Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

THIS IS REALLY SHOCKING!!!🤯 A new study found that the iPhone prevented more pregnancies than any contraceptive in history. It explains up to half of America’s entire fertility collapse. And the proof is undeniable. The US birth rate has fallen 22% since 2007. Economists spent two decades trying to...

EvanLuthra's profile picture

Evan Luthra

395,518 subscribers

41,275 views • 1 month 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

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."
4:24

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."

Ti Morse

47,497 views • 3 months ago

John Ternus, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering, explains why Apple deliberately made the iPhone harder to repair, and why the math says it was worth it: In a conversation with MKBHD, John frames the design challenge by asking you to imagine two extremes: "Sometimes for me I find it helpful to kind of think about the book ends. Like if you imagine a product that never fails, right? That just doesn't fail. And on the other end, a product that maybe isn't very reliable but is super easy to repair." His position is clear: "Product that never fails is obviously better for the customer. It's better for the environment." When pushed on whether infinite repairability and infinite durability have to be mutually exclusive, John acknowledges they aren't always, but explains why the tension is real, using the iPhone battery as an example. Batteries wear out. If you want to extend the life of the product, they need to be replaced. But in the early days of iPhone, one of the most common failures wasn't the battery, it was water: "Where you drop it in the pool or you, you know, spill your drink on it and the unit fails. And so, we've been making strides over all those years to get better and better and better in terms of minimizing those failures." That work led Apple to an IP68 rating, the point where customers fish their phones out of lakes after two weeks and find them still working. But there was a cost to achieving that level of durability: "To get the product there, you've got to design a lot of seals, adhesives, other things to make it perform that way, which makes it a little harder to do that battery repair." That's the deliberate tradeoff. Apple chose tighter seals and stronger adhesives, knowing it would make battery replacement more difficult, because the reliability gains were worth it. John argues the math backs this decision: "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability and it's ultimately better for the planet because the failure rates since we got to that point have just dropped. It's plummeted, right? The number of repairs that need to happen and every time you're doing a repair, you're bringing in new materials to replace whatever broke." His conclusion reframes the entire repairability debate: "You can actually do the math and figure out there's a threshold at which if I can make it this durable, then it's better to have it a little bit harder to repair because it's going to net out."
2:27

John Ternus, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering, explains why Apple deliberately made the iPhone harder to repair, and why the math says it was worth it: In a conversation with MKBHD, John frames the design challenge by asking you to imagine two extremes: "Sometimes for me I find it helpful to kind of think about the book ends. Like if you imagine a product that never fails, right? That just doesn't fail. And on the other end, a product that maybe isn't very reliable but is super easy to repair." His position is clear: "Product that never fails is obviously better for the customer. It's better for the environment." When pushed on whether infinite repairability and infinite durability have to be mutually exclusive, John acknowledges they aren't always, but explains why the tension is real, using the iPhone battery as an example. Batteries wear out. If you want to extend the life of the product, they need to be replaced. But in the early days of iPhone, one of the most common failures wasn't the battery, it was water: "Where you drop it in the pool or you, you know, spill your drink on it and the unit fails. And so, we've been making strides over all those years to get better and better and better in terms of minimizing those failures." That work led Apple to an IP68 rating, the point where customers fish their phones out of lakes after two weeks and find them still working. But there was a cost to achieving that level of durability: "To get the product there, you've got to design a lot of seals, adhesives, other things to make it perform that way, which makes it a little harder to do that battery repair." That's the deliberate tradeoff. Apple chose tighter seals and stronger adhesives, knowing it would make battery replacement more difficult, because the reliability gains were worth it. John argues the math backs this decision: "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability and it's ultimately better for the planet because the failure rates since we got to that point have just dropped. It's plummeted, right? The number of repairs that need to happen and every time you're doing a repair, you're bringing in new materials to replace whatever broke." His conclusion reframes the entire repairability debate: "You can actually do the math and figure out there's a threshold at which if I can make it this durable, then it's better to have it a little bit harder to repair because it's going to net out."

