Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

The wrong package delivered turns into the right package! 😜 🍆 🔗 👩 Bunny Madison 👨 Kyle Mason (Inc) #IHaveAWife #HotBlonde #Sexy #NiceTits #RedDress

naughtyamerica's profile picture

Naughty America ®

812,593 subscribers

104,679 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#IHaveAWife#HotBlonde#Sexy#NiceTits#RedDress
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Delivered to the wrong house… but she was the right package 🥵🔥
0:43

Sensitive content

Delivered to the wrong house… but she was the right package 🥵🔥

Bliss of Soul 💫

66,286 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The lever malfunctions shooting right into a ferocious dog.🤣🤣 Its a race against time to get the package delivered. 📦
1:49

The lever malfunctions shooting right into a ferocious dog.🤣🤣 Its a race against time to get the package delivered. 📦

Cartoon Non Stop

55,679 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗿 🇨🇩 Fimbu — The whip On the pitch, expression is part of the package. It always has been. It all feeds into the phrase associated with the team: fimbu, which means ‘the whip’ in Lingala, the most widely-spoken Congolese language. It is a mimicking action that is popular in music and culture and was first used as a footballing celebration by the victorious DR Congo team that won the 2016 African Nations Championship (for locally-based players). "It’s energy, pride, passion, pressure and overwhelming your opponent with intensity. And right now an entire nation is ready to bring that spirit to the world stage." Free to read | #Sponsored 🔗
0:35

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗿 🇨🇩 Fimbu — The whip On the pitch, expression is part of the package. It always has been. It all feeds into the phrase associated with the team: fimbu, which means ‘the whip’ in Lingala, the most widely-spoken Congolese language. It is a mimicking action that is popular in music and culture and was first used as a footballing celebration by the victorious DR Congo team that won the 2016 African Nations Championship (for locally-based players). "It’s energy, pride, passion, pressure and overwhelming your opponent with intensity. And right now an entire nation is ready to bring that spirit to the world stage." Free to read | #Sponsored 🔗

The Athletic | Football

38,470 просмотров • 27 дней назад

🚨 Peter Jackson says delivery driver told him ‘Hobbit’ movies were “crap” “The FedEx delivery man pulls into the drive,” he begins. “I go to the door, and I get [the package] off him, and he just looks at me. He says, ‘Hey there, you’re that fella that made Lord Of The Rings aren’t you? Lord Of The Rings that was great man, that was a fantastic film’. I said ‘Yeah, oh thanks’, and he turns back to the van, then he stops and he says: ‘Oh they should have got you to make those Hobbit movies, because they were crap’.” Explaining how he addressed the mistake, he concluded: “I just wait, and I just roll my eyes and say ‘Yeah, tell me about it, mate’”. So, do you think the delivery driver was right? 😅
0:43

🚨 Peter Jackson says delivery driver told him ‘Hobbit’ movies were “crap” “The FedEx delivery man pulls into the drive,” he begins. “I go to the door, and I get [the package] off him, and he just looks at me. He says, ‘Hey there, you’re that fella that made Lord Of The Rings aren’t you? Lord Of The Rings that was great man, that was a fantastic film’. I said ‘Yeah, oh thanks’, and he turns back to the van, then he stops and he says: ‘Oh they should have got you to make those Hobbit movies, because they were crap’.” Explaining how he addressed the mistake, he concluded: “I just wait, and I just roll my eyes and say ‘Yeah, tell me about it, mate’”. So, do you think the delivery driver was right? 😅

LOTR Universe

573,044 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

#freenbecky #beckysangels 🔥 [RED ALERT] T-POP CAMPAIGN FOR "SKIN"! 🔥 "Skin" has officially been nominated on T-POP! To push the song to the top of the charts, we can't just vote blindly—we must VOTE STRATEGICALLY! 🎬 DETAILED GUIDELINE VIDEO TIMESTAMPS: 🔸0:00 - 2:27: Tpop 🔸2:27 - 3:12 : Spotify streaming 🔸3:12 - end: Youtube Streaming ⭐️ A special thank you to BLIИK VOTING PΛGE for your invaluable experience and guidance! We truly appreciate it! The T-POP scoring system is divided into 3 main battlefronts: 🎯 FRONT 1:YOUTUBE - 50% OF THE SCORE (MOST CRITICAL) This score is based on the weekly view increase. Please read the YouTube streaming guidelines (3rd pic) and save all 3 playlists: 🔗 Playlist 1: 🔗 Playlist 2: 🔗 Playlist 3: 🎧 FRONT 2: SPOTIFY - 25% OF THE SCORE This score is based on the weekly stream increase. Please read the Spotify streaming guidelines (4th pic) and save these playlists: 🔗Playlist From BECKY OFFICIAL: 🔗Playlist From us: 📱 FRONT 3: T-POP APP - 25% OF THE SCORE Daily voting limits per account: ✅ Max 200 Paid Pop coins/day ✅ Max 10 Free Mission coins/day ✅ 1 Free coin/day 💡 Guideline for fans: DM US for free TPOP acc 🆓 For fans doing Free Daily Tasks: Please complete your daily missions diligently to save up 50 Mission coins/week: ☑️ Check-in for 7 days = +5 🟣 ☑️ Watch 4 Ads for 7 days = +28 🟣 ☑️ Share 1 content for 7 days = +7 🟣 ☑️ Vote 1 song for 7 days = +10 🟣 💰 For fans with limited time but available funds: ✅ BUY THE SPECIAL PACKAGE (1080 votes = ONLY 299 baht vs 1080 baht for normal ). 🔸 Not only is it way cheaper, but this package also gives you x2 mission coins and automatically completes ALL daily tasks for you. You just need to open the app and redeem the coins! 🔸 Watch the 2nd image and the quoted video for special package instructions. EVERYONE MUST WATCH THE ATTACHED GUIDELINE VIDEO AND IMAGE BEFORE YOU START VOTING! Every single view, stream, and coin right now is a weapon to push "SKIN" to the top. Let's take action immediately! 💪✨ - With 🌵🏜FreenBecky's World🏜🌵 FreenBecky_Data数据组 -
4:42

#freenbecky #beckysangels 🔥 [RED ALERT] T-POP CAMPAIGN FOR "SKIN"! 🔥 "Skin" has officially been nominated on T-POP! To push the song to the top of the charts, we can't just vote blindly—we must VOTE STRATEGICALLY! 🎬 DETAILED GUIDELINE VIDEO TIMESTAMPS: 🔸0:00 - 2:27: Tpop 🔸2:27 - 3:12 : Spotify streaming 🔸3:12 - end: Youtube Streaming ⭐️ A special thank you to BLIИK VOTING PΛGE for your invaluable experience and guidance! We truly appreciate it! The T-POP scoring system is divided into 3 main battlefronts: 🎯 FRONT 1:YOUTUBE - 50% OF THE SCORE (MOST CRITICAL) This score is based on the weekly view increase. Please read the YouTube streaming guidelines (3rd pic) and save all 3 playlists: 🔗 Playlist 1: 🔗 Playlist 2: 🔗 Playlist 3: 🎧 FRONT 2: SPOTIFY - 25% OF THE SCORE This score is based on the weekly stream increase. Please read the Spotify streaming guidelines (4th pic) and save these playlists: 🔗Playlist From BECKY OFFICIAL: 🔗Playlist From us: 📱 FRONT 3: T-POP APP - 25% OF THE SCORE Daily voting limits per account: ✅ Max 200 Paid Pop coins/day ✅ Max 10 Free Mission coins/day ✅ 1 Free coin/day 💡 Guideline for fans: DM US for free TPOP acc 🆓 For fans doing Free Daily Tasks: Please complete your daily missions diligently to save up 50 Mission coins/week: ☑️ Check-in for 7 days = +5 🟣 ☑️ Watch 4 Ads for 7 days = +28 🟣 ☑️ Share 1 content for 7 days = +7 🟣 ☑️ Vote 1 song for 7 days = +10 🟣 💰 For fans with limited time but available funds: ✅ BUY THE SPECIAL PACKAGE (1080 votes = ONLY 299 baht vs 1080 baht for normal ). 🔸 Not only is it way cheaper, but this package also gives you x2 mission coins and automatically completes ALL daily tasks for you. You just need to open the app and redeem the coins! 🔸 Watch the 2nd image and the quoted video for special package instructions. EVERYONE MUST WATCH THE ATTACHED GUIDELINE VIDEO AND IMAGE BEFORE YOU START VOTING! Every single view, stream, and coin right now is a weapon to push "SKIN" to the top. Let's take action immediately! 💪✨ - With 🌵🏜FreenBecky's World🏜🌵 FreenBecky_Data数据组 -

