Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Will we ever be able to simulate a living cell? In theory. Molecules collide, proteins fold, and all of these things can be modeled on a computer. But there are so many unknowns, and so much compute would be required, that a mechanistic model of the cell remains a...

NikoMcCarty's profile picture

Niko McCarty.

51,522 subscribers

16,382 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Sam Altman says he is NOT worried about Chinese labs distilling OpenAI: "I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. Maybe I’m feeling too confident right now about our progress and the models that are coming. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.” “I haven’t thought deeply about the distillation issue. It’s clearly a top of mind issue now for a lot of people all of a sudden." "I have always assumed that there are going to be great, cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. And other people are going to do what they’re going to do. But I think we can just really win at our own game here." "We will have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantic high margin business to be able to afford model training." "So much of our future compute plans will be used to sell inference to customers that even if we can enjoy a modest margin on trillions of dollars of revenue, we can afford to train some giant models."
1:40

Sam Altman says he is NOT worried about Chinese labs distilling OpenAI: "I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. Maybe I’m feeling too confident right now about our progress and the models that are coming. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.” “I haven’t thought deeply about the distillation issue. It’s clearly a top of mind issue now for a lot of people all of a sudden." "I have always assumed that there are going to be great, cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. And other people are going to do what they’re going to do. But I think we can just really win at our own game here." "We will have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantic high margin business to be able to afford model training." "So much of our future compute plans will be used to sell inference to customers that even if we can enjoy a modest margin on trillions of dollars of revenue, we can afford to train some giant models."

dnap

91,523 views • 28 days ago

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.
1:37

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

33,110 views • 1 year ago

Science Corner: David Friedberg Explains Recent Mitotherapy Breakthroughs ⚡️ On E224, david friedberg broke down what mitotherapy is and how recent discoveries could unleash this treatment for many diseases: "So mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell." "Every cell in our body gets its energy, which is what it uses to function, from the mitochondria." "And so there's been a lot of research into the relationship between mitochondria and aging, and that dysfunctional mitochondria may actually be a key driver for many diseases." "Including many cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, features of autism, muscle tissues being weak, etc." " So, as the cells get older and the mitochondria stop working, we make new mitochondria." "But over time, the DNA degrades and the mitochondria become less effective and there are fewer functional mitochondria per cell." Friedberg highlighted three recent papers: 1) "The power and potential of mitochondria transfer" (nature) -- "these folks identified and demonstrated that mitochondria can actually transfer from one cell to another" -- " So, if you've got a cell that's got damaged, or dysfunctional mitochondria, they've identified three mechanisms by which mitochondria can move into a cell that needs more mitochondria that are working and are more functional." -- "And as a result, it can rejuvenate or provide energy to a dysfunctional cell, which might improve dysfunctional tissue or improve disease." 2) "A human brain map of mitochondrial respiratory capacity and diversity" (nature) -- " this was the first mapping of the mitochondria in the human brain" -- " what it showed was that different parts of the brain, different cells, had different amounts of mitochondria and different mitochondrial function." -- "(This) starts to highlight how that difference in energy production in different cells in different parts of the brain may actually cause some of the things like memory loss or speech impairment," -- "the mitochondrial dysfunction in the brain might actually be the key driver of that aging symptomology." 3) "Organelle-tuning condition robustly fabricates energetic mitochondria for cartilage regeneration" (nature | Bone Research) -- " (the researchers) figured out a way to treat stem cells so that (they) would start to make an excess amount of mitochondria than they normally would make" -- " So they created highly energetic mitochondria and they made a lot of them." -- " the idea that we can put mitochondria into our body or into tissue in our body to heal it or repair it has been something that folks have been trying to do research around for a long time" -- " but the limiting factor is access to enough mitochondria" -- " so this mechanism that they developed opens up the door to this whole new therapeutic modality, a new type of therapy called mitotherapy" Conclusion: " ... based on the series of papers that we're seeing coming out recently, I believe (this) could end up becoming a really incredible new therapy that may ultimately lead to the treatment for many diseases that we're dealing with right now."
2:46

