Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

The addiction question everyone gets wrong. Cage a rat alone. Give it two water bottles, one plain, one laced with drugs. It drinks the drugged water until it dies. Every time. That became the "proof." Drugs hijack the brain. Chemistry wins. End of story. Then Professor Bruce Alexander asked...

alvinfoo's profile picture

Alvin Foo

162,676 subscribers

11,980 просмотров • 13 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

“Put a rat in an empty cage with heroin-laced water and it will drink itself to death. Put the same rat in ‘Rat Park’ — full of friends, toys, tunnels, and cheese — and it barely touches the drug.” Johann Hari shared this on TED Talks and it completely changed how I think about addiction. Professor Bruce Alexander ran the experiment in the 1970s and flipped the old “chemical hooks” story on its head. Isolated rats became addicts. Happy, connected rats in Rat Park almost never did. The same pattern showed up in humans during the Vietnam War: 20% of American troops were heavy heroin users, but when they came home to normal lives, 95% simply stopped — no rehab, no massive withdrawal. Hari’s conclusion: addiction isn’t primarily about the drug. It’s about the cage — isolation, trauma, lack of connection. Humans have a deep need to bond. When we can’t bond with people, we bond with something that gives relief: drugs, gambling, porn, whatever fills the void. What’s one “addiction” in your life (or someone you know) that might actually be a symptom of disconnection rather than just the substance itself?
2:59

“Put a rat in an empty cage with heroin-laced water and it will drink itself to death. Put the same rat in ‘Rat Park’ — full of friends, toys, tunnels, and cheese — and it barely touches the drug.” Johann Hari shared this on TED Talks and it completely changed how I think about addiction. Professor Bruce Alexander ran the experiment in the 1970s and flipped the old “chemical hooks” story on its head. Isolated rats became addicts. Happy, connected rats in Rat Park almost never did. The same pattern showed up in humans during the Vietnam War: 20% of American troops were heavy heroin users, but when they came home to normal lives, 95% simply stopped — no rehab, no massive withdrawal. Hari’s conclusion: addiction isn’t primarily about the drug. It’s about the cage — isolation, trauma, lack of connection. Humans have a deep need to bond. When we can’t bond with people, we bond with something that gives relief: drugs, gambling, porn, whatever fills the void. What’s one “addiction” in your life (or someone you know) that might actually be a symptom of disconnection rather than just the substance itself?

Camus

95,727 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

What if everything we thought we knew about addiction… was completely wrong? 50 years ago, scientists proved addiction with one heartbreaking image: A rat alone in a cage, drinking heroin water until it died. We built prisons, wars, and stigma on that picture. Then one professor asked the question nobody dared to ask: “What if the drug isn’t the problem… what if the cage is?” He created Rat Park: tunnels, wheels, cheese mountains, colored balls, and—most crucially—friends. Same rats. Same morphine water. They barely touched it. Not a single overdose. They chose laughter, sex, play, and connection instead. The science has been repeated for decades. The verdict is unanimous: Addiction is not a disease of the substance. It’s a disease of isolation. We are born to bond. When trauma, loneliness, or a broken world blocks human connection, we will bond with anything that offers relief. A bottle. A screen. A needle. A bet. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is belonging. In 2001 Portugal tested this truth on a national scale: Decriminalized everything. Poured the money into jobs, housing, therapy, community. Result? Overdose deaths dropped 80%. Recovery rates became the highest in Europe. We don’t need a war on drugs. We need a war on loneliness. Watch this 78-second clip that quietly started a revolution in how we understand human suffering.
1:18

What if everything we thought we knew about addiction… was completely wrong? 50 years ago, scientists proved addiction with one heartbreaking image: A rat alone in a cage, drinking heroin water until it died. We built prisons, wars, and stigma on that picture. Then one professor asked the question nobody dared to ask: “What if the drug isn’t the problem… what if the cage is?” He created Rat Park: tunnels, wheels, cheese mountains, colored balls, and—most crucially—friends. Same rats. Same morphine water. They barely touched it. Not a single overdose. They chose laughter, sex, play, and connection instead. The science has been repeated for decades. The verdict is unanimous: Addiction is not a disease of the substance. It’s a disease of isolation. We are born to bond. When trauma, loneliness, or a broken world blocks human connection, we will bond with anything that offers relief. A bottle. A screen. A needle. A bet. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is belonging. In 2001 Portugal tested this truth on a national scale: Decriminalized everything. Poured the money into jobs, housing, therapy, community. Result? Overdose deaths dropped 80%. Recovery rates became the highest in Europe. We don’t need a war on drugs. We need a war on loneliness. Watch this 78-second clip that quietly started a revolution in how we understand human suffering.

Camus

85,747 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Johann Hari dropped a mind-blowing reframing of addiction: Classic experiment: Rat in an empty cage chooses heroin water and overdoses. Rat Park experiment: Same rat in paradise (friends, sex, toys, good food) → almost completely ignores the drugs. Zero overdoses. Same thing happened with Vietnam troops: 20% hooked on heroin overseas… 95% quit cold turkey when they came home. His core idea: Addiction isn’t primarily about chemical hooks. It’s about your cage. Later studies confirmed that enriched social environments dramatically reduce drug-seeking behavior by activating natural reward pathways in the brain, showing connection itself acts as a powerful buffer against addiction. This flips how we view not just drugs, but phones, porn, gambling, overeating — everything we use to escape disconnection and loneliness. This one really stuck with me. It explains so much about why some environments breed addiction while others don’t. Real connection might be the best antidote we have. Do you think addiction is more about the substance itself, or about the environment and lack of human connection?
3:08

Johann Hari dropped a mind-blowing reframing of addiction: Classic experiment: Rat in an empty cage chooses heroin water and overdoses. Rat Park experiment: Same rat in paradise (friends, sex, toys, good food) → almost completely ignores the drugs. Zero overdoses. Same thing happened with Vietnam troops: 20% hooked on heroin overseas… 95% quit cold turkey when they came home. His core idea: Addiction isn’t primarily about chemical hooks. It’s about your cage. Later studies confirmed that enriched social environments dramatically reduce drug-seeking behavior by activating natural reward pathways in the brain, showing connection itself acts as a powerful buffer against addiction. This flips how we view not just drugs, but phones, porn, gambling, overeating — everything we use to escape disconnection and loneliness. This one really stuck with me. It explains so much about why some environments breed addiction while others don’t. Real connection might be the best antidote we have. Do you think addiction is more about the substance itself, or about the environment and lack of human connection?

Camus

14,923 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Mark Zuckerberg said something so quietly devastating that even he does not seem to understand what he gave away. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here.” He asked it as a rhetorical question. It stopped being rhetorical the moment he finished the sentence. A company was never a mind. It was a translation layer, built so one person’s vision could survive contact with a thousand strangers who would never fully understand it. Every meeting, every manager, every layer between an idea and the person executing it was the cost of that translation. We just called that cost the company, and mistook it for the value. Meta proved it this year. Thousands of roles cut. Thousands more reassigned into the machine that no longer needs a translator. Zuckerberg asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. There is a harder question underneath it. A company was never about being smarter than anyone. It was about reaching further than any one person’s hands could go alone. AI does not make you smarter than ten thousand people. It removes the only reason you ever needed ten thousand people. That does not measure what you are worth. It never did. It only ever measured how far your own mind could reach before it needed other people to carry it further. Reach used to cost a payroll. Now it costs your attention. The gate was never about intelligence. It was about who got to multiply themselves. For a hundred years, that gate opened for almost no one. Zuckerberg: “Instead of having relatively few people be able to harness the power of a 10,000-person organization… I think in the future almost everyone is going to have that.” He asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. You were never the ten thousand. You were always the one.
0:59