FreenBecky_RankingVN🇻🇳

153,748 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

ALERT: Man arrested after ordering Glock switches from China under girlfriends name and asked for the ones that go “Brrrrrrrrrrrrr” in Louisiana. The Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff’s Office and Homeland Security executed a search warrant for Deandre Jackson after USPS intercepted a Glock switch from China. A Glock switch turns the single-shot pistol into a fully automatic pistol. Authorities intercepted another hidden switch in a package during the investigation. Jackson, a convicted felon, admitted he ordered the switches and “he stated they went ‘Brrrrrrrrrrrrr,’ indicating the sound of fully automatic gunfire.” He waived his right to an attorney and told the authorities where he purchased the switches, how he ordered them, and how he paid. Investigators say they also found weapons, including a Glock 23 Gen 5 .40 cal handgun and a 7.62X39 Drago pistol. Jackson is being held on a $350,00 bond after being arrested and charged with unlawful handling of machine guns, conspiracy to commit unlawful handling of machine guns, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
0:45

ALERT: Man arrested after ordering Glock switches from China under girlfriends name and asked for the ones that go “Brrrrrrrrrrrrr” in Louisiana. The Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff’s Office and Homeland Security executed a search warrant for Deandre Jackson after USPS intercepted a Glock switch from China. A Glock switch turns the single-shot pistol into a fully automatic pistol. Authorities intercepted another hidden switch in a package during the investigation. Jackson, a convicted felon, admitted he ordered the switches and “he stated they went ‘Brrrrrrrrrrrrr,’ indicating the sound of fully automatic gunfire.” He waived his right to an attorney and told the authorities where he purchased the switches, how he ordered them, and how he paid. Investigators say they also found weapons, including a Glock 23 Gen 5 .40 cal handgun and a 7.62X39 Drago pistol. Jackson is being held on a $350,00 bond after being arrested and charged with unlawful handling of machine guns, conspiracy to commit unlawful handling of machine guns, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

E X X ➠A L E R T S

178,713 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Many “AI helpers” feel like early-stage demos. Then I tested Sintra AI—and it’s the first one that genuinely delivered value for me. Instead of spending hours on complex automations, I turned my knowledge and creator workflow into an AI helper in minutes. Simple build. No coding. No technical setup. Just plug in your expertise. I built one focused on: • AI creator growth • viral content strategy • campaign ideas • outreach + positioning And honestly… It feels like a mini version of me working around the clock. The best part? This is now accessible far beyond developers. Creators. Consultants. Educators. Founders. Anyone with valuable knowledge can package it into an AI helper people can interact with anytime. That’s the shift many people are overlooking. AI won’t only streamline tasks. It will scale expertise. And Sintra makes onboarding refreshingly simple compared to most tools I’ve tried. It feels less like “another chatbot.” More like building a digital extension of your brain. If you’ve been thinking about creating your own AI helper, this is one of the easiest places to start right now. Discount increased to 85% off — use code: BUILD85 Try my helper / Build your own on Sintra:
2:22

Many “AI helpers” feel like early-stage demos. Then I tested Sintra AI—and it’s the first one that genuinely delivered value for me. Instead of spending hours on complex automations, I turned my knowledge and creator workflow into an AI helper in minutes. Simple build. No coding. No technical setup. Just plug in your expertise. I built one focused on: • AI creator growth • viral content strategy • campaign ideas • outreach + positioning And honestly… It feels like a mini version of me working around the clock. The best part? This is now accessible far beyond developers. Creators. Consultants. Educators. Founders. Anyone with valuable knowledge can package it into an AI helper people can interact with anytime. That’s the shift many people are overlooking. AI won’t only streamline tasks. It will scale expertise. And Sintra makes onboarding refreshingly simple compared to most tools I’ve tried. It feels less like “another chatbot.” More like building a digital extension of your brain. If you’ve been thinking about creating your own AI helper, this is one of the easiest places to start right now. Discount increased to 85% off — use code: BUILD85 Try my helper / Build your own on Sintra:

ZAYVEN KNOX

20,752 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Every AI PM course right now is teaching the wrong skill. They're all focused on prompt engineering, LLM integration, building with ChatGPT. Meanwhile, the AI PMs earning $900K at Netflix, Amazon, and Meta are being paid for a completely different competency: knowing which AI technique to use and, more importantly, which ones to skip. Jyothi breaks it into three buckets. Traditional ML for structured data: fraud detection, churn prediction, anything where the problem fits in a spreadsheet with clear inputs and a predicted output. A regression model solves this in a week at a fraction of LLM costs. Deep learning for perception tasks: images, video, audio. If humans do it easily but you can't write explicit rules for it, that's neural network territory. Gen AI for natural language interfaces, content generation, and reasoning across unstructured information. The diagnostic she gives PMs is worth memorizing. Can I put this problem in a spreadsheet? Start with ML. Is this a perception problem? Deep learning. Does it require reading, writing, or conversational interaction? Gen AI. Here's what the clip doesn't say but the career math makes obvious. At $900K comp, these companies expect you to own the P&L impact of every AI decision. Choosing an LLM when XGBoost handles the job means 10x the compute cost, longer time to ship, and harder maintenance. The PM who picks the right technique is saving millions in infrastructure. That's what justifies the package. Most PM candidates walk into AI interviews ready to talk about ChatGPT. The $900K candidates walk in asking what type of problem they're solving first. That question is the whole interview.
6:30

Every AI PM course right now is teaching the wrong skill. They're all focused on prompt engineering, LLM integration, building with ChatGPT. Meanwhile, the AI PMs earning $900K at Netflix, Amazon, and Meta are being paid for a completely different competency: knowing which AI technique to use and, more importantly, which ones to skip. Jyothi breaks it into three buckets. Traditional ML for structured data: fraud detection, churn prediction, anything where the problem fits in a spreadsheet with clear inputs and a predicted output. A regression model solves this in a week at a fraction of LLM costs. Deep learning for perception tasks: images, video, audio. If humans do it easily but you can't write explicit rules for it, that's neural network territory. Gen AI for natural language interfaces, content generation, and reasoning across unstructured information. The diagnostic she gives PMs is worth memorizing. Can I put this problem in a spreadsheet? Start with ML. Is this a perception problem? Deep learning. Does it require reading, writing, or conversational interaction? Gen AI. Here's what the clip doesn't say but the career math makes obvious. At $900K comp, these companies expect you to own the P&L impact of every AI decision. Choosing an LLM when XGBoost handles the job means 10x the compute cost, longer time to ship, and harder maintenance. The PM who picks the right technique is saving millions in infrastructure. That's what justifies the package. Most PM candidates walk into AI interviews ready to talk about ChatGPT. The $900K candidates walk in asking what type of problem they're solving first. That question is the whole interview.

Aakash Gupta

31,184 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Jonathan Haidt just delivered a sharp warning about where identity politics has gone wrong. He argues we need both left and right — a healthy yin-yang of perspectives. But many current left-leaning policies and academic approaches that frame everything as oppressor vs oppressed are ramping up destructive tribalism. Instead of highlighting common humanity, they push binaries that turn normal rivalry into hatred. Haidt uses sports as analogy: friendly competition builds energy and effort. Take it too far and you get soccer hooligans smashing skulls. The better path? Address real issues of exclusion while constantly emphasizing what unites us. This resonates because I’ve watched how quickly “us vs them” framing turns disagreement into something toxic. Balanced tension sharpens ideas; constant moral warfare just fractures trust. In deeply polarized times, remembering shared humanity and the value of constructive disagreement could be key to keeping institutions and societies from breaking down. Have we let identity politics go too far down the division route, or is this framing still essential for addressing real injustices?
2:10

Jonathan Haidt just delivered a sharp warning about where identity politics has gone wrong. He argues we need both left and right — a healthy yin-yang of perspectives. But many current left-leaning policies and academic approaches that frame everything as oppressor vs oppressed are ramping up destructive tribalism. Instead of highlighting common humanity, they push binaries that turn normal rivalry into hatred. Haidt uses sports as analogy: friendly competition builds energy and effort. Take it too far and you get soccer hooligans smashing skulls. The better path? Address real issues of exclusion while constantly emphasizing what unites us. This resonates because I’ve watched how quickly “us vs them” framing turns disagreement into something toxic. Balanced tension sharpens ideas; constant moral warfare just fractures trust. In deeply polarized times, remembering shared humanity and the value of constructive disagreement could be key to keeping institutions and societies from breaking down. Have we let identity politics go too far down the division route, or is this framing still essential for addressing real injustices?

Camus

30,784 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"Justice Mission 2025" military drills reinforce a red line that must not be crossed The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theater Command continued its "Justice Mission 2025" military drills around Taiwan Island for the second consecutive day on December 30, 2025. Starting early in the morning, destroyers, frigates, fighters and bombers sent by the Chinese PLA Eastern Theater Command conducted drills involving identification, warning and expulsion, strikes on hostile vessels, fleet air defense, and anti-submarine warfare from air and in the waters to the north and south of Taiwan. During the drills, H-6K bombers simulated precision strikes against designated targets in Taiwan. The operation was intended to test the troops' capability of joint operations and regional blockade. On Tuesday afternoon, a flotilla sent by the Chinese PLA Southern Theater Command and led by an amphibious assault ship worked with destroyers, frigates and drones of the PLA Eastern Theater Command to conduct joint drills including rapid landing operations and the seizure of key ports in the waters to the east of Taiwan. On the ground, two troop units equipped with Long-range Multiple Launch Rocket Systems executed live-fire drills, covering the waters to the north and south of Taiwan. All these operations achieved desired effects, according to the PLA Eastern Theater Command. Tuesday's drills demonstrated that the Chinese PLA possesses formidable capabilities to cut off the lifeline of energy and resource imports for Taiwan authorities at any time, thereby destroying their separatist agenda, said Zhang Chi, a professor at the Chinese PLA National Defense University, "The PLA can strike whenever it chooses to strike, and its firepower package can be delivered right to where the separatists are," he added. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the drills are intended to deter separatist forces on the island, who are trying to build up the island's military capabilities by purchasing US arms in their pursuit of "Taiwan independence". The military drills are meant to instill into the minds of the "provocateurs, saboteurs of peace and warmongers" on the island the costly consequences "of turning Taiwan into a powder keg". The Taiwan question is at the very core of China's core interests, and the drills reinforce a red line that must not be crossed. Attempts to arm the secessionists as part of a bid to contain China will only bring conflict closer. #PLA #Taiwan #JusticeMission2025 #正义使命2025 #ChinaMilitary #ChinaMilBugle #EasternTheaterCommand
1:22

"Justice Mission 2025" military drills reinforce a red line that must not be crossed The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theater Command continued its "Justice Mission 2025" military drills around Taiwan Island for the second consecutive day on December 30, 2025. Starting early in the morning, destroyers, frigates, fighters and bombers sent by the Chinese PLA Eastern Theater Command conducted drills involving identification, warning and expulsion, strikes on hostile vessels, fleet air defense, and anti-submarine warfare from air and in the waters to the north and south of Taiwan. During the drills, H-6K bombers simulated precision strikes against designated targets in Taiwan. The operation was intended to test the troops' capability of joint operations and regional blockade. On Tuesday afternoon, a flotilla sent by the Chinese PLA Southern Theater Command and led by an amphibious assault ship worked with destroyers, frigates and drones of the PLA Eastern Theater Command to conduct joint drills including rapid landing operations and the seizure of key ports in the waters to the east of Taiwan. On the ground, two troop units equipped with Long-range Multiple Launch Rocket Systems executed live-fire drills, covering the waters to the north and south of Taiwan. All these operations achieved desired effects, according to the PLA Eastern Theater Command. Tuesday's drills demonstrated that the Chinese PLA possesses formidable capabilities to cut off the lifeline of energy and resource imports for Taiwan authorities at any time, thereby destroying their separatist agenda, said Zhang Chi, a professor at the Chinese PLA National Defense University, "The PLA can strike whenever it chooses to strike, and its firepower package can be delivered right to where the separatists are," he added. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the drills are intended to deter separatist forces on the island, who are trying to build up the island's military capabilities by purchasing US arms in their pursuit of "Taiwan independence". The military drills are meant to instill into the minds of the "provocateurs, saboteurs of peace and warmongers" on the island the costly consequences "of turning Taiwan into a powder keg". The Taiwan question is at the very core of China's core interests, and the drills reinforce a red line that must not be crossed. Attempts to arm the secessionists as part of a bid to contain China will only bring conflict closer. #PLA #Taiwan #JusticeMission2025 #正义使命2025 #ChinaMilitary #ChinaMilBugle #EasternTheaterCommand

China Military Bugle

24,001 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

There’s Something Seriously Wrong With American Regulation Agencies. We’re Being Scammed The Requirement For “Cage Free Eggs” Just Means They Have Access To Outdoors But There Is “No Guarantee That They Go Outside Or Can Even Get Outside” “I started to notice we're getting scammed on pricing here. Eggs in my local supermarket. These eggs right here that say cage free very recently, they changed the look of the packaging here to say cage free, and the price was from a $1.79 to now ... This generic brand on the cheapest, plainest white eggs that used to be a $1.79 is utilizing a BS term or label that they put on their package to more than double the price. As some of you guys know, cage free just Just means that they're not in a tiny little cage. Same thing with free range. It means they have access to outdoors, but there's no guarantee that they actually go out there or that they can't even get out there and all these different brands are utilizing these logos like here, free range free range for $7.49. So they're tricking people into paying $7, $8, $9, $10 for a dozen eggs. Basically the same as the cheap eggs. All the plain white eggs they sell at Costco in the 2 dozen and the 5 dozen pack, those are all cage free. And you know what? They're only $2 a dozen. My grocery store here now doesn't allow you to buy any eggs at all for less than $4 a dozen, and they're the cheapest ones. If you're gonna spend extra on cage free or free range. You may as well spend a dollar or 2 more and get something organic.”
1:03

There’s Something Seriously Wrong With American Regulation Agencies. We’re Being Scammed The Requirement For “Cage Free Eggs” Just Means They Have Access To Outdoors But There Is “No Guarantee That They Go Outside Or Can Even Get Outside” “I started to notice we're getting scammed on pricing here. Eggs in my local supermarket. These eggs right here that say cage free very recently, they changed the look of the packaging here to say cage free, and the price was from a $1.79 to now ... This generic brand on the cheapest, plainest white eggs that used to be a $1.79 is utilizing a BS term or label that they put on their package to more than double the price. As some of you guys know, cage free just Just means that they're not in a tiny little cage. Same thing with free range. It means they have access to outdoors, but there's no guarantee that they actually go out there or that they can't even get out there and all these different brands are utilizing these logos like here, free range free range for $7.49. So they're tricking people into paying $7, $8, $9, $10 for a dozen eggs. Basically the same as the cheap eggs. All the plain white eggs they sell at Costco in the 2 dozen and the 5 dozen pack, those are all cage free. And you know what? They're only $2 a dozen. My grocery store here now doesn't allow you to buy any eggs at all for less than $4 a dozen, and they're the cheapest ones. If you're gonna spend extra on cage free or free range. You may as well spend a dollar or 2 more and get something organic.”

Wall Street Apes

282,394 просмотров • 2 лет назад

$EOSE I get it, it’s easy to feel let down when you’re waiting for sales numbers or partnerships to light up the stock, but you get a new product announcement you didn't expect. But hear me out: This marks an inflection point. Don't underestimate this breakthrough innovation. Super bullish on where this takes Eos. This isn’t just another tweak; it’s a game-changer in how energy storage/BESS will be thought about. Sometimes the biggest innovations boil down to the form factor, how you package and deploy the tech. This feels like one of those moments. Look, we’ve all seen the Z3 modules and DawnOS in action. They’re solid: zinc-based chemistry that’s non-flammable, hits 90%+ round-trip efficiency, and holds 96% capacity over 25 years, even in brutal conditions. But up until now, Eos was cramming them into standard containers, trying to fit into what the market expects from BESS. This was never going to work. Indensity flips that script. It’s basically Lego blocks for energy storage. Stackable Indensity Core units that slot into a simple steel frame. You build the superstructure first, then forklift the cores into place. No more suspending modules from container walls; they sit flat on the floor. It’s modular, weather-proof, and rated for indoor or outdoor use. Spread them out in rural spots, stack them high in suburbs to dodge zoning headaches, or go vertical in tight urban areas where land is gold. The breakthrough here? Way more power in the same footprint, powered by the same Z3 modules we know, but packaged smarter. You may think it’s “just” a repackaging, but form factor shifts have crushed it in other industries many times before. Think shipping containers: standardize the box, and suddenly global trade explodes. Even Lego itself started as simple bricks, but the interlocking design created endless possibilities and dominated toys. Indensity does that for BESS, turns rigid containers into flexible stacks that adapt to any site, any scale. This has a huge impact on manufacturing and costs too. On the factory side, this setup screams automation. Their lines can now churn out Z3 modules straight into these steel-framed packs, even pre-stacked in multiple layers. No more wrestling with full containers during assembly. It’s like palletizing goods for a warehouse. Defect rates drop because handling is simpler, and you can extend the production line with a substation that outputs ready-to-ship units. Transportation? Huge win. These cores fit like pallets in standard trucks. No cranes at the destination. Just forklift them off the lorry and slot them in. Installation gets stupid easy too: forklifts instead of heavy cranes mean faster setup, less site prep, and lower labor costs. And with the density jump, you’re using less land overall, which slashes permitting time and real estate expenses in crowded areas. Bottom line: this isn’t competing in the traditional "container BESS market" anymore. It’s carving out a whole new space where no one’s playing yet: hyper-dense, hyper-flexible storage for tough spots like data centers or urban grids. Sure, sodium-ion might show up eventually, but right now? Zero real competition. If Eos nails execution (and yeah, they’ve been busy scaling sales alongside this), investors will wake up to the massive market here. No more apples-to-apples with Lithium-Ion. Mark my words: this is zero-to-one moment for Eos. Well done 🔋Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.🔋. Hats off. What do you all think?
11:23

$EOSE I get it, it’s easy to feel let down when you’re waiting for sales numbers or partnerships to light up the stock, but you get a new product announcement you didn't expect. But hear me out: This marks an inflection point. Don't underestimate this breakthrough innovation. Super bullish on where this takes Eos. This isn’t just another tweak; it’s a game-changer in how energy storage/BESS will be thought about. Sometimes the biggest innovations boil down to the form factor, how you package and deploy the tech. This feels like one of those moments. Look, we’ve all seen the Z3 modules and DawnOS in action. They’re solid: zinc-based chemistry that’s non-flammable, hits 90%+ round-trip efficiency, and holds 96% capacity over 25 years, even in brutal conditions. But up until now, Eos was cramming them into standard containers, trying to fit into what the market expects from BESS. This was never going to work. Indensity flips that script. It’s basically Lego blocks for energy storage. Stackable Indensity Core units that slot into a simple steel frame. You build the superstructure first, then forklift the cores into place. No more suspending modules from container walls; they sit flat on the floor. It’s modular, weather-proof, and rated for indoor or outdoor use. Spread them out in rural spots, stack them high in suburbs to dodge zoning headaches, or go vertical in tight urban areas where land is gold. The breakthrough here? Way more power in the same footprint, powered by the same Z3 modules we know, but packaged smarter. You may think it’s “just” a repackaging, but form factor shifts have crushed it in other industries many times before. Think shipping containers: standardize the box, and suddenly global trade explodes. Even Lego itself started as simple bricks, but the interlocking design created endless possibilities and dominated toys. Indensity does that for BESS, turns rigid containers into flexible stacks that adapt to any site, any scale. This has a huge impact on manufacturing and costs too. On the factory side, this setup screams automation. Their lines can now churn out Z3 modules straight into these steel-framed packs, even pre-stacked in multiple layers. No more wrestling with full containers during assembly. It’s like palletizing goods for a warehouse. Defect rates drop because handling is simpler, and you can extend the production line with a substation that outputs ready-to-ship units. Transportation? Huge win. These cores fit like pallets in standard trucks. No cranes at the destination. Just forklift them off the lorry and slot them in. Installation gets stupid easy too: forklifts instead of heavy cranes mean faster setup, less site prep, and lower labor costs. And with the density jump, you’re using less land overall, which slashes permitting time and real estate expenses in crowded areas. Bottom line: this isn’t competing in the traditional "container BESS market" anymore. It’s carving out a whole new space where no one’s playing yet: hyper-dense, hyper-flexible storage for tough spots like data centers or urban grids. Sure, sodium-ion might show up eventually, but right now? Zero real competition. If Eos nails execution (and yeah, they’ve been busy scaling sales alongside this), investors will wake up to the massive market here. No more apples-to-apples with Lithium-Ion. Mark my words: this is zero-to-one moment for Eos. Well done 🔋Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.🔋. Hats off. What do you all think?

Michal Brojak

31,120 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Good morning, TeamFuloZim/Global 🌅 Yesterday was one of those Saturdays that starts with high hopes and ends in a bit of self-doubt and kitchen smoke. Having finally recovered from a relentless two-week streak of #ZesaUK call-outs, I decided to reward myself (and maybe punish others) by making my signature NFC ,Njanja Fried Chicken. 😋😋 But aish! Let’s just say… the results were mixed. 😬 Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve made this before ,and it nearly brought the house down (in a good way). But yesterday, ummm, ndakawona moto! Let’s just say something wasn’t oil-right. (See what I did there? 😜) The pot started frothing like I’d poured in Sunlight dishwashing liquid ,and no, Fa Matiz Fadzie, before you start ,I didn’t. This isn’t a repeat of the Great Derere Disaster of 2021. I swear! 😂 45 minutes, team. Forty. Five. To fry a few humble 🥁🍗?? I could’ve walked to KFC and back. Twice. But KFC isn’t NFC! What was going on? Does the type of cooking oil make a difference? Because I always assumed mafuta is mafuta. Turns out… I may have been cooking in ignorance all these years. 🫣 And don’t even bring up the pot I used. I already know what you’re thinking. “Wrong pan, wrong pot…” But you know the rules in UK households: the “special cookware” is strictly out of bounds for most men ,in case we burn it or give it funny smells. 🙄 So yes, I had to work with what I was “allowed” to use. Call it survival cooking. Also, can we talk about how I initially cracked the eggs directly into the flour bowl? Tsitsitsitsitsitsitsi, #DzunguMoment ,I know. I KNOW. I later remembered the egg wash was supposed to be in a separate bowl. Rookie error. I corrected course, but the flour still wasn’t binding like it does on those perfect Chef Vie 💙 🇿🇼 🇰🇪 🇰🇷 🇯🇴 🇿🇦 Chef Vie or COOKING WITH LIA 👩🏾‍🍳🌱 reels. Where’s my crispy coating era, nhayi? That said ,shout out to my NSDB 🌶️🌶️ for adding that Njanja zing to the mix. The spice was there. The heart was there. But judging by the silence around the dinner table, I suspect this batch of NFC didn’t quite Nail Fried Chicken. 🤦🏽‍♂️ P.S. Don’t you DARE come here telling me to get an air fryer. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I DON’T WANT AN AIR FRYER! Sorry for shouting. Just making sure those in the back row heard me. 😤NubianQueenBee Anyway, enjoy the photos, pretend it was perfect, and let’s laugh through the learning curve. #NFC #NjanjaFriedChicken #NSDBMagic #SundaySmiles
0:33

Good morning, TeamFuloZim/Global 🌅 Yesterday was one of those Saturdays that starts with high hopes and ends in a bit of self-doubt and kitchen smoke. Having finally recovered from a relentless two-week streak of #ZesaUK call-outs, I decided to reward myself (and maybe punish others) by making my signature NFC ,Njanja Fried Chicken. 😋😋 But aish! Let’s just say… the results were mixed. 😬 Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve made this before ,and it nearly brought the house down (in a good way). But yesterday, ummm, ndakawona moto! Let’s just say something wasn’t oil-right. (See what I did there? 😜) The pot started frothing like I’d poured in Sunlight dishwashing liquid ,and no, Fa Matiz Fadzie, before you start ,I didn’t. This isn’t a repeat of the Great Derere Disaster of 2021. I swear! 😂 45 minutes, team. Forty. Five. To fry a few humble 🥁🍗?? I could’ve walked to KFC and back. Twice. But KFC isn’t NFC! What was going on? Does the type of cooking oil make a difference? Because I always assumed mafuta is mafuta. Turns out… I may have been cooking in ignorance all these years. 🫣 And don’t even bring up the pot I used. I already know what you’re thinking. “Wrong pan, wrong pot…” But you know the rules in UK households: the “special cookware” is strictly out of bounds for most men ,in case we burn it or give it funny smells. 🙄 So yes, I had to work with what I was “allowed” to use. Call it survival cooking. Also, can we talk about how I initially cracked the eggs directly into the flour bowl? Tsitsitsitsitsitsitsi, #DzunguMoment ,I know. I KNOW. I later remembered the egg wash was supposed to be in a separate bowl. Rookie error. I corrected course, but the flour still wasn’t binding like it does on those perfect Chef Vie 💙 🇿🇼 🇰🇪 🇰🇷 🇯🇴 🇿🇦 Chef Vie or COOKING WITH LIA 👩🏾‍🍳🌱 reels. Where’s my crispy coating era, nhayi? That said ,shout out to my NSDB 🌶️🌶️ for adding that Njanja zing to the mix. The spice was there. The heart was there. But judging by the silence around the dinner table, I suspect this batch of NFC didn’t quite Nail Fried Chicken. 🤦🏽‍♂️ P.S. Don’t you DARE come here telling me to get an air fryer. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I DON’T WANT AN AIR FRYER! Sorry for shouting. Just making sure those in the back row heard me. 😤NubianQueenBee Anyway, enjoy the photos, pretend it was perfect, and let’s laugh through the learning curve. #NFC #NjanjaFriedChicken #NSDBMagic #SundaySmiles

King Jay🇿🇼

15,748 просмотров • 1 год назад

"The point of Brian Tully leaking Lindsey Gaetani's phone was to create a media frenzy and change the narrative. To get everyone to stop looking at other key figures in the Karen Read + TurtleBoy cases. Specifically, friends of Tully's MSP unit like Jen McCabe and PI Kate Peter." "By throwing Gaetani's entire private life out there, they could seize control of the public narrative at a really critical moment (April 2024, the start of the first Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial) and create one heck of a diversion." "You know, this story is so much bigger than just a data leak. It's really about the alleged weaponization of evidence, and it leaves us with a really unsettling question. What happens to justice when evidence isn't being used to find the truth, but is instead being used as a weapon to control a story?" TRANSCRIPT: Alright, let's talk about the Karen Read case. There's this wild story that's been bubbling up and it's not even about the trial itself, it's about the evidence. We're going to dive into a massive data leak that raises some pretty serious questions about how law enforcement is operating here. I mean, just think about this for a second. How on earth does a decade and a half of someone's private phone data—we're talking texts, photos, contacts, everything—end up out in the open, and get this: released by the very people who are supposed to be protecting it? So this all blew up in April of 2024. The complete, totally unredacted phone data of a key person in this whole affair, Lindsey Gaetani, was just leaked. And I'm not just talking about a couple of messages; we're talking about her entire digital life laid bare for everyone to see. 15 years—just let that sink in. Imagine everything on your phone going all the way back to the mid-2000s, just suddenly becoming public information. It's a huge breach of privacy, and it makes you ask one thing right away: How could this possibly happen? Okay, so to figure out how this went down, we really have to look at the people involved. And trust me, it is a complicated web of state troopers, private investigators, and even online operatives, all connected in some really crucial ways. Let's try to untangle this a bit. You've got state police officer Brian Tully, he's the one who allegedly leaked the data, and there's Kate Peter, a private investigator. And what's really weird is that her messages with Gaetani were mysteriously scrubbed from the data before it got out. Trooper Nick Guarino is the one who processed the data. And all of this, this whole handover, happened while the special prosecutor, Ken Mello, was literally in the hospital. The theory is that this was all meant to protect people like Jen McCabe, who's a key witness in the main case. So how did this happen? Well, one story being floated is that it was just a series of clumsy accidents, a real comedy of errors that, whoops, resulted in a massive data breach. As you can probably guess, not a lot of people are buying that one. So the accident theory—and you gotta' hear this—goes something like this. An officer tripped? Okay, and while he was stumbling, he just happened to perfectly edit a cell phone extraction, removing very specific messages. Then, apparently he morphed into a snowball, rolled down the highway, and tumbled right into the defense lawyer's office, delivering the data. You know, a total accident. Yeah, as one source put it, it's just ludicrous. You don't trip and fall and end up in that situation. It makes no sense. So if it wasn't some bizarre accident, what was it? Well, there's a much more compelling argument out there, that this leak was no accident. It was a deliberate, calculated move. And there's actually evidence that points right in that direction. Just consider these points for a minute. A clumsy trip doesn't explain why specific messages from Trooper Tully himself and from PI Kate Peter were surgically removed from the data. It also doesn't explain the timing. Why would Tully hand deliver this package, personally, while the one guy who could provide any oversight, Prosecutor Ken Mello, was out of commission in the hospital? And this isn't just speculation. This is special prosecutor Ken Mello testifying in court. He confirms it. He says that while he was hospitalized, his colleague, Tully, delivered the evidence package. This tells us that someone took it upon themselves to act, while their superior was unavailable. So let's just lay it all out, side by side. In one corner you have the accident theory, which, you know, involves snowballs and doesn't explain any of the key facts, like the edited data. And in the other corner you have the intentional leak theory. This one actually explains the missing messages and is backed up by court testimony and some seriously suspicious timing. So that brings us to the biggest question of all, right? If this was a deliberate act by a member of law enforcement, what was the motive? Why on earth would an officer intentionally leak 15 years of someone's private life? Well, according to the sources we're looking at, the answer is just one word: Distraction. The whole point of this massive data dump was to create a media frenzy, a public circus, and completely change the conversation. And what was the goal of this distraction? It was allegedly to get everyone to stop looking at other key figures in the case. Specifically, people who were friends of the police unit, like Jen McCabe and PI Kate Peter. By throwing Gaetani's entire private life out there, they could seize control of the public narrative at a really critical moment and create one heck of a diversion. You know, this story is so much bigger than just a data leak. It's really about the alleged weaponization of evidence, and it leaves us with a really unsettling question. What happens to justice when evidence isn't being used to find the truth, but is instead being used as a weapon to control a story?
4:59

"The point of Brian Tully leaking Lindsey Gaetani's phone was to create a media frenzy and change the narrative. To get everyone to stop looking at other key figures in the Karen Read + TurtleBoy cases. Specifically, friends of Tully's MSP unit like Jen McCabe and PI Kate Peter." "By throwing Gaetani's entire private life out there, they could seize control of the public narrative at a really critical moment (April 2024, the start of the first Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial) and create one heck of a diversion." "You know, this story is so much bigger than just a data leak. It's really about the alleged weaponization of evidence, and it leaves us with a really unsettling question. What happens to justice when evidence isn't being used to find the truth, but is instead being used as a weapon to control a story?" TRANSCRIPT: Alright, let's talk about the Karen Read case. There's this wild story that's been bubbling up and it's not even about the trial itself, it's about the evidence. We're going to dive into a massive data leak that raises some pretty serious questions about how law enforcement is operating here. I mean, just think about this for a second. How on earth does a decade and a half of someone's private phone data—we're talking texts, photos, contacts, everything—end up out in the open, and get this: released by the very people who are supposed to be protecting it? So this all blew up in April of 2024. The complete, totally unredacted phone data of a key person in this whole affair, Lindsey Gaetani, was just leaked. And I'm not just talking about a couple of messages; we're talking about her entire digital life laid bare for everyone to see. 15 years—just let that sink in. Imagine everything on your phone going all the way back to the mid-2000s, just suddenly becoming public information. It's a huge breach of privacy, and it makes you ask one thing right away: How could this possibly happen? Okay, so to figure out how this went down, we really have to look at the people involved. And trust me, it is a complicated web of state troopers, private investigators, and even online operatives, all connected in some really crucial ways. Let's try to untangle this a bit. You've got state police officer Brian Tully, he's the one who allegedly leaked the data, and there's Kate Peter, a private investigator. And what's really weird is that her messages with Gaetani were mysteriously scrubbed from the data before it got out. Trooper Nick Guarino is the one who processed the data. And all of this, this whole handover, happened while the special prosecutor, Ken Mello, was literally in the hospital. The theory is that this was all meant to protect people like Jen McCabe, who's a key witness in the main case. So how did this happen? Well, one story being floated is that it was just a series of clumsy accidents, a real comedy of errors that, whoops, resulted in a massive data breach. As you can probably guess, not a lot of people are buying that one. So the accident theory—and you gotta' hear this—goes something like this. An officer tripped? Okay, and while he was stumbling, he just happened to perfectly edit a cell phone extraction, removing very specific messages. Then, apparently he morphed into a snowball, rolled down the highway, and tumbled right into the defense lawyer's office, delivering the data. You know, a total accident. Yeah, as one source put it, it's just ludicrous. You don't trip and fall and end up in that situation. It makes no sense. So if it wasn't some bizarre accident, what was it? Well, there's a much more compelling argument out there, that this leak was no accident. It was a deliberate, calculated move. And there's actually evidence that points right in that direction. Just consider these points for a minute. A clumsy trip doesn't explain why specific messages from Trooper Tully himself and from PI Kate Peter were surgically removed from the data. It also doesn't explain the timing. Why would Tully hand deliver this package, personally, while the one guy who could provide any oversight, Prosecutor Ken Mello, was out of commission in the hospital? And this isn't just speculation. This is special prosecutor Ken Mello testifying in court. He confirms it. He says that while he was hospitalized, his colleague, Tully, delivered the evidence package. This tells us that someone took it upon themselves to act, while their superior was unavailable. So let's just lay it all out, side by side. In one corner you have the accident theory, which, you know, involves snowballs and doesn't explain any of the key facts, like the edited data. And in the other corner you have the intentional leak theory. This one actually explains the missing messages and is backed up by court testimony and some seriously suspicious timing. So that brings us to the biggest question of all, right? If this was a deliberate act by a member of law enforcement, what was the motive? Why on earth would an officer intentionally leak 15 years of someone's private life? Well, according to the sources we're looking at, the answer is just one word: Distraction. The whole point of this massive data dump was to create a media frenzy, a public circus, and completely change the conversation. And what was the goal of this distraction? It was allegedly to get everyone to stop looking at other key figures in the case. Specifically, people who were friends of the police unit, like Jen McCabe and PI Kate Peter. By throwing Gaetani's entire private life out there, they could seize control of the public narrative at a really critical moment and create one heck of a diversion. You know, this story is so much bigger than just a data leak. It's really about the alleged weaponization of evidence, and it leaves us with a really unsettling question. What happens to justice when evidence isn't being used to find the truth, but is instead being used as a weapon to control a story?

Grant Smith Ellis

12,028 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.
1:58

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Dustin

484,816 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

COULD JENRICK’S LEAP TO REFORM UK REIGNITE LEASEHOLDER LIBERATION? 📢 Lots of talk at the Reform UK Robert Jenrick presser about an “inflexion point” for British politics. Wait for it … there’s a leasehold abolition angle. Before defecting yesterday, Robert Jenrick was one of a tiny handful of Conservative parliamentarians who publicly pressured the Rishi Sunak government to go further on freeing leaseholders. Writing in the Telegraph, he called leasehold a symbol of “rip-off Britain”, urged the abolition of forfeiture, a gangster-like device that forces leaseholders to comply with financial demands under threat of having their home seized without compensation over arrears as small as £350, and called for a sunset clause on leasehold. “Today, leasehold stands not as a curiously British anomaly, but as an affront to the distinctly British dream of owning a home and the peace of mind that comes with ownership, rather than the insecurity of renting … a symbol of rip-off Britain, where hidden bills lurk around every corner, and of the growth of crony capitalism, where rent-seekers milk consumers despite adding no value.” We also understand that when the general election was called, Jenrick was one of the very few Conservatives who pressed Number 10 to reverse course and rescue the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in the wash-up after Sunak and his aides had dropped it. That became the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which now sits rusting under this The Labour Party government, despite a promise in the July 2024 King’s Speech to “act quickly” to bring its provisions into effect. Some leaseholders criticise his time in office, particularly for giving freeholders a financial windfall under the two-storey permitted development right. This move caused the cost of collective enfranchisement to soar for affected blocks. His handling of the post-Grenfell building safety crisis was also controversial, as it initially risked imposing loans on cladding victims. On the latter, Jenrick secured a £1 billion government fund for remediation in May 2020, agreed with the Treasury and Sunak, then chancellor, and later succeeded in increasing it to £5 billion in February 2021. As his former colleague Stephen Greenhalgh said in 2023, after leaving government: “We forget that Robert Jenrick actually got a lot of money out of the Treasury. He went back and, like Oliver Twist, got more.” Yesterday, Jenrick admitted he made mistakes in government and said, like much of the country, he has been on a journey, realising the uniparty has failed Britain. After leaving the Sunak administration for the backbenches, he recalled how, as Housing Secretary, he resisted pressure from the murky retirement property sector, which had tried to preserve the exemption from a ban on ground rents for new builds that his predecessor had allowed. He ultimately abolished the exemption. “Its lobbyists approached Members of Parliament and my Department and threatened judicial review of our proceedings,” he said. “I considered it an unfair practice, targeted at the most elderly and vulnerable in our society. Why not have a fairer and transparent system where an elderly person knows exactly what they are paying?” He was responsible for the ban on ground rents in new leases under the 2022 Act, which abolished the retirement property exemption and aimed to pave the way for reviving commonhold. In a January 2021 statement, Jenrick secured government commitments to abolish marriage value, advance enfranchisement reform, and revive commonhold, launching a Commonhold Council to prepare the market and consumers ahead of the second-generation tenure’s rollout. Beyond ending ground rents for new builds, in January 2021 Jenrick secured a commitment from Boris Johnson for a second legislative package to free leaseholders. But after he left the Housing Secretary role, the 2022 Queen’s Speech saw this second Bill shelved, reportedly under pressure from the Treasury, Johnson’s own aides, and lobbyists for Big Freehold. The plan was eventually delivered by the Sunak government with the 2024 Act, though it incorporated only a handful of the 2020 Law Commission recommendations that Jenrick had overseen. While Labour has been dragging its feet in power, the Conservative Party has failed to defend the 2024 Act or hold the government to account on a totemic pro-homeownership policy that will reduce the cost of living and expand the property-owning democracy. After the general election, Jenrick was probably the most vocal Conservative MP on leasehold, pressing on Lord Hermer’s strange ECHR legalism thwarting leaseholder liberation, even though he was not the housing spokesperson. Leaseholders have seen no leadership from Conservative Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly🇬🇧. On Monday, when Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook was under pressure, Cleverly’s colleague David Simmonds CBE, Conservative MP delivered a disastrous performance in Parliament, asking about local government reorganisation during the leasehold and commonhold debate. Pennycook couldn’t believe his luck. Jenrick is now joining Reform UK, a party that promised cheaper lease extensions and freehold purchase in its last election manifesto. Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧, Reform deputy leader and MP for Boston and Skegness, rightly attacked the Sunak administration for backing down on slashing money-for-nothing ground rents to peppercorn or zero financial value, as promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Tice also personally pushed for this agenda to be included in the Reform manifesto after Nigel Farage MP succeeded him as leader. At a March 2021 press conference, when proposing a “polluter pays” approach to resolving the cladding scandal with a guarantee that financial liability would not fall on leaseholders, in contrast to the Tory policy at the time, Tice said: “With my three decades of experience, I know what some of those landlords are like, and very often they haven’t got the leaseholders’ interests at heart.” It will be interesting to see whether both men continue to push for leaseholder liberation. The 5.3 million households alienated by Labour’s foot-dragging and repeated excuses on ending leasehold are looking to the party at the top of the polls to challenge the government and provide support as we approach crucial local elections. The political economy around housing is changing fast. The New Right are becoming wary of the financialisation of a prime social need. As Donald J. Trump and JD Vance have observed: “People live in homes, not corporations.”
0:38

COULD JENRICK’S LEAP TO REFORM UK REIGNITE LEASEHOLDER LIBERATION? 📢 Lots of talk at the Reform UK Robert Jenrick presser about an “inflexion point” for British politics. Wait for it … there’s a leasehold abolition angle. Before defecting yesterday, Robert Jenrick was one of a tiny handful of Conservative parliamentarians who publicly pressured the Rishi Sunak government to go further on freeing leaseholders. Writing in the Telegraph, he called leasehold a symbol of “rip-off Britain”, urged the abolition of forfeiture, a gangster-like device that forces leaseholders to comply with financial demands under threat of having their home seized without compensation over arrears as small as £350, and called for a sunset clause on leasehold. “Today, leasehold stands not as a curiously British anomaly, but as an affront to the distinctly British dream of owning a home and the peace of mind that comes with ownership, rather than the insecurity of renting … a symbol of rip-off Britain, where hidden bills lurk around every corner, and of the growth of crony capitalism, where rent-seekers milk consumers despite adding no value.” We also understand that when the general election was called, Jenrick was one of the very few Conservatives who pressed Number 10 to reverse course and rescue the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in the wash-up after Sunak and his aides had dropped it. That became the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which now sits rusting under this The Labour Party government, despite a promise in the July 2024 King’s Speech to “act quickly” to bring its provisions into effect. Some leaseholders criticise his time in office, particularly for giving freeholders a financial windfall under the two-storey permitted development right. This move caused the cost of collective enfranchisement to soar for affected blocks. His handling of the post-Grenfell building safety crisis was also controversial, as it initially risked imposing loans on cladding victims. On the latter, Jenrick secured a £1 billion government fund for remediation in May 2020, agreed with the Treasury and Sunak, then chancellor, and later succeeded in increasing it to £5 billion in February 2021. As his former colleague Stephen Greenhalgh said in 2023, after leaving government: “We forget that Robert Jenrick actually got a lot of money out of the Treasury. He went back and, like Oliver Twist, got more.” Yesterday, Jenrick admitted he made mistakes in government and said, like much of the country, he has been on a journey, realising the uniparty has failed Britain. After leaving the Sunak administration for the backbenches, he recalled how, as Housing Secretary, he resisted pressure from the murky retirement property sector, which had tried to preserve the exemption from a ban on ground rents for new builds that his predecessor had allowed. He ultimately abolished the exemption. “Its lobbyists approached Members of Parliament and my Department and threatened judicial review of our proceedings,” he said. “I considered it an unfair practice, targeted at the most elderly and vulnerable in our society. Why not have a fairer and transparent system where an elderly person knows exactly what they are paying?” He was responsible for the ban on ground rents in new leases under the 2022 Act, which abolished the retirement property exemption and aimed to pave the way for reviving commonhold. In a January 2021 statement, Jenrick secured government commitments to abolish marriage value, advance enfranchisement reform, and revive commonhold, launching a Commonhold Council to prepare the market and consumers ahead of the second-generation tenure’s rollout. Beyond ending ground rents for new builds, in January 2021 Jenrick secured a commitment from Boris Johnson for a second legislative package to free leaseholders. But after he left the Housing Secretary role, the 2022 Queen’s Speech saw this second Bill shelved, reportedly under pressure from the Treasury, Johnson’s own aides, and lobbyists for Big Freehold. The plan was eventually delivered by the Sunak government with the 2024 Act, though it incorporated only a handful of the 2020 Law Commission recommendations that Jenrick had overseen. While Labour has been dragging its feet in power, the Conservative Party has failed to defend the 2024 Act or hold the government to account on a totemic pro-homeownership policy that will reduce the cost of living and expand the property-owning democracy. After the general election, Jenrick was probably the most vocal Conservative MP on leasehold, pressing on Lord Hermer’s strange ECHR legalism thwarting leaseholder liberation, even though he was not the housing spokesperson. Leaseholders have seen no leadership from Conservative Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly🇬🇧. On Monday, when Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook was under pressure, Cleverly’s colleague David Simmonds CBE, Conservative MP delivered a disastrous performance in Parliament, asking about local government reorganisation during the leasehold and commonhold debate. Pennycook couldn’t believe his luck. Jenrick is now joining Reform UK, a party that promised cheaper lease extensions and freehold purchase in its last election manifesto. Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧, Reform deputy leader and MP for Boston and Skegness, rightly attacked the Sunak administration for backing down on slashing money-for-nothing ground rents to peppercorn or zero financial value, as promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Tice also personally pushed for this agenda to be included in the Reform manifesto after Nigel Farage MP succeeded him as leader. At a March 2021 press conference, when proposing a “polluter pays” approach to resolving the cladding scandal with a guarantee that financial liability would not fall on leaseholders, in contrast to the Tory policy at the time, Tice said: “With my three decades of experience, I know what some of those landlords are like, and very often they haven’t got the leaseholders’ interests at heart.” It will be interesting to see whether both men continue to push for leaseholder liberation. The 5.3 million households alienated by Labour’s foot-dragging and repeated excuses on ending leasehold are looking to the party at the top of the polls to challenge the government and provide support as we approach crucial local elections. The political economy around housing is changing fast. The New Right are becoming wary of the financialisation of a prime social need. As Donald J. Trump and JD Vance have observed: “People live in homes, not corporations.”

Free Leaseholders

12,317 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.
0:54

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.

Peter Girnus 🦅

97,466 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Nassim Nicholas Taleb walked into Google and explained what Antifragility is and how the world actually works: 1. The opposite of fragile is not robust. That is the first mistake almost everyone makes. Robust means something does not care about volatility. The true opposite of fragile is something that actually benefits from disorder, volatility, and stress. He calls it antifragile. 2. If you are shipping something fragile you write handle with care on the box. The true opposite of that package would have please mishandle written on it. Something antifragile wants to be mishandled. It gets stronger from it. 3. Fragility is always about nonlinear harm. Jumping ten meters kills you. Jumping ten centimeters a hundred times does not. The harm accelerates disproportionately with size. That acceleration is the mathematical signature of fragility and it can be measured precisely. 4. Anything that has survived long enough to exist today must have this property. If harm were linear you would be destroyed just walking to the office. Everything that persists is built so that small stressors barely touch it but large unexpected shocks destroy it. 5. Large size creates fragility automatically. A hundred million pound project in the UK had thirty percent more cost overruns than a five million pound project doing the same thing. The bigger the stone the more the harm. Size and fragility are inseparable. 6. Governments and institutions make the same mistake constantly. They chase perfect stability and call it good management. But something organic requires variability to survive. Greenspan tried to eliminate all economic volatility. He called it the Great Moderation. What he actually did was allow hidden risk to accumulate invisibly until it exploded all at once. 7. Small forest fires clean out flammable material and prevent catastrophic ones. By eliminating small fires you guarantee a massive one eventually. The same principle applies to economies, banks, and any complex system. Suppressing volatility does not remove risk. It stores it. 8. The only way to make something genuinely robust is to embrace bipolar strategies rather than medium ones. Eighty percent of your portfolio in something safe and twenty percent in something highly speculative is more robust than putting everything in medium risk. The average of extremes beats the mediocre middle. 9. Everything organic communicates with its environment through stressors. Your body needs the gym. Your bones need stress. Your immune system needs exposure. Depriving any living system of the stressors it needs does not protect it. It weakens it invisibly. 10. What does not kill me makes others stronger is closer to the truth than what does not kill me makes me stronger. When a system gets stronger under stress it is usually because the weaker components were destroyed, not because the survivors individually improved. The system improves through the death of its fragile parts. 11. Trial and error is not the opposite of knowledge. It is a form of knowledge with a convex payoff. You lose little when you are wrong and gain enormously when you are right. That asymmetry is what makes tinkering more powerful than theoretical planning in unpredictable environments. 12. Most of what we attribute to theoretical knowledge actually came from tinkering that was dressed up afterward as having been scientifically planned. The Romans built extraordinary things for centuries without ever having heard of Euclidean geometry. Technology routinely precedes the science that supposedly explains it. 13. The fragilista is Taleb's name for the person who denies antifragility and causes damage through that denial. Bureaucrats, central planners, academics, and policy makers who overstabilize systems from the top down are fragilistas. They remove the volatility that systems need and call it improvement. 14. Seneca, the wealthiest man in the ancient world, trained himself every day to wake up as if he had lost everything. He would deliberately live as if he were on a shipwreck to ensure he always had more upside than downside. Having more to gain than to lose from random events is the definition of antifragility in personal life. 15. In medicine, convexity matters more than people realize. If you are very ill the potential benefit of treatment vastly outweighs the risk, so you should see ten doctors not one. If you are mildly ill the risks of intervention almost certainly outweigh the modest benefits. The problem is that mildly ill patients are five times more numerous than severely ill ones, which is exactly who pharmaceutical companies focus on. 16. Removing something unnatural from your life has almost no side effects. Adding something artificial always has multiplicative hidden effects. In complex systems less is almost always more. The via negativa, improving by subtraction rather than addition, is consistently underestimated. 17. The real ethical crisis of modern times is that the people making decisions do not bear the consequences of those decisions. Bankers take the upside. Society takes the downside. Economists give broken advice and face no consequences when it fails. Nothing improves in any field where the people who are wrong are not harmed by being wrong. 18. Time is the ultimate detector of fragility. Whatever is fragile will eventually be broken by time. Whatever has survived for a long time has demonstrated antifragility and will likely survive longer still. A book that has been read for three thousand years will probably be read for three thousand more. A technology that is forty years old has at least forty more years ahead of it. 19. The only way to know you are alive and not a machine is that you benefit from variability. If you like variation and gain from disorder you are antifragile. If you require peace and predictability to function you are fragile. It is as simple and as profound as that. Before you go, can we stay in touch? I'd love to share one email with you every Sunday that'll challenge how you think about business, money and freedom. Stay in touch here:
54:07

Nassim Nicholas Taleb walked into Google and explained what Antifragility is and how the world actually works: 1. The opposite of fragile is not robust. That is the first mistake almost everyone makes. Robust means something does not care about volatility. The true opposite of fragile is something that actually benefits from disorder, volatility, and stress. He calls it antifragile. 2. If you are shipping something fragile you write handle with care on the box. The true opposite of that package would have please mishandle written on it. Something antifragile wants to be mishandled. It gets stronger from it. 3. Fragility is always about nonlinear harm. Jumping ten meters kills you. Jumping ten centimeters a hundred times does not. The harm accelerates disproportionately with size. That acceleration is the mathematical signature of fragility and it can be measured precisely. 4. Anything that has survived long enough to exist today must have this property. If harm were linear you would be destroyed just walking to the office. Everything that persists is built so that small stressors barely touch it but large unexpected shocks destroy it. 5. Large size creates fragility automatically. A hundred million pound project in the UK had thirty percent more cost overruns than a five million pound project doing the same thing. The bigger the stone the more the harm. Size and fragility are inseparable. 6. Governments and institutions make the same mistake constantly. They chase perfect stability and call it good management. But something organic requires variability to survive. Greenspan tried to eliminate all economic volatility. He called it the Great Moderation. What he actually did was allow hidden risk to accumulate invisibly until it exploded all at once. 7. Small forest fires clean out flammable material and prevent catastrophic ones. By eliminating small fires you guarantee a massive one eventually. The same principle applies to economies, banks, and any complex system. Suppressing volatility does not remove risk. It stores it. 8. The only way to make something genuinely robust is to embrace bipolar strategies rather than medium ones. Eighty percent of your portfolio in something safe and twenty percent in something highly speculative is more robust than putting everything in medium risk. The average of extremes beats the mediocre middle. 9. Everything organic communicates with its environment through stressors. Your body needs the gym. Your bones need stress. Your immune system needs exposure. Depriving any living system of the stressors it needs does not protect it. It weakens it invisibly. 10. What does not kill me makes others stronger is closer to the truth than what does not kill me makes me stronger. When a system gets stronger under stress it is usually because the weaker components were destroyed, not because the survivors individually improved. The system improves through the death of its fragile parts. 11. Trial and error is not the opposite of knowledge. It is a form of knowledge with a convex payoff. You lose little when you are wrong and gain enormously when you are right. That asymmetry is what makes tinkering more powerful than theoretical planning in unpredictable environments. 12. Most of what we attribute to theoretical knowledge actually came from tinkering that was dressed up afterward as having been scientifically planned. The Romans built extraordinary things for centuries without ever having heard of Euclidean geometry. Technology routinely precedes the science that supposedly explains it. 13. The fragilista is Taleb's name for the person who denies antifragility and causes damage through that denial. Bureaucrats, central planners, academics, and policy makers who overstabilize systems from the top down are fragilistas. They remove the volatility that systems need and call it improvement. 14. Seneca, the wealthiest man in the ancient world, trained himself every day to wake up as if he had lost everything. He would deliberately live as if he were on a shipwreck to ensure he always had more upside than downside. Having more to gain than to lose from random events is the definition of antifragility in personal life. 15. In medicine, convexity matters more than people realize. If you are very ill the potential benefit of treatment vastly outweighs the risk, so you should see ten doctors not one. If you are mildly ill the risks of intervention almost certainly outweigh the modest benefits. The problem is that mildly ill patients are five times more numerous than severely ill ones, which is exactly who pharmaceutical companies focus on. 16. Removing something unnatural from your life has almost no side effects. Adding something artificial always has multiplicative hidden effects. In complex systems less is almost always more. The via negativa, improving by subtraction rather than addition, is consistently underestimated. 17. The real ethical crisis of modern times is that the people making decisions do not bear the consequences of those decisions. Bankers take the upside. Society takes the downside. Economists give broken advice and face no consequences when it fails. Nothing improves in any field where the people who are wrong are not harmed by being wrong. 18. Time is the ultimate detector of fragility. Whatever is fragile will eventually be broken by time. Whatever has survived for a long time has demonstrated antifragility and will likely survive longer still. A book that has been read for three thousand years will probably be read for three thousand more. A technology that is forty years old has at least forty more years ahead of it. 19. The only way to know you are alive and not a machine is that you benefit from variability. If you like variation and gain from disorder you are antifragile. If you require peace and predictability to function you are fragile. It is as simple and as profound as that. Before you go, can we stay in touch? I'd love to share one email with you every Sunday that'll challenge how you think about business, money and freedom. Stay in touch here:

Brad

150,532 просмотров • 4 дней назад