Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Two #futa #cocks are always better than one 😏🤤 #futanari #loop #orc #futaxfemale #doublepenetration #3D #animation #MortalKombat #parody #sheeva #kitana #sonya credit: Rad

futamaster3D's profile picture

3D Futa Master

5,328 subscribers

37,783 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#futa#cocks#futanari#loop#orc#futaxfemale#doublepenetration#3D#animation#MortalKombat#parody#sheeva#kitana#sonya
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Most people think success in business comes down to technical knowledge. I could not disagree more. I took accounting in college and today I cannot even tell you if prepaid rent is a debit or a credit on the balance sheet. It had zero impact on my 41 year career in commercial real estate. What actually mattered were the things no one ever taught: likability, persuasion, human behavior, and the ability to move someone from “no” to “yes.” Every interaction, every conversation, every email does one thing. It nudges that internal switch people have in their heads toward the direction you want it to go. We are all in sales whether we admit it or not. That is why my book, "Selling Buildings," is unvarnished. It is the good, the bad, and the ugly from four decades in the business. If it teaches something, great. If it inspires someone even a little, even better. But more than anything, I hope it helps people understand that success in this business has far more to do with how you make people feel than anything you learn in a classroom. Thank you to Kristian Cotta, CCIM of Hungry Investments for having me on the Rents Due Podcast at creisummit. Always a pleasure to share what I have learned and hopefully shift a belief or two.
1:10

Most people think success in business comes down to technical knowledge. I could not disagree more. I took accounting in college and today I cannot even tell you if prepaid rent is a debit or a credit on the balance sheet. It had zero impact on my 41 year career in commercial real estate. What actually mattered were the things no one ever taught: likability, persuasion, human behavior, and the ability to move someone from “no” to “yes.” Every interaction, every conversation, every email does one thing. It nudges that internal switch people have in their heads toward the direction you want it to go. We are all in sales whether we admit it or not. That is why my book, "Selling Buildings," is unvarnished. It is the good, the bad, and the ugly from four decades in the business. If it teaches something, great. If it inspires someone even a little, even better. But more than anything, I hope it helps people understand that success in this business has far more to do with how you make people feel than anything you learn in a classroom. Thank you to Kristian Cotta, CCIM of Hungry Investments for having me on the Rents Due Podcast at creisummit. Always a pleasure to share what I have learned and hopefully shift a belief or two.

Bob Knakal | NYC Investment Sales

26,071 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

My feed has been inundated with posts of Grok 3 making basic arcade games. But llms from years ago could make decent arcade games, not news. So I ran a one-shot test to determine how well it fared again other frontier models in creating a 3D game with room for it to come up with gameplay and aesthetics. I tested Grok 3, O1, Sonnet 3,5, Llama4, DeepSeek, and Gemini using the following prompt. Make Dune x Minecraft 🏜️ Imagine a sandbox survival game set on a desert planet. Players mine ‘spice’ and must build defenses against roaming sandworms. Design the main gameplay loop, crafting system, and survival challenges in one complete description. ✏️tldr O1, Grok 3, and Sonnet 3.5 were the most impressive. Aesthetically, Grok nailed the best vibes (it even produced a surprisingly cool-looking spice mining truck), but the game lacked functionality. O1 took the top spot imo with a functional and visually appealing experience, and Sonnet 3.5 followed closely. This is obviously just one test, but you can see the generated code and games in the thread (and even try forking them on Rosebud). Longer summary: OpenAI O1: Best vibes to function balance. Looked good, working controls, I could mine spice. xAI #Grok3: Excelled at generating vibes for dune. I especially liked the Dune-inspired spice mining car—though it wasn’t entirely a complete game. I could move around, but none of the crafting mechanics worked. Anthropic Sonnet3.5: produced something in space that had dune vibes. More functional than Grok because I could mine spice. However vibes were worse than the first two. DeepSeek : Managed to generate code that worked, but the game was so hard it always ended seconds after it started, and despite requests for better visuals, it looked VERY ugly. Google DeepMind Gemini 2.0 flash and AI at Meta LLaMA: Sadly landed at the bottom of the list; after multiple prompts (this was supposed to be one shot and none of the others failed in the first shot), I couldn’t get them to produce working code for this prompt. All of these were tested on Rosebud AI . An obvious limitation with these frontier models in their chat interfaces is that you can only get them to regenerate code from scratch each time you prompt them, making it tough to refine or extend a single project. Rosebud, on the other hand, lets you iterate on one project (we do diffs), deploy with one click, share your project, and even allow others to remix it. This was just a single test, so it’s obviously not scientific. I wanted to create it to see how these frontier models handle more complex game prompts—rather than retrying the same arcade games that earlier generations of LLMs have already mastered.
0:31

My feed has been inundated with posts of Grok 3 making basic arcade games. But llms from years ago could make decent arcade games, not news. So I ran a one-shot test to determine how well it fared again other frontier models in creating a 3D game with room for it to come up with gameplay and aesthetics. I tested Grok 3, O1, Sonnet 3,5, Llama4, DeepSeek, and Gemini using the following prompt. Make Dune x Minecraft 🏜️ Imagine a sandbox survival game set on a desert planet. Players mine ‘spice’ and must build defenses against roaming sandworms. Design the main gameplay loop, crafting system, and survival challenges in one complete description. ✏️tldr O1, Grok 3, and Sonnet 3.5 were the most impressive. Aesthetically, Grok nailed the best vibes (it even produced a surprisingly cool-looking spice mining truck), but the game lacked functionality. O1 took the top spot imo with a functional and visually appealing experience, and Sonnet 3.5 followed closely. This is obviously just one test, but you can see the generated code and games in the thread (and even try forking them on Rosebud). Longer summary: OpenAI O1: Best vibes to function balance. Looked good, working controls, I could mine spice. xAI #Grok3: Excelled at generating vibes for dune. I especially liked the Dune-inspired spice mining car—though it wasn’t entirely a complete game. I could move around, but none of the crafting mechanics worked. Anthropic Sonnet3.5: produced something in space that had dune vibes. More functional than Grok because I could mine spice. However vibes were worse than the first two. DeepSeek : Managed to generate code that worked, but the game was so hard it always ended seconds after it started, and despite requests for better visuals, it looked VERY ugly. Google DeepMind Gemini 2.0 flash and AI at Meta LLaMA: Sadly landed at the bottom of the list; after multiple prompts (this was supposed to be one shot and none of the others failed in the first shot), I couldn’t get them to produce working code for this prompt. All of these were tested on Rosebud AI . An obvious limitation with these frontier models in their chat interfaces is that you can only get them to regenerate code from scratch each time you prompt them, making it tough to refine or extend a single project. Rosebud, on the other hand, lets you iterate on one project (we do diffs), deploy with one click, share your project, and even allow others to remix it. This was just a single test, so it’s obviously not scientific. I wanted to create it to see how these frontier models handle more complex game prompts—rather than retrying the same arcade games that earlier generations of LLMs have already mastered.

Lisha

476,022 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🇨🇦 Canada’s Founding Mission: Prevent the People from Governing Themselves The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was something Canada was built to prevent. For six weeks, workers didn’t just stop working. They organized food distribution, published their own newspaper, maintained order with their own Special Police, and created a parallel city government. The state’s response was crushing force. Bloody Saturday, June 21, 1919. Police charged a crowd, killing two. Leaders were arrested for seditious conspiracy. The strike was broken. Why such violence? Because Winnipeg proved workers could administer a city better than the city could. Canada is a successful anti-republic, founded by United Empire Loyalists who rejected the premise of 1776 that sovereignty flows upward from the people. Its institutions—the Crown, parliamentary supremacy, an appointed Senate, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Bank of England—were designed as a counter-revolutionary bulwark against popular rule. Its founding principle wasn’t “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It was “never again.” Never again a revolution. Never again popular sovereignty. Never again the people in charge. That is the silent contract. And every time Canadians start to govern themselves, they are reminded. Canada does not suppress dissent because it is fragile. It suppresses self-government because that is the one thing it was created to prevent. Canada fears competence. Democracy here is not self-rule. A people who controlled their economy might start thinking they should control their country. Leadership requires sovereignty and sovereignty might disrupt Canada’s role as a relay state between London and Washington. Early efforts to build national infrastructure, from the Canadian Pacific Railway to proposed internal banking systems, were consistently sabotaged or redirected to serve imperial priorities rather than domestic development. The 1837 Patriots’ Revolts and similar uprisings were neutralized because they threatened this order. It does not matter whether a movement is left-wing, right-wing, nationalist, or economic. If it looks like a functioning community or parallel government, the response is repression. Legal, financial, or police force. Canada suppresses self-government because that is the one thing it was created to prevent. A true national-development alternative exists. A national bank, public credit directed toward infrastructure and sovereign industrial capacity, would allow Canadians to govern their economy and assert the political independence that has always been denied to them.
3:14

🇨🇦 Canada’s Founding Mission: Prevent the People from Governing Themselves The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was something Canada was built to prevent. For six weeks, workers didn’t just stop working. They organized food distribution, published their own newspaper, maintained order with their own Special Police, and created a parallel city government. The state’s response was crushing force. Bloody Saturday, June 21, 1919. Police charged a crowd, killing two. Leaders were arrested for seditious conspiracy. The strike was broken. Why such violence? Because Winnipeg proved workers could administer a city better than the city could. Canada is a successful anti-republic, founded by United Empire Loyalists who rejected the premise of 1776 that sovereignty flows upward from the people. Its institutions—the Crown, parliamentary supremacy, an appointed Senate, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Bank of England—were designed as a counter-revolutionary bulwark against popular rule. Its founding principle wasn’t “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It was “never again.” Never again a revolution. Never again popular sovereignty. Never again the people in charge. That is the silent contract. And every time Canadians start to govern themselves, they are reminded. Canada does not suppress dissent because it is fragile. It suppresses self-government because that is the one thing it was created to prevent. Canada fears competence. Democracy here is not self-rule. A people who controlled their economy might start thinking they should control their country. Leadership requires sovereignty and sovereignty might disrupt Canada’s role as a relay state between London and Washington. Early efforts to build national infrastructure, from the Canadian Pacific Railway to proposed internal banking systems, were consistently sabotaged or redirected to serve imperial priorities rather than domestic development. The 1837 Patriots’ Revolts and similar uprisings were neutralized because they threatened this order. It does not matter whether a movement is left-wing, right-wing, nationalist, or economic. If it looks like a functioning community or parallel government, the response is repression. Legal, financial, or police force. Canada suppresses self-government because that is the one thing it was created to prevent. A true national-development alternative exists. A national bank, public credit directed toward infrastructure and sovereign industrial capacity, would allow Canadians to govern their economy and assert the political independence that has always been denied to them.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

12,582 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

10 years ago, Tim Ferriss walked into Google & revealed exactly how to cage the monkey mind that is destroying your life every passing day: 1. The real training is in the small embarrassments. We do not rise to the level of our hopes. We fall to the level of our training. If you cannot handle small moments of public embarrassment you will not have the backbone to make big decisions under real pressure. 2. Seneca practiced poverty once a month. He would wear rough clothing, eat the simplest food, and ask himself is this the condition I so feared. Tim does one three day water fast every month and one seven to ten day fast every quarter for the same reason. Once you know the worst case is survivable you stop fearing it. 3. The monkey mind is not a dialogue. It is a stern and irritating roommate in your head that never shuts up. The morning journal is not about producing writing. It is about giving that roommate a two dimensional prison so it stops playing on repeat for the rest of the day. 4. The Five Minute Journal takes two and a half minutes in the morning and two and a half at night. The morning portion is a gratitude and planning exercise. The evening portion is a performance review. The ROI on those five minutes is higher than almost anything else Tim does. 5. Depression is an obsession with the past. Anxiety is an obsession with the future. High achievers almost always skew toward anxious future focus. Without a deliberate gratitude practice they hit goal after goal and feel nothing because they are already racing toward the next one. 6. The single biggest difference between the top quartile of performers and the top one percent is the degree to which they can identify their goals and maintain focus on them. Everything else is secondary to that one thing. 7. Humility does not require willpower. It requires designing the right environment. Every day Tim tries to be the weakest person in the room at something. At 15 in Japan he thought he was a judo star until a guy forty pounds lighter destroyed him in seven seconds. Then he trained at a school that produced Olympic gold medalists and got demolished by twelve year olds for months. He came out the other end completely transformed. 8. More than eighty percent of the world class performers Tim has interviewed across every field have a daily meditation practice. Some do not call it meditation but they all have something that functions the same way. Amelia Boone, the greatest female obstacle racer alive, sings the same song to herself on loop for hours. Arnold Schwarzenegger did transcendental meditation for a year and said the benefits persisted for decades after he stopped. 9. A high percentage of the successful men Tim has interviewed over fifty skip breakfast entirely. Pavel Tsatsouline, the man who brought kettlebells to America, answered what did you have for breakfast with a single word. Coffee. 10. What matters is not having a specific routine. It is having a routine. Whatever it is. The goal is to preserve your decision making and creativity for the things that actually require them. Steve Jobs wore the same thing every day. That was not a fashion choice. It was an energy allocation strategy. 11. Tim treats his entire life as two week experiments and six month projects. A reliable five year plan almost by definition requires you to set goals below your current capabilities. He is unwilling to do that so he does not plan that way. 12. The most successful people he has interviewed are not naive optimists. They budget for the downside. Richard Branson's real skill is figuring out the maximum he can lose and the maximum time he can lose before committing to anything. Once you realize the worst case is reversible the risk disappears. 13. The podcast succeeded because Tim knew he had a guaranteed audience of one. He was building something he could not find anywhere else. Every book came from the same place. When designing for a market things fail. When solving his own problem things work. 14. He committed to doing six podcast episodes before deciding whether to continue. If you only do one you will quit. The learning curve does not hockey stick until at least six. The survival of the project depended entirely on that pre-commitment. 15. Email is not a priority system it is other people's priority system for your time. Tim batches email offline so he is not doing whack-a-mole where sending two emails generates five back. He also uses if-then lines in every email he sends. It takes thirty extra seconds and eliminates twenty rounds of back and forth. 16. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence or busyness. Holding a grudge about someone not replying means you are carrying imaginary shrapnel like acid in a vessel. You are the only one harmed by it. 17. For longevity Tim does regular extended fasting to purge precancerous cells combined with hyperbaric oxygen at two and a half atmospheres three times a week. By forty almost everyone has precancerous cells. The goal is not uncontrolled growth and fasting addresses the metabolic conditions that allow that. 18. For insomnia the two things that helped him most were morning meditation to quiet the machinery before the day starts and reading fiction before bed to shift from problem solving mode into story consuming mode. The monkey mind cannot solve problems it does not know it is supposed to be solving. Follow Yasmine Khosrowshahi for more ideas on thinking better, becoming clearer & building a more intentional life.
1:17:13

10 years ago, Tim Ferriss walked into Google & revealed exactly how to cage the monkey mind that is destroying your life every passing day: 1. The real training is in the small embarrassments. We do not rise to the level of our hopes. We fall to the level of our training. If you cannot handle small moments of public embarrassment you will not have the backbone to make big decisions under real pressure. 2. Seneca practiced poverty once a month. He would wear rough clothing, eat the simplest food, and ask himself is this the condition I so feared. Tim does one three day water fast every month and one seven to ten day fast every quarter for the same reason. Once you know the worst case is survivable you stop fearing it. 3. The monkey mind is not a dialogue. It is a stern and irritating roommate in your head that never shuts up. The morning journal is not about producing writing. It is about giving that roommate a two dimensional prison so it stops playing on repeat for the rest of the day. 4. The Five Minute Journal takes two and a half minutes in the morning and two and a half at night. The morning portion is a gratitude and planning exercise. The evening portion is a performance review. The ROI on those five minutes is higher than almost anything else Tim does. 5. Depression is an obsession with the past. Anxiety is an obsession with the future. High achievers almost always skew toward anxious future focus. Without a deliberate gratitude practice they hit goal after goal and feel nothing because they are already racing toward the next one. 6. The single biggest difference between the top quartile of performers and the top one percent is the degree to which they can identify their goals and maintain focus on them. Everything else is secondary to that one thing. 7. Humility does not require willpower. It requires designing the right environment. Every day Tim tries to be the weakest person in the room at something. At 15 in Japan he thought he was a judo star until a guy forty pounds lighter destroyed him in seven seconds. Then he trained at a school that produced Olympic gold medalists and got demolished by twelve year olds for months. He came out the other end completely transformed. 8. More than eighty percent of the world class performers Tim has interviewed across every field have a daily meditation practice. Some do not call it meditation but they all have something that functions the same way. Amelia Boone, the greatest female obstacle racer alive, sings the same song to herself on loop for hours. Arnold Schwarzenegger did transcendental meditation for a year and said the benefits persisted for decades after he stopped. 9. A high percentage of the successful men Tim has interviewed over fifty skip breakfast entirely. Pavel Tsatsouline, the man who brought kettlebells to America, answered what did you have for breakfast with a single word. Coffee. 10. What matters is not having a specific routine. It is having a routine. Whatever it is. The goal is to preserve your decision making and creativity for the things that actually require them. Steve Jobs wore the same thing every day. That was not a fashion choice. It was an energy allocation strategy. 11. Tim treats his entire life as two week experiments and six month projects. A reliable five year plan almost by definition requires you to set goals below your current capabilities. He is unwilling to do that so he does not plan that way. 12. The most successful people he has interviewed are not naive optimists. They budget for the downside. Richard Branson's real skill is figuring out the maximum he can lose and the maximum time he can lose before committing to anything. Once you realize the worst case is reversible the risk disappears. 13. The podcast succeeded because Tim knew he had a guaranteed audience of one. He was building something he could not find anywhere else. Every book came from the same place. When designing for a market things fail. When solving his own problem things work. 14. He committed to doing six podcast episodes before deciding whether to continue. If you only do one you will quit. The learning curve does not hockey stick until at least six. The survival of the project depended entirely on that pre-commitment. 15. Email is not a priority system it is other people's priority system for your time. Tim batches email offline so he is not doing whack-a-mole where sending two emails generates five back. He also uses if-then lines in every email he sends. It takes thirty extra seconds and eliminates twenty rounds of back and forth. 16. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence or busyness. Holding a grudge about someone not replying means you are carrying imaginary shrapnel like acid in a vessel. You are the only one harmed by it. 17. For longevity Tim does regular extended fasting to purge precancerous cells combined with hyperbaric oxygen at two and a half atmospheres three times a week. By forty almost everyone has precancerous cells. The goal is not uncontrolled growth and fasting addresses the metabolic conditions that allow that. 18. For insomnia the two things that helped him most were morning meditation to quiet the machinery before the day starts and reading fiction before bed to shift from problem solving mode into story consuming mode. The monkey mind cannot solve problems it does not know it is supposed to be solving. Follow Yasmine Khosrowshahi for more ideas on thinking better, becoming clearer & building a more intentional life.

