Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

that was an interesting decision 🫣🥚🥢 #ballbusting #kickintheballs #nutshot #kickinthenuts #ballkicking #пояйцам #ударпояйцам #cbt #bdsm

smack_my_sack

25,302 subscribers

151,326 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #ballbusting #kickintheballs #nutshot #kickinthenuts #ballkicking #пояйцам #ударпояйцам #cbt #bdsm

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

New video for sale. Dm me. This ones is good. Actual video does have the audio. The audio for this one was too good. #kickintheballs #kickedintheballs #kickinthenuts #ballbusting #nutshot #kickedinthenuts #mmballbusting #gaycbt #gayballbusting #ballskicked #rightinthenuts

New video for sale. Dm me. This ones is good. Actual video does have the audio. The audio for this one was too good. #kickintheballs #kickedintheballs #kickinthenuts #ballbusting #nutshot #kickedinthenuts #mmballbusting #gaycbt #gayballbusting #ballskicked #rightinthenuts

Clayton Kicks

17,893 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lady Kay decided that she would kick, punch, squeeze, and stomp on my balls until I fit in a tiny chastity cage. Her determination to stuff my long cock in such a tiny cage was so hot! #NSFW #BDSM #CBT #Femdom #Ballbusting

Sensitive content

Lady Kay decided that she would kick, punch, squeeze, and stomp on my balls until I fit in a tiny chastity cage. Her determination to stuff my long cock in such a tiny cage was so hot! #NSFW #BDSM #CBT #Femdom #Ballbusting

Damaged Goods Ballbusting

12,540 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Tucker Carlson says the decision for the U.S. to go to war with Iran was not made by the United States itself, but by Israel 🫣 “President Kennedy said no….and that was the last time an American president said no to Israel.”

Tucker Carlson says the decision for the U.S. to go to war with Iran was not made by the United States itself, but by Israel 🫣 “President Kennedy said no….and that was the last time an American president said no to Israel.”

Charging…

309,397 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Kazumi shares her first experience as a Domme in Tokyo involving an apprenticeship with one of the city's most violent Dommes "I had my first Dom experience in Tokyo. I was an apprentice to one of the most violent Dommes in Tokyo." "We went to that BDSM love hotel. She introduced me to her sub, and all of his thoughts were consumed by destruction." "I had never done something like that before. It was heavy CBT, but it was like a lot of blood."

Kazumi shares her first experience as a Domme in Tokyo involving an apprenticeship with one of the city's most violent Dommes "I had my first Dom experience in Tokyo. I was an apprentice to one of the most violent Dommes in Tokyo." "We went to that BDSM love hotel. She introduced me to her sub, and all of his thoughts were consumed by destruction." "I had never done something like that before. It was heavy CBT, but it was like a lot of blood."

Nuga

32,646 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

In 1987, Sugar Ray Leonard edged Marvin Hagler by split decision at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas in a fight that remains one of the most debated verdicts in boxing history. After the fight, Leonard was asked whether he could have lasted 15 rounds. He replied, “I was exhausted in the 12th round, but I would have found a way to go three more rounds with Hagler.” HBO commentator Larry Merchant then posed an interesting question: could Hagler have insisted that the bout be contested over the traditional 15-round distance instead?

In 1987, Sugar Ray Leonard edged Marvin Hagler by split decision at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas in a fight that remains one of the most debated verdicts in boxing history. After the fight, Leonard was asked whether he could have lasted 15 rounds. He replied, “I was exhausted in the 12th round, but I would have found a way to go three more rounds with Hagler.” HBO commentator Larry Merchant then posed an interesting question: could Hagler have insisted that the bout be contested over the traditional 15-round distance instead?

Boxing Archives

41,003 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

It's an interesting decision for the FloWrestling rankers: How do you treat injury defaults in rankings? Historically, the notion that no result can be assumed was the ethos of rankers. That said, exceptions can also exist and be considered. #29 PJ Duke put the rankers to the test when his domination of #12 Logan Rozynski was stopped short when Rozynski got injured and had to default. They decided to move PJ from 29th to 12th based on this result. What do you think makes the most sense?

