Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

This reply really proves my point. Professors should teach, but this reads like a copy/paste AI response. NASA people investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing, great, just means its legally classified, which is no surprise because 'UFOs' are nuclear secrets. Dr. Yu does not have access to design/build these...

AshtonForbes's profile picture

Ashton Forbes

301,014 subscribers

108,146 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The problem with physics, and academia in general is pretty simple. They don't read. Eric W Davis once said none of the skeptics have ever read his papers. The Air Force took them seriously. Sounds crazy, but it's true. You heard it here first. Teleportation is real.
2:19

The problem with physics, and academia in general is pretty simple. They don't read. Eric W Davis once said none of the skeptics have ever read his papers. The Air Force took them seriously. Sounds crazy, but it's true. You heard it here first. Teleportation is real.

Ashton Forbes

52,618 views • 6 months ago

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025
0:59

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

ELON CLIPS

17,791 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025
0:59

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

ELON CLIPS

675,856 views • 6 months ago

Elon Musk Elon Musk on the importance of physics: “I am a big believer in physics. Everything else is a recommendation, pretty much, but physics is the law. Like if you break physics... the rocket will explode and the car will not work. So you have to adhere to physics in order to make cars that work, to make rockets that work, to make space internet work. Because if you're wrong, then reality is a very harsh judge. Reality is merciless. Because if you make a device that doesn't work, violates physics, it simply doesn't work, and then you rocket blows up and the satellites don't work and the cars break. In order to make the technology work, you must have an extremely rigorous pursuit of the truth. Because, otherwise reality will bite you in the a**.”
0:59

Elon Musk Elon Musk on the importance of physics: “I am a big believer in physics. Everything else is a recommendation, pretty much, but physics is the law. Like if you break physics... the rocket will explode and the car will not work. So you have to adhere to physics in order to make cars that work, to make rockets that work, to make space internet work. Because if you're wrong, then reality is a very harsh judge. Reality is merciless. Because if you make a device that doesn't work, violates physics, it simply doesn't work, and then you rocket blows up and the satellites don't work and the cars break. In order to make the technology work, you must have an extremely rigorous pursuit of the truth. Because, otherwise reality will bite you in the a**.”

Colene Copeland-Kruszynski👾

53,721 views • 8 months ago

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."
1:15

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."

Cameron Jourdan

619,219 views • 1 month ago

Try to read this. I dare you. TRUMP: “The farmers are not black. I don't know if you say that's good or bad, but the farmers are not black. And the people that are being killed in large numbers, and you saw all those grave sites, and those are people that loved ones going, I guess on a Sunday morning they told me to pay respect to their loved ones that were killed. Their heads chopped off. They died violently. And, you know, I mean, we're here to talk about it. And I think we can't involve here. But I will say this, that if the news was in fake like NBC, which is fake news, totally one of the worst ABC, NBC, CBS, horrible. But if they weren't fake news like this jerk that we have here, we had real reporters, they'd be covering it. But the fake news in this country doesn't talk about that. They don't want to talk about it, but now they have to talk about it. But they won't. This won't even be a subject. They'll have him talking about why did a country give a free thing of this. Why did a country give an airplane to the United States Air Force? The United States said not to me, to the United States Air Force so they could help us out because we need an Air Force One until our sense Air Force One is being built, two of them being built. But Boeing's a little bit late, unfortunately. So why did they give us a plane to the United States Air Force? That's what that idiot talks about. After viewing a thing where thousands of people are dead.” RAMAPHOSA: “I'm sorry, I don't have a plane to give you.” TRUMP: “I wish you did. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.”
1:43

Try to read this. I dare you. TRUMP: “The farmers are not black. I don't know if you say that's good or bad, but the farmers are not black. And the people that are being killed in large numbers, and you saw all those grave sites, and those are people that loved ones going, I guess on a Sunday morning they told me to pay respect to their loved ones that were killed. Their heads chopped off. They died violently. And, you know, I mean, we're here to talk about it. And I think we can't involve here. But I will say this, that if the news was in fake like NBC, which is fake news, totally one of the worst ABC, NBC, CBS, horrible. But if they weren't fake news like this jerk that we have here, we had real reporters, they'd be covering it. But the fake news in this country doesn't talk about that. They don't want to talk about it, but now they have to talk about it. But they won't. This won't even be a subject. They'll have him talking about why did a country give a free thing of this. Why did a country give an airplane to the United States Air Force? The United States said not to me, to the United States Air Force so they could help us out because we need an Air Force One until our sense Air Force One is being built, two of them being built. But Boeing's a little bit late, unfortunately. So why did they give us a plane to the United States Air Force? That's what that idiot talks about. After viewing a thing where thousands of people are dead.” RAMAPHOSA: “I'm sorry, I don't have a plane to give you.” TRUMP: “I wish you did. If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane, I would take it.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

525,185 views • 1 year ago

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."
3:24

.gorklon rust on what Department of Government Efficiency has found so far: "We do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there are quite a few -- people in, in the bureaucracy who, who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position, which is, you know, what happened at USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing, in which case we should take their investment advice perhaps, but just -- there seems to be mysteriously, they they get wealthy. We don't know why. Where does it come from? And I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's -- that's the -- that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, well, we would just -- if you look at, say, say Treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place that are in place in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment and if the payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it. None of those things are true currently, so the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got a comment fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made and then we've got this truly absurd a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do no pay list and we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation can take up to a year to get on the list and even once on the list, the list is not used. It's mind blowing. So -- so what we're talking about here, we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy that when you understand that really everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that -- then you understand the motivations. So, if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously, but if people don't receive money, they do complain and -- and the fraudsters complain the loudest and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then it makes sense. Oh that's why everything just they approve all the payments at Treasury b/c if you approve all the payments, you don't -- you don't get complaints. But now now we're saying no, no, actually, we're all going to complain if money is spent badly, if -- if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible and frugal manner, then that's not okay. Your -- your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like it's just common sense. It's not. It's it's not draconian or radical. I think it's really just saying, let's look at each each of these expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of the people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it."

Curtis Houck

14,545 views • 1 year ago

🚨 BREAKING: Eric Weinstein convinced interstellar UFOs prove unknown physics beyond general relativity! 😱🛸👽 "UFOs are impossible to reverse-engineer with our current laws of physics." “Isn’t it much more plausible that if craft were true… that it’s basically proof that general relativity is a constricting framework, and that there’s something beyond it?” "I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with general relativity." Eric Davis: “I agree with that.” Weinstein: “So why are you using general relativity?” Does this mean deep state projects have secretly unlocked new physics? What do you think— are we on the brink of a physics revolution? Have you seen evidence of advanced tech? #UFO #Physics
3:29

🚨 BREAKING: Eric Weinstein convinced interstellar UFOs prove unknown physics beyond general relativity! 😱🛸👽 "UFOs are impossible to reverse-engineer with our current laws of physics." “Isn’t it much more plausible that if craft were true… that it’s basically proof that general relativity is a constricting framework, and that there’s something beyond it?” "I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with general relativity." Eric Davis: “I agree with that.” Weinstein: “So why are you using general relativity?” Does this mean deep state projects have secretly unlocked new physics? What do you think— are we on the brink of a physics revolution? Have you seen evidence of advanced tech? #UFO #Physics

Interstellar

112,029 views • 3 months ago

Hunter Biden defends Graham Platner, saying: "Show me your phone — and if that's the standard by which we are going to judge people ... then I don't think we're gonna have many people in elected office." "I have not heard anything in any way that would say to me that he is abusive, misogynistic or antisemitic or racist person. And I have heard this from Graham Platner, though: that he thinks we should all have free healthcare." "I think that his relationship with his wife ... the entirety of that controversy is, it's all about consensual stuff. I mean, stupid. Maybe you would have a problem, anyone would have a problem — but, like, you know, I always say to people, like, Show me your phone.' Give me access to your iCloud. Let's go through it and pull everything that we can that is inappropriate, that is, um, off-color, that is — that selfie that you took when you were drunk off your ass. And, you know, you sent it to your blah, blah, blah." "Like, show me your phone, and if that's the standard by which we are going to judge people, particularly people in elected office, then I don't think we're gonna have many people in elected office."
2:48

Hunter Biden defends Graham Platner, saying: "Show me your phone — and if that's the standard by which we are going to judge people ... then I don't think we're gonna have many people in elected office." "I have not heard anything in any way that would say to me that he is abusive, misogynistic or antisemitic or racist person. And I have heard this from Graham Platner, though: that he thinks we should all have free healthcare." "I think that his relationship with his wife ... the entirety of that controversy is, it's all about consensual stuff. I mean, stupid. Maybe you would have a problem, anyone would have a problem — but, like, you know, I always say to people, like, Show me your phone.' Give me access to your iCloud. Let's go through it and pull everything that we can that is inappropriate, that is, um, off-color, that is — that selfie that you took when you were drunk off your ass. And, you know, you sent it to your blah, blah, blah." "Like, show me your phone, and if that's the standard by which we are going to judge people, particularly people in elected office, then I don't think we're gonna have many people in elected office."

Ken Klippenstein

79,606 views • 24 days ago

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.
1:33

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.

Big Brain AI

194,664 views • 1 month ago

"Throughout history, people have been really reluctant to admit an AI is truly intelligent. I think there's going to be something similar with, 'Is the AI misaligned?' Is the AI evil? Where there's this kind of distant idea of some evil AI. But then whenever something goes wrong, people are just like, 'Oh that's the algorithm.' 10 years ago, if you had asked, when will we know that misalignment is really an important thing to worry about? People would say, 'Oh, if the AI ever lies to you.' Of course, lie to people all the time now and everybody just kind of dismisses it because we understand why it happens. It's a thing that would obviously happen based on our current AI architecture. Or 5 years ago, they might have said, 'Well, if an AI threatens to kill someone.' I think Bing threatened to kill a New York Times reporter during an interview. And everyone's just like, 'Oh yeah, AIs are like that.'" Scott Alexander
1:17

"Throughout history, people have been really reluctant to admit an AI is truly intelligent. I think there's going to be something similar with, 'Is the AI misaligned?' Is the AI evil? Where there's this kind of distant idea of some evil AI. But then whenever something goes wrong, people are just like, 'Oh that's the algorithm.' 10 years ago, if you had asked, when will we know that misalignment is really an important thing to worry about? People would say, 'Oh, if the AI ever lies to you.' Of course, lie to people all the time now and everybody just kind of dismisses it because we understand why it happens. It's a thing that would obviously happen based on our current AI architecture. Or 5 years ago, they might have said, 'Well, if an AI threatens to kill someone.' I think Bing threatened to kill a New York Times reporter during an interview. And everyone's just like, 'Oh yeah, AIs are like that.'" Scott Alexander

Dwarkesh Patel

30,139 views • 1 year ago

🚨 BREAKING: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just called out Republicans in Congress and says they need to match President Trump's sense of urgency. DeSantis also calls for term limits. "I see the president doing things that are really, really transformative, but I don't see the same energy from Congress." "So much of the modern Congress is just performative. It's just political theater. It's not substantive. They're not engaged in the business of accomplishment. It's all about putting on a show to be able to get returned to office and stay there for as long as possible." It's one of the reasons why I think we need term limits for members of Congress. You turn on cable news and you got these guys jabbing. It's like, what have you done? Okay?" "I know you like to to jab. I know you like to talk. What have you actually done? You've been in now for - President Trump's only been in for 60, a little bit more than that. Congress was in almost, you know, two weeks, three weeks before that. So since January 3, what have they done?" "How many weeks have they had off for fundraising and all this other stuff, and why aren't they really attuned to what needs to be done to deliver support for the president's agenda?" "But just as importantly, solidifying these changes, so that it is actually in law. And don't say it can't be done. Biden, they only had 50 senators when he came in. They had a very narrow majority in the house. Did that stop them from doing all this stuff?" "They did a lot of bad legislation, but they did it. They got it done. You look in the 90s, when Clinton was president, they passed very tough immigration laws back then. It's popular. And so I don't even see an effort really to push this forward." "The thing is is when you have a new president come in, you have a certain period of time where you have a lot of momentum. Right? Just political physics, naturally, the momentum for the first hundred days is gonna be greater than the momentum two years later. That's just the way politics works. And what I just see is - I don't see them really working to seize the moment, and to understand that this is different, that we actually have a chance to to really make serious changes."
3:25

🚨 BREAKING: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just called out Republicans in Congress and says they need to match President Trump's sense of urgency. DeSantis also calls for term limits. "I see the president doing things that are really, really transformative, but I don't see the same energy from Congress." "So much of the modern Congress is just performative. It's just political theater. It's not substantive. They're not engaged in the business of accomplishment. It's all about putting on a show to be able to get returned to office and stay there for as long as possible." It's one of the reasons why I think we need term limits for members of Congress. You turn on cable news and you got these guys jabbing. It's like, what have you done? Okay?" "I know you like to to jab. I know you like to talk. What have you actually done? You've been in now for - President Trump's only been in for 60, a little bit more than that. Congress was in almost, you know, two weeks, three weeks before that. So since January 3, what have they done?" "How many weeks have they had off for fundraising and all this other stuff, and why aren't they really attuned to what needs to be done to deliver support for the president's agenda?" "But just as importantly, solidifying these changes, so that it is actually in law. And don't say it can't be done. Biden, they only had 50 senators when he came in. They had a very narrow majority in the house. Did that stop them from doing all this stuff?" "They did a lot of bad legislation, but they did it. They got it done. You look in the 90s, when Clinton was president, they passed very tough immigration laws back then. It's popular. And so I don't even see an effort really to push this forward." "The thing is is when you have a new president come in, you have a certain period of time where you have a lot of momentum. Right? Just political physics, naturally, the momentum for the first hundred days is gonna be greater than the momentum two years later. That's just the way politics works. And what I just see is - I don't see them really working to seize the moment, and to understand that this is different, that we actually have a chance to to really make serious changes."

Eric Daugherty

1,174,495 views • 1 year ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”
3:10

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 6 months ago

"Elon Musk is a genius by all accounts. His commitment and his work, like I asked him one time about how does he learn. And the amount of research, the amount of study that he does is unheard of, but he'll always say the most important thing is imagination. You can learn anything that you want to learn. You can study all these things that you have in a book. If you don't have the imagination to take it to another level, it doesn't mean anything. I sat down and spoke with Elon for a couple hours. It was really, really a joy." — Kobe Bryant
0:28

"Elon Musk is a genius by all accounts. His commitment and his work, like I asked him one time about how does he learn. And the amount of research, the amount of study that he does is unheard of, but he'll always say the most important thing is imagination. You can learn anything that you want to learn. You can study all these things that you have in a book. If you don't have the imagination to take it to another level, it doesn't mean anything. I sat down and spoke with Elon for a couple hours. It was really, really a joy." — Kobe Bryant

DogeDesigner

240,164 views • 9 days ago

Elon Musk: We have to have free speech in order for civilization to advance. “It's a bigger deal than you'd think. It's the kind of thing that you don't know what you're missing until you don't have it. In a lot of places, people don't have it. It's important to bear in mind that the nature of free speech is, the acid test for it is, are people you don't like allowed to say things that you don't like? Otherwise it's not free. It can't be just be things that you like because eventually somebody's not going to like what you say and they're going to shut you up. That's the essence of free speech. That's why it's the First Amendment in this country. And if we lose that, I think we lose the bedrock of democracy.” From: NBC Universal Marketing Conference, April 18, 2023
1:05

Elon Musk: We have to have free speech in order for civilization to advance. “It's a bigger deal than you'd think. It's the kind of thing that you don't know what you're missing until you don't have it. In a lot of places, people don't have it. It's important to bear in mind that the nature of free speech is, the acid test for it is, are people you don't like allowed to say things that you don't like? Otherwise it's not free. It can't be just be things that you like because eventually somebody's not going to like what you say and they're going to shut you up. That's the essence of free speech. That's why it's the First Amendment in this country. And if we lose that, I think we lose the bedrock of democracy.” From: NBC Universal Marketing Conference, April 18, 2023