Mark Zuckerberg said something so quietly devastating that even he does not seem to understand what he gave away. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here.” He asked it as a rhetorical question. It stopped being rhetorical the moment he finished the sentence. A company was never a mind. It was a translation layer, built so one person’s vision could survive contact with a thousand strangers who would never fully understand it. Every meeting, every manager, every layer between an idea and the person executing it was the cost of that translation. We just called that cost the company, and mistook it for the value. Meta proved it this year. Thousands of roles cut. Thousands more reassigned into the machine that no longer needs a translator. Zuckerberg asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. There is a harder question underneath it. A company was never about being smarter than anyone. It was about reaching further than any one person’s hands could go alone. AI does not make you smarter than ten thousand people. It removes the only reason you ever needed ten thousand people. That does not measure what you are worth. It never did. It only ever measured how far your own mind could reach before it needed other people to carry it further. Reach used to cost a payroll. Now it costs your attention. The gate was never about intelligence. It was about who got to multiply themselves. For a hundred years, that gate opened for almost no one. Zuckerberg: “Instead of having relatively few people be able to harness the power of a 10,000-person organization… I think in the future almost everyone is going to have that.” He asked what ten thousand people are for, if they are not smarter than one. You were never the ten thousand. You were always the one.

Dustin

45,276 просмотров • 19 дней назад

Gavin Newsom is called out on Meet the Press for an 'investigation' that seems like 'finger pointing' meant to distract from his own ineptitude: Jacob Soboroff: "You've also called for an independent investigation into the issues around water supply that we've seen. What are the questions that you're hoping to answer?" Gavin Newsom: "The same ones you're asking, Same ones that people, when I'm in the streets, are asking, yelling about what the hell happened, what happened to the water system? Was it, by the way? Was it just overwhelmed that you had so much that was used? This is not about finger pointing." Soboroff: "You say what to people who insist that these independent investigations or calls for them, Are you passing the blame on to other people?" Newsom: "I'm not. How could it be when we're doing an independent investigation and we just want the adjudication of the facts? As I say, it's not about finger pointing. It's about answering the questions you and everybody wants answered." If Gavin wants to complete his investigation, all he has to do is look in a mirror.
3:23

Gavin Newsom is called out on Meet the Press for an 'investigation' that seems like 'finger pointing' meant to distract from his own ineptitude: Jacob Soboroff: "You've also called for an independent investigation into the issues around water supply that we've seen. What are the questions that you're hoping to answer?" Gavin Newsom: "The same ones you're asking, Same ones that people, when I'm in the streets, are asking, yelling about what the hell happened, what happened to the water system? Was it, by the way? Was it just overwhelmed that you had so much that was used? This is not about finger pointing." Soboroff: "You say what to people who insist that these independent investigations or calls for them, Are you passing the blame on to other people?" Newsom: "I'm not. How could it be when we're doing an independent investigation and we just want the adjudication of the facts? As I say, it's not about finger pointing. It's about answering the questions you and everybody wants answered." If Gavin wants to complete his investigation, all he has to do is look in a mirror.

Eric Abbenante

15,013 просмотров • 1 год назад

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher
1:29

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher

Steven Pinker

272,948 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Unfortunately I was one of those people that just couldn’t have a couple, I was in it for the mayhem, the carnage, now I’m 9 months sober but I’d never preech sobriety to anyone I loved it for years, so If you do & it don’t effect you in a bad way then more power to you. But, what I am doing is sharing what I’ve learnt so far with those that no longer enjoy drinking, those that are struggling, like I was, with an unhealthy relationship with drink & drugs, if that’s you then check out this week’s episode of “Menace To Sobriety” Here, it’s food for thought! 👇🏻👇🏻 #sober #sobriety #addiction
0:38

Unfortunately I was one of those people that just couldn’t have a couple, I was in it for the mayhem, the carnage, now I’m 9 months sober but I’d never preech sobriety to anyone I loved it for years, so If you do & it don’t effect you in a bad way then more power to you. But, what I am doing is sharing what I’ve learnt so far with those that no longer enjoy drinking, those that are struggling, like I was, with an unhealthy relationship with drink & drugs, if that’s you then check out this week’s episode of “Menace To Sobriety” Here, it’s food for thought! 👇🏻👇🏻 #sober #sobriety #addiction

Daniel O’Reilly

239,468 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)
3:14

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)

Ihtesham Ali

18,928 просмотров • 25 дней назад

> be Rue Bennett > open the entire series in 2019 with your first breath > the very first shot of the show is you being born > lose your father young, find drugs to fill the hole > become the heart of Euphoria for three seasons > the character an entire generation saw themselves in > fight addiction, relapse, get clean, relapse again > narrate it all with a calm that never matched the chaos inside > in season 3, turn informant for the DEA > almost make it out > then your boss finds out you're a rat and laces your pills with fentanyl > as you fade on Ali's couch, you dream of a sunlit field > Fezco is there. you reach for your dead father and he holds you one last time > the actor who played Fezco, Angus Cloud, died of an overdose in real life in 2023 > so the show gave Rue's final moments a reunion with the friend the world already lost > Ali finds you gone, and spends the finale avenging you the show opened with her first breath and closed with her last. a show about addiction lost one of its own to it - then gave its lead the same ending. Rue's last dream wasn't just goodbye to a character. it was goodbye to Angus too.
1:00

> be Rue Bennett > open the entire series in 2019 with your first breath > the very first shot of the show is you being born > lose your father young, find drugs to fill the hole > become the heart of Euphoria for three seasons > the character an entire generation saw themselves in > fight addiction, relapse, get clean, relapse again > narrate it all with a calm that never matched the chaos inside > in season 3, turn informant for the DEA > almost make it out > then your boss finds out you're a rat and laces your pills with fentanyl > as you fade on Ali's couch, you dream of a sunlit field > Fezco is there. you reach for your dead father and he holds you one last time > the actor who played Fezco, Angus Cloud, died of an overdose in real life in 2023 > so the show gave Rue's final moments a reunion with the friend the world already lost > Ali finds you gone, and spends the finale avenging you the show opened with her first breath and closed with her last. a show about addiction lost one of its own to it - then gave its lead the same ending. Rue's last dream wasn't just goodbye to a character. it was goodbye to Angus too.

frostzy

1,518,708 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.
8:02

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"
6:59

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,550 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

It’s time to End The Federal Reserve “What is the Federal Reserve and what is your answer?” G. Edward Griffin “Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It's not a government agency. It has the appearance of being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that facade. It does have the power of government because Congress voted to give the power of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel. It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel, sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together, they drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do. And then they sent it to Congress and they took off the label at the top that said banking cartel and they erased that and they said Federal Reserve Act, Congress passed it into law. And that's why we think it's a government agency, is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison. And so it looks like a government agency, but basically the answer to your question is, it's a banking cartel.”
1:08

It’s time to End The Federal Reserve “What is the Federal Reserve and what is your answer?” G. Edward Griffin “Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It's not a government agency. It has the appearance of being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that facade. It does have the power of government because Congress voted to give the power of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel. It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel, sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together, they drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do. And then they sent it to Congress and they took off the label at the top that said banking cartel and they erased that and they said Federal Reserve Act, Congress passed it into law. And that's why we think it's a government agency, is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison. And so it looks like a government agency, but basically the answer to your question is, it's a banking cartel.”

Wall Street Apes

211,137 просмотров • 1 год назад

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."
8:29

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

108,769 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 '𝗗𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗦' 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄 "It's something I've been suffering with for a while. The way my throw comes back, as soon as it comes back to a certain point, I start to struggle a little bit. "People are treating it like cancer... the more you talk about it, the more I think about it. "No idea [if it's Dartitis]. Never experienced it, don't know what it is. "People keep labelling stuff all the time about Dartitis - it's like Voldemort, it shall not be named. We don't want to say it. "I'm not having that. It isn't that, I'm just having a spell where it's just not great."
2:07

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 '𝗗𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗦' 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄 "It's something I've been suffering with for a while. The way my throw comes back, as soon as it comes back to a certain point, I start to struggle a little bit. "People are treating it like cancer... the more you talk about it, the more I think about it. "No idea [if it's Dartitis]. Never experienced it, don't know what it is. "People keep labelling stuff all the time about Dartitis - it's like Voldemort, it shall not be named. We don't want to say it. "I'm not having that. It isn't that, I'm just having a spell where it's just not great."

Darts Now

200,063 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

RFK Jr. just explained to U.S. governors how aluminum in the Hep B vaccine may be linked to the rise in childhood allergies since 1989. “This doesn't prove causation.” “I have a son who had severe deadly anaphylactic peanut allergies, he made 22 emergency room visits before he was two years old.” “So I paired up with a guy named David Koch… who had a son born at exactly the same time as my son and with the same level of peanut allergies.” “We started a group called the food allergy initiative.” “We raised $100 million, and we poached the best allergy scientists from all over the world.” “They had a laboratory that I visited where they would induce food allergies and other allergies in rats and feed them different things to try to find out what treated it.” “I asked the scientists, ‘how do you induce an allergy in a rat?’” “He said’ ‘It's formulaic, you take an aluminum adjuvant and inject it into that rat with a protein. If it's a peanut protein, that rat will have a lifetime allergy to peanuts. If it's a dairy protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to dairy. If it's a latex protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to latex.’” “That's the same aluminum adjuvant that's in the Hepatitis B vaccine. Many of those vaccines contain peanut oil excipients.” “There's a study by two scientists… and they looked at the same issue and they show that it's not only what’s in the shot when you give that injection, but also what's in the ambient environment at the time.” “Vaccinated children, according to their study, are thirty times more likely to have allergic rhinitis than unvaccinated children.” “We need to look at the aluminum in the vaccines, and we're doing that today at NIH, to see if that has anything to do with this explosion of allergies that began in 1989, which was the year they expanded the vaccine schedule.”
3:12

RFK Jr. just explained to U.S. governors how aluminum in the Hep B vaccine may be linked to the rise in childhood allergies since 1989. “This doesn't prove causation.” “I have a son who had severe deadly anaphylactic peanut allergies, he made 22 emergency room visits before he was two years old.” “So I paired up with a guy named David Koch… who had a son born at exactly the same time as my son and with the same level of peanut allergies.” “We started a group called the food allergy initiative.” “We raised $100 million, and we poached the best allergy scientists from all over the world.” “They had a laboratory that I visited where they would induce food allergies and other allergies in rats and feed them different things to try to find out what treated it.” “I asked the scientists, ‘how do you induce an allergy in a rat?’” “He said’ ‘It's formulaic, you take an aluminum adjuvant and inject it into that rat with a protein. If it's a peanut protein, that rat will have a lifetime allergy to peanuts. If it's a dairy protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to dairy. If it's a latex protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to latex.’” “That's the same aluminum adjuvant that's in the Hepatitis B vaccine. Many of those vaccines contain peanut oil excipients.” “There's a study by two scientists… and they looked at the same issue and they show that it's not only what’s in the shot when you give that injection, but also what's in the ambient environment at the time.” “Vaccinated children, according to their study, are thirty times more likely to have allergic rhinitis than unvaccinated children.” “We need to look at the aluminum in the vaccines, and we're doing that today at NIH, to see if that has anything to do with this explosion of allergies that began in 1989, which was the year they expanded the vaccine schedule.”

End Tribalism in Politics

540,472 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Pat Riley shares what culture really is - and why everyone has one whether they know it or not. "Everybody has a culture. A culture is simply a shared vision of what it is you wanna do to get to where it is you wanna go." "It's a shared vision of what you have to do to get there." Culture isn't a slogan. It's a standard everyone commits to. "It's up to the coach to create the philosophy." "You can take each one of those acronyms - hard work, conditioning, toughness - and talk about that for 30 minutes. But it has to mean something." Then he explained what great culture builders do: "Once you set the tone about what your philosophy is going to be - you have to paint the picture. You paint the picture of what it's going to look like." Words create the vision. Actions build the culture. Culture isn’t what you say - it’s what you reinforce daily. It's shaped by your actions and what you allow. ( 🎥The Why with DWade)
1:17

Pat Riley shares what culture really is - and why everyone has one whether they know it or not. "Everybody has a culture. A culture is simply a shared vision of what it is you wanna do to get to where it is you wanna go." "It's a shared vision of what you have to do to get there." Culture isn't a slogan. It's a standard everyone commits to. "It's up to the coach to create the philosophy." "You can take each one of those acronyms - hard work, conditioning, toughness - and talk about that for 30 minutes. But it has to mean something." Then he explained what great culture builders do: "Once you set the tone about what your philosophy is going to be - you have to paint the picture. You paint the picture of what it's going to look like." Words create the vision. Actions build the culture. Culture isn’t what you say - it’s what you reinforce daily. It's shaped by your actions and what you allow. ( 🎥The Why with DWade)

Coach AJ 🎯 Mental Fitness

37,500 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”
2:43

Big Pharma Is Profits Over People, Killing You For Profit & Vacations. Everyone In America Needs To See This ⛔️ “Cancer — Well, I will talk about that a better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. And there was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer, but adult cancer, right? And this is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. And they looked at the results. And they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? 97%. Of the time, chemotherapy does not work. 97% of the time, it doesn't work. So why is it still used? It's one reason and one reason only, money. If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection, and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000, you know of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, right? But he gets no direct remuneration. It's not with chemotherapeutic drugs. It's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. So if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less. The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. And there ought to be a lot. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work. 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No. This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.”

Wall Street Apes

339,709 просмотров • 2 лет назад

🚨SHOCKING: The Caribbean strike looks far darker than the Trump administration ever admitted. Sen. Mark Warner was careful not to reveal details to us… but other sources have leaked information about the classified footage: They say the video contradicts Hegseth’s account that the two survivors were reaching for drugs. Instead, for nearly an hour, they tried to flip the boat wreckage back upright - in what seemed like a desperate attempt to survive (Source: The Guardian). And then comes the part Trump buried: Sources familiar with the footage say it shows one or more men waving for help to a U.S. aircraft overhead - interpreted as a plea for rescue. (Source: The Wall Street Journal). So what did the Trump Admin do? They bragged about the explosions. They pushed out the clips that made them look strong. And then they secretly classified the one segment that shows what happened in the water. Warner says Trump’s team wanted to show America “what we want to see, but not the whole story.” So here’s the terrifying question: If the videos shows the survivors never reached for drugs... If it shows they posed no threat at all... If it blows up the entire justification for the strike… Isn’t this a coverup? 340 million Americans deserve to see the footage Trump buried.
1:26

🚨SHOCKING: The Caribbean strike looks far darker than the Trump administration ever admitted. Sen. Mark Warner was careful not to reveal details to us… but other sources have leaked information about the classified footage: They say the video contradicts Hegseth’s account that the two survivors were reaching for drugs. Instead, for nearly an hour, they tried to flip the boat wreckage back upright - in what seemed like a desperate attempt to survive (Source: The Guardian). And then comes the part Trump buried: Sources familiar with the footage say it shows one or more men waving for help to a U.S. aircraft overhead - interpreted as a plea for rescue. (Source: The Wall Street Journal). So what did the Trump Admin do? They bragged about the explosions. They pushed out the clips that made them look strong. And then they secretly classified the one segment that shows what happened in the water. Warner says Trump’s team wanted to show America “what we want to see, but not the whole story.” So here’s the terrifying question: If the videos shows the survivors never reached for drugs... If it shows they posed no threat at all... If it blows up the entire justification for the strike… Isn’t this a coverup? 340 million Americans deserve to see the footage Trump buried.

CALL TO ACTIVISM

469,157 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”
4:51

Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”

Startup Archive

44,468 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.
0:59

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,189,683 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад