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.

“Technologies like GPS, satellite communications, and global navigation all operate as if Earth is curved. Could any version of a flat earth realistically reproduce those same results? I would say no. I think you’re trying to apply a framework beyond its scope of applicability. It’s emblematic of the fact... that it’s hard to believe the things you don’t have input for. We build our intuition walking around in a way where you might not notice these things, but you can’t just jump up into space, look down, and go, ‘Oh, never mind.’ With black holes, there are still situations where people don’t understand all the assumptions they make. It’s not breaking physics. It’s showing that there is something broken in our assumptions. A black hole is, in some sense, when you have so much matter in some region that now even light can’t escape. It literally is a feature of the geometry. There’s a very specific solution to Einstein’s equations that has weird properties of the causal structure, where particles are going to end up.”show more

Shawn Ryan

1,327,457 subscribers

47,161 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

BREAKING 🚨 Katie Miller: “When’s the last time you did something extremely ordinary like go to Target or CVS?” Elon Musk: “I can’t go to things where there is the general public because there’s an immediate ‘Can I have a selfie line?’ that forms. And these days in particular, in light of Charlie Kirk’s mu*der there are significant security issues.” “It’s not that I don’t want to. It’s that I simply can’t.” Elon should not have to live this way.

BREAKING 🚨 Katie Miller: “When’s the last time you did something extremely ordinary like go to Target or CVS?” Elon Musk: “I can’t go to things where there is the general public because there’s an immediate ‘Can I have a selfie line?’ that forms. And these days in particular, in light of Charlie Kirk’s mu*der there are significant security issues.” “It’s not that I don’t want to. It’s that I simply can’t.” Elon should not have to live this way.

Dr Charlie Ward

2,259,933 views • 21 days ago

Palmer Luckey’s advice for founder-led communications “My advice to people would probably be to recognize that the value of your reputation is very high,” Anduril founder Palmer Luckey begins. “If people do not trust you; if they do not believe in what you’re saying; if they do not think that you’re a person worth listening to, they’re going to have a hard time working with you.” Palmer also argues that founders don’t need to be neutral: “You don’t need to be neutral. You can be a propagandist. You can advocate for a particular point of view . . . In general, people should recognize that if you say something where you caveat it and hedge it and basically end up saying something that most people would agree with, you might as well have said nothing at all.” He continues: “You are not going to build a following of people who say, ‘I just love Palmer’s right-down-the-middle, very-hedged takes that everyone agrees with.’ If you’re just restating common sentiment, it’s not going to get you anywhere . . . So one of the things I tell people is, ‘Make sure that when you’re saying something, you’re SAYING something. Make sure you’re trying to persuade and affect change.’ — maybe not in everybody, but in some people. If you make some people love what you’re saying and some people hate what you’re saying, that’s a lot better than having everybody lukewarm agree with you. Don’t waste your time communicating about the things everyone already agrees with you on. Focus on the things where you need to change their mind.” Source: Lulu Cheng Meservey (Sep 2025)

Palmer Luckey’s advice for founder-led communications “My advice to people would probably be to recognize that the value of your reputation is very high,” Anduril founder Palmer Luckey begins. “If people do not trust you; if they do not believe in what you’re saying; if they do not think that you’re a person worth listening to, they’re going to have a hard time working with you.” Palmer also argues that founders don’t need to be neutral: “You don’t need to be neutral. You can be a propagandist. You can advocate for a particular point of view . . . In general, people should recognize that if you say something where you caveat it and hedge it and basically end up saying something that most people would agree with, you might as well have said nothing at all.” He continues: “You are not going to build a following of people who say, ‘I just love Palmer’s right-down-the-middle, very-hedged takes that everyone agrees with.’ If you’re just restating common sentiment, it’s not going to get you anywhere . . . So one of the things I tell people is, ‘Make sure that when you’re saying something, you’re SAYING something. Make sure you’re trying to persuade and affect change.’ — maybe not in everybody, but in some people. If you make some people love what you’re saying and some people hate what you’re saying, that’s a lot better than having everybody lukewarm agree with you. Don’t waste your time communicating about the things everyone already agrees with you on. Focus on the things where you need to change their mind.” Source: Lulu Cheng Meservey (Sep 2025)

Startup Archive

78,576 views • 2 months ago

Alex Karp, Palantir: “At a certain level of accomplishment, you’re in an artistic space where it’s very hard to explain why you have your insights.” "There’s one country in the world where you get rewarded for that.. in America, if you deliver, you can be you.” “This is a maximal freedom culture… & that self-expression—because it’s not playbook—creates an environment that is exceedingly hard to compete with & will piss off all the right people.” . . . "I think in the end, to do something important—whether it’s me, or @elianoayounes, or look at all these people here—these are among the best and most talented people in the world. At a certain level of accomplishment, you’re in an artistic space where it’s very hard to explain why you have your insights, and it goes way beyond experiences that have of course also influenced them. But I just have artistic impulses, and they shape my life, and I’ve allowed myself—or I’ve been forced to allow myself—the freedom to live that way. And there’s one country in the world where you get rewarded for that, because in America, if you deliver, you can be you. You’re your own boss, right? You decide who you want to talk to, you decide who you don’t want to talk to. You have ideas of things you’d like to advance on. And I think one of the biggest variables in my life is simply that I live in a culture where if you deliver—in this case economically—and by the way, at 18, for most investors, we were failing for at least 15 years. Many would say 18 years. Honestly, some would say until two years ago. And still, this is a culture where the financials are going to show up. That’s only possible in this culture. I guess maybe because I lived abroad so long, it’s easier for me to accept and rely on that. I think sometimes people who’ve lived here their whole life don’t always exactly understand that this is a maximal freedom culture. It’s the only culture like this in the world, and it allows you to self-express. And if you self-express, that self-expression—because it’s not playbook—creates an environment that is exceedingly hard to compete with and will piss off all the right people."

Alex Karp, Palantir: “At a certain level of accomplishment, you’re in an artistic space where it’s very hard to explain why you have your insights.” "There’s one country in the world where you get rewarded for that.. in America, if you deliver, you can be you.” “This is a maximal freedom culture… & that self-expression—because it’s not playbook—creates an environment that is exceedingly hard to compete with & will piss off all the right people.” . . . "I think in the end, to do something important—whether it’s me, or @elianoayounes, or look at all these people here—these are among the best and most talented people in the world. At a certain level of accomplishment, you’re in an artistic space where it’s very hard to explain why you have your insights, and it goes way beyond experiences that have of course also influenced them. But I just have artistic impulses, and they shape my life, and I’ve allowed myself—or I’ve been forced to allow myself—the freedom to live that way. And there’s one country in the world where you get rewarded for that, because in America, if you deliver, you can be you. You’re your own boss, right? You decide who you want to talk to, you decide who you don’t want to talk to. You have ideas of things you’d like to advance on. And I think one of the biggest variables in my life is simply that I live in a culture where if you deliver—in this case economically—and by the way, at 18, for most investors, we were failing for at least 15 years. Many would say 18 years. Honestly, some would say until two years ago. And still, this is a culture where the financials are going to show up. That’s only possible in this culture. I guess maybe because I lived abroad so long, it’s easier for me to accept and rely on that. I think sometimes people who’ve lived here their whole life don’t always exactly understand that this is a maximal freedom culture. It’s the only culture like this in the world, and it allows you to self-express. And if you self-express, that self-expression—because it’s not playbook—creates an environment that is exceedingly hard to compete with and will piss off all the right people."

Molly O’Shea

52,497 views • 6 months ago

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” ______________________________________ “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _______________________________________ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

Jack Prescott

27,317 views • 13 days ago

Katie Miller: “When’s the last time you did something extremely ordinary like go to Target or CVS?” Elon Musk: “I can’t go to things where there is the general public because there’s an immediate ‘Can I have a selfie line?’ that forms. And these days in particular, in light of Charlie Kirk’s mu*der there are significant security issues.” “It’s not that I don’t want to. It’s that I simply can’t.” Elon should not have to live this way.

Katie Miller: “When’s the last time you did something extremely ordinary like go to Target or CVS?” Elon Musk: “I can’t go to things where there is the general public because there’s an immediate ‘Can I have a selfie line?’ that forms. And these days in particular, in light of Charlie Kirk’s mu*der there are significant security issues.” “It’s not that I don’t want to. It’s that I simply can’t.” Elon should not have to live this way.

RedWave Press

828,597 views • 8 months ago

One of the best jokes of the year. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that it’s just been right there in plain sight. Mike from Redbar is legit. In an era where all of the stand up stadium acts have jokes that the average person would think and not even say because it’s not that funny, it’s good to have a few actual comedians left. Ge. So funny

One of the best jokes of the year. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that it’s just been right there in plain sight. Mike from Redbar is legit. In an era where all of the stand up stadium acts have jokes that the average person would think and not even say because it’s not that funny, it’s good to have a few actual comedians left. Ge. So funny

Owen Benjamin 🐻

36,281 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk on building a company: “There are periods where it’s just awful” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Source: Khan Academy (Apr 2013)

Elon Musk on building a company: “There are periods where it’s just awful” “A lot of times people think creating a company is going to be fun. I would say it’s really not that fun. There are periods of fun, and there are periods where it’s just awful. Particularly if you’re the CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in the company. There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right. So you only spend your time on things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of… the most pernicious and painful problems.” Elon believes founders need to have a “fairly high pain threshold” and explains that starting a company is like “staring into the abyss and eating glass.” “The staring into the abyss part is that you’re going to be constantly facing the extermination of the company because most startups fail… You’re constantly saying, okay, if I don’t get this right, the company will die. It’s going to be quite stressful. And then the eating glass part is you’ve got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you’d really wish you weren’t working on… And that goes on for a long time.” Source: Khan Academy (Apr 2013)

Startup Archive

74,189 views • 19 days ago

NEW — $PLTR CTO Shyam Sankar with The Washington Post on the importance of truth for LLMs🔮 “One of the reasons we’ve been able to continue our progress in LLMs faster than our adversary is, if you’re building an LLM in China, you have to lobotomize it. “You have to make sure it doesn’t say certain things it’s not allowed to say that happen to be true. That becomes a very hard game. It’s not like a database where you can say, ‘don’t say this fact.’ You’re actually lobotomizing a significant part of this that’s going to alter its behavior.”

NEW — $PLTR CTO Shyam Sankar with The Washington Post on the importance of truth for LLMs🔮 “One of the reasons we’ve been able to continue our progress in LLMs faster than our adversary is, if you’re building an LLM in China, you have to lobotomize it. “You have to make sure it doesn’t say certain things it’s not allowed to say that happen to be true. That becomes a very hard game. It’s not like a database where you can say, ‘don’t say this fact.’ You’re actually lobotomizing a significant part of this that’s going to alter its behavior.”

Jawwwn

127,327 views • 1 year ago

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Startup Archive

326,115 views • 7 months ago

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 views • 2 years ago

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says Jeffrey Epstein was a 'DEMON' When Asked About the Spiritual Nature of his Crimes Against Children. "I think that he was absolutely a demon." "This type of stuff exists when people refuse to believe in God. I think that this type of harm to children specifically is done because there’s a spiritual element of how pure children can be... and I think that it’s demonic and I don’t think that there’s any way that you can chalk it up. But I pray every day and I prayed before going into look at the files in and are still praying." "I just think that we all didn’t need to remember that... You can’t get complicit in this. If you say well, that’s it like this is just you know, gonna throw our hands up and not do anything... that’s part of the spiritual battle and that’s an attack you have to get involved in. You have to make sure that you’re always backing and on the right side of justice... and that is standing for children."

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says Jeffrey Epstein was a 'DEMON' When Asked About the Spiritual Nature of his Crimes Against Children. "I think that he was absolutely a demon." "This type of stuff exists when people refuse to believe in God. I think that this type of harm to children specifically is done because there’s a spiritual element of how pure children can be... and I think that it’s demonic and I don’t think that there’s any way that you can chalk it up. But I pray every day and I prayed before going into look at the files in and are still praying." "I just think that we all didn’t need to remember that... You can’t get complicit in this. If you say well, that’s it like this is just you know, gonna throw our hands up and not do anything... that’s part of the spiritual battle and that’s an attack you have to get involved in. You have to make sure that you’re always backing and on the right side of justice... and that is standing for children."

Benny Johnson

148,414 views • 6 months ago

Jennifer Aniston says she doesn’t want to adopt and has found peace knowing she can’t have biological children Monica Padman: “You’re on the other side of that, and I wonder if there’s peace there” Jennifer: “Oh, it’s so peaceful” Monica: “You’re like, ‘I’m good’” Jennifer: “It’s so peaceful. But there’s a point where it’s out of my control. There’s literally nothing I can do about it. And when people say, ‘But you can adopt’, I don’t want to adopt” “I want my own DNA in a little person. Selfish or not, whatever that is, I wanted it to come. But are there moments?” “This goes around into probably a topic I don’t really want to discuss, but when you meet someone and you go, ‘God, we would have made some good kids’” “That might come up, and then that’ll pass within three seconds” Dax Shepard: “You’ll plan a trip to Mexico” Jennifer: “Just take a look at that vacation for five minutes and you’re like, ‘Good night. Bye. See you later. What are we going to watch?’” “It’s romanticizing, but once you are on the other side of it, it’s out of your control. It just wasn’t in the plan”

Jennifer Aniston says she doesn’t want to adopt and has found peace knowing she can’t have biological children Monica Padman: “You’re on the other side of that, and I wonder if there’s peace there” Jennifer: “Oh, it’s so peaceful” Monica: “You’re like, ‘I’m good’” Jennifer: “It’s so peaceful. But there’s a point where it’s out of my control. There’s literally nothing I can do about it. And when people say, ‘But you can adopt’, I don’t want to adopt” “I want my own DNA in a little person. Selfish or not, whatever that is, I wanted it to come. But are there moments?” “This goes around into probably a topic I don’t really want to discuss, but when you meet someone and you go, ‘God, we would have made some good kids’” “That might come up, and then that’ll pass within three seconds” Dax Shepard: “You’ll plan a trip to Mexico” Jennifer: “Just take a look at that vacation for five minutes and you’re like, ‘Good night. Bye. See you later. What are we going to watch?’” “It’s romanticizing, but once you are on the other side of it, it’s out of your control. It just wasn’t in the plan”

sara

6,064,024 views • 28 days ago

Jesse Michels: “Do you think NASA has other propulsion methods?” Chris Bledsoe: “I think they’ve had it a long time.” “I know they were working on back-engineering UFOs a long time ago.” Michels: “Are the UFOs alien reproduction vehicles that … go into space?” “Or are they like-voltage chambers that are like portals, like in the movie Contact where you end up in some other dimensional?” Bledsoe: “I think probably both exist. I don’t know.” Michels: “And you think NASA is sitting on this stuff?” Bledsoe: “I don’t know that NASA is necessarily, but there are satellite groups that keep it under wraps.” “According to Tim [Taylor], there were two Air Force generals at the Pentagon that knew everything.” Michels: “Which generals?” Bledsoe: “He didn’t tell me.” “When you go to NASA mission control … it’s a square building with a long hallway in the middle.” “When you walk down this hallway, it’s glass on both sides.” “You look to the right, it’s all NASA scientists at their consoles.” “And you look to the left, it’s exactly the same, but it’s all Air Force people.” “And Tim’s in the middle of all of it.” Chris Bledsoe Jesse Michels

Jesse Michels: “Do you think NASA has other propulsion methods?” Chris Bledsoe: “I think they’ve had it a long time.” “I know they were working on back-engineering UFOs a long time ago.” Michels: “Are the UFOs alien reproduction vehicles that … go into space?” “Or are they like-voltage chambers that are like portals, like in the movie Contact where you end up in some other dimensional?” Bledsoe: “I think probably both exist. I don’t know.” Michels: “And you think NASA is sitting on this stuff?” Bledsoe: “I don’t know that NASA is necessarily, but there are satellite groups that keep it under wraps.” “According to Tim [Taylor], there were two Air Force generals at the Pentagon that knew everything.” Michels: “Which generals?” Bledsoe: “He didn’t tell me.” “When you go to NASA mission control … it’s a square building with a long hallway in the middle.” “When you walk down this hallway, it’s glass on both sides.” “You look to the right, it’s all NASA scientists at their consoles.” “And you look to the left, it’s exactly the same, but it’s all Air Force people.” “And Tim’s in the middle of all of it.” Chris Bledsoe Jesse Michels

Holden Culotta

42,795 views • 7 months ago

Nick Fuentes gives his take on “breakaway civilizations,” arguing that you can’t simply opt out of centralized power. He uses the Russian Revolution as an example of what happens when you try. “You may not take an interest in politics, but politics takes an interest in you. You may think you’re too good for the city or we lost the city…but the city is where the power is…people that want power over America are gonna go there.” “You can’t just pick up Bikini Bottom and take it somewhere else. They’ll just drive to where you are and kill you. As a matter of fact, they won’t even need to drive, they have drones.” “They will kill you, just like they killed the kulaks.” “Escapism is a form of denial.” “Don’t kid yourself, going and starting a breakaway settlement is a form of power struggle. It’s just one that doesn’t have a very good chance of succeeding.”

Nick Fuentes gives his take on “breakaway civilizations,” arguing that you can’t simply opt out of centralized power. He uses the Russian Revolution as an example of what happens when you try. “You may not take an interest in politics, but politics takes an interest in you. You may think you’re too good for the city or we lost the city…but the city is where the power is…people that want power over America are gonna go there.” “You can’t just pick up Bikini Bottom and take it somewhere else. They’ll just drive to where you are and kill you. As a matter of fact, they won’t even need to drive, they have drones.” “They will kill you, just like they killed the kulaks.” “Escapism is a form of denial.” “Don’t kid yourself, going and starting a breakaway settlement is a form of power struggle. It’s just one that doesn’t have a very good chance of succeeding.”

Fractured Light

58,130 views • 5 months ago

Canadians, if I’m being honest, I’m starting to lose hope that we are even capable of coming together to stop what’s happening right in front of us. Look around. We are watching policies move forward that make it easier for people to give up entirely. At some point we have to start asking ourselves why all of these things seem to be happening at the same time. There is a reason our streets are becoming unsafer each day. It’s Intentional. There is a reason that we are all struggling financially. It’s Intentional. Mental health is rising at extreme rates and MAID is becoming available for mental health in 2027. That is Intentional. here is a reason we see money being given to certain groups of individuals. Look at what it’s doing? I’ve never in my life seen so much hatred towards other human beings. It’s intentional. It’s all part of their agenda. Divide, Distract, Dismantle. The fact that you cannot see that is so alarming to me. If you think that the government actually cares about humanity, you are literally living in a delusional reality. There’s a reason they call it a political stage. There’s a reason the people on it are described as actors. Come on already, Canada. Start paying attention.

Canadians, if I’m being honest, I’m starting to lose hope that we are even capable of coming together to stop what’s happening right in front of us. Look around. We are watching policies move forward that make it easier for people to give up entirely. At some point we have to start asking ourselves why all of these things seem to be happening at the same time. There is a reason our streets are becoming unsafer each day. It’s Intentional. There is a reason that we are all struggling financially. It’s Intentional. Mental health is rising at extreme rates and MAID is becoming available for mental health in 2027. That is Intentional. here is a reason we see money being given to certain groups of individuals. Look at what it’s doing? I’ve never in my life seen so much hatred towards other human beings. It’s intentional. It’s all part of their agenda. Divide, Distract, Dismantle. The fact that you cannot see that is so alarming to me. If you think that the government actually cares about humanity, you are literally living in a delusional reality. There’s a reason they call it a political stage. There’s a reason the people on it are described as actors. Come on already, Canada. Start paying attention.

