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.

#Texans tight end Dalton Schultz Dalton Schultz at new Ignition hidden speakeasy at Sawyer Yards fueled by racing culture, expansion of Velocity Sim Racing Lounge founded by entrepreneur Viet Tran 'Very realistic,' Schultz said. 'Just another way to compete' Scurfield Group KPRC 2 Houston

Aaron Wilson

114,434 subscribers

41,966 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Arts Sports News & Politics #Texans

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

#Texans tight end Dalton Schultz on C.J. Stroud after encouraging offseason: 'Dude, C.J. is gonna do what C.J. is gonna do. Count him out if you dare, dude's a baller. Dude's gonna make plays, he's gonna lead this team. I'm excited for him, the work that he's put in, and just the, like you said, the focus that he's had since that final game. And he's been immediately locked in and ready to go at the next opportunity. And that's contagious' KPRC 2 Houston

#Texans tight end Dalton Schultz on C.J. Stroud after encouraging offseason: 'Dude, C.J. is gonna do what C.J. is gonna do. Count him out if you dare, dude's a baller. Dude's gonna make plays, he's gonna lead this team. I'm excited for him, the work that he's put in, and just the, like you said, the focus that he's had since that final game. And he's been immediately locked in and ready to go at the next opportunity. And that's contagious' KPRC 2 Houston

Aaron Wilson

48,626 views • 1 month ago

Mathieu Kassovitz on how "La Haine" (1995) changed many people's lives: “When you want to make a political movie you want it to be relevant. No point in pleasing people. There are already many movies that can please people. 'Monty Python' or Disney movies are passed on from generation to generation but to be able to do a political movie that stays relevant 25 years later is amazing and terrible at the same time. Because it also means that the problems are still here. They are even worse now, they are combined with other problems that we didn’t have 25 years ago. That movie changed a lot of people’s lives. I met people who became policemen or lawyers because of the film. That’s why we are releasing it again, because it’s a movie people can relate to. It’s what you’re looking for when you make a political film. People are more than just entertained. My memories stem more from the audience than from the movie itself. The way it was received and the way people see it today. Either they were from the projects and it changed their way of looking at a problem. Art can really help with that. On a political level, it gave the kids from the suburbs a certain strength. It also gave cops another angle at looking at those kids. Many people were inspired to produce new work. Even this year’s César winner is inspired by 'La Haine', not by the movie itself but by the theme. The end is almost the same. JR was 13 years old when he watched the film and his artwork is very much inspired by the poster. The film actually helped to create a new generation of filmmakers and artists. It wasn’t just a trend. It’s an adventure that we shared together. So that’s the point of making movies like that and I’m proud of it. There is no music in La Haine but it’s a hip-hop movie. As it’s political, hip-hop and street culture has to be a part of it. Hip-hop is educating and entertaining at the same time. It’s the best way to learn, we call it ‘edutainment’. After all, 'La Haine' is also a comedy, except for the last 20 seconds of course.” ("La Haine Turns 25 – And Is As Relevant As Ever", Arijana Zeric, Another Magazine, 2020) P.S: On this day, 31 years ago, "La Haine" (1995) premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.

Mathieu Kassovitz on how "La Haine" (1995) changed many people's lives: “When you want to make a political movie you want it to be relevant. No point in pleasing people. There are already many movies that can please people. 'Monty Python' or Disney movies are passed on from generation to generation but to be able to do a political movie that stays relevant 25 years later is amazing and terrible at the same time. Because it also means that the problems are still here. They are even worse now, they are combined with other problems that we didn’t have 25 years ago. That movie changed a lot of people’s lives. I met people who became policemen or lawyers because of the film. That’s why we are releasing it again, because it’s a movie people can relate to. It’s what you’re looking for when you make a political film. People are more than just entertained. My memories stem more from the audience than from the movie itself. The way it was received and the way people see it today. Either they were from the projects and it changed their way of looking at a problem. Art can really help with that. On a political level, it gave the kids from the suburbs a certain strength. It also gave cops another angle at looking at those kids. Many people were inspired to produce new work. Even this year’s César winner is inspired by 'La Haine', not by the movie itself but by the theme. The end is almost the same. JR was 13 years old when he watched the film and his artwork is very much inspired by the poster. The film actually helped to create a new generation of filmmakers and artists. It wasn’t just a trend. It’s an adventure that we shared together. So that’s the point of making movies like that and I’m proud of it. There is no music in La Haine but it’s a hip-hop movie. As it’s political, hip-hop and street culture has to be a part of it. Hip-hop is educating and entertaining at the same time. It’s the best way to learn, we call it ‘edutainment’. After all, 'La Haine' is also a comedy, except for the last 20 seconds of course.” ("La Haine Turns 25 – And Is As Relevant As Ever", Arijana Zeric, Another Magazine, 2020) P.S: On this day, 31 years ago, "La Haine" (1995) premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.

DepressedBergman

12,731 views • 3 months ago

🛑 JANUARY 2017 - INAUGURATION CEREMONY - TRUMP'S MILITARY SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE GLOBALISTS AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 🛑 ———————- From The Daily Mail (UK): HEADLINE: “Did soldiers accidentally crash Trump's inaugural speech? Bizarre moment servicemen in uniform flank the new president - and walk away after a few seconds” ———————- Article A group of soldiers appeared to crash Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday in a bizarre moment that unfolded in the background of his first speech as president. The President had just begun his address when several members of the armed forces in uniform walked up behind him and stood there stoically. Viewers could have gotten the impression that all was going as planned, if not for the appearance of an extra man in uniform. That man seemed to tell the soldiers something, prompting them to leave before the end of the speech. Trump didn't seem to notice anything out of the ordinary and carried on with his address." End. ———————- * neither the timing nor the sudden appearance and disappearance of the military group was by chance. * the strange event started at the exact moment that Trump said this before the national audience: 👉🏼 "Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another - but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People. For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost." 👈🏼 ———————- * at that moment, the soldiers & sailors then vanished as quickly as they had appeared. ———————- still think there’s no plan? 😎

🛑 JANUARY 2017 - INAUGURATION CEREMONY - TRUMP'S MILITARY SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE GLOBALISTS AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 🛑 ———————- From The Daily Mail (UK): HEADLINE: “Did soldiers accidentally crash Trump's inaugural speech? Bizarre moment servicemen in uniform flank the new president - and walk away after a few seconds” ———————- Article A group of soldiers appeared to crash Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday in a bizarre moment that unfolded in the background of his first speech as president. The President had just begun his address when several members of the armed forces in uniform walked up behind him and stood there stoically. Viewers could have gotten the impression that all was going as planned, if not for the appearance of an extra man in uniform. That man seemed to tell the soldiers something, prompting them to leave before the end of the speech. Trump didn't seem to notice anything out of the ordinary and carried on with his address." End. ———————- * neither the timing nor the sudden appearance and disappearance of the military group was by chance. * the strange event started at the exact moment that Trump said this before the national audience: 👉🏼 "Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another - but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People. For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost." 👈🏼 ———————- * at that moment, the soldiers & sailors then vanished as quickly as they had appeared. ———————- still think there’s no plan? 😎