It's an interesting decision for the FloWrestling rankers: How do you treat injury defaults in rankings? Historically, the notion that no result can be assumed was the ethos of rankers. That said, exceptions can also exist and be considered. #29 PJ Duke put the rankers to the test when his domination of #12 Logan Rozynski was stopped short when Rozynski got injured and had to default. They decided to move PJ from 29th to 12th based on this result. What do you think makes the most sense?

Christian Pyles

60,503 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

🫣🤔 Sean O'Malley doesn't believe in conspiracies around Conor McGregor's knee injury: "I would love to believe all these conspiracy theories, but the fact is it was an accident. He would've rather made $0 and at least go out there, perform, maybe drop Max, maybe lose a decision. For zero dollars, he would take that than taking what happened. 🎥 Sean O'Malley / MMAGuru

🫣🤔 Sean O'Malley doesn't believe in conspiracies around Conor McGregor's knee injury: "I would love to believe all these conspiracy theories, but the fact is it was an accident. He would've rather made $0 and at least go out there, perform, maybe drop Max, maybe lose a decision. For zero dollars, he would take that than taking what happened. 🎥 Sean O'Malley / MMAGuru

Full Mount MMA

38,663 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Notably, Trump himself has yet to weigh in on the collapse of the talks. Just days ago, he was optimistic enough to announce that he had brokered a “good deal for everybody.” His silence now is interesting. It lends at least some credence to Carney’s claim that while the Canadian negotiating team was aligned, the same may not have been true on the U.S. side, and to the possibility that Lutnick scuppered an agreement at the eleventh hour by introducing new demands. Also interesting is Carney’s decision to hold off on retaliatory tariffs until September 8. Purely speculation here but perhaps the hope is that the cooling off period leaves enough time for Trump himself to step in, overrule whatever happened at the eleventh hour and put the deal back on track.

Notably, Trump himself has yet to weigh in on the collapse of the talks. Just days ago, he was optimistic enough to announce that he had brokered a “good deal for everybody.” His silence now is interesting. It lends at least some credence to Carney’s claim that while the Canadian negotiating team was aligned, the same may not have been true on the U.S. side, and to the possibility that Lutnick scuppered an agreement at the eleventh hour by introducing new demands. Also interesting is Carney’s decision to hold off on retaliatory tariffs until September 8. Purely speculation here but perhaps the hope is that the cooling off period leaves enough time for Trump himself to step in, overrule whatever happened at the eleventh hour and put the deal back on track.

Rupa Subramanya

266,286 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Then Excise Minister Thummala says he never gave an appointment to Vijay Mallya despite recommendations from powerful leaders 😵‍💫 “CBN asked me to meet him, saying he was a big businessman. Even Jayalalithaa and Deve Gowda used to travel with him. They felt not meeting him would send a wrong message. Still, I refused,” recalled Thummala. He further stated that the decision later helped protect Chandrababu Naidu during YSR’s attack over liquor pricing issues. Politics always has some interesting backstories.

Then Excise Minister Thummala says he never gave an appointment to Vijay Mallya despite recommendations from powerful leaders 😵‍💫 “CBN asked me to meet him, saying he was a big businessman. Even Jayalalithaa and Deve Gowda used to travel with him. They felt not meeting him would send a wrong message. Still, I refused,” recalled Thummala. He further stated that the decision later helped protect Chandrababu Naidu during YSR’s attack over liquor pricing issues. Politics always has some interesting backstories.

Yash Tweets

63,036 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Even CNN is admitting the Democrats pulled off a massive self-own by boycotting President Trump's State of the Union! They handed him a free rally right in the chamber. The analyst laid it out plain. “You’re going to see an enthusiastic response from that chamber that, had the Democrats been there, they could have actually delivered a separate message in this moment. And instead, they’re leaving it to be much more of a rally, a rally for Republicans.” Another killer line. “I think that’s an interesting visual that the Democrats gave away.” Yeah, interesting like shooting yourself in the foot on live TV. While real Americans cheer for secure borders, booming jobs, and putting our country first, the left sits it out sulking. They thought they were making a statement, but all they did was make Trump look unstoppable. No take-backs now. The doors are closed on that bad decision. President Trump keeps winning, and the patriots keep cheering. America First forever.

