crew of engineers. He's really not supposed to be this close yet.' 'He's supposed to be learning still, but the data says otherwise. In Mexico, he was just 9 milliseconds off. In Singapore, he out-qualified Leclerc by a tenth. And he's quietly closing the gap while everyone else, including parts of the media, keep pushing this lazy narrative that he's lost it.' 'And you know what? It makes sense. Calling Lewis Hamilton washed is an easy one from a storytelling perspective. It avoids the complexity of what he's actually doing, adapting to this ground effect era and learning Ferrari's quirks, and still matching one of the great and quick drivers of his generation.' 'We talk a lot about greatness when it's obvious, wins, titles, domination, but real greatness looks like this, staying relevant when the odds say you shouldn't be. So here's the question. Are we witnessing Hamilton's decline? Or his reinvention.' 📹 tyrellformula1 / IG

sim

12,625 views • 8 months ago

$GOOGL CEO Sundar Pichai on why Google didn't ship ChatGPT first, and the signal they missed from OpenAI: We even conceived the product, it was Lambda. There was an engineer inside who thought it was sentient. Think of it as an early version of ChatGPT. In the multiverse, Google probably shipped that 9 months earlier... but the version I saw was a lot more toxic at a level we couldn't have possibly put it out. As a company with this search quality bias, we had a higher bar for what we thought was acceptable product quality. I think they were lucky to also see it on the coding side with GitHub. Maybe there was a signal we were missing. The jumps between GPT-2 and 3 and later 4 were more pronounced if you were using it for coding.

$GOOGL CEO Sundar Pichai on why Google didn't ship ChatGPT first, and the signal they missed from OpenAI: We even conceived the product, it was Lambda. There was an engineer inside who thought it was sentient. Think of it as an early version of ChatGPT. In the multiverse, Google probably shipped that 9 months earlier... but the version I saw was a lot more toxic at a level we couldn't have possibly put it out. As a company with this search quality bias, we had a higher bar for what we thought was acceptable product quality. I think they were lucky to also see it on the coding side with GitHub. Maybe there was a signal we were missing. The jumps between GPT-2 and 3 and later 4 were more pronounced if you were using it for coding.

Wall St Engine

150,559 views • 3 months ago

J-Cal Explains Why Google is UNDERRATED in AI 👀 On E227, the besties discussed Google's value in a post-search world if AI replaces traditional search. @jason broke down why he thinks Google is being slept on: "I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now." "They have four or five products that are one or two billion users per month. You have YouTube, Google Docs, Android." "They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services, I think Google's gonna figure this out." "It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in Calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more targeted ads that do better and are more valuable." "We've been seeing a number of startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results." "So imagine you're doing a Gemini search and on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in." "That could be a better advertising product than even search itself." "I think YouTube search is the place to go all-in." "Right now, when you do a YouTube search, it just gives you 10 links, right? It just gives you that rolling thing." "You should be able to ask a question to YouTube, and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar." "You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years? Who I'm no longer in touch with and what are they up to?" "And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now." "And then if you did that on YouTube, this would train people at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google Search queries too aggressively."

J-Cal Explains Why Google is UNDERRATED in AI 👀 On E227, the besties discussed Google's value in a post-search world if AI replaces traditional search. @jason broke down why he thinks Google is being slept on: "I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now." "They have four or five products that are one or two billion users per month. You have YouTube, Google Docs, Android." "They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services, I think Google's gonna figure this out." "It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in Calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more targeted ads that do better and are more valuable." "We've been seeing a number of startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results." "So imagine you're doing a Gemini search and on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in." "That could be a better advertising product than even search itself." "I think YouTube search is the place to go all-in." "Right now, when you do a YouTube search, it just gives you 10 links, right? It just gives you that rolling thing." "You should be able to ask a question to YouTube, and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar." "You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years? Who I'm no longer in touch with and what are they up to?" "And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now." "And then if you did that on YouTube, this would train people at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google Search queries too aggressively."

The All-In Podcast

58,275 views • 1 year ago

During the snowstorm that is sweeping through the U.S. right now, the safest vehicle you can be in is in a Tesla with FSD bc it can react faster than any human or gas car. An electric motors respond in milliseconds. When a wheel starts to slip on snow or ice, Tesla’s sensors detect it up to 1,000 times per second, and the computer instantly cuts or redistributes power to the wheels with grip. On the other hand, gas cars have major delay and don’t have this capability… That means if your Tesla hits a tiny patch of ice, the car corrects it right away, even before you even feel it, almost like the car is thinking ahead. If you don’t believe me listen to the man that built it. Joe: “What happens if you get sideways in the snow? Like, does it correct for that?” Elon: “Yeah. Electric cars have really great traction control because the reaction time is so fast. So, with a gasoline car, you’ve got a lot of latency. It takes a while for the engine to react, but for electric motors, incredibly precise…. But to an electric motor, it’s operating at the millisecond level. So, it can turn on and off traction within, like, inches of getting on… let’s say, you’re driving on a patch of ice, it will turn traction off, and then turn it on a couple inches right after the ice, like a little patch of ice because in the frame of the electric motor, you’re moving incredibly slowly. You’re like a, you’re a snail. You’re just moving so slowly because it can see at a thousand frames a second. And so, it’s like, say ‘one Mississippi’, it just thought about things a thousand times.” Joe: “So, it has realized that your wheels are not getting traction. It understands there’s some slippery surface that you’re driving on.” Elon: “Yes.” Joe: “And it makes adjustments in real-time.” Elon: “Yes, in milliseconds.” Joe: “That would be so much safer than a regular car.” AKA, buy a Tesla if you want to be in the safest car in the world. 💯

During the snowstorm that is sweeping through the U.S. right now, the safest vehicle you can be in is in a Tesla with FSD bc it can react faster than any human or gas car. An electric motors respond in milliseconds. When a wheel starts to slip on snow or ice, Tesla’s sensors detect it up to 1,000 times per second, and the computer instantly cuts or redistributes power to the wheels with grip. On the other hand, gas cars have major delay and don’t have this capability… That means if your Tesla hits a tiny patch of ice, the car corrects it right away, even before you even feel it, almost like the car is thinking ahead. If you don’t believe me listen to the man that built it. Joe: “What happens if you get sideways in the snow? Like, does it correct for that?” Elon: “Yeah. Electric cars have really great traction control because the reaction time is so fast. So, with a gasoline car, you’ve got a lot of latency. It takes a while for the engine to react, but for electric motors, incredibly precise…. But to an electric motor, it’s operating at the millisecond level. So, it can turn on and off traction within, like, inches of getting on… let’s say, you’re driving on a patch of ice, it will turn traction off, and then turn it on a couple inches right after the ice, like a little patch of ice because in the frame of the electric motor, you’re moving incredibly slowly. You’re like a, you’re a snail. You’re just moving so slowly because it can see at a thousand frames a second. And so, it’s like, say ‘one Mississippi’, it just thought about things a thousand times.” Joe: “So, it has realized that your wheels are not getting traction. It understands there’s some slippery surface that you’re driving on.” Elon: “Yes.” Joe: “And it makes adjustments in real-time.” Elon: “Yes, in milliseconds.” Joe: “That would be so much safer than a regular car.” AKA, buy a Tesla if you want to be in the safest car in the world. 💯

Teslaconomics

38,945 views • 5 months ago

Trump goes on unintelligible rant: “Google, nobody called from Google. One of the things like doing a show like yours, your show, you know, you see it on Fox, but when you really see it is all over the place, they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job, they're gonna vote for me, they're gonna vote for me because it's not just on Fox, it's on Fox is a smaller part of it. You're on all over this, those little beautiful cell phones you're on, you're all over the place. You have a product, you have a great product. You have a great brand. So you have to get out, you have to get out, you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad. They've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google is gonna be close to shut down”

Headquarters

2,693,739 views • 1 year ago

The difference a lot of people don't realize is that when you're a celebrity, 50% of the population doesn't like you. That's just how it is. They don't like you. But when you're a politician, 50% of the constituency hates you and two and a half percent of them want to kill you. That's the difference. There's always that two and a half percent lunatic fringe no matter where you are. It's pretty scary and it's tough on your family and that's why I have so much respect for politicians.

The difference a lot of people don't realize is that when you're a celebrity, 50% of the population doesn't like you. That's just how it is. They don't like you. But when you're a politician, 50% of the constituency hates you and two and a half percent of them want to kill you. That's the difference. There's always that two and a half percent lunatic fringe no matter where you are. It's pretty scary and it's tough on your family and that's why I have so much respect for politicians.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

24,897 views • 6 months ago

Walker: But I also think employers have a right to say not if you say something that's inconsistent with the principles of our organization, we don't want you on Jarvis: Do you think Fox should take Kilmeade off the air for what he said about homeless people? Walker: They have a right to do it Jarvis: Do you think they should. I’m asking for your judgement.