The Rubber Duck ™

844,156 views • 2 years ago

Guy attending Florida car is stopped by police telling him it's illegal to watch. What happens when a peaceful, permitted car show turns into a target practice for spectator citations? An attendee named Joseph went to "Cars & Coffee Palm Beach" in Florida to take photos and enjoy the legitimate automotive meetup. But as attendees began packing up and leaving, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBSO) launched a targeted sweep. Joseph was returning to his parked car when Deputy Kalmus (ID: 20186) detained him, claiming undercover officers filmed him "spectating" illegal street racing and takeover activity. The Claims vs. The Evidence Zero Takeover Footage: Deputy Kalmus insisted undercover officers recorded Joseph spectating an illegal burnout or takeover. However, in subsequent FOIA and public records requests, no video evidence of any drag racing or street takeover from the event was ever provided. Refusal to Clarify: When asked on camera why attendees were being targeted for standing on public sidewalks near a legal event, Detective Kelsey Schultz (ID: 30545)—who appeared to be overseeing aspects of the operation—refused to explain the justification. The Spectator Standard: Under Florida Statute 316.191(1)(i), proving someone is an illegal "spectator" requires showing that their presence was the result of an affirmative choice to attend or participate in an actual street takeover or drag race. Legitimate Meetup vs. Illegal Takeover: Attending a daytime public car show at a commercial plaza does not automatically convert law-abiding enthusiasts into street racing co-conspirators. Constitutional Vagueness: Florida’s anti-takeover statute has historically faced legal challenges (such as State of Florida v. Wells) for vagueness and arbitrary enforcement, as it fails to give ordinary citizens clear guidance on where the line is drawn. The Reality of the System Filing Complaints: Joseph filed an official complaint with PBSO Internal Affairs regarding the detention and lack of evidence. Following an internal review, Sergeant Safford cleared the involved officers of any fault. The Extortion Trap: With spectator citations carrying a ~$400 fine, many innocent attendees end up paying the ticket simply because fighting it in court—or funding a constitutional appeal—costs exponentially more than paying the bogus fee. Does issuing spectator tickets at permitted car shows protect public safety, or is it just revenue generation through arbitrary enforcement? Looking forward to see the responses on this.

Guy attending Florida car is stopped by police telling him it's illegal to watch. What happens when a peaceful, permitted car show turns into a target practice for spectator citations? An attendee named Joseph went to "Cars & Coffee Palm Beach" in Florida to take photos and enjoy the legitimate automotive meetup. But as attendees began packing up and leaving, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBSO) launched a targeted sweep. Joseph was returning to his parked car when Deputy Kalmus (ID: 20186) detained him, claiming undercover officers filmed him "spectating" illegal street racing and takeover activity. The Claims vs. The Evidence Zero Takeover Footage: Deputy Kalmus insisted undercover officers recorded Joseph spectating an illegal burnout or takeover. However, in subsequent FOIA and public records requests, no video evidence of any drag racing or street takeover from the event was ever provided. Refusal to Clarify: When asked on camera why attendees were being targeted for standing on public sidewalks near a legal event, Detective Kelsey Schultz (ID: 30545)—who appeared to be overseeing aspects of the operation—refused to explain the justification. The Spectator Standard: Under Florida Statute 316.191(1)(i), proving someone is an illegal "spectator" requires showing that their presence was the result of an affirmative choice to attend or participate in an actual street takeover or drag race. Legitimate Meetup vs. Illegal Takeover: Attending a daytime public car show at a commercial plaza does not automatically convert law-abiding enthusiasts into street racing co-conspirators. Constitutional Vagueness: Florida’s anti-takeover statute has historically faced legal challenges (such as State of Florida v. Wells) for vagueness and arbitrary enforcement, as it fails to give ordinary citizens clear guidance on where the line is drawn. The Reality of the System Filing Complaints: Joseph filed an official complaint with PBSO Internal Affairs regarding the detention and lack of evidence. Following an internal review, Sergeant Safford cleared the involved officers of any fault. The Extortion Trap: With spectator citations carrying a ~$400 fine, many innocent attendees end up paying the ticket simply because fighting it in court—or funding a constitutional appeal—costs exponentially more than paying the bogus fee. Does issuing spectator tickets at permitted car shows protect public safety, or is it just revenue generation through arbitrary enforcement? Looking forward to see the responses on this.

Giggling Ganon

1,521,172 views • 1 month ago

The date was January 1, 1989. In Jhandapur, a small village on the outskirts of Delhi, the winter chill was in the air as the capital celebrated the arrival of the New Year. Just 15 kilometers from the heart of Delhi, Jhandapur felt like a world apart. Responding to a call from the local workers, the theatre group Jan Natya Manch, led by Safdar Hashmi, had arrived to perform a street play. During the performance, Safdar was brutally attacked by government backed goons. He was struck 23 times on the head. He was only 34 years old. The assault took place on New Year's Day. On January 2, he was declared dead at the hospital. But the incident did not end there. A few days later, as the capital was hosting the International Film Festival at the Siri Fort Auditorium, Shabana Azmi was on stage. From a platform organised by the very same government, she chose to register her protest against the dastardly crime committed by goons of the ruling party. Asked which directors, in her view, had brought out the best in her, Shabana calmly took the microphone and said, "My views on my directors and the new wave can be reserved for another day. What is far more important right now is that we have been distributing some leaflets in the audience. I fear they may not have reached everyone. So I choose this occasion to read out our protest. Please bear with me." And then she took out a piece of paper and read it out publicly, openly critiquing the m€rder of Hashmi. Could something like this happen today? Is there even a single artist now with the spine to speak truth to power from such a platform against the very regime that hosts it? I doubt it. What was once possible and could be seen 35 years ago has come to a halt in this era of crude nationalism, where no one is willing to take a chance against the ruler.

The date was January 1, 1989. In Jhandapur, a small village on the outskirts of Delhi, the winter chill was in the air as the capital celebrated the arrival of the New Year. Just 15 kilometers from the heart of Delhi, Jhandapur felt like a world apart. Responding to a call from the local workers, the theatre group Jan Natya Manch, led by Safdar Hashmi, had arrived to perform a street play. During the performance, Safdar was brutally attacked by government backed goons. He was struck 23 times on the head. He was only 34 years old. The assault took place on New Year's Day. On January 2, he was declared dead at the hospital. But the incident did not end there. A few days later, as the capital was hosting the International Film Festival at the Siri Fort Auditorium, Shabana Azmi was on stage. From a platform organised by the very same government, she chose to register her protest against the dastardly crime committed by goons of the ruling party. Asked which directors, in her view, had brought out the best in her, Shabana calmly took the microphone and said, "My views on my directors and the new wave can be reserved for another day. What is far more important right now is that we have been distributing some leaflets in the audience. I fear they may not have reached everyone. So I choose this occasion to read out our protest. Please bear with me." And then she took out a piece of paper and read it out publicly, openly critiquing the m€rder of Hashmi. Could something like this happen today? Is there even a single artist now with the spine to speak truth to power from such a platform against the very regime that hosts it? I doubt it. What was once possible and could be seen 35 years ago has come to a halt in this era of crude nationalism, where no one is willing to take a chance against the ruler.

