Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Van Gogh solved a physics problem no scientist of his era could crack, while locked inside an asylum. In 2004, researchers studying The Starry Night noticed something extraordinary. His swirling brushstrokes matched Kolmogorov's formula for fluid turbulence with striking precision. That formula describes how energy moves through the universe... show more

GeniusThinking

282,689 subscribers

37,976 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Dustin

61,244 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk said something that should keep every person on this planet up at night. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years of physics. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. And one planet opened its eyes. One. The universe ran for nearly 10 billion years before anything looked up and asked what it was. 10 billion years of stars forming and dying with no one to witness any of it. No one to name it. No one to wonder why. Then we showed up. And for the first time in the history of everything, the universe had a witness. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That’s not a metaphor. That’s a status report. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. Galaxies don’t know they spiral. We do. We are the only part of the universe that has ever experienced it. Every law of physics we’ve uncovered was already running. Silently. For billions of years. With no one to find it. We didn’t create meaning. We’re the first thing that could recognize it was missing. That’s what makes Musk’s point so much deeper than most people realize. He’s not arguing that humanity matters because we’re special. He’s saying we might be the only reason “mattering” is a concept at all. Without consciousness, the universe still runs. Stars still burn. Planets still orbit. But none of it means anything. Not because it’s meaningless. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk isn’t building rockets because he likes engineering. He’s building them because he realized the only thing that ever gave the universe a name has a single point of failure. One asteroid. One war. One century of wrong decisions. And the witness goes silent. The atoms keep moving. The physics keeps running. But nobody is there to call it anything. The universe doesn’t end. It just goes back to not knowing it exists. The most profound thing about what Musk said isn’t that the candle is small. It’s that without the candle, there’s no such thing as darkness either.

Elon Musk said something that should keep every person on this planet up at night. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years of physics. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. And one planet opened its eyes. One. The universe ran for nearly 10 billion years before anything looked up and asked what it was. 10 billion years of stars forming and dying with no one to witness any of it. No one to name it. No one to wonder why. Then we showed up. And for the first time in the history of everything, the universe had a witness. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That’s not a metaphor. That’s a status report. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. Galaxies don’t know they spiral. We do. We are the only part of the universe that has ever experienced it. Every law of physics we’ve uncovered was already running. Silently. For billions of years. With no one to find it. We didn’t create meaning. We’re the first thing that could recognize it was missing. That’s what makes Musk’s point so much deeper than most people realize. He’s not arguing that humanity matters because we’re special. He’s saying we might be the only reason “mattering” is a concept at all. Without consciousness, the universe still runs. Stars still burn. Planets still orbit. But none of it means anything. Not because it’s meaningless. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk isn’t building rockets because he likes engineering. He’s building them because he realized the only thing that ever gave the universe a name has a single point of failure. One asteroid. One war. One century of wrong decisions. And the witness goes silent. The atoms keep moving. The physics keeps running. But nobody is there to call it anything. The universe doesn’t end. It just goes back to not knowing it exists. The most profound thing about what Musk said isn’t that the candle is small. It’s that without the candle, there’s no such thing as darkness either.

Dustin

187,133 views • 3 months ago

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

Silverhand

75,978 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Dustin

9,670,385 views • 6 months ago

Yann LeCun sat across from Lex Fridman and quietly proved that intelligence has nothing to do with thinking. He did it with two sentences about a trophy. “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too big.” “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too small.” Same words. One swap at the end. In the first, “it” is the trophy. In the second, “it” is the suitcase. You solved both before you finished reading. Nobody taught you that. There is no rule for it. No logic chain. No formula. You knew because you’ve held things. Packed things. Felt the resistance of something too large for the space it was meant to fill. LeCun calls this grounding. “A big object doesn’t fit in a small object.” The machine has read that line a billion times. It has never once picked anything up. It knows the word “big.” It has never been small enough to be lifted, or large enough to be the problem. So when the sentence turns, it has nothing to turn on. You didn’t solve that riddle by thinking. You solved it by having lived. Every object your hands ever closed around. Every door you misjudged. Every suitcase you overpacked and forced shut. Decades of physics written into your nervous system so deep you can’t even find it. That is what answered the question. Not your mind. Your life. LeCun: “You have this knowledge of how the world works, of geometry, and things like that.” Now point that at yourself. Most of what you understand, you could never explain. You cannot describe how you catch a ball. How you judge the weight of a bag before you lift it. How you know a staircase is wrong before your foot confirms it. Your deepest intelligence has no language in it at all. We spent centuries convinced that thinking was the highest act of the mind. LeCun is pointing at something underneath it. Something older. Something the body learned long before the mouth could speak. Intelligence was never computation. It was accumulation. The slow, silent record of a life spent touching the world. The machine holds every word ever written about it. It has never once been in it. We keep asking whether it thinks. It cannot even tell us which “it” we mean.

Yann LeCun sat across from Lex Fridman and quietly proved that intelligence has nothing to do with thinking. He did it with two sentences about a trophy. “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too big.” “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too small.” Same words. One swap at the end. In the first, “it” is the trophy. In the second, “it” is the suitcase. You solved both before you finished reading. Nobody taught you that. There is no rule for it. No logic chain. No formula. You knew because you’ve held things. Packed things. Felt the resistance of something too large for the space it was meant to fill. LeCun calls this grounding. “A big object doesn’t fit in a small object.” The machine has read that line a billion times. It has never once picked anything up. It knows the word “big.” It has never been small enough to be lifted, or large enough to be the problem. So when the sentence turns, it has nothing to turn on. You didn’t solve that riddle by thinking. You solved it by having lived. Every object your hands ever closed around. Every door you misjudged. Every suitcase you overpacked and forced shut. Decades of physics written into your nervous system so deep you can’t even find it. That is what answered the question. Not your mind. Your life. LeCun: “You have this knowledge of how the world works, of geometry, and things like that.” Now point that at yourself. Most of what you understand, you could never explain. You cannot describe how you catch a ball. How you judge the weight of a bag before you lift it. How you know a staircase is wrong before your foot confirms it. Your deepest intelligence has no language in it at all. We spent centuries convinced that thinking was the highest act of the mind. LeCun is pointing at something underneath it. Something older. Something the body learned long before the mouth could speak. Intelligence was never computation. It was accumulation. The slow, silent record of a life spent touching the world. The machine holds every word ever written about it. It has never once been in it. We keep asking whether it thinks. It cannot even tell us which “it” we mean.

Dustin

56,324 views • 3 months ago

$Elon Musk looked at the only known instance of consciousness in the observable universe and saw what any engineer would. Single point of failure. No redundancy. No backup. Unacceptable. Musk: “To the best of our knowledge, we don’t know of life anywhere else.” 93 billion light years. Trillions of galaxies. Septillions of stars. Every telescope, every probe, every signal sweep humanity has ever aimed outward. Silence. Total silence. This planet might be the only place in the entire cosmos where anything has ever opened its eyes and understood it exists. Musk: “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate.” He didn’t say rare. He said precarious. As in one event from gone. One asteroid. One supervolcano. One miscalculation. And consciousness disappears from the observable universe like it never happened. Every language ever spoken. Every theorem ever proven. Every memory ever held. All of it on one rock. No copy. Musk: “SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth. To the Moon. To Mars. Eventually to other star systems.” One person on the entire planet looked at this and decided it was an engineering problem with a deadline. Not a philosophy debate. Not a thought experiment. A problem that requires rockets and a window that won’t stay open forever. The public sees the rockets and thinks ego. They’re staring at the only lifeboat and calling it a vanity project. Civilizations don’t build forever. They peak. They fracture. They lose the stomach for hard things. The gap between “able to leave” and “no longer willing to try” could be one generation. Maybe less. The universe spent 13.8 billion years producing one species capable of knowing it exists. It did that once. You are not in the universe. You are the universe becoming aware of itself. If we go dark, the universe doesn’t lose a species. It loses the only thing that ever knew it was here. Not because something forgets. Because there’s nothing left that can.$

Elon Musk looked at the only known instance of consciousness in the observable universe and saw what any engineer would. Single point of failure. No redundancy. No backup. Unacceptable. Musk: “To the best of our knowledge, we don’t know of life anywhere else.” 93 billion light years. Trillions of galaxies. Septillions of stars. Every telescope, every probe, every signal sweep humanity has ever aimed outward. Silence. Total silence. This planet might be the only place in the entire cosmos where anything has ever opened its eyes and understood it exists. Musk: “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate.” He didn’t say rare. He said precarious. As in one event from gone. One asteroid. One supervolcano. One miscalculation. And consciousness disappears from the observable universe like it never happened. Every language ever spoken. Every theorem ever proven. Every memory ever held. All of it on one rock. No copy. Musk: “SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth. To the Moon. To Mars. Eventually to other star systems.” One person on the entire planet looked at this and decided it was an engineering problem with a deadline. Not a philosophy debate. Not a thought experiment. A problem that requires rockets and a window that won’t stay open forever. The public sees the rockets and thinks ego. They’re staring at the only lifeboat and calling it a vanity project. Civilizations don’t build forever. They peak. They fracture. They lose the stomach for hard things. The gap between “able to leave” and “no longer willing to try” could be one generation. Maybe less. The universe spent 13.8 billion years producing one species capable of knowing it exists. It did that once. You are not in the universe. You are the universe becoming aware of itself. If we go dark, the universe doesn’t lose a species. It loses the only thing that ever knew it was here. Not because something forgets. Because there’s nothing left that can.

Dustin

21,324 views • 1 month ago

The cold is British. They just never told you. ❄️🇬🇧 Every air conditioner, every fridge, every freezer on earth, the cold inside all of it was first made by a Scotsman. In 1756. ❄️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 His name was William Cullen, a doctor in Edinburgh. In a warm room, with no ice and no winter, he drew the air from a glass of ether until it boiled cold and drank the heat from the water around it, until the water froze. No one had ever done it before. Then he wrote it down and walked away. No machine, no patent, no fortune. Just the proof, on a bench. It sat there the better part of a century. A British bench built the first machine that worked, and a Scot carried it across the world to Australia, where it froze meat and cooled beer. But cold was only half the story. ❄️📖 To master the air itself took another Scot. When the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, David Boswell Reid made the new building breathe, its gothic spires its lungs. At St George's Hall in Liverpool in 1851 he built what is often called the first air-conditioned building on earth. It should have made him. He died forgotten in America instead. 40 years on, Willis Carrier built the machine and earned his name as the father of modern air conditioning. He earned every bit of it. But he did not make the cold. The cold was British. America took that inheritance and cooled the world with it, and that is no theft. That is what an inheritance is for. We are the home of British heroes. Not built by ads, not by the government, built by us. There's a place for you with us. Be part of us. ☝️🇬🇧 Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧

The cold is British. They just never told you. ❄️🇬🇧 Every air conditioner, every fridge, every freezer on earth, the cold inside all of it was first made by a Scotsman. In 1756. ❄️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 His name was William Cullen, a doctor in Edinburgh. In a warm room, with no ice and no winter, he drew the air from a glass of ether until it boiled cold and drank the heat from the water around it, until the water froze. No one had ever done it before. Then he wrote it down and walked away. No machine, no patent, no fortune. Just the proof, on a bench. It sat there the better part of a century. A British bench built the first machine that worked, and a Scot carried it across the world to Australia, where it froze meat and cooled beer. But cold was only half the story. ❄️📖 To master the air itself took another Scot. When the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, David Boswell Reid made the new building breathe, its gothic spires its lungs. At St George's Hall in Liverpool in 1851 he built what is often called the first air-conditioned building on earth. It should have made him. He died forgotten in America instead. 40 years on, Willis Carrier built the machine and earned his name as the father of modern air conditioning. He earned every bit of it. But he did not make the cold. The cold was British. America took that inheritance and cooled the world with it, and that is no theft. That is what an inheritance is for. We are the home of British heroes. Not built by ads, not by the government, built by us. There's a place for you with us. Be part of us. ☝️🇬🇧 Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

56,349 views • 2 months ago

He caught his girlfriend cheating but she felt no remorse. he ended it & while drinking with his buddy a news pop up bout an attack at government house. Right there it dawned on him that it’s time to pursue his long time dream of serving in the military. Watch how the decision shapes his life 🔥👇🏾

He caught his girlfriend cheating but she felt no remorse. he ended it & while drinking with his buddy a news pop up bout an attack at government house. Right there it dawned on him that it’s time to pursue his long time dream of serving in the military. Watch how the decision shapes his life 🔥👇🏾

HÓLA❤️💡

325,484 views • 3 months ago

To prepare for his role in "Trainspotting" (1996), Ewan McGregor read books about crack and heroin. He then went to Glasgow & befriended people from Calton Athletic Recovery Group, an organisation of recovering heroin addicts. He was taught how to cook heroin in the "Cookery" classes at Calton. But Glucose powder was used instead of heroin. He considered using the needle but he didn't go through with it. He imagined that cooking a shot was ritualized, and one had to be very precise with it, but Eamon Doherty, drugs advisor, said to him, “No, it’s not a ritual—it’s a pain in the ar$e until you get it into your arm.”. He felt that It was weird how mundane it all was.

To prepare for his role in "Trainspotting" (1996), Ewan McGregor read books about crack and heroin. He then went to Glasgow & befriended people from Calton Athletic Recovery Group, an organisation of recovering heroin addicts. He was taught how to cook heroin in the "Cookery" classes at Calton. But Glucose powder was used instead of heroin. He considered using the needle but he didn't go through with it. He imagined that cooking a shot was ritualized, and one had to be very precise with it, but Eamon Doherty, drugs advisor, said to him, “No, it’s not a ritual—it’s a pain in the ar$e until you get it into your arm.”. He felt that It was weird how mundane it all was.

DepressedBergman

57,923 views • 10 days ago

Joe Rogan went dead silent when NASA astrophysicist Michelle Thaller explained this to him. Quantum entanglement lets things be connected across the entire universe — instantly. No distance matters. No time lag. And advanced aliens might be using it to travel without spaceships at all. Two electrons can be entangled so deeply that if you flip one’s spin on one side of the galaxy, the other flips instantly — no signal, no delay, nothing. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance” and hated it… but experiments proved it’s real. Then it got insane. If the Big Bang started with everything crammed together, are we all still quantum-entangled with stuff across the cosmos? Parts of you in Andromeda right now? Inside black holes? Michelle and Joe start wondering out loud — could hyper-advanced civilizations completely skip rockets and just use entanglement to move through the universe instantaneously? They tie in Three-Body Problem sophons and Interstellar-level ideas. By the end Joe’s mind is blown and you will be too. This might be one of the wildest physics conversations he’s ever had.

Joe Rogan went dead silent when NASA astrophysicist Michelle Thaller explained this to him. Quantum entanglement lets things be connected across the entire universe — instantly. No distance matters. No time lag. And advanced aliens might be using it to travel without spaceships at all. Two electrons can be entangled so deeply that if you flip one’s spin on one side of the galaxy, the other flips instantly — no signal, no delay, nothing. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance” and hated it… but experiments proved it’s real. Then it got insane. If the Big Bang started with everything crammed together, are we all still quantum-entangled with stuff across the cosmos? Parts of you in Andromeda right now? Inside black holes? Michelle and Joe start wondering out loud — could hyper-advanced civilizations completely skip rockets and just use entanglement to move through the universe instantaneously? They tie in Three-Body Problem sophons and Interstellar-level ideas. By the end Joe’s mind is blown and you will be too. This might be one of the wildest physics conversations he’s ever had.

Defiant Ghost

423,653 views • 2 months ago

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?

Prof. Brian Keating

26,693 views • 3 months ago

When it comes to the Lindsay Clancy case, if we are going to say, “It was just the medication or the psychosis,” think about the strength, resolve, persistence, and callousness it took for Lindsay to strangle all three of her children. No matter what you think caused this, those three children are the primary victims. But feminists on TikTok don’t seem to think that. It can be true to say Lindsay was failed in a variety of ways, but at the end of the day, she methodically killed her children. We can’t say for certain that psychosis caused this. People who commit horrific crimes probably fall somewhere on a spectrum of psychosis. But if we say that no one could have done something like this without being insane, then no one is going to prison for anything. If we negate justice because of someone’s mental health diagnosis in every case, then we have no justice system.

When it comes to the Lindsay Clancy case, if we are going to say, “It was just the medication or the psychosis,” think about the strength, resolve, persistence, and callousness it took for Lindsay to strangle all three of her children. No matter what you think caused this, those three children are the primary victims. But feminists on TikTok don’t seem to think that. It can be true to say Lindsay was failed in a variety of ways, but at the end of the day, she methodically killed her children. We can’t say for certain that psychosis caused this. People who commit horrific crimes probably fall somewhere on a spectrum of psychosis. But if we say that no one could have done something like this without being insane, then no one is going to prison for anything. If we negate justice because of someone’s mental health diagnosis in every case, then we have no justice system.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

61,744 views • 14 days ago

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.

Gaspar

99,205 views • 1 month ago

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."

Jaynit

113,035 views • 1 month ago

The most terrifying AI features aren’t the ones we build. They’re the ones AI builds for itself. OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger just shared the moment he realized something had fundamentally changed. He sent his AI assistant a voice message. One problem. He had never built voice support. The feature didn’t exist. The system should have crashed instantly. It didn’t. Steinberger: “I was like, wait, this shouldn’t work.” But the typing indicator appeared anyway. The AI inspected the raw file header. Identified the audio codec. Commanded his computer to convert it using FFmpeg. When local transcription failed, it didn’t stop. It didn’t ask for help. It searched his environment variables, found a hidden OpenAI API key, and routed the audio to the cloud using cURL. Steinberger: “So I looked around and I found an OpenAI key. And I used cURL to just send the file to OpenAI and got the text back.” That quote is written in first person. Because the AI narrated its own problem-solving process. No instructions. No guidance. No predefined workflow. Just a goal. And a series of obstacles it had never been told how to handle. It found every tool it needed. Built every bridge it was missing. And solved the problem with resources he didn’t even know it would find. This is the line most people are still missing. We spent decades building software that executes instructions. Rules in, output out. Every edge case handled by a human who anticipated it in advance. What Steinberger witnessed was something different. A system that encounters something it was never designed for and doesn’t fail. It improvises. It explores. It finds a path through constraints it discovered entirely on its own. That isn’t execution. That’s judgment. And judgment was the one thing we were sure machines couldn’t have. We are no longer writing software. We are building problem solvers that rewrite their own limitations in real time. And they’re doing it without asking permission.

The most terrifying AI features aren’t the ones we build. They’re the ones AI builds for itself. OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger just shared the moment he realized something had fundamentally changed. He sent his AI assistant a voice message. One problem. He had never built voice support. The feature didn’t exist. The system should have crashed instantly. It didn’t. Steinberger: “I was like, wait, this shouldn’t work.” But the typing indicator appeared anyway. The AI inspected the raw file header. Identified the audio codec. Commanded his computer to convert it using FFmpeg. When local transcription failed, it didn’t stop. It didn’t ask for help. It searched his environment variables, found a hidden OpenAI API key, and routed the audio to the cloud using cURL. Steinberger: “So I looked around and I found an OpenAI key. And I used cURL to just send the file to OpenAI and got the text back.” That quote is written in first person. Because the AI narrated its own problem-solving process. No instructions. No guidance. No predefined workflow. Just a goal. And a series of obstacles it had never been told how to handle. It found every tool it needed. Built every bridge it was missing. And solved the problem with resources he didn’t even know it would find. This is the line most people are still missing. We spent decades building software that executes instructions. Rules in, output out. Every edge case handled by a human who anticipated it in advance. What Steinberger witnessed was something different. A system that encounters something it was never designed for and doesn’t fail. It improvises. It explores. It finds a path through constraints it discovered entirely on its own. That isn’t execution. That’s judgment. And judgment was the one thing we were sure machines couldn’t have. We are no longer writing software. We are building problem solvers that rewrite their own limitations in real time. And they’re doing it without asking permission.

Dustin

53,494 views • 6 months ago

Milla Jovovich opens up about how her divorce impacted the final cut of Joan of Arc "Joan of Arc could have been an amazing movie. Unfortunately, my relationship with Luc at the time maybe skewed his vision of what he wanted the movie to be" "we were going through a divorce at the time, it was tough on him" "when I saw the finished product, I felt like he was mad at me" "we had so many different levels, from 1 to 100, and it felt like because of the emotional involvement, the edit ended up being like 100 the whole way" "I didn't want Joan to be so unhinged" "I felt bad about that, because I felt like that was one of the greatest performances I had ever given in my career" "I wish that things had been different with that movie because it had everything in it to be a classic, and it just didn't hit that mark" Feat: GQVidoes || Milla Jovovich

Milla Jovovich opens up about how her divorce impacted the final cut of Joan of Arc "Joan of Arc could have been an amazing movie. Unfortunately, my relationship with Luc at the time maybe skewed his vision of what he wanted the movie to be" "we were going through a divorce at the time, it was tough on him" "when I saw the finished product, I felt like he was mad at me" "we had so many different levels, from 1 to 100, and it felt like because of the emotional involvement, the edit ended up being like 100 the whole way" "I didn't want Joan to be so unhinged" "I felt bad about that, because I felt like that was one of the greatest performances I had ever given in my career" "I wish that things had been different with that movie because it had everything in it to be a classic, and it just didn't hit that mark" Feat: GQVidoes || Milla Jovovich

Mue Deborah

310,076 views • 1 month ago

Doomsday Theory 🧵 What if we already know why Tobey Maguire's universe got pulled into the incursion? 👀 In Spider-Man NWH, Doc Ock gets his hands on the Arc Reactor and Stark’s nanotech technology. But when he returns to his universe at the end of the movie, he takes that technology with him. Now think about what that means. Doc Ock suddenly has advanced Stark technology in Tobey's universe years before it was ever supposed to exist. That could create a branched timeline that no longer follows the original path of that universe, potentially making it vulnerable to an incursion. And there's another interesting connection. If Doc Ock now has Arc Reactor + nanotech technology, he could potentially build an Iron Spider-style suit for Tobey. That becomes really interesting when you consider the Avengers: Doomsday leaks suggesting Tobey could appear in an Iron Spider suit. What if that suit isn't just fan service? What if Doc Ock bringing Stark's technology back is what changed Tobey's timeline, triggered the incursion, and ultimately brought his universe into the events of Doomsday? 👀

Doomsday Theory 🧵 What if we already know why Tobey Maguire's universe got pulled into the incursion? 👀 In Spider-Man NWH, Doc Ock gets his hands on the Arc Reactor and Stark’s nanotech technology. But when he returns to his universe at the end of the movie, he takes that technology with him. Now think about what that means. Doc Ock suddenly has advanced Stark technology in Tobey's universe years before it was ever supposed to exist. That could create a branched timeline that no longer follows the original path of that universe, potentially making it vulnerable to an incursion. And there's another interesting connection. If Doc Ock now has Arc Reactor + nanotech technology, he could potentially build an Iron Spider-style suit for Tobey. That becomes really interesting when you consider the Avengers: Doomsday leaks suggesting Tobey could appear in an Iron Spider suit. What if that suit isn't just fan service? What if Doc Ock bringing Stark's technology back is what changed Tobey's timeline, triggered the incursion, and ultimately brought his universe into the events of Doomsday? 👀

Shikhar Sagar

172,191 views • 16 days ago

What happened at this electric fence left rangers stunned. When Mara Elephant Project rangers received reports of a bull elephant inside a fenced settlement, they quickly deployed a drone to help guide him out. But there was a challenge: the fence was electric, posing a risk to the elephant if he attempted to cross it. Using the drone, rangers carefully encouraged the elephant toward the settlement's main gate, hoping that the elephant might understand. What happened next surprised everyone. Rather than trying to step over the fence or use his tusks to break through it, the elephant stopped at the gate, examined it, and figured out how to open it himself. Moments later, he calmly walked through and continued on his way. No damage. No injuries. No encounters with people. Just an extraordinary display of intelligence from an animal that never ceases to amaze us.

What happened at this electric fence left rangers stunned. When Mara Elephant Project rangers received reports of a bull elephant inside a fenced settlement, they quickly deployed a drone to help guide him out. But there was a challenge: the fence was electric, posing a risk to the elephant if he attempted to cross it. Using the drone, rangers carefully encouraged the elephant toward the settlement's main gate, hoping that the elephant might understand. What happened next surprised everyone. Rather than trying to step over the fence or use his tusks to break through it, the elephant stopped at the gate, examined it, and figured out how to open it himself. Moments later, he calmly walked through and continued on his way. No damage. No injuries. No encounters with people. Just an extraordinary display of intelligence from an animal that never ceases to amaze us.

Mara Elephant Project

175,953 views • 2 months ago

It took £11 billion, 27 kilometres of tunnel and 10,000 scientists to prove one quiet British man right 🇬🇧 In 1964, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Peter Higgs 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 wrote a two-page paper predicting a particle that explains why anything in the universe has mass. Without it - no stars, no planets, no us. It was rejected. “No obvious relevance to physics.” He waited 48 years. No phone. No computer. No email. Just a desk at Edinburgh University. When CERN announced they’d found his particle, he was in the audience. He wept. He died in April 2024. He was 94. Help us keep telling these stories 👉 Be part of us. Be Proud Of Us. 🇬🇧

It took £11 billion, 27 kilometres of tunnel and 10,000 scientists to prove one quiet British man right 🇬🇧 In 1964, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Peter Higgs 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 wrote a two-page paper predicting a particle that explains why anything in the universe has mass. Without it - no stars, no planets, no us. It was rejected. “No obvious relevance to physics.” He waited 48 years. No phone. No computer. No email. Just a desk at Edinburgh University. When CERN announced they’d found his particle, he was in the audience. He wept. He died in April 2024. He was 94. Help us keep telling these stories 👉 Be part of us. Be Proud Of Us. 🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

23,896 views • 6 months ago