Science Corner: David Friedberg Explains Recent Mitotherapy Breakthroughs ⚡️ On E224, david friedberg broke down what mitotherapy is and how recent discoveries could unleash this treatment for many diseases: "So mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell." "Every cell in our body gets its energy, which is what it uses to function, from the mitochondria." "And so there's been a lot of research into the relationship between mitochondria and aging, and that dysfunctional mitochondria may actually be a key driver for many diseases." "Including many cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, features of autism, muscle tissues being weak, etc." " So, as the cells get older and the mitochondria stop working, we make new mitochondria." "But over time, the DNA degrades and the mitochondria become less effective and there are fewer functional mitochondria per cell." Friedberg highlighted three recent papers: 1) "The power and potential of mitochondria transfer" (nature) -- "these folks identified and demonstrated that mitochondria can actually transfer from one cell to another" -- " So, if you've got a cell that's got damaged, or dysfunctional mitochondria, they've identified three mechanisms by which mitochondria can move into a cell that needs more mitochondria that are working and are more functional." -- "And as a result, it can rejuvenate or provide energy to a dysfunctional cell, which might improve dysfunctional tissue or improve disease." 2) "A human brain map of mitochondrial respiratory capacity and diversity" (nature) -- " this was the first mapping of the mitochondria in the human brain" -- " what it showed was that different parts of the brain, different cells, had different amounts of mitochondria and different mitochondrial function." -- "(This) starts to highlight how that difference in energy production in different cells in different parts of the brain may actually cause some of the things like memory loss or speech impairment," -- "the mitochondrial dysfunction in the brain might actually be the key driver of that aging symptomology." 3) "Organelle-tuning condition robustly fabricates energetic mitochondria for cartilage regeneration" (nature | Bone Research) -- " (the researchers) figured out a way to treat stem cells so that (they) would start to make an excess amount of mitochondria than they normally would make" -- " So they created highly energetic mitochondria and they made a lot of them." -- " the idea that we can put mitochondria into our body or into tissue in our body to heal it or repair it has been something that folks have been trying to do research around for a long time" -- " but the limiting factor is access to enough mitochondria" -- " so this mechanism that they developed opens up the door to this whole new therapeutic modality, a new type of therapy called mitotherapy" Conclusion: " ... based on the series of papers that we're seeing coming out recently, I believe (this) could end up becoming a really incredible new therapy that may ultimately lead to the treatment for many diseases that we're dealing with right now."

The All-In Podcast

58,533 views • 1 year ago

Krishna on how Anthropic thinks about the platform vs. application layer, and when they decide to build their own products like Claude Code. It’s the question every investor and founder is thinking about: “Most of what we're building is platform. There's so many examples of where a platform can accrue a lot of value, but the customers who are building on that platform actually accrue even more value. We will build our own applications on that same platform where a couple of things are true. Number one, if we feel like we have a vision into where the models are going and we can demonstrate that and create customer value in that, that might be something like Claude Code. The second is thinking about ways to demonstrate value for the ecosystem that others might emulate. If you think about Claude for financial services or Claude for life sciences, these are ways in which we've composed the platform. We're building on the same platform as our customers. That creates a level playing field. We also think that there's so much value that's going to accrue in these areas that our customers can win and we can win as well. So I think of our strategy as mostly horizontal. A lot of the value is going to accrue to the customers that are building on top of it. Our goal is build the best models and then build the products and tools and services that allow that intelligence to proliferate within customers."
2:49

Krishna on how Anthropic thinks about the platform vs. application layer, and when they decide to build their own products like Claude Code. It’s the question every investor and founder is thinking about: “Most of what we're building is platform. There's so many examples of where a platform can accrue a lot of value, but the customers who are building on that platform actually accrue even more value. We will build our own applications on that same platform where a couple of things are true. Number one, if we feel like we have a vision into where the models are going and we can demonstrate that and create customer value in that, that might be something like Claude Code. The second is thinking about ways to demonstrate value for the ecosystem that others might emulate. If you think about Claude for financial services or Claude for life sciences, these are ways in which we've composed the platform. We're building on the same platform as our customers. That creates a level playing field. We also think that there's so much value that's going to accrue in these areas that our customers can win and we can win as well. So I think of our strategy as mostly horizontal. A lot of the value is going to accrue to the customers that are building on top of it. Our goal is build the best models and then build the products and tools and services that allow that intelligence to proliferate within customers."

