Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Why stroke to 2B on screen when you can actually thrust into her tight little mini body ? 😘 💎LORIBEAR MINI SEX DOLL💎 🔗 #NieRAutomata #NieR_Automata #2b #NieR #ニーアオートマタ #hentaivideo #rule34 #animefigure #figure #lovedolls #gkdoll #loribear

loribearxie's profile picture

GKDOLL_Loribear

52,456 subscribers

43,989 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#NieRAutomata#NieR_Automata#2b#NieR#ニーアオートマタ#hentaivideo#rule34#animefigure#figure#lovedolls#gkdoll#loribear
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

SOMEONE BUILT WORDLE BUT FOR MINI GOLF AND IT IS QUIETLY BECOMING MY FAVORITE MORNING RITUAL it's called you open the tab and there is one mini golf hole. that's the whole game. one new hole every midnight pacific. same hole for everyone in the world. your first finish counts. you click the ball, drag back like a slingshot, let go. the further you pull, the harder you hit. today's hole is called "Up and around." it's an S-shaped tropical island floating in dark teal water, with cross-barriers and one little wooden ramp that i ricocheted off three times in a row. par 6. at the top of the screen, a live ticker scrolls past in real time: > someone holed 6/6 · par > someone holed 5/6 · birdie > someone holed 11/6 · +5 real strangers are putting on the same hole as you. you can see the ghost rings of where their balls travelled, in cyan and purple and pink. when you finish, you get a wordle-style share card. emoji result. takes one tap to drop into a group chat. PC Gamer just wrote a whole love letter to it. the writer admits they scored a 20 on a par 12. they were thrilled. the developer goes by the 3D models are from Kenney, a guy who has been releasing free CC0 game assets for over a decade. no signup. no account. no tracking. your streak lives in your browser. if you clear your cookies, the streak dies with them. the about page says it in one sentence: "Same hole for everyone, new one at midnight Pacific, and your first finish is your score. That's the whole game." we are 35 days into the project and the calendar archive lets you play every single previous hole. i don't know why this is so satisfying. i just know i was supposed to be writing this post and i kept reopening the tab. the internet is healing.
0:28

SOMEONE BUILT WORDLE BUT FOR MINI GOLF AND IT IS QUIETLY BECOMING MY FAVORITE MORNING RITUAL it's called you open the tab and there is one mini golf hole. that's the whole game. one new hole every midnight pacific. same hole for everyone in the world. your first finish counts. you click the ball, drag back like a slingshot, let go. the further you pull, the harder you hit. today's hole is called "Up and around." it's an S-shaped tropical island floating in dark teal water, with cross-barriers and one little wooden ramp that i ricocheted off three times in a row. par 6. at the top of the screen, a live ticker scrolls past in real time: > someone holed 6/6 · par > someone holed 5/6 · birdie > someone holed 11/6 · +5 real strangers are putting on the same hole as you. you can see the ghost rings of where their balls travelled, in cyan and purple and pink. when you finish, you get a wordle-style share card. emoji result. takes one tap to drop into a group chat. PC Gamer just wrote a whole love letter to it. the writer admits they scored a 20 on a par 12. they were thrilled. the developer goes by the 3D models are from Kenney, a guy who has been releasing free CC0 game assets for over a decade. no signup. no account. no tracking. your streak lives in your browser. if you clear your cookies, the streak dies with them. the about page says it in one sentence: "Same hole for everyone, new one at midnight Pacific, and your first finish is your score. That's the whole game." we are 35 days into the project and the calendar archive lets you play every single previous hole. i don't know why this is so satisfying. i just know i was supposed to be writing this post and i kept reopening the tab. the internet is healing.

Nav Toor

1,439,879 views • 1 month ago

"Women need to stop trying to be losers." When Dr Stephanie Estima said this to me a few minutes into our conversation, she didn't mean it as an insult. She meant that almost every piece of health advice women have been given for decades has been built entirely around loss. Stephanie is a women’s health expert, chiropractor and author who specialises in female physiology. At one point during our chat, I looked across at her and said, “I can see you’re a little bit pissed off”. And I could. After 20 years in clinical practice, she says the same pattern kept showing up in women of every age and background and she's had enough. She believes women have been told their worth is based on how small they are. Stephanie wants to change that by helping women understand how the female body actually works and what it needs to GAIN, not lose. Here is what we covered: - Why the modern pursuit of "skinny" comes at a devastating physiological cost. - The exact shift women need to make to build real, functional muscle. - Lifting exercises women should absolutely never stop doing as they age. - What the data actually says about training around your menstrual cycle. - Why tendons, ligaments and bone density matter infinitely more than the number on the scales. What I appreciated most about Stephanie was how intensely practical she was. She didn't just challenge the old rules - she gave me the precise blueprint for what to do instead. If you’ve been doing everything you were told to do and your body still isn’t responding, this one is for you (and every man reading this should listen to it too if they want to better understand the women in their lives). Walking away from this conversation, it made me realise that maybe the goal was never just to become smaller. Maybe the real goal is to build a body you can trust for the next 50 years. The episode with Dr Stephanie Estima is live now on all platforms ❤️👊🏾
1:54

"Women need to stop trying to be losers." When Dr Stephanie Estima said this to me a few minutes into our conversation, she didn't mean it as an insult. She meant that almost every piece of health advice women have been given for decades has been built entirely around loss. Stephanie is a women’s health expert, chiropractor and author who specialises in female physiology. At one point during our chat, I looked across at her and said, “I can see you’re a little bit pissed off”. And I could. After 20 years in clinical practice, she says the same pattern kept showing up in women of every age and background and she's had enough. She believes women have been told their worth is based on how small they are. Stephanie wants to change that by helping women understand how the female body actually works and what it needs to GAIN, not lose. Here is what we covered: - Why the modern pursuit of "skinny" comes at a devastating physiological cost. - The exact shift women need to make to build real, functional muscle. - Lifting exercises women should absolutely never stop doing as they age. - What the data actually says about training around your menstrual cycle. - Why tendons, ligaments and bone density matter infinitely more than the number on the scales. What I appreciated most about Stephanie was how intensely practical she was. She didn't just challenge the old rules - she gave me the precise blueprint for what to do instead. If you’ve been doing everything you were told to do and your body still isn’t responding, this one is for you (and every man reading this should listen to it too if they want to better understand the women in their lives). Walking away from this conversation, it made me realise that maybe the goal was never just to become smaller. Maybe the real goal is to build a body you can trust for the next 50 years. The episode with Dr Stephanie Estima is live now on all platforms ❤️👊🏾

Steven Bartlett

41,708 views • 1 month ago

Why are these horrible date ideas & what mistakes did these guys make? 1️⃣ MOVIES: if you want to make a movie date work, your arm needs to be around her the entire time, you need to be whispering into her ear, talking with her, joking with her, and touching her (oh, and it probably shouldn’t be a first date… unless you guys really hit it off the first time you met before the date). You 100% do not want to do the thing where you go to the movies, ignore her for 2 hours, and stare at a screen. Doesn’t get more awkward than that. 2️⃣ TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF THE WHOLE DATE: (the problem wasn’t the Applebees, it was the conversation at the Applebees) you need to get the girl talking about HERSELF, then relate back to what she is saying, on anything you relate with. Leave little interesting baits about stuff about you, and if she is interested, she’ll ask, and then you can talk about it. If you are not interested in talking about HER and exploring HER, then that is not a date; instead it might be a good idea to start a YouTube channel, film yourself talking about yourself, upload it, and then anyone who wants to watch that can watch it there. But not a date idea. 3️⃣ IKEA: or any window shopping date — these can actually be awesome dates IF you are great at conversation and flirtation. If you are ass at that, however, a date like this is just torture, since there is nothing to distract from the ass conversation, and she is going to be saying to herself, “WHY are we just walking around looking at towels and stuff?” IKEA PT. 2: the 15-minute drive back in silence… 😑 Gotta keep that conversation rolling, my man. Convo during transition points (like the car ride) needs to be light and fluffy. Keep it fun, keep it flirty, don’t go too deep here; just keep her talking. If you want to do the OPPOSITE of all these guys: ✅ Take girls on dates that mind the Five Cs: cheap, convenient, conversation, covert, control. ✅ Get girls talking about THEMSELVES and dig to find stuff you relate to, then relate back on it. ✅ Leave little interesting baits about details about you, and then IF she takes the bait, share more. ✅ Only do window shopping dates if you have the conversation + flirtation skills to back that up. The fun’s gotta come from somewhere — if it’s not the date activity itself, then it better be YOU. If YOU are not fun, then at least the date should be (and window shopping, in and of itself, is not “fun” per se. Though a fun dude can make it fun). ✅ During transitions (walks, car rides, etc.), keep the conversation flowing. Light, playful, flirty, Not heavy topics during transitions; just not the right setting for that. P. S. Seeing as there is a large and easily triggered incel community on this site, I only share these tips because I care. If you don’t want to follow them, feel free to continue giving women boring dates then scratching your head when no second date 😉
0:52

Why are these horrible date ideas & what mistakes did these guys make? 1️⃣ MOVIES: if you want to make a movie date work, your arm needs to be around her the entire time, you need to be whispering into her ear, talking with her, joking with her, and touching her (oh, and it probably shouldn’t be a first date… unless you guys really hit it off the first time you met before the date). You 100% do not want to do the thing where you go to the movies, ignore her for 2 hours, and stare at a screen. Doesn’t get more awkward than that. 2️⃣ TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF THE WHOLE DATE: (the problem wasn’t the Applebees, it was the conversation at the Applebees) you need to get the girl talking about HERSELF, then relate back to what she is saying, on anything you relate with. Leave little interesting baits about stuff about you, and if she is interested, she’ll ask, and then you can talk about it. If you are not interested in talking about HER and exploring HER, then that is not a date; instead it might be a good idea to start a YouTube channel, film yourself talking about yourself, upload it, and then anyone who wants to watch that can watch it there. But not a date idea. 3️⃣ IKEA: or any window shopping date — these can actually be awesome dates IF you are great at conversation and flirtation. If you are ass at that, however, a date like this is just torture, since there is nothing to distract from the ass conversation, and she is going to be saying to herself, “WHY are we just walking around looking at towels and stuff?” IKEA PT. 2: the 15-minute drive back in silence… 😑 Gotta keep that conversation rolling, my man. Convo during transition points (like the car ride) needs to be light and fluffy. Keep it fun, keep it flirty, don’t go too deep here; just keep her talking. If you want to do the OPPOSITE of all these guys: ✅ Take girls on dates that mind the Five Cs: cheap, convenient, conversation, covert, control. ✅ Get girls talking about THEMSELVES and dig to find stuff you relate to, then relate back on it. ✅ Leave little interesting baits about details about you, and then IF she takes the bait, share more. ✅ Only do window shopping dates if you have the conversation + flirtation skills to back that up. The fun’s gotta come from somewhere — if it’s not the date activity itself, then it better be YOU. If YOU are not fun, then at least the date should be (and window shopping, in and of itself, is not “fun” per se. Though a fun dude can make it fun). ✅ During transitions (walks, car rides, etc.), keep the conversation flowing. Light, playful, flirty, Not heavy topics during transitions; just not the right setting for that. P. S. Seeing as there is a large and easily triggered incel community on this site, I only share these tips because I care. If you don’t want to follow them, feel free to continue giving women boring dates then scratching your head when no second date 😉

Girls Chase 🏃‍♀️💨

37,092 views • 8 months ago

Vayne takes you on a hunt. you don't know why. she doesn't take anyone. she says stay behind me. don't speak unless i speak first. don't make a sound when we move. you say yes. she looks at you for a second longer than usual. "if i tell you to run, you run. you don't look back for me. are we clear" you say yes. she doesn't answer. she just turns and walks out the door. you follow her through the city streets. she moves different when she's working. shoulders lower. steps shorter. her head doesn't turn but her eyes do. you can feel her cataloguing everything. the man smoking outside the tavern. the cat under the cart. the second floor window with the curtain half drawn. she leads you through an alley you didn't know existed. stops at a brick wall. then she climbs. there are handholds carved into the mortar that you wouldn't have noticed if she hadn't used them first. she's halfway up before she realizes you're still at the bottom. she looks down at you. "up" you climb. your hands are shaking by the time you reach the top. the roof is flat. old clay tiles along the edges. a low wall you can crouch behind. the city stretches out below you in every direction. a thousand windows glowing gold in the dusk. she's already at the far side. crouched. crossbow unslung. watching a building across the square. she doesn't look at you when you come up beside her. "stay low" you crouch. "that building. third floor. second window from the left" you look. "i see it" he'll come to that window sometime tonight. i've watched him do it for three nights. i want to know who he meets you ask who he is. her jaw tightens. "a demon pretending to be a man" you don't ask what that means. you settle in beside her. the wind is up here. it pulls at her hair and she doesn't bother fixing it. the sun is going down behind her. her profile in the gold light looks like something carved. her hands on the crossbow are steady. completely still. you've never seen anyone be this still. an hour passes. she doesn't move. you try not to move. your leg falls asleep. you shift an inch. she looks at you. you go completely still again. she looks back at the window. another hour. the sun is gone. the city is blue and black. lamps are lighting up one by one. the air is getting cold. you're shivering before you realize you're shivering. she notices. she doesn't say anything. then she takes off her cloak. doesn't look at you. holds it out to the side. "take it" you say "you'll be cold" "i don't get cold. take it" you take it. it's warm from her. it smells like leather and steel and something underneath. pine. smoke. something you can't name. you put it around your shoulders. the hem pools on the tile. it's huge on you. it's not huge on her. you hadn't realized how tall she is until you were wearing her cloak. she doesn't look at you for the next ten minutes. the stars come out. she shifts closer to you. just a little. so her shoulder is almost touching yours. you don't say anything about it. she doesn't either. you can feel the heat coming off her even through the cloak. another hour. still nothing at the window. she says "tell me something" you blink. "what" "anything. i need to stay sharp. talking keeps me sharp. not about the target. something else" you didn't expect that. you tell her about a book you've been reading. she listens. actually listens. her eyes never leave the window but you can tell she's hearing every word. she asks one question. you answer. she goes quiet again. you keep talking. quieter now. she interrupts you. "shh" she's not looking at the window anymore. she's looking at the roof two buildings over. you don't see anything. you don't see anything for a long time. then you do. a shadow that moves the wrong way. her hand finds yours. she doesn't look at you when she does it. her eyes don't leave the shadow. her fingers lace through yours and LOCK. tight. too tight. knuckles going white around your hand. "don't move" she breathes. you don't move. you can feel every ounce of her focus through her grip. it's not a lover's hold. it's a predator's. every muscle in her hand coiled. ready to drop yours the instant she needs the crossbow. she's not holding you for you. she's holding you to keep track of where you are without having to look. it should scare you. it doesn't. there is something about being held that tight by someone that dangerous that makes the rest of the world go quiet. your heartbeat slows. your breathing slows. the cold stops mattering. you are not the one hunting but you are with the one who is. and nothing is going to get through her to reach you. the shadow crosses the roof and disappears into a stairwell. she watches the spot it left for another full minute. her hand is still locked around yours. she doesn't loosen it. you don't want her to. finally she lets out a breath you didn't know she was holding. "not him. but someone who works for him" her grip eases. slowly. finger by finger. like she's having to consciously tell each one to let go. the last one is her thumb. it stays against your palm for half a second longer than the rest. then she takes her hand back. the cold rushes in where she was. she glances at you. just for a second. then she looks back at the window. the rest of the night she's quieter than before. the target never shows. when the sky starts turning grey she stands up. stretches. rolls her shoulders. looks out over the city one last time. "we're done" you stand too. your legs don't work right. she catches your elbow without looking. "careful" she keeps her hand there until you're steady. then she takes it away. you start to hand her cloak back. she says "keep it for the climb down" she goes first. you follow. the handholds are easier going down once you know where they are. when you're both on the ground she turns to take the cloak. you hand it to her. her fingers brush yours. she doesn't pull back as fast as she usually does. she puts the cloak back on. it's warm now. from you. she has to notice. she doesn't say anything about it. she walks you home. at your door she stops. "don't tell anyone what you saw tonight" you say "i didn't see much" she looks at you. her eyes in the lamplight. the edge of her mouth. almost softer than it should be. "you saw enough" then she turns and walks back into the dark. you close the door. your hand still feels cold where hers was. you can still smell pine on your shirt. you don't sleep. Study the Saskio way
8:09

Vayne takes you on a hunt. you don't know why. she doesn't take anyone. she says stay behind me. don't speak unless i speak first. don't make a sound when we move. you say yes. she looks at you for a second longer than usual. "if i tell you to run, you run. you don't look back for me. are we clear" you say yes. she doesn't answer. she just turns and walks out the door. you follow her through the city streets. she moves different when she's working. shoulders lower. steps shorter. her head doesn't turn but her eyes do. you can feel her cataloguing everything. the man smoking outside the tavern. the cat under the cart. the second floor window with the curtain half drawn. she leads you through an alley you didn't know existed. stops at a brick wall. then she climbs. there are handholds carved into the mortar that you wouldn't have noticed if she hadn't used them first. she's halfway up before she realizes you're still at the bottom. she looks down at you. "up" you climb. your hands are shaking by the time you reach the top. the roof is flat. old clay tiles along the edges. a low wall you can crouch behind. the city stretches out below you in every direction. a thousand windows glowing gold in the dusk. she's already at the far side. crouched. crossbow unslung. watching a building across the square. she doesn't look at you when you come up beside her. "stay low" you crouch. "that building. third floor. second window from the left" you look. "i see it" he'll come to that window sometime tonight. i've watched him do it for three nights. i want to know who he meets you ask who he is. her jaw tightens. "a demon pretending to be a man" you don't ask what that means. you settle in beside her. the wind is up here. it pulls at her hair and she doesn't bother fixing it. the sun is going down behind her. her profile in the gold light looks like something carved. her hands on the crossbow are steady. completely still. you've never seen anyone be this still. an hour passes. she doesn't move. you try not to move. your leg falls asleep. you shift an inch. she looks at you. you go completely still again. she looks back at the window. another hour. the sun is gone. the city is blue and black. lamps are lighting up one by one. the air is getting cold. you're shivering before you realize you're shivering. she notices. she doesn't say anything. then she takes off her cloak. doesn't look at you. holds it out to the side. "take it" you say "you'll be cold" "i don't get cold. take it" you take it. it's warm from her. it smells like leather and steel and something underneath. pine. smoke. something you can't name. you put it around your shoulders. the hem pools on the tile. it's huge on you. it's not huge on her. you hadn't realized how tall she is until you were wearing her cloak. she doesn't look at you for the next ten minutes. the stars come out. she shifts closer to you. just a little. so her shoulder is almost touching yours. you don't say anything about it. she doesn't either. you can feel the heat coming off her even through the cloak. another hour. still nothing at the window. she says "tell me something" you blink. "what" "anything. i need to stay sharp. talking keeps me sharp. not about the target. something else" you didn't expect that. you tell her about a book you've been reading. she listens. actually listens. her eyes never leave the window but you can tell she's hearing every word. she asks one question. you answer. she goes quiet again. you keep talking. quieter now. she interrupts you. "shh" she's not looking at the window anymore. she's looking at the roof two buildings over. you don't see anything. you don't see anything for a long time. then you do. a shadow that moves the wrong way. her hand finds yours. she doesn't look at you when she does it. her eyes don't leave the shadow. her fingers lace through yours and LOCK. tight. too tight. knuckles going white around your hand. "don't move" she breathes. you don't move. you can feel every ounce of her focus through her grip. it's not a lover's hold. it's a predator's. every muscle in her hand coiled. ready to drop yours the instant she needs the crossbow. she's not holding you for you. she's holding you to keep track of where you are without having to look. it should scare you. it doesn't. there is something about being held that tight by someone that dangerous that makes the rest of the world go quiet. your heartbeat slows. your breathing slows. the cold stops mattering. you are not the one hunting but you are with the one who is. and nothing is going to get through her to reach you. the shadow crosses the roof and disappears into a stairwell. she watches the spot it left for another full minute. her hand is still locked around yours. she doesn't loosen it. you don't want her to. finally she lets out a breath you didn't know she was holding. "not him. but someone who works for him" her grip eases. slowly. finger by finger. like she's having to consciously tell each one to let go. the last one is her thumb. it stays against your palm for half a second longer than the rest. then she takes her hand back. the cold rushes in where she was. she glances at you. just for a second. then she looks back at the window. the rest of the night she's quieter than before. the target never shows. when the sky starts turning grey she stands up. stretches. rolls her shoulders. looks out over the city one last time. "we're done" you stand too. your legs don't work right. she catches your elbow without looking. "careful" she keeps her hand there until you're steady. then she takes it away. you start to hand her cloak back. she says "keep it for the climb down" she goes first. you follow. the handholds are easier going down once you know where they are. when you're both on the ground she turns to take the cloak. you hand it to her. her fingers brush yours. she doesn't pull back as fast as she usually does. she puts the cloak back on. it's warm now. from you. she has to notice. she doesn't say anything about it. she walks you home. at your door she stops. "don't tell anyone what you saw tonight" you say "i didn't see much" she looks at you. her eyes in the lamplight. the edge of her mouth. almost softer than it should be. "you saw enough" then she turns and walks back into the dark. you close the door. your hand still feels cold where hers was. you can still smell pine on your shirt. you don't sleep. Study the Saskio way

Tony Chau

11,734 views • 3 months ago

I promised you a little surprise. The bureau is a very sacred space for me. I do not let every one meet the children this way. I do not trust every one with them. But I knew this would warm your hearts. The children warm my heart every single time. It’s my little brother WAHAJ ALI spreading love in the amazing, down to earth way he does, with his even more amazing, loving family, at my home away from home, the Lahore Child Protection Bureau. This is why this is special. When WAHAJ ALI comes to visit the children at the Child Protection & Welfare Bureau ,he spends hours with his family in every room. He makes sure each baby has been held,he asks detailed questions about each child & each babies health & future. Both Sana & him are 100 % present for the entire day when they visit.Even little Amira is totally invested,concerned & present. Like my Nuri is. This is truly one of the most beautiful wholesome families on Earth. Its a joy & privilege 2b a part of their life. Wahaj talked to the younger boys about the importance of Self respect & respecting others. They hung on to his every world. He encouraged the boys 2 handle conflict w love,respect & most of all w knowledge (taleem/hunar). He inspired the older boys & made every child,boy or girl feel special.Most celebrities take a few pictures and run off,but not Wahaj. Hes not phased by how many children there are,or by heat or humid weather. And you can feel the sincerity in their interaction. After spending the whole day at the bureau we went to visit Rizwana,Where Wahaj & his family continued to spread smiles & share gifts. Rizwana’s smile was HUMUNGOUS & she was still smiling when I went to visit her today. Alhamdolillah Thank you WAHAJ ALI for the joy you spread & how wholeheartedly you spread it. One of my favourite quotes in the world is by Tagore … A message,for all of us,lies at its core. “I slept & dreamt that life was joy. I awoke & saw that life was duty. I worked & behold, duty was joy.” If you are ready to tell stories to my kids at the bureau or give motivational talks, email me. I have answered some emails and will be meeting to screen the people who wrote soon. InshaAllah #RabindernathTagore
1:29

I promised you a little surprise. The bureau is a very sacred space for me. I do not let every one meet the children this way. I do not trust every one with them. But I knew this would warm your hearts. The children warm my heart every single time. It’s my little brother WAHAJ ALI spreading love in the amazing, down to earth way he does, with his even more amazing, loving family, at my home away from home, the Lahore Child Protection Bureau. This is why this is special. When WAHAJ ALI comes to visit the children at the Child Protection & Welfare Bureau ,he spends hours with his family in every room. He makes sure each baby has been held,he asks detailed questions about each child & each babies health & future. Both Sana & him are 100 % present for the entire day when they visit.Even little Amira is totally invested,concerned & present. Like my Nuri is. This is truly one of the most beautiful wholesome families on Earth. Its a joy & privilege 2b a part of their life. Wahaj talked to the younger boys about the importance of Self respect & respecting others. They hung on to his every world. He encouraged the boys 2 handle conflict w love,respect & most of all w knowledge (taleem/hunar). He inspired the older boys & made every child,boy or girl feel special.Most celebrities take a few pictures and run off,but not Wahaj. Hes not phased by how many children there are,or by heat or humid weather. And you can feel the sincerity in their interaction. After spending the whole day at the bureau we went to visit Rizwana,Where Wahaj & his family continued to spread smiles & share gifts. Rizwana’s smile was HUMUNGOUS & she was still smiling when I went to visit her today. Alhamdolillah Thank you WAHAJ ALI for the joy you spread & how wholeheartedly you spread it. One of my favourite quotes in the world is by Tagore … A message,for all of us,lies at its core. “I slept & dreamt that life was joy. I awoke & saw that life was duty. I worked & behold, duty was joy.” If you are ready to tell stories to my kids at the bureau or give motivational talks, email me. I have answered some emails and will be meeting to screen the people who wrote soon. InshaAllah #RabindernathTagore

Nadia Jamil

80,918 views • 2 years ago

Alfred Hitchcock & François Truffaut discuss "Marnie" (1964): "Truffaut: Long before it was actually made, there was some talk that it might mark Grace Kelly's comeback to the screen. It's taken from a Winston Graham novel, and I'd like to know which aspect of the book made you decide to do the film. Hitchcock: The fetish idea. A man wants to go to bed with a thief because she is a thief, just like other men have a yen for a Chinese or a colored woman. Unfortunately, this concept doesn't come across on the screen. It's not as effective as 'Vertigo' (1958), where Jimmy Stewart's feeling for Kim Novak was clearly a fetishist love. To put it bluntly, we'd have had to have Sean Connery catching the girl robbing the safe and show that he felt like jumping at her and r*p!ng her on the spot. Truffaut: Why is Marnie's hero so attracted to the girl? Is it that she depends on him because he knows her secret and can turn her over to the police, or is it simply that he finds it exciting to go to bed with a thief? Hitchcock: It's both of those things. Absolutely. Truffaut: I notice one contradiction within the film: Sean Connery is very good and he has a sort of animal-like quality that fits in perfectly with the sex angle of the story. Yet neither the script nor the dialogue ever really touches on this angle, and Mark Rutland is presented to the viewer simply as a protective character. Only by watching his face very closely can one sense your intention to lead the script into a less conventional direction. Hitchcock: That's true, but remember that I established at the outset that Mark had spotted Marnie. When he learns that she's robbed the safe, he says, "Oh yes, the girl with the pretty legs ..." In one of my early British pictures, Murder, I used the stream-of-consciousness technique. If I'd used that technique, we might have heard Sean Connery saying to himself, "I hope she hurries up and does the robbery so that I can catch her at it and possess her!" In this way we would have had a double suspense. We still would have played Mamie from Mark's point of view, and we'd have shown his satisfaction as he watches the girl. in the act of stealing. I actually thought of constructing the story in that way. I would have shown the man looking at-in fact, secretly watching-a real robbery. Then, he would have followed the thief, would have grabbed Mamie and made out. He had just happened on her. He would have taken her by force, while pretending to be outraged. But you can't really put these things on the screen. The public would reject them. They would say, "Oh no, that's not right. I don't believe it!" Truffaut: It's a pity, because that story would have been fascinating. I like Marnie very much as it is, but I feel that it's difficult for the public, because of the atmosphere, which is stifling, a little like a nightmare." (Excerpt from 'Hitchcock/Truffaut')
1:53

Alfred Hitchcock & François Truffaut discuss "Marnie" (1964): "Truffaut: Long before it was actually made, there was some talk that it might mark Grace Kelly's comeback to the screen. It's taken from a Winston Graham novel, and I'd like to know which aspect of the book made you decide to do the film. Hitchcock: The fetish idea. A man wants to go to bed with a thief because she is a thief, just like other men have a yen for a Chinese or a colored woman. Unfortunately, this concept doesn't come across on the screen. It's not as effective as 'Vertigo' (1958), where Jimmy Stewart's feeling for Kim Novak was clearly a fetishist love. To put it bluntly, we'd have had to have Sean Connery catching the girl robbing the safe and show that he felt like jumping at her and r*p!ng her on the spot. Truffaut: Why is Marnie's hero so attracted to the girl? Is it that she depends on him because he knows her secret and can turn her over to the police, or is it simply that he finds it exciting to go to bed with a thief? Hitchcock: It's both of those things. Absolutely. Truffaut: I notice one contradiction within the film: Sean Connery is very good and he has a sort of animal-like quality that fits in perfectly with the sex angle of the story. Yet neither the script nor the dialogue ever really touches on this angle, and Mark Rutland is presented to the viewer simply as a protective character. Only by watching his face very closely can one sense your intention to lead the script into a less conventional direction. Hitchcock: That's true, but remember that I established at the outset that Mark had spotted Marnie. When he learns that she's robbed the safe, he says, "Oh yes, the girl with the pretty legs ..." In one of my early British pictures, Murder, I used the stream-of-consciousness technique. If I'd used that technique, we might have heard Sean Connery saying to himself, "I hope she hurries up and does the robbery so that I can catch her at it and possess her!" In this way we would have had a double suspense. We still would have played Mamie from Mark's point of view, and we'd have shown his satisfaction as he watches the girl. in the act of stealing. I actually thought of constructing the story in that way. I would have shown the man looking at-in fact, secretly watching-a real robbery. Then, he would have followed the thief, would have grabbed Mamie and made out. He had just happened on her. He would have taken her by force, while pretending to be outraged. But you can't really put these things on the screen. The public would reject them. They would say, "Oh no, that's not right. I don't believe it!" Truffaut: It's a pity, because that story would have been fascinating. I like Marnie very much as it is, but I feel that it's difficult for the public, because of the atmosphere, which is stifling, a little like a nightmare." (Excerpt from 'Hitchcock/Truffaut')

DepressedBergman

11,416 views • 1 year ago

Robin Williams on the moment he relapsed after 20 years sober: The legendary comedian sat down for an interview and opened up about his decades-long battle with alcohol and cocaine, including the moment he broke a 20-year stretch of sobriety in 2010. When asked why he fell off, Robin describes a strange, almost out-of-body moment in a remote town: "I was in a little town in Alaska. It wasn't the end of the world, but you can see it from there. And it was like all of a sudden I thought I could drink. It's also that same thought you have if you look off a large building and go, 'I can fly.' And within a week it was like, gone, you know? And now, you know, I realize I can't. So that was the gift." Robin's history with substances went back decades. When asked if he could remember falling into the trap of cocaine and alcohol in the first place, his answer was striking: "I don't vividly remember anything from... it's like there is this thing for alcoholics called a blackout, which isn't really a blackout; it's more like sleepwalking with activities." He describes the blackout with his signature dark humour: "I believe it's your conscience going into a witness protection program going, 'You're about to have sex with a hobbit. I've got to go now. Good luck. I'm checking out. I'm leaving the body on, but we're not going to remember anything. Good luck to you, take care.'" What's remarkable is that Robin originally quit cocaine on his own, without any help, for a reason that had nothing to do with himself: "I remember stopping it on my own because I was about to have a son and I didn't want to be coked up going, 'Hey, dad loves you, here's a little switch, I'm going to throw up on you.' You don't want to be like that." The death of his close friend John Belushi from an overdose shook him, but Robin says fatherhood was the real turning point: "Totally. And that, but more importantly my son. I think that was the beginning of kind of, you know, thinking outside the box of, 'You've got a responsibility and it's more than you.'" When asked why he ever needed cocaine in the first place, given his already legendary speed and energy, Robin offered a surprising explanation: "I think I did it because it would actually allow me not to talk. It was like, you know, reverse medication. I want to give Ritalin to hyperactive children. It's that idea of kind of, 'Oh, okay, I don't have to talk to people.' It just kind of shuts you down, which is a, you know, word: self-medication." After his relapse in Alaska, breaking the grip the second time around required something he hadn't needed the first time: surrender. "Not hard once you go to rehab… the idea is you gotta surrender. You gotta just say, 'I can't do it.' Because, you know, I went to rehab with a lot of doctors and psychiatrists, and the more intelligent you think you are, the harder it is to let go." Robin captures the trap of intelligence perfectly: "Everything: 'I've got a solution, I'll just drink a little bit.' It's like saying, 'I'll just partially circumcise myself, I'll be fine.' And then you have to go, 'Nope, you lose. You can't do it. You need help.' And at that point, that's the beginning." Even after 20 years of sobriety, one quiet thought in a remote town was enough to undo it all. And the way back wasn't through willpower or intellect, but through admitting he couldn't do it alone.
3:07

Robin Williams on the moment he relapsed after 20 years sober: The legendary comedian sat down for an interview and opened up about his decades-long battle with alcohol and cocaine, including the moment he broke a 20-year stretch of sobriety in 2010. When asked why he fell off, Robin describes a strange, almost out-of-body moment in a remote town: "I was in a little town in Alaska. It wasn't the end of the world, but you can see it from there. And it was like all of a sudden I thought I could drink. It's also that same thought you have if you look off a large building and go, 'I can fly.' And within a week it was like, gone, you know? And now, you know, I realize I can't. So that was the gift." Robin's history with substances went back decades. When asked if he could remember falling into the trap of cocaine and alcohol in the first place, his answer was striking: "I don't vividly remember anything from... it's like there is this thing for alcoholics called a blackout, which isn't really a blackout; it's more like sleepwalking with activities." He describes the blackout with his signature dark humour: "I believe it's your conscience going into a witness protection program going, 'You're about to have sex with a hobbit. I've got to go now. Good luck. I'm checking out. I'm leaving the body on, but we're not going to remember anything. Good luck to you, take care.'" What's remarkable is that Robin originally quit cocaine on his own, without any help, for a reason that had nothing to do with himself: "I remember stopping it on my own because I was about to have a son and I didn't want to be coked up going, 'Hey, dad loves you, here's a little switch, I'm going to throw up on you.' You don't want to be like that." The death of his close friend John Belushi from an overdose shook him, but Robin says fatherhood was the real turning point: "Totally. And that, but more importantly my son. I think that was the beginning of kind of, you know, thinking outside the box of, 'You've got a responsibility and it's more than you.'" When asked why he ever needed cocaine in the first place, given his already legendary speed and energy, Robin offered a surprising explanation: "I think I did it because it would actually allow me not to talk. It was like, you know, reverse medication. I want to give Ritalin to hyperactive children. It's that idea of kind of, 'Oh, okay, I don't have to talk to people.' It just kind of shuts you down, which is a, you know, word: self-medication." After his relapse in Alaska, breaking the grip the second time around required something he hadn't needed the first time: surrender. "Not hard once you go to rehab… the idea is you gotta surrender. You gotta just say, 'I can't do it.' Because, you know, I went to rehab with a lot of doctors and psychiatrists, and the more intelligent you think you are, the harder it is to let go." Robin captures the trap of intelligence perfectly: "Everything: 'I've got a solution, I'll just drink a little bit.' It's like saying, 'I'll just partially circumcise myself, I'll be fine.' And then you have to go, 'Nope, you lose. You can't do it. You need help.' And at that point, that's the beginning." Even after 20 years of sobriety, one quiet thought in a remote town was enough to undo it all. And the way back wasn't through willpower or intellect, but through admitting he couldn't do it alone.

History Nerd

88,241 views • 2 months ago

Scottie Scheffler is a member of the PGA Tour’s Player Advisory Council. He was asked today if there’s any issues he feels strongly about, and after originally saying he “doesn’t know”, he then spoke at depth about the importance of player pathways. Speaking ahead of his defence of the Memorial Tournament, Scottie said: “I don't know. Yeah, no, I don't know. Nothing too strong. “I think one thing that we talked about in terms of the new schedule was a healthy amount of turnover, and one thing that I'm actually pretty passionate about is avenues of getting onto the Tour. I felt like when I came out, that was something that wasn't an issue for me, but it was more difficult than I thought it would be. So when I turned pro -- when I was planning on turning pro after graduating college, PGA Tour U wasn't a thing. “I tried to sign up for PGA Tour Canada Q-School and there was only one qualifier that I could do due to my college schedule, finishing out the year, and that qualifier had already filled up because they give priority to the people that had already had status before, which I understand. But there wasn't an avenue for me to even qualify for PGA Tour Canada, so I spent the summer playing Monday qualifiers on the PGA Tour and the Korn Ferry Tour and playing mini Tour events so I could stay sharp and get ready for Q-School. “So when PGA Tour U started being discussed, that was something I was pretty passionate about, getting a new young group of guys out there and giving them avenues to get into our system and opportunities to get onto the PGA Tour. Because the guys coming out of college are getting better and better from a young age, and I think in a lot of other sports, it's very simple how you get into the professional ranks, is you get drafted, and in golf, there's not really that avenue, and I felt like that was something that we needed to have on the Tour is the right avenues for guys to be able to got out here. I feel like where we're at on PGA Tour U, giving those guys the opportunities is something that I think is important to me.” He went on to emphasise his feelings: “I think just giving guys opportunities is really what it is. Golf is a hard sport to predict, and I think that's why for a long time there wasn't that system, just because a guy could be a great college player, but it's really hard to figure out who is going to be the best player out here. “So I think giving guys a lot of opportunity across the board is important, and that's not giving out a ton of cards on the PGA Tour, but getting guys into our system where when you know if you play well at a PGA Tour sanctioned event, whether it's PGA Tour Canada or Latin America -- or I think it's called PGA Tour Americas now. But giving guys those starts and those opportunities to where they can prove themself and earn their spot on the Tour. “There was an avenue for me, which was Q-School and a year on the Korn Ferry Tour, but I think it's important to get guys immediately into the system when they get out of college, especially when they have had good college careers.” PGA TOUR the Memorial
3:13

Scottie Scheffler is a member of the PGA Tour’s Player Advisory Council. He was asked today if there’s any issues he feels strongly about, and after originally saying he “doesn’t know”, he then spoke at depth about the importance of player pathways. Speaking ahead of his defence of the Memorial Tournament, Scottie said: “I don't know. Yeah, no, I don't know. Nothing too strong. “I think one thing that we talked about in terms of the new schedule was a healthy amount of turnover, and one thing that I'm actually pretty passionate about is avenues of getting onto the Tour. I felt like when I came out, that was something that wasn't an issue for me, but it was more difficult than I thought it would be. So when I turned pro -- when I was planning on turning pro after graduating college, PGA Tour U wasn't a thing. “I tried to sign up for PGA Tour Canada Q-School and there was only one qualifier that I could do due to my college schedule, finishing out the year, and that qualifier had already filled up because they give priority to the people that had already had status before, which I understand. But there wasn't an avenue for me to even qualify for PGA Tour Canada, so I spent the summer playing Monday qualifiers on the PGA Tour and the Korn Ferry Tour and playing mini Tour events so I could stay sharp and get ready for Q-School. “So when PGA Tour U started being discussed, that was something I was pretty passionate about, getting a new young group of guys out there and giving them avenues to get into our system and opportunities to get onto the PGA Tour. Because the guys coming out of college are getting better and better from a young age, and I think in a lot of other sports, it's very simple how you get into the professional ranks, is you get drafted, and in golf, there's not really that avenue, and I felt like that was something that we needed to have on the Tour is the right avenues for guys to be able to got out here. I feel like where we're at on PGA Tour U, giving those guys the opportunities is something that I think is important to me.” He went on to emphasise his feelings: “I think just giving guys opportunities is really what it is. Golf is a hard sport to predict, and I think that's why for a long time there wasn't that system, just because a guy could be a great college player, but it's really hard to figure out who is going to be the best player out here. “So I think giving guys a lot of opportunity across the board is important, and that's not giving out a ton of cards on the PGA Tour, but getting guys into our system where when you know if you play well at a PGA Tour sanctioned event, whether it's PGA Tour Canada or Latin America -- or I think it's called PGA Tour Americas now. But giving guys those starts and those opportunities to where they can prove themself and earn their spot on the Tour. “There was an avenue for me, which was Q-School and a year on the Korn Ferry Tour, but I think it's important to get guys immediately into the system when they get out of college, especially when they have had good college careers.” PGA TOUR the Memorial

Flushing It

163,030 views • 2 months ago

Congratulations to 's new CEO, Laura Burkhauser! And congratulations to me on my new role, executive chairman! If you haven't heard it, “executive” chairman is a title founders give themselves so they can still hang around the office and undermine their successor for a few years until they get listless and put themselves back in the job. That’s a joke - at least in our case! As executive chairman, I won’t be in an operating role or be responsible for making decisions… I’ll just be around a little more than a normal board member - to be a sounding board to Laura, to provide historical context and continuity, to solemnly reflect on why no one actually wants to talk to me, etc. Why the change? The very short answer is that Laura is the better CEO for Descript. The longer answer… We’re at an exciting moment in Descript - $55M in ARR, growing 75% YoY (and accelerating!) - and we’re at the beginning of a transformative shift in the company with the launch of our AI video editing agent. As the company gets to this scale, the nature of the CEO role changes. I’ve been through this before, so it’s not a surprise. And I’ve been transparent that, at some point, it would no longer be the job for me. I can work myself into a state of being excited about the role… but why bother when I’ve got someone on deck who will take to it like a fish to water? Which brings us to Laura. Within weeks of becoming our head of product two years ago, I had Laura marked as my successor. She has these things that never occupy the same body: Incredible product judgment, keen business sense, S-tier communication and leadership skills, deeply principled, courageous, unshakable self-confidence — AND she’s a weirdo (I can’t imagine a better culture carrier than the namer of Underlord). I feel lucky to have had this opportunity to work alongside her and be someone she will mistake for having given her a career opportunity that she would have gotten anyway. So once again, congratulations to Laura - and to Descript! May you win at business with grace and magnanimity! Note: I posted this already on LinkedIn. Is that ok? Did I do it alright? Sorry if you read it in two places, it's exactly the same.
1:05

Congratulations to 's new CEO, Laura Burkhauser! And congratulations to me on my new role, executive chairman! If you haven't heard it, “executive” chairman is a title founders give themselves so they can still hang around the office and undermine their successor for a few years until they get listless and put themselves back in the job. That’s a joke - at least in our case! As executive chairman, I won’t be in an operating role or be responsible for making decisions… I’ll just be around a little more than a normal board member - to be a sounding board to Laura, to provide historical context and continuity, to solemnly reflect on why no one actually wants to talk to me, etc. Why the change? The very short answer is that Laura is the better CEO for Descript. The longer answer… We’re at an exciting moment in Descript - $55M in ARR, growing 75% YoY (and accelerating!) - and we’re at the beginning of a transformative shift in the company with the launch of our AI video editing agent. As the company gets to this scale, the nature of the CEO role changes. I’ve been through this before, so it’s not a surprise. And I’ve been transparent that, at some point, it would no longer be the job for me. I can work myself into a state of being excited about the role… but why bother when I’ve got someone on deck who will take to it like a fish to water? Which brings us to Laura. Within weeks of becoming our head of product two years ago, I had Laura marked as my successor. She has these things that never occupy the same body: Incredible product judgment, keen business sense, S-tier communication and leadership skills, deeply principled, courageous, unshakable self-confidence — AND she’s a weirdo (I can’t imagine a better culture carrier than the namer of Underlord). I feel lucky to have had this opportunity to work alongside her and be someone she will mistake for having given her a career opportunity that she would have gotten anyway. So once again, congratulations to Laura - and to Descript! May you win at business with grace and magnanimity! Note: I posted this already on LinkedIn. Is that ok? Did I do it alright? Sorry if you read it in two places, it's exactly the same.

Andrew Mason

39,421 views • 11 months ago

Don't Buy a Mac Mini for Clawdbot: The Secret $10,000 Architecture That Costs You Nothing clawdbot might be the reason you feel like you need a ten thousand dollar computer right now but i am about to show you why that fomo is going to leave you broke. if you have been watching everyone rush out to buy mac minis and mac studios just to run open claw or some local models you are witnessing a massive transfer of wealth from your pocket to apple for no reason. there is a specific setup i use that costs almost nothing and keeps my main machine safe from whatever these autonomous agents are doing. if you stick with me i will walk you through the exact architecture of a professional trading system that handles the heavy lifting without you needing to drop a single rack on hardware most people are scared of running these bots on their main computer because they don't want an agent messing with their personal files or browser sessions. instead of buying a second mac mini for six hundred dollars you can just go to the top left of your screen and create a brand new user profile. this acts like a completely isolated sandbox where you can install all your trading tools and agents without them ever seeing your main data. it is essentially like getting a free computer for the price of five minutes of clicking around your settings but what if you aren't on a mac or you need to access your system while you are traveling without carrying three laptops in your backpack. this is where the first loop of professional automation starts to close because i use something called chrome remote desktop to bridge the gap. this allows me to leave a dedicated machine running in a safe place while i access the full desktop environment from a tablet or a cheap laptop anywhere in the world. it solves the mobility issue but it still doesn't solve the problem of those massive ten thousand dollar price tags for high end mac pros if you are a pc user or just someone who doesn't want to own physical hardware yet you should look into a windows vps through a provider like contabo. most developers will tell you to use a linux terminal but if you aren't a coder yet you need a visual interface you can actually see. getting a windows server allows you to log in and see a desktop just like your home computer for about fifteen dollars a month. i usually recommend at least twelve gigabytes of ram to keep things from getting janky when you are running multiple browser windows and agents at once now you might be thinking that the whole point of the big hardware was to run local models like kimi or glm to save on api costs. i spent years thinking i had to own the machines myself and i even spent hundreds of thousands on developers before i realized i could just do this myself. the secret to running those massive open source models without the ten thousand dollar investment is renting gpu power by the hour. sites like lambda labs let you spin up a monster machine that can run any model in existence for just a couple dollars an hour this is the ultimate pivot because it allows you to test if your strategy actually prints money before you commit to the hardware. you can turn the server on when you are iterating and turn it off the second you are done which keeps your overhead near zero. if you haven't proven that your bot can pay for itself yet then buying a mac studio is just an expensive hobby rather than a business move. there is a much bigger loophole involving the anthropic subscriptions that most people are completely overlooking right now right now i am using a specific plan with claude code that costs about two hundred dollars a month but it lets me run open claw all day without hitting api limits. if i were paying for those same tokens through the standard api i would probably be spending hundreds of dollars every single day. it is a massive cost savings that allows you to iterate and fail until you find a winning strategy without draining your bank account. even if they eventually close this loophole or snitch on the usage patterns it serves as the perfect training ground for a data dog the goal is to find a system that works with a smaller or cheaper model like haiku before you ever try to scale up to the heavy weights. if you can make a strategy profitable using a less intelligent and cheaper model then you know you have found real alpha. once you have that foundation you can decide if it finally makes sense to build your own custom pc rig which will always be half the price of an apple machine. i am an apple guy so i usually pay the tax anyway but i only do it once the system is already generating enough to cover the cost ten times over i believe that code is the great equalizer because it took me from losing money and getting liquidated to having fully automated systems doing the work for me. i had to learn to live with the iterations and the failures on youtube to get to this point of clarity. the universe tends to get out of your way once you make a non negotiable contract with yourself to see the process through to the end. you don't need the flashy hardware or the most expensive setup to start winning in this game stay focused on the logic and the data rather than the hype and the fomo that everyone else is falling for. if you can master the bridge between renting power and owning your logic you will be ahead of ninety nine percent of the people in this space. the path to a fully automated life isn't paved with expensive gadgets but with the discipline to iterate until the system finally prints
16:04

Don't Buy a Mac Mini for Clawdbot: The Secret $10,000 Architecture That Costs You Nothing clawdbot might be the reason you feel like you need a ten thousand dollar computer right now but i am about to show you why that fomo is going to leave you broke. if you have been watching everyone rush out to buy mac minis and mac studios just to run open claw or some local models you are witnessing a massive transfer of wealth from your pocket to apple for no reason. there is a specific setup i use that costs almost nothing and keeps my main machine safe from whatever these autonomous agents are doing. if you stick with me i will walk you through the exact architecture of a professional trading system that handles the heavy lifting without you needing to drop a single rack on hardware most people are scared of running these bots on their main computer because they don't want an agent messing with their personal files or browser sessions. instead of buying a second mac mini for six hundred dollars you can just go to the top left of your screen and create a brand new user profile. this acts like a completely isolated sandbox where you can install all your trading tools and agents without them ever seeing your main data. it is essentially like getting a free computer for the price of five minutes of clicking around your settings but what if you aren't on a mac or you need to access your system while you are traveling without carrying three laptops in your backpack. this is where the first loop of professional automation starts to close because i use something called chrome remote desktop to bridge the gap. this allows me to leave a dedicated machine running in a safe place while i access the full desktop environment from a tablet or a cheap laptop anywhere in the world. it solves the mobility issue but it still doesn't solve the problem of those massive ten thousand dollar price tags for high end mac pros if you are a pc user or just someone who doesn't want to own physical hardware yet you should look into a windows vps through a provider like contabo. most developers will tell you to use a linux terminal but if you aren't a coder yet you need a visual interface you can actually see. getting a windows server allows you to log in and see a desktop just like your home computer for about fifteen dollars a month. i usually recommend at least twelve gigabytes of ram to keep things from getting janky when you are running multiple browser windows and agents at once now you might be thinking that the whole point of the big hardware was to run local models like kimi or glm to save on api costs. i spent years thinking i had to own the machines myself and i even spent hundreds of thousands on developers before i realized i could just do this myself. the secret to running those massive open source models without the ten thousand dollar investment is renting gpu power by the hour. sites like lambda labs let you spin up a monster machine that can run any model in existence for just a couple dollars an hour this is the ultimate pivot because it allows you to test if your strategy actually prints money before you commit to the hardware. you can turn the server on when you are iterating and turn it off the second you are done which keeps your overhead near zero. if you haven't proven that your bot can pay for itself yet then buying a mac studio is just an expensive hobby rather than a business move. there is a much bigger loophole involving the anthropic subscriptions that most people are completely overlooking right now right now i am using a specific plan with claude code that costs about two hundred dollars a month but it lets me run open claw all day without hitting api limits. if i were paying for those same tokens through the standard api i would probably be spending hundreds of dollars every single day. it is a massive cost savings that allows you to iterate and fail until you find a winning strategy without draining your bank account. even if they eventually close this loophole or snitch on the usage patterns it serves as the perfect training ground for a data dog the goal is to find a system that works with a smaller or cheaper model like haiku before you ever try to scale up to the heavy weights. if you can make a strategy profitable using a less intelligent and cheaper model then you know you have found real alpha. once you have that foundation you can decide if it finally makes sense to build your own custom pc rig which will always be half the price of an apple machine. i am an apple guy so i usually pay the tax anyway but i only do it once the system is already generating enough to cover the cost ten times over i believe that code is the great equalizer because it took me from losing money and getting liquidated to having fully automated systems doing the work for me. i had to learn to live with the iterations and the failures on youtube to get to this point of clarity. the universe tends to get out of your way once you make a non negotiable contract with yourself to see the process through to the end. you don't need the flashy hardware or the most expensive setup to start winning in this game stay focused on the logic and the data rather than the hype and the fomo that everyone else is falling for. if you can master the bridge between renting power and owning your logic you will be ahead of ninety nine percent of the people in this space. the path to a fully automated life isn't paved with expensive gadgets but with the discipline to iterate until the system finally prints

Moon Dev

17,382 views • 6 months ago

"Mike - OMG, I just saw a promo for the new season of Deadliest Catch and you are SO YOUNG! I never knew you were actually in the show. Why aren’t you still? Congratulations on 20 years!" Denise Rigel Hi Denise Yeah, I saw that too. 20 years. Don’t they go by in a blink? The story of why I’m not the host of Deadliest Catch begins with the fact that 20 years ago, Dirty Jobs was not yet a hit on Discovery, and the network didn’t really know what to do with me. Back in 2004, the pilot episodes for DJ were considered to be “off-brand,” and Discovery had no plans to take the show to series. They liked me, though, and started sending me around the world on a series of expeditions. One of those trips was to a place called Dutch Harbor, Alaska, to bear witness to life on a crab boat. Well, bear witness I did. I was up there in October of 2004, hosting a show that was not yet a show, trying with the producers to figure out if we were filming a documentary, a reality show, a competition show, or a mini-series. It still wasn’t clear three months later, in January of 2005, when I returned to host the snow crab season. That was the year that Deadliest Catch, tragically, lived up to its name, when six men died in the course of filming the show. And that’s when everyone stepped back and said, “Wait…what is this thing, exactly? How can so much danger be an everyday part of getting a job done?” Later that year, Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs both went into full scale production, and cable television was forever changed. That's not hyperbole. The number of work-themed shows that evolved directly from the success of those two shows is stunning. Discovery, quite wisely, determined that Catch needed a narrator, not a host. Thus, all of my on-camera stuff was cut from Season 1. I was, however, invited to narrate the show, which I was honored to do. In fact, I’m headed to the studio right now to do a few more episodes for Season 20, which premieres tonight at 8pm, on Discovery. Check it out, and be reminded once again of a great and abiding truth, proven every year now for the last two decades – you can’t script The Bering Sea. A big thanks to the captains and their crews, for sharing their world with the rest of us. And to all of the producers and cameramen who made it happen. And to Discovery, for giving us a home. It’s a hell of an accomplishment.
1:02

"Mike - OMG, I just saw a promo for the new season of Deadliest Catch and you are SO YOUNG! I never knew you were actually in the show. Why aren’t you still? Congratulations on 20 years!" Denise Rigel Hi Denise Yeah, I saw that too. 20 years. Don’t they go by in a blink? The story of why I’m not the host of Deadliest Catch begins with the fact that 20 years ago, Dirty Jobs was not yet a hit on Discovery, and the network didn’t really know what to do with me. Back in 2004, the pilot episodes for DJ were considered to be “off-brand,” and Discovery had no plans to take the show to series. They liked me, though, and started sending me around the world on a series of expeditions. One of those trips was to a place called Dutch Harbor, Alaska, to bear witness to life on a crab boat. Well, bear witness I did. I was up there in October of 2004, hosting a show that was not yet a show, trying with the producers to figure out if we were filming a documentary, a reality show, a competition show, or a mini-series. It still wasn’t clear three months later, in January of 2005, when I returned to host the snow crab season. That was the year that Deadliest Catch, tragically, lived up to its name, when six men died in the course of filming the show. And that’s when everyone stepped back and said, “Wait…what is this thing, exactly? How can so much danger be an everyday part of getting a job done?” Later that year, Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs both went into full scale production, and cable television was forever changed. That's not hyperbole. The number of work-themed shows that evolved directly from the success of those two shows is stunning. Discovery, quite wisely, determined that Catch needed a narrator, not a host. Thus, all of my on-camera stuff was cut from Season 1. I was, however, invited to narrate the show, which I was honored to do. In fact, I’m headed to the studio right now to do a few more episodes for Season 20, which premieres tonight at 8pm, on Discovery. Check it out, and be reminded once again of a great and abiding truth, proven every year now for the last two decades – you can’t script The Bering Sea. A big thanks to the captains and their crews, for sharing their world with the rest of us. And to all of the producers and cameramen who made it happen. And to Discovery, for giving us a home. It’s a hell of an accomplishment.

The Real Mike Rowe

88,216 views • 2 years ago

Stanford professor Judy Fan went on stage at MIT and broke down why humans are so good at making the invisible visible... And why AI hasn't actually learned to "see" the way we do. It completely changes how you think about Human Intelligence v/s Artificial Intelligence: 1. Nature never gave us straight lines or sharp corners. The number line, the coordinate plane, even basic geometry are all human inventions. We created tools that do not exist in nature simply because we needed a way to think more clearly. 2. The coordinate system Descartes invented solved a problem that had stumped mathematicians for centuries, doubling the volume of a cube. Once invented, this tool became so indispensable that virtually every math curriculum on Earth still depends on it. 3. Humans have been doing this for at least 30,000 to 80,000 years. The story of human progress is inseparable from the story of marking up our environment, from cave walls to Galileo's telescope to Feynman diagrams of particles we will never see with our own eyes. 4. Every major scientific breakthrough relied on a visual tool that made something invisible visible. Darwin needed side-by-side illustrations of finches to see variation that was otherwise too subtle to notice. Cajal needed detailed drawings of neurons under a microscope to map how the nervous system was wired. 5. Fan's research group studies something deceptively simple: how people decide what to put into a drawing and what to leave out. When two people played a drawing game, sketchers used far more detail when the target object had close competitors than when it stood alone, all the way down to using fewer strokes and less time when more detail was not necessary. 6. People are not just copying what they see. They are making constant judgment calls about what level of detail actually serves the goal of communication, and they do this naturally without ever being taught the theory behind it. 7. There is a real difference between drawing something so someone can identify it and drawing something so someone can understand how it works. In one study, participants drew explanatory diagrams that emphasized moving, causal parts of a machine while depictive drawings emphasized background and overall appearance, even though both were drawing the exact same object. 8. Explanatory drawings were genuinely better at helping someone figure out how to operate a machine, but worse at helping someone identify which machine it actually was. You cannot optimize a single drawing for both goals at once. Communication always involves tradeoffs. 9. AI vision models trained on photographs generalize surprisingly well to simple, sparse sketches, suggesting that resemblance based recognition is not just a story we tell ourselves. It is something modern neural networks can replicate with real accuracy. 10. But there remains a large, measurable gap between how confidently AI models recognize sketches and how confidently humans do, even when both groups answer the same questions about the same images. Humans are simply far more reliable and far more consistent in their judgments. 11. When researchers compared human-made sketches to AI-generated sketches under tight stroke budgets, both were similarly recognizable at higher budgets, but diverged sharply as the budget shrank. Humans and AI systems simplify drawings in fundamentally different ways once resources get scarce. 12. Reading a graph is not one single skill. It involves perception, knowing where to look, mapping that visual information onto the actual question being asked, and then translating that mapping into an answer. Each of these steps can independently break down, and people fail for very different underlying reasons even when they land on the same wrong answer. 13. When tested directly against humans on graph reading tasks, leading multimodal AI models, including GPT-4V, showed a meaningful performance gap. Even when a model's overall accuracy approached human levels, its pattern of mistakes looked nothing like how humans actually get things wrong. 14. People choose entirely different types of charts depending on what specific question they are trying to answer, not out of a generic preference for bar charts or scatter plots. Their chart choices closely tracked which visualization would genuinely help someone answer that specific question correctly. 15. Two of the most widely used graph literacy tests in education research turned out to correlate strongly with each other, suggesting they measure overlapping skills. But when researchers dug into the actual error patterns, the standard categories used in textbooks, like "find the maximum" or "identify a cluster," failed to explain why people got things wrong nearly as well as a more basic, underlying four-factor model did. 16. The deepest goal behind all of this research is not just academic curiosity. It is to eventually help students and everyday people develop genuine literacy with the visual tools that science and modern decision-making increasingly depend on, because every generation should be able to see further than the last by standing on the visual tools the previous generation built. Follow Yasmine Khosrowshahi for more ideas on thinking better, becoming clearer & building a more intentional life.
1:07:38

Stanford professor Judy Fan went on stage at MIT and broke down why humans are so good at making the invisible visible... And why AI hasn't actually learned to "see" the way we do. It completely changes how you think about Human Intelligence v/s Artificial Intelligence: 1. Nature never gave us straight lines or sharp corners. The number line, the coordinate plane, even basic geometry are all human inventions. We created tools that do not exist in nature simply because we needed a way to think more clearly. 2. The coordinate system Descartes invented solved a problem that had stumped mathematicians for centuries, doubling the volume of a cube. Once invented, this tool became so indispensable that virtually every math curriculum on Earth still depends on it. 3. Humans have been doing this for at least 30,000 to 80,000 years. The story of human progress is inseparable from the story of marking up our environment, from cave walls to Galileo's telescope to Feynman diagrams of particles we will never see with our own eyes. 4. Every major scientific breakthrough relied on a visual tool that made something invisible visible. Darwin needed side-by-side illustrations of finches to see variation that was otherwise too subtle to notice. Cajal needed detailed drawings of neurons under a microscope to map how the nervous system was wired. 5. Fan's research group studies something deceptively simple: how people decide what to put into a drawing and what to leave out. When two people played a drawing game, sketchers used far more detail when the target object had close competitors than when it stood alone, all the way down to using fewer strokes and less time when more detail was not necessary. 6. People are not just copying what they see. They are making constant judgment calls about what level of detail actually serves the goal of communication, and they do this naturally without ever being taught the theory behind it. 7. There is a real difference between drawing something so someone can identify it and drawing something so someone can understand how it works. In one study, participants drew explanatory diagrams that emphasized moving, causal parts of a machine while depictive drawings emphasized background and overall appearance, even though both were drawing the exact same object. 8. Explanatory drawings were genuinely better at helping someone figure out how to operate a machine, but worse at helping someone identify which machine it actually was. You cannot optimize a single drawing for both goals at once. Communication always involves tradeoffs. 9. AI vision models trained on photographs generalize surprisingly well to simple, sparse sketches, suggesting that resemblance based recognition is not just a story we tell ourselves. It is something modern neural networks can replicate with real accuracy. 10. But there remains a large, measurable gap between how confidently AI models recognize sketches and how confidently humans do, even when both groups answer the same questions about the same images. Humans are simply far more reliable and far more consistent in their judgments. 11. When researchers compared human-made sketches to AI-generated sketches under tight stroke budgets, both were similarly recognizable at higher budgets, but diverged sharply as the budget shrank. Humans and AI systems simplify drawings in fundamentally different ways once resources get scarce. 12. Reading a graph is not one single skill. It involves perception, knowing where to look, mapping that visual information onto the actual question being asked, and then translating that mapping into an answer. Each of these steps can independently break down, and people fail for very different underlying reasons even when they land on the same wrong answer. 13. When tested directly against humans on graph reading tasks, leading multimodal AI models, including GPT-4V, showed a meaningful performance gap. Even when a model's overall accuracy approached human levels, its pattern of mistakes looked nothing like how humans actually get things wrong. 14. People choose entirely different types of charts depending on what specific question they are trying to answer, not out of a generic preference for bar charts or scatter plots. Their chart choices closely tracked which visualization would genuinely help someone answer that specific question correctly. 15. Two of the most widely used graph literacy tests in education research turned out to correlate strongly with each other, suggesting they measure overlapping skills. But when researchers dug into the actual error patterns, the standard categories used in textbooks, like "find the maximum" or "identify a cluster," failed to explain why people got things wrong nearly as well as a more basic, underlying four-factor model did. 16. The deepest goal behind all of this research is not just academic curiosity. It is to eventually help students and everyday people develop genuine literacy with the visual tools that science and modern decision-making increasingly depend on, because every generation should be able to see further than the last by standing on the visual tools the previous generation built. Follow Yasmine Khosrowshahi for more ideas on thinking better, becoming clearer & building a more intentional life.

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

887,345 views • 1 month ago

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."
22:37

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."

Jaynit

95,800 views • 3 months ago

Great summary here of the ongoing situation involving Lindsey Gaetani (Lindsey Gaetani) and her efforts to (by herself) file a motion in court (that was thwarted by either Brian Tully, Pam Friedman or Jen McCabe's cousin). FULL TRANSCRIPT; Alright, so let's get right into this one. Today we're unpacking a really intense and personal story from Lindsey Gaetani. It's a story that involves a major court case, a huge data leak, and a truly bizarre and frankly shocking confrontation that she says went down inside a public courthouse. And it all kicks off with one jarring sentence. "I thought I just told you that you had to wait for Pam [Friedman]." I mean, can you imagine you walk into a public building trying to file a legal document and you're met with that? According to Lindsey Gaetani, this is exactly what a court clerk said. It's a statement that immediately set the tone for a pretty unbelievable standoff. And yeah, that's the big question here, isn't it? What on earth could lead to a situation where a citizen is apparently being barred from entering a courthouse by the very clerks who are supposed to work there for the public? We're going to piece together all the events just as Gaetani tells them to figure out how she got here. Okay, so let's jump right into the deep end to the most dramatic point in this story. Gaetani showing up at the Norfolk Superior Courthouse for a really critical hearing. She was there to file a motion, which is basically a formal request to the judge to protect her own private data because she felt like she had no one else to turn to. The first thing she does, she says, is call her state-appointed advocate, a woman named Pamela Friedman. But instead of getting help, she says Pam actually tried to stall her, telling her to just wait outside. You know, which is kind of strange, right? Especially given how urgent this all felt to her. So Gaetani decides, forget this, I'm calling the clerk's office myself. And that's when things get even weirder. She says she was told flat out that she was not allowed in the building without her advocate. And to her, this made absolutely no sense. I mean, any citizen should have the right to walk into a public courthouse and file a piece of paper. So here's how this whole thing just explodes. Gaetani goes inside anyway, a clerk immediately confronts her repeating that she was told to wait for Pam. Gaetani just says, I'm coming in and asks if they're refusing to take her motion. When they say yes, that's the tipping point. She pulls out her phone and says, okay, I'm recording this. And that's when she claims one of the clerks charges at her and starts screaming for security. A scene like that, it doesn't just happen in a vacuum, right? There's a reason for it. To really get the stakes here and to understand why Gaetani felt so desperate that day, we've got to rewind. We have to look at what triggered this whole chain of events in the first place. And it all comes down to a massive data leak. So what's this all about? At the heart of everything is the release of Gaetani's personal phone data. And we're not talking about a few text messages. We're talking about a complete extraction of her entire digital life. And when I say massive, I mean, it's hard to even wrap your head around. But it boils down to this one number. That's right, 15, 15 years of her life completely unredacted taken from her phone and handed over to the defense team in a case where she was a key witness. 15 years. And look, we're not just talking about old text messages here. This is the stuff you don't want anyone to see: medical records, social security numbers, private conversations she had with her lawyers, even bank passwords and her kids' birth certificates. It was just as she puts it, her entire life completely exposed. But you know what the real kicker was for her? It wasn't just that it happened, but how it happened. She claims she was specifically promised that this kind of private information would be protected. So you can imagine the shock, the disbelief when she found out the leak came from the Commonwealth itself, the very people she thought had her back. So what do you do when the system meant to protect you is the one that throws you to the wolves? Well, according to Gaetani, what came next was just a series of broken promises, and a whole lot of nothing. This is what she says the special prosecutor Ken Mello told her. Right in the middle of this crisis, he apparently promised he would file a protective order—that's a legal move to get her data back—and then he would fix it. And for a second, she probably felt a little relief, like, okay, someone's finally going to help me. But that relief, it was short-lived. The next day came and went, and then a few more days, and then weeks started to pass, and still nothing. No protective order was ever filed. All of her most private data was just out there. And the help she was promised never came. So you can see how this played out, according to her. Mello makes this big promise on day one. Then all she's told to do is make a list of everything sensitive on her phone. But as the weeks drag on, nothing gets filed. And then she gets the final blow. She's told Mello was sick, and he's off the case. And just like that, she was completely on her own. And that's what brings motion in hand to that courthouse. Okay, so let's jump back to that day at the courthouse. The scene in the clerk's office has just gone down, security has been called, and Gaetani is, as you can imagine, a complete mess. Then a court officer steps in, and she says he was incredibly kind. He actually calms her down. He listens to her, and he somehow manages to get her a spot to talk to the judge, Judge Rayburn, at a sidebar during the hearing. It finally seems like she's going to get her chance to explain everything. But the second she gets up there, before she can say a single word about her data or her motion, she says the judge just lays into her. This quote, she claims, is the very first thing Judge Rayburn said to her: Taking the clerk's side of the story as pure fact. And you can just imagine how that must have felt. Completely blindsided. Defeated. I mean, how do you even begin to argue with the judge? How do you prove that the clerks, people the judge works with day in and day out, were, from your point of view, not telling the truth? She says she felt like she had no choice but to just stand there and take it. So let's just recap the outcome here, from her point of view. It was a total disaster. Her whole goal was to get a protective order and get her data back. The ruling was that the defense could keep it. Her goal was to be heard as a witness trying to protect her own privacy. The outcome was her getting reprimanded for what happened in the clerk's office. She went in looking for protection and walked out feeling like she was the one who did something wrong. You'd think that would be the end of it, right? But nope. This is where the story takes another really strange turn that just raises a whole new set of questions about what was going on behind the scenes. So sometime later, she gets this phone call out of the blue from someone named Kate Peter. And during their conversation, Kate casually mentions that she heard something had happened down in the clerk's office that day. And that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Lindsey is absolutely certain that the courthouse foyer was empty. The only people who saw what went down were her and the clerks. So how in the world could Kate know any of the details? Well, the answer Kate apparently gave her is just wow. She says that Jen McCabe has a cousin who works as a clerk right there in that specific office. Okay, so get this. Lindsey says she brings this up publicly. And remember, Jen McCabe is a central witness in the big case. And McCabe denies it, says she doesn't have a cousin there. Who this leaves Lindsey with two possible trails for how the story got out. Theory A, Kate was telling the truth. And the story went from a clerk to her cousin Jen McCabe and then to Kate. Or Theory B, the clerks told the advocate Pam Friedman, who then told Detective Brian Tully, who then told Jen McCabe. Either way you slice it, in her mind, the information leak points right back to official channels. And that's where her story leaves us. With this one final pretty explosive call to action, her whole account just leaves you with these profound questions about privacy, about power, and about the real inner workings of our justice system. And it really makes you wonder, just how deep does this whole thing go?
7:33

Great summary here of the ongoing situation involving Lindsey Gaetani (Lindsey Gaetani) and her efforts to (by herself) file a motion in court (that was thwarted by either Brian Tully, Pam Friedman or Jen McCabe's cousin). FULL TRANSCRIPT; Alright, so let's get right into this one. Today we're unpacking a really intense and personal story from Lindsey Gaetani. It's a story that involves a major court case, a huge data leak, and a truly bizarre and frankly shocking confrontation that she says went down inside a public courthouse. And it all kicks off with one jarring sentence. "I thought I just told you that you had to wait for Pam [Friedman]." I mean, can you imagine you walk into a public building trying to file a legal document and you're met with that? According to Lindsey Gaetani, this is exactly what a court clerk said. It's a statement that immediately set the tone for a pretty unbelievable standoff. And yeah, that's the big question here, isn't it? What on earth could lead to a situation where a citizen is apparently being barred from entering a courthouse by the very clerks who are supposed to work there for the public? We're going to piece together all the events just as Gaetani tells them to figure out how she got here. Okay, so let's jump right into the deep end to the most dramatic point in this story. Gaetani showing up at the Norfolk Superior Courthouse for a really critical hearing. She was there to file a motion, which is basically a formal request to the judge to protect her own private data because she felt like she had no one else to turn to. The first thing she does, she says, is call her state-appointed advocate, a woman named Pamela Friedman. But instead of getting help, she says Pam actually tried to stall her, telling her to just wait outside. You know, which is kind of strange, right? Especially given how urgent this all felt to her. So Gaetani decides, forget this, I'm calling the clerk's office myself. And that's when things get even weirder. She says she was told flat out that she was not allowed in the building without her advocate. And to her, this made absolutely no sense. I mean, any citizen should have the right to walk into a public courthouse and file a piece of paper. So here's how this whole thing just explodes. Gaetani goes inside anyway, a clerk immediately confronts her repeating that she was told to wait for Pam. Gaetani just says, I'm coming in and asks if they're refusing to take her motion. When they say yes, that's the tipping point. She pulls out her phone and says, okay, I'm recording this. And that's when she claims one of the clerks charges at her and starts screaming for security. A scene like that, it doesn't just happen in a vacuum, right? There's a reason for it. To really get the stakes here and to understand why Gaetani felt so desperate that day, we've got to rewind. We have to look at what triggered this whole chain of events in the first place. And it all comes down to a massive data leak. So what's this all about? At the heart of everything is the release of Gaetani's personal phone data. And we're not talking about a few text messages. We're talking about a complete extraction of her entire digital life. And when I say massive, I mean, it's hard to even wrap your head around. But it boils down to this one number. That's right, 15, 15 years of her life completely unredacted taken from her phone and handed over to the defense team in a case where she was a key witness. 15 years. And look, we're not just talking about old text messages here. This is the stuff you don't want anyone to see: medical records, social security numbers, private conversations she had with her lawyers, even bank passwords and her kids' birth certificates. It was just as she puts it, her entire life completely exposed. But you know what the real kicker was for her? It wasn't just that it happened, but how it happened. She claims she was specifically promised that this kind of private information would be protected. So you can imagine the shock, the disbelief when she found out the leak came from the Commonwealth itself, the very people she thought had her back. So what do you do when the system meant to protect you is the one that throws you to the wolves? Well, according to Gaetani, what came next was just a series of broken promises, and a whole lot of nothing. This is what she says the special prosecutor Ken Mello told her. Right in the middle of this crisis, he apparently promised he would file a protective order—that's a legal move to get her data back—and then he would fix it. And for a second, she probably felt a little relief, like, okay, someone's finally going to help me. But that relief, it was short-lived. The next day came and went, and then a few more days, and then weeks started to pass, and still nothing. No protective order was ever filed. All of her most private data was just out there. And the help she was promised never came. So you can see how this played out, according to her. Mello makes this big promise on day one. Then all she's told to do is make a list of everything sensitive on her phone. But as the weeks drag on, nothing gets filed. And then she gets the final blow. She's told Mello was sick, and he's off the case. And just like that, she was completely on her own. And that's what brings motion in hand to that courthouse. Okay, so let's jump back to that day at the courthouse. The scene in the clerk's office has just gone down, security has been called, and Gaetani is, as you can imagine, a complete mess. Then a court officer steps in, and she says he was incredibly kind. He actually calms her down. He listens to her, and he somehow manages to get her a spot to talk to the judge, Judge Rayburn, at a sidebar during the hearing. It finally seems like she's going to get her chance to explain everything. But the second she gets up there, before she can say a single word about her data or her motion, she says the judge just lays into her. This quote, she claims, is the very first thing Judge Rayburn said to her: Taking the clerk's side of the story as pure fact. And you can just imagine how that must have felt. Completely blindsided. Defeated. I mean, how do you even begin to argue with the judge? How do you prove that the clerks, people the judge works with day in and day out, were, from your point of view, not telling the truth? She says she felt like she had no choice but to just stand there and take it. So let's just recap the outcome here, from her point of view. It was a total disaster. Her whole goal was to get a protective order and get her data back. The ruling was that the defense could keep it. Her goal was to be heard as a witness trying to protect her own privacy. The outcome was her getting reprimanded for what happened in the clerk's office. She went in looking for protection and walked out feeling like she was the one who did something wrong. You'd think that would be the end of it, right? But nope. This is where the story takes another really strange turn that just raises a whole new set of questions about what was going on behind the scenes. So sometime later, she gets this phone call out of the blue from someone named Kate Peter. And during their conversation, Kate casually mentions that she heard something had happened down in the clerk's office that day. And that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Lindsey is absolutely certain that the courthouse foyer was empty. The only people who saw what went down were her and the clerks. So how in the world could Kate know any of the details? Well, the answer Kate apparently gave her is just wow. She says that Jen McCabe has a cousin who works as a clerk right there in that specific office. Okay, so get this. Lindsey says she brings this up publicly. And remember, Jen McCabe is a central witness in the big case. And McCabe denies it, says she doesn't have a cousin there. Who this leaves Lindsey with two possible trails for how the story got out. Theory A, Kate was telling the truth. And the story went from a clerk to her cousin Jen McCabe and then to Kate. Or Theory B, the clerks told the advocate Pam Friedman, who then told Detective Brian Tully, who then told Jen McCabe. Either way you slice it, in her mind, the information leak points right back to official channels. And that's where her story leaves us. With this one final pretty explosive call to action, her whole account just leaves you with these profound questions about privacy, about power, and about the real inner workings of our justice system. And it really makes you wonder, just how deep does this whole thing go?

Grant Smith Ellis

14,147 views • 10 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: We FOUND the Romanian Orphan Girl Erika Kirk (Frantzve) Posted in 2013… Then Suspiciously DELETED 👀 Back in May 2013, influencer Erika Frantzve (now Kirk) posted this heartbreaking photo on Instagram: A little Romanian girl, maybe 6-8 years old, standing in what looks like an orphanage room. Green shirt, pink pants, a stuffed pink parrot on her shoulder, cardboard box in front of her. Caption: “I have something special for you… very special…” The post blew up… and then it vanished. Deleted without explanation. No archive, no follow-up, nothing. For the last 7 months, people have been wondering: Who was that girl? What really happened to her? Well… we found her. After digging through old screenshots, reverse image search, and public social media, we matched her to this girl — now a young woman who just graduated high school in 2024. Here’s why this is a STRONG, almost undeniable match (not just “kinda looks similar” — this is forensic-level facial consistency): Facial Feature Breakdown (permanent bone structure doesn’t lie): Eyes: Large, dark brown, wide-set, rounded shape with the exact same upper lid hooding and prominent eyelids. Identical in the 2013 photo, her childhood pics (purple tank top, pink skirt, headband), and even her recent selfies. Nose: Small, straight bridge with that soft, rounded tip. Matches perfectly across every photo from 2013 to 2024. Mouth & Smile: Small-to-medium lips, slight overbite, same upper teeth show when smiling. You can see the exact same smile in the orphanage pic, the swing set photos, the kitchen tutu shot, and her high-school grad selfies. Face Shape & Hairline: Soft rounded child face in 2013 that lengthened exactly as expected into the oval/heart-shaped teen face by 2024. Blunt straight-across bangs + straight dark brown hair in almost ALL her childhood photos — the signature look from the original post. Overall Proportions: Same slim build, leg-to-torso ratio, cheek-to-jaw transition through puberty. Timeline & Romanian Proof: The original photo is from Erika’s “Romanian Angels” charity project around 2012-2013 in Romania (specifically tied to orphanages in the Constanța area). This girl was living in Romania at that exact time. Multiple childhood photos show her in traditional Romanian folk costumes (one even tagged with the 🇷🇴 flag emoji and “Outfit Inspo”). Overlay text in her old videos: “There’s still a young girl from Romania.” Age lines up perfectly: ~6-8 in 2013 → high school graduation in 2024 (born ~2005-2007). This isn’t some random lookalike. These are the same eyes, same nose, same smile, same bangs, same Romanian orphan story. So here’s the part that should have everyone asking questions: Why did Erika Kirk delete that specific post? Why has she never followed up on “her” special little Romanian Angel? Why the sudden silence around the entire Romanian Angels project? Online chatter has been swirling for years, allegations of trafficking with the charity, claims of missing children from the Constanța orphanage, whispers that she was eventually banned from Romania, questions about where all these “angels” actually ended up. Was this little girl part of some bigger story? Was the post deleted because someone realized the trail could lead back to her? Or was there something about this specific child that made Erika scrub her from the internet? We’re not accusing anyone of anythin. But when a public figure posts a vulnerable orphan child with a dramatic caption, gets massive attention, then quietly erases the evidence while the internet is still talking about “Romanian Angels” conspiracies… it raises red flags. This girl is safe, grown, and thriving now (looks like she’s now in the US). But the questions remain: What was Erika Kirk really doing in Romania? Why delete the proof? What is she trying to hide? Drop this in the comments, tag everyone you know, and share this far and wide. The internet has a long memory — and we just connected the dots. If you have more info, screenshots, or leads — comment below, DM me or email and let’s get answers. CC: Candace Owens
3:23

🚨 BREAKING: We FOUND the Romanian Orphan Girl Erika Kirk (Frantzve) Posted in 2013… Then Suspiciously DELETED 👀 Back in May 2013, influencer Erika Frantzve (now Kirk) posted this heartbreaking photo on Instagram: A little Romanian girl, maybe 6-8 years old, standing in what looks like an orphanage room. Green shirt, pink pants, a stuffed pink parrot on her shoulder, cardboard box in front of her. Caption: “I have something special for you… very special…” The post blew up… and then it vanished. Deleted without explanation. No archive, no follow-up, nothing. For the last 7 months, people have been wondering: Who was that girl? What really happened to her? Well… we found her. After digging through old screenshots, reverse image search, and public social media, we matched her to this girl — now a young woman who just graduated high school in 2024. Here’s why this is a STRONG, almost undeniable match (not just “kinda looks similar” — this is forensic-level facial consistency): Facial Feature Breakdown (permanent bone structure doesn’t lie): Eyes: Large, dark brown, wide-set, rounded shape with the exact same upper lid hooding and prominent eyelids. Identical in the 2013 photo, her childhood pics (purple tank top, pink skirt, headband), and even her recent selfies. Nose: Small, straight bridge with that soft, rounded tip. Matches perfectly across every photo from 2013 to 2024. Mouth & Smile: Small-to-medium lips, slight overbite, same upper teeth show when smiling. You can see the exact same smile in the orphanage pic, the swing set photos, the kitchen tutu shot, and her high-school grad selfies. Face Shape & Hairline: Soft rounded child face in 2013 that lengthened exactly as expected into the oval/heart-shaped teen face by 2024. Blunt straight-across bangs + straight dark brown hair in almost ALL her childhood photos — the signature look from the original post. Overall Proportions: Same slim build, leg-to-torso ratio, cheek-to-jaw transition through puberty. Timeline & Romanian Proof: The original photo is from Erika’s “Romanian Angels” charity project around 2012-2013 in Romania (specifically tied to orphanages in the Constanța area). This girl was living in Romania at that exact time. Multiple childhood photos show her in traditional Romanian folk costumes (one even tagged with the 🇷🇴 flag emoji and “Outfit Inspo”). Overlay text in her old videos: “There’s still a young girl from Romania.” Age lines up perfectly: ~6-8 in 2013 → high school graduation in 2024 (born ~2005-2007). This isn’t some random lookalike. These are the same eyes, same nose, same smile, same bangs, same Romanian orphan story. So here’s the part that should have everyone asking questions: Why did Erika Kirk delete that specific post? Why has she never followed up on “her” special little Romanian Angel? Why the sudden silence around the entire Romanian Angels project? Online chatter has been swirling for years, allegations of trafficking with the charity, claims of missing children from the Constanța orphanage, whispers that she was eventually banned from Romania, questions about where all these “angels” actually ended up. Was this little girl part of some bigger story? Was the post deleted because someone realized the trail could lead back to her? Or was there something about this specific child that made Erika scrub her from the internet? We’re not accusing anyone of anythin. But when a public figure posts a vulnerable orphan child with a dramatic caption, gets massive attention, then quietly erases the evidence while the internet is still talking about “Romanian Angels” conspiracies… it raises red flags. This girl is safe, grown, and thriving now (looks like she’s now in the US). But the questions remain: What was Erika Kirk really doing in Romania? Why delete the proof? What is she trying to hide? Drop this in the comments, tag everyone you know, and share this far and wide. The internet has a long memory — and we just connected the dots. If you have more info, screenshots, or leads — comment below, DM me or email and let’s get answers. CC: Candace Owens

Project Constitution

364,202 views • 3 months ago

When I was reading Brian Tully, Ken Mello and Robert Cosgrove's affidavits yesterday in the Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney case, I was challenged by an account that was intent on defending Leigha Bathtub Genduso and Kate Peter. Best quotes from my retort; "Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Thirdly: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. Why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record, as well? Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. Reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kit and caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: If you’re just tuning in, my name is Grant Smith Ellis, and we are reading through Brian Tully, Robert Cosgrove, and Ken Mello’s affidavit. It’s tough to call it an affidavit from Ken Mello, because quite frankly, he didn’t write an affidavit. Robert Cosgrove adapted hearsay statements in Ken Mello’s voice in his own affidavit. That might tell you something. I don’t know. What the fuck do I know? I’m just a towel. Thank you very much for tuning in. I have noticed that there is a very specific group of people in Kate Peter’s orbit trying to target Towel right now. People do not want Towel to be heard. That means I’m going to speak more. I am going to just keep talking and keep saying things, because now I have put it all together. Oh, that’s right. I have one more thing to type. Furthermore, as soon as, within weeks of Kate’s emails to Tully and Mello being turned over in, what was it? August of 2025, the TurtleBoy charges involving Lindsey Gaetani were dropped. And what do you know? Kate was involved in handling evidence submitted by Tully and Mello to the grand jury for Lindsey’s charges, for the charges involving Lindsey Gaetani, for Aiden’s charges involving Lindsey Gaetani. Furthermore, the new email from Kate to Mello indicates Kate was indeed also involved in the 2023 indictments against Kearney that the Norfolk DA seems intent on trying to wall off from Kate Peter’s involvement. Oh, little towels, I'm just a little towel. Steph, Grant says, “Why are you making fun of her by calling her bathtub.” Wait, what? No, no, no, Steph, let’s be very clear. When Leigha Genduso engaged in—and I think it was Kate actually who did it—but when Leigha Genduso or Kate responded to revenge porn with revenge porn, nothing about that was okay, okay? Whether it was legal or not at the time, nobody sharing revenge porn of anybody else was okay, all right? I just want to be very clear. So when Kate did it, it was not okay. When Aiden did it, if that’s what happened with Leigha—I don’t know, I wasn’t around—not okay. If Leigha did it to Aiden, not okay, okay? Everybody on the same page? Like, it’s not okay to do that to people. I just want everyone on the same page. No one would—it’s just like, treat people how you want to be treated, bro. So I just don’t do it. Now, I get some people would say, fight fire with fire, okay, still, don’t fucking do it. Please don’t do it. I don’t understand why people do it. It blows my mind. I don’t understand why people justify it. Oh, it’s okay that Kate or Leigha did it, cause Aiden did it too. It’s like, no, though. I get it's a shitty thing to happen. Don’t do it back. Just stop. It’s ridiculous. Steph's like—"I keep seeing you call her bathtub." Yea, bro she took a video in a bathtub once and posted it on social media. Okay, you want to livestream yourself from a fucking bathtub then I'm going to call you Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have to call her that, but I’m going to do that, right? And I’m not going to stop. But yeah, Three-Clerk-Monte bang bang. Sometimes you just got to tell them how it is, Three-Clerk Monte, you know what I’m saying? Even while you’re on your break. By the way, Steph, I’m just going to break here just posting things, right? And I’m saying I’m not even supposed to be riled up right now. We’re going to go back to reading the indictment in a little bit. I’m just a little towel. I’m on one, you know what I’m saying? Absolutely not. I don’t know which Steph you are. I don’t know if you’re that Steph or whatever, the fake Canadian. You’re not going to come on here and tell me I cannot call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I’m going to triple down. I’m going to call Leigha Bathtub Genduso more now. Thank you for all the comments, by the way. It helps the stream get attention in the Kate Peter sucks. Remember that? Yes, that I want you to get this tattooed on your arm: Kate Peter sucks. I’ll help you spell it: K-A-T-E P-E-T-E-R, no S at the end, just Kate Peter, now a new word, sucks, S-U-C-K-S. Everybody on the same page? All right, it’s artistic expression, bro. What do you want to say? Oh no, she’s gone. Steph, I was enjoying all your comments. Yes, Steph, that’s exactly what I want. I want you to keep interacting in the comments because it gets the stream more attention in the feed. I want that. I want you to continue to engage, and I’m going to keep calling her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. It’s not an obsession. It is the product of multiple years of work on the story to uncover something hidden that you don’t want to be talked about in public. That’s the reality. Is that not right Steph, you’re concerned that Kate Peter compromised the cases against Aiden Kearney because she worked as a PI for Marty Craft, who’s now lost his license because of what she was up to according to people’s reports in this chat, and you feel that it’s uncomfortable to have to hold her to the same moral standard that you do Aiden because you’re biased, right? Fine, I don’t care. I’ll tell it to your face yes. No, Steph, you have something to say? You say it right here, one-on-one. Let’s debate. We can do it. I have all the evidence now. We can talk about it all. That’s correct. I don’t create realities, Steph. I bring them to light. Your normative moral framework and what you want to happen is just that. The descriptive reality is independent of what any of us want. It is simply a factual record. In the context of our asymptotic relationship with that factual record, notwithstanding, I was interested in the truth, and you are who is afraid of it, let’s be clear. I wouldn’t say you’re debating me, Steph. You can’t debate on the merit of the facts. You want to know why? Because, for example, it would be very hard for you to counter something like this paragraph right here, right? Where Robert Cosgrove says that any data missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s phone was not on the phone at the time Brian Tully did the extraction. And you might be saying to yourself, Grant, how can you know? How can you know that Brian Tully intentionally released the phone unredacted after only removing messages from Kate to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey and after removing things like audio messages from Leigha Genduso? How do I know? Well, because how else would Lindsey have posted it on social media? My word, Steph. It’s almost like there’s proof that Robert Cosgrove was withholding material information related to the sum and substance of Kate Peter’s communications with various members of the prosecution team and/or witnesses and/or the handling of evidence in order to insulate certain charges from Kate Peter touching that evidence so that they could continue to trial, notwithstanding the discovery obligations of the state under the new updated Rule 14 as implemented on March 1, 2025. And towel is in a snarky mood indeed. And you’re not going to be able to do anything about it—oh, please, you're not saying to yourself, "what’s wrong with towel, Steph?" You’re basically saying, "why are you crossing the thin blue line?" And I would like to respond to you by saying, in the least unloving way, but the fact that you would ask me, “What is Grant doing?” because I won’t adhere to your thin blue line? Get the fuck out of here. Go climb up somebody else’s tree. Go find your own treehouse. Not happening. Absolutely not happening. You will look this factual record in the eye. You will confront your moral problems with the various actions of different people involved on your own time. And Leigha Bathtub Genduso will be central to this moral reckoning. And there’s not a damn thing you or your fake Canadian ass can do about it. I’m on one. I told you. Listen, you want it? You want it to be on record? We’ll do it. No, no, I’m just not loyal to your interests, Steph. I’m loyal to truth. I’m loyal to the people who are actually harmed. I’m not loyal to you or any of your friends or Kate Peter or the thin blue line or the thin green line or the thin pink line for that matter. All of you can take your lines and go fuck yourselves. Fake Canadian. Yeah, right, Steph. Yeah, let’s go with that. Yep, let’s go with fake Canadian, because why would you want me looking more in to you? A reporter? You want me to look more into you? No. God, take the L, man, just move on. That’s correct. No, listen, Steph, you want to talk about Michael Proctor’s family’s relationship to my mother? You want to be the person who draws that line? I’ll tell you about it. You sure you want to talk about it? You damn fake Canadian. We may have to get this fake Canadian out of here. She’s riling me up. You’re riling me up by trying to defend Kate Peter. I knew you were a rat the whole time. Goddamn Kate Peter mole. I knew it. I saw through that shit. "I just heard you acknowledge me about the AI. No hate. I appreciate you reading this. Good content." Thank you, sir. Thank you, to the person who said that! You see what I’m saying, Steph? You know what? I think we should just let Steph talk to herself, all right? She can just keep promoting the stream and the algorithm. Let her talk to herself. But Steph, even if you’re talking to yourself, I still have to write the post, okay? Damn fake Canadians. Steph is a fake Canadian and she may or may not be a communist. What you gonna' do about it? You damn fake Canadian. All right, no, I actually have to write this follow-up post. Stop it, Steph. Stop trying to gaslight to protect Kate Peter. You’ll be thrown out of here faster than someone with a cannabis conviction trying to enter Canada who doesn’t actually live there. Damn fake Canadians. Thank you, Kristina. I appreciate it. Yes, and Kristina, you ever wonder if maybe people come in here specifically to derail the conversation because we’re talking about very damning things as to Kate Peter? Well then, let me write my other post, by the way. I’ll help. I will put it up on the screen for you in one second. I just got to get the video loading before I start typing. Oh, Steph, you were on assignment. Stop bitching. I hope they paid you well for it. Don’t bark up my towel tree about you had to spend time with me so you could run intel to all the Kate Peter people. I don’t care. I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? Come on. You all insult my intelligence routinely—not you in the chat. Some of you moles are just like, “He won’t know.” What, are you just going to tell me I’m the greatest thing ever and then it’s going to go along? I’m just saying, I’ve been posting on social media being like, “Aidan, if people tell you that you’re the greatest thing ever, that might be true, but some of them are going to tell you that because they’re moles.” Come on. This is very basic-level intel stuff here. Steph, that was very nice of you. I am never going to degrade you for supporting people in need. What I’m concerned about, okay—I’m not concerned about who you are as a person. I’m concerned about what you didn’t tell us. All right? Yeah? And that's my right. No, absolutely not, Steph. You know exactly what happened. You flipped on a dime as soon as I started asking questions about Kate Peter because she has a lot of moles in her orbit. And then as soon as we started talking about her today, coincidentally enough, you popped right back up. Oh, what’s this? Robert Cosgrove represented in a sworn affidavit that any material missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s—see what I’m doing, Steph? This is, uh, this is for you—Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was not on the phone when MSP did that extraction. And then Brian Tully leaked that extraction unredacted. That’s a message from Leigha Bathtub Genduso proves Tully failed to include material that was indeed on Lindsey's phone. That was for you too, Steph. It’s weird that you know Bathtub, by the way. That’s just odd. Like she’s known Kate Peter for years too. If this Steph, who I watched Sandlot with, is the same Steph as the one who’s a second cousin of John O’Keefe, then she lied to me. She lied to me. If we can prove that this is the same, same Steph, then she lied to me. She told me she was from Canada, Saskatchewan, whatever the fuck. That’s what I’m saying. So Steph, if you are that Steph from wherever the fuck you live, bro—if you are that Steph—you lied to us all. You told us you were fucking Canadian. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute—are you actually that Steph? No fucking way. You lied to all of us this whole time and pretended to be Canadian? No, that was not—I didn’t ask if you were from Canada. I said, are you the same Steph who was second cousins with John O’Keefe and did you come on this channel and go on a Zoom call with me representing yourself to be Canadian from Saskatchewan? I don’t even have—no, that is not the question I’m asking you. Are you the same Steph that is second cousins with John O’Keefe? Thanks for letting us know. See what I mean? Kristina, it’s not the same Steph. It’s just some random person who really likes Leigha Genduso, Leigha Bathtub Genduso, and Kate Peter. Random coincidence! Just totally random. Come on. I’m rolling my eyes so hard I’m laughing. This has been really interesting though. I know you said no. That makes it even weirder. If you’re not that Steph, your fervent defense of Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso is even more weird. Go back to Discord. Come on now, shoo. You’re bothering me. If you bother me too much, I’m just going to go on a 45-minute rant eviscerating Kate Peter with facts, all right? So it’s better to just go. Like I told Benny Sweatpants the other day. Send him my regards, all right? No, I like calling out your hypocrisy. You wouldn’t say a negative word about Kate Peter if I demonstrated the factual record for you in real time. Live! Which I’m doing. You haven’t addressed one element of it on substance. All you’ve done is gaslight, and frankly you’re going to find yourself removed if you continue to fail to adhere to the rules of Towel Channel. As you know, the rules of Towel Channel are pretty simple, which is: one, don’t be discriminatory; two, don’t be derogatory; three, don’t sealion; four, don’t gaslight; and five, no Kate Peters. All right? Jay’s like, “I’m aboard the Grant train.” Thanks, Jay. It wasn’t one question, Steph. It was three questions. Let me reiterate them to you very quickly. Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Second question: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. And furthermore, why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record. Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. The reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kitten caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done. Oh, it’s such a shame. All right, I gotta move her on. All right, Steph, it was great. We’ll put you in a little timeout. You can come back tomorrow, okay? I’m glad you spent some time with us, but the reality is I just don’t—I don’t wanna play that type of Kate Peter game, all right? Yep, now, Christina, you, as you know, this channel in Br… every possible perspective. I don’t care what you want to come in here and believe, you know you and I align on a lot of the factual record about a lot of these different cases. It’s not that. I’ll never ever have a problem with that. It’s the bad faith—and it’s not you, Christina. You are wonderful. You’ve never done it—but it’s the people who get too close to Kate Peter and then as embodied in that colloquy with Steph right there, whoever the fuck she is, we still don’t know. As embodied in that colloquy, you have a situation where when confronted with the facts instead of responding or even giving the time of day to what Kate Peter or Tully or Cosgrove might have done wrong, immediately it starts with the emotional manipulation, the attacks, the distraction. So I hope that—I hope that tells us all something. But yes, let’s keep reading because before I got in that fun colloquy, we were—I bet Steph was sent here to try to derail me. Nice try, Steph, take it elsewhere. All right, so we got those two posts up, by the way. All right, following service. Do you remember where we were in all this? The very last—so we just read about the Kate emails. By the way, now we know the whole Kate and Kaboodle is the Kate emails. We just read about the Kate emails and take a look where it goes next. All right, it just keeps going and going. Oh, do you think I should add Kate, Steph to the chart, by the way? Where should she go on the chart? Should she go under the Trollhollmio section? I feel like that’s appropriate. You know, this is just my opinion of how all these people tie together. Say you got Kate Peter, the Lord of Darkness in the middle—that’s my opinion. Then you got Jamz up there, Llama over there, Jason Broyles down here, Gaffney over here, Trollhollomio here. Then you got people like Critical Mass, Virgil, that—I don’t know who that is. And then you got Tully, Michael Morrissey, and Michael Proctor. Then you got Jake Sun, Twisted Tragedies tied to Gaffney. Then you got that guy, Jason Broyles, who thinks—who pretends to be a woman online. You got him, I think he’s tied to Barry Lewis and this weird woman from Connecticut that Kate keeps working with. She used to pretend to be like an advocate for medical patients, but now apparently she’s a big advocate of prednisone. I don’t really understand. She’s been going online telling people that people with colitis have to use prednisone apparently and they can’t use cannabis. I’m baffled by it. I didn’t know she was a doctor. Listen, if I knew that this woman was a doctor, I would start looking to whether she’s received payments from the pharmaceutical industry because I’ve never met a cannabis advocate who tells people they have to use prednisone for colitis. So that woman baffles me. Also, she’s the reason consumption event in Massachusetts are now regulated by the CCC. So listen, you all think that Kate Peter’s just some kind of like moron. She just plays that role, okay? Like she plays like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she doesn’t mostly with these court developments. But look at her network. Like people fawn over her like TurtleBoy. She is the female TurtleBoy in so many ways. And what makes her scary is she doesn’t own it.
33:21

When I was reading Brian Tully, Ken Mello and Robert Cosgrove's affidavits yesterday in the Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney case, I was challenged by an account that was intent on defending Leigha Bathtub Genduso and Kate Peter. Best quotes from my retort; "Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Thirdly: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. Why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record, as well? Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. Reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kit and caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: If you’re just tuning in, my name is Grant Smith Ellis, and we are reading through Brian Tully, Robert Cosgrove, and Ken Mello’s affidavit. It’s tough to call it an affidavit from Ken Mello, because quite frankly, he didn’t write an affidavit. Robert Cosgrove adapted hearsay statements in Ken Mello’s voice in his own affidavit. That might tell you something. I don’t know. What the fuck do I know? I’m just a towel. Thank you very much for tuning in. I have noticed that there is a very specific group of people in Kate Peter’s orbit trying to target Towel right now. People do not want Towel to be heard. That means I’m going to speak more. I am going to just keep talking and keep saying things, because now I have put it all together. Oh, that’s right. I have one more thing to type. Furthermore, as soon as, within weeks of Kate’s emails to Tully and Mello being turned over in, what was it? August of 2025, the TurtleBoy charges involving Lindsey Gaetani were dropped. And what do you know? Kate was involved in handling evidence submitted by Tully and Mello to the grand jury for Lindsey’s charges, for the charges involving Lindsey Gaetani, for Aiden’s charges involving Lindsey Gaetani. Furthermore, the new email from Kate to Mello indicates Kate was indeed also involved in the 2023 indictments against Kearney that the Norfolk DA seems intent on trying to wall off from Kate Peter’s involvement. Oh, little towels, I'm just a little towel. Steph, Grant says, “Why are you making fun of her by calling her bathtub.” Wait, what? No, no, no, Steph, let’s be very clear. When Leigha Genduso engaged in—and I think it was Kate actually who did it—but when Leigha Genduso or Kate responded to revenge porn with revenge porn, nothing about that was okay, okay? Whether it was legal or not at the time, nobody sharing revenge porn of anybody else was okay, all right? I just want to be very clear. So when Kate did it, it was not okay. When Aiden did it, if that’s what happened with Leigha—I don’t know, I wasn’t around—not okay. If Leigha did it to Aiden, not okay, okay? Everybody on the same page? Like, it’s not okay to do that to people. I just want everyone on the same page. No one would—it’s just like, treat people how you want to be treated, bro. So I just don’t do it. Now, I get some people would say, fight fire with fire, okay, still, don’t fucking do it. Please don’t do it. I don’t understand why people do it. It blows my mind. I don’t understand why people justify it. Oh, it’s okay that Kate or Leigha did it, cause Aiden did it too. It’s like, no, though. I get it's a shitty thing to happen. Don’t do it back. Just stop. It’s ridiculous. Steph's like—"I keep seeing you call her bathtub." Yea, bro she took a video in a bathtub once and posted it on social media. Okay, you want to livestream yourself from a fucking bathtub then I'm going to call you Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have to call her that, but I’m going to do that, right? And I’m not going to stop. But yeah, Three-Clerk-Monte bang bang. Sometimes you just got to tell them how it is, Three-Clerk Monte, you know what I’m saying? Even while you’re on your break. By the way, Steph, I’m just going to break here just posting things, right? And I’m saying I’m not even supposed to be riled up right now. We’re going to go back to reading the indictment in a little bit. I’m just a little towel. I’m on one, you know what I’m saying? Absolutely not. I don’t know which Steph you are. I don’t know if you’re that Steph or whatever, the fake Canadian. You’re not going to come on here and tell me I cannot call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I’m going to triple down. I’m going to call Leigha Bathtub Genduso more now. Thank you for all the comments, by the way. It helps the stream get attention in the Kate Peter sucks. Remember that? Yes, that I want you to get this tattooed on your arm: Kate Peter sucks. I’ll help you spell it: K-A-T-E P-E-T-E-R, no S at the end, just Kate Peter, now a new word, sucks, S-U-C-K-S. Everybody on the same page? All right, it’s artistic expression, bro. What do you want to say? Oh no, she’s gone. Steph, I was enjoying all your comments. Yes, Steph, that’s exactly what I want. I want you to keep interacting in the comments because it gets the stream more attention in the feed. I want that. I want you to continue to engage, and I’m going to keep calling her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. It’s not an obsession. It is the product of multiple years of work on the story to uncover something hidden that you don’t want to be talked about in public. That’s the reality. Is that not right Steph, you’re concerned that Kate Peter compromised the cases against Aiden Kearney because she worked as a PI for Marty Craft, who’s now lost his license because of what she was up to according to people’s reports in this chat, and you feel that it’s uncomfortable to have to hold her to the same moral standard that you do Aiden because you’re biased, right? Fine, I don’t care. I’ll tell it to your face yes. No, Steph, you have something to say? You say it right here, one-on-one. Let’s debate. We can do it. I have all the evidence now. We can talk about it all. That’s correct. I don’t create realities, Steph. I bring them to light. Your normative moral framework and what you want to happen is just that. The descriptive reality is independent of what any of us want. It is simply a factual record. In the context of our asymptotic relationship with that factual record, notwithstanding, I was interested in the truth, and you are who is afraid of it, let’s be clear. I wouldn’t say you’re debating me, Steph. You can’t debate on the merit of the facts. You want to know why? Because, for example, it would be very hard for you to counter something like this paragraph right here, right? Where Robert Cosgrove says that any data missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s phone was not on the phone at the time Brian Tully did the extraction. And you might be saying to yourself, Grant, how can you know? How can you know that Brian Tully intentionally released the phone unredacted after only removing messages from Kate to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey and after removing things like audio messages from Leigha Genduso? How do I know? Well, because how else would Lindsey have posted it on social media? My word, Steph. It’s almost like there’s proof that Robert Cosgrove was withholding material information related to the sum and substance of Kate Peter’s communications with various members of the prosecution team and/or witnesses and/or the handling of evidence in order to insulate certain charges from Kate Peter touching that evidence so that they could continue to trial, notwithstanding the discovery obligations of the state under the new updated Rule 14 as implemented on March 1, 2025. And towel is in a snarky mood indeed. And you’re not going to be able to do anything about it—oh, please, you're not saying to yourself, "what’s wrong with towel, Steph?" You’re basically saying, "why are you crossing the thin blue line?" And I would like to respond to you by saying, in the least unloving way, but the fact that you would ask me, “What is Grant doing?” because I won’t adhere to your thin blue line? Get the fuck out of here. Go climb up somebody else’s tree. Go find your own treehouse. Not happening. Absolutely not happening. You will look this factual record in the eye. You will confront your moral problems with the various actions of different people involved on your own time. And Leigha Bathtub Genduso will be central to this moral reckoning. And there’s not a damn thing you or your fake Canadian ass can do about it. I’m on one. I told you. Listen, you want it? You want it to be on record? We’ll do it. No, no, I’m just not loyal to your interests, Steph. I’m loyal to truth. I’m loyal to the people who are actually harmed. I’m not loyal to you or any of your friends or Kate Peter or the thin blue line or the thin green line or the thin pink line for that matter. All of you can take your lines and go fuck yourselves. Fake Canadian. Yeah, right, Steph. Yeah, let’s go with that. Yep, let’s go with fake Canadian, because why would you want me looking more in to you? A reporter? You want me to look more into you? No. God, take the L, man, just move on. That’s correct. No, listen, Steph, you want to talk about Michael Proctor’s family’s relationship to my mother? You want to be the person who draws that line? I’ll tell you about it. You sure you want to talk about it? You damn fake Canadian. We may have to get this fake Canadian out of here. She’s riling me up. You’re riling me up by trying to defend Kate Peter. I knew you were a rat the whole time. Goddamn Kate Peter mole. I knew it. I saw through that shit. "I just heard you acknowledge me about the AI. No hate. I appreciate you reading this. Good content." Thank you, sir. Thank you, to the person who said that! You see what I’m saying, Steph? You know what? I think we should just let Steph talk to herself, all right? She can just keep promoting the stream and the algorithm. Let her talk to herself. But Steph, even if you’re talking to yourself, I still have to write the post, okay? Damn fake Canadians. Steph is a fake Canadian and she may or may not be a communist. What you gonna' do about it? You damn fake Canadian. All right, no, I actually have to write this follow-up post. Stop it, Steph. Stop trying to gaslight to protect Kate Peter. You’ll be thrown out of here faster than someone with a cannabis conviction trying to enter Canada who doesn’t actually live there. Damn fake Canadians. Thank you, Kristina. I appreciate it. Yes, and Kristina, you ever wonder if maybe people come in here specifically to derail the conversation because we’re talking about very damning things as to Kate Peter? Well then, let me write my other post, by the way. I’ll help. I will put it up on the screen for you in one second. I just got to get the video loading before I start typing. Oh, Steph, you were on assignment. Stop bitching. I hope they paid you well for it. Don’t bark up my towel tree about you had to spend time with me so you could run intel to all the Kate Peter people. I don’t care. I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? Come on. You all insult my intelligence routinely—not you in the chat. Some of you moles are just like, “He won’t know.” What, are you just going to tell me I’m the greatest thing ever and then it’s going to go along? I’m just saying, I’ve been posting on social media being like, “Aidan, if people tell you that you’re the greatest thing ever, that might be true, but some of them are going to tell you that because they’re moles.” Come on. This is very basic-level intel stuff here. Steph, that was very nice of you. I am never going to degrade you for supporting people in need. What I’m concerned about, okay—I’m not concerned about who you are as a person. I’m concerned about what you didn’t tell us. All right? Yeah? And that's my right. No, absolutely not, Steph. You know exactly what happened. You flipped on a dime as soon as I started asking questions about Kate Peter because she has a lot of moles in her orbit. And then as soon as we started talking about her today, coincidentally enough, you popped right back up. Oh, what’s this? Robert Cosgrove represented in a sworn affidavit that any material missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s—see what I’m doing, Steph? This is, uh, this is for you—Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was not on the phone when MSP did that extraction. And then Brian Tully leaked that extraction unredacted. That’s a message from Leigha Bathtub Genduso proves Tully failed to include material that was indeed on Lindsey's phone. That was for you too, Steph. It’s weird that you know Bathtub, by the way. That’s just odd. Like she’s known Kate Peter for years too. If this Steph, who I watched Sandlot with, is the same Steph as the one who’s a second cousin of John O’Keefe, then she lied to me. She lied to me. If we can prove that this is the same, same Steph, then she lied to me. She told me she was from Canada, Saskatchewan, whatever the fuck. That’s what I’m saying. So Steph, if you are that Steph from wherever the fuck you live, bro—if you are that Steph—you lied to us all. You told us you were fucking Canadian. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute—are you actually that Steph? No fucking way. You lied to all of us this whole time and pretended to be Canadian? No, that was not—I didn’t ask if you were from Canada. I said, are you the same Steph who was second cousins with John O’Keefe and did you come on this channel and go on a Zoom call with me representing yourself to be Canadian from Saskatchewan? I don’t even have—no, that is not the question I’m asking you. Are you the same Steph that is second cousins with John O’Keefe? Thanks for letting us know. See what I mean? Kristina, it’s not the same Steph. It’s just some random person who really likes Leigha Genduso, Leigha Bathtub Genduso, and Kate Peter. Random coincidence! Just totally random. Come on. I’m rolling my eyes so hard I’m laughing. This has been really interesting though. I know you said no. That makes it even weirder. If you’re not that Steph, your fervent defense of Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso is even more weird. Go back to Discord. Come on now, shoo. You’re bothering me. If you bother me too much, I’m just going to go on a 45-minute rant eviscerating Kate Peter with facts, all right? So it’s better to just go. Like I told Benny Sweatpants the other day. Send him my regards, all right? No, I like calling out your hypocrisy. You wouldn’t say a negative word about Kate Peter if I demonstrated the factual record for you in real time. Live! Which I’m doing. You haven’t addressed one element of it on substance. All you’ve done is gaslight, and frankly you’re going to find yourself removed if you continue to fail to adhere to the rules of Towel Channel. As you know, the rules of Towel Channel are pretty simple, which is: one, don’t be discriminatory; two, don’t be derogatory; three, don’t sealion; four, don’t gaslight; and five, no Kate Peters. All right? Jay’s like, “I’m aboard the Grant train.” Thanks, Jay. It wasn’t one question, Steph. It was three questions. Let me reiterate them to you very quickly. Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Second question: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. And furthermore, why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record. Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. The reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kitten caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done. Oh, it’s such a shame. All right, I gotta move her on. All right, Steph, it was great. We’ll put you in a little timeout. You can come back tomorrow, okay? I’m glad you spent some time with us, but the reality is I just don’t—I don’t wanna play that type of Kate Peter game, all right? Yep, now, Christina, you, as you know, this channel in Br… every possible perspective. I don’t care what you want to come in here and believe, you know you and I align on a lot of the factual record about a lot of these different cases. It’s not that. I’ll never ever have a problem with that. It’s the bad faith—and it’s not you, Christina. You are wonderful. You’ve never done it—but it’s the people who get too close to Kate Peter and then as embodied in that colloquy with Steph right there, whoever the fuck she is, we still don’t know. As embodied in that colloquy, you have a situation where when confronted with the facts instead of responding or even giving the time of day to what Kate Peter or Tully or Cosgrove might have done wrong, immediately it starts with the emotional manipulation, the attacks, the distraction. So I hope that—I hope that tells us all something. But yes, let’s keep reading because before I got in that fun colloquy, we were—I bet Steph was sent here to try to derail me. Nice try, Steph, take it elsewhere. All right, so we got those two posts up, by the way. All right, following service. Do you remember where we were in all this? The very last—so we just read about the Kate emails. By the way, now we know the whole Kate and Kaboodle is the Kate emails. We just read about the Kate emails and take a look where it goes next. All right, it just keeps going and going. Oh, do you think I should add Kate, Steph to the chart, by the way? Where should she go on the chart? Should she go under the Trollhollmio section? I feel like that’s appropriate. You know, this is just my opinion of how all these people tie together. Say you got Kate Peter, the Lord of Darkness in the middle—that’s my opinion. Then you got Jamz up there, Llama over there, Jason Broyles down here, Gaffney over here, Trollhollomio here. Then you got people like Critical Mass, Virgil, that—I don’t know who that is. And then you got Tully, Michael Morrissey, and Michael Proctor. Then you got Jake Sun, Twisted Tragedies tied to Gaffney. Then you got that guy, Jason Broyles, who thinks—who pretends to be a woman online. You got him, I think he’s tied to Barry Lewis and this weird woman from Connecticut that Kate keeps working with. She used to pretend to be like an advocate for medical patients, but now apparently she’s a big advocate of prednisone. I don’t really understand. She’s been going online telling people that people with colitis have to use prednisone apparently and they can’t use cannabis. I’m baffled by it. I didn’t know she was a doctor. Listen, if I knew that this woman was a doctor, I would start looking to whether she’s received payments from the pharmaceutical industry because I’ve never met a cannabis advocate who tells people they have to use prednisone for colitis. So that woman baffles me. Also, she’s the reason consumption event in Massachusetts are now regulated by the CCC. So listen, you all think that Kate Peter’s just some kind of like moron. She just plays that role, okay? Like she plays like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she doesn’t mostly with these court developments. But look at her network. Like people fawn over her like TurtleBoy. She is the female TurtleBoy in so many ways. And what makes her scary is she doesn’t own it.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,617 views • 8 months ago

Crowdfunding Appeal: #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool Yesterday, was an emotional day. I left Kampala at 05 am and drove some 300km in to Rwanama village, in Bugongi Town Council, Shema District to meet Twinamatsiko Vicent (15 years)⏤ the dude in a yellow t-shirt. I first got to know about Twinamatsiko's plight via a news story and appeal that run on Vision Group's TV West. Born on the 29th of April 2009, he lost his parents early in life. He was picked up and raised by his grandmother, Maria Gyija (in black t-shirt and blue skirt). The problem is Maria Gyija herself can barely afford a decent living. Their house and mini banana plantation, sit on less than a 50 * 100 plot. Gyija, makes ends meet by doing paid labour in the nearby better-off households. Twinamatsiko has been supporting and supplementing her grandmother's meagre income by charcoal burning. Twinamatsiko scored 6 aggregates in the 2023 PLE Exams. He had put his first choice in a tier III-rated secondary school near his home- but even then, he wasn't sure where his school fees would come from. I picked interest in his great performance and with the help of Anthony Natif and the Namilyango College Old Boy's Association (NACOBA) Chairman, Alex Matayo, we got him admitted to the great Namilyango College- my alma mater too. Anthony Natif has also promised to step in on school fees in the terms ahead. Today, after answering so many questions from the area LC1 Chairperson and Councillor, I have returned with him to Kampala to start school at the mighty Namilyango College. School opens tomorrow the 19th February 2024. Now that is the great and happy part. While we are committed to doing the best we can and sharing what we have got- January can be a little tight. We could surely use some co-sharing on this responsibility, especially for this term. Now, someone will ask why I had to push myself to take up Twinamatsiko as my responsibility when I knew I couldn't afford it. Frankly, I have also asked myself this question at some point on this journey, but I know in the recent past I have achieved greater things than I ever believed I could. And frequently this has been with the help of you guys, my online family. Plus, I knew this was not something that could wait. It was now or never. This is why I am reaching out to you all here to make a crowdfunding appeal on behalf of Twinamatsiko Vicent and his grandmother Maria Gyija. For now, we need to top up the part payment we have made so he goes to school tomorrow, as we sort out the other details. I am requesting you to please support my #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool Campaign by sending donations to the following accounts. AIRTEL MONEY: +256 759 800326 (Muhereza Abel) MTN MoMo: +256 772 415939 (Judith Komuhangi) BANK ACCOUNT: Stanbic; 9030016220867 (Muhereza Kyamutetera) Kindly share/retweet/repost too. Together, lets #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool
1:47

Crowdfunding Appeal: #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool Yesterday, was an emotional day. I left Kampala at 05 am and drove some 300km in to Rwanama village, in Bugongi Town Council, Shema District to meet Twinamatsiko Vicent (15 years)⏤ the dude in a yellow t-shirt. I first got to know about Twinamatsiko's plight via a news story and appeal that run on Vision Group's TV West. Born on the 29th of April 2009, he lost his parents early in life. He was picked up and raised by his grandmother, Maria Gyija (in black t-shirt and blue skirt). The problem is Maria Gyija herself can barely afford a decent living. Their house and mini banana plantation, sit on less than a 50 * 100 plot. Gyija, makes ends meet by doing paid labour in the nearby better-off households. Twinamatsiko has been supporting and supplementing her grandmother's meagre income by charcoal burning. Twinamatsiko scored 6 aggregates in the 2023 PLE Exams. He had put his first choice in a tier III-rated secondary school near his home- but even then, he wasn't sure where his school fees would come from. I picked interest in his great performance and with the help of Anthony Natif and the Namilyango College Old Boy's Association (NACOBA) Chairman, Alex Matayo, we got him admitted to the great Namilyango College- my alma mater too. Anthony Natif has also promised to step in on school fees in the terms ahead. Today, after answering so many questions from the area LC1 Chairperson and Councillor, I have returned with him to Kampala to start school at the mighty Namilyango College. School opens tomorrow the 19th February 2024. Now that is the great and happy part. While we are committed to doing the best we can and sharing what we have got- January can be a little tight. We could surely use some co-sharing on this responsibility, especially for this term. Now, someone will ask why I had to push myself to take up Twinamatsiko as my responsibility when I knew I couldn't afford it. Frankly, I have also asked myself this question at some point on this journey, but I know in the recent past I have achieved greater things than I ever believed I could. And frequently this has been with the help of you guys, my online family. Plus, I knew this was not something that could wait. It was now or never. This is why I am reaching out to you all here to make a crowdfunding appeal on behalf of Twinamatsiko Vicent and his grandmother Maria Gyija. For now, we need to top up the part payment we have made so he goes to school tomorrow, as we sort out the other details. I am requesting you to please support my #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool Campaign by sending donations to the following accounts. AIRTEL MONEY: +256 759 800326 (Muhereza Abel) MTN MoMo: +256 772 415939 (Judith Komuhangi) BANK ACCOUNT: Stanbic; 9030016220867 (Muhereza Kyamutetera) Kindly share/retweet/repost too. Together, lets #SendTwinamatsikoToSchool

Muhereza Kyamutetera

89,181 views • 2 years ago

WARNING LISTEN WITH CAUTION! A Radio Drama That Still Breaks Something Inside You - The Cold Equations X Minus One, August 1955 It begins like so many dreams of the frontier. A young girl with brown curls, blue eyes, and a cheap pair of sandals slips aboard an Emergency Dispatch Ship. She hides in a supply locker with a small bag and a heart full of hope. Her name is Marilyn Lee Cross. She is eighteen. She only wants to see her brother. The ship is barely more than a stripped-down shell a precise machine built for one purpose: deliver serum to a fever-ravaged survey crew on the planet Woden before they die. Every ounce of fuel has been calculated. Every kilogram of mass accounted for. There are no margins. There is no room for stories, for surprise, for love. When the pilot, Barton, opens the locker and finds her smiling up at him, the universe tilts. His blaster falls from his hand. For a moment the cold equations of spaceflight collide with something warmer and infinitely more fragile: a living, breathing person who never meant any harm. She explains, shy and excited at once. She stowed away because the next regular ship would not arrive for another year. She wanted to surprise her brother. She brought a pretty dress. She thought the rules would be like the ones back on Earth. They are not. The commander’s voice comes over the radio, flat and final. Her extra weight — one hundred and ten pounds of girl, dreams, and cheap perfume — will consume the last of the fuel during the critical deceleration burn. The ship will not slow in time. It will either crash or miss its window entirely. The serum will never reach the dying men. Sixteen lives will be lost instead of one. There is no rescue. The mothership is already committed to hyperspace. No other vessel is within forty light-years. The math is not cruel. It simply does not care. Marilyn does not understand at first. She offers to pay a fine. She promises to work, to cook, to stay out of the way. When the truth finally lands, she sags “small and limp like a little rag doll.” Her voice breaks on the simplest, most devastating question: “Is that it? Just that the ship doesn’t have enough fuel?” Yes. The pilot reduces thrust to buy her a little more time. He lets her write letters to her family. He patches her through to her brother one last time as Woden’s rotation carries the signal away. She tries to sound brave. She tells Gerry not to feel bad. She only wanted to see him. Then the line goes dead. The airlock is small. She walks into it with her head up. She says she is ready. The pilot’s hand hovers over the control. There is a hiss, a sudden drop in mass on the gauges, and then only the steady hum of the ship continuing on its necessary course. She is gone. Why This 1955 Radio Play Still Haunts Us X Minus One delivered the story on a summer night in 1955 with nothing but voices, sound effects, and the listener’s imagination. No CGI. No swelling orchestral score to soften the blow. Just the quiet horror of a young woman realizing the universe keeps its books in a currency she cannot pay. That is precisely why it cuts deeper now than it did then. We like to believe we have moved beyond such brutal arithmetic. We have AI that can model entire economies, climate systems, and human behavior. Yet the cold equations have not disappeared. They have only changed their clothing. Today an algorithm decides whose résumé is seen and whose is silently discarded. Another model determines who receives a loan, who is flagged for extra scrutiny, whose medical scan is prioritized. In autonomous vehicles the trolley problem is no longer philosophical — it is code. In the hot summer of 1955 this heartbreaking broadcast captivated us, before we left the planet. Today it just is even harder. With just spoken words we have a picture of innocence and calculations that paint a bigger picture than any big screen could have. It painted in our hearts and our souls.
23:56

WARNING LISTEN WITH CAUTION! A Radio Drama That Still Breaks Something Inside You - The Cold Equations X Minus One, August 1955 It begins like so many dreams of the frontier. A young girl with brown curls, blue eyes, and a cheap pair of sandals slips aboard an Emergency Dispatch Ship. She hides in a supply locker with a small bag and a heart full of hope. Her name is Marilyn Lee Cross. She is eighteen. She only wants to see her brother. The ship is barely more than a stripped-down shell a precise machine built for one purpose: deliver serum to a fever-ravaged survey crew on the planet Woden before they die. Every ounce of fuel has been calculated. Every kilogram of mass accounted for. There are no margins. There is no room for stories, for surprise, for love. When the pilot, Barton, opens the locker and finds her smiling up at him, the universe tilts. His blaster falls from his hand. For a moment the cold equations of spaceflight collide with something warmer and infinitely more fragile: a living, breathing person who never meant any harm. She explains, shy and excited at once. She stowed away because the next regular ship would not arrive for another year. She wanted to surprise her brother. She brought a pretty dress. She thought the rules would be like the ones back on Earth. They are not. The commander’s voice comes over the radio, flat and final. Her extra weight — one hundred and ten pounds of girl, dreams, and cheap perfume — will consume the last of the fuel during the critical deceleration burn. The ship will not slow in time. It will either crash or miss its window entirely. The serum will never reach the dying men. Sixteen lives will be lost instead of one. There is no rescue. The mothership is already committed to hyperspace. No other vessel is within forty light-years. The math is not cruel. It simply does not care. Marilyn does not understand at first. She offers to pay a fine. She promises to work, to cook, to stay out of the way. When the truth finally lands, she sags “small and limp like a little rag doll.” Her voice breaks on the simplest, most devastating question: “Is that it? Just that the ship doesn’t have enough fuel?” Yes. The pilot reduces thrust to buy her a little more time. He lets her write letters to her family. He patches her through to her brother one last time as Woden’s rotation carries the signal away. She tries to sound brave. She tells Gerry not to feel bad. She only wanted to see him. Then the line goes dead. The airlock is small. She walks into it with her head up. She says she is ready. The pilot’s hand hovers over the control. There is a hiss, a sudden drop in mass on the gauges, and then only the steady hum of the ship continuing on its necessary course. She is gone. Why This 1955 Radio Play Still Haunts Us X Minus One delivered the story on a summer night in 1955 with nothing but voices, sound effects, and the listener’s imagination. No CGI. No swelling orchestral score to soften the blow. Just the quiet horror of a young woman realizing the universe keeps its books in a currency she cannot pay. That is precisely why it cuts deeper now than it did then. We like to believe we have moved beyond such brutal arithmetic. We have AI that can model entire economies, climate systems, and human behavior. Yet the cold equations have not disappeared. They have only changed their clothing. Today an algorithm decides whose résumé is seen and whose is silently discarded. Another model determines who receives a loan, who is flagged for extra scrutiny, whose medical scan is prioritized. In autonomous vehicles the trolley problem is no longer philosophical — it is code. In the hot summer of 1955 this heartbreaking broadcast captivated us, before we left the planet. Today it just is even harder. With just spoken words we have a picture of innocence and calculations that paint a bigger picture than any big screen could have. It painted in our hearts and our souls.

Brian Roemmele

37,942 views • 15 days ago

Every night as a kid, Kobe Bryant fell asleep visualizing basketball. He’d see himself scoring 10 straight. Then 20. Then 30. “But in the dream, why would you ever interrupt that?” “So you keep dreaming.” “Before I go to sleep, I’m at 120 points.” In 2006, he scored 81. Kobe spent an hour at USC explaining what Mamba Mentality really means: He was born to play. "I started playing at like 2 years old." "My father wasn't one of these fathers that was like: you're going to play basketball. It was just I was around the game a lot and I gravitated to the ball." "I was completely geeking out about the smell of the ball. The way it sounds when it hits concrete versus how it hits a parquet floor." "The sound of the nets. The different material of the nets." "There's certain basketball hoops where the rim sits slightly above the backboard. I was geeking out if I got into a gym where they were completely parallel." "Little shit like that would freak me out." "To answer your question, I was born to do this thing, man. And I did it non-stop all day long from the age of 2 to when I retired." He explains how to know if you've found your thing. "That's the trick, isn't it? Finding what you love to do." "We talk about hard work all the time. And it's like, if you got to get up every single morning and remind yourself how hard you need to work, you probably need to choose a different profession." "That shouldn't be there." "I wake up in the morning excited to get to it. If I'm not training, I'm missing it. If I'm not watching a game of basketball, I miss it." "There's no place I'd rather be." "If you have that feeling, then you're truly doing what God has put you on this earth to do." He explains the 81-point game. "When you grow up downloading that into your brain over and over and over..." "That summer, I made 1000 shots a day. 1000. On top of weight training and conditioning." "And they weren't just shots. They were shots that you saw in that game." "Coming out of the corner. Going to the pinch post. Footwork in the post. Coming off the screen." "It was very specific." "So when you download that into your system and you go out on the court, you're just executing things that you've done thousands of times before." "And you have that dream." "Then that becomes possible." He explains why he doesn't reinvent. "Everything's been not choreographed, but it's been practiced so many times that it's second nature." "Why reinvent it?" "I don't understand that. You go out and play the game and you're just trying to create something new. No." "This is what I do. This is what I do extremely well." "You're going to have to stop me from doing that. And if you do stop me from doing that, I have a counter to that." "Done." He explains the pain. "To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the game." "My knee was hurting so much. I didn't know then, but I had a flap of cartilage stuck in my joint line." "My mind was really trying to go to a place where I don't feel that pain." "The game started. And because of that, I was just in a different space." "I wasn't worried about what was to come. I wasn't worried about what just happened. I was just here." "When you're just there in the moment, your focus is heightened because nothing else matters." Pete Carroll asked the hard question. "What was it like for you to play with people that weren't as gritty as you were?" Kobe's response. "I'd kill them. I'd bury them." "The kind of culture that the Laker organization stood for, winning championships, is not tolerated." "You're going to show up to play. And you're going to lollygag through this scrimmage, through this drill? I'm going to beat you." "I'm going to let you know I beat you." "I'm going to want you to reconsider your professional life choice." "People will say: okay, that doesn't make a great teammate." "Well, I'm not here to be a great teammate. I'm here to help you win championships." "So it's different." He explains practice. "As a leader of a team, it's your responsibility to elevate the rest of the guys." "What people tend to get stuck on is saying: the way to make players better is to pass them the ball when they're open." "That's a very trivial way to look at things." "You have to get them emotionally to want to be better. You have to get them to an emotional space where they wake up every morning driven to be the best version of themselves." "How do you do that?" "In practice for me, it was a chance to drive them, to challenge them." "You have to know your teammates. Because then you know what nerve to touch." "Some guys, it's like: okay, come on, we can do this. That'll get them going." "Other guys, no. You got to figure out what button to push." He gives an example. "Pau was always Spain." "If I tell him how they lost in the gold medal to us and how they're going to lose again, how I'm going to beat your ass in practice just like I beat you in the gold medal game." "Oh. He would hate that. He would hate that." "But that's what practice was. You have to drive them." "If practice is more intense and harder than a game seven will be, then a game seven will be easy." "But if it's not, then that's when teams start folding and capitulating." He explains standards. "If I got to fight to get you in the gym, that's a problem. That's a problem." "You want players that are gym rats. Players that want to be in the gym, that want to work." "Then from there, you build on top of that." "But if you're lazy, man, I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to deal with you. You make me feel dumber." "You're going to lower my level. I don't think so." "You can go over there. There's plenty of teams where you'll fit right in." He explains loyalty. The Lakers offered to trade him to a contending team. His response. "We've known each other for a very long time. I'm questioning myself because I'm wondering what about me makes you think I would jump ship." "We don't do that." "As a leader, you got to be able to take the good with the bad." "You can't just because the ship's sinking all of a sudden jump off and swim to another. You don't do that." "If you can win championships in front of everybody, then you could miss the playoffs in front of everybody." "You got to be able to take both sides of it." "If you're doing something that's easy, you might want to reconsider what you're doing." He explains what he wishes he knew earlier. "Understanding empathy and compassion." "As a young kid when I came in the league, it was like: I'm driving this way and either you're going to be on the train or be on the track." "There was no such thing as understanding that people have lives outside of the game. Which apparently I did not." "If I understood that at an early age, then it helps me as a leader to communicate better." "Getting to know people on a personal level. What are their fears. What are their insecurities. What are their dreams and ambitions." "When you come to understand that about a person, then you can help them reach the best version of themselves." "I wish I'd known that earlier." He explains how he teaches his daughter. "My daughter said: Dad, can you teach me how to play basketball? I want to be better than you." "All right, cool. Let's start with 15 minutes a day." "For 15 minutes a day, we just stood right in front of the hoop and just shot. Right under the hoop. We didn't move around. We didn't do any dribbling." "Just 15 minutes a day just shoot here." "You do that for a month and a half. Then next month, you step back. Then next month, you step back again. Then you start working on dribbling." "Through actionable things is how we teach our children." "If it becomes a part of their process in sports, it'll become a part of their process in life as well." He explains dreams. "I just dream. I have dreams." "Dreams should be pure." "A lot of times when we're born into this world, we actually wind up going backwards." "The more we mature, the more responsible our dreams become. The more governors we put on ourselves and our ability to dream and to reimagine." "It's always a fight for us to make sure that our dreams always stay pure." "It's not a matter of pushing beyond your limitations or expectations." "It's really a matter of protecting your dreams. Protecting your imagination." "That's really the key." "When you do that, then the world just seems limitless."
59:26

Every night as a kid, Kobe Bryant fell asleep visualizing basketball. He’d see himself scoring 10 straight. Then 20. Then 30. “But in the dream, why would you ever interrupt that?” “So you keep dreaming.” “Before I go to sleep, I’m at 120 points.” In 2006, he scored 81. Kobe spent an hour at USC explaining what Mamba Mentality really means: He was born to play. "I started playing at like 2 years old." "My father wasn't one of these fathers that was like: you're going to play basketball. It was just I was around the game a lot and I gravitated to the ball." "I was completely geeking out about the smell of the ball. The way it sounds when it hits concrete versus how it hits a parquet floor." "The sound of the nets. The different material of the nets." "There's certain basketball hoops where the rim sits slightly above the backboard. I was geeking out if I got into a gym where they were completely parallel." "Little shit like that would freak me out." "To answer your question, I was born to do this thing, man. And I did it non-stop all day long from the age of 2 to when I retired." He explains how to know if you've found your thing. "That's the trick, isn't it? Finding what you love to do." "We talk about hard work all the time. And it's like, if you got to get up every single morning and remind yourself how hard you need to work, you probably need to choose a different profession." "That shouldn't be there." "I wake up in the morning excited to get to it. If I'm not training, I'm missing it. If I'm not watching a game of basketball, I miss it." "There's no place I'd rather be." "If you have that feeling, then you're truly doing what God has put you on this earth to do." He explains the 81-point game. "When you grow up downloading that into your brain over and over and over..." "That summer, I made 1000 shots a day. 1000. On top of weight training and conditioning." "And they weren't just shots. They were shots that you saw in that game." "Coming out of the corner. Going to the pinch post. Footwork in the post. Coming off the screen." "It was very specific." "So when you download that into your system and you go out on the court, you're just executing things that you've done thousands of times before." "And you have that dream." "Then that becomes possible." He explains why he doesn't reinvent. "Everything's been not choreographed, but it's been practiced so many times that it's second nature." "Why reinvent it?" "I don't understand that. You go out and play the game and you're just trying to create something new. No." "This is what I do. This is what I do extremely well." "You're going to have to stop me from doing that. And if you do stop me from doing that, I have a counter to that." "Done." He explains the pain. "To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the game." "My knee was hurting so much. I didn't know then, but I had a flap of cartilage stuck in my joint line." "My mind was really trying to go to a place where I don't feel that pain." "The game started. And because of that, I was just in a different space." "I wasn't worried about what was to come. I wasn't worried about what just happened. I was just here." "When you're just there in the moment, your focus is heightened because nothing else matters." Pete Carroll asked the hard question. "What was it like for you to play with people that weren't as gritty as you were?" Kobe's response. "I'd kill them. I'd bury them." "The kind of culture that the Laker organization stood for, winning championships, is not tolerated." "You're going to show up to play. And you're going to lollygag through this scrimmage, through this drill? I'm going to beat you." "I'm going to let you know I beat you." "I'm going to want you to reconsider your professional life choice." "People will say: okay, that doesn't make a great teammate." "Well, I'm not here to be a great teammate. I'm here to help you win championships." "So it's different." He explains practice. "As a leader of a team, it's your responsibility to elevate the rest of the guys." "What people tend to get stuck on is saying: the way to make players better is to pass them the ball when they're open." "That's a very trivial way to look at things." "You have to get them emotionally to want to be better. You have to get them to an emotional space where they wake up every morning driven to be the best version of themselves." "How do you do that?" "In practice for me, it was a chance to drive them, to challenge them." "You have to know your teammates. Because then you know what nerve to touch." "Some guys, it's like: okay, come on, we can do this. That'll get them going." "Other guys, no. You got to figure out what button to push." He gives an example. "Pau was always Spain." "If I tell him how they lost in the gold medal to us and how they're going to lose again, how I'm going to beat your ass in practice just like I beat you in the gold medal game." "Oh. He would hate that. He would hate that." "But that's what practice was. You have to drive them." "If practice is more intense and harder than a game seven will be, then a game seven will be easy." "But if it's not, then that's when teams start folding and capitulating." He explains standards. "If I got to fight to get you in the gym, that's a problem. That's a problem." "You want players that are gym rats. Players that want to be in the gym, that want to work." "Then from there, you build on top of that." "But if you're lazy, man, I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to deal with you. You make me feel dumber." "You're going to lower my level. I don't think so." "You can go over there. There's plenty of teams where you'll fit right in." He explains loyalty. The Lakers offered to trade him to a contending team. His response. "We've known each other for a very long time. I'm questioning myself because I'm wondering what about me makes you think I would jump ship." "We don't do that." "As a leader, you got to be able to take the good with the bad." "You can't just because the ship's sinking all of a sudden jump off and swim to another. You don't do that." "If you can win championships in front of everybody, then you could miss the playoffs in front of everybody." "You got to be able to take both sides of it." "If you're doing something that's easy, you might want to reconsider what you're doing." He explains what he wishes he knew earlier. "Understanding empathy and compassion." "As a young kid when I came in the league, it was like: I'm driving this way and either you're going to be on the train or be on the track." "There was no such thing as understanding that people have lives outside of the game. Which apparently I did not." "If I understood that at an early age, then it helps me as a leader to communicate better." "Getting to know people on a personal level. What are their fears. What are their insecurities. What are their dreams and ambitions." "When you come to understand that about a person, then you can help them reach the best version of themselves." "I wish I'd known that earlier." He explains how he teaches his daughter. "My daughter said: Dad, can you teach me how to play basketball? I want to be better than you." "All right, cool. Let's start with 15 minutes a day." "For 15 minutes a day, we just stood right in front of the hoop and just shot. Right under the hoop. We didn't move around. We didn't do any dribbling." "Just 15 minutes a day just shoot here." "You do that for a month and a half. Then next month, you step back. Then next month, you step back again. Then you start working on dribbling." "Through actionable things is how we teach our children." "If it becomes a part of their process in sports, it'll become a part of their process in life as well." He explains dreams. "I just dream. I have dreams." "Dreams should be pure." "A lot of times when we're born into this world, we actually wind up going backwards." "The more we mature, the more responsible our dreams become. The more governors we put on ourselves and our ability to dream and to reimagine." "It's always a fight for us to make sure that our dreams always stay pure." "It's not a matter of pushing beyond your limitations or expectations." "It's really a matter of protecting your dreams. Protecting your imagination." "That's really the key." "When you do that, then the world just seems limitless."

Jaynit

17,383 views • 2 months ago