Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

This Chinese mathematician earned $10,000 a month inventing the hardest problems to train Neural Networks through Scale AI. Today his income dropped to zero. All the solutions are now generated by the model itself. He used to just hold the problem in his head and spell it out in...

browomo's profile picture

Blaze

9,768 subscribers

49,109 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Marc Andreessen: Elon inspires incredible loyalty from his employees because they know he'll just sit all night with them to fix a problem. “Elon actually delegates almost everything. He's involved in the thing that is the biggest problem right now until that thing is fixed. And then, he doesn't have to be involved in it anymore, he can go focus on the next thing that's the biggest problem for that company right now. The job number one is to remove that bottleneck and get everything flowing again. I think Elon basically has universalized that concept and he basically looks at every company like it's some sort of conceptual assembly line. When he identifies the bottleneck, he goes and he talks to the line engineers who understand the technical nature of the bottleneck. If it's people on a manufacturing line, he's talking to people directly on the line. Or if that's people in a software development group, he's talking to the people actually writing the code. He's not asking the VP of Engineering to ask the Director of Engineering to ask the manager to ask the individual contributor to write a report that's to be reviewed in three weeks. He doesn't do that. He would throw them all out of the window. There's just no way he would do that. He goes and personally finds the engineer who actually has the knowledge about the thing, and then he sits in the room with that engineer and fixes the problem with them. This is why he inspires such incredible loyalty, especially from the technical people who he works with. They're like, wow, if I'm up against a problem I don't know how to solve, freaking Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream jet, and he's going to sit with me overnight in front of the keyboard or in front of the manufacturing line, and he's going to help me figure this out.” Interview of Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 by Chris Williamson on Youtube, December 14, 2024
1:52

Marc Andreessen: Elon inspires incredible loyalty from his employees because they know he'll just sit all night with them to fix a problem. “Elon actually delegates almost everything. He's involved in the thing that is the biggest problem right now until that thing is fixed. And then, he doesn't have to be involved in it anymore, he can go focus on the next thing that's the biggest problem for that company right now. The job number one is to remove that bottleneck and get everything flowing again. I think Elon basically has universalized that concept and he basically looks at every company like it's some sort of conceptual assembly line. When he identifies the bottleneck, he goes and he talks to the line engineers who understand the technical nature of the bottleneck. If it's people on a manufacturing line, he's talking to people directly on the line. Or if that's people in a software development group, he's talking to the people actually writing the code. He's not asking the VP of Engineering to ask the Director of Engineering to ask the manager to ask the individual contributor to write a report that's to be reviewed in three weeks. He doesn't do that. He would throw them all out of the window. There's just no way he would do that. He goes and personally finds the engineer who actually has the knowledge about the thing, and then he sits in the room with that engineer and fixes the problem with them. This is why he inspires such incredible loyalty, especially from the technical people who he works with. They're like, wow, if I'm up against a problem I don't know how to solve, freaking Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream jet, and he's going to sit with me overnight in front of the keyboard or in front of the manufacturing line, and he's going to help me figure this out.” Interview of Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 by Chris Williamson on Youtube, December 14, 2024

ELON CLIPS

193,027 views • 1 year ago

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.
1:27

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,516 views • 5 months ago

Elon just confirmed how long every working human has left before the robots take over. "AI will probably increase the global economy by 20 to 30%. That's my rough estimate. Meaning, on the order of 20 to 30 trillion per year." So that's a second United States economy appearing out of thin air, EVERY single year. And Elon's whole point is that the machines produce it, not the people. He even gave us the exact date for the digital half: "AI will be able to do anything digital, anything that does not require the shaping of atoms by hand, by the end of next year." By the end of next year... And on software specifically: "It's going to be impossible for a human to compete in writing software with AI." So every coder, every analyst, every job that lives on a screen is on a 12 to 18 month timer, straight from the richest man alive. But that's only the part that runs on electricity. And this is where it gets crazy... "There will be at least a billion robots in 10 years, and each will produce at least five times the output of a human." "The billion humanoid robots will be more productive than all humans combined." A billion machines, out-working ALL 8 billion of us. And he put a deadline on it: 10 years. And he even called that estimate small. So the version where robots out-produce the entire human race is the number he treats as safe. He said he'd bet serious money on it. But how does a billion of anything get built that fast? Robots building robots building robots. It starts slow and then it goes vertical. That’s how a few thousand becomes a billion. Elon also explained his own formula for how useful a robot actually is. He said it's the quality of the AI software, times the quality of the AI chip, times the dexterity of the hands. Software and chips are the exact things Elon and Nvidia have spent a decade making exponential. The third one is the hand. And the hand is the thing robotics has been stuck on for 40 years. A machine can crush the best human alive at chess and still can't pick a strange object off a messy table the way a toddler can. Grip, pressure, touch, knowing how hard to squeeze. That problem has barely moved while everything digital went vertical. The thing he named as the hard part is the exact thing his whole 10 year number depends on. So it all comes down to one variable, and it's the slowest-moving one in the entire machine: The robot hand. The brain is basically solved. The fingers have to catch up to it this decade, at planetary scale. Now to be fair, this is also where the most money on Earth is pointed right now. Tesla and a dozen others are throwing everything at exactly this problem. Elon's software calls tend to land but his atoms calls tend to fail. Because anything physical always takes longer than anything digital. He's also made this exact robot call before with wildly different numbers, 10 billion of them by 2040 in one speech, five per human in another. So here's the real question: Do you believe robot hands get solved inside 10 years? Because that one bet is the core of Elon‘s prediction. Everything else already came true.
1:39

Elon just confirmed how long every working human has left before the robots take over. "AI will probably increase the global economy by 20 to 30%. That's my rough estimate. Meaning, on the order of 20 to 30 trillion per year." So that's a second United States economy appearing out of thin air, EVERY single year. And Elon's whole point is that the machines produce it, not the people. He even gave us the exact date for the digital half: "AI will be able to do anything digital, anything that does not require the shaping of atoms by hand, by the end of next year." By the end of next year... And on software specifically: "It's going to be impossible for a human to compete in writing software with AI." So every coder, every analyst, every job that lives on a screen is on a 12 to 18 month timer, straight from the richest man alive. But that's only the part that runs on electricity. And this is where it gets crazy... "There will be at least a billion robots in 10 years, and each will produce at least five times the output of a human." "The billion humanoid robots will be more productive than all humans combined." A billion machines, out-working ALL 8 billion of us. And he put a deadline on it: 10 years. And he even called that estimate small. So the version where robots out-produce the entire human race is the number he treats as safe. He said he'd bet serious money on it. But how does a billion of anything get built that fast? Robots building robots building robots. It starts slow and then it goes vertical. That’s how a few thousand becomes a billion. Elon also explained his own formula for how useful a robot actually is. He said it's the quality of the AI software, times the quality of the AI chip, times the dexterity of the hands. Software and chips are the exact things Elon and Nvidia have spent a decade making exponential. The third one is the hand. And the hand is the thing robotics has been stuck on for 40 years. A machine can crush the best human alive at chess and still can't pick a strange object off a messy table the way a toddler can. Grip, pressure, touch, knowing how hard to squeeze. That problem has barely moved while everything digital went vertical. The thing he named as the hard part is the exact thing his whole 10 year number depends on. So it all comes down to one variable, and it's the slowest-moving one in the entire machine: The robot hand. The brain is basically solved. The fingers have to catch up to it this decade, at planetary scale. Now to be fair, this is also where the most money on Earth is pointed right now. Tesla and a dozen others are throwing everything at exactly this problem. Elon's software calls tend to land but his atoms calls tend to fail. Because anything physical always takes longer than anything digital. He's also made this exact robot call before with wildly different numbers, 10 billion of them by 2040 in one speech, five per human in another. So here's the real question: Do you believe robot hands get solved inside 10 years? Because that one bet is the core of Elon‘s prediction. Everything else already came true.

Ricardo

422,935 views • 2 days ago

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?
2:45

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,287,455 views • 2 months ago

Marc Andreessen: Elon inspires incredible loyalty from his employees because they know he'll sit all night with them to solve a problem. “Elon actually delegates almost everything. He's not involved in most of the things that his companies are doing. He's involved in the thing that is the biggest problem right now until that thing is fixed. And then, he doesn't have to be involved in it anymore, he can go focus on the next thing that's the biggest problem for that company right now. In manufacturing, there's this concept of the bottleneck. In any manufacturing chain, there's always some bottleneck, something that is keeping the manufacturing line from running the way that it's supposed to. Whatever the bottleneck, it's holding everything up. The job number one is to remove that bottleneck and get everything flowing again. I think Elon basically has universalized that concept and he basically looks at every company like it's some sort of conceptual assembly line. I don't need to manage everything else because everything else, by definition, is running better than that. I can go focus on that. A lot of CEOs, especially non-technical CEOs, would really struggle to implement his method. When he identifies the bottleneck, he goes and he talks to the line engineers who understand the technical nature of the bottleneck. If it's people on a manufacturing line, he's talking to people directly on the line. Or if that's people in a software development group, he's talking to the people actually writing the code. He's not asking the VP of Engineering to ask the Director of Engineering to ask the manager to ask the individual contributor to write a report that's to be reviewed in three weeks. He doesn't do that. He would throw them all out of the window. There's just no way he would do that. He goes and personally finds the engineer who actually has the knowledge about the thing, and then he sits in the room with that engineer and fixes the problem with them. This is why he inspires such incredible loyalty, especially from the technical people who he works with. They're like, wow, if I'm up against a problem I don't know how to solve, freaking Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream jet, and he's going to sit with me overnight in front of the keyboard or in front of the manufacturing line, and he's going to help me figure this out.” Interview of Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 by Chris Williamson on Youtube, December 14, 2024
1:52

Marc Andreessen: Elon inspires incredible loyalty from his employees because they know he'll sit all night with them to solve a problem. “Elon actually delegates almost everything. He's not involved in most of the things that his companies are doing. He's involved in the thing that is the biggest problem right now until that thing is fixed. And then, he doesn't have to be involved in it anymore, he can go focus on the next thing that's the biggest problem for that company right now. In manufacturing, there's this concept of the bottleneck. In any manufacturing chain, there's always some bottleneck, something that is keeping the manufacturing line from running the way that it's supposed to. Whatever the bottleneck, it's holding everything up. The job number one is to remove that bottleneck and get everything flowing again. I think Elon basically has universalized that concept and he basically looks at every company like it's some sort of conceptual assembly line. I don't need to manage everything else because everything else, by definition, is running better than that. I can go focus on that. A lot of CEOs, especially non-technical CEOs, would really struggle to implement his method. When he identifies the bottleneck, he goes and he talks to the line engineers who understand the technical nature of the bottleneck. If it's people on a manufacturing line, he's talking to people directly on the line. Or if that's people in a software development group, he's talking to the people actually writing the code. He's not asking the VP of Engineering to ask the Director of Engineering to ask the manager to ask the individual contributor to write a report that's to be reviewed in three weeks. He doesn't do that. He would throw them all out of the window. There's just no way he would do that. He goes and personally finds the engineer who actually has the knowledge about the thing, and then he sits in the room with that engineer and fixes the problem with them. This is why he inspires such incredible loyalty, especially from the technical people who he works with. They're like, wow, if I'm up against a problem I don't know how to solve, freaking Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream jet, and he's going to sit with me overnight in front of the keyboard or in front of the manufacturing line, and he's going to help me figure this out.” Interview of Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 by Chris Williamson on Youtube, December 14, 2024

ELON CLIPS

7,403,087 views • 1 year ago

The effective way to get billionaires to toe the line, is to arrest and jail one of them. Russia had a problem billionaires who thought that they controlled Russia and the Kremlin. They had a feast during Yeltsin’s rule. Putin came to power and they believed they could do as they please. In the video below, a group of billionaires close their factories in protest. Putin called them to a meeting and forced them to reopen the factories. One particular billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at the time Russia’s wealthiest man, arrogantly believed that he could defy Putin and do as he pleased because of his wealth and influence. He was arrested and jailed for 11 years; and his companies expropriated by the State. Russia today has no people of rogue billionaires. We have a problem of rogue billionaires in this country, particularly the Oppenheimers. An investigation can find some criminal wrongdoing on them. It is important to make an example with one family that believes it runs affairs of this country. We won’t have a problem of “markets” in the future.
1:38

The effective way to get billionaires to toe the line, is to arrest and jail one of them. Russia had a problem billionaires who thought that they controlled Russia and the Kremlin. They had a feast during Yeltsin’s rule. Putin came to power and they believed they could do as they please. In the video below, a group of billionaires close their factories in protest. Putin called them to a meeting and forced them to reopen the factories. One particular billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at the time Russia’s wealthiest man, arrogantly believed that he could defy Putin and do as he pleased because of his wealth and influence. He was arrested and jailed for 11 years; and his companies expropriated by the State. Russia today has no people of rogue billionaires. We have a problem of rogue billionaires in this country, particularly the Oppenheimers. An investigation can find some criminal wrongdoing on them. It is important to make an example with one family that believes it runs affairs of this country. We won’t have a problem of “markets” in the future.

Sentletse 🇿🇦🇷🇺🇵🇸🇱🇧

206,063 views • 2 years ago

A guy was sitting in a trader chat complaining for the 3rd month straight about his results being basically zero Someone dropped him a link to a wallet 1 bot, $47K in a month, 860 trades per week. He asked: is this even legal? They replied: this is public data, you could have found it yourself Here is what is actually happening 93% of Polymarket users trade by hand. The other 7% automated the process, and they are the ones pulling $11K to $120K per month. And 5% of those 7 never wrote a single line of code. They just copy trades from top wallets through on-chain data The blockchain shows every trade from every account The bot does not sleep, does not tilt, and processes data faster than any human: This is not a question of talent. It is a question of tools. And the tools already exist. No need to build anything from scratch That guy from the chat is now in that 7%. All he did was stop clicking by hand
0:23

A guy was sitting in a trader chat complaining for the 3rd month straight about his results being basically zero Someone dropped him a link to a wallet 1 bot, $47K in a month, 860 trades per week. He asked: is this even legal? They replied: this is public data, you could have found it yourself Here is what is actually happening 93% of Polymarket users trade by hand. The other 7% automated the process, and they are the ones pulling $11K to $120K per month. And 5% of those 7 never wrote a single line of code. They just copy trades from top wallets through on-chain data The blockchain shows every trade from every account The bot does not sleep, does not tilt, and processes data faster than any human: This is not a question of talent. It is a question of tools. And the tools already exist. No need to build anything from scratch That guy from the chat is now in that 7%. All he did was stop clicking by hand

Blaze

36,941 views • 6 months ago

The exchange between Piers Morgan and Yuval Noah Harari reveals a chilling and deeply ideological vision for our future, straight from the mind of a leading WEF advisor. While acknowledging the potential dangers of AI in the hands of "rogue states," Harari's primary focus quickly shifted to a startlingly authoritarian fantasy. He lamented that historical dictators like Stalin were limited by a simple logistical problem: they didn't have enough human agents to monitor every citizen simultaneously. Harari then triumphantly declared that AI has now solved this problem for would-be tyrants. He explicitly stated that AI makes it possible to achieve the totalitarian dream of "following everybody and monitoring everybody all the time," eliminating the need for "millions of analysts" and "human agents." This is the stark revelation. An influential figure, celebrated by global elites, isn't just warning about AI—he is meticulously outlining how it can perfect the machinery of control. He frames it as a danger, yet his exposition reads like a blueprint. This is the intellectual framework being developed for the world's power brokers: the use of AI not to liberate, but to subjugate humanity on a scale previously unimaginable. The agenda is no longer hidden. It is being explained to us, calmly and clearly. The question is, are we listening?
1:17

The exchange between Piers Morgan and Yuval Noah Harari reveals a chilling and deeply ideological vision for our future, straight from the mind of a leading WEF advisor. While acknowledging the potential dangers of AI in the hands of "rogue states," Harari's primary focus quickly shifted to a startlingly authoritarian fantasy. He lamented that historical dictators like Stalin were limited by a simple logistical problem: they didn't have enough human agents to monitor every citizen simultaneously. Harari then triumphantly declared that AI has now solved this problem for would-be tyrants. He explicitly stated that AI makes it possible to achieve the totalitarian dream of "following everybody and monitoring everybody all the time," eliminating the need for "millions of analysts" and "human agents." This is the stark revelation. An influential figure, celebrated by global elites, isn't just warning about AI—he is meticulously outlining how it can perfect the machinery of control. He frames it as a danger, yet his exposition reads like a blueprint. This is the intellectual framework being developed for the world's power brokers: the use of AI not to liberate, but to subjugate humanity on a scale previously unimaginable. The agenda is no longer hidden. It is being explained to us, calmly and clearly. The question is, are we listening?

Camus

72,664 views • 11 months ago

One guy built this app in a month and now it makes him more than $1,000,000 a year. No team. No investors. No marketing department. One developer. One month. One clever idea. The app is a camera for events. In its first month it got 100,000 downloads and he did not spend a single dollar on ads. Here is how he did it because the most interesting part is the growth itself. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing itself. After that things kick in that almost nobody figures out. 1. You cannot use the app alone. For it to work the host has to pull every guest into it. Each install drags in dozens more right away. 2. One wedding is not one user but a whole crowd at once. 200 people scan one code in an evening and install the app. No ad brings that many for the same money and here the money is zero. 3. The guest becomes the host. He liked it at someone else's wedding and a month later he throws his own event and brings his own people. The loop spins itself and for free. 4. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift not some app forced on him. So they install it gladly and all of them do. 5. It all runs on emotion. A wedding. Memories. Shared shots. People film it and show their own people and a new wave comes in. Now let us count the money plain and honest. The subscription runs from 2 to 50 dollars. Say only every 20th person pays. That is 5,000 people out of 100,000. The average check a modest 20 dollars. 5,000 times 20 is 100,000 dollars a month. More than 3,000 a day. More than $1,000,000 a year. And all of this is one guy in a month without a single dollar on ads. He did not win on budget and not on a team. He won by sewing distribution into the very use of the product. You can lift almost any product this way. Could you build something like this on your own or is it just luck?
0:23

One guy built this app in a month and now it makes him more than $1,000,000 a year. No team. No investors. No marketing department. One developer. One month. One clever idea. The app is a camera for events. In its first month it got 100,000 downloads and he did not spend a single dollar on ads. Here is how he did it because the most interesting part is the growth itself. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing itself. After that things kick in that almost nobody figures out. 1. You cannot use the app alone. For it to work the host has to pull every guest into it. Each install drags in dozens more right away. 2. One wedding is not one user but a whole crowd at once. 200 people scan one code in an evening and install the app. No ad brings that many for the same money and here the money is zero. 3. The guest becomes the host. He liked it at someone else's wedding and a month later he throws his own event and brings his own people. The loop spins itself and for free. 4. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift not some app forced on him. So they install it gladly and all of them do. 5. It all runs on emotion. A wedding. Memories. Shared shots. People film it and show their own people and a new wave comes in. Now let us count the money plain and honest. The subscription runs from 2 to 50 dollars. Say only every 20th person pays. That is 5,000 people out of 100,000. The average check a modest 20 dollars. 5,000 times 20 is 100,000 dollars a month. More than 3,000 a day. More than $1,000,000 a year. And all of this is one guy in a month without a single dollar on ads. He did not win on budget and not on a team. He won by sewing distribution into the very use of the product. You can lift almost any product this way. Could you build something like this on your own or is it just luck?

Blaze

10,703 views • 1 month ago

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)
0:50

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 views • 7 months ago

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.
4:23

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.

Milk Road AI

67,868 views • 2 months ago

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “Why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does? The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it. To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization. What Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year. He attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him."
2:24

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “Why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does? The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it. To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization. What Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year. He attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him."

DogeDesigner

24,515 views • 6 months ago

This Scorpio N driver was on his way to an urgent destination where it was important for him to reach, but in the rush, he forgot to check the fuel level in his car. Halfway through the journey, the fuel ran out, causing the car to stop in the middle of the road. He became worried because reaching his destination was important, and no one was helping him. Then a young man arrived on a bike. The driver explained his problem to him. The biker started his Splendor, sat on the bike, and used one of his legs to push the nearly 2,000 kg Scorpio N all the way to a fuel station, helping the driver reach it. After refueling, the driver was able to continue his journey and complete his urgent work. A salute to the strength of the biker. Using only one leg while riding his bike, he managed to push such a big and heavy car all the way to the fuel station
0:31

This Scorpio N driver was on his way to an urgent destination where it was important for him to reach, but in the rush, he forgot to check the fuel level in his car. Halfway through the journey, the fuel ran out, causing the car to stop in the middle of the road. He became worried because reaching his destination was important, and no one was helping him. Then a young man arrived on a bike. The driver explained his problem to him. The biker started his Splendor, sat on the bike, and used one of his legs to push the nearly 2,000 kg Scorpio N all the way to a fuel station, helping the driver reach it. After refueling, the driver was able to continue his journey and complete his urgent work. A salute to the strength of the biker. Using only one leg while riding his bike, he managed to push such a big and heavy car all the way to the fuel station

Saffron Chargers

27,666 views • 1 month ago

this episode really cemented that luan nian’s already in love with her and, more importantly, he knows it. the problem is that knowing you love someone and allowing yourself to be vulnerable with them are two completely different things. this is a man who built his whole identity on control (of the room, of the brand, of his own face giving no emotion) and love is the one variable that doesn't respond to being managed. he knows he loves her. he just doesn't know how to do it without losing the version of himself that's never lost anything #theearlyspring.
0:27

this episode really cemented that luan nian’s already in love with her and, more importantly, he knows it. the problem is that knowing you love someone and allowing yourself to be vulnerable with them are two completely different things. this is a man who built his whole identity on control (of the room, of the brand, of his own face giving no emotion) and love is the one variable that doesn't respond to being managed. he knows he loves her. he just doesn't know how to do it without losing the version of himself that's never lost anything #theearlyspring.

nessa

12,154 views • 4 days ago

15-year-old American made $14,000 in his first month selling a service most marketers have never even heard of. Every time someone searches for a business on Google - the first thing they see is an AI response, not a website and not an ad. ChatGPT gives 5-6 recommendations and if a business isn't there - the customer goes to a competitor without a single click. His secret - AI visibility. He optimized local businesses to appear in ChatGPT responses, Google AI Overview and Meta AI instead of paying for ads that no longer work. He'd walk up to a business owner, show them that their business didn't appear in AI responses and ask if they wanted to fix it. Almost everyone said yes immediately. 8 clients at $800 in the first month, 20 clients in the second - because every satisfied client referred him to someone else. This isn't a marketing problem - it's a visibility problem. And he was the only one solving it in his city.
0:45

15-year-old American made $14,000 in his first month selling a service most marketers have never even heard of. Every time someone searches for a business on Google - the first thing they see is an AI response, not a website and not an ad. ChatGPT gives 5-6 recommendations and if a business isn't there - the customer goes to a competitor without a single click. His secret - AI visibility. He optimized local businesses to appear in ChatGPT responses, Google AI Overview and Meta AI instead of paying for ads that no longer work. He'd walk up to a business owner, show them that their business didn't appear in AI responses and ask if they wanted to fix it. Almost everyone said yes immediately. 8 clients at $800 in the first month, 20 clients in the second - because every satisfied client referred him to someone else. This isn't a marketing problem - it's a visibility problem. And he was the only one solving it in his city.

Noisy

43,115 views • 4 months ago

Father John Lydon on Pope Leo: in Peru, we lived together during a time of terrorism and an authoritarian government, and violations of human rights. And he was in the main plaza of our city gathering signatures in defense of human rights, in the plaza surrounded by government buildings. So this is not somebody who just woke up and decided, well, now is the time to speak about human rights. This is part of his identity… He's going to continue to speak up based on the moral principles of the church, because that's what he was elected to do. That's what all the popes are supposed to do
1:44

Father John Lydon on Pope Leo: in Peru, we lived together during a time of terrorism and an authoritarian government, and violations of human rights. And he was in the main plaza of our city gathering signatures in defense of human rights, in the plaza surrounded by government buildings. So this is not somebody who just woke up and decided, well, now is the time to speak about human rights. This is part of his identity… He's going to continue to speak up based on the moral principles of the church, because that's what he was elected to do. That's what all the popes are supposed to do

Acyn

546,424 views • 4 months ago

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “I think probably the single biggest question in all of business right now is: why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does?” "The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to fully, deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it." "To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization." "What Elon does is—he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year." "The side effect of it is—he attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him. Because if you work with Elon, the expectations are through the roof in terms of your level of performance." Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Chris Williamson
3:40

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “I think probably the single biggest question in all of business right now is: why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does?” "The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to fully, deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it." "To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization." "What Elon does is—he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year." "The side effect of it is—he attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him. Because if you work with Elon, the expectations are through the roof in terms of your level of performance." Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Chris Williamson

a16z

140,507 views • 7 months ago

"It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal" ~ Joaquin Phoenix. If anything is going to make you smile today, it will be this. An elderly man in the Philippines was filmed protecting his beloved dog from the rain. The tender way he cares for the dog to make sure he stays dry in the rain will melt your heart. The precious moment was captured by Alilee Shalom Galilee at a market in Davao City. The elderly man was getting ready to leave the market when it started to rain. The dog patiently sat in a basket attached to the front of the man’s bike. He retrieved a small hat from the rear basket of the bike. He placed it on the dog’s head and attached the strap to his bike. Shortly after, the man took out a plastic bag and tied it around the dog. Now that the dog was covered and no longer getting wet, he put his gloves on and got on his bike. With a push of the leg, they were off.
1:14

"It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal" ~ Joaquin Phoenix. If anything is going to make you smile today, it will be this. An elderly man in the Philippines was filmed protecting his beloved dog from the rain. The tender way he cares for the dog to make sure he stays dry in the rain will melt your heart. The precious moment was captured by Alilee Shalom Galilee at a market in Davao City. The elderly man was getting ready to leave the market when it started to rain. The dog patiently sat in a basket attached to the front of the man’s bike. He retrieved a small hat from the rear basket of the bike. He placed it on the dog’s head and attached the strap to his bike. Shortly after, the man took out a plastic bag and tied it around the dog. Now that the dog was covered and no longer getting wet, he put his gloves on and got on his bike. With a push of the leg, they were off.

Nature Is Beautiful 🐾 🦋🌏🌸

128,607 views • 3 years ago

"It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal" ~ Joaquin Phoenix. If anything is going to make you smile today, it will be this. An elderly man in the Philippines was filmed protecting his beloved dog from the rain. The tender way he cares for the dog to make sure he stays dry in the rain will melt your heart. The precious moment was captured by Alilee Shalom Galilee at a market in Davao City. The elderly man was getting ready to leave the market when it started to rain. The dog patiently sat in a basket attached to the front of the man’s bike. He retrieved a small hat from the rear basket of the bike. He placed it on the dog’s head and attached the strap to his bike. Shortly after, the man took out a plastic bag and tied it around the dog. Now that the dog was covered and no longer getting wet, he put his gloves on and got on his bike. With a push of the leg, they were off.
1:13

"It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal" ~ Joaquin Phoenix. If anything is going to make you smile today, it will be this. An elderly man in the Philippines was filmed protecting his beloved dog from the rain. The tender way he cares for the dog to make sure he stays dry in the rain will melt your heart. The precious moment was captured by Alilee Shalom Galilee at a market in Davao City. The elderly man was getting ready to leave the market when it started to rain. The dog patiently sat in a basket attached to the front of the man’s bike. He retrieved a small hat from the rear basket of the bike. He placed it on the dog’s head and attached the strap to his bike. Shortly after, the man took out a plastic bag and tied it around the dog. Now that the dog was covered and no longer getting wet, he put his gloves on and got on his bike. With a push of the leg, they were off.

Nature Is Beautiful 🐾 🦋🌏🌸

282,650 views • 3 years ago