Patrick OShaughnessy

113,826 views • 3 months ago

Amp CEO, Quinn Slack on why he thinks Kimi K3 could be a Sputnik moment for America: "With GLM 5.2 we had a mini Sputnik moment. When the Soviet Union launched a satellite into space before the US and we realized we have to catch up." "Kimi K3 I need to go and see, but that could be an even bigger Sputnik moment that wakes us up and will probably create a lot of good effects in terms of catalyzing the understanding of AI as a strategic advantage for the US rather than as something people should be against." "But I think it could also scare a lot of people, and I can understand why they'd be scared." "The worst possible outcome could be that open models are banned or are banned from certain industries or companies in the US. There's a lot of people in lobbying organizations in Washington DC, and a lot of people in various parts of the government that want to do that." "They want to say, we won't let these models trained in China be used in the US. There's a lot of people trying to do that now, and that would make us all worse off. I'm pretty nervous about that." Quinn Slack Amp
1:26

Amp CEO, Quinn Slack on why he thinks Kimi K3 could be a Sputnik moment for America: "With GLM 5.2 we had a mini Sputnik moment. When the Soviet Union launched a satellite into space before the US and we realized we have to catch up." "Kimi K3 I need to go and see, but that could be an even bigger Sputnik moment that wakes us up and will probably create a lot of good effects in terms of catalyzing the understanding of AI as a strategic advantage for the US rather than as something people should be against." "But I think it could also scare a lot of people, and I can understand why they'd be scared." "The worst possible outcome could be that open models are banned or are banned from certain industries or companies in the US. There's a lot of people in lobbying organizations in Washington DC, and a lot of people in various parts of the government that want to do that." "They want to say, we won't let these models trained in China be used in the US. There's a lot of people trying to do that now, and that would make us all worse off. I'm pretty nervous about that." Quinn Slack Amp

MTS

58,660 views • 1 month ago

Sam on Kimi, distillation, and open source: “I have always assumed that there are going to be great cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. You get a better deal today, at least at a particular latency, using OpenAI's models than Kimi. We distill our own models. That’s how we make smaller, cheaper models. That’s a very good thing to do. There will clearly be an important place for open source models in the world and people that will want their own weights. We have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantically high-margin business to be able to afford model training. I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.”
2:12

Sam on Kimi, distillation, and open source: “I have always assumed that there are going to be great cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. You get a better deal today, at least at a particular latency, using OpenAI's models than Kimi. We distill our own models. That’s how we make smaller, cheaper models. That’s a very good thing to do. There will clearly be an important place for open source models in the world and people that will want their own weights. We have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantically high-margin business to be able to afford model training. I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.”

Patrick OShaughnessy

269,663 views • 28 days ago

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly
1:22

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,849,327 views • 6 months ago

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."
1:04

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."

The All-In Podcast

53,187 views • 1 year ago

🚨🚨🚨 Dutch Cancer Researcher and Erasmus Medical Centre Assc Prof Maarten Fornerod discusses DNA contamination in COVID Vaccines. ---------------------------- ...for last 35 years or so I've been working uh in the areas of molecular biology, gene expression, biology, cancer biology and recently in the last years, maybe last 10 years in the context of big data and computational biology... ...when we use genetic vaccines what we do essentially is we're making a complex intervention in a very complex system. It's impossible to predict what happens if you combine these two complex systems, and you get unpredictable effects. .. And the only way to go about this is to do genotoxic research, when you want to introduce a genetic medicine into a human being and that genetotic research has to be independent, it has to be double blind, has to be long lasting. AND ALL THESE HAVE NOT BEEN DONE WITH THE GENETIC CORONA VACCINES! if there's a vaccine, there's a little bit of DNA in there upon injection that is very, very rapidly degraded by the human body. However if it's protected and in a lipid nanoarticle it can very efficiently be transduced in the cell... I've been doing this this many, many times. This is called lipofection and it's a very efficient way to introduce DNA into a cell. ...Many people think that this is not possible. But I've been working in nuclear transport for many years, I think more than 10 years. So I've been exposed to a lot of molecular cell biology of nuclear cytoplasmic transport. And it's clear that the DNA can enter the nucleus. Now to make things worse, the mRNA vaccine doesn't stay in the arm but it's detected in , in all different organs including the reproductive system. And so partly this is based on animal models, of course we know from Michael Morz that he has detected uh the spike protein in brain, in the heart and it's for sure it's detected in the blood and even in breast milk. ..So there's NO DOUBT that this mRNA vaccine spreads widely in the human body. ..Now from a genetic point of view, there are possible consequences uh of this and the consequences could be a 1. long term disruption of cellular processes that could lead to disease. 2. there's a risk of insertional mutageenesis in somatic cells that can lead to cancer. 3. the insertion mutogenesis takes place in a germ cell which would be a hereditary burden uh on the human population. 4. And you could also think that these um DNAs, could transfect the microbiome and it could possibly lead to bacterial resistance. So these are all possible..the consequences of these genetic vaccines in my view, the shortcomings in this rollout of these vaccines were there was no genotoxic research performed at all. There was no safety studies, on carcinogenic potential of these vaccines. My personal opinion is that it's now not a question of whether, it will integrate in recipient's DNA, but how often it occurs... It's just a numbers game. If you do this in many cells, many persons it will no doubt integrate in cells in human recipients. So the question does it affect the human genome? I would say it probably, I think it most certainly does. And you see Kevin McKernan here and he represented ah a preliminary data where he detected a possible Pfizer DNA in colon cancer biopsy one year after vaccination.
6:25

🚨🚨🚨 Dutch Cancer Researcher and Erasmus Medical Centre Assc Prof Maarten Fornerod discusses DNA contamination in COVID Vaccines. ---------------------------- ...for last 35 years or so I've been working uh in the areas of molecular biology, gene expression, biology, cancer biology and recently in the last years, maybe last 10 years in the context of big data and computational biology... ...when we use genetic vaccines what we do essentially is we're making a complex intervention in a very complex system. It's impossible to predict what happens if you combine these two complex systems, and you get unpredictable effects. .. And the only way to go about this is to do genotoxic research, when you want to introduce a genetic medicine into a human being and that genetotic research has to be independent, it has to be double blind, has to be long lasting. AND ALL THESE HAVE NOT BEEN DONE WITH THE GENETIC CORONA VACCINES! if there's a vaccine, there's a little bit of DNA in there upon injection that is very, very rapidly degraded by the human body. However if it's protected and in a lipid nanoarticle it can very efficiently be transduced in the cell... I've been doing this this many, many times. This is called lipofection and it's a very efficient way to introduce DNA into a cell. ...Many people think that this is not possible. But I've been working in nuclear transport for many years, I think more than 10 years. So I've been exposed to a lot of molecular cell biology of nuclear cytoplasmic transport. And it's clear that the DNA can enter the nucleus. Now to make things worse, the mRNA vaccine doesn't stay in the arm but it's detected in , in all different organs including the reproductive system. And so partly this is based on animal models, of course we know from Michael Morz that he has detected uh the spike protein in brain, in the heart and it's for sure it's detected in the blood and even in breast milk. ..So there's NO DOUBT that this mRNA vaccine spreads widely in the human body. ..Now from a genetic point of view, there are possible consequences uh of this and the consequences could be a 1. long term disruption of cellular processes that could lead to disease. 2. there's a risk of insertional mutageenesis in somatic cells that can lead to cancer. 3. the insertion mutogenesis takes place in a germ cell which would be a hereditary burden uh on the human population. 4. And you could also think that these um DNAs, could transfect the microbiome and it could possibly lead to bacterial resistance. So these are all possible..the consequences of these genetic vaccines in my view, the shortcomings in this rollout of these vaccines were there was no genotoxic research performed at all. There was no safety studies, on carcinogenic potential of these vaccines. My personal opinion is that it's now not a question of whether, it will integrate in recipient's DNA, but how often it occurs... It's just a numbers game. If you do this in many cells, many persons it will no doubt integrate in cells in human recipients. So the question does it affect the human genome? I would say it probably, I think it most certainly does. And you see Kevin McKernan here and he represented ah a preliminary data where he detected a possible Pfizer DNA in colon cancer biopsy one year after vaccination.

aussie17

126,273 views • 1 year ago

Mamdani on Arch/Ballroom/Club Rose Garden: My message would be that this is not what government has to be. This is not the only vision for what it looks like to have politics in this country—that is so divorced from the needs and wants of everyday people. And what we are looking to show in New York City is an alternative to what has led so many to become disenchanted with the political process. We want to show that not only can government work, but it must, and that at its core, our responsibility is to working people—to ensure that we’re doing everything to make their lives easier. That has to be what drives our actions, and for too long, government has felt more like a distraction than a fulfillment of the needs of the people who’ve been left behind by the politics of today.
1:26

Mamdani on Arch/Ballroom/Club Rose Garden: My message would be that this is not what government has to be. This is not the only vision for what it looks like to have politics in this country—that is so divorced from the needs and wants of everyday people. And what we are looking to show in New York City is an alternative to what has led so many to become disenchanted with the political process. We want to show that not only can government work, but it must, and that at its core, our responsibility is to working people—to ensure that we’re doing everything to make their lives easier. That has to be what drives our actions, and for too long, government has felt more like a distraction than a fulfillment of the needs of the people who’ve been left behind by the politics of today.

Acyn

31,743 views • 3 months ago

“how does writing from kind of a vampire’s perspective challenge you, as opposed to writing something from your perspective, if that makes sense?” 🦮 we’re in comic-con right now talking about the dark moon. we started that since our debut, and we built that kind of its own fandom base. and, like, it’s so cool to see now because to be 100% honest, we didn’t know that it would be like this when we started it. but like you said, it might be challenging to kind of all thread that together in one album, have that vampire-like story also. but we think of it as like a benefit almost because we know that there’s people… there’s a huge fandom around vampires itself, and we’re very lucky that we built the space around that world that we’re able to kind of talk about it in our album as well. and overall, i think it’s just new ways or ne doors that can be opened into this big kind of thing that we build. yeah, not just our album, not just us, but also just enhypen itself. 🦮 some people might just listen to our music, and they might just like listening to music, that might be it. but some people might really enjoy the vampire aspects of the album. there’s different types of people that can just come together into one album. i think it is challenging at times to time, but we think of it as just another factor that can be used as a benefit.
1:57

“how does writing from kind of a vampire’s perspective challenge you, as opposed to writing something from your perspective, if that makes sense?” 🦮 we’re in comic-con right now talking about the dark moon. we started that since our debut, and we built that kind of its own fandom base. and, like, it’s so cool to see now because to be 100% honest, we didn’t know that it would be like this when we started it. but like you said, it might be challenging to kind of all thread that together in one album, have that vampire-like story also. but we think of it as like a benefit almost because we know that there’s people… there’s a huge fandom around vampires itself, and we’re very lucky that we built the space around that world that we’re able to kind of talk about it in our album as well. and overall, i think it’s just new ways or ne doors that can be opened into this big kind of thing that we build. yeah, not just our album, not just us, but also just enhypen itself. 🦮 some people might just listen to our music, and they might just like listening to music, that might be it. but some people might really enjoy the vampire aspects of the album. there’s different types of people that can just come together into one album. i think it is challenging at times to time, but we think of it as just another factor that can be used as a benefit.

ɪᴄɪᴇʟ. 🐚

15,564 views • 29 days ago

Elon Musk explains why fully autonomous businesses will win “Some of this is going to sound kind of doomerish, but corporations that are purely AI robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop” “Like computer used to be a job that humans had and they’d have like entire skyscrapers full of humans just doing calculations. Now that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet” “That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers. So you can think about, okay, well what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer” “Really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop and this will happen very quickly”
1:21

Elon Musk explains why fully autonomous businesses will win “Some of this is going to sound kind of doomerish, but corporations that are purely AI robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop” “Like computer used to be a job that humans had and they’d have like entire skyscrapers full of humans just doing calculations. Now that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet” “That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers. So you can think about, okay, well what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer” “Really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop and this will happen very quickly”

Jack

61,503 views • 5 months ago

👽 Is The UFO Phenomenon "Attacking" Us and We Just Don't Realize It? 👽 "We're not seeing any aggression right now [from the UFO Phenomenon." ~Mellon "They might have been attacking us for centuries already...through the manipulation of consciousness." ~Levenda (IMO, this is a very limited view of things from Mellon. I'll include more from Levenda after this short transcript.) Christopher K. Mellon: "The research that I've seen - it was quite a while ago, but - makes the logical point that a great deal of the reaction [and] impact will depend on the context. So, let's assume for a moment that things continue as they have been, which is, no aggression, no hostility, surveillance, whatever. A presence, an elusive presence. "That will be received, likely fairly, with less concern and disruption, obviously, than if it was a, you know, 'Independence-Day' scenario. I mean, we don't anticipate...we're not seeing any aggression right now. We have concerns about the seeming interest in DOD facilities, but we're not seeing any kind of hostility. This has been going on for a long, long time. Chances are it'll probably continue more or less as it has, which isn't disrupting or Earth-threatening." (All of that, apparent, interest in our DOD facilities and surveillance, may be misdirection from what the phenomenon is actually doing here. That MUST be considered.) Leslie Kean: "Yeah, that's a really good point. And I think it also depends on what is actually said when the announcement is made, and also what kind of proof is presented. Because they're gonna have to offer something to really prove that this is not just...that this is the real deal." ~~~ (IMO, this is the way we SHOULD look at the phenomenon, and this essay is a big reason why I value Peter Levenda's opinion so highly. I can't recommend it enough and I'll link to the entire thing in the replies.) Levenda: "If people insist on projecting their ideas about humans and human incentives onto the 'alien' and claiming (a) that the 'alien' has no designs on us and only comes in peace, or (b) that since the 'alien' has not attacked us so far even though they could have, easily, then their intentions must be peaceful … etc etc; these are all points of view that are inconsistent with what we do know. By definition, the 'alien' should not be considered 'human' in the sense we understand that term. We have no idea what environment gave rise to the 'alien', what its values are, how it views us. We don’t know what is important to them, and we don’t know what or how they think about what is important to us. We keep projecting our (21st century North American) ideas, concepts, and conceits onto a Phenomenon about which we know virtually nothing. Ironically, the less we know about It the easier that projection becomes. We accept that their technology is somehow superior to ours, without being able to define 'superior' in that context, instead of just 'other'. Some of us assume that if the 'alien' has superior technology then it must be spiritually or morally superior as well. When has that ever been the case on this planet in all of our recorded history? Technologically advanced civilizations routinely invade, colonize, and brutalize less advanced ones. Thus, we have no expectation – based purely on our own experience as human beings of planet Earth – that another race would be benign. In fact, we would have to anticipate the worst. "A better approach might be to ascertain whether the 'alien' is hostile rather than 'evil': hostile to all humans, hostile to some humans, hostile to other life forms on our planet, etc. There are those who insist that this cannot be the case, that if they are hostile they would have wiped us out already. We have already addressed that argument above, but briefly: we can’t assume that they would act the way we have acted in our history. Their life expectancy, timelines and schedules might be extremely long compared to ours. Or extremely short. We simply don’t know and should not assume anything. "Hostility implies intent: that they 'intend' to destroy us somehow. They have not done so, the argument goes, so they must not be hostile. The problem with this argument is that we are assuming they would manifest their hostility by blowing something up, or attacking us the way we attack and invade our enemies. They might have been attacking us for centuries already, in ways that make sense to them and which further an agenda we can’t begin to imagine or understand. "What if they are attacking us through the manipulation of consciousness? That sounds far-fetched, but we have been doing that ourselves for a long time. It’s called psychological warfare, and includes propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, etc. including – again ironically – using the UFO Phenomenon as a means of distracting us from our own secret weapons systems. "Many contactees report communication with the 'alien' by means of telepathy. That automatically presents us with the possibility that human consciousness may be vulnerable to direct outside interference or manipulation by the 'alien.' "We are simply not trying hard enough to understand the 'alien'. "We must proceed on the assumption that the Phenomenon is dangerous to us (perhaps in ways we can’t imagine, and I can’t stress that enough) and proceed slowly and carefully."
1:18