Even CNN is admitting the Democrats pulled off a massive self-own by boycotting President Trump's State of the Union! They handed him a free rally right in the chamber. The analyst laid it out plain. “You’re going to see an enthusiastic response from that chamber that, had the Democrats been there, they could have actually delivered a separate message in this moment. And instead, they’re leaving it to be much more of a rally, a rally for Republicans.” Another killer line. “I think that’s an interesting visual that the Democrats gave away.” Yeah, interesting like shooting yourself in the foot on live TV. While real Americans cheer for secure borders, booming jobs, and putting our country first, the left sits it out sulking. They thought they were making a statement, but all they did was make Trump look unstoppable. No take-backs now. The doors are closed on that bad decision. President Trump keeps winning, and the patriots keep cheering. America First forever.

Bill Mitchell

757,509 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

“WAIT… CAN’T I JUST PAY FOR IT NOW?” Ah yes, the unofficial self-checkout option that apparently becomes available AFTER security catches you. A 21-year-old woman in Georgia thought her shopping trip was going one way… until an off-duty detective working store security allegedly watched her and her group on surveillance. Once confronted, things got interesting FAST. She begged for a warning. Offered to pay for the merchandise. Asked to call her mom. And learned that the friends she was allegedly communicating with could make the situation even more complicated. The merchandise was reportedly valued under $500, and she was cited on a misdemeanor shoplifting charge and served with a criminal-trespass warning barring her from returning to the property. But here’s the part that made the encounter REALLY sting: The female is a 21-year-old registered nurse who had JUST started working in an ER. One shopping trip. One terrible decision. And suddenly the conversation wasn’t just about merchandise anymore—it was about what a theft charge could mean for the career she’d just started.

“WAIT… CAN’T I JUST PAY FOR IT NOW?” Ah yes, the unofficial self-checkout option that apparently becomes available AFTER security catches you. A 21-year-old woman in Georgia thought her shopping trip was going one way… until an off-duty detective working store security allegedly watched her and her group on surveillance. Once confronted, things got interesting FAST. She begged for a warning. Offered to pay for the merchandise. Asked to call her mom. And learned that the friends she was allegedly communicating with could make the situation even more complicated. The merchandise was reportedly valued under $500, and she was cited on a misdemeanor shoplifting charge and served with a criminal-trespass warning barring her from returning to the property. But here’s the part that made the encounter REALLY sting: The female is a 21-year-old registered nurse who had JUST started working in an ER. One shopping trip. One terrible decision. And suddenly the conversation wasn’t just about merchandise anymore—it was about what a theft charge could mean for the career she’d just started.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

77,822 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Since Linsey Graham is in the news, perhaps it's a good time to revisit his questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing in 2018. What I have always found super interesting about this line of questioning is why Graham would even 'go there'? This is in no way/shape/form a standard-type inquiry. It's completely out of left field. IMHO, it's almost as though the moment was being used to signal that something else was afoot. Something not only germane to that particular moment in time, but remains so to this very day. The questioning centers on Kavanaugh confirming that there are two bodies of law. 1) Criminal Law 2) Law of Armed Conflict The point being made is that if you're an American citizen who collaborated with an enemy, you can be treated as an enemy combatant and therefore tried by the military. And in this case, according to the SCOTUS decision referenced (Johnson v. Eisentrager), a citizen loses certain Constitutional rights that would otherwise allow them to be tried in the criminal justice system. "Johnson v. Eisentrager was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that nonresident enemy aliens captured and held outside the United States do not have the constitutional right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. civilian courts." Why do you think Graham set out to bring this to the public's attention?

Since Linsey Graham is in the news, perhaps it's a good time to revisit his questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing in 2018. What I have always found super interesting about this line of questioning is why Graham would even 'go there'? This is in no way/shape/form a standard-type inquiry. It's completely out of left field. IMHO, it's almost as though the moment was being used to signal that something else was afoot. Something not only germane to that particular moment in time, but remains so to this very day. The questioning centers on Kavanaugh confirming that there are two bodies of law. 1) Criminal Law 2) Law of Armed Conflict The point being made is that if you're an American citizen who collaborated with an enemy, you can be treated as an enemy combatant and therefore tried by the military. And in this case, according to the SCOTUS decision referenced (Johnson v. Eisentrager), a citizen loses certain Constitutional rights that would otherwise allow them to be tried in the criminal justice system. "Johnson v. Eisentrager was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that nonresident enemy aliens captured and held outside the United States do not have the constitutional right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. civilian courts." Why do you think Graham set out to bring this to the public's attention?

AwakenedOutlaw⚒️

168,916 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

One aspect of film history that interests me is the decision-making of actors. They can have a lot of talent, but lack judgment and have bad advisors, and inhibit their careers. Take Burt Reynolds. He was talented and handsome, and he did a lot of good work. But he never won an Oscar, and that bothered him, and he will not be remembered as an all-time great. Why? Well, he turned down offers to be McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, which became one of Jack Nicholson’s best roles. He pulled himself out of the running to be James Bond. He didn’t want the role of Hans Solo in Star Wars, which did a lot for Harrison Ford. Now consider this role he took as a porn director/producer in Boogie Nights. He was fantastic - totally believable and hilarious. But he was upset about the movie after it came out, and embarrassed about being seen as a sleazy pornographer. Yet it’s one of the best things he ever did. He didn’t like some of his best work. It’s just an interesting conundrum - that a man can have skills as an actor but lack judgment and intelligence. This is probably very common among a group of people who get paid to perform lines someone else wrote. Pretending to be other people is on a lower level than writing and conceiving a story.

One aspect of film history that interests me is the decision-making of actors. They can have a lot of talent, but lack judgment and have bad advisors, and inhibit their careers. Take Burt Reynolds. He was talented and handsome, and he did a lot of good work. But he never won an Oscar, and that bothered him, and he will not be remembered as an all-time great. Why? Well, he turned down offers to be McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, which became one of Jack Nicholson’s best roles. He pulled himself out of the running to be James Bond. He didn’t want the role of Hans Solo in Star Wars, which did a lot for Harrison Ford. Now consider this role he took as a porn director/producer in Boogie Nights. He was fantastic - totally believable and hilarious. But he was upset about the movie after it came out, and embarrassed about being seen as a sleazy pornographer. Yet it’s one of the best things he ever did. He didn’t like some of his best work. It’s just an interesting conundrum - that a man can have skills as an actor but lack judgment and intelligence. This is probably very common among a group of people who get paid to perform lines someone else wrote. Pretending to be other people is on a lower level than writing and conceiving a story.

FischerKing

590,164 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,739 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Bill Clinton didn't just party with Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein Island Man working close with Bill Cinton says he was laundering money, making huge payoffs, doing illegal favors for campaign support, signing off on massive cocaine deals and more “I was literally working, sitting in the middle of Bill Clinton's political machine. It was where he made payoffs, where he repaid favors to people for campaign support. I was in an interesting seat and I knew it. In that particular board meeting, I was sitting at the end of the table. James Brannion, who was chairman of the board at that time, was sitting at the head of the table. James Brannion stood up in a public restaurant and he hollered at Beverly Enterprises guy, Bobby Stevens, and said, did you get the $50,000 campaign contribution from the client that you're introducing the loan for? He said, not yet. He said, well then hold up the loan until we get it. — In reality, millions of taxpayer guaranteed dollars were being channeled to Clinton's election campaigns, to his inner circle of friends, and to his wife Hillary's law firm. This may explain why ADFA had been drafted in such a manner as to keep its decision-making procedures secret. If you needed a million dollars, you had to get your application handled by the Rose Law Firm, pay them 50,000 dollars. —Your president, the president of the United States, not only was a part of his system that was laundering millions of cocaine dogs. Your president signed off on it. You can't deny that he did.” There is much more damning evidence in this video

Sensitive content

Bill Clinton didn't just party with Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein Island Man working close with Bill Cinton says he was laundering money, making huge payoffs, doing illegal favors for campaign support, signing off on massive cocaine deals and more “I was literally working, sitting in the middle of Bill Clinton's political machine. It was where he made payoffs, where he repaid favors to people for campaign support. I was in an interesting seat and I knew it. In that particular board meeting, I was sitting at the end of the table. James Brannion, who was chairman of the board at that time, was sitting at the head of the table. James Brannion stood up in a public restaurant and he hollered at Beverly Enterprises guy, Bobby Stevens, and said, did you get the $50,000 campaign contribution from the client that you're introducing the loan for? He said, not yet. He said, well then hold up the loan until we get it. — In reality, millions of taxpayer guaranteed dollars were being channeled to Clinton's election campaigns, to his inner circle of friends, and to his wife Hillary's law firm. This may explain why ADFA had been drafted in such a manner as to keep its decision-making procedures secret. If you needed a million dollars, you had to get your application handled by the Rose Law Firm, pay them 50,000 dollars. —Your president, the president of the United States, not only was a part of his system that was laundering millions of cocaine dogs. Your president signed off on it. You can't deny that he did.” There is much more damning evidence in this video

Wall Street Apes

282,019 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Invest Like the Best

52,492 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Chains all scale the same way now. Throw activity onto an L2, spin up another rollup, let the liquidity scatter and call it progress. Cardano Community went the other direction and it’s the more telling move 👇 ◢ Relocation, not Repair An L2 doesn't fix a congested base layer. It moves the congestion to a room with a different name. You get more bridges to drain, more chains that don't talk, users spread so thin that "the ecosystem" stops meaning one thing. It demos beautifully on launch day. that's the whole appeal. ◢ Nowhere to Hide Fixing the base layer is slower and a lot less forgiving. You can't ship it and walk away. It has to survive real load while the consensus that's secured the chain for years keeps holding, and if it cracks there's no rollup to point at. Leios picked the version with no escape hatch. ◢ The flex is what stayed the same Throughput is the number people will quote but it's not the interesting decision. The interesting decision was leaving the trust model untouched, growing capacity on top of what already works instead of ripping it out and praying the replacement holds. Restraint is harder to market than a big number, which is probably why nobody markets it. ◢ Read the packaging A swordsman's name. Five phases you have to clear in order. That framing is doing work. Ship-fast teams sell the destination; this one is selling the discipline of getting there, which is a quiet way of saying judge us on the grind, not the announcement. My take: in a market that pays out to whoever is loudest, choosing the slow unglamorous path to scale is almost a contrarian bet on itself. It doesn't make leios right, that's what months of testing are for. but "we made the base layer carry more without breaking what made it trusted" is a sentence that still means something in a year. 🔗 Testnet + SPO onboarding:

Chains all scale the same way now. Throw activity onto an L2, spin up another rollup, let the liquidity scatter and call it progress. Cardano Community went the other direction and it’s the more telling move 👇 ◢ Relocation, not Repair An L2 doesn't fix a congested base layer. It moves the congestion to a room with a different name. You get more bridges to drain, more chains that don't talk, users spread so thin that "the ecosystem" stops meaning one thing. It demos beautifully on launch day. that's the whole appeal. ◢ Nowhere to Hide Fixing the base layer is slower and a lot less forgiving. You can't ship it and walk away. It has to survive real load while the consensus that's secured the chain for years keeps holding, and if it cracks there's no rollup to point at. Leios picked the version with no escape hatch. ◢ The flex is what stayed the same Throughput is the number people will quote but it's not the interesting decision. The interesting decision was leaving the trust model untouched, growing capacity on top of what already works instead of ripping it out and praying the replacement holds. Restraint is harder to market than a big number, which is probably why nobody markets it. ◢ Read the packaging A swordsman's name. Five phases you have to clear in order. That framing is doing work. Ship-fast teams sell the destination; this one is selling the discipline of getting there, which is a quiet way of saying judge us on the grind, not the announcement. My take: in a market that pays out to whoever is loudest, choosing the slow unglamorous path to scale is almost a contrarian bet on itself. It doesn't make leios right, that's what months of testing are for. but "we made the base layer carry more without breaking what made it trusted" is a sentence that still means something in a year. 🔗 Testnet + SPO onboarding:

Onur

19,157 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten