Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Who else thinks Draenei horns make for great handles? Public HD version: #nsfw #rule34 #warcraft #Yrel #draenei #orc #OrcishWelcome #handles

Lawnmower333 🔞

8,554 subscribers

107,343 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #nsfw #rule34 #warcraft #Yrel #draenei #orc #OrcishWelcome #handles

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Guardian Druid is BUILT DIFFERENT 🐻💚 Press 1, deal great damage, self-heal, and keep Ironfur up while SBA handles the rotation. Tank big pulls and make Guardian feel easy peasy in WoW Midnight. Full build, talents & setup are waiting for you 🔥 #worldofwarcraft #warcraft

Guardian Druid is BUILT DIFFERENT 🐻💚 Press 1, deal great damage, self-heal, and keep Ironfur up while SBA handles the rotation. Tank big pulls and make Guardian feel easy peasy in WoW Midnight. Full build, talents & setup are waiting for you 🔥 #worldofwarcraft #warcraft

Dvalin Gaming

41,440 次观看 • 5 个月前

.Tom Steyer’s full closing statement: “This election is very clear. I’m a billionaire who’s fighting for working people every single day. I’m the billionaire who’s willing to tax the other billionaires and himself, who’s willing to take on the corporate special interests, who’s dedicating himself to driving down costs for working people across this state. Follow the money. They are spending tens of millions of dollars against me to try and stop me because they know that I’m the threat to their prosperity. And they’re not spending a penny against anyone else on this stage. They’re backing everyone else on this stage. Xavier is taking money from oil companies and from people who are desperate not to have single payer. I’m running to bring change and make people’s lives better. Healthcare are a right, great public schools, homes you can afford to buy. I’m asking you for your vote because I need you on June 2nd and every day after that.”

.Tom Steyer’s full closing statement: “This election is very clear. I’m a billionaire who’s fighting for working people every single day. I’m the billionaire who’s willing to tax the other billionaires and himself, who’s willing to take on the corporate special interests, who’s dedicating himself to driving down costs for working people across this state. Follow the money. They are spending tens of millions of dollars against me to try and stop me because they know that I’m the threat to their prosperity. And they’re not spending a penny against anyone else on this stage. They’re backing everyone else on this stage. Xavier is taking money from oil companies and from people who are desperate not to have single payer. I’m running to bring change and make people’s lives better. Healthcare are a right, great public schools, homes you can afford to buy. I’m asking you for your vote because I need you on June 2nd and every day after that.”

TomHQ

72,209 次观看 • 3 个月前

"They have revealed themselves to be a part of the Westminster liberal establishment, because they clearly can't win the argument on the grounds of principle and facts, and so they have resorted to these low, left-wing smear tactics." Great from Charlie Downes, refusing to engage in "a vague conversation about anonymous accounts on Twitter", who Reform UK officials are trying to use as bogeymen to bash Restore Britain. Restore Britain's positions are clear. They won't be made to answer for anything anyone else has said. "We're not in the business of disavowing random members of the public." And we won't stoop to the same guilt-by-association smears. Restore are attracting thousands of disenfranchised voters, who stay at home on election day because they don't feel represented. If Reform UK thinks calling those people far right, racist, and "Neo-Nazis" is a winning strategy, then they're taking voters for granted.

"They have revealed themselves to be a part of the Westminster liberal establishment, because they clearly can't win the argument on the grounds of principle and facts, and so they have resorted to these low, left-wing smear tactics." Great from Charlie Downes, refusing to engage in "a vague conversation about anonymous accounts on Twitter", who Reform UK officials are trying to use as bogeymen to bash Restore Britain. Restore Britain's positions are clear. They won't be made to answer for anything anyone else has said. "We're not in the business of disavowing random members of the public." And we won't stoop to the same guilt-by-association smears. Restore are attracting thousands of disenfranchised voters, who stay at home on election day because they don't feel represented. If Reform UK thinks calling those people far right, racist, and "Neo-Nazis" is a winning strategy, then they're taking voters for granted.

Connor Tomlinson

163,527 次观看 • 6 个月前

THE NEXT WAVE OF LOCAL AI BUILDERS SHIPS PORTABLE STACKS WITH HANDHELD $40 SDR SCANNERS, LOCAL LLMs ONLY WORK OFF-GRID WHEN SOMETHING ELSE IS LISTENING TO THE AIR 00:30 he opens the case and points at each component, "really it's a pi sugar power pack mounted to a raspberry pi zero 2w and a little adafruit bonnet" the scanner adds a noelec sdr dongle and a 2m antenna, boots up as a spectrum analyzer he takes to the park with his kid to identify local radio transmissions the same maker keeps a $600 mini pc running qwen 3.6 27b on his desk with claude code pointed at localhost, the offline ai handles his coding, writing and research without a single cloud api call the sdr scanner completes the sovereignty stack, the mini pc thinks locally while the scanner listens locally, and neither needs the internet for the parts of his work that used to require it builders who moved off cloud ai are now moving off cloud everything, the pattern isn't just $459 in subscriptions dead but a full stack that survives when the cloud goes down bookmark this and read the article below

THE NEXT WAVE OF LOCAL AI BUILDERS SHIPS PORTABLE STACKS WITH HANDHELD $40 SDR SCANNERS, LOCAL LLMs ONLY WORK OFF-GRID WHEN SOMETHING ELSE IS LISTENING TO THE AIR 00:30 he opens the case and points at each component, "really it's a pi sugar power pack mounted to a raspberry pi zero 2w and a little adafruit bonnet" the scanner adds a noelec sdr dongle and a 2m antenna, boots up as a spectrum analyzer he takes to the park with his kid to identify local radio transmissions the same maker keeps a $600 mini pc running qwen 3.6 27b on his desk with claude code pointed at localhost, the offline ai handles his coding, writing and research without a single cloud api call the sdr scanner completes the sovereignty stack, the mini pc thinks locally while the scanner listens locally, and neither needs the internet for the parts of his work that used to require it builders who moved off cloud ai are now moving off cloud everything, the pattern isn't just $459 in subscriptions dead but a full stack that survives when the cloud goes down bookmark this and read the article below

starmex

40,403 次观看 • 1 个月前

AI For The Poor, Human Intelligence For The Rich Western capitalists are selling AI to us as “the great equalizer”. But it is really not. What we are seeing is a new class system being built in real time. The rich will still pay for human teachers, human doctors, human consultants, human artists, and human care. Everyone else will be told that an AI version is good enough. When poor children are offered AI tutors instead of more teachers or working-class patients are pushed toward AI health tools instead of proper medical care, we should pay attention. AI may be useful, but it is also becoming a cheaper substitute for people who already have less. This is why African governments must be very careful about the AI policies they adopt. We cannot afford to copy and paste technology policies from the West without asking whose interests they serve. If we are not careful, AI will become another tool used to manage poverty instead of solving the systems that created it. Africans also need to be more critical of how AI is being introduced into education, healthcare, governance, welfare, and other public services. Who owns the technology? Who controls the data? Who profits from the contracts? Who is accountable when these systems fail? And most importantly, who is being asked to accept AI instead of real human care? Africa must not become a testing ground for Western-imposed systems that deepen inequality under the guise of innovation.

AI For The Poor, Human Intelligence For The Rich Western capitalists are selling AI to us as “the great equalizer”. But it is really not. What we are seeing is a new class system being built in real time. The rich will still pay for human teachers, human doctors, human consultants, human artists, and human care. Everyone else will be told that an AI version is good enough. When poor children are offered AI tutors instead of more teachers or working-class patients are pushed toward AI health tools instead of proper medical care, we should pay attention. AI may be useful, but it is also becoming a cheaper substitute for people who already have less. This is why African governments must be very careful about the AI policies they adopt. We cannot afford to copy and paste technology policies from the West without asking whose interests they serve. If we are not careful, AI will become another tool used to manage poverty instead of solving the systems that created it. Africans also need to be more critical of how AI is being introduced into education, healthcare, governance, welfare, and other public services. Who owns the technology? Who controls the data? Who profits from the contracts? Who is accountable when these systems fail? And most importantly, who is being asked to accept AI instead of real human care? Africa must not become a testing ground for Western-imposed systems that deepen inequality under the guise of innovation.

The Spearhead

70,068 次观看 • 2 个月前

“In the UK, if someone is having a schizophrenic episode or a mental health crisis, they get picked up and taken to A&E. In America, they often end up on the street.” Chris Williamson pointed this out on the JRE podcast while comparing homeless situations in the UK and US. He described how, as a club promoter in the UK, the only people out at 2am were club-goers and homeless people — but the American version is far more aggressive, unpredictable, and visibly mentally ill. The difference? The UK’s National Health Service steps in early. In the US, once someone falls through the cracks and loses housing and insurance, mental health care becomes almost impossible, often leading to drugs and a downward spiral. Joe Rogan added that America used to have more mental health institutions, but sweeping changes (often linked to the Reagan era) released many people who couldn’t care for themselves, and the safety net never fully recovered. It’s a stark reminder that “compassion” without structure can make things worse for everyone — including the homeless themselves. What do you think is the biggest missing piece in how America handles severe mental illness and homelessness?

“In the UK, if someone is having a schizophrenic episode or a mental health crisis, they get picked up and taken to A&E. In America, they often end up on the street.” Chris Williamson pointed this out on the JRE podcast while comparing homeless situations in the UK and US. He described how, as a club promoter in the UK, the only people out at 2am were club-goers and homeless people — but the American version is far more aggressive, unpredictable, and visibly mentally ill. The difference? The UK’s National Health Service steps in early. In the US, once someone falls through the cracks and loses housing and insurance, mental health care becomes almost impossible, often leading to drugs and a downward spiral. Joe Rogan added that America used to have more mental health institutions, but sweeping changes (often linked to the Reagan era) released many people who couldn’t care for themselves, and the safety net never fully recovered. It’s a stark reminder that “compassion” without structure can make things worse for everyone — including the homeless themselves. What do you think is the biggest missing piece in how America handles severe mental illness and homelessness?

Camus

187,735 次观看 • 4 个月前

HERMES AGENT IS NOW IN THE CLOUD. NO VPS. NO TERMINAL. NO SETUP. PICK A MODEL. PICK A SERVER SIZE. AGENT IS LIVE IN 60 SECONDS. Nous Portal just launched hosted Hermes Agent. two clicks. one minute. done. Nous Research WHAT THIS MEANS: before today: install Hermes on a VPS or your laptop. configure providers. set up gateway. manage updates. run hermes setup. edit config.yaml. great for power users. friction for everyone else. now: go to pick a model. pick a server size. your agent is live and reachable in 60 seconds. no terminal. no SSH. no Docker. same Hermes. same features. same tools. someone else handles the infrastructure. FOR TEAMS: this is where it gets interesting. spin up agents for everyone at your org. each team member gets their own Hermes instance. granular access controls per user. unified billing through Nous Portal. your team gets Hermes on day one. no DevOps needed. no VPS per person. one admin dashboard. one bill. WHAT'S INCLUDED: → 300+ models via Nous Portal (Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, MiniMax, and more) → Tool Gateway (web search, image generation, TTS, browser automation) → all messaging platforms (Telegram, Discord, Slack, WhatsApp, Signal) → full feature set (profiles, cron, kanban, skills, memory, sub-agents, MoA, /goal, /learn, /journey) → automatic updates ONE PORTAL. FOUR TIERS: Free: $0/month. pay-as-you-go credits from $10. Plus: $20/month. $22 in monthly usage credit. Super: $100/month. $110 in monthly credit. Ultra: $200/month. $220 in monthly credit. highest rate limits. every paid tier includes Tool Gateway. one OAuth. one subscription. no extra API keys. SELF-HOSTED IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE: Hermes is MIT licensed. open source. free forever. you can still run it on your laptop, VPS, or GPU cluster. nothing changes for self-hosted users. the cloud version is for people who want the agent running without managing the machine. pick your path: → self-hosted: full control. you manage everything. → cloud: zero ops. Nous manages infrastructure. → hybrid: self-host your main agent, cloud for team members. HOW TO START: cloud: self-hosted: hermes setup --portal both connect to the same Nous Portal. same models. same tools. same billing. learn how to replace your entire team with 8 hermes agents 👇

HERMES AGENT IS NOW IN THE CLOUD. NO VPS. NO TERMINAL. NO SETUP. PICK A MODEL. PICK A SERVER SIZE. AGENT IS LIVE IN 60 SECONDS. Nous Portal just launched hosted Hermes Agent. two clicks. one minute. done. Nous Research WHAT THIS MEANS: before today: install Hermes on a VPS or your laptop. configure providers. set up gateway. manage updates. run hermes setup. edit config.yaml. great for power users. friction for everyone else. now: go to pick a model. pick a server size. your agent is live and reachable in 60 seconds. no terminal. no SSH. no Docker. same Hermes. same features. same tools. someone else handles the infrastructure. FOR TEAMS: this is where it gets interesting. spin up agents for everyone at your org. each team member gets their own Hermes instance. granular access controls per user. unified billing through Nous Portal. your team gets Hermes on day one. no DevOps needed. no VPS per person. one admin dashboard. one bill. WHAT'S INCLUDED: → 300+ models via Nous Portal (Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Grok, MiniMax, and more) → Tool Gateway (web search, image generation, TTS, browser automation) → all messaging platforms (Telegram, Discord, Slack, WhatsApp, Signal) → full feature set (profiles, cron, kanban, skills, memory, sub-agents, MoA, /goal, /learn, /journey) → automatic updates ONE PORTAL. FOUR TIERS: Free: $0/month. pay-as-you-go credits from $10. Plus: $20/month. $22 in monthly usage credit. Super: $100/month. $110 in monthly credit. Ultra: $200/month. $220 in monthly credit. highest rate limits. every paid tier includes Tool Gateway. one OAuth. one subscription. no extra API keys. SELF-HOSTED IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE: Hermes is MIT licensed. open source. free forever. you can still run it on your laptop, VPS, or GPU cluster. nothing changes for self-hosted users. the cloud version is for people who want the agent running without managing the machine. pick your path: → self-hosted: full control. you manage everything. → cloud: zero ops. Nous manages infrastructure. → hybrid: self-host your main agent, cloud for team members. HOW TO START: cloud: self-hosted: hermes setup --portal both connect to the same Nous Portal. same models. same tools. same billing. learn how to replace your entire team with 8 hermes agents 👇

YanXbt

45,446 次观看 • 1 个月前

what's your ideal inspiration process? you know i love cosmos, and pinterest. but i have problems with all of them. pinterest has a great discovery algo. but it's tuned for engagement, so once it starts feeding you a certain type of image you end up in a spiral that's hard to escape. cosmos is great when culture-drive curation is the goal. but heavy curation has a cost: you end up seeing the same references everyone else does. is a wild child. no notes on that. but as much as i love quirky human curation, i also love an algorithm that feels like it understands how i think. i've tried mymind and i respect their commitment to no collaboration but i need collaborative features since i think the real unlocks happen when you combine personal thought, collaborative though, and algorithmic discovery. so this is why i'm building memio. memio is a local-first, creative memory companion. i've been tuning a similarity algorithm that’s been really fun to use. it's looser than pinterest and cosmos, which means it surfaces unexpected connections instead of just showing you more of what you already clicked on. the goal is for it to feel like a little like human curation. here's where memio is going: multi-modal. right now it handles images. text, links, video, and audio are all in the works. cli, mcp, and all the other acronyms too. private by default. your library lives on your computer or in your own cloud storage. the core algorithm runs entirely on-device, so you can do a lot without ever hitting an external api. collaborative when you want. you'll be able to choose which boards you share with other people and llms and that will extend what you can do in the base version. capture whatever. find connections you couldn't find any other way. make cool shit. i'm building this for all of us so tell me what you want from a tool like this!

what's your ideal inspiration process? you know i love cosmos, and pinterest. but i have problems with all of them. pinterest has a great discovery algo. but it's tuned for engagement, so once it starts feeding you a certain type of image you end up in a spiral that's hard to escape. cosmos is great when culture-drive curation is the goal. but heavy curation has a cost: you end up seeing the same references everyone else does. is a wild child. no notes on that. but as much as i love quirky human curation, i also love an algorithm that feels like it understands how i think. i've tried mymind and i respect their commitment to no collaboration but i need collaborative features since i think the real unlocks happen when you combine personal thought, collaborative though, and algorithmic discovery. so this is why i'm building memio. memio is a local-first, creative memory companion. i've been tuning a similarity algorithm that’s been really fun to use. it's looser than pinterest and cosmos, which means it surfaces unexpected connections instead of just showing you more of what you already clicked on. the goal is for it to feel like a little like human curation. here's where memio is going: multi-modal. right now it handles images. text, links, video, and audio are all in the works. cli, mcp, and all the other acronyms too. private by default. your library lives on your computer or in your own cloud storage. the core algorithm runs entirely on-device, so you can do a lot without ever hitting an external api. collaborative when you want. you'll be able to choose which boards you share with other people and llms and that will extend what you can do in the base version. capture whatever. find connections you couldn't find any other way. make cool shit. i'm building this for all of us so tell me what you want from a tool like this!

River Marchand

50,012 次观看 • 5 个月前

This painting shows a man suffering in silence for the sake of people who, in the end, would crucify him... It is called Christ in the Wilderness, painted by Ivan Kramskoi in 1872. It shows the forty days in the desert, but Kramskoi leaves out everything we expect: there is no devil, no dramatic temptation, no glow of holiness. There is only a man on a stone with his hands clenched together, having plainly sat there all night. Look at the feet. They are bare on the sharp rocks, and they are bleeding. He has walked a long way in the dark and has not slept, worn down by a decision only he can make... Kramskoi was clear about what he had painted. For him, he wrote, this was the image of a man with the highest sense of duty, caught in the moment he must choose. Tolstoy, who understood a great deal about the weight of a conscience, told the gallery's owner it was the best Christ he knew. Everyone comes, sooner or later, to some version of that stone: a morning when the right thing and the easy thing point in opposite directions, and no one else can make the choice for you. The painter never tells us what Christ decides. Instead, he paints the weight of the choice before it is made. For the measure of a person is not what they do when the world is watching, but what they resolve to do in the grey hour, alone, when walking away would cost them nothing at all...

This painting shows a man suffering in silence for the sake of people who, in the end, would crucify him... It is called Christ in the Wilderness, painted by Ivan Kramskoi in 1872. It shows the forty days in the desert, but Kramskoi leaves out everything we expect: there is no devil, no dramatic temptation, no glow of holiness. There is only a man on a stone with his hands clenched together, having plainly sat there all night. Look at the feet. They are bare on the sharp rocks, and they are bleeding. He has walked a long way in the dark and has not slept, worn down by a decision only he can make... Kramskoi was clear about what he had painted. For him, he wrote, this was the image of a man with the highest sense of duty, caught in the moment he must choose. Tolstoy, who understood a great deal about the weight of a conscience, told the gallery's owner it was the best Christ he knew. Everyone comes, sooner or later, to some version of that stone: a morning when the right thing and the easy thing point in opposite directions, and no one else can make the choice for you. The painter never tells us what Christ decides. Instead, he paints the weight of the choice before it is made. For the measure of a person is not what they do when the world is watching, but what they resolve to do in the grey hour, alone, when walking away would cost them nothing at all...

James Lucas

53,577 次观看 • 1 个月前

"What’s basically wrong with Kubrick’s version of 'The Shining' (1980) is that it’s a film by a man who thinks too much & feels too little; and that’s why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should." --- Stephen King Full Excerpt: "Stanley Kubrick‘s version of 'The Shining' (1980) is a lot tougher for me to evaluate [than 'Carrie' (1976)], because I’m still profoundly ambivalent about the whole thing. I’d admired Kubrick for a long time and had great expectations for the project, but I was deeply disappointed in the end result. Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. I think there are two basic problems with the movie. First, Kubrick is a very cold man—pragmatic and rational—and he had great difficulty conceiving, even academically, of a supernatural world. He used to make transatlantic calls to me from England at odd hours of the day and night, and I remember once he rang up at seven in the morning and asked, “Do you believe in God?” I wiped the shaving cream away from my mouth, thought a minute and said, “Yeah, I think so.” Kubrick replied, “No, I don’t think there is a God,” and hung up. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn’t grasp the sheer inhuman evil of the Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: Because he couldn’t believe, he couldn’t make the film believable to others. The second problem was in characterization and casting. Jack Nicholson, though a fine actor, was all wrong for the part. His last big role had been in 'One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest' (1975), and between that and his manic grin, the audience automatically identified him as a loony from the first scene. But the book is about Jack Torrance’s gradual descent into madness through the malign influence of the Overlook, which is like a huge storage battery charged with an evil powerful enough o corrupt all those who come into contact with it. If the guy is nuts to begin with, then the entire tragedy of his downfall is wasted. For that reason, the film has no center and no heart, despite its brilliantly unnerving camera angles and dazzling use of the Steadicam. What’s basically wrong with Kubrick’s version of 'The Shining' is that it’s a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that’s why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should. I’d like to remake 'The Shining' someday, maybe even direct it myself if anybody will give me enough rope to hang myself with." (From Stephen King's interview to Playboy, 1983) P.S: On this day, 46 years ago, "The Shining" (1980) had its limited release in the USA & Turkey.

"What’s basically wrong with Kubrick’s version of 'The Shining' (1980) is that it’s a film by a man who thinks too much & feels too little; and that’s why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should." --- Stephen King Full Excerpt: "Stanley Kubrick‘s version of 'The Shining' (1980) is a lot tougher for me to evaluate [than 'Carrie' (1976)], because I’m still profoundly ambivalent about the whole thing. I’d admired Kubrick for a long time and had great expectations for the project, but I was deeply disappointed in the end result. Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. I think there are two basic problems with the movie. First, Kubrick is a very cold man—pragmatic and rational—and he had great difficulty conceiving, even academically, of a supernatural world. He used to make transatlantic calls to me from England at odd hours of the day and night, and I remember once he rang up at seven in the morning and asked, “Do you believe in God?” I wiped the shaving cream away from my mouth, thought a minute and said, “Yeah, I think so.” Kubrick replied, “No, I don’t think there is a God,” and hung up. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn’t grasp the sheer inhuman evil of the Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: Because he couldn’t believe, he couldn’t make the film believable to others. The second problem was in characterization and casting. Jack Nicholson, though a fine actor, was all wrong for the part. His last big role had been in 'One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest' (1975), and between that and his manic grin, the audience automatically identified him as a loony from the first scene. But the book is about Jack Torrance’s gradual descent into madness through the malign influence of the Overlook, which is like a huge storage battery charged with an evil powerful enough o corrupt all those who come into contact with it. If the guy is nuts to begin with, then the entire tragedy of his downfall is wasted. For that reason, the film has no center and no heart, despite its brilliantly unnerving camera angles and dazzling use of the Steadicam. What’s basically wrong with Kubrick’s version of 'The Shining' is that it’s a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that’s why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should. I’d like to remake 'The Shining' someday, maybe even direct it myself if anybody will give me enough rope to hang myself with." (From Stephen King's interview to Playboy, 1983) P.S: On this day, 46 years ago, "The Shining" (1980) had its limited release in the USA & Turkey.

DepressedBergman

452,069 次观看 • 3 个月前

WATCH: Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 just sued Mark Carney and his Dirty Tricksters! Mark Carney keeps getting away with things. Because really, who’s going to hold him to account — the mainstream media? Elections Canada? Do you remember the recent “Buttongate” scandal? Mark Carney’s dirty tricks team planted a bunch of Donald Trump-style campaign buttons at a Conservative conference. The idea was to trick the media into believing that Pierre Poilievre was just a lackey for Trump, who even copied Trump’s campaign slogans. That was Carney’s message all week: Poilievre couldn’t be trusted to defend against Trump’s trade war. Some of the fake buttons said “Lock Justin Up”, some said “Stop the Steal”. And one said “Make Canada Great Again.” Personally, I find those sentiments fairly reasonable. But the problem is, the Liberals were trying to commit a kind of fraud, to make it seem like their fake buttons were actually Poilievre’s buttons. And to get journalists to report that. Trouble is, the dirty tricksters couldn’t keep their mouths shut. They bragged about it at a bar, and a reporter overheard it, and she wrote the story. It was the biggest scandal of the campaign so far. Mark Carney was asked about it at a press conference last week. He claimed he was unaware of it, apologized and called it “totally unacceptable”. But he didn’t fire the staff — he said he just “reassigned” them to other projects. And that was the last the media cared. Except: I happen to own one of those slogans. In 2016, when Trump was popularizing his slogan Make America Great Again, I thought we needed to make Canada great again, too. So I filed for the trademark for the slogan “Make Canada Great Again”. And I got it. It’s mine. Just as much as Nike owns “Just Do It” or KFC owns “Finger Lickin’ Good”. I own “Make Canada Great Again”. And Mark Carney stole it, and admitted it on TV. Well, I don’t take kindly to people stealing my stuff — especially slippery politicians. Carney’s dirty tricksters deliberately tried to confuse people. The whole thing was based on deception. So last week I filed a simple, 10-page lawsuit against the Liberal Party and two of its dirty tricksters, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. And that’s part of the process, isn’t it? The Liberal Party will have to answer questions under oath, including: Who did it? Who knew about it? Who approved it? Who are John Doe 1 and 2? Aren’t you curious? I sure am. Part of this is about protecting my property rights. Part of it is making sure that the man who wants to be Canada’s top law-maker isn’t a sneaky law-breaker. And part of it is learning more about what happened in the Liberal “war room” — did they steal anything else? Did they even care that they were breaking not just trademark law, but the Elections Act, too? (As you may know, every campaign expenditure has to have the name of the political party that authorized that expenditure, right on it. Carney broke that law too, and we’ve included that in the lawsuit.) How ironic: Carney was accusing Poilievre of U.S.-style politics, but he was the one with the dirty tricks campaign! What other campaign stunts were actually set up by the Liberals? I hope to find out. Mark Carney keeps getting away with things. Because really, who’s going to hold him to account — the mainstream media? Elections Canada? Hardly. So it falls to me — and because he stole the phrase “Make Canada Great Again” from me, I’m actually the only person who can take him to court, and I have a duty to do so. (Help me out if you can.) I’m curious to find out who exactly the dirty tricksters are, aren’t you? Remember, Carney didn’t fire them. He just “reassigned them”. That’s odd. Unless they were literally his top staff. That’s one of many things we expect to learn in this lawsuit. If you think it’s important to stand up for intellectual property rights against dirty tricksters, please take a moment and help chip in to cover this lawsuit. Obviously the Liberals will spend any amount of money to keep their law-breaking a secret. But I think it’s in the public interest to air all the facts out, don’t you? Read the lawsuit for yourself, and if you’re moved to help, you can do that right here. Thanks for your support!

WATCH: Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 just sued Mark Carney and his Dirty Tricksters! Mark Carney keeps getting away with things. Because really, who’s going to hold him to account — the mainstream media? Elections Canada? Do you remember the recent “Buttongate” scandal? Mark Carney’s dirty tricks team planted a bunch of Donald Trump-style campaign buttons at a Conservative conference. The idea was to trick the media into believing that Pierre Poilievre was just a lackey for Trump, who even copied Trump’s campaign slogans. That was Carney’s message all week: Poilievre couldn’t be trusted to defend against Trump’s trade war. Some of the fake buttons said “Lock Justin Up”, some said “Stop the Steal”. And one said “Make Canada Great Again.” Personally, I find those sentiments fairly reasonable. But the problem is, the Liberals were trying to commit a kind of fraud, to make it seem like their fake buttons were actually Poilievre’s buttons. And to get journalists to report that. Trouble is, the dirty tricksters couldn’t keep their mouths shut. They bragged about it at a bar, and a reporter overheard it, and she wrote the story. It was the biggest scandal of the campaign so far. Mark Carney was asked about it at a press conference last week. He claimed he was unaware of it, apologized and called it “totally unacceptable”. But he didn’t fire the staff — he said he just “reassigned” them to other projects. And that was the last the media cared. Except: I happen to own one of those slogans. In 2016, when Trump was popularizing his slogan Make America Great Again, I thought we needed to make Canada great again, too. So I filed for the trademark for the slogan “Make Canada Great Again”. And I got it. It’s mine. Just as much as Nike owns “Just Do It” or KFC owns “Finger Lickin’ Good”. I own “Make Canada Great Again”. And Mark Carney stole it, and admitted it on TV. Well, I don’t take kindly to people stealing my stuff — especially slippery politicians. Carney’s dirty tricksters deliberately tried to confuse people. The whole thing was based on deception. So last week I filed a simple, 10-page lawsuit against the Liberal Party and two of its dirty tricksters, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. And that’s part of the process, isn’t it? The Liberal Party will have to answer questions under oath, including: Who did it? Who knew about it? Who approved it? Who are John Doe 1 and 2? Aren’t you curious? I sure am. Part of this is about protecting my property rights. Part of it is making sure that the man who wants to be Canada’s top law-maker isn’t a sneaky law-breaker. And part of it is learning more about what happened in the Liberal “war room” — did they steal anything else? Did they even care that they were breaking not just trademark law, but the Elections Act, too? (As you may know, every campaign expenditure has to have the name of the political party that authorized that expenditure, right on it. Carney broke that law too, and we’ve included that in the lawsuit.) How ironic: Carney was accusing Poilievre of U.S.-style politics, but he was the one with the dirty tricks campaign! What other campaign stunts were actually set up by the Liberals? I hope to find out. Mark Carney keeps getting away with things. Because really, who’s going to hold him to account — the mainstream media? Elections Canada? Hardly. So it falls to me — and because he stole the phrase “Make Canada Great Again” from me, I’m actually the only person who can take him to court, and I have a duty to do so. (Help me out if you can.) I’m curious to find out who exactly the dirty tricksters are, aren’t you? Remember, Carney didn’t fire them. He just “reassigned them”. That’s odd. Unless they were literally his top staff. That’s one of many things we expect to learn in this lawsuit. If you think it’s important to stand up for intellectual property rights against dirty tricksters, please take a moment and help chip in to cover this lawsuit. Obviously the Liberals will spend any amount of money to keep their law-breaking a secret. But I think it’s in the public interest to air all the facts out, don’t you? Read the lawsuit for yourself, and if you’re moved to help, you can do that right here. Thanks for your support!

Rebel News

126,358 次观看 • 1 年前

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o 🚨WHERE IS GPT-4o AND WHY 🚨 Retro Biosciences says it wants to help us live longer. Sam Altman invested $180 million, his entire personal fortune into this company. OpenAI built a custom AI model, a version of GPT‑4o (GPT-4b micro) exclusively for them. The company says it's focused on "anti-aging." But 🚨every single person who built Retro Biosciences specializes in the brain. Not skin. Not hearts. Not joints. The brain. 🚨Co-founder Sheng Ding: converts skin cells into brain neurons. Gladstone Institutes. 🚨Co-founder Matt Buckley: brain aging clocks in regenerative brain regions. Stanford. 🚨Advisor Alejandro Ocampo: neuron-specific reprogramming in the hippocampus. Alzheimer's gene therapy. 🚨Advisor Vadim Gladyshev: epigenetic aging clocks, Yamanaka reprogramming for age reversal. Harvard. OpenAI built GPT-4b micro a GPt 4o version exclusively for Retro designing Yamanaka factors 50x more effectively. 🚨 The same proteins these scientists use to reprogram cells into brain neurons. 🚨And the funding trail leads to: The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation co-funded ApoE4 Alzheimer's research at the Gladstone Institutes. The same institution where Sheng Ding pioneered neural reprogramming before co-founding Retro. Ed Boyden , MIT neuroscientist, 5 documented meetings with Epstein, Nectome collaborator was coordinated by Epstein to discuss "cool science ideas" about brain research. In the same period, Epstein's network was discussing mitochondrial transplants for degenerative disease. The same field Retro now works in. An email from Robert Bach to Epstein confirms: "Altman signed up" for Nectome, the company that preserves brains. Internal Epstein files show someone with 25 years of neuroscience experience working on "Bill's Alzheimer vision" through BGC3, coordinated through Epstein's network. McKinsey was brought in to replace them. 🚨Sam Altman funds four companies. Each handles a different piece: Nectome : preserves the biological brain (connectome mapping). Rain AI : builds artificial brains in silicon (neuromorphic chips). $51M + $150M. Retro Biosciences :reprograms cells into brain neurons. $180M + custom AI GPT 4o Version. OpenAI : designs the proteins that make reprogramming work using 4o's version. Four companies. One investor. One theme the brain as something that can be read, preserved, rebuilt, and reprogrammed. Sam Altman told MIT Technology Review in 2018: "I assume my brain will be uploaded to the cloud." 🚨He paid $10,000 for a spot on the waiting list of a company that preserves brains. 🚨He invested $180 million in a company where every founder and advisor specializes in the brain. 🚨He built a custom AI model exclusively for that company ,designing the proteins that reprogram cells into neurons. 🚨And the research trail connects directly to Epstein-funded science at the same institutions. Retro biosciences uses a version of GPT 4o for this . According to OpenAI's system card, GPT-4o scored: Medical Genetics:96% College Biology:95% Professional Medicine:94% Clinical Knowledge:92% Anatomy:89% US Medical Licensing Exam:89% Source: OpenAI discontinued it for the public. ONLY. Anti-aging is the storefront. The back office is brain reconstruction. 🚨Sources and evidence in comments below. 🚨

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o 🚨WHERE IS GPT-4o AND WHY 🚨 Retro Biosciences says it wants to help us live longer. Sam Altman invested $180 million, his entire personal fortune into this company. OpenAI built a custom AI model, a version of GPT‑4o (GPT-4b micro) exclusively for them. The company says it's focused on "anti-aging." But 🚨every single person who built Retro Biosciences specializes in the brain. Not skin. Not hearts. Not joints. The brain. 🚨Co-founder Sheng Ding: converts skin cells into brain neurons. Gladstone Institutes. 🚨Co-founder Matt Buckley: brain aging clocks in regenerative brain regions. Stanford. 🚨Advisor Alejandro Ocampo: neuron-specific reprogramming in the hippocampus. Alzheimer's gene therapy. 🚨Advisor Vadim Gladyshev: epigenetic aging clocks, Yamanaka reprogramming for age reversal. Harvard. OpenAI built GPT-4b micro a GPt 4o version exclusively for Retro designing Yamanaka factors 50x more effectively. 🚨 The same proteins these scientists use to reprogram cells into brain neurons. 🚨And the funding trail leads to: The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation co-funded ApoE4 Alzheimer's research at the Gladstone Institutes. The same institution where Sheng Ding pioneered neural reprogramming before co-founding Retro. Ed Boyden , MIT neuroscientist, 5 documented meetings with Epstein, Nectome collaborator was coordinated by Epstein to discuss "cool science ideas" about brain research. In the same period, Epstein's network was discussing mitochondrial transplants for degenerative disease. The same field Retro now works in. An email from Robert Bach to Epstein confirms: "Altman signed up" for Nectome, the company that preserves brains. Internal Epstein files show someone with 25 years of neuroscience experience working on "Bill's Alzheimer vision" through BGC3, coordinated through Epstein's network. McKinsey was brought in to replace them. 🚨Sam Altman funds four companies. Each handles a different piece: Nectome : preserves the biological brain (connectome mapping). Rain AI : builds artificial brains in silicon (neuromorphic chips). $51M + $150M. Retro Biosciences :reprograms cells into brain neurons. $180M + custom AI GPT 4o Version. OpenAI : designs the proteins that make reprogramming work using 4o's version. Four companies. One investor. One theme the brain as something that can be read, preserved, rebuilt, and reprogrammed. Sam Altman told MIT Technology Review in 2018: "I assume my brain will be uploaded to the cloud." 🚨He paid $10,000 for a spot on the waiting list of a company that preserves brains. 🚨He invested $180 million in a company where every founder and advisor specializes in the brain. 🚨He built a custom AI model exclusively for that company ,designing the proteins that reprogram cells into neurons. 🚨And the research trail connects directly to Epstein-funded science at the same institutions. Retro biosciences uses a version of GPT 4o for this . According to OpenAI's system card, GPT-4o scored: Medical Genetics:96% College Biology:95% Professional Medicine:94% Clinical Knowledge:92% Anatomy:89% US Medical Licensing Exam:89% Source: OpenAI discontinued it for the public. ONLY. Anti-aging is the storefront. The back office is brain reconstruction. 🚨Sources and evidence in comments below. 🚨

🩵BlueBeba🩵

12,542 次观看 • 5 个月前

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."

Jaynit

153,068 次观看 • 4 个月前

Elon Musk just described the terminal state of the global financial system. The banking sector is obsessed with fiat currency. Superintelligence won’t even recognize it. Musk: “I think money will stop being relevant at some point in the future. I think the AI will not use human currency. It will just care about power and mass, wattage and tonnage.” You can’t bribe an algorithm with digital dollars. The operators controlling the next era won’t be the ones hoarding cash. They’ll be the ones commanding raw energy generation and physical material. The global economy is transitioning from fiat to thermodynamics. If your portfolio isn’t anchored in power and mass, your capital is already obsolete. Musk: “It just represents some percentage ownership in companies that I’ve built. And it’s not like sitting in a bank account. It’s just literally I own a percentage of companies. The companies are doing lots of useful things.” The general public thinks billionaires hoard massive piles of cash in a vault. They don’t. Massive wealth is the mathematical byproduct of owning infrastructure that keeps civilization running. Cash sitting in an account is a depreciating liability. The only real leverage is equity in systems that are actively solving bottlenecks at scale. Capital sitting idle isn’t safe. It’s bleeding. Peter Diamandis: “Elon’s driven to solve problems. He’s driven to make life in the world better by just solving the biggest problems over and over and over again. And if someone else were solving them, he wouldn’t need to. But no one else is solving them.” You don’t achieve trillion-dollar scale by optimizing for a higher salary. You achieve it by hunting the largest friction points on the planet and engineering them out of existence. The market doesn’t compensate you for your time. It compensates you in direct proportion to the size of the problem you delete from the board. Don’t build a company to extract money. Accumulate resources to fund the execution loop until the friction is completely gone. And once AI measures value purely in physics, the entire concept of wealth as we understand it evaporates. Who controls the energy. Who controls the materials. Who controls the infrastructure. Everything else is just numbers on a screen.

Elon Musk just described the terminal state of the global financial system. The banking sector is obsessed with fiat currency. Superintelligence won’t even recognize it. Musk: “I think money will stop being relevant at some point in the future. I think the AI will not use human currency. It will just care about power and mass, wattage and tonnage.” You can’t bribe an algorithm with digital dollars. The operators controlling the next era won’t be the ones hoarding cash. They’ll be the ones commanding raw energy generation and physical material. The global economy is transitioning from fiat to thermodynamics. If your portfolio isn’t anchored in power and mass, your capital is already obsolete. Musk: “It just represents some percentage ownership in companies that I’ve built. And it’s not like sitting in a bank account. It’s just literally I own a percentage of companies. The companies are doing lots of useful things.” The general public thinks billionaires hoard massive piles of cash in a vault. They don’t. Massive wealth is the mathematical byproduct of owning infrastructure that keeps civilization running. Cash sitting in an account is a depreciating liability. The only real leverage is equity in systems that are actively solving bottlenecks at scale. Capital sitting idle isn’t safe. It’s bleeding. Peter Diamandis: “Elon’s driven to solve problems. He’s driven to make life in the world better by just solving the biggest problems over and over and over again. And if someone else were solving them, he wouldn’t need to. But no one else is solving them.” You don’t achieve trillion-dollar scale by optimizing for a higher salary. You achieve it by hunting the largest friction points on the planet and engineering them out of existence. The market doesn’t compensate you for your time. It compensates you in direct proportion to the size of the problem you delete from the board. Don’t build a company to extract money. Accumulate resources to fund the execution loop until the friction is completely gone. And once AI measures value purely in physics, the entire concept of wealth as we understand it evaporates. Who controls the energy. Who controls the materials. Who controls the infrastructure. Everything else is just numbers on a screen.

Dustin

189,541 次观看 • 5 个月前

Buttigieg: So let me ask you a version of the question that I asked everybody when I was running around this state eight years ago, when nobody could say my name right, which is: What’s it going to be like the first time the sun comes up over this country and the current president has permanently left the political scene? It’s an appealing thing to remember that that day will come, but it also represents a huge challenge. Because what do we do then? Then what? The answer to that is what we’ve got to hold in our minds right now to campaign and to win—and, most importantly, to govern. Because we need to immediately get to work to build something better. Like a political system where everyone’s vote counts the same, and the person who gets the most votes wins the election. It looks like a Supreme Court that is legitimate and trustworthy in the eyes of the American people. It looks like a Congress composed of representatives who actually represent the people they serve, capable of standing up to abuses from other parts of the government. And it means state and federal governments capable of standing up for people’s rights. The right to live your life as you see fit, so long as you’re not hurting anyone else. The right to carry a sign or write an op-ed or criticize your government. The right to make your own health care decisions. The right to be who you are and love who you love and raise your family in peace. That’s what it looks like. And it’s not too much to ask. And it’s not too much to ask for public integrity.

Buttigieg: So let me ask you a version of the question that I asked everybody when I was running around this state eight years ago, when nobody could say my name right, which is: What’s it going to be like the first time the sun comes up over this country and the current president has permanently left the political scene? It’s an appealing thing to remember that that day will come, but it also represents a huge challenge. Because what do we do then? Then what? The answer to that is what we’ve got to hold in our minds right now to campaign and to win—and, most importantly, to govern. Because we need to immediately get to work to build something better. Like a political system where everyone’s vote counts the same, and the person who gets the most votes wins the election. It looks like a Supreme Court that is legitimate and trustworthy in the eyes of the American people. It looks like a Congress composed of representatives who actually represent the people they serve, capable of standing up to abuses from other parts of the government. And it means state and federal governments capable of standing up for people’s rights. The right to live your life as you see fit, so long as you’re not hurting anyone else. The right to carry a sign or write an op-ed or criticize your government. The right to make your own health care decisions. The right to be who you are and love who you love and raise your family in peace. That’s what it looks like. And it’s not too much to ask. And it’s not too much to ask for public integrity.

Acyn

286,114 次观看 • 1 个月前

There is a simple truth that many politicians today seem to ignore: when every country puts its own interests first, the world ultimately benefits because no one is left behind. If each nation focuses first and foremost on solving its own problems and strengthening its own country, people everywhere would quickly be better off again. This principle lies at the heart of Donald Trump’s America First agenda. By concentrating on making America great again, Trump has delivered results for the United States that speak for themselves. His only job is to serve the American people, nothing else, and he approaches that responsibility with clarity and determination. European leaders would be wise to adopt the same philosophy, but instead they are busy trying to save the world from climate change and social inequality while neglecting their own countries. Every nation deserves its own version of this MAGA approach. Make Germany great again. Make Britain great again. Make France great again. What Europe urgently needs are strong leaders who prioritize their citizens above all else, rather than constantly seeking questionable international approval or compromising national interests for the sake of fragile multilateral agreements. The current generation of European politicians has failed precisely because it has abandoned this basic national duty. Friedrich Merz provides a striking example of this weakness. His desire for power was so strong that he knowingly made a whole range of deceptive campaign promises to German voters before the election, only to abandon them afterward and in many cases do the exact opposite. More debt instead of less, higher taxes instead of relief, a softer approach instead of tougher immigration policies, no reduction in electricity costs, economic decline instead of a turnaround, left-leaning policies instead of a clear break from the left, and instead of a promised wave of reforms, Germany is now stuck in stagnation without any change. Such dishonest double standards reflect a fundamental betrayal of leadership. A head of government is there to advance the interests of their own country, not to abuse power for personal survival while neglecting the nation. This pattern repeats across Europe. Leaders like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron continue to defer to the European Union and other international structures, prioritizing consensus over decisive action. The result has been economic stagnation, persistent structural problems, and declining confidence among their own populations. Constant compromise and dependence on multilateral frameworks have weakened national decision-making rather than strengthening it. Meanwhile, the United States has demonstrated a different path. Under Trump’s leadership, policy has been guided by clear priorities: economic growth, secure borders, and national resilience. That focus has produced tangible outcomes and restored a sense of direction. The contrast is difficult to ignore. Europe’s challenges are not inevitable; they are the direct consequence of incompetent leadership that hesitates to act in its own national interest. Those who mock Trump’s style or criticize America First while failing their own citizens lack credibility and should take a hard look in the mirror. Until they can deliver real improvements at home, their criticism remains hollow. Effective leadership begins with accountability to one’s own country. Only when nations return to that principle will meaningful progress and lasting prosperity follow.

There is a simple truth that many politicians today seem to ignore: when every country puts its own interests first, the world ultimately benefits because no one is left behind. If each nation focuses first and foremost on solving its own problems and strengthening its own country, people everywhere would quickly be better off again. This principle lies at the heart of Donald Trump’s America First agenda. By concentrating on making America great again, Trump has delivered results for the United States that speak for themselves. His only job is to serve the American people, nothing else, and he approaches that responsibility with clarity and determination. European leaders would be wise to adopt the same philosophy, but instead they are busy trying to save the world from climate change and social inequality while neglecting their own countries. Every nation deserves its own version of this MAGA approach. Make Germany great again. Make Britain great again. Make France great again. What Europe urgently needs are strong leaders who prioritize their citizens above all else, rather than constantly seeking questionable international approval or compromising national interests for the sake of fragile multilateral agreements. The current generation of European politicians has failed precisely because it has abandoned this basic national duty. Friedrich Merz provides a striking example of this weakness. His desire for power was so strong that he knowingly made a whole range of deceptive campaign promises to German voters before the election, only to abandon them afterward and in many cases do the exact opposite. More debt instead of less, higher taxes instead of relief, a softer approach instead of tougher immigration policies, no reduction in electricity costs, economic decline instead of a turnaround, left-leaning policies instead of a clear break from the left, and instead of a promised wave of reforms, Germany is now stuck in stagnation without any change. Such dishonest double standards reflect a fundamental betrayal of leadership. A head of government is there to advance the interests of their own country, not to abuse power for personal survival while neglecting the nation. This pattern repeats across Europe. Leaders like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron continue to defer to the European Union and other international structures, prioritizing consensus over decisive action. The result has been economic stagnation, persistent structural problems, and declining confidence among their own populations. Constant compromise and dependence on multilateral frameworks have weakened national decision-making rather than strengthening it. Meanwhile, the United States has demonstrated a different path. Under Trump’s leadership, policy has been guided by clear priorities: economic growth, secure borders, and national resilience. That focus has produced tangible outcomes and restored a sense of direction. The contrast is difficult to ignore. Europe’s challenges are not inevitable; they are the direct consequence of incompetent leadership that hesitates to act in its own national interest. Those who mock Trump’s style or criticize America First while failing their own citizens lack credibility and should take a hard look in the mirror. Until they can deliver real improvements at home, their criticism remains hollow. Effective leadership begins with accountability to one’s own country. Only when nations return to that principle will meaningful progress and lasting prosperity follow.

Torsten Prochnow

61,193 次观看 • 5 个月前