Unfiltered With Kels

56,599 views • 5 months ago

Chris Camillo explains why Pokémon cards might keep going up for decades “I’ve always believed that Pokémon and an IP similar to Pokémon for a collector is where it’s at” “Unlike other collectibles, it’s not set in a period of time where you have a peak where the people that were really into that baseball player or football player hit peak wealth and drive the market up and then the next generation has less of an appreciation for that player, like with sports cards” “I think Pokémon’s fascinating because they reinvent themselves for each generation. So it’s one of these really rare collectibles that has cross-generational demand” “You can make a case that the Pokémon market could stay healthy and continue to drive forward for a very long time” “I’m not saying it will but there’s certainly a thesis there that has data to back that up” “So the Pokémon collectors might not be as crazy as you think they are”

Chris Camillo explains why Pokémon cards might keep going up for decades “I’ve always believed that Pokémon and an IP similar to Pokémon for a collector is where it’s at” “Unlike other collectibles, it’s not set in a period of time where you have a peak where the people that were really into that baseball player or football player hit peak wealth and drive the market up and then the next generation has less of an appreciation for that player, like with sports cards” “I think Pokémon’s fascinating because they reinvent themselves for each generation. So it’s one of these really rare collectibles that has cross-generational demand” “You can make a case that the Pokémon market could stay healthy and continue to drive forward for a very long time” “I’m not saying it will but there’s certainly a thesis there that has data to back that up” “So the Pokémon collectors might not be as crazy as you think they are”

Jack

97,928 views • 2 months ago

CHAMATH: STAYING IN CALIFORNIA (DESPITE THE TAXES) “It’s given me everything, so I will not leave and I will keep building companies there and hiring people there. And if there’s taxes that I have to pay, I’ll pay these taxes. But I just think that at some point, we’re better off addressing the core issue of why people believe this form of governance actually makes sense. Is it because they actually think it’s better, or is it that they’re just angry about a bunch of other things? And I think it’s mostly the latter, so we should fix that because there is no sane human being that could look at any of this information and think that we are well run. We are completely, completely out of our mind… You know, there is a period where I definitely thought about [leaving California] and I went around. I looked at different places and I thought: ‘Wait a minute, California is incredible, Palo Alto is incredible, it’s given me everything.’ And I just said: ‘Okay, mentally here’s the number and just allocate it and just let’s move on with our lives and get back to building things that I think are important.’ The reason why people are angry, it’s the same reason they were angry in 1890, it’s the same reason they were angry in Europe in 1930 at the beginning, it’s the same reason after 2008, we’ve had all of this pushback, it’s the same reason. So at some point, we should just fix the core problem that everybody is shouting about, as opposed to allowing these other people to pervert the frustration they have into these dumb ideas and programs that are always about, give me more money and I will solve your problems. It just doesn’t work… The core problem is there is a large number of people that look and believe that the latter has been pulled up above them. Why do they believe that right now? I think very specifically technology has had this profoundly positive impact but very, very few of us participated in it. In the way that we all think that we’ve made it better for everybody, looking at Instagram reels does not make your life better. That’s not true. Being able to have a functional search is useful, but it doesn’t necessarily make your life better. So we have to answer the question, how does this economically benefit more people?” Chamath Palihapitiya via Squawk Box Andrew Ross Sorkin Joe Kernen

CHAMATH: STAYING IN CALIFORNIA (DESPITE THE TAXES) “It’s given me everything, so I will not leave and I will keep building companies there and hiring people there. And if there’s taxes that I have to pay, I’ll pay these taxes. But I just think that at some point, we’re better off addressing the core issue of why people believe this form of governance actually makes sense. Is it because they actually think it’s better, or is it that they’re just angry about a bunch of other things? And I think it’s mostly the latter, so we should fix that because there is no sane human being that could look at any of this information and think that we are well run. We are completely, completely out of our mind… You know, there is a period where I definitely thought about [leaving California] and I went around. I looked at different places and I thought: ‘Wait a minute, California is incredible, Palo Alto is incredible, it’s given me everything.’ And I just said: ‘Okay, mentally here’s the number and just allocate it and just let’s move on with our lives and get back to building things that I think are important.’ The reason why people are angry, it’s the same reason they were angry in 1890, it’s the same reason they were angry in Europe in 1930 at the beginning, it’s the same reason after 2008, we’ve had all of this pushback, it’s the same reason. So at some point, we should just fix the core problem that everybody is shouting about, as opposed to allowing these other people to pervert the frustration they have into these dumb ideas and programs that are always about, give me more money and I will solve your problems. It just doesn’t work… The core problem is there is a large number of people that look and believe that the latter has been pulled up above them. Why do they believe that right now? I think very specifically technology has had this profoundly positive impact but very, very few of us participated in it. In the way that we all think that we’ve made it better for everybody, looking at Instagram reels does not make your life better. That’s not true. Being able to have a functional search is useful, but it doesn’t necessarily make your life better. So we have to answer the question, how does this economically benefit more people?” Chamath Palihapitiya via Squawk Box Andrew Ross Sorkin Joe Kernen

Ron Pragides 

44,526 views • 1 month ago

🦊 after the tour announcement came out yesterday, i took a look at moa’s reactions and there were a lot of moas who were disappointed and upset 🦊 you might think that we’re going for the same vibe, the same production and the same setlist but we received the setlist in a meeting recently and it’s different. it’s different and…there’s a variety of things prepared. 🦊 so you don’t have to think that it’s the exact same, for real 🦊 as people that are performing, me and the members honestly also want to do it differently. even as the performers, we want to do the performances in a new way and show you different sides of ourselves. 🦊 when we first heard of it, we were like “won’t it be the same?” but it’s very different 🦊 it’s very different and you don’t need to worry

🦊 after the tour announcement came out yesterday, i took a look at moa’s reactions and there were a lot of moas who were disappointed and upset 🦊 you might think that we’re going for the same vibe, the same production and the same setlist but we received the setlist in a meeting recently and it’s different. it’s different and…there’s a variety of things prepared. 🦊 so you don’t have to think that it’s the exact same, for real 🦊 as people that are performing, me and the members honestly also want to do it differently. even as the performers, we want to do the performances in a new way and show you different sides of ourselves. 🦊 when we first heard of it, we were like “won’t it be the same?” but it’s very different 🦊 it’s very different and you don’t need to worry

💬

472,837 views • 1 year ago

CNN’s Scott Jennings on whether there’s a growing strain of anti-Semitism on the right: “I think ultimately it will be up to the nominee of the party, most likely JD Vance, to basically say, who's in my group and who's out, and to separate himself from people who are trafficking in hate and conspiracy theories. I would just draw you back to the straw poll results from — I mean, there was thousands upon thousands of people clearly stood with Israel, clearly believed radical Islam is the top issue facing the United States. So, the debate happening on the stage was one thing. There really wasn't that much of a debate in the crowd. I think some of the civil war talk is a bit of a mirage when you actually look at the results of the polling among the people in the stands.” “Well, look, Tucker — Tucker was on the stage attacking Republicans who were up there saying, you know, we have to worry about radical Islam. He was kind of defending it up there. That wasn't where the crowd was at all. And so, I think some of the people who are dabbling in some of these things that I think are wrong, they don't have as much support among the people in that crowd as they think they do now. I think you might be right that they see benefit to it and growing an online audience, but in that arena, I think that arena is much more where Charlie was, much more where Ben is than where some of these conspiracy provocateurs are.”

CNN’s Scott Jennings on whether there’s a growing strain of anti-Semitism on the right: “I think ultimately it will be up to the nominee of the party, most likely JD Vance, to basically say, who's in my group and who's out, and to separate himself from people who are trafficking in hate and conspiracy theories. I would just draw you back to the straw poll results from — I mean, there was thousands upon thousands of people clearly stood with Israel, clearly believed radical Islam is the top issue facing the United States. So, the debate happening on the stage was one thing. There really wasn't that much of a debate in the crowd. I think some of the civil war talk is a bit of a mirage when you actually look at the results of the polling among the people in the stands.” “Well, look, Tucker — Tucker was on the stage attacking Republicans who were up there saying, you know, we have to worry about radical Islam. He was kind of defending it up there. That wasn't where the crowd was at all. And so, I think some of the people who are dabbling in some of these things that I think are wrong, they don't have as much support among the people in that crowd as they think they do now. I think you might be right that they see benefit to it and growing an online audience, but in that arena, I think that arena is much more where Charlie was, much more where Ben is than where some of these conspiracy provocateurs are.”

Curtis Houck

26,969 views • 7 months ago