ELON CLIPS

33,631 views • 1 year ago

Philadelphia Officer Says The City Is No Longer Putting Up With The Crime Wave “The mayor, the commissioner and the governor said we gonna do something about the theft. They passed new legislation that they're going after people” “That's not gonna happen anymore. Not the city of Philadelphia. You're gonna get prosecuted, and it's gonna be a felony. It ain't gonna be on misdemeanor.” Interviewer “Can you say something to the youth, please, about all this morning?” Officer “Well, all I have to say to the youth is put down the gun because if you come here with a gun, the chances are you're not gonna make it home. I hate to say it like that, but we have to keep it real. This is killing us. I've never seen it like this before where young people shoot up a bus depot station, 40 rounds, and shoot innocent people. Something must be done. I say this to the parents. Go in your children's room, tear it apart and find that gun. Because when they kill somebody, that's on you. You can't say, well, my child ain't you know what your children are doing. It is your job. That's your house. You own it. You are the commander in that chief in that house. Go to your children's house your room and look for these weapons. Stop it before it's too late. Either you're burying your child or you're going up to prison every month, visiting your child. It takes a community to stop this. It's not just on the police department. That's why we are out there. But it's not all about locking people up. You have to educate these people. You have to educate these young people. Guns is not the way. But there's a group of them that believe in robbing and stealing and killing. And those are the ones we have to capture and put away.“
1:51

Philadelphia Officer Says The City Is No Longer Putting Up With The Crime Wave “The mayor, the commissioner and the governor said we gonna do something about the theft. They passed new legislation that they're going after people” “That's not gonna happen anymore. Not the city of Philadelphia. You're gonna get prosecuted, and it's gonna be a felony. It ain't gonna be on misdemeanor.” Interviewer “Can you say something to the youth, please, about all this morning?” Officer “Well, all I have to say to the youth is put down the gun because if you come here with a gun, the chances are you're not gonna make it home. I hate to say it like that, but we have to keep it real. This is killing us. I've never seen it like this before where young people shoot up a bus depot station, 40 rounds, and shoot innocent people. Something must be done. I say this to the parents. Go in your children's room, tear it apart and find that gun. Because when they kill somebody, that's on you. You can't say, well, my child ain't you know what your children are doing. It is your job. That's your house. You own it. You are the commander in that chief in that house. Go to your children's house your room and look for these weapons. Stop it before it's too late. Either you're burying your child or you're going up to prison every month, visiting your child. It takes a community to stop this. It's not just on the police department. That's why we are out there. But it's not all about locking people up. You have to educate these people. You have to educate these young people. Guns is not the way. But there's a group of them that believe in robbing and stealing and killing. And those are the ones we have to capture and put away.“

Wall Street Apes

4,036,577 views • 2 years ago

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."
1:32

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 views • 1 year ago

One of John McAfee's last messages to the people: "Some of you may be living an existence of dissatisfaction... of emptiness... of longing." "This sense of longing... is really your loss of freedom. And it is freedom for which you yearn." "And you have none in this government. A government... which started out with the people being free and the government being our servants. It has become the government is free... and it's the people that are the servants." "You have woken up to your reality. That is what you are feeling." "Wake up a bit more and do something about it."
2:00

One of John McAfee's last messages to the people: "Some of you may be living an existence of dissatisfaction... of emptiness... of longing." "This sense of longing... is really your loss of freedom. And it is freedom for which you yearn." "And you have none in this government. A government... which started out with the people being free and the government being our servants. It has become the government is free... and it's the people that are the servants." "You have woken up to your reality. That is what you are feeling." "Wake up a bit more and do something about it."

Shadow Intel

163,917 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk clears up the misconception people have about space being crowded: “Space is really big. It is not going to get crowded. Space is enormous. If you zoom in close to the satellite, it looks big, but if you actually look at it relative to the Earth, these satellites are so tiny that you cannot even see them. They are very, very tiny compared to Earth" We have about 10,000 Starlinks in orbit right now. We have a pretty good idea of how to operate just really large constellations and do it safely now We are the only operator that has any experience at that scale. It is a great thing that we have this background, so we know how tightly we can pack the satellites and fly them safely. That is a number one goal when we look at the constellation
0:47

Elon Musk clears up the misconception people have about space being crowded: “Space is really big. It is not going to get crowded. Space is enormous. If you zoom in close to the satellite, it looks big, but if you actually look at it relative to the Earth, these satellites are so tiny that you cannot even see them. They are very, very tiny compared to Earth" We have about 10,000 Starlinks in orbit right now. We have a pretty good idea of how to operate just really large constellations and do it safely now We are the only operator that has any experience at that scale. It is a great thing that we have this background, so we know how tightly we can pack the satellites and fly them safely. That is a number one goal when we look at the constellation

X Freeze

44,924 views • 27 days ago

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025
0:58

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,738,796 views • 1 year ago