𝓼𝓪𝓷𝓴𝓪𝓻

35,113 views • 8 months ago

Carmelo Anthony says his 62-point game at Madison Square Garden was fueled by anger toward Knicks fans and the media “The 62 was very motivational. It was inspiring because I remember we had lost some games. We wasn’t playing well, and New York was on us. They was all over me, the media, everybody” “I look over to Shump before the game, and I said, ‘Yo, follow my lead…It’s on today.’ And I went out there, and I was in such a zone that nothing or nobody or anybody could say. It’s like a bubble. You angry, the fans is on you, the media is ridiculing you, you don’t know what your teammates thinking, we losing. But at the end of the day, I’mma show you how great I am. If I ain’t worrying about it, we ain’t worrying about it” “It just was flowing. I felt like I was in another space at that moment. Again, I was angry. I was trying to isolate myself in a space where only I can operate in this space mentally. Fuck everybody. People think that it was happy. No, I’m scoring and looking at the fans like fuck y’all. They had bags over their head, all types of shit going on. Fuck all of y’all”

Carmelo Anthony says his 62-point game at Madison Square Garden was fueled by anger toward Knicks fans and the media “The 62 was very motivational. It was inspiring because I remember we had lost some games. We wasn’t playing well, and New York was on us. They was all over me, the media, everybody” “I look over to Shump before the game, and I said, ‘Yo, follow my lead…It’s on today.’ And I went out there, and I was in such a zone that nothing or nobody or anybody could say. It’s like a bubble. You angry, the fans is on you, the media is ridiculing you, you don’t know what your teammates thinking, we losing. But at the end of the day, I’mma show you how great I am. If I ain’t worrying about it, we ain’t worrying about it” “It just was flowing. I felt like I was in another space at that moment. Again, I was angry. I was trying to isolate myself in a space where only I can operate in this space mentally. Fuck everybody. People think that it was happy. No, I’m scoring and looking at the fans like fuck y’all. They had bags over their head, all types of shit going on. Fuck all of y’all”

dank

27,024 views • 1 month ago

Brockman and Epstein saw many benefits in Thaler’s teachings. They had certain aspects of total technological control covered; they had the ear of many world leaders, they had introduced the Third Way politics of the future into the public arena, with its creator Anthony Giddens also being involved in Edge; but they were yet to figure out how to manufacture the consent of the voting population efficiently. This was where Thaler’s newly created strain of behavioural economics came into play. Behavioural economics was the Establishment’s best hope for achieving change amongst regular people, most importantly, without those targeted realising how or why they were being manipulated. In 2008, Thaler was an attendee at the San Francisco dinner held by Edge, but this wouldn’t be his only involvement with Brockman and Epstein’s organisation. Thaler also went to Edge specifically to train an extremely select group of Edge members in his newly developed branch of psychological operations. In October 2008, Edge hosted a course, funded by Jeffrey Epstein, which focused on this new form of behavioural science. Richard Thaler and Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed the six-part course themselves. This course was designed to be a “master class” something which the Edge website claimed was “the most recent iteration of Edge's development,” and had begun the previous year. The first Edge master class of 2008 was called: “Libertarian Paternalism: Why it is Impossible Not to Nudge”, while the second in the master class series was entitled: “Improving Choices with Machine Readable Disclosure”. The second part of the Edge Master Class saw only eight Edge members in attendance: Jeff Bezos, Nathan Myhrvold, Salar Kamangar, Daniel Kahneman, Danny Hilis, Paul Romer, Elon Musk and Sean Parker, while the third part also saw George Dyson and France LeClerc join the group. This wasn’t a random group of thinkers, these were some of the most powerful movers and shakers in the digital world. This Edge event saw the leading experts of behavioural economics training the very top echelons of Google, Amazon, YouTube, Space X, Intellectual Ventures, Facebook and Peter Thiel’s Founder Fund. Alongside Thaler and Mullainathan, Daniel Kahneman is one of the leading experts in not only behavioural economics but also cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgement and decision-making. Thaler and Kahneman started working together in the 1970s when Thaler arrived at Stanford. Kahneman also had a close business relationship with Richard Thaler by sitting on the board of Fuller and Thaler Asset Management, Inc. The attendees of this Edge Master Class would soon become the most powerful people in the world, more powerful than any president, prime minister or king. Paul Romer is an American economist and policy entrepreneur, who later became Chief Economist for the World Bank in 2016 and eventually shared a Nobel Prize in Economics alongside William Nordhaus. The year before the Edge event in question, Salar Kamangar replaced the founder of YouTube, Chad Hurley, as CEO of YouTube and, in February 2014, he left the company. Kamangar was replaced as CEO at YouTube by another staunch Edge regular, Susan Wojcicki. Danny Hillis had previously worked at Disney and had co-founded Applied Minds, but by this time he had founded Metaweb Technologies which was later acquired by Google. The infamous creator of Napster, Sean Parker, was already invested in Facebook by this point. However, maybe more notably, Parker had become a managing partner at Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, a San Francisco-based venture capital fund. The founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, was already a powerful mover and shaker by 2008, while Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures controlled almost 70,000 patents and patents pending at its peak. 🧵13/20

Brockman and Epstein saw many benefits in Thaler’s teachings. They had certain aspects of total technological control covered; they had the ear of many world leaders, they had introduced the Third Way politics of the future into the public arena, with its creator Anthony Giddens also being involved in Edge; but they were yet to figure out how to manufacture the consent of the voting population efficiently. This was where Thaler’s newly created strain of behavioural economics came into play. Behavioural economics was the Establishment’s best hope for achieving change amongst regular people, most importantly, without those targeted realising how or why they were being manipulated. In 2008, Thaler was an attendee at the San Francisco dinner held by Edge, but this wouldn’t be his only involvement with Brockman and Epstein’s organisation. Thaler also went to Edge specifically to train an extremely select group of Edge members in his newly developed branch of psychological operations. In October 2008, Edge hosted a course, funded by Jeffrey Epstein, which focused on this new form of behavioural science. Richard Thaler and Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed the six-part course themselves. This course was designed to be a “master class” something which the Edge website claimed was “the most recent iteration of Edge's development,” and had begun the previous year. The first Edge master class of 2008 was called: “Libertarian Paternalism: Why it is Impossible Not to Nudge”, while the second in the master class series was entitled: “Improving Choices with Machine Readable Disclosure”. The second part of the Edge Master Class saw only eight Edge members in attendance: Jeff Bezos, Nathan Myhrvold, Salar Kamangar, Daniel Kahneman, Danny Hilis, Paul Romer, Elon Musk and Sean Parker, while the third part also saw George Dyson and France LeClerc join the group. This wasn’t a random group of thinkers, these were some of the most powerful movers and shakers in the digital world. This Edge event saw the leading experts of behavioural economics training the very top echelons of Google, Amazon, YouTube, Space X, Intellectual Ventures, Facebook and Peter Thiel’s Founder Fund. Alongside Thaler and Mullainathan, Daniel Kahneman is one of the leading experts in not only behavioural economics but also cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgement and decision-making. Thaler and Kahneman started working together in the 1970s when Thaler arrived at Stanford. Kahneman also had a close business relationship with Richard Thaler by sitting on the board of Fuller and Thaler Asset Management, Inc. The attendees of this Edge Master Class would soon become the most powerful people in the world, more powerful than any president, prime minister or king. Paul Romer is an American economist and policy entrepreneur, who later became Chief Economist for the World Bank in 2016 and eventually shared a Nobel Prize in Economics alongside William Nordhaus. The year before the Edge event in question, Salar Kamangar replaced the founder of YouTube, Chad Hurley, as CEO of YouTube and, in February 2014, he left the company. Kamangar was replaced as CEO at YouTube by another staunch Edge regular, Susan Wojcicki. Danny Hillis had previously worked at Disney and had co-founded Applied Minds, but by this time he had founded Metaweb Technologies which was later acquired by Google. The infamous creator of Napster, Sean Parker, was already invested in Facebook by this point. However, maybe more notably, Parker had become a managing partner at Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, a San Francisco-based venture capital fund. The founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, was already a powerful mover and shaker by 2008, while Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures controlled almost 70,000 patents and patents pending at its peak. 🧵13/20

Johnny Vedmore

19,224 views • 1 year ago

Ted Gioia thinks our culture is stagnant. Algorithms have us addicted to distraction, Hollywood's out of creative ideas, and people don't read hard books like they used to. 16 lessons about writing and breaking free from dopamine culture: 1. Ted's golden rule for writing: "Always be honest." 2. Three questions to ask yourself when critiquing something: Is it fair? Is it accurate? Will this be persuasive to all fair-minded observers? 3. Struggling as a non-fiction writer? Become an expert in something first. 4. Read slowly. 5. Success won't always come quickly. Ted's career is just now taking off — 50 years after he started writing for publication. 6. People will judge you on your outputs, but you should focus on your inputs. For Ted, that means reading mind-expanding books and listening to music. He does both for 2 hours per day. Then, he writes. 7. What kind of books should you read? Ted says: "Read for mind-expansion, not entertainment, and seek out challenging books." 8. Wondering which book to read? Think of books like drugs and pick up the one that'll give you the greatest out-of-body experience. 9. Do you struggle with writer's block? Do this: (1) buy a blank journal that only you will see, (2) write about something that happened at the end of every day — but there's one rule... you have to be 100% honest, (3) do this every day for a month, and (4) sit back and read what you've written at the end of the month. You'll be surprised by how much good stuff you have. 10. Your high school English teacher was right about this one... write in the margins of your books. 11. After you finish a book, summarize it in your own words. Helps with retention. Think summaries are too time-consuming? If just spent 10 hours reading the book, devoting another hour to synthesizing it is a relatively good time investment. 10-to-1 ratio. 12. Why is our culture stagnant? Consumer brands are increasingly old standbys. Look at video games. Minecraft (launched in 2011), Call of Duty (2003), Grand Theft Auto (1997), Madden NFL (1988), and Super Mario Bros (1985). 13. How about another example? The comic book market driven by the same brand franchises that were dominant in the 60s and 70s. All of the top 20 bestsellers are from Marvel or DC Comics, which were founded in the 1930s. 14. Want a third? Hollywood sequels. They're everywhere now. Top Gun, Spider-Man, John Wick, Mission: Impossible. 15. Music is like cloud storage for societies. That's why the historians in traditional communities were usually singers. Music preserves culture and folklore. 16. Consume old stuff when you're young and new stuff when you're old. This is the opposite of what most people do. Ted is the most well-read person I've met in years. You name it. He's read the book or listened to the album. This guy knows the Western canon. I've linked to the full interview with Ted Gioia below. If you prefer to consume the interview on another platform, you'll find the Apple, Spotify, and YouTube links in the reply tweets.

David Perell

432,898 views • 2 years ago

Garcelle Beauvais really had to deal with a lot of disrespect from her fellow housewives. Throwback to the reunion where it was revealed that Lisa Rinna threw Garcelle Beauvais’s book in the trash. At first, everyone thought it was Erika Jayne because Erika had posted about it. There was a group chat where Rinna sent the video of her throwing Garcelle’s book away. Garcelle wasn’t in that group. I’m assuming most of the other women at that reunion were, minus Sutton and possibly Crystal. It’s honestly shocking to rewatch, especially now when everyone at the current reunion is talking about supporting each other’s businesses no matter what. One of the worst parts is that Andy Cohen seemed to move past the main issue of them throwing Garcelle’s book in the trash and how that could have made her feel, and instead focused on recycling, which was honestly so ridiculous. I do remember him later acknowledging that it was wrong after the reunion and that he reached out to Garcelle to apologize. Another frustrating part is that when Lisa Rinna explained why she threw Garcelle’s book away, it came down to Garcelle mentioning her daughter Amelia in a way Lisa felt was negative. In reality, Garcelle was just retelling what had already aired on the show. Nothing she said was new or out of context. Garcelle also explained that she was contacted by Lisa Rinna’s lawyers, and Garcelle handled the situation very graciously. She worked to resolve it, released a second edition of the book, and removed the section about Amelia, including from the audiobook. Credit to Garcelle for how she handled that situation with calm and professionalism. #RHOBH

Garcelle Beauvais really had to deal with a lot of disrespect from her fellow housewives. Throwback to the reunion where it was revealed that Lisa Rinna threw Garcelle Beauvais’s book in the trash. At first, everyone thought it was Erika Jayne because Erika had posted about it. There was a group chat where Rinna sent the video of her throwing Garcelle’s book away. Garcelle wasn’t in that group. I’m assuming most of the other women at that reunion were, minus Sutton and possibly Crystal. It’s honestly shocking to rewatch, especially now when everyone at the current reunion is talking about supporting each other’s businesses no matter what. One of the worst parts is that Andy Cohen seemed to move past the main issue of them throwing Garcelle’s book in the trash and how that could have made her feel, and instead focused on recycling, which was honestly so ridiculous. I do remember him later acknowledging that it was wrong after the reunion and that he reached out to Garcelle to apologize. Another frustrating part is that when Lisa Rinna explained why she threw Garcelle’s book away, it came down to Garcelle mentioning her daughter Amelia in a way Lisa felt was negative. In reality, Garcelle was just retelling what had already aired on the show. Nothing she said was new or out of context. Garcelle also explained that she was contacted by Lisa Rinna’s lawyers, and Garcelle handled the situation very graciously. She worked to resolve it, released a second edition of the book, and removed the section about Amelia, including from the audiobook. Credit to Garcelle for how she handled that situation with calm and professionalism. #RHOBH

Bye Wig Hello Drama

92,771 views • 4 months ago

WATCH LIVE ON APRIL 19TH The race is called “The Growler”, and is but one component of the 16 year old mass-participation ride known as Levi’s GranFondo. The ride has existed here since 2009, and was founded by former WorldTour professional Levi Leipheimer as a way to give back to his community, and share the very roads that shaped his career. The event hosts thousands of participants from around the world each year, but fewer than 200 with the capacity to reach the top step are invited to compete in The Growler. The Growler of Levi's GranFondo is America's toughest road race. There is no equal. It is as hard if not harder than some of the biggest one day classics, and will be the most difficult challenge many of today’s competitors will face as it features 4,200 meters of elevation spread over more than 220 kilometers of highly technical, narrow roads that Sonoma County is famous for in the world of cycling–a selection of roads that were pivotal during the late Coors Classic, and Amgen Tour of California races. The beauty and ruggedness of this mythical place at the edge of our continent is indescribable. Coupled with the pure exhilaration of racing a bicycle through such sinuous roads is the inspiration for what you will see today. There will be ten winners in each of the men’s and women’s fields as our top athletes of the day battle for a share of a $156,000 prize purse. This payout makes The Growler the richest one-day professional road bike race in the world, thanks to the incredible support of our title sponsor Skipstone Winery, nestled at the end of the final mountain of the day: the Geysers. Specialized Bicycles Zenni® SKIPSTONE Bike Monkey Levi Leipheimer AshBritt, Inc ASSOS Of Switzerland Voler Apparel KRCB 104.9 Cyclingnews velonews GlobalCyclingNetwork PezCycling News Bicycling Magazine SonomaCounty

WATCH LIVE ON APRIL 19TH The race is called “The Growler”, and is but one component of the 16 year old mass-participation ride known as Levi’s GranFondo. The ride has existed here since 2009, and was founded by former WorldTour professional Levi Leipheimer as a way to give back to his community, and share the very roads that shaped his career. The event hosts thousands of participants from around the world each year, but fewer than 200 with the capacity to reach the top step are invited to compete in The Growler. The Growler of Levi's GranFondo is America's toughest road race. There is no equal. It is as hard if not harder than some of the biggest one day classics, and will be the most difficult challenge many of today’s competitors will face as it features 4,200 meters of elevation spread over more than 220 kilometers of highly technical, narrow roads that Sonoma County is famous for in the world of cycling–a selection of roads that were pivotal during the late Coors Classic, and Amgen Tour of California races. The beauty and ruggedness of this mythical place at the edge of our continent is indescribable. Coupled with the pure exhilaration of racing a bicycle through such sinuous roads is the inspiration for what you will see today. There will be ten winners in each of the men’s and women’s fields as our top athletes of the day battle for a share of a $156,000 prize purse. This payout makes The Growler the richest one-day professional road bike race in the world, thanks to the incredible support of our title sponsor Skipstone Winery, nestled at the end of the final mountain of the day: the Geysers. Specialized Bicycles Zenni® SKIPSTONE Bike Monkey Levi Leipheimer AshBritt, Inc ASSOS Of Switzerland Voler Apparel KRCB 104.9 Cyclingnews velonews GlobalCyclingNetwork PezCycling News Bicycling Magazine SonomaCounty

Levi's GranFondo

70,630 views • 1 year ago

$1.25 billion Unicorn. Only 2 Product Managers. That's Linear, the tool powering OpenAI, Perplexity, Cursor, and all the other new AI companies. Today I'm releasing part 2 of my conversation with the man behind it all, Head of Product Nan Yu. 🎬 Watch Now: We break down all aspects of the Linear Method: 1. How to build products with speed and quality Everyone thinks speed and quality are opposite ends of a spectrum. At Linear, they’ve learned they’re actually dance partners. The trick isn’t to move faster by cutting corners. It’s to design the system so cleanly that you don’t need hacks in the first place. Their framework focuses on strong abstractions and ruthless clarity upfront so they can move quickly and maintain craft. 2. Why the smallest possible scope is your superpower When you’re staring at a big ambitious idea, it’s tempting to swing for the fences immediately. The problem? Big scope creates drag. They’ve found that shrinking a feature down to its smallest, clearest version is like cutting a diamond: the smaller it gets, the more precise and valuable it becomes. Ship the smallest version that works, then let reality guide the next cut. That’s how they keep velocity without losing control of quality. 3. The truth about OKRs OKRs are like prescription glasses: they work beautifully if you actually need them and give you headaches if you don’t. For huge, multi-layered orgs, they align chaos. But most startups try to wear someone else’s prescription. You end up contorting obvious priorities into stretch goals and numbers just to check the box. 4. Scaling smart vs. scaling headcount Linear hit a $1.25B valuation with ~40 engineers and 2 PMs. That’s not because they were allergic to hiring, it’s because they treated people as force multipliers, not just bodies to throw at problems. Async clarity, small high-leverage teams, and obsessive communication let them get more output per person instead of chasing vanity headcount. 5. Culture that compounds Culture isn’t built in offsites, it’s built in habits. Two of theirs have shaped everything: a. Public change log Every 2–3 weeks they ship a changelog. It’s their heartbeat. If the changelog is light, they know they lost momentum. It’s like checking a pulse. b. Feature roasts Before shipping, the whole team tries to break a feature in every way imaginable. It’s brutal and fun at the same time. - - - - - P.S. You're not going to want to miss Nan Yu's career story, including going from CTO to IC engineer and getting the job at Linear. For readers, the transcript is here:

$1.25 billion Unicorn. Only 2 Product Managers. That's Linear, the tool powering OpenAI, Perplexity, Cursor, and all the other new AI companies. Today I'm releasing part 2 of my conversation with the man behind it all, Head of Product Nan Yu. 🎬 Watch Now: We break down all aspects of the Linear Method: 1. How to build products with speed and quality Everyone thinks speed and quality are opposite ends of a spectrum. At Linear, they’ve learned they’re actually dance partners. The trick isn’t to move faster by cutting corners. It’s to design the system so cleanly that you don’t need hacks in the first place. Their framework focuses on strong abstractions and ruthless clarity upfront so they can move quickly and maintain craft. 2. Why the smallest possible scope is your superpower When you’re staring at a big ambitious idea, it’s tempting to swing for the fences immediately. The problem? Big scope creates drag. They’ve found that shrinking a feature down to its smallest, clearest version is like cutting a diamond: the smaller it gets, the more precise and valuable it becomes. Ship the smallest version that works, then let reality guide the next cut. That’s how they keep velocity without losing control of quality. 3. The truth about OKRs OKRs are like prescription glasses: they work beautifully if you actually need them and give you headaches if you don’t. For huge, multi-layered orgs, they align chaos. But most startups try to wear someone else’s prescription. You end up contorting obvious priorities into stretch goals and numbers just to check the box. 4. Scaling smart vs. scaling headcount Linear hit a $1.25B valuation with ~40 engineers and 2 PMs. That’s not because they were allergic to hiring, it’s because they treated people as force multipliers, not just bodies to throw at problems. Async clarity, small high-leverage teams, and obsessive communication let them get more output per person instead of chasing vanity headcount. 5. Culture that compounds Culture isn’t built in offsites, it’s built in habits. Two of theirs have shaped everything: a. Public change log Every 2–3 weeks they ship a changelog. It’s their heartbeat. If the changelog is light, they know they lost momentum. It’s like checking a pulse. b. Feature roasts Before shipping, the whole team tries to break a feature in every way imaginable. It’s brutal and fun at the same time. - - - - - P.S. You're not going to want to miss Nan Yu's career story, including going from CTO to IC engineer and getting the job at Linear. For readers, the transcript is here:

Aakash Gupta

19,074 views • 1 year ago

In 2014, Elon Musk was asked whether he would stay on as the CEO of Tesla, given that he had his plate full with two companies. (Ten years ago, running 2 major companies was seen as a lot for Elon) He said that he would stay for 4 or 5 years, through 2018 - 2019, to see the ramp of the Model 3 through to completion. After Elon and his team successfully ramped the Model 3 to profitability (which by the way everyone also said was impossible), Elon was supposed to leave and choose a new CEO to run Tesla. Instead, we got the revolutionary 2018 compensation plan that retained Elon as CEO for the future by offering him stock options if he could take Tesla to heights that were considered "laughably impossible" by the media at the time. Against all odds, Elon achieved every single goal in the plan, and Tesla hit a $650 billion market cap. And it didn't stop there, as we all know. Elon stayed as CEO long past when his tour of duty was supposed to be over, and made Tesla a global success story. Then courts struck his comp plan down. Most CEOs would probably leave at this point. You offered me stock options so I would stay on as CEO, the plan got invalidated... why am I still dealing with the daily headaches and insane drama of running this company? But Elon is not most CEOs. He cared about his shareholders, and he stayed and made sure their investment was protected. And shareholders have done very well. Tomorrow, at Tesla's 2025 shareholder meeting, we have a chance to retain Elon for the future, make sure he has control of the company — not Wall Street — and right the wrongs of the 2018 plan. Elon kept his end of the deal for us, let's keep up our end of the deal to him. If we don't, we will realize as we face the impossible task of replacing him just what someone like him is worth. That's why I'm voting yes today with every $TSLA share I own. Who else is with me?

In 2014, Elon Musk was asked whether he would stay on as the CEO of Tesla, given that he had his plate full with two companies. (Ten years ago, running 2 major companies was seen as a lot for Elon) He said that he would stay for 4 or 5 years, through 2018 - 2019, to see the ramp of the Model 3 through to completion. After Elon and his team successfully ramped the Model 3 to profitability (which by the way everyone also said was impossible), Elon was supposed to leave and choose a new CEO to run Tesla. Instead, we got the revolutionary 2018 compensation plan that retained Elon as CEO for the future by offering him stock options if he could take Tesla to heights that were considered "laughably impossible" by the media at the time. Against all odds, Elon achieved every single goal in the plan, and Tesla hit a $650 billion market cap. And it didn't stop there, as we all know. Elon stayed as CEO long past when his tour of duty was supposed to be over, and made Tesla a global success story. Then courts struck his comp plan down. Most CEOs would probably leave at this point. You offered me stock options so I would stay on as CEO, the plan got invalidated... why am I still dealing with the daily headaches and insane drama of running this company? But Elon is not most CEOs. He cared about his shareholders, and he stayed and made sure their investment was protected. And shareholders have done very well. Tomorrow, at Tesla's 2025 shareholder meeting, we have a chance to retain Elon for the future, make sure he has control of the company — not Wall Street — and right the wrongs of the 2018 plan. Elon kept his end of the deal for us, let's keep up our end of the deal to him. If we don't, we will realize as we face the impossible task of replacing him just what someone like him is worth. That's why I'm voting yes today with every $TSLA share I own. Who else is with me?

Whole Mars Catalog

118,422 views • 10 months ago

Anthropic's CEO just leaked the most INSANE revenue numbers in AI history. And what he said about the next 12 months will change how you think about every business decision you're making right now. Dario Amodei told Dwarkesh Patel on the interview that Anthropic went from: - 2023: $0 to $100M - 2024: $100M to $1B - 2025: $1B to $9-10B That's 10x revenue growth. Every. Single. Year. "In January alone, we added another few billion to revenue." One month. A few billion dollars. Think about what that means. Most companies would kill for $1B in annual revenue. Anthropic added multiple billions in 30 days. But Dario said something even more interesting: "We are near the end of the exponential." Not the end of AI progress. The end of people understanding how close we actually are. His exact words: "It is absolutely wild that you have people talking about the same tired political issues, when we are near the end of the exponential." What does "end of the exponential" mean? In 1-3 years, we get what he calls a "country of geniuses in a data center." AI systems that can: - Do end-to-end software engineering - Navigate any computer interface - Learn new skills like humans do - Replace entire categories of knowledge work And here's the contradiction: If Anthropic really believed this was 1-3 years away, why aren't they buying $1 trillion in compute? Dario's answer exposes the real game: "If you're off by only a year in your prediction, you go bankrupt." So even the CEO who's most bullish on AI timelines is hedging. He's buying hundreds of billions in compute. Not trillions. Because the gap between "AI can do the job" and "companies actually pay for it" is massive. He calls it "economic diffusion." I call it the gap that's going to make some people very rich and destroy everyone who ignores it. The models are already better than people think. Claude Code writes 90% of code at Anthropic right now. But Dario says there's a huge difference between: - 90% of code written by AI - 100% of code written by AI - 90% of end-to-end SWE tasks done by AI - 100% of end-to-end SWE tasks done by AI We're moving through that spectrum "very quickly." His prediction: FULL end-to-end software engineering in 1-2 years. But here's what's scary: The technology is advancing faster than anyone outside the AI labs understands. And the revenue is following faster than any technology in history. But it's still not instant. Dario expects 10-20% annual GDP growth. Not 300%. Which means we're in this weird middle zone: Fast enough to destroy unprepared businesses. Slow enough that most people are ignoring it. Dario's big takeaway: If you're running a business right now, you have maybe 12-18 months to figure out how AI changes your model. Not to "add AI features." To fundamentally rethink what you're selling and who can do the work. Because the companies that get this right will 10x. And the ones that don't will be explaining to investors why revenue is flat while everyone else is printing money. The exponential is ending. But most people literally still don't even know it started.

Anthropic's CEO just leaked the most INSANE revenue numbers in AI history. And what he said about the next 12 months will change how you think about every business decision you're making right now. Dario Amodei told Dwarkesh Patel on the interview that Anthropic went from: - 2023: $0 to $100M - 2024: $100M to $1B - 2025: $1B to $9-10B That's 10x revenue growth. Every. Single. Year. "In January alone, we added another few billion to revenue." One month. A few billion dollars. Think about what that means. Most companies would kill for $1B in annual revenue. Anthropic added multiple billions in 30 days. But Dario said something even more interesting: "We are near the end of the exponential." Not the end of AI progress. The end of people understanding how close we actually are. His exact words: "It is absolutely wild that you have people talking about the same tired political issues, when we are near the end of the exponential." What does "end of the exponential" mean? In 1-3 years, we get what he calls a "country of geniuses in a data center." AI systems that can: - Do end-to-end software engineering - Navigate any computer interface - Learn new skills like humans do - Replace entire categories of knowledge work And here's the contradiction: If Anthropic really believed this was 1-3 years away, why aren't they buying $1 trillion in compute? Dario's answer exposes the real game: "If you're off by only a year in your prediction, you go bankrupt." So even the CEO who's most bullish on AI timelines is hedging. He's buying hundreds of billions in compute. Not trillions. Because the gap between "AI can do the job" and "companies actually pay for it" is massive. He calls it "economic diffusion." I call it the gap that's going to make some people very rich and destroy everyone who ignores it. The models are already better than people think. Claude Code writes 90% of code at Anthropic right now. But Dario says there's a huge difference between: - 90% of code written by AI - 100% of code written by AI - 90% of end-to-end SWE tasks done by AI - 100% of end-to-end SWE tasks done by AI We're moving through that spectrum "very quickly." His prediction: FULL end-to-end software engineering in 1-2 years. But here's what's scary: The technology is advancing faster than anyone outside the AI labs understands. And the revenue is following faster than any technology in history. But it's still not instant. Dario expects 10-20% annual GDP growth. Not 300%. Which means we're in this weird middle zone: Fast enough to destroy unprepared businesses. Slow enough that most people are ignoring it. Dario's big takeaway: If you're running a business right now, you have maybe 12-18 months to figure out how AI changes your model. Not to "add AI features." To fundamentally rethink what you're selling and who can do the work. Because the companies that get this right will 10x. And the ones that don't will be explaining to investors why revenue is flat while everyone else is printing money. The exponential is ending. But most people literally still don't even know it started.

Ricardo

62,068 views • 6 months ago

At 17, Quentin Tarantino moved to LA with ambitions of being a filmmaker. He got a job at a video store, Video Archives, and, he said, “I got caught up in the little life there...and for a few years, it put my ambitions to sleep. Because I was happy enough.” Then one night, An older guy named Steve-O who Tarantino worked and lived with vented about being disgusted with his life. “He starts ranting,” Tarantino said, “He goes, ‘Quentin...at 20, I worked at South Bay Cinemas, and I hung out with a bunch of guys just like you...Then I worked at Miller’s Outpost for 4 years, and I hung out with a bunch of guys just like you...Then I worked at Licorice Pizza for 4 years with a bunch of guys just like you. I’ve wasted my life hanging out with a bunch of guys just like you.” Tarantino was about to turn 25 at this time, and leading up to Steve-O’s rant, he said, “I was starting to [think], ‘What have I done with my life so far? So far fucking nothing.’ So as I'm having my own little anxieties hitting 25, I'm seeing what it’s like when you’re in that situation in your 30s.” Not wanting to be in that situation in his 30s—after Steve-O’s rant, Tarantino had what he calls a “Quentin Detest Fest”—“I stayed up all night. looking at everything that I’m fucking up in my life...And then I spent two hours figuring out how I can change it.” “And as opposed to just doing that, and then going to sleep, forgetting about it and falling back into my routine, I decided to change my life.” Tarantino decided to move from the South Bay to Koreatown, closer to the action in Hollywood. Not long after moving to the Hollywood area, he said, “I met a guy who wrote low-budget horror movies. Through him, I met other writers...You meet one person, and they introduce you to three others. Now all of a sudden, I actually knew people who were making movies.” Surrounded by people making movies, Tarantino started writing his own scripts and helping other writers with theirs. Soon, when those writers would get offered jobs rewriting scripts, if they couldn’t take it, they’d recommend Quentin. “And within a year and a half of moving into the Hollywood area,” Tarantino said, “literally, within a year and a half, I was able to make a living as a writer.” Takeaway 1: Tarantino said of those years working at the video store—“it put my ambitions to sleep. Because I was happy enough.” “I was happy enough,” he repeats. When you’re happy enough, when the job, the pay, or the circumstances are good enough—the psychologist Adam Mastroianni calls this The Mediocrity Trap. Mediocre situations, he writes, “keep you forever in their orbit because they never inspire the frustration it takes to achieve escape velocity.” To escape the mediocrity trap, you often need a setback (e.g. getting fired), a Steve-O rant, or, Mastroianni writes, “someone to come in and tell you it’s time to start living.” Takeaway 2: Throughout “Atomic Habits,” James Clear writes that the most reliable way to create better habits is to go to “where your desired behavior is the normal behavior.” Walt Disney moved to Hollywood after a decade of trying and failing to make it as a cartoonist in Kansas City. Bob Dylan moved to NYC to pursue his music ambitions. Julia Child moved to Paris and discovered her culinary ambitions. Tarantino moved to Hollywood to wake up his filmmaking ambitions. The songwriter & record producer Ryan Tedder tells the story of a time he spoke to a group of aspiring musicians. One of them told him that they’d been trying and failing for years to break into the music business. As Tedder tells it, “I said, ‘Where do you live?’ She said, ‘Holland.’ I said, ‘That's why.’ She said, ‘What?’ We were in LA—I said, ‘Move here. Move to London. Or move to New York...You gotta go to where it is.’” If you’re in the mediocrity trap, if your ambitions have been put to sleep, if you’ve been trying and failing for years—you gotta go to where what you desire is what’s normal.

At 17, Quentin Tarantino moved to LA with ambitions of being a filmmaker. He got a job at a video store, Video Archives, and, he said, “I got caught up in the little life there...and for a few years, it put my ambitions to sleep. Because I was happy enough.” Then one night, An older guy named Steve-O who Tarantino worked and lived with vented about being disgusted with his life. “He starts ranting,” Tarantino said, “He goes, ‘Quentin...at 20, I worked at South Bay Cinemas, and I hung out with a bunch of guys just like you...Then I worked at Miller’s Outpost for 4 years, and I hung out with a bunch of guys just like you...Then I worked at Licorice Pizza for 4 years with a bunch of guys just like you. I’ve wasted my life hanging out with a bunch of guys just like you.” Tarantino was about to turn 25 at this time, and leading up to Steve-O’s rant, he said, “I was starting to [think], ‘What have I done with my life so far? So far fucking nothing.’ So as I'm having my own little anxieties hitting 25, I'm seeing what it’s like when you’re in that situation in your 30s.” Not wanting to be in that situation in his 30s—after Steve-O’s rant, Tarantino had what he calls a “Quentin Detest Fest”—“I stayed up all night. looking at everything that I’m fucking up in my life...And then I spent two hours figuring out how I can change it.” “And as opposed to just doing that, and then going to sleep, forgetting about it and falling back into my routine, I decided to change my life.” Tarantino decided to move from the South Bay to Koreatown, closer to the action in Hollywood. Not long after moving to the Hollywood area, he said, “I met a guy who wrote low-budget horror movies. Through him, I met other writers...You meet one person, and they introduce you to three others. Now all of a sudden, I actually knew people who were making movies.” Surrounded by people making movies, Tarantino started writing his own scripts and helping other writers with theirs. Soon, when those writers would get offered jobs rewriting scripts, if they couldn’t take it, they’d recommend Quentin. “And within a year and a half of moving into the Hollywood area,” Tarantino said, “literally, within a year and a half, I was able to make a living as a writer.” Takeaway 1: Tarantino said of those years working at the video store—“it put my ambitions to sleep. Because I was happy enough.” “I was happy enough,” he repeats. When you’re happy enough, when the job, the pay, or the circumstances are good enough—the psychologist Adam Mastroianni calls this The Mediocrity Trap. Mediocre situations, he writes, “keep you forever in their orbit because they never inspire the frustration it takes to achieve escape velocity.” To escape the mediocrity trap, you often need a setback (e.g. getting fired), a Steve-O rant, or, Mastroianni writes, “someone to come in and tell you it’s time to start living.” Takeaway 2: Throughout “Atomic Habits,” James Clear writes that the most reliable way to create better habits is to go to “where your desired behavior is the normal behavior.” Walt Disney moved to Hollywood after a decade of trying and failing to make it as a cartoonist in Kansas City. Bob Dylan moved to NYC to pursue his music ambitions. Julia Child moved to Paris and discovered her culinary ambitions. Tarantino moved to Hollywood to wake up his filmmaking ambitions. The songwriter & record producer Ryan Tedder tells the story of a time he spoke to a group of aspiring musicians. One of them told him that they’d been trying and failing for years to break into the music business. As Tedder tells it, “I said, ‘Where do you live?’ She said, ‘Holland.’ I said, ‘That's why.’ She said, ‘What?’ We were in LA—I said, ‘Move here. Move to London. Or move to New York...You gotta go to where it is.’” If you’re in the mediocrity trap, if your ambitions have been put to sleep, if you’ve been trying and failing for years—you gotta go to where what you desire is what’s normal.

Billy Oppenheimer

47,175 views • 1 year ago

Creatine Monohydrate is STILL KING Creatine monohydrate (CrM) is the most effective supplement on the market & has decades of data & thousands of studies to back up its use. It is also the least expensive form of creatine on the market. If CrM is so effective why do companies keep trying to reinvent the wheel? I’ll let you in on a dirty little supplement industry secret, companies can’t make much money on CrM because it is so widely available that it drives down the price. So companies make ‘new & improved’ forms of creatine to justify charging you 2-4x more money. There’s only one problem… these forms are either less effective or only equally effective but cost WAY more One of the new forms of creatine that has generated a lot of buzz is creatine hydrochloride (CrHCl). CrHCl is more soluble in water & so the claim has been made that it gets absorbed better & you don’t need to take as much to get equal results. A recent study (PMID: 39545789) aimed to test these claims directly. The researchers split the participants into 4 groups who resistance trained (RT): RT + placebo RT + CrM at 0.03g/kg BW RT + CrHCl at 0.03g/kg BW RT + CrM at a loading dose of 0.3g/kg BW followed by a maintenance dose of 0.03g/kg BW At the end of the study all the creatine groups had better results than the placebo group, but NONE of the creatine groups had any significant differences from each other. Sorry CrHCl, you’re just another overpriced reinvention of the wheel to try to get people to spend more money so that supplement companies can pocket more Some people do get GI distress with rCM, in this case you can try splitting the normal 5g/day dose up into 2-3 smaller doses throughout the day & that will help Stick with tried & true CrM. It is inexpensive & very effective. That is why we use CrM in my Recovery product from @outworknutritionofficial (link in bio) because why would we charge you more for a less effective, more expensive product? We wouldn’t, because we don’t roll like that

Creatine Monohydrate is STILL KING Creatine monohydrate (CrM) is the most effective supplement on the market & has decades of data & thousands of studies to back up its use. It is also the least expensive form of creatine on the market. If CrM is so effective why do companies keep trying to reinvent the wheel? I’ll let you in on a dirty little supplement industry secret, companies can’t make much money on CrM because it is so widely available that it drives down the price. So companies make ‘new & improved’ forms of creatine to justify charging you 2-4x more money. There’s only one problem… these forms are either less effective or only equally effective but cost WAY more One of the new forms of creatine that has generated a lot of buzz is creatine hydrochloride (CrHCl). CrHCl is more soluble in water & so the claim has been made that it gets absorbed better & you don’t need to take as much to get equal results. A recent study (PMID: 39545789) aimed to test these claims directly. The researchers split the participants into 4 groups who resistance trained (RT): RT + placebo RT + CrM at 0.03g/kg BW RT + CrHCl at 0.03g/kg BW RT + CrM at a loading dose of 0.3g/kg BW followed by a maintenance dose of 0.03g/kg BW At the end of the study all the creatine groups had better results than the placebo group, but NONE of the creatine groups had any significant differences from each other. Sorry CrHCl, you’re just another overpriced reinvention of the wheel to try to get people to spend more money so that supplement companies can pocket more Some people do get GI distress with rCM, in this case you can try splitting the normal 5g/day dose up into 2-3 smaller doses throughout the day & that will help Stick with tried & true CrM. It is inexpensive & very effective. That is why we use CrM in my Recovery product from @outworknutritionofficial (link in bio) because why would we charge you more for a less effective, more expensive product? We wouldn’t, because we don’t roll like that

Layne Norton, PhD

28,197 views • 1 year ago