Big Brain Business

385,397 views • 2 months ago

Q: What made Steve Jobs great? Tony Fadell is the co-creator of the iPod, iPhone, and Nest. In the clip below, he describes some of the things that made Steve Jobs great: “Really pushing you. Relentless on the details. Challenging you for the right reasons. It wasn’t bullying, it wasn’t demeaning. He would critique the work, not judge the person—at least not in front of them or a group. Extreme attention to detail.” But, as Tony describes, one of the most impressive things about Steve was his ability to make great opinion-based decisions, which is critical for any revolutionary product: “When you make the first version of anything—something revolutionary—there are a lot of opinion-based decisions… And when you have those opinions, and you’re trying to work with a team to implement those decisions, you have to really tell the ‘why’ of those decisions. That way everyone can feel like they’re a part of those decisions and understand the tradeoffs... A lot of times, people want a data-driven decision, but with v1s you don’t have data.” He continues: “If you look at most companies that are paralyzed and cannot make new innovations and new products, it’s because they’re trying to turn opinion-based decisions into data-driven decisions so that they don’t lose their jobs… with a v1 product, you need to be able to articulate opinion-based decisions and own them. If you don’t get them right, you own them, fix them, and move on.” This is something Steve did exceptionally well, and Tony highlights the iPhone’s virtual keyboard as an example. At the time, the Blackberry dominated the productivity phone market. It was called the “crackberry” for a reason: people loved it. Moving to a virtual keyboard that wouldn’t work as well was an opinion-based decision that was the exact opposite of what the market data said. But Steve explained to the team that the iPhone was going to be a productivity AND entertainment device. Videos, apps, and the web browser would need to be full screen. Half of the device can’t be a keyboard because you won’t need a keyboard for everything you do. Steve understood that the Blackberry was a productivity device where the primary use case was messaging and phone calls. The iPhone was going to be so much more, and he explained this ‘why’ to the team in a way that everyone could understand. Tony also shares an example of how Jobs would also reverse an opinion-based decision if the data convinced him that his underlying assumptions were wrong. This ability to make great opinion-based decisions is paramount for creating revolutionary products. And as Tony explains, Steve might’ve been the best in the world at it.
6:16

Q: What made Steve Jobs great? Tony Fadell is the co-creator of the iPod, iPhone, and Nest. In the clip below, he describes some of the things that made Steve Jobs great: “Really pushing you. Relentless on the details. Challenging you for the right reasons. It wasn’t bullying, it wasn’t demeaning. He would critique the work, not judge the person—at least not in front of them or a group. Extreme attention to detail.” But, as Tony describes, one of the most impressive things about Steve was his ability to make great opinion-based decisions, which is critical for any revolutionary product: “When you make the first version of anything—something revolutionary—there are a lot of opinion-based decisions… And when you have those opinions, and you’re trying to work with a team to implement those decisions, you have to really tell the ‘why’ of those decisions. That way everyone can feel like they’re a part of those decisions and understand the tradeoffs... A lot of times, people want a data-driven decision, but with v1s you don’t have data.” He continues: “If you look at most companies that are paralyzed and cannot make new innovations and new products, it’s because they’re trying to turn opinion-based decisions into data-driven decisions so that they don’t lose their jobs… with a v1 product, you need to be able to articulate opinion-based decisions and own them. If you don’t get them right, you own them, fix them, and move on.” This is something Steve did exceptionally well, and Tony highlights the iPhone’s virtual keyboard as an example. At the time, the Blackberry dominated the productivity phone market. It was called the “crackberry” for a reason: people loved it. Moving to a virtual keyboard that wouldn’t work as well was an opinion-based decision that was the exact opposite of what the market data said. But Steve explained to the team that the iPhone was going to be a productivity AND entertainment device. Videos, apps, and the web browser would need to be full screen. Half of the device can’t be a keyboard because you won’t need a keyboard for everything you do. Steve understood that the Blackberry was a productivity device where the primary use case was messaging and phone calls. The iPhone was going to be so much more, and he explained this ‘why’ to the team in a way that everyone could understand. Tony also shares an example of how Jobs would also reverse an opinion-based decision if the data convinced him that his underlying assumptions were wrong. This ability to make great opinion-based decisions is paramount for creating revolutionary products. And as Tony explains, Steve might’ve been the best in the world at it.

Michael McGuiness

36,083 views • 2 years ago

With Tim Cook stepping down, most people are talking about the iPhone, the App Store, and the stock price. But there is one move he made that almost nobody talks about and it is the single biggest reason iPhone crushed its competition in the early years. In 2005, two years before the iPhone launched, Cook made a bet. Flash storage was still relatively rare at the time and smartphones didn't exist yet. But Cook saw what was coming, a future where mobile devices would all need flash memory and he knew that if that future arrived without Apple having locked up supply, they'd be fighting for components against every phone maker on earth. So he prepaid $1.25B to suppliers including Samsung and Hynix to corner the market on NAND flash memory through 2010. The contract had a catch, suppliers had to prioritize Apple's orders over everyone else's. This was a massive gamble and if the iPhone flopped, Apple was still on the hook for the full purchase commitment. The iPhone did not flop. It went on to sell tens of millions of units in its first two years with zero supply chain slowdowns. And while Apple scaled freely, competitors couldn't get the components they needed to build a credible response. They were literally locked out of the supply chain. The move was so effective that Cook ran the same playbook across the business. He bought $100 million of holiday season air freight capacity in advance, months before competitors thought to book it, leaving rivals scrambling to ship products during the most critical sales window of the year. He cut Apple's component suppliers from 100 down to 24 and slashed inventory turnover time from 30 days to 6 days within his first seven months at the company. By 2012, Apple was turning over its inventory every 5 day, Dell took 10, Samsung took 21. Jobs is credited as the product visionary but Cook was the supply chain visionary and in the early smartphone wars, the supply chain was the moat.
1:27

With Tim Cook stepping down, most people are talking about the iPhone, the App Store, and the stock price. But there is one move he made that almost nobody talks about and it is the single biggest reason iPhone crushed its competition in the early years. In 2005, two years before the iPhone launched, Cook made a bet. Flash storage was still relatively rare at the time and smartphones didn't exist yet. But Cook saw what was coming, a future where mobile devices would all need flash memory and he knew that if that future arrived without Apple having locked up supply, they'd be fighting for components against every phone maker on earth. So he prepaid $1.25B to suppliers including Samsung and Hynix to corner the market on NAND flash memory through 2010. The contract had a catch, suppliers had to prioritize Apple's orders over everyone else's. This was a massive gamble and if the iPhone flopped, Apple was still on the hook for the full purchase commitment. The iPhone did not flop. It went on to sell tens of millions of units in its first two years with zero supply chain slowdowns. And while Apple scaled freely, competitors couldn't get the components they needed to build a credible response. They were literally locked out of the supply chain. The move was so effective that Cook ran the same playbook across the business. He bought $100 million of holiday season air freight capacity in advance, months before competitors thought to book it, leaving rivals scrambling to ship products during the most critical sales window of the year. He cut Apple's component suppliers from 100 down to 24 and slashed inventory turnover time from 30 days to 6 days within his first seven months at the company. By 2012, Apple was turning over its inventory every 5 day, Dell took 10, Samsung took 21. Jobs is credited as the product visionary but Cook was the supply chain visionary and in the early smartphone wars, the supply chain was the moat.

Milk Road AI

78,952 views • 2 months ago

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.
2:34

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.

DepressedBergman

33,114 views • 1 month ago

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff
3:36

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff

Wall Street Mav

98,990 views • 3 months ago

🚨Hurricane Helene victim SLAMS the local and federal government. “It’s weird to me that some 50-some-odd-year-old guy, in the middle of a disaster, has to reach out to the American government to explain to them, ‘Hey, you have resources. You have people who want to help, and you really do have the capacity to do it. Uncle Sam, you can do it.’ This is despicable. Joe, Kamala, do you know you have a military? Do you know that we have spent trillions of dollars on it, and that we can, at the drop of a hat, invade any country in the world, flatten them, and rebuild them? We’ve done it lots of times. Read a history book. Why can’t you use those same resources that we’ve already paid for, here, now? Where are you? I understand there was a vacation you needed to take, Joe, and Kamala, you had some fundraising for your campaign. Suspend that shit and get in here!”
10:00

🚨Hurricane Helene victim SLAMS the local and federal government. “It’s weird to me that some 50-some-odd-year-old guy, in the middle of a disaster, has to reach out to the American government to explain to them, ‘Hey, you have resources. You have people who want to help, and you really do have the capacity to do it. Uncle Sam, you can do it.’ This is despicable. Joe, Kamala, do you know you have a military? Do you know that we have spent trillions of dollars on it, and that we can, at the drop of a hat, invade any country in the world, flatten them, and rebuild them? We’ve done it lots of times. Read a history book. Why can’t you use those same resources that we’ve already paid for, here, now? Where are you? I understand there was a vacation you needed to take, Joe, and Kamala, you had some fundraising for your campaign. Suspend that shit and get in here!”

I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

146,561 views • 1 year ago

I'm pleased to hear that worship at IHOPKC will continue. Here are a few PERSONAL reflections on why: My relationship with Lord was forever changed by the devotion and maturity of the worship in the GPR. The road that led me to IHOPKC about 8 years ago was sovereign, so I have always cherished it. The Lord brought me there to drink, to heal, to learn as he has done with thousands of others. Every time I visited something new was awoken (or maybe unlocked) deep inside me. It was sacred. Physically being in the GPR washed me with the word in a way that wasn't happening back at my home church. I had the luxury of coming and going, but I eventually saw behind the curtain. I saw how hard the day to day was for those who lived and served there. I learned of dreams that people put on hold to "keep the fire burning". I remember even feeling slightly guilty when I encouraged people to care for themselves and take a season off from the GPR to pursue passions. I learned of the financial pressures and didn't always agree with what felt like a "God's got it" approach to oversight. But I also wasn't surprised by those costs. They weren't unique based on what I have seen in the Church. Following Jesus is hard. We are broken. And demons are assigned to sabotage the prayer movement and prophetic voices. As time went on, I found myself desiring for others outside the IHOPKC bubble to experience how the worship in the GPR was different. That manifested in a few ways... One of them was a short film I directed and produced a few years ago when I was part of Arrowhead Music. (see below) The night we shot this film, the GPR had been temporarily moved to another sanctuary on the missions base, which gave an opportunity for Laura to worship alone. It felt providential and holy to me. When the film was later released, we were told that playlist editors at YouTube had it on repeat in their corporate offices in New York City. Spotify selected the title track "Shalom" to be featured as the top song on their worship playlist. Most people at IHOP didn't even know and it wasn't celebrated amongst the community like I thought it should have been. BUT to me, it proved that the worship cultivated at IHOPKC (though no more or less important than anyone else's worship) was distinct and could serve as a model. I still believe that. The abuse allegations and crisis around broader issues at IHOPKC were heartbreaking, no matter how you look at it. This is not a commentary on those issues. I understand why many decided to leave in the past 8 months, but no one will ever be able to convince me that what you will see in this film is in some way wrong. For those that are in disagreement that the House of Prayer still stands, I encourage you to trust the Lord to flush out any remaining impurities. Raise your concerns if you must, but do it biblically. I’m sharing this film, "THE SECRET PLACE", in hopes that it will serve as a reminder of the goodness and beauty that comes out of the prayer room. Join me in praying for our brothers and sisters who have decided to stay and continue to serve. Pray for the ministry to be fully funded, healthy, vibrant, and more fruitful then ever before! #ihopkc 🙏
20:27

I'm pleased to hear that worship at IHOPKC will continue. Here are a few PERSONAL reflections on why: My relationship with Lord was forever changed by the devotion and maturity of the worship in the GPR. The road that led me to IHOPKC about 8 years ago was sovereign, so I have always cherished it. The Lord brought me there to drink, to heal, to learn as he has done with thousands of others. Every time I visited something new was awoken (or maybe unlocked) deep inside me. It was sacred. Physically being in the GPR washed me with the word in a way that wasn't happening back at my home church. I had the luxury of coming and going, but I eventually saw behind the curtain. I saw how hard the day to day was for those who lived and served there. I learned of dreams that people put on hold to "keep the fire burning". I remember even feeling slightly guilty when I encouraged people to care for themselves and take a season off from the GPR to pursue passions. I learned of the financial pressures and didn't always agree with what felt like a "God's got it" approach to oversight. But I also wasn't surprised by those costs. They weren't unique based on what I have seen in the Church. Following Jesus is hard. We are broken. And demons are assigned to sabotage the prayer movement and prophetic voices. As time went on, I found myself desiring for others outside the IHOPKC bubble to experience how the worship in the GPR was different. That manifested in a few ways... One of them was a short film I directed and produced a few years ago when I was part of Arrowhead Music. (see below) The night we shot this film, the GPR had been temporarily moved to another sanctuary on the missions base, which gave an opportunity for Laura to worship alone. It felt providential and holy to me. When the film was later released, we were told that playlist editors at YouTube had it on repeat in their corporate offices in New York City. Spotify selected the title track "Shalom" to be featured as the top song on their worship playlist. Most people at IHOP didn't even know and it wasn't celebrated amongst the community like I thought it should have been. BUT to me, it proved that the worship cultivated at IHOPKC (though no more or less important than anyone else's worship) was distinct and could serve as a model. I still believe that. The abuse allegations and crisis around broader issues at IHOPKC were heartbreaking, no matter how you look at it. This is not a commentary on those issues. I understand why many decided to leave in the past 8 months, but no one will ever be able to convince me that what you will see in this film is in some way wrong. For those that are in disagreement that the House of Prayer still stands, I encourage you to trust the Lord to flush out any remaining impurities. Raise your concerns if you must, but do it biblically. I’m sharing this film, "THE SECRET PLACE", in hopes that it will serve as a reminder of the goodness and beauty that comes out of the prayer room. Join me in praying for our brothers and sisters who have decided to stay and continue to serve. Pray for the ministry to be fully funded, healthy, vibrant, and more fruitful then ever before! #ihopkc 🙏

Eric Volz

13,120 views • 2 years ago

One of the most astonishing attempts at projecting grandiose delusions I’ve ever seen—“so [Obama] tried to bribe them to make a deal… 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing…” Trump bribed Iran with $324 billion. And got nothing for it. “And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers, and they won't have nuclear weapons, which is what I was all about, because they probably would have used it if they had it. So we had two big moments when they terminated the JCPOA, that was the Obama deal, the Barrack Hussein Obama deal, and when I terminated that, it was very important because it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7, well, not a 7, 7, 57, I guess, right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747 to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran, and on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was made. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal that didn't work. It never works. And that we lived on a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't know if it's going to be necessary. The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of success to the world, because the oil was really plugged up there for a while. They would call me on occasion, "See, come on, please. Let's go." The oil prices. But the oil is coming way down.”
1:39

One of the most astonishing attempts at projecting grandiose delusions I’ve ever seen—“so [Obama] tried to bribe them to make a deal… 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing…” Trump bribed Iran with $324 billion. And got nothing for it. “And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers, and they won't have nuclear weapons, which is what I was all about, because they probably would have used it if they had it. So we had two big moments when they terminated the JCPOA, that was the Obama deal, the Barrack Hussein Obama deal, and when I terminated that, it was very important because it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7, well, not a 7, 7, 57, I guess, right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747 to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran, and on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was made. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal that didn't work. It never works. And that we lived on a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't know if it's going to be necessary. The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of success to the world, because the oil was really plugged up there for a while. They would call me on occasion, "See, come on, please. Let's go." The oil prices. But the oil is coming way down.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

31,416 views • 1 month ago

A lot of people assume that declining birth rates are mainly due to college-educated women delaying motherhood. The idea is that they put off having kids for too long, run out of time, and end up having fewer children than they originally wanted. That’s why so many policy solutions focus on things like tax breaks and subsidized childcare—to make it easier for women to balance careers and family life. But that’s not really what’s happening. It’s true that college-educated women are having kids a bit later, but not by much. In the U.S., the average age at which these women have their first child has only gone up from 28 in 2000 to 30 today. And they’re still having about as many kids as their peers did a generation ago—just slightly fewer than what they say would be ideal, which has always been the case. The real driver of declining fertility rates in wealthy countries isn’t professional women—it’s younger, poorer women who are delaying childbirth and ultimately having fewer kids. In the U.S., more than half of the drop in fertility since 1990 comes from a sharp decline in births among teenagers. Part of that is because more of them are going to college. But even among those who don’t, birth rates are down. In 1994, the average first-time mother without a college degree was 20. Now, about two-thirds of women without degrees in their 20s still haven’t had their first child.
0:43

A lot of people assume that declining birth rates are mainly due to college-educated women delaying motherhood. The idea is that they put off having kids for too long, run out of time, and end up having fewer children than they originally wanted. That’s why so many policy solutions focus on things like tax breaks and subsidized childcare—to make it easier for women to balance careers and family life. But that’s not really what’s happening. It’s true that college-educated women are having kids a bit later, but not by much. In the U.S., the average age at which these women have their first child has only gone up from 28 in 2000 to 30 today. And they’re still having about as many kids as their peers did a generation ago—just slightly fewer than what they say would be ideal, which has always been the case. The real driver of declining fertility rates in wealthy countries isn’t professional women—it’s younger, poorer women who are delaying childbirth and ultimately having fewer kids. In the U.S., more than half of the drop in fertility since 1990 comes from a sharp decline in births among teenagers. Part of that is because more of them are going to college. But even among those who don’t, birth rates are down. In 1994, the average first-time mother without a college degree was 20. Now, about two-thirds of women without degrees in their 20s still haven’t had their first child.

Rob Henderson

534,981 views • 1 year ago

If you want an inside look to the major battle over the next 10-20 years, this is it Civilization isn't inherent You can't put a bunch of humans into a room and say "do whatever you want" and have civilization arise It's an emergent property of assortive pairing, when the majority of women procreate above replacement levels and the majority of men have a purpose for sacrificing themselves to do meaningful labor towards society The reverse of this is what Japan is facing - labor shortages and collapsing economy and birth rates The problem of course is that women only value first order effects, eg. whatever is fun/good right now. Feminism effectively coded this as a legal requirement So now in order to get to the 2nd order effect of having a stable society where women are able to be at their happiest you have to convince the group not capable of understanding this to give up their fun The only way it was ever done in every nation, in every religious doctrine, was to mandate it on women and make it the social norm Women are happiest when noble men make decisions for them, even if they vehemently disagree HT hoe_math for breaking this down so well
5:50

If you want an inside look to the major battle over the next 10-20 years, this is it Civilization isn't inherent You can't put a bunch of humans into a room and say "do whatever you want" and have civilization arise It's an emergent property of assortive pairing, when the majority of women procreate above replacement levels and the majority of men have a purpose for sacrificing themselves to do meaningful labor towards society The reverse of this is what Japan is facing - labor shortages and collapsing economy and birth rates The problem of course is that women only value first order effects, eg. whatever is fun/good right now. Feminism effectively coded this as a legal requirement So now in order to get to the 2nd order effect of having a stable society where women are able to be at their happiest you have to convince the group not capable of understanding this to give up their fun The only way it was ever done in every nation, in every religious doctrine, was to mandate it on women and make it the social norm Women are happiest when noble men make decisions for them, even if they vehemently disagree HT hoe_math for breaking this down so well

Brotherhood

87,983 views • 1 year ago

In Ancient Rome, an "office" wasn't a building, it was a person's staff. The word comes from “officium”, referring to a magistrate's retinue of aides and administrators, each one called an officialis. If you held real authority, your "office" was the group of people around you handling correspondence, records, and logistics on your behalf. This wasn't a small operation. Surviving records like the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman administrative document, list out the staffing structures for provincial governors and military commanders in detail: ranks, roles, and reporting lines not far off from a modern org chart. Coordination happened the only way it could: in person, in the same building, one conversation at a time. It wasn't until the word crossed into English in the 1200s that "office" started to mean a place instead of a role, and even later before it came to mean the literal room or building we picture today. For most of its history, the word wasn't about where you worked. It was about who was working with you.
5:37

In Ancient Rome, an "office" wasn't a building, it was a person's staff. The word comes from “officium”, referring to a magistrate's retinue of aides and administrators, each one called an officialis. If you held real authority, your "office" was the group of people around you handling correspondence, records, and logistics on your behalf. This wasn't a small operation. Surviving records like the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman administrative document, list out the staffing structures for provincial governors and military commanders in detail: ranks, roles, and reporting lines not far off from a modern org chart. Coordination happened the only way it could: in person, in the same building, one conversation at a time. It wasn't until the word crossed into English in the 1200s that "office" started to mean a place instead of a role, and even later before it came to mean the literal room or building we picture today. For most of its history, the word wasn't about where you worked. It was about who was working with you.

Historic Vids

165,648 views • 2 days ago

Full 10 Min Report, Experts CONFIRM Barack Obama Birth Certificate is FAKE Obama’s Presidency Was A Fraud & Has “9 Points Of Forgery” Everything Obama Did Should Be Undone “Today you're going to hear lots of information that some of you are going to understand and going to be able to tell the true story. In fact, please know that this is a very technical, but the evidence is clear if you'll pay attention. Please note you're going to hear about two separate experts. These experts are two separate continents with no knowledge of each other and they draw similar conclusions. Again, that said, I know some of you are going to get this story and are going to tell the story the way it was.” —- “We and anyone else who dared to question the document have been the line falsely labeled grossly criticized in the bulk of the media on certain internet sources for years. Today we're going to set the record straight. I believe you will be shocked by what you hear and see today.” —- “Like the sheriff just told you, when you conduct criminal investigations, you have to let the evidence lead you. You never lead the evidence. And in doing this, my motive was to clear the document. Because to be quite honest with you, I didn't believe it. I didn't believe this was possible. I didn't think this would ever happen in this nation. I didn't believe it.” — “Back in 2012, I told you about Reed Hayes, a document examiner. Let me tell you about Reed Hayes, a man with 40 years, since 1974, 40 plus years of experience in examining forensic document, handwriting, a man who's well respected in his expertise, a court recognized expert, a document examiner. He is the man you go to when somebody gives you a bad check with a bad signature. This is the guy you run to. — Mr. Hayes told me right off the bat, I'm an Obama supporter. I voted for him twice. He goes, and I will never do anything to hurt the President of the United States. What I had said to him was, Reed, I am not asking you to hurt the President of the United States. I'm asking you to take a look at this document and clear it and tell me there's nothing wrong with it. Would you at least do that? And he took a look at it. And when he called me back, he told me, Mike.” “I can't clear this, there's something wrong with it." And I asked him, I said, Reed, would you continue? I said, I know your position, but would you continue? And his answer to me was, this is what I do. I'll look at it, I'll do it. That's a man of integrity, respecting what his ability is to get to the truth. Because for Sheriff Apoyo and myself, this was never about Barack Obama. This is about a document. You take that document and you remove the name, Barack Hussein Obama, and put your name on there. If it was your document and it was brought to us, we would do the same thing with this document.” — You are looking at two long-form birth certificates from the state of Hawaii. According to the dates on the certificates, these births took place in Honolulu during the month of August of 1961, just 16 days apart. The birth certificate on the left belongs to Barack Obama. The birth certificate on the right belongs to Johanna Ane. After five years of intense investigation, which included consultation with one of America's most respected forensic document examiners, and a team of European media forensic experts, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has reached a conclusion utilizing forensic techniques both old and new. It is the opinion of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that the birth certificate on your right, belonging to Johanna Ani, was in fact used as a source document in the digital creation of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. Nine points of forgery in which words, letters, and hand-placed date stamps have been digitally copied from the Adneid long-form birth certificate and pasted onto Obama's long-form birth certificate” They COULD NOT clear the document. Much more info in this video if you watch it all
10:00

Full 10 Min Report, Experts CONFIRM Barack Obama Birth Certificate is FAKE Obama’s Presidency Was A Fraud & Has “9 Points Of Forgery” Everything Obama Did Should Be Undone “Today you're going to hear lots of information that some of you are going to understand and going to be able to tell the true story. In fact, please know that this is a very technical, but the evidence is clear if you'll pay attention. Please note you're going to hear about two separate experts. These experts are two separate continents with no knowledge of each other and they draw similar conclusions. Again, that said, I know some of you are going to get this story and are going to tell the story the way it was.” —- “We and anyone else who dared to question the document have been the line falsely labeled grossly criticized in the bulk of the media on certain internet sources for years. Today we're going to set the record straight. I believe you will be shocked by what you hear and see today.” —- “Like the sheriff just told you, when you conduct criminal investigations, you have to let the evidence lead you. You never lead the evidence. And in doing this, my motive was to clear the document. Because to be quite honest with you, I didn't believe it. I didn't believe this was possible. I didn't think this would ever happen in this nation. I didn't believe it.” — “Back in 2012, I told you about Reed Hayes, a document examiner. Let me tell you about Reed Hayes, a man with 40 years, since 1974, 40 plus years of experience in examining forensic document, handwriting, a man who's well respected in his expertise, a court recognized expert, a document examiner. He is the man you go to when somebody gives you a bad check with a bad signature. This is the guy you run to. — Mr. Hayes told me right off the bat, I'm an Obama supporter. I voted for him twice. He goes, and I will never do anything to hurt the President of the United States. What I had said to him was, Reed, I am not asking you to hurt the President of the United States. I'm asking you to take a look at this document and clear it and tell me there's nothing wrong with it. Would you at least do that? And he took a look at it. And when he called me back, he told me, Mike.” “I can't clear this, there's something wrong with it." And I asked him, I said, Reed, would you continue? I said, I know your position, but would you continue? And his answer to me was, this is what I do. I'll look at it, I'll do it. That's a man of integrity, respecting what his ability is to get to the truth. Because for Sheriff Apoyo and myself, this was never about Barack Obama. This is about a document. You take that document and you remove the name, Barack Hussein Obama, and put your name on there. If it was your document and it was brought to us, we would do the same thing with this document.” — You are looking at two long-form birth certificates from the state of Hawaii. According to the dates on the certificates, these births took place in Honolulu during the month of August of 1961, just 16 days apart. The birth certificate on the left belongs to Barack Obama. The birth certificate on the right belongs to Johanna Ane. After five years of intense investigation, which included consultation with one of America's most respected forensic document examiners, and a team of European media forensic experts, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has reached a conclusion utilizing forensic techniques both old and new. It is the opinion of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that the birth certificate on your right, belonging to Johanna Ani, was in fact used as a source document in the digital creation of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. Nine points of forgery in which words, letters, and hand-placed date stamps have been digitally copied from the Adneid long-form birth certificate and pasted onto Obama's long-form birth certificate” They COULD NOT clear the document. Much more info in this video if you watch it all

Wall Street Apes

2,525,789 views • 2 years ago

Putin on Japan's demographic decline: Former Japanese PM asked if maybe their sperm is different? I told him, it’s not about sperm, it’s about society. Young people under 35 lack friends and don’t want them. That’s why birth rates are low. Elon Musk Putin on the reasons for demographic decline: "I was once talking to our former ambassador to Japan during a drive, and I asked him why the situation is like this, including the birth rate. He said that young people under 35 don’t have friends and don’t want them. That’s a big part of why birth rates are low. One of the former Japanese prime ministers said to me while we were having sake, 'Maybe our sperm is different?' I told him, ‘What does sperm have to do with it?’ The reality is that things are quite similar everywhere. The problem is in the state of society."
1:00

Putin on Japan's demographic decline: Former Japanese PM asked if maybe their sperm is different? I told him, it’s not about sperm, it’s about society. Young people under 35 lack friends and don’t want them. That’s why birth rates are low. Elon Musk Putin on the reasons for demographic decline: "I was once talking to our former ambassador to Japan during a drive, and I asked him why the situation is like this, including the birth rate. He said that young people under 35 don’t have friends and don’t want them. That’s a big part of why birth rates are low. One of the former Japanese prime ministers said to me while we were having sake, 'Maybe our sperm is different?' I told him, ‘What does sperm have to do with it?’ The reality is that things are quite similar everywhere. The problem is in the state of society."

Russian Market

150,648 views • 9 months ago

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on why the iPhone, the greatest consumer device ever made, is the wrong hardware for the AI era: Sam argues the iPhone's basic design wasn't made for a world where AI needs to live alongside your entire life. "I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done." The iPhone was designed for a pre-AI world. Sam Altman explains: "It was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket, but it's kind of like on or off." That binary, on or off, in use or in your pocket, is the core mismatch. A device that flips between active and dormant can't continuously absorb the context that a personal AGI would need to actually be useful to you. Sam uses the conversation he's having in that moment as the example: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenced by my personal AGI later, but my phone is in my pocket and it's not going to understand." The vision he's pointing toward is a device that participates differently: "I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation." The shift Sam is describing is from a device you pick up and put down, to one that quietly captures the context of your life. Without that continuous context, a personal AGI can't actually be personal.
0:44

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on why the iPhone, the greatest consumer device ever made, is the wrong hardware for the AI era: Sam argues the iPhone's basic design wasn't made for a world where AI needs to live alongside your entire life. "I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done." The iPhone was designed for a pre-AI world. Sam Altman explains: "It was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket, but it's kind of like on or off." That binary, on or off, in use or in your pocket, is the core mismatch. A device that flips between active and dormant can't continuously absorb the context that a personal AGI would need to actually be useful to you. Sam uses the conversation he's having in that moment as the example: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenced by my personal AGI later, but my phone is in my pocket and it's not going to understand." The vision he's pointing toward is a device that participates differently: "I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation." The shift Sam is describing is from a device you pick up and put down, to one that quietly captures the context of your life. Without that continuous context, a personal AGI can't actually be personal.

Big Brain AI

25,447 views • 2 months ago

The Grace of White Privilege So don’t waste your whiteness. If you were born into this world with this particular privilege, then it is your solemn obligation to be a good steward of that privilege. This, mind you, is privilege in God’s world, not privilege in that pretendy world of the envious, where carping and clawing are the rule, and where every privilege is assumed to be obtained at the expense of somebody else. If it is actual privilege, then a Christian has the responsibility to steward it with a grateful spirit of noblesse oblige. And of course noblesse oblige that is patronizing or supercilious isn’t noblesse oblige at all. However, if it is the faux-sin of whiteness that the guilt-mongers are hurling at you, then you have the responsibility to just laugh at them and go on your way. And a black man with privileges that I don’t have, but who has the same spirit of gratitude, should do exactly the same thing. We serve the same kind God, and we are not chafed by anything that God decided to give to somebody else. If God has given you something, then you must not accuse Him of being a hard master, and then go off and bury it in a handkerchief (Luke 19:10). Although, actually, if we want to keep this parable current with the times, that worthless servant would have to go off to some designated safety zone at his college, wrap his whiteness in a handkerchief, give it to the trained counselor, and spend a soothing hour coloring pictures of the therapy puppies. But the reason the master judges him out of his own mouth in this retold parable is because he didn’t put his whiteness in the handkerchief at all. That entire hour was suffused in whiteness, from the ceiling to the floor, from the front door to the back door, and included the therapist, the coloring books, all the woke business, the hurt feelings, the appropriation of victimhood, the lot. He couldn’t have spent a whiter hour than if he had gone off to the Benjamin Moore factory to dive head first into a vat of White Diamond OC-61.
15:55

The Grace of White Privilege So don’t waste your whiteness. If you were born into this world with this particular privilege, then it is your solemn obligation to be a good steward of that privilege. This, mind you, is privilege in God’s world, not privilege in that pretendy world of the envious, where carping and clawing are the rule, and where every privilege is assumed to be obtained at the expense of somebody else. If it is actual privilege, then a Christian has the responsibility to steward it with a grateful spirit of noblesse oblige. And of course noblesse oblige that is patronizing or supercilious isn’t noblesse oblige at all. However, if it is the faux-sin of whiteness that the guilt-mongers are hurling at you, then you have the responsibility to just laugh at them and go on your way. And a black man with privileges that I don’t have, but who has the same spirit of gratitude, should do exactly the same thing. We serve the same kind God, and we are not chafed by anything that God decided to give to somebody else. If God has given you something, then you must not accuse Him of being a hard master, and then go off and bury it in a handkerchief (Luke 19:10). Although, actually, if we want to keep this parable current with the times, that worthless servant would have to go off to some designated safety zone at his college, wrap his whiteness in a handkerchief, give it to the trained counselor, and spend a soothing hour coloring pictures of the therapy puppies. But the reason the master judges him out of his own mouth in this retold parable is because he didn’t put his whiteness in the handkerchief at all. That entire hour was suffused in whiteness, from the ceiling to the floor, from the front door to the back door, and included the therapist, the coloring books, all the woke business, the hurt feelings, the appropriation of victimhood, the lot. He couldn’t have spent a whiter hour than if he had gone off to the Benjamin Moore factory to dive head first into a vat of White Diamond OC-61.

Douglas Wilson

17,434 views • 8 months ago

Have you ever wondered why arguments with the same people keep repeating themselves? Today’s guest believes it’s rarely the argument itself, but the pattern underneath it. Jefferson Fisher is back on The Diary Of A CEO for the second time. When Jefferson was first on the show, over 5 million of you watched. The comments and messages that followed were impossible to ignore. So many of you said that the episode helped you understand your relationships and your communication in a new way. That response is why we invited him back, and this time we talk about how to step out of conflict without escalating it. Most of us want to feel understood and safe in our relationships. But without realising it, we keep reacting in familiar ways - especially with the people who matter most. Jefferson helps explain why those patterns keep showing up, and how to start breaking them.
1:23

Have you ever wondered why arguments with the same people keep repeating themselves? Today’s guest believes it’s rarely the argument itself, but the pattern underneath it. Jefferson Fisher is back on The Diary Of A CEO for the second time. When Jefferson was first on the show, over 5 million of you watched. The comments and messages that followed were impossible to ignore. So many of you said that the episode helped you understand your relationships and your communication in a new way. That response is why we invited him back, and this time we talk about how to step out of conflict without escalating it. Most of us want to feel understood and safe in our relationships. But without realising it, we keep reacting in familiar ways - especially with the people who matter most. Jefferson helps explain why those patterns keep showing up, and how to start breaking them.

Steven Bartlett

217,372 views • 6 months ago