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

191,193 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Apple Vision Pro: My Initial Impressions I agree with some others. This is one of the most impressive pieces of tech I’ve ever used, but it's not perfect. The Good: • The eye tracking and hand gestures are simply incredible. The accuracy is like 99%. It’s quite intuitive and feels very natural. You can put your hands almost anywhere and it'll sense them. • I’m not exaggerating when I say Apple’s immersive videos made for the Vision Pro literally make you feel like you’re there in person. I felt like I was literally in the room with Alicia Keys while she sang, or traversing 3,000 feet above Norway’s breathtaking fjords while walking on a rope. My only complaint is that while Apple Immersive Videos are 180-degree 3D 8K recordings, they are still a little blurry. • You can use the Vision Pro while lying down in bed in complete darkness and the hand gestures will still work just fine (just like FaceID does in the dark). • In 2013 Apple introduced TouchID. In 2017 FaceID. With Vision Pro, Apple has introduced OpticID. It scans your iris and unlocks your Vision Pro when you put it on. It’s incredibly quick and accurate. And like FaceID, it's secure. It's what you will use to pay for things on the device as well. • I didn’t experience any vertigo, dizziness, etc while using the device. • I'm a bit of a display nerd. For the first time outside of a theatre, Avatar The Way of Water feels true to the directors creative intent. High frame rate (HFR) wasn’t possible in any other device. The 3D is exactly like the theatre. I went to a dolby cinema to watch it originally, and the Vision Pro gets it about as close to a theatre video quality experience as you can get. • The sound quality is really good. The spacial audio is very convincing. • The Vision Pro is heavy, but I found myself not caring all that much if i used the dual loop headband. • I was skeptical of the productivity side of the Vision pro, but wow does the mac virtual display work insanely well. You can easily edit videos or browse the web. • You can complain about plenty of things, but built quality is not one of them. It's really good and solid. The device feels very dense. • Neck strain was not an issue • I watched John Wick in one of the immersive environments, and the movie was reflecting onto the water perfectly. It’s was incredible. I'm not joking when i saw it literally felt like I was watching a movie on a 4K HDR screen in then middle of the wilderness. • Battery life is fine most of the time. The Not So Good: • The app ecosystem just isn’t there yet, which is understandable. That will happen over time, but currently there are only 600 apps built for the Vision. For developer, It doesn't make sense to make a custom Vision Pro app when there are only ~200k users in the ecosystem. • The field of view is kinda of small, which is disappointing, and sometimes a little distracting. It's not terrible, but I wish the FOV was bigger. • The passthrough video is dissapointinly low quality, though it’s still better than anything else on the market. You can’t read your small text on your phone. Colors are muted, and it's a little jittery. Future versions will be better no doubt. • It is sort of an isolating device. I almost guarantee you future versions of the Vision Pro will be able to connect with one another so two people can be looking at the same virtual safari window, movie, etc. • Price: It's expensive. • As I said above, while heavy, the weight of the VP was not an issue for me, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to be lighter. It does press against your face pretty hard, which can cause minor cheek area fatigue. Future versions will no doubt be lighter. Final Thoughts: Going back to my Mac felt weird. It suddenly felt like a technology of the past. If you have the money and want to be an early adopter, you’ll be happy with the Vision Pro. But I have to say, the second or third generation of this device, I think, will be better and cheaper, so it’s probably worth waiting for that. While it’s one of the greatest pieces of tech I’ve ever tried, I can’t see myself using this in my daily life yet, and for $3,500, I should be able to envision that. I'm going to give it a few more days, but I'll likely be returning it. The app ecosystem needs to improve and expand a lot. That's ultimately what will make or break this thing's success. Apple knocked it out of the park engineering this thing. It's mind blowing, but if i'm already mind blown, Imagine how good future versions will be.
0:37

Apple Vision Pro: My Initial Impressions I agree with some others. This is one of the most impressive pieces of tech I’ve ever used, but it's not perfect. The Good: • The eye tracking and hand gestures are simply incredible. The accuracy is like 99%. It’s quite intuitive and feels very natural. You can put your hands almost anywhere and it'll sense them. • I’m not exaggerating when I say Apple’s immersive videos made for the Vision Pro literally make you feel like you’re there in person. I felt like I was literally in the room with Alicia Keys while she sang, or traversing 3,000 feet above Norway’s breathtaking fjords while walking on a rope. My only complaint is that while Apple Immersive Videos are 180-degree 3D 8K recordings, they are still a little blurry. • You can use the Vision Pro while lying down in bed in complete darkness and the hand gestures will still work just fine (just like FaceID does in the dark). • In 2013 Apple introduced TouchID. In 2017 FaceID. With Vision Pro, Apple has introduced OpticID. It scans your iris and unlocks your Vision Pro when you put it on. It’s incredibly quick and accurate. And like FaceID, it's secure. It's what you will use to pay for things on the device as well. • I didn’t experience any vertigo, dizziness, etc while using the device. • I'm a bit of a display nerd. For the first time outside of a theatre, Avatar The Way of Water feels true to the directors creative intent. High frame rate (HFR) wasn’t possible in any other device. The 3D is exactly like the theatre. I went to a dolby cinema to watch it originally, and the Vision Pro gets it about as close to a theatre video quality experience as you can get. • The sound quality is really good. The spacial audio is very convincing. • The Vision Pro is heavy, but I found myself not caring all that much if i used the dual loop headband. • I was skeptical of the productivity side of the Vision pro, but wow does the mac virtual display work insanely well. You can easily edit videos or browse the web. • You can complain about plenty of things, but built quality is not one of them. It's really good and solid. The device feels very dense. • Neck strain was not an issue • I watched John Wick in one of the immersive environments, and the movie was reflecting onto the water perfectly. It’s was incredible. I'm not joking when i saw it literally felt like I was watching a movie on a 4K HDR screen in then middle of the wilderness. • Battery life is fine most of the time. The Not So Good: • The app ecosystem just isn’t there yet, which is understandable. That will happen over time, but currently there are only 600 apps built for the Vision. For developer, It doesn't make sense to make a custom Vision Pro app when there are only ~200k users in the ecosystem. • The field of view is kinda of small, which is disappointing, and sometimes a little distracting. It's not terrible, but I wish the FOV was bigger. • The passthrough video is dissapointinly low quality, though it’s still better than anything else on the market. You can’t read your small text on your phone. Colors are muted, and it's a little jittery. Future versions will be better no doubt. • It is sort of an isolating device. I almost guarantee you future versions of the Vision Pro will be able to connect with one another so two people can be looking at the same virtual safari window, movie, etc. • Price: It's expensive. • As I said above, while heavy, the weight of the VP was not an issue for me, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to be lighter. It does press against your face pretty hard, which can cause minor cheek area fatigue. Future versions will no doubt be lighter. Final Thoughts: Going back to my Mac felt weird. It suddenly felt like a technology of the past. If you have the money and want to be an early adopter, you’ll be happy with the Vision Pro. But I have to say, the second or third generation of this device, I think, will be better and cheaper, so it’s probably worth waiting for that. While it’s one of the greatest pieces of tech I’ve ever tried, I can’t see myself using this in my daily life yet, and for $3,500, I should be able to envision that. I'm going to give it a few more days, but I'll likely be returning it. The app ecosystem needs to improve and expand a lot. That's ultimately what will make or break this thing's success. Apple knocked it out of the park engineering this thing. It's mind blowing, but if i'm already mind blown, Imagine how good future versions will be.

Sawyer Merritt

1,602,901 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Futuristic dome grows food by itself – with help from some fish | Bronwyn Thompson, New Atlas Inspired by the humble old greenhouse, a futuristic self-contained food ecosystem was recently on display at Expo 2025 Osaka-Kansai in Japan, offering us a glimpse at a how we might one day have "farm to table" on our apartment block rooftops or in small urban spaces. Think of it as a tiny house of produce. Known as “Inochi no Izumi” (いのちの湧水), or "Source of Life," the dome became one of the standout pieces of ingenuity on show at the Osaka Health Pavilion on Yumeshima Island. The 6.4-m-high (21-ft), 7-m-diameter (23-ft) dome, built to symbolize the Earth, sits atop a base containing four different water zones that provide the living engine of this closed-loop ecoystem. The dome itself has a surface area of 128 sq m (1,378 sq ft), made up of transparent ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) panels for the outer skin, supported by VikingDome's T-STAR system of 245 steel structural bars, connected with 76 joins on the sphere and 10 on the base. The entire unit, with materials transported to the site in three pallets, weighs a massive 2,111 kg (4,655 lb). The dome itself is designed to maximize sunlight and maintain a stable internal climate – but the real innovation is found inside it. A horizontally divided aquatic base supports four vertically stacked plant layers. Rather than a conventional floor-by-floor layout, the dome houses a kind of ecological cross-section, where different salinity zones and their matching crops work together in a regulated loop. At the base are four compartments housing seawater, brackish water and two freshwater tanks. Each supports aquatic species adapted to those conditions, from marine fish and shellfish to carp-like freshwater species. These animals form the starting point of the nutrient cycle crucial for the life above. As they excrete ammonia-rich waste, specialized microbes convert it first into nitrites and then into plant-usable nitrates. Directly above the tanks, four matching bands of hydroponic growing beds rise in a tiered column. Salt-tolerant plants, such as halophytes, grow above the seawater tank, thriving on nutrient-rich water that would kill conventional vegetables. Sea grapes grow in the water, while sea purslane and sea asparagus grow above the tank housed with red seabream, black porgy, red-spotted grouper and Malabar grouper. Then, semi-salt-tolerant vegetables plants like tomato sit above the brackish-water zone, which houses Japanese pufferfish and ornamental carp. Above one of the freshwater systems are “functional vegetables” – greens like herbs and lettuces with concentrated nutrients that do particularly well in controlled hydroponic conditions. Their water comes from the tank occupied by sturgeon. The beds can also be rotated horizontally via a built-in motor. At the very top, on the fourth tier, are rows of edible flowers including nasturtium, bougainvillea and marigold. Water from each tank is pumped upward to irrigate its corresponding plant zone. As the plants remove nitrogen compounds and other nutrients, the purified water flows back into each aquatic zone below. As such, the system produces next to no waste – a cyclic ecosystem modeled on nature (like wetlands cycling, for example) but optimized for human food production. Developed in collaboration with Osaka Metropolitan University’s Plant Factory R&D Center and the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, the system demonstrates how future cities could grow food in such compact, resource-efficient ecosystems. It also highlights a different kind of biodiversity – that of agriculture. The broader the range of usable plant and aquatic species, the more resilient – and self-sufficient – the system becomes. While the Source of Life was indeed an exhibition, so there are some practical questions about the fish housed in the tanks at the base, it nonetheless demonstrated how natural recycling can help to produce food and reduce waste, and it's not a stretch to imagine this modular aquaponics system becoming a reality on rooftops, in dense urban areas or in land-poor regions where farming is limited. In disaster-prone areas, closed-loop systems like this could offer stable, decentralized food production independent of soil quality or access to large supplies of water. It's also a clever look at how sustainable agriculture doesn’t always require new technologies so much as a deeper understanding of ecology – something that's often lost in agribusiness and large-scale commercial farming. As we look for low-emission, sustainable ways to feed growing urban populations, this dome proposes that one answer may lie in us better harnessing the power of nature. Read more:
0:43

Futuristic dome grows food by itself – with help from some fish | Bronwyn Thompson, New Atlas Inspired by the humble old greenhouse, a futuristic self-contained food ecosystem was recently on display at Expo 2025 Osaka-Kansai in Japan, offering us a glimpse at a how we might one day have "farm to table" on our apartment block rooftops or in small urban spaces. Think of it as a tiny house of produce. Known as “Inochi no Izumi” (いのちの湧水), or "Source of Life," the dome became one of the standout pieces of ingenuity on show at the Osaka Health Pavilion on Yumeshima Island. The 6.4-m-high (21-ft), 7-m-diameter (23-ft) dome, built to symbolize the Earth, sits atop a base containing four different water zones that provide the living engine of this closed-loop ecoystem. The dome itself has a surface area of 128 sq m (1,378 sq ft), made up of transparent ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) panels for the outer skin, supported by VikingDome's T-STAR system of 245 steel structural bars, connected with 76 joins on the sphere and 10 on the base. The entire unit, with materials transported to the site in three pallets, weighs a massive 2,111 kg (4,655 lb). The dome itself is designed to maximize sunlight and maintain a stable internal climate – but the real innovation is found inside it. A horizontally divided aquatic base supports four vertically stacked plant layers. Rather than a conventional floor-by-floor layout, the dome houses a kind of ecological cross-section, where different salinity zones and their matching crops work together in a regulated loop. At the base are four compartments housing seawater, brackish water and two freshwater tanks. Each supports aquatic species adapted to those conditions, from marine fish and shellfish to carp-like freshwater species. These animals form the starting point of the nutrient cycle crucial for the life above. As they excrete ammonia-rich waste, specialized microbes convert it first into nitrites and then into plant-usable nitrates. Directly above the tanks, four matching bands of hydroponic growing beds rise in a tiered column. Salt-tolerant plants, such as halophytes, grow above the seawater tank, thriving on nutrient-rich water that would kill conventional vegetables. Sea grapes grow in the water, while sea purslane and sea asparagus grow above the tank housed with red seabream, black porgy, red-spotted grouper and Malabar grouper. Then, semi-salt-tolerant vegetables plants like tomato sit above the brackish-water zone, which houses Japanese pufferfish and ornamental carp. Above one of the freshwater systems are “functional vegetables” – greens like herbs and lettuces with concentrated nutrients that do particularly well in controlled hydroponic conditions. Their water comes from the tank occupied by sturgeon. The beds can also be rotated horizontally via a built-in motor. At the very top, on the fourth tier, are rows of edible flowers including nasturtium, bougainvillea and marigold. Water from each tank is pumped upward to irrigate its corresponding plant zone. As the plants remove nitrogen compounds and other nutrients, the purified water flows back into each aquatic zone below. As such, the system produces next to no waste – a cyclic ecosystem modeled on nature (like wetlands cycling, for example) but optimized for human food production. Developed in collaboration with Osaka Metropolitan University’s Plant Factory R&D Center and the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, the system demonstrates how future cities could grow food in such compact, resource-efficient ecosystems. It also highlights a different kind of biodiversity – that of agriculture. The broader the range of usable plant and aquatic species, the more resilient – and self-sufficient – the system becomes. While the Source of Life was indeed an exhibition, so there are some practical questions about the fish housed in the tanks at the base, it nonetheless demonstrated how natural recycling can help to produce food and reduce waste, and it's not a stretch to imagine this modular aquaponics system becoming a reality on rooftops, in dense urban areas or in land-poor regions where farming is limited. In disaster-prone areas, closed-loop systems like this could offer stable, decentralized food production independent of soil quality or access to large supplies of water. It's also a clever look at how sustainable agriculture doesn’t always require new technologies so much as a deeper understanding of ecology – something that's often lost in agribusiness and large-scale commercial farming. As we look for low-emission, sustainable ways to feed growing urban populations, this dome proposes that one answer may lie in us better harnessing the power of nature. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

43,956 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Jimmy Carr said something that should reframe how you think about the next twenty years of AI. Carr: “Life has never been objectively better and subjectively worse. Because the nature of humanity is our desires are mimetic.” One line. And it explains everything about what’s coming. Carr: “No one had a hot shower until 50 years ago. So when you stand in a hot shower, just for a moment, just go, ‘Well, no one that you admire from a hundred years ago had this simple pleasure in life.’” A Roman emperor couldn’t access what you use every morning without thinking. Newton defined the laws of light. Never flipped a switch. Lincoln ran a country by candlelight. Einstein never made a video call. The average middle-class life today would be incomprehensible to the richest person alive in 1900. And nobody feels wealthy. Carr: “There’s been a hundred billion people ever. We are in the top, top percentile in terms of the luck that we have had.” The child survival rates. The medicine. The food supply. The sheer volume of comfort surrounding every ordinary Tuesday. By every measurable standard, this is the best time to be alive in the history of the species. It doesn’t feel like it. It never will. That’s not a flaw in the world. That’s the wiring. Every gain gets absorbed into a new baseline. What felt extraordinary last year feels ordinary now. What felt like luxury becomes expectation. The goalpost moves without your permission. Every single time. This is the part nobody is factoring into the AI conversation. AI is already compressing the cost of intelligence toward zero. Within a decade, medical diagnosis that once cost thousands will be instant and free. Legal guidance that required a retainer will be available to anyone with a phone. Education that demanded six figures will be personalized and free. The abundance will be real. And most people won’t feel it. The generation that grows up with AI tutors won’t marvel at the technology. They’ll complain about the interface. The generation that gets instant medical screening won’t appreciate the miracle. They’ll be frustrated it takes ten seconds instead of two. Abundance doesn’t produce gratitude. It produces a new floor. And from that new floor, people will find new things to want they couldn’t have imagined before. You don’t build the next thing because you’re content. You build it because the current thing already feels normal. Mimetic desire is the engine of civilization and the thief of satisfaction. Simultaneously. AI will give the species more than it has ever had. The species will absorb it, recalibrate, and reach for more. That’s not a failure of the technology. That’s the loop that built everything we already take for granted. The question was never whether abundance would arrive. It was always whether the hardware would let us feel it.
0:51

Jimmy Carr said something that should reframe how you think about the next twenty years of AI. Carr: “Life has never been objectively better and subjectively worse. Because the nature of humanity is our desires are mimetic.” One line. And it explains everything about what’s coming. Carr: “No one had a hot shower until 50 years ago. So when you stand in a hot shower, just for a moment, just go, ‘Well, no one that you admire from a hundred years ago had this simple pleasure in life.’” A Roman emperor couldn’t access what you use every morning without thinking. Newton defined the laws of light. Never flipped a switch. Lincoln ran a country by candlelight. Einstein never made a video call. The average middle-class life today would be incomprehensible to the richest person alive in 1900. And nobody feels wealthy. Carr: “There’s been a hundred billion people ever. We are in the top, top percentile in terms of the luck that we have had.” The child survival rates. The medicine. The food supply. The sheer volume of comfort surrounding every ordinary Tuesday. By every measurable standard, this is the best time to be alive in the history of the species. It doesn’t feel like it. It never will. That’s not a flaw in the world. That’s the wiring. Every gain gets absorbed into a new baseline. What felt extraordinary last year feels ordinary now. What felt like luxury becomes expectation. The goalpost moves without your permission. Every single time. This is the part nobody is factoring into the AI conversation. AI is already compressing the cost of intelligence toward zero. Within a decade, medical diagnosis that once cost thousands will be instant and free. Legal guidance that required a retainer will be available to anyone with a phone. Education that demanded six figures will be personalized and free. The abundance will be real. And most people won’t feel it. The generation that grows up with AI tutors won’t marvel at the technology. They’ll complain about the interface. The generation that gets instant medical screening won’t appreciate the miracle. They’ll be frustrated it takes ten seconds instead of two. Abundance doesn’t produce gratitude. It produces a new floor. And from that new floor, people will find new things to want they couldn’t have imagined before. You don’t build the next thing because you’re content. You build it because the current thing already feels normal. Mimetic desire is the engine of civilization and the thief of satisfaction. Simultaneously. AI will give the species more than it has ever had. The species will absorb it, recalibrate, and reach for more. That’s not a failure of the technology. That’s the loop that built everything we already take for granted. The question was never whether abundance would arrive. It was always whether the hardware would let us feel it.

Dustin

43,713 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

In 1998, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger spent 4 hours explaining why the smartest people in finance keep going broke. It might be the most valuable finance lecture ever recorded: 1. The smartest people in finance went completely broke. Long-term Capital Management had 16 people with possibly the highest average IQ of any firm in the country, 350 to 400 combined years of experience, and most of their own net worth in the fund. They still went bankrupt. Buffett said if he ever wrote a book it would be called why smart people do dumb things. 2. Life and markets have no relation to sigmas. Buffett keeps a 1901 newspaper on his office wall. Northern Pacific went from $170 to $1,000 a share in a single day when two buyers accidentally cornered the stock. A brewer who had shorted it, facing a margin call, dove into a vat of hot beer. That man probably understood sigmas and knew such a move was impossible. Buffett has never wanted to end up in the vat. 3. Beta and sigmas tell you nothing about the risk of going broke. the LTCM team relied on mathematics and believed a six- or seven-sigma event could not touch them. they were wrong. history does not tell you the probabilities of future financial events. the real risk is a permanent blind spot in something crucial, often caused by knowing a great deal about something else. 4. To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Munger's explanation for why brilliant people do dumb things. They learn a set of mathematical techniques and then twist every problem to fit the solution they already know. Combine that with a poor grasp of history, and you get people with advanced degrees blowing themselves up. 5. To make money they did not need, they risked money they did need. That is just plain foolish, Buffett says, no matter your IQ. Hand him a gun with a million chambers and one bullet, offer any sum to put it to his temple and pull once, and he will not do it. there is nothing on the upside that justifies the downside. people do this financially all the time without thinking. 6. The major banks all had risk models and had no idea what they owned. they met weekly at risk committees, printed all the statistics in neat columns, and did not have the faintest idea what risk they were carrying. The rare and essential quality is someone who can contemplate perils that have not popped up yet, the ones no past model contains. 7. A chief risk officer often just makes you feel good while you do dumb things. munger compares him to the Delphic oracle who convinced the Persian king to attack. he has a PhD and does advanced math, but he tortures reality to defend a model that does not hold under extreme conditions. all that computation makes you feel like you clobbered the risk when you have only clobbered your own head. 8. The whole quant risk system just changed the shape of the curve and kept going. Munger notes the business schools "improved" by throwing away the Gaussian curve and drawing a different one. They talk about fat tails now, but they still have no idea how fat to make them. he and Buffett always knew the tails were there, and used to roll their eyes at the risk-control people at Salomon. 9. Never risk what you have and need for what you do not have and do not need. Buffett will not explain to his family, who hold most of their net worth in Berkshire, that they went broke on a 100-to-1 gamble. Their returns get penalized 99 years out of 100 by being too conservative, and in the hundredth year they survive when others do not. 10. Build the business so that if the world stops working tomorrow, you have no problem. Berkshire double-layers its protection. First, they behave so no rational person questions their credit, then they hold so much liquidity that if the world suddenly hated their credit, they would not notice for months. It gives up higher returns 99% of the time and survives the one time others do not. 11. The real danger is a risk that has never happened before. Buffett wants someone who can imagine perils that have not yet appeared, the ones no model contains. The major institutions all had models, and that inability to envision the unprecedented is exactly what proved fatal. He and Munger spend a lot of time thinking about things that could hit them out of the blue that others leave out entirely. 12. Investing is simple, but not easy. The framework is not complicated. you did not need a high IQ to buy junk bonds in 2002 or stocks at low multiples in 1974. you just needed the courage of your convictions and the willingness to act when everyone else was paralyzed. Following logic rather than emotion is obvious, and yet some people find it almost impossible. 13. You cannot get rich with a weathervane. Buffett and Munger pay no attention to predictions about the economy or the market. People love predictions, entire industries are built on them, but it is like the king hiring a forecaster to read sheep guts. They have never made or avoided a single business purchase because of a macro view. 14. Name one super-wealthy economist. Munger's challenge. All these economists with 160 IQs spend their lives studying markets, and you cannot find one who got rich buying securities. Even Keynes tried to predict the credit cycle, broke a couple of times, and only did well once he switched to buying good businesses cheap and concentrating. 15. Focus only on what is important and knowable. Some things are important but unknowable, like whether someone drops a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Some things are knowable but unimportant. You narrow your attention to the small set of things that are both important and knowable, and you ignore everything else. 16. The market is there to serve you, not to instruct you. This is Graham's chapter eight, and Buffett calls it enormously important. When people talk about momentum or charts, they are saying the market instructs you. It does not. It just quotes prices. When it does something silly, you get a chance to act. Otherwise you go play bridge and check again tomorrow. 17. You can make a decision in five minutes or not at all. Buffett and Munger act fast because they rule out enormous territory in advance. Munger blots out startups entirely, and half a dozen other filters, so what remains is small enough to judge instantly. If they cannot decide in five minutes, they will not learn enough in five months to make up for going in deficient. 18. You can make a lot of money on a Sunday. Buffett said the calls you get on a Sunday, when things are truly screwed up, are the ones you make money on. All you have to do is be the collie and not the caller. You never get in a position where the other party can call your tune, so you can always play out your hand. 19. You are not right because others agree with you. Ben Graham said you are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees. You are right because your facts and reasoning are right. Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower. All that matters is whether the facts are correct and the logic is sound. 20. Know where the edge of your circle of competence is. Buffett says the size of your circle does not matter. Knowing its perimeter does. You do not have to understand 90% of businesses. You just have to know something real about the few you actually put money into, and honestly recognize the ones you do not understand and walk away. 21. Intrinsic value is just the cash a business will produce, discounted back. Buffett thinks of every business as a bond with coupons that are not printed on it. Your job as an investor is to estimate those future coupons. If you cannot estimate them, like in a high-tech company, you pass. Investing is putting out money to get more back from what the asset produces, not from selling it to someone else. 22. The best businesses earn a royalty and need little capital. Coca-Cola sells a formula and takes a cut of every drink. Magazines like People operate on negative capital because subscribers pay in advance. The great businesses are the ones that can grow very large while needing almost no capital, which is why consumer businesses with pricing power are so valuable. 23. You only have to find one good idea, not twenty. Munger said you cannot find twenty deeply mispriced things, and Buffett agreed you do not need to. You do not have to have tons of good ideas in this business. You just need one good idea that is worth a ton, occasionally. For small sums, Buffett said he would have been 100% in Korea a few years earlier, where great companies traded at three times earnings. 24. The trick is measuring everything against your best opportunity. Munger calls this opportunity cost, the doctrine from the first page of the economics textbook that modern portfolio theory somehow ignored. Once you have found the best thing you understand, you measure every other option against it. The higher your default option, the more you can reject. 25. Modern portfolio theory is, in Munger's words, asinine. Most people will not find thousands of equally good things. They will find a few where one or two are far better than anything else they know. The right way to invest is to concentrate on your best opportunity cost, not to diversify into mediocrity because a model told you to. 26. Big opportunities must be seized, and seized big. Buffett says imagine you got a punch card with only twenty punches for your whole life, one per financial decision. You would think hard about each one, make fewer and better bets, and probably never use all twenty. The discipline of scarcity would make you rich. Dabbling in a bull market because it is easy is how people lose. 27. America has always been full of reasons to sell, and wrong every time. Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40, dropped to $19 within a year, and then faced the great depression, World War, and atomic bombs. One share reinvested is worth millions now. The country's opportunities have always won out over its problems. It is investors, not the economy, who tend to be their own worst enemy.
3:59:34

In 1998, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger spent 4 hours explaining why the smartest people in finance keep going broke. It might be the most valuable finance lecture ever recorded: 1. The smartest people in finance went completely broke. Long-term Capital Management had 16 people with possibly the highest average IQ of any firm in the country, 350 to 400 combined years of experience, and most of their own net worth in the fund. They still went bankrupt. Buffett said if he ever wrote a book it would be called why smart people do dumb things. 2. Life and markets have no relation to sigmas. Buffett keeps a 1901 newspaper on his office wall. Northern Pacific went from $170 to $1,000 a share in a single day when two buyers accidentally cornered the stock. A brewer who had shorted it, facing a margin call, dove into a vat of hot beer. That man probably understood sigmas and knew such a move was impossible. Buffett has never wanted to end up in the vat. 3. Beta and sigmas tell you nothing about the risk of going broke. the LTCM team relied on mathematics and believed a six- or seven-sigma event could not touch them. they were wrong. history does not tell you the probabilities of future financial events. the real risk is a permanent blind spot in something crucial, often caused by knowing a great deal about something else. 4. To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Munger's explanation for why brilliant people do dumb things. They learn a set of mathematical techniques and then twist every problem to fit the solution they already know. Combine that with a poor grasp of history, and you get people with advanced degrees blowing themselves up. 5. To make money they did not need, they risked money they did need. That is just plain foolish, Buffett says, no matter your IQ. Hand him a gun with a million chambers and one bullet, offer any sum to put it to his temple and pull once, and he will not do it. there is nothing on the upside that justifies the downside. people do this financially all the time without thinking. 6. The major banks all had risk models and had no idea what they owned. they met weekly at risk committees, printed all the statistics in neat columns, and did not have the faintest idea what risk they were carrying. The rare and essential quality is someone who can contemplate perils that have not popped up yet, the ones no past model contains. 7. A chief risk officer often just makes you feel good while you do dumb things. munger compares him to the Delphic oracle who convinced the Persian king to attack. he has a PhD and does advanced math, but he tortures reality to defend a model that does not hold under extreme conditions. all that computation makes you feel like you clobbered the risk when you have only clobbered your own head. 8. The whole quant risk system just changed the shape of the curve and kept going. Munger notes the business schools "improved" by throwing away the Gaussian curve and drawing a different one. They talk about fat tails now, but they still have no idea how fat to make them. he and Buffett always knew the tails were there, and used to roll their eyes at the risk-control people at Salomon. 9. Never risk what you have and need for what you do not have and do not need. Buffett will not explain to his family, who hold most of their net worth in Berkshire, that they went broke on a 100-to-1 gamble. Their returns get penalized 99 years out of 100 by being too conservative, and in the hundredth year they survive when others do not. 10. Build the business so that if the world stops working tomorrow, you have no problem. Berkshire double-layers its protection. First, they behave so no rational person questions their credit, then they hold so much liquidity that if the world suddenly hated their credit, they would not notice for months. It gives up higher returns 99% of the time and survives the one time others do not. 11. The real danger is a risk that has never happened before. Buffett wants someone who can imagine perils that have not yet appeared, the ones no model contains. The major institutions all had models, and that inability to envision the unprecedented is exactly what proved fatal. He and Munger spend a lot of time thinking about things that could hit them out of the blue that others leave out entirely. 12. Investing is simple, but not easy. The framework is not complicated. you did not need a high IQ to buy junk bonds in 2002 or stocks at low multiples in 1974. you just needed the courage of your convictions and the willingness to act when everyone else was paralyzed. Following logic rather than emotion is obvious, and yet some people find it almost impossible. 13. You cannot get rich with a weathervane. Buffett and Munger pay no attention to predictions about the economy or the market. People love predictions, entire industries are built on them, but it is like the king hiring a forecaster to read sheep guts. They have never made or avoided a single business purchase because of a macro view. 14. Name one super-wealthy economist. Munger's challenge. All these economists with 160 IQs spend their lives studying markets, and you cannot find one who got rich buying securities. Even Keynes tried to predict the credit cycle, broke a couple of times, and only did well once he switched to buying good businesses cheap and concentrating. 15. Focus only on what is important and knowable. Some things are important but unknowable, like whether someone drops a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Some things are knowable but unimportant. You narrow your attention to the small set of things that are both important and knowable, and you ignore everything else. 16. The market is there to serve you, not to instruct you. This is Graham's chapter eight, and Buffett calls it enormously important. When people talk about momentum or charts, they are saying the market instructs you. It does not. It just quotes prices. When it does something silly, you get a chance to act. Otherwise you go play bridge and check again tomorrow. 17. You can make a decision in five minutes or not at all. Buffett and Munger act fast because they rule out enormous territory in advance. Munger blots out startups entirely, and half a dozen other filters, so what remains is small enough to judge instantly. If they cannot decide in five minutes, they will not learn enough in five months to make up for going in deficient. 18. You can make a lot of money on a Sunday. Buffett said the calls you get on a Sunday, when things are truly screwed up, are the ones you make money on. All you have to do is be the collie and not the caller. You never get in a position where the other party can call your tune, so you can always play out your hand. 19. You are not right because others agree with you. Ben Graham said you are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees. You are right because your facts and reasoning are right. Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower. All that matters is whether the facts are correct and the logic is sound. 20. Know where the edge of your circle of competence is. Buffett says the size of your circle does not matter. Knowing its perimeter does. You do not have to understand 90% of businesses. You just have to know something real about the few you actually put money into, and honestly recognize the ones you do not understand and walk away. 21. Intrinsic value is just the cash a business will produce, discounted back. Buffett thinks of every business as a bond with coupons that are not printed on it. Your job as an investor is to estimate those future coupons. If you cannot estimate them, like in a high-tech company, you pass. Investing is putting out money to get more back from what the asset produces, not from selling it to someone else. 22. The best businesses earn a royalty and need little capital. Coca-Cola sells a formula and takes a cut of every drink. Magazines like People operate on negative capital because subscribers pay in advance. The great businesses are the ones that can grow very large while needing almost no capital, which is why consumer businesses with pricing power are so valuable. 23. You only have to find one good idea, not twenty. Munger said you cannot find twenty deeply mispriced things, and Buffett agreed you do not need to. You do not have to have tons of good ideas in this business. You just need one good idea that is worth a ton, occasionally. For small sums, Buffett said he would have been 100% in Korea a few years earlier, where great companies traded at three times earnings. 24. The trick is measuring everything against your best opportunity. Munger calls this opportunity cost, the doctrine from the first page of the economics textbook that modern portfolio theory somehow ignored. Once you have found the best thing you understand, you measure every other option against it. The higher your default option, the more you can reject. 25. Modern portfolio theory is, in Munger's words, asinine. Most people will not find thousands of equally good things. They will find a few where one or two are far better than anything else they know. The right way to invest is to concentrate on your best opportunity cost, not to diversify into mediocrity because a model told you to. 26. Big opportunities must be seized, and seized big. Buffett says imagine you got a punch card with only twenty punches for your whole life, one per financial decision. You would think hard about each one, make fewer and better bets, and probably never use all twenty. The discipline of scarcity would make you rich. Dabbling in a bull market because it is easy is how people lose. 27. America has always been full of reasons to sell, and wrong every time. Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40, dropped to $19 within a year, and then faced the great depression, World War, and atomic bombs. One share reinvested is worth millions now. The country's opportunities have always won out over its problems. It is investors, not the economy, who tend to be their own worst enemy.

Jaynit

102,294 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

Tucker Carlson Talking About Occult [Hidden] Forces, The Hyper-Dimensional Matrix, And That Humans Are Not In Control Of Themselves Tucker Carlson is getting very close to the "topic of all topics" as various esoteric spiritual traditions have talked about for thousands of years in their own way. In a recent interview (see video), he replied to a question by Luke Rudkowski: "There is good and evil. We're being acted upon at all the time. There are moments when you are moved to do things that are much better than you actually are and that are also more evil and destructive than you actually are. You are subject to forces outside yourself...There are forces that are not human that exist in a spiritual realm of some kind that we cannot see, and that sort of makes you think we live on an ant farm. Anything that is true and beautiful or anything that is dark and destructive is almost certainly a product of forces acting upon you." - Tucker Carlson Yes, indeed. We are transducers of higher forces and influenced by conscious forces from the higher and lower realms that exist in their own world and are not human, nor part of our "mind," nor a hallucination. We are subjected to the suggestions of occult hostile forces of the lower vital world, but we also receive insights and creative and inspirational impulses from Spirit and Divine forces, which also manifest as thoughts. Creative, sensitive people, writers, artists, and musicians get their ideas from these lower/higher realms. We all receive a mixture of these impressions/thoughts from the whole range of lower to the higher realm depending on many factors. We are transducers of higher realms and we are the battleground of various forces acting through us, hence as I've always said, the real war is THROUGH us and the battle field is within. Based on our level of Being [soul embodiment, how much you are connected to Essence, your true Self as opposed to being identified with your ego peronality], our intentions and aspirations in life can either be guided by the lower nature, or we can choose to align them with our higher nature and the Divine. The direction we bring out awareness determines which realm we tune into. As long as we live on the surface of ego-personality [which is also the result of unconscious trauma, shadow projections, childhood wounds, etc], the majority of this will be unconscious and mechanical. I have written and talked a lot about the Hyperdimensional Matrix Control System over the years, i.e., the non-physical occult hostile forces and their mechanisms that aim to keep us spiritually asleep. To recap this phenomenon, humanity is not on the top of the “food chain,” and humanity is not in control of its sovereign decisions on a ‘macro’ scale. The idea of “free will” is, in many aspects, an illusion. Most of what you see on the world stage is manipulated and designed to create this “food” frequency of scarcity-fueled fear and unconscious reactivity…to keep humanity in a frequency prison governed by forces that operate outside of our five-sensory perception. These forces work through us/others (including through the elite/controllers on a 3-D level, whom they use as portals/puppets to carry out their agenda) and distract us by projecting the shadows of separation consciousness on the wall/world stage (divide & conquer) and official cult-ure. It's the perfect foundation to keep people stuck in an endless loop of conflict with each other over thousands of years, ensuring that we remain disempowered so as to produce all the “loosh” they require to keep well-fed. However, this is a “concept” that is really hard for most people to grasp and accept and is most often ridiculed and laughed off as “sci-fi”, “conspiracy nonsense,” or “mental/psychological delusion” because it’s so far out their conditioned beliefs and view of life (a perspective that is inserted into our minds by the same “force”). And yet, despite the cynical skepticism, all of the ancient mystery schools, true shamanic insights, and esoteric teachings (much of which have been suppressed and/or distorted over thousands of years for obvious reasons) have conveyed this truth for ‘the ones with eyes to see and ears to hear,’ using their own language and symbolism: - “The General Law” (Esoteric Christianity) - Archons (Gnostics), - “Lords of Destiny” (Hermeticism), - Predator/Fliers, “The topic of all topics” (Shamanism, Castaneda), - “The Evil Magician” (Gurdjieff), - The Shaitans (Sufism), - The Jinn (Arabian mythology), - Wetiko (Native American Spirituality), - Occult Hostile Forces (Sri Aurobindo & The Mother, The Integral Yoga), - the Ahrimanic and Soratic Spirits of Darkness (Rudolf Steiner), etc. And Tucker is also correct about the alien phenomenon. We are not necessarily dealing with "ETs from other planets" but beings that have been around here for a very long time already, hiding right outside our five-sensory perception, who can appear in all kinds of ways. Sri Aurobindo hinted at this topic over 100 years ago: “Look at what happened in 1914 – or for that matter at all that is and has been happening in human history – the eye of the Yogin [spiritual seeker] sees not only the outward events and persons and causes but the enormous forces which precipitate them into action. If the men who fought were instruments in the hands of rulers and financiers, these, in turn, were mere puppets in the clutch of those occult [hidden] forces. Men are being constantly invaded by the hostiles, and there are great numbers of men who are partly or entirely under their influence. At the present moment, they are very active all over the earth. The struggle between the psychic (soul) and the hostile forces goes on mostly behind the veil or, so far as it is on the surface, is not understood by the mind. The apparent freedom and self-assertion of our personal being to which we are so profoundly attached conceal a most pitiable subjection to a thousand suggestions, impulsions, and forces. Our ego, boasting of freedom, is at every moment the slave, toy, and puppet of countless beings, powers, forces, and influences in universal Nature. All life is the play of universal forces. The individual gives a personal form to these universal forces. But he can choose whether he shall respond or not to the action of a particular force. Only most people do not really choose – they indulge in the play of the forces. When one is habituated to see the things behind, one is no longer prone to be touched by the outward aspects – or to expect any remedy from political, institutional, or social changes; the only way out is through the descent of a [Divine] consciousness which is not the puppet of these forces but is greater than they are.” More here: - The Matrix of Control – Beyond its 3D Manifestation - Beginner's Guide To Occult Forces (Podcast): - The Hidden Spiritual War Through Us - The Perilous Path Towards Awakening 26 articles and videos on the topic of the "Hyperdimensional Matrix & Occult Forces" here:
3:36

Tucker Carlson Talking About Occult [Hidden] Forces, The Hyper-Dimensional Matrix, And That Humans Are Not In Control Of Themselves Tucker Carlson is getting very close to the "topic of all topics" as various esoteric spiritual traditions have talked about for thousands of years in their own way. In a recent interview (see video), he replied to a question by Luke Rudkowski: "There is good and evil. We're being acted upon at all the time. There are moments when you are moved to do things that are much better than you actually are and that are also more evil and destructive than you actually are. You are subject to forces outside yourself...There are forces that are not human that exist in a spiritual realm of some kind that we cannot see, and that sort of makes you think we live on an ant farm. Anything that is true and beautiful or anything that is dark and destructive is almost certainly a product of forces acting upon you." - Tucker Carlson Yes, indeed. We are transducers of higher forces and influenced by conscious forces from the higher and lower realms that exist in their own world and are not human, nor part of our "mind," nor a hallucination. We are subjected to the suggestions of occult hostile forces of the lower vital world, but we also receive insights and creative and inspirational impulses from Spirit and Divine forces, which also manifest as thoughts. Creative, sensitive people, writers, artists, and musicians get their ideas from these lower/higher realms. We all receive a mixture of these impressions/thoughts from the whole range of lower to the higher realm depending on many factors. We are transducers of higher realms and we are the battleground of various forces acting through us, hence as I've always said, the real war is THROUGH us and the battle field is within. Based on our level of Being [soul embodiment, how much you are connected to Essence, your true Self as opposed to being identified with your ego peronality], our intentions and aspirations in life can either be guided by the lower nature, or we can choose to align them with our higher nature and the Divine. The direction we bring out awareness determines which realm we tune into. As long as we live on the surface of ego-personality [which is also the result of unconscious trauma, shadow projections, childhood wounds, etc], the majority of this will be unconscious and mechanical. I have written and talked a lot about the Hyperdimensional Matrix Control System over the years, i.e., the non-physical occult hostile forces and their mechanisms that aim to keep us spiritually asleep. To recap this phenomenon, humanity is not on the top of the “food chain,” and humanity is not in control of its sovereign decisions on a ‘macro’ scale. The idea of “free will” is, in many aspects, an illusion. Most of what you see on the world stage is manipulated and designed to create this “food” frequency of scarcity-fueled fear and unconscious reactivity…to keep humanity in a frequency prison governed by forces that operate outside of our five-sensory perception. These forces work through us/others (including through the elite/controllers on a 3-D level, whom they use as portals/puppets to carry out their agenda) and distract us by projecting the shadows of separation consciousness on the wall/world stage (divide & conquer) and official cult-ure. It's the perfect foundation to keep people stuck in an endless loop of conflict with each other over thousands of years, ensuring that we remain disempowered so as to produce all the “loosh” they require to keep well-fed. However, this is a “concept” that is really hard for most people to grasp and accept and is most often ridiculed and laughed off as “sci-fi”, “conspiracy nonsense,” or “mental/psychological delusion” because it’s so far out their conditioned beliefs and view of life (a perspective that is inserted into our minds by the same “force”). And yet, despite the cynical skepticism, all of the ancient mystery schools, true shamanic insights, and esoteric teachings (much of which have been suppressed and/or distorted over thousands of years for obvious reasons) have conveyed this truth for ‘the ones with eyes to see and ears to hear,’ using their own language and symbolism: - “The General Law” (Esoteric Christianity) - Archons (Gnostics), - “Lords of Destiny” (Hermeticism), - Predator/Fliers, “The topic of all topics” (Shamanism, Castaneda), - “The Evil Magician” (Gurdjieff), - The Shaitans (Sufism), - The Jinn (Arabian mythology), - Wetiko (Native American Spirituality), - Occult Hostile Forces (Sri Aurobindo & The Mother, The Integral Yoga), - the Ahrimanic and Soratic Spirits of Darkness (Rudolf Steiner), etc. And Tucker is also correct about the alien phenomenon. We are not necessarily dealing with "ETs from other planets" but beings that have been around here for a very long time already, hiding right outside our five-sensory perception, who can appear in all kinds of ways. Sri Aurobindo hinted at this topic over 100 years ago: “Look at what happened in 1914 – or for that matter at all that is and has been happening in human history – the eye of the Yogin [spiritual seeker] sees not only the outward events and persons and causes but the enormous forces which precipitate them into action. If the men who fought were instruments in the hands of rulers and financiers, these, in turn, were mere puppets in the clutch of those occult [hidden] forces. Men are being constantly invaded by the hostiles, and there are great numbers of men who are partly or entirely under their influence. At the present moment, they are very active all over the earth. The struggle between the psychic (soul) and the hostile forces goes on mostly behind the veil or, so far as it is on the surface, is not understood by the mind. The apparent freedom and self-assertion of our personal being to which we are so profoundly attached conceal a most pitiable subjection to a thousand suggestions, impulsions, and forces. Our ego, boasting of freedom, is at every moment the slave, toy, and puppet of countless beings, powers, forces, and influences in universal Nature. All life is the play of universal forces. The individual gives a personal form to these universal forces. But he can choose whether he shall respond or not to the action of a particular force. Only most people do not really choose – they indulge in the play of the forces. When one is habituated to see the things behind, one is no longer prone to be touched by the outward aspects – or to expect any remedy from political, institutional, or social changes; the only way out is through the descent of a [Divine] consciousness which is not the puppet of these forces but is greater than they are.” More here: - The Matrix of Control – Beyond its 3D Manifestation - Beginner's Guide To Occult Forces (Podcast): - The Hidden Spiritual War Through Us - The Perilous Path Towards Awakening 26 articles and videos on the topic of the "Hyperdimensional Matrix & Occult Forces" here:

Bernhard Guenther

278,718 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Lessons from Mary Kay Ash, the greatest saleswoman in history: 1. Golden Rule Leadership: The Golden Rule is one of the world’s oldest and best-known philosophies, yet it’s frequently overlooked in business circles. Mary Kay proved this rule is still powerful in today’s complicated world. 2. You Build with People: Leaders are dependent upon the performance of their people, and so is a company’s success. Good people are a company’s most important asset. People are more important than the plan. 3. The Invisible Sign: Everyone has an invisible sign hanging from their neck saying, “MAKE ME FEEL IMPORTANT!” Never forget this message when working with people. 4. Praise People to Success: Each of us craves recognition. Let people know you appreciate their performance, and they’ll respond by doing even better. Recognition is the most powerful of all motivating techniques. 5. The Art of Listening: Good leaders are good listeners. God gave us two ears and only one mouth, so we should listen twice as much as we speak. When you listen, the benefit is twofold: you receive necessary information, and you make the other person feel important. 6. Sandwich Every Bit of Criticism Between Two Heavy Layers of Praise: Sometimes it’s necessary to let somebody know you’re unhappy with their performance. But direct your criticism at the act, not the person. Criticize effectively in a positive way so you don’t destroy morale. (Shane's note, I actually don't agree with this. I've never met a high performer that needs this or wants it.) 7. Be a Follow-Through Person: Be the kind of person who can always be counted on to do what you say you’ll do. Only a small percentage of people possess follow-through ability, and they’re held in high esteem by all. It’s particularly important for your team to know you possess this rare quality and to think of you as totally reliable. 8. Enthusiasm Moves Mountains: Nothing great is ever achieved without enthusiasm. Leaders are enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is contagious. Interestingly, the word enthusiasm has a Greek origin, meaning “God within.” 9. The Speed of the Leader Is the Speed of the Gang: You must set the pace for your people. Real leaders aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. They set examples by demonstrating good work habits, displaying positive attitudes, and possessing team spirit. True leaders establish success patterns that make everyone think of success. 10. People Will Support That Which They Help to Create: Invite people to participate in new projects that are still in the “thinking” stage. By confiding in associates and seeking their opinions, you generate support at the initial stage of each new venture. People often resist change when they don’t participate in the decision-making process. Some of the best leaders “plant the seed” that permits others to propose the idea and take credit for it. 11. An Open-Door Philosophy: At Mary Kay corporate headquarters, there are no titles on executives’ doors, and there’s ready access to all management levels. Everyone within the company, from mailroom clerk to chairman of the board, is a human being and is treated accordingly. 12. Help Other People Get What They Want—and You’ll Get What You Want: As the parable of the talents tells us, we’re meant to use and increase whatever God has given us. And when we do, we shall be given more. 13. Stick to Your Principles: Everything is subject to change except one’s principles. Never, absolutely never, compromise your principles. 14. A Matter of Pride: Everyone within an organization should have a sense of pride in their work. They should also feel proud to be associated with the company. It’s a manager’s job to instill this feeling and promote this attitude among their people. 15. You Can’t Rest on Your Laurels: Nothing wilts faster than a laurel rested upon. Every person should have a lifetime self-improvement program. In today’s fast-paced world, you can’t stand still. You either go forward or backward. 16. Be a Risk-Taker: You must encourage people to take risks. Let them know that “nobody wins ’em all.” If you come down on them too hard for losing, they’ll stop sticking their necks out. 17. Work and Enjoy It: It’s okay to have fun while you work. Good managers encourage a sense of humor. In fact, the more enjoyment people derive from their work, the better they will produce. 18. Nothing Happens Until Somebody Sells Something: Every organization has something to “sell,” and every person in the company must realize that nothing happens until somebody sells something. Accordingly, they should be fully supportive of the selling effort. 19. Never Hide Behind Policy or Pomposity: Never say, “That’s against company policy” unless you have a good explanation to back up the policy. It infuriates people. It’s as if you were saying, “We do it this way because it’s the way we’ve always done it.” By the same token, pomposity can also be a transparent cover-up for incompetence. 20. Be a Problem-Solver: The best leaders recognize when a real problem exists and know how to take action to solve it. You must develop the ability to know the difference between a real problem and an imaginary one. 21. Less Stress: Stress stifles productivity. Leaders strive to create a stress-free work environment for their employees through both physical and psychological approaches. 22. Develop People from Within: The best-run companies develop their own managers from within. They rarely seek outsiders. In fact, it’s a sign of weakness when a company goes outside too often for management personnel. The morale of the company is likely to suffer. People may begin to feel threatened and think, “No matter how well I perform, an outsider will probably get the position I want.” 23. Live by the Golden Rule On and Off the Job: Don’t be a hypocrite. Live every day of the week as if it were Sunday. There’s no place for two sets of moral codes. Conduct yourself in business with the same scruples you would want your children to observe in their lives.
1:01:41

Lessons from Mary Kay Ash, the greatest saleswoman in history: 1. Golden Rule Leadership: The Golden Rule is one of the world’s oldest and best-known philosophies, yet it’s frequently overlooked in business circles. Mary Kay proved this rule is still powerful in today’s complicated world. 2. You Build with People: Leaders are dependent upon the performance of their people, and so is a company’s success. Good people are a company’s most important asset. People are more important than the plan. 3. The Invisible Sign: Everyone has an invisible sign hanging from their neck saying, “MAKE ME FEEL IMPORTANT!” Never forget this message when working with people. 4. Praise People to Success: Each of us craves recognition. Let people know you appreciate their performance, and they’ll respond by doing even better. Recognition is the most powerful of all motivating techniques. 5. The Art of Listening: Good leaders are good listeners. God gave us two ears and only one mouth, so we should listen twice as much as we speak. When you listen, the benefit is twofold: you receive necessary information, and you make the other person feel important. 6. Sandwich Every Bit of Criticism Between Two Heavy Layers of Praise: Sometimes it’s necessary to let somebody know you’re unhappy with their performance. But direct your criticism at the act, not the person. Criticize effectively in a positive way so you don’t destroy morale. (Shane's note, I actually don't agree with this. I've never met a high performer that needs this or wants it.) 7. Be a Follow-Through Person: Be the kind of person who can always be counted on to do what you say you’ll do. Only a small percentage of people possess follow-through ability, and they’re held in high esteem by all. It’s particularly important for your team to know you possess this rare quality and to think of you as totally reliable. 8. Enthusiasm Moves Mountains: Nothing great is ever achieved without enthusiasm. Leaders are enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is contagious. Interestingly, the word enthusiasm has a Greek origin, meaning “God within.” 9. The Speed of the Leader Is the Speed of the Gang: You must set the pace for your people. Real leaders aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. They set examples by demonstrating good work habits, displaying positive attitudes, and possessing team spirit. True leaders establish success patterns that make everyone think of success. 10. People Will Support That Which They Help to Create: Invite people to participate in new projects that are still in the “thinking” stage. By confiding in associates and seeking their opinions, you generate support at the initial stage of each new venture. People often resist change when they don’t participate in the decision-making process. Some of the best leaders “plant the seed” that permits others to propose the idea and take credit for it. 11. An Open-Door Philosophy: At Mary Kay corporate headquarters, there are no titles on executives’ doors, and there’s ready access to all management levels. Everyone within the company, from mailroom clerk to chairman of the board, is a human being and is treated accordingly. 12. Help Other People Get What They Want—and You’ll Get What You Want: As the parable of the talents tells us, we’re meant to use and increase whatever God has given us. And when we do, we shall be given more. 13. Stick to Your Principles: Everything is subject to change except one’s principles. Never, absolutely never, compromise your principles. 14. A Matter of Pride: Everyone within an organization should have a sense of pride in their work. They should also feel proud to be associated with the company. It’s a manager’s job to instill this feeling and promote this attitude among their people. 15. You Can’t Rest on Your Laurels: Nothing wilts faster than a laurel rested upon. Every person should have a lifetime self-improvement program. In today’s fast-paced world, you can’t stand still. You either go forward or backward. 16. Be a Risk-Taker: You must encourage people to take risks. Let them know that “nobody wins ’em all.” If you come down on them too hard for losing, they’ll stop sticking their necks out. 17. Work and Enjoy It: It’s okay to have fun while you work. Good managers encourage a sense of humor. In fact, the more enjoyment people derive from their work, the better they will produce. 18. Nothing Happens Until Somebody Sells Something: Every organization has something to “sell,” and every person in the company must realize that nothing happens until somebody sells something. Accordingly, they should be fully supportive of the selling effort. 19. Never Hide Behind Policy or Pomposity: Never say, “That’s against company policy” unless you have a good explanation to back up the policy. It infuriates people. It’s as if you were saying, “We do it this way because it’s the way we’ve always done it.” By the same token, pomposity can also be a transparent cover-up for incompetence. 20. Be a Problem-Solver: The best leaders recognize when a real problem exists and know how to take action to solve it. You must develop the ability to know the difference between a real problem and an imaginary one. 21. Less Stress: Stress stifles productivity. Leaders strive to create a stress-free work environment for their employees through both physical and psychological approaches. 22. Develop People from Within: The best-run companies develop their own managers from within. They rarely seek outsiders. In fact, it’s a sign of weakness when a company goes outside too often for management personnel. The morale of the company is likely to suffer. People may begin to feel threatened and think, “No matter how well I perform, an outsider will probably get the position I want.” 23. Live by the Golden Rule On and Off the Job: Don’t be a hypocrite. Live every day of the week as if it were Sunday. There’s no place for two sets of moral codes. Conduct yourself in business with the same scruples you would want your children to observe in their lives.

Shane Parrish

419,606 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

BREAKING: Bill Ackman just IPO'd his hedge fund. He targeted $25 billion two years ago. He raised $5 billion yesterday. And the retail investors he spent two years courting on X didn't show up. Here's what actually happened, and why it matters for every investor who thinks following a famous name is a strategy. Wednesday, April 29. Bill Ackman rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Two listed entities hit the market. Pershing Square USA (PSUS), the closed-end fund. Pershing Square Inc. (PS), the asset manager. PSUS priced at $50 a share. It opened at $42. It closed at $40.90. Down 18% on debut. One of the most famous hedge fund managers on the planet went public, and his fund lost nearly a fifth of its value in a single trading session. Now look at how the money actually came in. Of the $5 billion raised, $2.8 billion came from a private placement. Family offices took 30% of that. Pension funds took 25%. Insurance companies took 22%. Ultra-high-net-worth investors took 12%. Institutional investors accounted for over 85% of total orders. The remaining $2.2 billion came from a public offering of 44 million PSUS shares. Some of that was retail. Most of it was not. Ackman has 2 million followers on X. He spent two years marketing this fund as a way for regular people to access hedge fund returns at $50 a share. He even said it on CNBC the morning of the IPO: "Hedge funds are sort of known for managing money for rich people. And now we have the opportunity for someone with $50, could be a long-term shareholder. Usually, the retail gets cut massively back, the institutions are favored. We did the opposite." The retail audience he was talking to didn't believe him. The institutions did. Two years ago, the original target was $25 billion. Yesterday, the final number was $5 billion. That's an 80% downsize. This is one of the most watched investors in the world. He gets booked on every major financial network. He posts daily to millions of followers. He has been pitching this exact deal since 2024. And the deal still came in 80% smaller than planned. Here's the part nobody is connecting: The retail audience for hedge fund products is fundamentally different from the retail audience for personality content. Ackman built a following by being loud on X. Loud on takeovers. Loud on politics. Loud on universities. Loud on ETFs. Loud on macro calls. Followers love that. They follow. They reply. They retweet. But following someone is free. Wiring money into their closed-end fund at NAV with no performance fees and a fee structure most retail investors can't even read is an entirely different decision. The market just made that distinction for him. Now zoom out, because this is the structural lesson. The $2.8 billion private placement was wrapped up before retail even saw the deal. Family offices. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Sovereign wealth. These are the buyers who get the call before the IPO is announced. They get the term sheet. They negotiate. They commit. By the time the public sees the listing on a Wednesday morning, the institutions have already locked in their allocation. The retail investor sees the same news, gets the same prospectus, and reads the same ticker. Different game. Same name on the door. And then PSUS opened down 16% and closed down 18%. Every retail buyer who put in $50 at the IPO price was sitting on a $9 paper loss before lunch. The institutions had locked in better terms in the private placement. Same fund. Same manager. Two completely different starting positions. This is how the structure of capital markets actually works. Every. Single. Time. The brochure says democratization. The cap table says the institutions got there first. This is the same lesson the Blue Owl and BlackRock private credit stories taught us last year. When a famous money manager opens a vehicle to retail, the fine print and the fee structure and the timing of the allocation all favor the people who already have access. You can have a manager with no performance fee, with bonus shares attached, with two million social followers, and a stage on CNBC. The math of who gets in first and at what price is still the math. So what does this mean for you? It means a famous name on the cover is not a strategy. It means following an investor on X is not the same as being invested with them. It means the retail audience for entertaining finance content is enormous, and the retail audience for actually deploying capital into a complex product is not. The wealthy don't pay famous investors for personality. They build systems that don't depend on a single human being having a good year, or a good fund debut, or a good narrative on social media. Ackman's reputation got him on the front page. It didn't get the stock above its IPO price. The math always catches up. The personality doesn't change the math. Boring? Yes. Effective when a $25 billion vision becomes a $5 billion raise that opens down 18%? Also yes. This is exactly why we built Surmount. Automated, rules-based investment strategies. Built for the retail investor who doesn't want to bet a portfolio on whether a famous fund manager has a good debut:
5:01

Sensitive content

BREAKING: Bill Ackman just IPO'd his hedge fund. He targeted $25 billion two years ago. He raised $5 billion yesterday. And the retail investors he spent two years courting on X didn't show up. Here's what actually happened, and why it matters for every investor who thinks following a famous name is a strategy. Wednesday, April 29. Bill Ackman rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Two listed entities hit the market. Pershing Square USA (PSUS), the closed-end fund. Pershing Square Inc. (PS), the asset manager. PSUS priced at $50 a share. It opened at $42. It closed at $40.90. Down 18% on debut. One of the most famous hedge fund managers on the planet went public, and his fund lost nearly a fifth of its value in a single trading session. Now look at how the money actually came in. Of the $5 billion raised, $2.8 billion came from a private placement. Family offices took 30% of that. Pension funds took 25%. Insurance companies took 22%. Ultra-high-net-worth investors took 12%. Institutional investors accounted for over 85% of total orders. The remaining $2.2 billion came from a public offering of 44 million PSUS shares. Some of that was retail. Most of it was not. Ackman has 2 million followers on X. He spent two years marketing this fund as a way for regular people to access hedge fund returns at $50 a share. He even said it on CNBC the morning of the IPO: "Hedge funds are sort of known for managing money for rich people. And now we have the opportunity for someone with $50, could be a long-term shareholder. Usually, the retail gets cut massively back, the institutions are favored. We did the opposite." The retail audience he was talking to didn't believe him. The institutions did. Two years ago, the original target was $25 billion. Yesterday, the final number was $5 billion. That's an 80% downsize. This is one of the most watched investors in the world. He gets booked on every major financial network. He posts daily to millions of followers. He has been pitching this exact deal since 2024. And the deal still came in 80% smaller than planned. Here's the part nobody is connecting: The retail audience for hedge fund products is fundamentally different from the retail audience for personality content. Ackman built a following by being loud on X. Loud on takeovers. Loud on politics. Loud on universities. Loud on ETFs. Loud on macro calls. Followers love that. They follow. They reply. They retweet. But following someone is free. Wiring money into their closed-end fund at NAV with no performance fees and a fee structure most retail investors can't even read is an entirely different decision. The market just made that distinction for him. Now zoom out, because this is the structural lesson. The $2.8 billion private placement was wrapped up before retail even saw the deal. Family offices. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Sovereign wealth. These are the buyers who get the call before the IPO is announced. They get the term sheet. They negotiate. They commit. By the time the public sees the listing on a Wednesday morning, the institutions have already locked in their allocation. The retail investor sees the same news, gets the same prospectus, and reads the same ticker. Different game. Same name on the door. And then PSUS opened down 16% and closed down 18%. Every retail buyer who put in $50 at the IPO price was sitting on a $9 paper loss before lunch. The institutions had locked in better terms in the private placement. Same fund. Same manager. Two completely different starting positions. This is how the structure of capital markets actually works. Every. Single. Time. The brochure says democratization. The cap table says the institutions got there first. This is the same lesson the Blue Owl and BlackRock private credit stories taught us last year. When a famous money manager opens a vehicle to retail, the fine print and the fee structure and the timing of the allocation all favor the people who already have access. You can have a manager with no performance fee, with bonus shares attached, with two million social followers, and a stage on CNBC. The math of who gets in first and at what price is still the math. So what does this mean for you? It means a famous name on the cover is not a strategy. It means following an investor on X is not the same as being invested with them. It means the retail audience for entertaining finance content is enormous, and the retail audience for actually deploying capital into a complex product is not. The wealthy don't pay famous investors for personality. They build systems that don't depend on a single human being having a good year, or a good fund debut, or a good narrative on social media. Ackman's reputation got him on the front page. It didn't get the stock above its IPO price. The math always catches up. The personality doesn't change the math. Boring? Yes. Effective when a $25 billion vision becomes a $5 billion raise that opens down 18%? Also yes. This is exactly why we built Surmount. Automated, rules-based investment strategies. Built for the retail investor who doesn't want to bet a portfolio on whether a famous fund manager has a good debut:

Logan Weaver

220,648 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Here’s a very small story about the kind of leader Geoff Duncan is, and has been, from my time working with him my first term. When I served in the state Senate, the first bill I ever filed was hijacked. It passed out of the Senate, through House committee, and made it all the way through House Rules, at which point it was yanked back. (I actually appreciated the House GOP leadership for telling me this so plainly—it saved me a lot of time—but essentially I was told: “We like your policy. We don’t like your name on it. So we’re going to give it to a Republican woman.”) And…I get it. Sometimes that’s how it works in this place. It’s about the work, and the policy, not about getting credit. What we actually do and the people we help is what’s most important. But the thing I remember about this process was meeting with Geoff early in my first term, his encouragement, his telling me how he recognized good work when he saw it. I remember the ways he helped me, in the small, invisible ways it takes, to help this first-year nobody in the minority party to move her first bill. And he didn’t like what ultimately happened to that bill, because he believed—has always believed—in people over politics. The following year, that bill came back to us for a final vote. (Without my name in it, of course.) But he saw it, and remembered it, and did something so kind, and frankly unprecedented. He called me up to the rostrum, gave me the gavel, and allowed me to preside over the passage of my own bill. It was the first bill I ever wrote as a lawmaker, and it was ultimately signed into law the Spring of 2022. (Of note, this was also the first and last time we had two women physicians speaking together from the rostrum of the state Senate. And I know there were no subsequent times, because there are still only two of us.) Is this a huge story? No. Was this the most life-changing thing that ever happened in my time at the state Capitol? No. But that’s actually why it’s important. Because the true mark of leadership, and personal character, is what you do when you don’t *have* to. It’s when you show, rather than tell. It’s when you practice mentorship, true bipartisanship, strength of character, and genuine, human kindness, even when no one else might notice or care. Think for a second if we would ever see this in today’s legislative environment. And ask yourself if we would be better to have more moments, and leaders, like this. Geoff is the kind of leader I want to see leading our state. And I know, with our support, that he can win. And that’s why I’m endorsing him to be the next governor of Georgia.
3:26

Here’s a very small story about the kind of leader Geoff Duncan is, and has been, from my time working with him my first term. When I served in the state Senate, the first bill I ever filed was hijacked. It passed out of the Senate, through House committee, and made it all the way through House Rules, at which point it was yanked back. (I actually appreciated the House GOP leadership for telling me this so plainly—it saved me a lot of time—but essentially I was told: “We like your policy. We don’t like your name on it. So we’re going to give it to a Republican woman.”) And…I get it. Sometimes that’s how it works in this place. It’s about the work, and the policy, not about getting credit. What we actually do and the people we help is what’s most important. But the thing I remember about this process was meeting with Geoff early in my first term, his encouragement, his telling me how he recognized good work when he saw it. I remember the ways he helped me, in the small, invisible ways it takes, to help this first-year nobody in the minority party to move her first bill. And he didn’t like what ultimately happened to that bill, because he believed—has always believed—in people over politics. The following year, that bill came back to us for a final vote. (Without my name in it, of course.) But he saw it, and remembered it, and did something so kind, and frankly unprecedented. He called me up to the rostrum, gave me the gavel, and allowed me to preside over the passage of my own bill. It was the first bill I ever wrote as a lawmaker, and it was ultimately signed into law the Spring of 2022. (Of note, this was also the first and last time we had two women physicians speaking together from the rostrum of the state Senate. And I know there were no subsequent times, because there are still only two of us.) Is this a huge story? No. Was this the most life-changing thing that ever happened in my time at the state Capitol? No. But that’s actually why it’s important. Because the true mark of leadership, and personal character, is what you do when you don’t *have* to. It’s when you show, rather than tell. It’s when you practice mentorship, true bipartisanship, strength of character, and genuine, human kindness, even when no one else might notice or care. Think for a second if we would ever see this in today’s legislative environment. And ask yourself if we would be better to have more moments, and leaders, like this. Geoff is the kind of leader I want to see leading our state. And I know, with our support, that he can win. And that’s why I’m endorsing him to be the next governor of Georgia.

Dr. Michelle Au

31,393 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.
5:28

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.

Arnaud Bertrand

193,688 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:
31:35

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

14,195 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

John Mayer is a master of his craft. He’s also one of the best I’ve come across at using analogy and demonstration to articulate and demystify the creative process. Here’s a 14-clip (~7-minute) masterclass on mastery and creativity: TL;DW 1/ “Whenever I want to write a big song, I can't...That's when I get writer's block: when I try to write a song to fill the entire galaxy. I've never gotten a song that way. But if I write about something the size of a glass of water—a week later, I notice it's got the universe in it. So I'd rather have the universe in a glass of water than try to make a glass of water fit in the universe.” 2/ "What connects with people is you connecting with yourself." 3/ “Writer’s block is when the two people inside of you—the writer and the reader—when the reader doesn’t love the writer. It is not a failure to write. It is a failure to catch the feedback loop of enjoying what you’re seeing and wanting to contribute more to it.” 4/ “Don't shoot ideas down before you have them. 'That won't work' is the worst thing you can ever say. 'That didn't work' is cool, but 'that won't work' is not a way to go through life.” 5/ “I’ve seen the Cool metric change so many times. I'm not telling you don't chase Cool. I'm saying…by the time you reach what you think is cool, Cool is like, 'over here now.’ ‘The princess is in another castle.' You know what I mean? That's a Mario reference.” 6/ "I'm one-half consumer, one-half artist. So I try to put music out that I myself would want to hear as somebody on the other end." 7/ "I'm seeing a lot of motivation about you following your passion, but I'm not seeing any critical thought to what that is or how to be better at that. So, really the product is passion and that's strange to me. Because my product growing up was sitting in a room yelling, 'Mom, I'm practicing,' for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. 8/ "But then also read up...You know, this stuff doesn't just appear. It comes from somewhere. And as soon as you realize you love something—it's almost like catching up with some great TV show on season 9, and you can go, 'oh my God, that means there's 8 seasons before this." 9/ "Whatever you learn is the tip of the iceberg. Dive underwater and find the rest of the iceberg." 10/ "So listening to Stevie Ray Vaughan brought me back to people like Kenny Burrell and Albert King and Jimi Hendrix and Elmore James. So it became this family tree growing out of my CD player." 11/ "I came up with these guys as like references…It’s like if you're into the NBA and you wear different jerseys and you pretend you're a different player in the driveway—that's what I was doing..." 12/ "Which is a wonderful technique for being yourself. Failing to sound exactly like the person you want to sound like is a wonderful way to sound like yourself." 13/ After watching Cory Wong play guitar, Mayer told him, "You have an anatomy thing working on your right hand. Your hand is shaped in a way—you have long fingers, very sinewy hands—that you're able to play like that. That is an example of someone making the most of their anatomical gifts... And I wish more people could embrace finding what their strengths are anatomically—the way your hand is shaped, the way your mind works, whatever—and play to those strengths." 14/ Mayer picks up an acoustic guitar and demonstrates his songwriting process. “Well, I don’t always do it,” he admitted, “because it requires a stupid bravery all the time.” “You just stare at the corner of the wall," Mayer explains then improvises some vocals, “stare at the corner of the wall / try to get it going on / but I can’t sometimes / you just keep going ’til you get something,” he stops singing. “You gotta keep forcing it, forcing it, forcing it…it doesn’t matter [what comes out of your mouth].” Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!
6:57

John Mayer is a master of his craft. He’s also one of the best I’ve come across at using analogy and demonstration to articulate and demystify the creative process. Here’s a 14-clip (~7-minute) masterclass on mastery and creativity: TL;DW 1/ “Whenever I want to write a big song, I can't...That's when I get writer's block: when I try to write a song to fill the entire galaxy. I've never gotten a song that way. But if I write about something the size of a glass of water—a week later, I notice it's got the universe in it. So I'd rather have the universe in a glass of water than try to make a glass of water fit in the universe.” 2/ "What connects with people is you connecting with yourself." 3/ “Writer’s block is when the two people inside of you—the writer and the reader—when the reader doesn’t love the writer. It is not a failure to write. It is a failure to catch the feedback loop of enjoying what you’re seeing and wanting to contribute more to it.” 4/ “Don't shoot ideas down before you have them. 'That won't work' is the worst thing you can ever say. 'That didn't work' is cool, but 'that won't work' is not a way to go through life.” 5/ “I’ve seen the Cool metric change so many times. I'm not telling you don't chase Cool. I'm saying…by the time you reach what you think is cool, Cool is like, 'over here now.’ ‘The princess is in another castle.' You know what I mean? That's a Mario reference.” 6/ "I'm one-half consumer, one-half artist. So I try to put music out that I myself would want to hear as somebody on the other end." 7/ "I'm seeing a lot of motivation about you following your passion, but I'm not seeing any critical thought to what that is or how to be better at that. So, really the product is passion and that's strange to me. Because my product growing up was sitting in a room yelling, 'Mom, I'm practicing,' for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. 8/ "But then also read up...You know, this stuff doesn't just appear. It comes from somewhere. And as soon as you realize you love something—it's almost like catching up with some great TV show on season 9, and you can go, 'oh my God, that means there's 8 seasons before this." 9/ "Whatever you learn is the tip of the iceberg. Dive underwater and find the rest of the iceberg." 10/ "So listening to Stevie Ray Vaughan brought me back to people like Kenny Burrell and Albert King and Jimi Hendrix and Elmore James. So it became this family tree growing out of my CD player." 11/ "I came up with these guys as like references…It’s like if you're into the NBA and you wear different jerseys and you pretend you're a different player in the driveway—that's what I was doing..." 12/ "Which is a wonderful technique for being yourself. Failing to sound exactly like the person you want to sound like is a wonderful way to sound like yourself." 13/ After watching Cory Wong play guitar, Mayer told him, "You have an anatomy thing working on your right hand. Your hand is shaped in a way—you have long fingers, very sinewy hands—that you're able to play like that. That is an example of someone making the most of their anatomical gifts... And I wish more people could embrace finding what their strengths are anatomically—the way your hand is shaped, the way your mind works, whatever—and play to those strengths." 14/ Mayer picks up an acoustic guitar and demonstrates his songwriting process. “Well, I don’t always do it,” he admitted, “because it requires a stupid bravery all the time.” “You just stare at the corner of the wall," Mayer explains then improvises some vocals, “stare at the corner of the wall / try to get it going on / but I can’t sometimes / you just keep going ’til you get something,” he stops singing. “You gotta keep forcing it, forcing it, forcing it…it doesn’t matter [what comes out of your mouth].” Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!

Billy Oppenheimer

1,382,317 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

🚨BREAKING🚨: Former Tier 1 UFO Crash Retrieval Operator hides the truth about UFOs in Science “Fiction” novel and the Pentagon tried to censor it with 7 pages of redactions. The book posits that deep black American aerospace has been systematically using “psionic” operators to mentally attract and fly UFOs: they recruit refugees, often indigenous and from the third world countries, implant them with tracking chips, get them into heightened states of consciousness (aided by specific medications and protocols) and use them to attract UFOs. They then use these “psionic operators” to fly UFOs using electrical-signal based biofeedback from their minds. The UFO crash-retrieval contractor and now whistleblower Jake Barber (jakebarber) encoded these dark truths in this novel: The Sentinels of Ether. This book provoked review from special access program subject matter experts with 7 pages of Pentagon redactions in just its first 20 pages. Barber flew helicopter recoveries for an unnamed aerospace giant that many claim to be Northrop Grumman. Barber’s story is corroborated not only by multiple colleagues who flew missions with him but by Marine Michael Herrera (Mike Herrera) who described the same thing from the other side of the planet: a 2009 “humanitarian” mission in Indonesia, a 300-foot octagonal craft, men with no insignia, handheld bioscanners, and shipping containers with HVAC units bolted to the roof carrying human cargo. Those are the exact climate-controlled containers Barber says his program used. One operation, two continents, one in testimony in Washington D.C. and one in fiction. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (Matt Gaetz) received a similar briefing: “The briefing I got made these allegations about how the humans for this program were harvested.” He goes on to mention natural disasters, unaccompanied minors and swaths of humans in South America coming across the border along with the Ukraine war. Disaster zones where psionic assets get taken. The secret the Pentagon is protecting isn't a craft in a hangar. It's that the antenna is you. And that antenna has been systematically exploited in deep black programs around the world. The Pentagon Reviewed 20 Pages and Blacked Out Seven: Barber submitted his manuscript to DOPSR, the Defense Department's pre-publication review, in 20-page increments. The first round took six months and escalated to subject matter experts in classified special access programs, then came back with seven pages of redactions. That was 10 percent of a 120,000-word novel. Barber used the redactions backwards as a discovery tool, drip-feeding chapters to see which lines made the Pentagon flinch. They Clear the Sky, Then Bring the Craft Down: According to leaks made to Michael Herrera by an insider believed to be Barber, the programs used temporary flight restrictions to empty the airspace, lured craft in with a beacon, and dropped them with electromagnetic pulse weaponry. EMP delivers the electromagnetic fallout of a nuclear blast without the explosion, enough to kill flight controls and electronics in an instant. The downed craft were then transported out for reverse engineering. This is the mechanical spine of the entire retrieval operation. Civilian Planes That Wandered In Were Downed Too: That same insider, later identified as Barber, claimed these restricted-airspace operations brought down civilian aircraft that entered the wrong sky, with the bodies and wreckage disposed of. If even a fraction of that sat on the missing Panasonic Toughbooks his teams were sent to recover, those drives were a catastrophic liability. That is why, he says, the employer wanted both the evidence and him destroyed. The Craft Will Not Fly for an Ordinary Pilot: The central claim is that recovered craft cannot be flown by buttons or joysticks. They respond to consciousness, and a pilot without psychic ability gets the silent treatment. So the program wires a psychically gifted person into a brain-machine interface, and a conventional pilot routes his commands through that person's mind into the craft. The human becomes the navigation system. The Program Recruits Psychics in Poor Countries: Barber describes prospecting for what he calls P3s, psionic predisposition potential, often people from the third world who live simpler lives with fewer contaminants and stronger intuition. Refugees, disaster victims, and the displaced are ideal because no one questions when they vanish, and a natural disaster, a border crossing, or a war provides cover. In leaks Herrera passed to researcher JoeyIsNotMyName in 2023, these people are chipped, heavily drugged, and often die or slip into comas after years of use. A Marine Saw the Same Craft in Indonesia in 2009: Michael Herrera of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines was flown into the jungle on a 2009 humanitarian mission with no comms and no civilians. His six-man team encountered a 300-foot octagonal craft, so dark he compared it to dark matter, hovering above the canopy. An eight-man paramilitary force with no insignia disarmed them, scanned them with a bioscanner, and threatened to kill them if they talked. Herrera gave this account publicly at Steven Greer's (Dr. Steven Greer) 2023 National Press Club event. The HVAC Shipping Containers Gave It Away: Herrera saw trucks roll up with shipping containers that had HVAC units mounted on top, and assumed they were moving drugs. Barber knew better the moment he heard it, because those climate-controlled containers match the workstations his program used in the field. They were not hauling drugs. They were hauling people, including children, the same human cargo that appears in Barber's manuscript slung beneath a helicopter in the Mexican desert. A Lockheed Neuro-engineer and a Strange Motel Death: In 1999 Lockheed Martin neuroengineer John Norseen, funded by NASA and DARPA, published work on biofusion, a system that could be used to convert a pilot's thoughts directly into aircraft commands with no joystick. He talked about mapping a brain print for every intent and feeding states back into the mind. Shortly before a lecture at the Naval War College he emailed colleagues a cryptic sign-off, “John not heard nor seen,” and two weeks later was found dead in a motel room. The work did not die with him. The Patents and DARPA Programs Line Up Too Well: Lockheed engineers Charles Chase and Gerald Jonas later patented a closed-loop system that reads brainwaves and nudges them toward a target state with light, sound, and electromagnetic pulses. In 2018 DARPA launched N3, openly funding non-surgical brain-machine interfaces for controlling unmanned aircraft, and Battelle, a name all over UFO retrieval lore, advanced to phase two with an injectable nanoscale system called BrainSTORMS. Separately, the Navy's 2016 Salvatore Pais patent describes a craft that manipulates electromagnetic fields and would likely need something faster than a keyboard to control it. Every layer of Barber's story already sits in white papers, patents, and evening seemingly mundane “weather contracts.” A Mountain in Mexico That Craft Pass Through: The manuscript climaxes near Coyame, Mexico, sometimes called Mexico's Roswell, where helicopters carrying human cargo fly straight at a 1,500-foot mountain. At first, the rock appears almost holographic, pixelating from 3D to nothing as they slip through. But my best guess isn’t that it’s a hologram, but utility fog: theoretical programmable matter made of trillions of microscopic robots that can fake solid stone and jam electronics. Ross Coulthart (Ross Coulthart), and Robert Bigelow both described craft entering mountains, while remote viewers Pat Price and Joe McMoneagle described hidden bases inside them– some reportedly built by us. Why It Holds Up: Strip away the strangeness and you are left with two trained operators, Barber and Herrera, describing the same operation from two continents, plus a documented R&D trail running through Lockheed, DARPA, the Navy, and Battelle that matches the technology they describe. The Pentagon's own redaction process is doing the authenticating. The real thesis isn't that they're hiding craft. It's that the receiver has always been human neurology, and the program spent 70 years making sure we never figured that out. Full episode is live now.
5:24

🚨BREAKING🚨: Former Tier 1 UFO Crash Retrieval Operator hides the truth about UFOs in Science “Fiction” novel and the Pentagon tried to censor it with 7 pages of redactions. The book posits that deep black American aerospace has been systematically using “psionic” operators to mentally attract and fly UFOs: they recruit refugees, often indigenous and from the third world countries, implant them with tracking chips, get them into heightened states of consciousness (aided by specific medications and protocols) and use them to attract UFOs. They then use these “psionic operators” to fly UFOs using electrical-signal based biofeedback from their minds. The UFO crash-retrieval contractor and now whistleblower Jake Barber (jakebarber) encoded these dark truths in this novel: The Sentinels of Ether. This book provoked review from special access program subject matter experts with 7 pages of Pentagon redactions in just its first 20 pages. Barber flew helicopter recoveries for an unnamed aerospace giant that many claim to be Northrop Grumman. Barber’s story is corroborated not only by multiple colleagues who flew missions with him but by Marine Michael Herrera (Mike Herrera) who described the same thing from the other side of the planet: a 2009 “humanitarian” mission in Indonesia, a 300-foot octagonal craft, men with no insignia, handheld bioscanners, and shipping containers with HVAC units bolted to the roof carrying human cargo. Those are the exact climate-controlled containers Barber says his program used. One operation, two continents, one in testimony in Washington D.C. and one in fiction. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (Matt Gaetz) received a similar briefing: “The briefing I got made these allegations about how the humans for this program were harvested.” He goes on to mention natural disasters, unaccompanied minors and swaths of humans in South America coming across the border along with the Ukraine war. Disaster zones where psionic assets get taken. The secret the Pentagon is protecting isn't a craft in a hangar. It's that the antenna is you. And that antenna has been systematically exploited in deep black programs around the world. The Pentagon Reviewed 20 Pages and Blacked Out Seven: Barber submitted his manuscript to DOPSR, the Defense Department's pre-publication review, in 20-page increments. The first round took six months and escalated to subject matter experts in classified special access programs, then came back with seven pages of redactions. That was 10 percent of a 120,000-word novel. Barber used the redactions backwards as a discovery tool, drip-feeding chapters to see which lines made the Pentagon flinch. They Clear the Sky, Then Bring the Craft Down: According to leaks made to Michael Herrera by an insider believed to be Barber, the programs used temporary flight restrictions to empty the airspace, lured craft in with a beacon, and dropped them with electromagnetic pulse weaponry. EMP delivers the electromagnetic fallout of a nuclear blast without the explosion, enough to kill flight controls and electronics in an instant. The downed craft were then transported out for reverse engineering. This is the mechanical spine of the entire retrieval operation. Civilian Planes That Wandered In Were Downed Too: That same insider, later identified as Barber, claimed these restricted-airspace operations brought down civilian aircraft that entered the wrong sky, with the bodies and wreckage disposed of. If even a fraction of that sat on the missing Panasonic Toughbooks his teams were sent to recover, those drives were a catastrophic liability. That is why, he says, the employer wanted both the evidence and him destroyed. The Craft Will Not Fly for an Ordinary Pilot: The central claim is that recovered craft cannot be flown by buttons or joysticks. They respond to consciousness, and a pilot without psychic ability gets the silent treatment. So the program wires a psychically gifted person into a brain-machine interface, and a conventional pilot routes his commands through that person's mind into the craft. The human becomes the navigation system. The Program Recruits Psychics in Poor Countries: Barber describes prospecting for what he calls P3s, psionic predisposition potential, often people from the third world who live simpler lives with fewer contaminants and stronger intuition. Refugees, disaster victims, and the displaced are ideal because no one questions when they vanish, and a natural disaster, a border crossing, or a war provides cover. In leaks Herrera passed to researcher JoeyIsNotMyName in 2023, these people are chipped, heavily drugged, and often die or slip into comas after years of use. A Marine Saw the Same Craft in Indonesia in 2009: Michael Herrera of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines was flown into the jungle on a 2009 humanitarian mission with no comms and no civilians. His six-man team encountered a 300-foot octagonal craft, so dark he compared it to dark matter, hovering above the canopy. An eight-man paramilitary force with no insignia disarmed them, scanned them with a bioscanner, and threatened to kill them if they talked. Herrera gave this account publicly at Steven Greer's (Dr. Steven Greer) 2023 National Press Club event. The HVAC Shipping Containers Gave It Away: Herrera saw trucks roll up with shipping containers that had HVAC units mounted on top, and assumed they were moving drugs. Barber knew better the moment he heard it, because those climate-controlled containers match the workstations his program used in the field. They were not hauling drugs. They were hauling people, including children, the same human cargo that appears in Barber's manuscript slung beneath a helicopter in the Mexican desert. A Lockheed Neuro-engineer and a Strange Motel Death: In 1999 Lockheed Martin neuroengineer John Norseen, funded by NASA and DARPA, published work on biofusion, a system that could be used to convert a pilot's thoughts directly into aircraft commands with no joystick. He talked about mapping a brain print for every intent and feeding states back into the mind. Shortly before a lecture at the Naval War College he emailed colleagues a cryptic sign-off, “John not heard nor seen,” and two weeks later was found dead in a motel room. The work did not die with him. The Patents and DARPA Programs Line Up Too Well: Lockheed engineers Charles Chase and Gerald Jonas later patented a closed-loop system that reads brainwaves and nudges them toward a target state with light, sound, and electromagnetic pulses. In 2018 DARPA launched N3, openly funding non-surgical brain-machine interfaces for controlling unmanned aircraft, and Battelle, a name all over UFO retrieval lore, advanced to phase two with an injectable nanoscale system called BrainSTORMS. Separately, the Navy's 2016 Salvatore Pais patent describes a craft that manipulates electromagnetic fields and would likely need something faster than a keyboard to control it. Every layer of Barber's story already sits in white papers, patents, and evening seemingly mundane “weather contracts.” A Mountain in Mexico That Craft Pass Through: The manuscript climaxes near Coyame, Mexico, sometimes called Mexico's Roswell, where helicopters carrying human cargo fly straight at a 1,500-foot mountain. At first, the rock appears almost holographic, pixelating from 3D to nothing as they slip through. But my best guess isn’t that it’s a hologram, but utility fog: theoretical programmable matter made of trillions of microscopic robots that can fake solid stone and jam electronics. Ross Coulthart (Ross Coulthart), and Robert Bigelow both described craft entering mountains, while remote viewers Pat Price and Joe McMoneagle described hidden bases inside them– some reportedly built by us. Why It Holds Up: Strip away the strangeness and you are left with two trained operators, Barber and Herrera, describing the same operation from two continents, plus a documented R&D trail running through Lockheed, DARPA, the Navy, and Battelle that matches the technology they describe. The Pentagon's own redaction process is doing the authenticating. The real thesis isn't that they're hiding craft. It's that the receiver has always been human neurology, and the program spent 70 years making sure we never figured that out. Full episode is live now.

Jesse Michels

465,642 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

If you watch this ~50 minute screen recording closely (yeah, I know, it's long; there are also some times when my computer was very slow and laggy, just skip past that part. And at one point I had to run and get my 9-month-old a new bottle and left it on a boring screen, sorry!), I believe you can see real signs of the kind of runaway, recursive AI self-improvement that people have been warning of for a while (Mr. Kurzweil most notably and prophetically). Why do I say that? What's different now? Well, there's a reason my set of agent coding tooling is called the Flywheel. These tools all mutually self-reinforce each other. And they all flow directly into my ntm tool (short for "named_tmux_manager"), which acts as a sort of integration point and nerve center for the tools (this is becoming more true by the minute as I'm now seriously working on ntm). Now, ntm was something I started making to automate some aspects of my workflow, but it was the kind of thing where, until it was perfect, it sort of just slowed me down. So I didn't actually use it even though I kept working on it and trying to improve it, and suggested to users that they try it in my tutorials. Well anyway, I finally got around to "dogfooding" ntm last night, and now it's going to get very dramatically better at an alarming rate. Some of that is from applying my "idea wizard" prompt to generate more useful features and building that stuff out and addressing obvious pain points I encountered during my newfound usage of the tool. But a lot comes from my realization that, once again, ntm's true utility is not as a tool for ME, but for an agent. That is, ntm lets one instance of Claude Code or Codex act as, well, me, do the things that I had been doing manually. Do I wish I had started using ntm earlier? No, for two big reasons: 1) Doing it manually helped me build up my intuition massively, which directly led me down the path of creating useful prompt strategies and workflows; these often began as ad-hoc prompts that I realized could be generalized and made more versatile/universal. Lesson: don't prematurely automate until you have an intimate, intuitive feel for your "core value-add loop." Otherwise you'll have a fully automated system quickly that efficiently and automatically does a stupid or otherwise sub-optimal thing. 2) My eyes have been opened to the beauty and power of Skills. I'm not talking about your garden-variety skills that are just a simple markdown file. I'm talking about true tour-de-force directories of perfectly structured and organized files that are filled with good information, insights, workflows, etc., but presented in a way that is highly optimized for consumption by AI agents, with extreme attention paid to things like perfect progressive disclosure, token density, agent-ergonomics, agent-intuitiveness, etc. And also Skills that go way beyond markdown files, with full integration into Claude Code where it makes sense via hooks, sub-agents, and even Python scripts. These kinds of skills are a qualitative difference in expressive power and usefulness and a total game changer. They are also effectively composable, creating almost an algebra of skills that let you use them together in powerful ways. I'm working on a subscription service website and CLI tool now to share what I've learned here most effectively, stay tuned for that in the coming days. Anyway, I now know what to make and how to make it. So, getting back to that screen recording, what does it show that makes me claim recursive self-improvement is here? If you keep your eye on the upper left tmux pane, that's the "controller" agent. It is using ntm to control all the other panes which are also running Claude Code (but ntm fully supports other agent types like Codex and Gemini-CLI, and it's trivially easy to mix and match them if you wanted to have, say, 8 CCs and 6 Codexes for writing the code and 3 Gemini-CLIs for reviewing code.) Now, there's nothing that crazy about this much so far. But where it starts to get very cool is that as the session continues and we encounter real-world problems, things like my ridiculously overloaded computer that keeps hanging for long periods, Claude Code instances that crash and get into a frozen, unresponsive state, it can learn from that. And you can see it using my skill writing skill to refine its ntm vibe coding skill in real time. And then take that skill and refine it to be more intuitive for itself. Or use my cass tool skill to search all the session histories to look for problems that came up and strategize how to solve them. The most useful part was when, towards the end of the session, I told it to reflect on all the things we had done and problems we encountered. One way it can usefully leverage those reflections is by improving its ntm vibe coding skill to make it cover more edge cases and exigencies. But the other, more fundamental, way is for it to conceive of and design the optimal new features and functionality for ntm itself so that the tool embodies those lessons in a first-class way. This offloads cognition from its brain onto its tooling, just like how a person can lean on spellcheck or a calculator. It codifies correct, effective reasoning at the tool level, where it's more reliable and robust and repeatable. And btw, did you notice what code base it was working on the whole time? It was none other than ntm itself! So as it worked on its own tool, it had reflections and ideas about how to further improve the tool. Now, it could have just as easily gotten those insights and ideas while using ntm to work on a different project, but the fact that it was working on itself is almost gloriously meta and recursive. So by the end, after learning from tending to a big group of agent workers (btw, I have previously emphasized doing everything in a really distributed/decentralized way, where each fungible agent gets identical marching orders that tell it to use my bv tool to find the optimal bead to work on. This does work very well, but occasionally results in some contention and overlap from thundering herd, or at least wastes time/tokens/communication in avoiding that before the agents waste time duplicating work. But in this new ntm-oriented workflow, I was able to have the controller agent in the upper left use bv itself and then optimally parcel out the instructions to each agent so that we could know for sure that there's no overlap), I ended up with a ton of new beads for new features, which I had it optimize and polish a few times. Now I can swap to a new Claude Max account and have the swarm implement all those new features! It should only take a couple passes like the one shown in the screen recording to get everything implemented. Then we can rinse and repeat, having the agent read through the full session histories of each agent and its experience from its own session in sending ntm commands and seeing how they worked out in practice, to come up with the next batch of changes to both its ntm vibe coding skill AND to the ntm tool itself. Do you see how rapidly this turns into Skynet? My mistake earlier was in focusing on making myself a "faster horse" as Henry Ford used to joke about customers wanting before he showed them what they should really want (a Model T). That is, something that would make my experience nicer while doing this agent swarm based development workflow. But the obvious lesson is that you should make all your tooling agent-first because the agents are just better at this stuff. You can still watch, and of course I did add a ridiculous number of very nice human-centric features to ntm that you'll be seeing in the next day or two, but those are really kind of "for fun" to make us humans feel better about the process. All the real value-add is happening "by agents, for agents." PS: Towards the end, you can see me switch to my Mac and tell Claude to improve the skill that I made earlier today for taking the mkv screen recording files from OBS Studio and muxing them into MP4 files for sharing, while downloading songs from YouTube to serve as the background music. I made it so it can also grab the thumbnails and generate little song credit cards that show up in the lower right corner. This worked perfectly the first time! I'll include some screenshots in a response post showing how that worked, but it was awesome to witness. Skills are POWERFUL. I'll also post a link to this video on YouTube if you prefer to watch it there.
51:48

If you watch this ~50 minute screen recording closely (yeah, I know, it's long; there are also some times when my computer was very slow and laggy, just skip past that part. And at one point I had to run and get my 9-month-old a new bottle and left it on a boring screen, sorry!), I believe you can see real signs of the kind of runaway, recursive AI self-improvement that people have been warning of for a while (Mr. Kurzweil most notably and prophetically). Why do I say that? What's different now? Well, there's a reason my set of agent coding tooling is called the Flywheel. These tools all mutually self-reinforce each other. And they all flow directly into my ntm tool (short for "named_tmux_manager"), which acts as a sort of integration point and nerve center for the tools (this is becoming more true by the minute as I'm now seriously working on ntm). Now, ntm was something I started making to automate some aspects of my workflow, but it was the kind of thing where, until it was perfect, it sort of just slowed me down. So I didn't actually use it even though I kept working on it and trying to improve it, and suggested to users that they try it in my tutorials. Well anyway, I finally got around to "dogfooding" ntm last night, and now it's going to get very dramatically better at an alarming rate. Some of that is from applying my "idea wizard" prompt to generate more useful features and building that stuff out and addressing obvious pain points I encountered during my newfound usage of the tool. But a lot comes from my realization that, once again, ntm's true utility is not as a tool for ME, but for an agent. That is, ntm lets one instance of Claude Code or Codex act as, well, me, do the things that I had been doing manually. Do I wish I had started using ntm earlier? No, for two big reasons: 1) Doing it manually helped me build up my intuition massively, which directly led me down the path of creating useful prompt strategies and workflows; these often began as ad-hoc prompts that I realized could be generalized and made more versatile/universal. Lesson: don't prematurely automate until you have an intimate, intuitive feel for your "core value-add loop." Otherwise you'll have a fully automated system quickly that efficiently and automatically does a stupid or otherwise sub-optimal thing. 2) My eyes have been opened to the beauty and power of Skills. I'm not talking about your garden-variety skills that are just a simple markdown file. I'm talking about true tour-de-force directories of perfectly structured and organized files that are filled with good information, insights, workflows, etc., but presented in a way that is highly optimized for consumption by AI agents, with extreme attention paid to things like perfect progressive disclosure, token density, agent-ergonomics, agent-intuitiveness, etc. And also Skills that go way beyond markdown files, with full integration into Claude Code where it makes sense via hooks, sub-agents, and even Python scripts. These kinds of skills are a qualitative difference in expressive power and usefulness and a total game changer. They are also effectively composable, creating almost an algebra of skills that let you use them together in powerful ways. I'm working on a subscription service website and CLI tool now to share what I've learned here most effectively, stay tuned for that in the coming days. Anyway, I now know what to make and how to make it. So, getting back to that screen recording, what does it show that makes me claim recursive self-improvement is here? If you keep your eye on the upper left tmux pane, that's the "controller" agent. It is using ntm to control all the other panes which are also running Claude Code (but ntm fully supports other agent types like Codex and Gemini-CLI, and it's trivially easy to mix and match them if you wanted to have, say, 8 CCs and 6 Codexes for writing the code and 3 Gemini-CLIs for reviewing code.) Now, there's nothing that crazy about this much so far. But where it starts to get very cool is that as the session continues and we encounter real-world problems, things like my ridiculously overloaded computer that keeps hanging for long periods, Claude Code instances that crash and get into a frozen, unresponsive state, it can learn from that. And you can see it using my skill writing skill to refine its ntm vibe coding skill in real time. And then take that skill and refine it to be more intuitive for itself. Or use my cass tool skill to search all the session histories to look for problems that came up and strategize how to solve them. The most useful part was when, towards the end of the session, I told it to reflect on all the things we had done and problems we encountered. One way it can usefully leverage those reflections is by improving its ntm vibe coding skill to make it cover more edge cases and exigencies. But the other, more fundamental, way is for it to conceive of and design the optimal new features and functionality for ntm itself so that the tool embodies those lessons in a first-class way. This offloads cognition from its brain onto its tooling, just like how a person can lean on spellcheck or a calculator. It codifies correct, effective reasoning at the tool level, where it's more reliable and robust and repeatable. And btw, did you notice what code base it was working on the whole time? It was none other than ntm itself! So as it worked on its own tool, it had reflections and ideas about how to further improve the tool. Now, it could have just as easily gotten those insights and ideas while using ntm to work on a different project, but the fact that it was working on itself is almost gloriously meta and recursive. So by the end, after learning from tending to a big group of agent workers (btw, I have previously emphasized doing everything in a really distributed/decentralized way, where each fungible agent gets identical marching orders that tell it to use my bv tool to find the optimal bead to work on. This does work very well, but occasionally results in some contention and overlap from thundering herd, or at least wastes time/tokens/communication in avoiding that before the agents waste time duplicating work. But in this new ntm-oriented workflow, I was able to have the controller agent in the upper left use bv itself and then optimally parcel out the instructions to each agent so that we could know for sure that there's no overlap), I ended up with a ton of new beads for new features, which I had it optimize and polish a few times. Now I can swap to a new Claude Max account and have the swarm implement all those new features! It should only take a couple passes like the one shown in the screen recording to get everything implemented. Then we can rinse and repeat, having the agent read through the full session histories of each agent and its experience from its own session in sending ntm commands and seeing how they worked out in practice, to come up with the next batch of changes to both its ntm vibe coding skill AND to the ntm tool itself. Do you see how rapidly this turns into Skynet? My mistake earlier was in focusing on making myself a "faster horse" as Henry Ford used to joke about customers wanting before he showed them what they should really want (a Model T). That is, something that would make my experience nicer while doing this agent swarm based development workflow. But the obvious lesson is that you should make all your tooling agent-first because the agents are just better at this stuff. You can still watch, and of course I did add a ridiculous number of very nice human-centric features to ntm that you'll be seeing in the next day or two, but those are really kind of "for fun" to make us humans feel better about the process. All the real value-add is happening "by agents, for agents." PS: Towards the end, you can see me switch to my Mac and tell Claude to improve the skill that I made earlier today for taking the mkv screen recording files from OBS Studio and muxing them into MP4 files for sharing, while downloading songs from YouTube to serve as the background music. I made it so it can also grab the thumbnails and generate little song credit cards that show up in the lower right corner. This worked perfectly the first time! I'll include some screenshots in a response post showing how that worked, but it was awesome to witness. Skills are POWERFUL. I'll also post a link to this video on YouTube if you prefer to watch it there.

Jeffrey Emanuel

25,483 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.
0:55

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

2,104,770 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. *** Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. *** I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.
0:24

‡ The Pacific Classic Result It was unfortunate that Nysos was scratched, but the result was interesting, with Fierceness, the 1.6/1 second-favorite, comfortably handling Journalism, the (overbet) 2/5 choice. That the odds of the remaining five runners ranged between 22/1 and 72/1, underscored the yawning gap in quality between the top pair and the rest. So it was clearly no surprise that the "also-rans" toiled in their wake. What was surprising, at least at first glance, was how well Fierceness appeared to handle less than ideal conditions. But on closer inspection, his trip was actually far less challenging than the vast majority of post-race takes have suggested. His having ducked in soon after the start, almost making contact with the temporary extension rail, could have been a disaster, but it wasn't, and its importance has arguably been overblown. I say that because it was not similar to the trouble that he had encountered early in some of his previous races, in that he was in his own space, and was neither bumped, constricted, nor otherwise intimidated by other runners. This is an important distinction, because the mental weakness that he had previously displayed was related to close encounters with other horses, and his ducking-in after the break did not fall into that category. Inexperienced horses may suffer from that type of self-inflicted event, but given a mature, experienced runner, they are almost always forgotten quickly, which was clearly the case here. The fact that it was a long race also helped to mitigate the event, as there was no need for the rider to panic, or feel pressure to make up ground immediately. It is even possible that the early ground loss actually helped Fierceness, as had he been drawn closer to the pace early, it could have rendered him vulnerable in the late stages of the race. At the same time, due to the inside post, and how the race unfolded, Johnny Velasquez, who has done such a brilliant job keeping Fierceness outside and clear of his rivals in his previous wins, was forced to make the best of racing inside of horses. I understand why some are tempted to argue that Fierceness displayed a new dimension, as there were no obvious signs of him having been intimidated, despite the inside trip. But while I am willing to consider the possibility that he has gained confidence, I remain skeptical of any significant change, in part because it would be highly unusual for a horse to overcome that type of mental weakness midway through its four-year-old season, and/or in its 13th start. I also remain unconvinced for more subtle reasons. First, Fierceness was never bounced around, and with the possible exception of the first turn, he was never forced to race in especially tight quarters. Secondly, the rhythm of the race, after the initial duck-in, was actually smooth, and therefore beneficial to him. To understand why the above points are important, consider that Fierceness was never, so to speak, allergic to racing inside, but was more likely to face contact, be squeezed into a tight space, or have his rhythm thrown off when breaking from an inside post. In contrast, when breaking from an outside post, JV has invariably been able to place him clear of the pack, and in a comfortable, stalking rhythm. Fierceness is also essentially a free-runner, with a "light" mouth, and as such performs best when his rider allows him to dictate his own rhythm and pace. That is why, for example, Johnny V was not at all responsible for his loss in the Breeders' Cup Classic, as he is not the type of horse that a rider can take a strong hold of in order to restrain him further off of the pace, as that would discourage him. And to the great credit of both JV and Todd Pletcher, they picked up on this early on, and have done a superb job mitigating the colt's limitations, and maximizing his potential. In the Pacific Classic, despite racing on the inside, Johnny V remained cool and calm, and gave Fierceness another masterful ride. He and the colt's connections did benefit though, as none of his rivals, either intentionally or not, tightened things up significantly, or otherwise disrupted his rhythm. In fact, quite the opposite. Having tracked comfortably through much of the race, and with space around him, Fierceness displayed his trademark spurt on the final turn. And while the pan shot may suggest that he slipped though a tight opening, it was more like the red sea parting, as the embedded head-on view illustrates. If you are able to view the full head-on replay, you will find that despite racing inside, Fierceness actually enjoyed quite a comfortable trip, after the eventful few strides. A more subtle indication that we were watching the same horse as in his previous races comes :12-14 seconds into the embedded clip. When he was about to take the lead, he cocked his head to the right, as if he may have been worried about the horse outside of him. He was able to draw away from that one so quickly that it was ultimately of no practical consequence, but I would say that it implies that he hasn't suddenly developed the heart of a lion. *** Two qualities that have been crucial to Fierceness' success are his tactical speed, coupled with the separation that he produces on the final turn of his (two-turn) races. His ability to take command at that crucial stage has served him very well, particularly in his narrow win over Thorpedo Anna, and it was again on display in the Pacific Classic. A big part of the reason why that move has been such an important part of his arsenal is that it typically allows his him to take a "breather", before digging deep in an effort to fend off any late dangers. I encourage you to watch the (pan) replay of the Pacific Classic, and focus on Johnny V from around the 3/8th pole to the head of the stretch, as he was sitting like the proverbial statue. So for at least a furlong and a half, Fierceness was on cruise control, while Journalism, his only danger, was under pressure to make up ground, in an attempt to simply reach striking distance. But with all due credit to Fierceness and his rider for having produced fine efforts in the Pacific Classic, was this really an exceptionally outstanding performance, or was it at least partly a reflection of his only serious rival failing to run his best? I'm inclined to argue the latter. Despite Journalism having produced an unusually good 3yo campaign, capped by three Gr. I wins, including a Classic success in the Preakness, and never finishing worse than second, there have been some lingering questions. One of them is whether he is actually as well-suited to 10f. as he is to 8-9f. races. Yes, he was beaten in his two previous tries over 10f. by Sovereignty, a better horse. But in each race he was able to gain first-run on that one, an advantage that is typically difficult to overcome, yet lost ground late to the winner both times, and to Baeza as well, in the KY Derby. Some have suggested that he may have a tendency to loaf when in front, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that. And such horses typically dig in when passed, in efforts to re-engage, which we haven't seen, at least overtly, from Journalism. He also drew away from his rivals late in his first three wins. Alex Evers made this interesting comment about the kickback in the Pacific Classic: "I've photographed racing for 20 years, I've never seen kick back knock a jockeys goggles off like this." Here is a link to his supporting photos, which are typically excellent: Could that have discouraged Journalism? I suppose that it could have been an impediment, but he is such a tough and honest horse, that I would be surprised to learn that it was a meaningful factor. By contemporary standards, Journalism has also had a busy campaign, having raced a touch over once per month since March, all but one of which in Grade I events, and four times well away from his home base. So it is possible that he is beginning to feel the effects of those races, and travels. I have also noted that from a Beyer figure standpoint, he hasn't really moved forward, and it's worth noting that in contrast to Sovereignty and Baeza, both of which were late (May) foals, Journalism was a February foal, and may not have had quite as much room to improve. I don't know why he lagged so far behind in the early stages of the Pacific Classic, or if there was any tactical intention behind it. I had previously suggested that it might make sense to ride him more patiently, a tactic that is sometimes adopted when there are questions about a horse staying a trip. But I didn't notice any improved late kick, so it's difficult to interpret the performance. Fierceness earned a 107 Beyer figure for his victory, slower than his best three races last year, and merely equivalent to his comeback victory in the Gr. II Alysheba at Churchill Downs, in May. That doesn't suggest that it was a particularly outstanding performance. Journalism was given a 102, which implies that the return to his home court did not catalyze any notable forward move. *** I would say that there is one relevant pattern that has emerged, namely that Fierceness has an apparent affinity for the faster, high energy return track surfaces in California. He has now contested three races in CA (Beyer): 1st Breeders' Cup Juvenile (105) 2nd Breeders' Cup Classic (111) 1st Pacific Classic (107) It's also interesting to compare the colt's first and last half-mile fractions in his effort in last year's BCC, and the PC, both contested at Del Mar over 10f.: BCC – :45 1/5 • :51 3/5 PC – :46 1/5 • :50 2/5 Predictably, he finished better in the PC, thanks to more manageable early fractions. But would a repeat of that effort be nearly sufficient to win this year's Classic? Given the various points noted above, coupled with Sovereignty's continued improvement, and seemingly bottomless stamina, I would be inclined to say no. And that's before even factoring Sierra Leone, Mindframe, Forever Young, et al, into the conversation. But setting aside all of the fine parsing, I'm happy to congratulate Repole Stable, and Fierceness' other connections, for having shipped to California, and for being rewarded with an exciting, winning effort. Assuming that the colt makes it to the Breeders' Cup Classic in good order, he should minimally add spice to the race, and who knows, perhaps even provide a serious challenge to knock Sovereignty off of his current throne.

Tinky

10,516 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Poland is extraordinary, and I decided to add some information to a video, adding insight, information, and little-known facts. I love Polish history, culture, people, food, and especially their attitudes and loyal friendships. Some people don't like Polish, probably because they don't know them - some people don't like me because I like Polish. People should have more self-reflection instead of so much hate for other people. This behavior is a human problem, and it affects too many people. Perhaps one day, instead of finding the bad in everyone, we could find the good. I find so many positive attributes in the Polish people, and that's why I advocate for them and talk about their astonishing history because I believe more people should know. First, Poland should not exist historically. Germany and Russia have been trying to eat it up for centuries. Poland is the bloodlands of Europe, sitting in between these two monsters. It did not exist for 123 years, but the people although, split between three nations – Austria as well was meant to be obliterated, and the people assimilated, they kept their culture together and came back alive in 1919, just in time to save Europe from Bolshevism. The Reds were invading and bringing this deadly virus into Europe, but the Poles stopped them just in time. Perhaps without them, you may be in a labor camp right now? I bet you didn't know that? This salvation was not the first time the Polish saved European civilization, In 1683, Vienna was under siege by the Turks; right on the cusp of breaching the city, making their way into Europe, ripe for spreading Islam, the Polish saved the day. This time an army led by King Jan Sobieski and his winged hussar cavalry routs the army – this ends the long years of encroachment into Europe. A little more information. Poles seem everywhere; this time, a cavalryman named Pulaski and an engineer Kosciusko traveled to America to help Washington. Pulaski saved Washington from sure death or capture when encircled at Brandywine. Pulaski's title is the father of the American cavalry. Kosciusko's engineering was crucial to the victory of turning the tide at the battle of Saratoga; He made it possible for the Americans to make a successful retreat. Perhaps without these two Poles, there would be no United States. This is not an exaggeration. Individuals and individual decisions often make history. Just think of that today if not for Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison, or Tesla; we may not be watching this. Many of us are more familiar with World War II, though Poland is the least appreciated and most manipulated nation from that era. The war began because of the invasion of Poland by the Germans, and most people don't know that the Soviets invaded Poland 16 days later, yet they would be considered our allies - they were no better and, in fact, casualty-wise, worse. The Soviets murdered 22 thousand Polish officers at Katyn, and between 1937 -1938, over 100 thousand Poles died in a Soviet genocide. Many Russians themselves were victims. The problem is that our Western intellectuals have been promoting this ideology. Many of these horrific crimes have been covered up, and much of it is. Like 100 million dead from communism isn't enough, will it work next time? Unlike what you hear, the Polish actually fought quite hard against the Germans, but they couldn't do that for long because they were attacked on two flanks. Some of the Polish armies were capable of escaping, and the Polish army in exile made up the fourth-largest allied army. The Polish had an underground army with more than the French resistance you always hear about. Still, the Polish didn't get to sit at the winner's table as the French, although the French even had a collaborative government. Poland never surrendered to the invaders and fought from the first to the last day of the war. There were cooperating governments in many other countries but not in Poland. The Polish underground army was a phenomenon on a worldwide and historical scale. They had a 650,000-man army - 400,000 AK soldiers and 250,000 volunteers fighting alongside the Allies in the West. Without them, the war may have been very different, and this is beyond doubt for Polish pilots that came to the rescue of the British pilots when they most needed them. The Battle of Britain was pivotal, and we know that the Polish pilots were game-changers. Indeed, even more, the Poles were the ones the broke the Enigma code, which deciphered German secrets. Imagine what may have happened without these geniuses? These are just a few of the many ways the Polish played a role in World War II, but how often do you hear about them? Maybe their inability to march in the victory parade in London would foretell some of why. Even though the war was won and the Polish came to their rescue, the British didn't want to offend the Communist Stalin, to whom they gave Poland after the war. The Polish were betrayed at the start of the war and would be betrayed at the end. No real liberation would come until 1989, and still, to this day; they are betrayed by dishonest historians, who we call neo-Stalinists, intent on defaming the Polish after all they have been through. This is why it is vital to check out your reading to ensure it is factual and not manipulated. Today, this history is being abused for various agendas, including one that involves a lot of money. When this is at stake, so-called historians will work hand in hand with those who want that money. We all know what money does. The country has been invaded or has fought for freedom in insurrections over 40 times. Poland adopted its first written constitution in the spring of 1791, which was the 2nd in the world valid legal document of the kind. The Old Town that you can see in Warsaw isn't the actual Old Town from before the war. The original was bombed entirely in the 40s, and Poles rebuilt it after the war using Bernardo Bellotto's detailed paintings. It now looks as it did in the 18th century rather than the 20th. Marie Curie, who discovered Polon and Rad, wasn't French but Polish. Her name was Marie Sklodowska before she married a Frenchman named Pierre Curie. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first and only woman to win twice, and the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences. Joseph Conrad was actually Polish too. Poland has the second oldest university in the whole of Europe - Jagiellonian University, founded by King Casimir III the Great in the year 1364. The most famous astronomer in the world was from Poland. Nicolaus Copernicus was also a Renaissance mathematician. There have been 17 different Nobel Prize winners from Poland. This speech is just the tip of the iceberg for Polish history. There is much more to explore – I challenge you to start your journey. Thanks for viewing!🙏
6:22

Poland is extraordinary, and I decided to add some information to a video, adding insight, information, and little-known facts. I love Polish history, culture, people, food, and especially their attitudes and loyal friendships. Some people don't like Polish, probably because they don't know them - some people don't like me because I like Polish. People should have more self-reflection instead of so much hate for other people. This behavior is a human problem, and it affects too many people. Perhaps one day, instead of finding the bad in everyone, we could find the good. I find so many positive attributes in the Polish people, and that's why I advocate for them and talk about their astonishing history because I believe more people should know. First, Poland should not exist historically. Germany and Russia have been trying to eat it up for centuries. Poland is the bloodlands of Europe, sitting in between these two monsters. It did not exist for 123 years, but the people although, split between three nations – Austria as well was meant to be obliterated, and the people assimilated, they kept their culture together and came back alive in 1919, just in time to save Europe from Bolshevism. The Reds were invading and bringing this deadly virus into Europe, but the Poles stopped them just in time. Perhaps without them, you may be in a labor camp right now? I bet you didn't know that? This salvation was not the first time the Polish saved European civilization, In 1683, Vienna was under siege by the Turks; right on the cusp of breaching the city, making their way into Europe, ripe for spreading Islam, the Polish saved the day. This time an army led by King Jan Sobieski and his winged hussar cavalry routs the army – this ends the long years of encroachment into Europe. A little more information. Poles seem everywhere; this time, a cavalryman named Pulaski and an engineer Kosciusko traveled to America to help Washington. Pulaski saved Washington from sure death or capture when encircled at Brandywine. Pulaski's title is the father of the American cavalry. Kosciusko's engineering was crucial to the victory of turning the tide at the battle of Saratoga; He made it possible for the Americans to make a successful retreat. Perhaps without these two Poles, there would be no United States. This is not an exaggeration. Individuals and individual decisions often make history. Just think of that today if not for Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison, or Tesla; we may not be watching this. Many of us are more familiar with World War II, though Poland is the least appreciated and most manipulated nation from that era. The war began because of the invasion of Poland by the Germans, and most people don't know that the Soviets invaded Poland 16 days later, yet they would be considered our allies - they were no better and, in fact, casualty-wise, worse. The Soviets murdered 22 thousand Polish officers at Katyn, and between 1937 -1938, over 100 thousand Poles died in a Soviet genocide. Many Russians themselves were victims. The problem is that our Western intellectuals have been promoting this ideology. Many of these horrific crimes have been covered up, and much of it is. Like 100 million dead from communism isn't enough, will it work next time? Unlike what you hear, the Polish actually fought quite hard against the Germans, but they couldn't do that for long because they were attacked on two flanks. Some of the Polish armies were capable of escaping, and the Polish army in exile made up the fourth-largest allied army. The Polish had an underground army with more than the French resistance you always hear about. Still, the Polish didn't get to sit at the winner's table as the French, although the French even had a collaborative government. Poland never surrendered to the invaders and fought from the first to the last day of the war. There were cooperating governments in many other countries but not in Poland. The Polish underground army was a phenomenon on a worldwide and historical scale. They had a 650,000-man army - 400,000 AK soldiers and 250,000 volunteers fighting alongside the Allies in the West. Without them, the war may have been very different, and this is beyond doubt for Polish pilots that came to the rescue of the British pilots when they most needed them. The Battle of Britain was pivotal, and we know that the Polish pilots were game-changers. Indeed, even more, the Poles were the ones the broke the Enigma code, which deciphered German secrets. Imagine what may have happened without these geniuses? These are just a few of the many ways the Polish played a role in World War II, but how often do you hear about them? Maybe their inability to march in the victory parade in London would foretell some of why. Even though the war was won and the Polish came to their rescue, the British didn't want to offend the Communist Stalin, to whom they gave Poland after the war. The Polish were betrayed at the start of the war and would be betrayed at the end. No real liberation would come until 1989, and still, to this day; they are betrayed by dishonest historians, who we call neo-Stalinists, intent on defaming the Polish after all they have been through. This is why it is vital to check out your reading to ensure it is factual and not manipulated. Today, this history is being abused for various agendas, including one that involves a lot of money. When this is at stake, so-called historians will work hand in hand with those who want that money. We all know what money does. The country has been invaded or has fought for freedom in insurrections over 40 times. Poland adopted its first written constitution in the spring of 1791, which was the 2nd in the world valid legal document of the kind. The Old Town that you can see in Warsaw isn't the actual Old Town from before the war. The original was bombed entirely in the 40s, and Poles rebuilt it after the war using Bernardo Bellotto's detailed paintings. It now looks as it did in the 18th century rather than the 20th. Marie Curie, who discovered Polon and Rad, wasn't French but Polish. Her name was Marie Sklodowska before she married a Frenchman named Pierre Curie. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first and only woman to win twice, and the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences. Joseph Conrad was actually Polish too. Poland has the second oldest university in the whole of Europe - Jagiellonian University, founded by King Casimir III the Great in the year 1364. The most famous astronomer in the world was from Poland. Nicolaus Copernicus was also a Renaissance mathematician. There have been 17 different Nobel Prize winners from Poland. This speech is just the tip of the iceberg for Polish history. There is much more to explore – I challenge you to start your journey. Thanks for viewing!🙏

Edward Reid

284,598 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce