Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

“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...

ShawnRyan762's profile picture

Shawn Ryan

1,327,457 subscribers

47,161 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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)
1:42

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 • 1 month 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."
1:59

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

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.
0:30

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 • 7 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
0:27

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

"Islam is trying to dominate the UK the same way as it dominated Egypt, the same way as it dominated Iran, the same way as it’s dominated every other nation that was previously not Muslim. They are trying to do it here. You’ve got 200 Sharia law courts that are inactive currently. But I’ll tell you this, all it’s waiting for is that tipping point where you get a Muslim majority area. So right now you’ve got Rochdale over in the north of England, you’ve got Bradford in the north of England, which are considered no-go zones, simply because there are inactive Sharia law courts there that even the police won’t go there because they’re afraid to go there. I believe Whitechapel is considered as one of those no-go zones. It’s one of those places where it’s such a strong Muslim community, even the police are afraid to even interject in anything that’s going on there. But when it topples over—over 50%, right now Tower Hamlets is 40% Muslim—once it topples over to 50%, that’s when you’ll start to see them pressing for more Islamic... that we want this as a Muslim area, we want this to take place, we want that to happen. They’ll start to dictate because they have the majority there. Right now they don’t. I don’t believe they have a majority in any area, but you’ve got 40% Muslim area in Whitechapel. Once they get to that place, they will want Sharia law activated in an area. And this is what you will see, and then eventually, I believe that they will... it will just start to be... they’ll start to make this nation more and more Islamic. You’re seeing it already. Try and go to a restaurant that you can get meat that is not—not halal meat. There’s not one restaurant. I have to—I refuse to eat halal meat just out of principle. I’m not being force-fed to eat meat—Muslim meat when I—I’m not a Muslim."
1:50

"Islam is trying to dominate the UK the same way as it dominated Egypt, the same way as it dominated Iran, the same way as it’s dominated every other nation that was previously not Muslim. They are trying to do it here. You’ve got 200 Sharia law courts that are inactive currently. But I’ll tell you this, all it’s waiting for is that tipping point where you get a Muslim majority area. So right now you’ve got Rochdale over in the north of England, you’ve got Bradford in the north of England, which are considered no-go zones, simply because there are inactive Sharia law courts there that even the police won’t go there because they’re afraid to go there. I believe Whitechapel is considered as one of those no-go zones. It’s one of those places where it’s such a strong Muslim community, even the police are afraid to even interject in anything that’s going on there. But when it topples over—over 50%, right now Tower Hamlets is 40% Muslim—once it topples over to 50%, that’s when you’ll start to see them pressing for more Islamic... that we want this as a Muslim area, we want this to take place, we want that to happen. They’ll start to dictate because they have the majority there. Right now they don’t. I don’t believe they have a majority in any area, but you’ve got 40% Muslim area in Whitechapel. Once they get to that place, they will want Sharia law activated in an area. And this is what you will see, and then eventually, I believe that they will... it will just start to be... they’ll start to make this nation more and more Islamic. You’re seeing it already. Try and go to a restaurant that you can get meat that is not—not halal meat. There’s not one restaurant. I have to—I refuse to eat halal meat just out of principle. I’m not being force-fed to eat meat—Muslim meat when I—I’m not a Muslim."

Hamas Atrocities

61,087 views • 2 months 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.”
0:41

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

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."
0:53

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 • 5 months 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)
1:31

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 • 6 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.
3:08

.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

143,913 views • 1 year 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
1:55

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 • 6 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.”
5:26

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 • 4 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”
1:15

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 • 1 month 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.
2:18

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

56,550 views • 4 months ago

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."
1:32

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman: “Most people give up on things way too early” “Knowing when to quit and knowing when to give up on something, there’s no perfect answer to that. It’s really challenging to even get that approximately correct. But I think most people give up on things way too early.” Sam continues: “The mistake that most people make — particularly young entrepreneurs — is they try something, it does not immediately work, and after seven weeks, they say, ‘I tried this thing and it’s just not meant to be.’… The satirical version of this are people who are 23 and have started 14 startups because they give up on everyone before it could ever possibly be successful. These things are really hard. They take a really long time. There are a lot of critics. There are a lot of people who say: your thing sucks; it’s going to fail; it’s really stupid.” There’s also what Y Combinator calls “The Trough of Sorrow” where, as Sam describes, “no one even decides to say it sucks because no one cares at all. And that is at least as demotivating.” But this doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t work. Sam explains: “Most of the founders that I have spent a lot of time with that have gone on to be super successful spent a very long time on their idea when a lot of other people would have given up. Either people said it sucks, or people said nothing about it at all. And a framework that I have for when to give up versus when to keep working is that it should be an internal, rather than an external, decision. If people aren’t using it or people are saying it’s bad, that alone is not a reason to give up. You want to pay some attention to that — they might be right. But the best entrepreneurs I know make an internal decision about when to give up or when to keep working on something. It’s basically: when you have run out of ideas, and something is not working, then it is a good time to stop.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)
1:43

Sam Altman: “Most people give up on things way too early” “Knowing when to quit and knowing when to give up on something, there’s no perfect answer to that. It’s really challenging to even get that approximately correct. But I think most people give up on things way too early.” Sam continues: “The mistake that most people make — particularly young entrepreneurs — is they try something, it does not immediately work, and after seven weeks, they say, ‘I tried this thing and it’s just not meant to be.’… The satirical version of this are people who are 23 and have started 14 startups because they give up on everyone before it could ever possibly be successful. These things are really hard. They take a really long time. There are a lot of critics. There are a lot of people who say: your thing sucks; it’s going to fail; it’s really stupid.” There’s also what Y Combinator calls “The Trough of Sorrow” where, as Sam describes, “no one even decides to say it sucks because no one cares at all. And that is at least as demotivating.” But this doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t work. Sam explains: “Most of the founders that I have spent a lot of time with that have gone on to be super successful spent a very long time on their idea when a lot of other people would have given up. Either people said it sucks, or people said nothing about it at all. And a framework that I have for when to give up versus when to keep working is that it should be an internal, rather than an external, decision. If people aren’t using it or people are saying it’s bad, that alone is not a reason to give up. You want to pay some attention to that — they might be right. But the best entrepreneurs I know make an internal decision about when to give up or when to keep working on something. It’s basically: when you have run out of ideas, and something is not working, then it is a good time to stop.” Video source: Y Combinator (2016)

Startup Archive

31,721 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.”
1:25

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 • 6 months ago

How science works according to Nobel Prize winner Thomas Südhof: Very often, politicians think that you can tell scientists what they’re supposed to discover. You can’t! Scientists don’t know what they are going to discover. They have to try things. They have to have curiosity and ideas, but they also have to have the knowledge to try things. Very often, it leads to nothing; it’s a waste. But we didn’t know when we started it’s a waste. But when something does work. When something clicks, it is exciting and rewarding but it’s never just one click. You get a result on it, you’re hopeful, you build on it. Maybe it’s confirmed you’re even more hopeful. So it’s an incremental process. It is never one thing - boom we discovered a major thing, my god this is it. It is more like walking up a flight of stairs where each step counts and the higher up the stairs you go the better you can see what’s on top and become excited about what’s there and how you can use.
1:07

How science works according to Nobel Prize winner Thomas Südhof: Very often, politicians think that you can tell scientists what they’re supposed to discover. You can’t! Scientists don’t know what they are going to discover. They have to try things. They have to have curiosity and ideas, but they also have to have the knowledge to try things. Very often, it leads to nothing; it’s a waste. But we didn’t know when we started it’s a waste. But when something does work. When something clicks, it is exciting and rewarding but it’s never just one click. You get a result on it, you’re hopeful, you build on it. Maybe it’s confirmed you’re even more hopeful. So it’s an incremental process. It is never one thing - boom we discovered a major thing, my god this is it. It is more like walking up a flight of stairs where each step counts and the higher up the stairs you go the better you can see what’s on top and become excited about what’s there and how you can use.

Itai Yanai

33,826 views • 4 days 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
1:30

🦊 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

💬

472,687 views • 1 year ago

Iga Swiatek on constantly being filmed at Australian Open and other tournaments, ‘The question is, are we tennis players? Or are we animals in the zoo? It would be nice to have some privacy’ “I wanted to ask something that Coco was talking about last night. The cameras backstage at the tournament… I know you got filmed recently forgetting your credential… you’re sort of always on camera at a lot of different tournament areas.. I’m wondering if you think there should be more privacy for players and their teams as they’re back there? Or how you see the balance of that versus them trying to have entertainment and content coming out.” Iga: “The question is, are we tennis players? Or are we animals in the zoo? Where they are observed even when they’re pooping. Ok, that was exaggerating obviously, but it would be nice to have some privacy. It would be nice also to have your own process and not always be observed. For example, in other sports, you have some technical things you wanna do. It would be nice to have some space you can do that without the whole world watching. On Wimbledon there are courts where people with accreditation can get there but it’s without the fans. There are some tournaments where it’s impossible and you’re constantly observed. I don’t think it should be like that because we are tennis players. We’re meant to be watched on court and in the press. That’s our job. It’s not our job to be a meme when you forget your accreditation. It’s funny for sure. People have something to talk about. For us, I don’t think it’s necessary.” “Have you talked to the tournament about it here?” Iga: “What’s the point?” (via Australian Open Press)
1:58

Iga Swiatek on constantly being filmed at Australian Open and other tournaments, ‘The question is, are we tennis players? Or are we animals in the zoo? It would be nice to have some privacy’ “I wanted to ask something that Coco was talking about last night. The cameras backstage at the tournament… I know you got filmed recently forgetting your credential… you’re sort of always on camera at a lot of different tournament areas.. I’m wondering if you think there should be more privacy for players and their teams as they’re back there? Or how you see the balance of that versus them trying to have entertainment and content coming out.” Iga: “The question is, are we tennis players? Or are we animals in the zoo? Where they are observed even when they’re pooping. Ok, that was exaggerating obviously, but it would be nice to have some privacy. It would be nice also to have your own process and not always be observed. For example, in other sports, you have some technical things you wanna do. It would be nice to have some space you can do that without the whole world watching. On Wimbledon there are courts where people with accreditation can get there but it’s without the fans. There are some tournaments where it’s impossible and you’re constantly observed. I don’t think it should be like that because we are tennis players. We’re meant to be watched on court and in the press. That’s our job. It’s not our job to be a meme when you forget your accreditation. It’s funny for sure. People have something to talk about. For us, I don’t think it’s necessary.” “Have you talked to the tournament about it here?” Iga: “What’s the point?” (via Australian Open Press)

The Tennis Letter

591,804 views • 5 months ago