Walker: But I also think employers have a right to say not if you say something that's inconsistent with the principles of our organization, we don't want you on Jarvis: Do you think Fox should take Kilmeade off the air for what he said about homeless people? Walker: They have a right to do it Jarvis: Do you think they should. I’m asking for your judgement.

Acyn

218,079 views • 10 months ago

People are overlooking Google Gemini Realtime models for computer use It gave me sub 100ms latency with computer use. It has a much larger context window and is much cheaper as well Combine that with local OCR and local screen detection model based on Omniparser by Microsoft it works under 100ms action taking when combined with Cua I also put in a harness for Nous Research Hermes with it. You can access it all at your tip of your cursor. You can draw on your screen to give your agents a context And I am making it Open Source! Link in the Comments Sundar Pichai Min-Liang Tan Mojtaba Seyedhosseini

People are overlooking Google Gemini Realtime models for computer use It gave me sub 100ms latency with computer use. It has a much larger context window and is much cheaper as well Combine that with local OCR and local screen detection model based on Omniparser by Microsoft it works under 100ms action taking when combined with Cua I also put in a harness for Nous Research Hermes with it. You can access it all at your tip of your cursor. You can draw on your screen to give your agents a context And I am making it Open Source! Link in the Comments Sundar Pichai Min-Liang Tan Mojtaba Seyedhosseini

Milind S

38,054 views • 1 month ago

I love the Arcade1Up Official cabinets that Trista has given me the last couple years. Yes, you can run free emulators on almost any device, but having the games running in a cabinet with arcade controls is a much better experience, even though it is just a packaged emulator. I was pretty decent back in the day, but after playing these for a while, I got farther than young-John ever did. Recently I played an original Joust machine at Cidercade and on my second game, I blew away my previous best score at home — 158k! The subtle control latency of the emulated experience versus the real thing matters! I measured the press-to-flap latency at home, and it looks like about 80ms. It isn’t blatantly obvious, but it shows up in the game feel and control error rate. I know there is a hard core community around emulator optimization, and with high refresh rate monitors it is possible to get objectively lower latency than the original CRT based hardware, but there is no reason the popular consumer versions can’t get most of the way there. This is probably just a matter of backing up a triple buffered swap chain or extra layers of image scaling / UI compositor getting in the way. Phase sync to the last quarter or so of the video interval and swap to the actual display should cut that latency in half. Doing the bit plane graphics and scaling directly to /dev/fb0 with software would be a guaranteed low latency path if you can get vsync timing. Trivia: The real Joust, and all the classic Williams games, didn’t even page flip, they just drew straight to the frame buffer, paying attention to the scan time.

I love the Arcade1Up Official cabinets that Trista has given me the last couple years. Yes, you can run free emulators on almost any device, but having the games running in a cabinet with arcade controls is a much better experience, even though it is just a packaged emulator. I was pretty decent back in the day, but after playing these for a while, I got farther than young-John ever did. Recently I played an original Joust machine at Cidercade and on my second game, I blew away my previous best score at home — 158k! The subtle control latency of the emulated experience versus the real thing matters! I measured the press-to-flap latency at home, and it looks like about 80ms. It isn’t blatantly obvious, but it shows up in the game feel and control error rate. I know there is a hard core community around emulator optimization, and with high refresh rate monitors it is possible to get objectively lower latency than the original CRT based hardware, but there is no reason the popular consumer versions can’t get most of the way there. This is probably just a matter of backing up a triple buffered swap chain or extra layers of image scaling / UI compositor getting in the way. Phase sync to the last quarter or so of the video interval and swap to the actual display should cut that latency in half. Doing the bit plane graphics and scaling directly to /dev/fb0 with software would be a guaranteed low latency path if you can get vsync timing. Trivia: The real Joust, and all the classic Williams games, didn’t even page flip, they just drew straight to the frame buffer, paying attention to the scan time.

John Carmack

61,855 views • 1 year ago

Psyop expert Chase Hughes breaks down how the CIA recruits influencers. "Stage one is I show you all of your browsing history, captures from your webcams... of you doing the most compromising s*it you could ever possibly imagine." "And I'd say, I like your podcast, I think you're doing a great job and I want to protect you... But we also want to give you $20,000 a month." "So now you feel like you chose all of this." "Even though you're being asked to silence people, not have certain people on the show, leave something out of your podcast, you're telling yourself... this is for the greater good."

Psyop expert Chase Hughes breaks down how the CIA recruits influencers. "Stage one is I show you all of your browsing history, captures from your webcams... of you doing the most compromising s*it you could ever possibly imagine." "And I'd say, I like your podcast, I think you're doing a great job and I want to protect you... But we also want to give you $20,000 a month." "So now you feel like you chose all of this." "Even though you're being asked to silence people, not have certain people on the show, leave something out of your podcast, you're telling yourself... this is for the greater good."

Wide Awake Media

529,404 views • 5 months ago

The founders of Stripe and Pinterest on how to convince people to join your startup Stripe CEO Patrick Collison argues that part of the reason startups resonate so much is because the outcome is not guaranteed: "If it were guaranteed, it would be boring... Whether or not you're the best person in the world at what you do, you're probably not going to alter Google's trajectory. But if you really want to benchmark yourself and see how much of a contribution and impact you can make--which is a really compelling prospect for a lot of the best people--a startup is a much better place to test that." Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann emphasized this as well: "No smart person that you're hiring is under the illusion that you have a crystal ball into the future and that joining is a guaranteed thing. In fact, if you're telling them that and they select in, you shouldn't hire them because they didn't pass a basic intelligence test. I think it's important to tell them what's exciting and where you think the company can go. But also tell them where it will be hard and chart your best plan. And then tell them why their role can be instrumental--because it will be... What I would discourage doing is whitewashing all of that. If people are joining your company because they want all of the certainty and safety of working at Google but also the perks of working at a small startup with lots of responsibility and transparency, that's a really negative sign." Apparently in the early days of PayPal, Peter Thiel and Max Levchin would tell people after they interviewed all the reasons that the company would fail: "Visa and MasterCard want to kill us. We also might be doing something that's illegal. But if we succeed, we'll redefine payments." Don't whitewash the risks. Instead tell them how your startup will change the world if you succeed and how their role will be instrumental in affecting that change. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

The founders of Stripe and Pinterest on how to convince people to join your startup Stripe CEO Patrick Collison argues that part of the reason startups resonate so much is because the outcome is not guaranteed: "If it were guaranteed, it would be boring... Whether or not you're the best person in the world at what you do, you're probably not going to alter Google's trajectory. But if you really want to benchmark yourself and see how much of a contribution and impact you can make--which is a really compelling prospect for a lot of the best people--a startup is a much better place to test that." Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann emphasized this as well: "No smart person that you're hiring is under the illusion that you have a crystal ball into the future and that joining is a guaranteed thing. In fact, if you're telling them that and they select in, you shouldn't hire them because they didn't pass a basic intelligence test. I think it's important to tell them what's exciting and where you think the company can go. But also tell them where it will be hard and chart your best plan. And then tell them why their role can be instrumental--because it will be... What I would discourage doing is whitewashing all of that. If people are joining your company because they want all of the certainty and safety of working at Google but also the perks of working at a small startup with lots of responsibility and transparency, that's a really negative sign." Apparently in the early days of PayPal, Peter Thiel and Max Levchin would tell people after they interviewed all the reasons that the company would fail: "Visa and MasterCard want to kill us. We also might be doing something that's illegal. But if we succeed, we'll redefine payments." Don't whitewash the risks. Instead tell them how your startup will change the world if you succeed and how their role will be instrumental in affecting that change. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Startup Archive

11,811 views • 8 months ago

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Steve Jobs on how he learned to run a company: Question: "You're 21. You're a big success. You know, you've just sort of done it by the seat of your pants. You don't have any particular training in this. How do you learn to run a company?" Steve Jobs: "You know, throughout the years in business, I found something, which was that I always ask why you do things. And the answers you invariably get are, oh, that's just the way it's done. Nobody knows why they do what they do. Nobody thinks about things very deeply in business. That's what I found. I'll give you an example. When we were building our Apple I's in the garage, we knew exactly what they cost. When we got into a factory in the Apple II days, the accounting had this notion of a standard cost, where you'd kind of set a standard cost and at the end of a quarter you'd adjust it with a variance. And I kept asking, well, why do we do this? And the answer was, well, that's just the way it's done. And after about six months of digging into this, what I realized was the reason you do it is because you don't really have good enough controls to know how much it costs. So you guess, and then you fix your guess at the end of the quarter. And the reason you don't know how much it costs is because your information systems aren't good enough. But nobody said it that way. And so later on, when we designed this automated factory for Macintosh, we were able to get rid of a lot of these antiquated concepts and know exactly what something cost to the second. So in business, a lot of things are, I call it folklore. They're done because they were done yesterday and the day before. And so what that means is if you're willing to sort of ask a lot of questions and think about things and work really hard, you can learn business pretty fast. It's not the hardest thing in the world. It's not rocket science. It's not rocket science."

Founder Mode

32,217 views • 5 months ago

Q: What's the secret to building a great product that grows really fast? Paul Graham explains that the secret to growing really fast is to: "start with a small, intense fire." He uses Apple as an example. They started by selling just 500 Apple I computers. Today Apple is the largest company in the world. It's impossible to make something that a large number of people really want when you're just starting out. So you have to find people who want what you're building A LOT. And that's necessarily going to be a small number at first. But that's ok because that's how almost every giant company gets started. PG continues: "You have to know who those first users are and how you're going to get them. Then you're going to sit down and just have a party with those first few users and focus entirely on them and making them super super happy." Another example he draws upon is a startup in a Y Combinator batch making a new mobile email client. Their beta group had one user: Sam Altman. This startup's goal was to just make Sam happy. Sam uses email a lot on the go, knows all of the other email client options, and is super demanding. So they know that if they build a product that makes Sam happy, odds are it will make lots of other people happy too. "One of the things we tell startups in these extreme cases where they can make just one user happy is to act like a consultant. Act like Sam has hired you to make an email app just for him. All you have to do is make Sam happy--it can say 'Sam Altman' at the top of the screen. That's ok! Just so long as Sam would feel bummed if you stopped working on it. That's the test." Ultimately the secret to building a great product that grows really fast is to build something a small group of people love so much that they'd be really disappointed if you stopped working on it. There's lots of important steps to get right after this, but this is the foundation for growth. It's somewhat counterintuitive, but most of the world's largest companies (e.g. Apple, Facebook, etc.) started by building a product that made a small group of people really happy.

Q: What's the secret to building a great product that grows really fast? Paul Graham explains that the secret to growing really fast is to: "start with a small, intense fire." He uses Apple as an example. They started by selling just 500 Apple I computers. Today Apple is the largest company in the world. It's impossible to make something that a large number of people really want when you're just starting out. So you have to find people who want what you're building A LOT. And that's necessarily going to be a small number at first. But that's ok because that's how almost every giant company gets started. PG continues: "You have to know who those first users are and how you're going to get them. Then you're going to sit down and just have a party with those first few users and focus entirely on them and making them super super happy." Another example he draws upon is a startup in a Y Combinator batch making a new mobile email client. Their beta group had one user: Sam Altman. This startup's goal was to just make Sam happy. Sam uses email a lot on the go, knows all of the other email client options, and is super demanding. So they know that if they build a product that makes Sam happy, odds are it will make lots of other people happy too. "One of the things we tell startups in these extreme cases where they can make just one user happy is to act like a consultant. Act like Sam has hired you to make an email app just for him. All you have to do is make Sam happy--it can say 'Sam Altman' at the top of the screen. That's ok! Just so long as Sam would feel bummed if you stopped working on it. That's the test." Ultimately the secret to building a great product that grows really fast is to build something a small group of people love so much that they'd be really disappointed if you stopped working on it. There's lots of important steps to get right after this, but this is the foundation for growth. It's somewhat counterintuitive, but most of the world's largest companies (e.g. Apple, Facebook, etc.) started by building a product that made a small group of people really happy.

Michael McGuiness

890,425 views • 3 years ago

Elon Musk explains how Starlink works? "I think there's several 1000 satellites in low Earth orbit, and they're moving around 25 times the speed of sound in these zipping around the Earth, basically. And they're at an altitude of about 550 kilometers, which is called generally low earth orbit, because they're at low Earth orbit. Their latency is low because the distances is not that far, compared to Geo stationary satellite, 36,000 kilometers. So you've got 1000s of satellites providing low latency, high speed internet throughout the world, and they are interconnected as well. So there are laser links between the satellites. So it forms sort of a laser mesh, so that if, let's say if cables are damaged or cut, like fiber cables, the satellites can communicate between each other and provide connectivity. For example, when the Red Sea cables were cut, I think a few months ago, the Starlink satellite network, continued to function."

Elon Musk explains how Starlink works? "I think there's several 1000 satellites in low Earth orbit, and they're moving around 25 times the speed of sound in these zipping around the Earth, basically. And they're at an altitude of about 550 kilometers, which is called generally low earth orbit, because they're at low Earth orbit. Their latency is low because the distances is not that far, compared to Geo stationary satellite, 36,000 kilometers. So you've got 1000s of satellites providing low latency, high speed internet throughout the world, and they are interconnected as well. So there are laser links between the satellites. So it forms sort of a laser mesh, so that if, let's say if cables are damaged or cut, like fiber cables, the satellites can communicate between each other and provide connectivity. For example, when the Red Sea cables were cut, I think a few months ago, the Starlink satellite network, continued to function."

DogeDesigner

536,493 views • 7 months ago

jordan peterson on why people actually fall apart: 1. as a psychologist, you learn something almost nobody expects. people don't come to you with a mental illness. they come to you because their life got too complicated to stay on top of. 2. complexity is the real problem. when it slips beyond your control, it causes suffering. and that suffering is what breaks people. 3. it's almost never one thing. it's three or four hitting at once. you lose your job. the economy collapses. someone you love dies. then you get sick. and you look around and think there's no getting out of this. 4. picture a balloon. blow it up past what it can hold and it bursts at the weakest spot. people are the same. keep piling complexity onto someone and they blow out wherever they're weakest. one starts drinking. another gets depressed. another gets anxiety or ocd. that's the "mental illness." but it's really just collapse in the direction of your weakness. 5. and sometimes it goes further. life gets so complex that people would rather be dead. that's what a lot of suicide actually is. not wanting to die. wanting the complexity to stop.

jordan peterson on why people actually fall apart: 1. as a psychologist, you learn something almost nobody expects. people don't come to you with a mental illness. they come to you because their life got too complicated to stay on top of. 2. complexity is the real problem. when it slips beyond your control, it causes suffering. and that suffering is what breaks people. 3. it's almost never one thing. it's three or four hitting at once. you lose your job. the economy collapses. someone you love dies. then you get sick. and you look around and think there's no getting out of this. 4. picture a balloon. blow it up past what it can hold and it bursts at the weakest spot. people are the same. keep piling complexity onto someone and they blow out wherever they're weakest. one starts drinking. another gets depressed. another gets anxiety or ocd. that's the "mental illness." but it's really just collapse in the direction of your weakness. 5. and sometimes it goes further. life gets so complex that people would rather be dead. that's what a lot of suicide actually is. not wanting to die. wanting the complexity to stop.

Naruto

77,365 views • 10 days ago

Elon Musk on local AI in Tesla Optimus: “Well, we think we can put a lot of intelligence locally in the robot and it certainly needs to be enough intelligence that if the robot gets disconnected, like if it's a bad cellular signal or there isn't Wi-Fi, you know, Optimus can't just get stuck. It needs to have enough local intelligence that it can still do useful things, even if it loses the connection, kind of like the car. The car does not need any cellular or Wi-Fi connection to be able to drive safely. Now, I guess you can think of like Optimus needs kind of a manager to tell it what to do, broadly speaking, like if otherwise it's going to keep doing the same thing it did before. so you know i think you need kind of a an orchestration ai which uh you know grok would be good for orchestration um and and then for you know for optimist's voice you know having um a low latency intelligent voice ai grok is actually very good for that so if you when I talk to Optimus and have kind of a you know, a Grok level conversation you kind of need to connect to a Grok level AI for that. But I would expect the amount of interaction apart from like the voice stuff and asking complicated questions of the robot that necessarily needs a large AI model to answer the Gronk would probably have about as much interaction with Optimus as a manager would have with the people on their team. “

Elon Musk on local AI in Tesla Optimus: “Well, we think we can put a lot of intelligence locally in the robot and it certainly needs to be enough intelligence that if the robot gets disconnected, like if it's a bad cellular signal or there isn't Wi-Fi, you know, Optimus can't just get stuck. It needs to have enough local intelligence that it can still do useful things, even if it loses the connection, kind of like the car. The car does not need any cellular or Wi-Fi connection to be able to drive safely. Now, I guess you can think of like Optimus needs kind of a manager to tell it what to do, broadly speaking, like if otherwise it's going to keep doing the same thing it did before. so you know i think you need kind of a an orchestration ai which uh you know grok would be good for orchestration um and and then for you know for optimist's voice you know having um a low latency intelligent voice ai grok is actually very good for that so if you when I talk to Optimus and have kind of a you know, a Grok level conversation you kind of need to connect to a Grok level AI for that. But I would expect the amount of interaction apart from like the voice stuff and asking complicated questions of the robot that necessarily needs a large AI model to answer the Gronk would probably have about as much interaction with Optimus as a manager would have with the people on their team. “

Brian Roemmele

26,664 views • 2 months ago

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 views • 5 months ago