👽 Is The UFO Phenomenon "Attacking" Us and We Just Don't Realize It? 👽 "We're not seeing any aggression right now [from the UFO Phenomenon." ~Mellon "They might have been attacking us for centuries already...through the manipulation of consciousness." ~Levenda (IMO, this is a very limited view of things from Mellon. I'll include more from Levenda after this short transcript.) Christopher K. Mellon: "The research that I've seen - it was quite a while ago, but - makes the logical point that a great deal of the reaction [and] impact will depend on the context. So, let's assume for a moment that things continue as they have been, which is, no aggression, no hostility, surveillance, whatever. A presence, an elusive presence. "That will be received, likely fairly, with less concern and disruption, obviously, than if it was a, you know, 'Independence-Day' scenario. I mean, we don't anticipate...we're not seeing any aggression right now. We have concerns about the seeming interest in DOD facilities, but we're not seeing any kind of hostility. This has been going on for a long, long time. Chances are it'll probably continue more or less as it has, which isn't disrupting or Earth-threatening." (All of that, apparent, interest in our DOD facilities and surveillance, may be misdirection from what the phenomenon is actually doing here. That MUST be considered.) Leslie Kean: "Yeah, that's a really good point. And I think it also depends on what is actually said when the announcement is made, and also what kind of proof is presented. Because they're gonna have to offer something to really prove that this is not just...that this is the real deal." ~~~ (IMO, this is the way we SHOULD look at the phenomenon, and this essay is a big reason why I value Peter Levenda's opinion so highly. I can't recommend it enough and I'll link to the entire thing in the replies.) Levenda: "If people insist on projecting their ideas about humans and human incentives onto the 'alien' and claiming (a) that the 'alien' has no designs on us and only comes in peace, or (b) that since the 'alien' has not attacked us so far even though they could have, easily, then their intentions must be peaceful … etc etc; these are all points of view that are inconsistent with what we do know. By definition, the 'alien' should not be considered 'human' in the sense we understand that term. We have no idea what environment gave rise to the 'alien', what its values are, how it views us. We don’t know what is important to them, and we don’t know what or how they think about what is important to us. We keep projecting our (21st century North American) ideas, concepts, and conceits onto a Phenomenon about which we know virtually nothing. Ironically, the less we know about It the easier that projection becomes. We accept that their technology is somehow superior to ours, without being able to define 'superior' in that context, instead of just 'other'. Some of us assume that if the 'alien' has superior technology then it must be spiritually or morally superior as well. When has that ever been the case on this planet in all of our recorded history? Technologically advanced civilizations routinely invade, colonize, and brutalize less advanced ones. Thus, we have no expectation – based purely on our own experience as human beings of planet Earth – that another race would be benign. In fact, we would have to anticipate the worst. "A better approach might be to ascertain whether the 'alien' is hostile rather than 'evil': hostile to all humans, hostile to some humans, hostile to other life forms on our planet, etc. There are those who insist that this cannot be the case, that if they are hostile they would have wiped us out already. We have already addressed that argument above, but briefly: we can’t assume that they would act the way we have acted in our history. Their life expectancy, timelines and schedules might be extremely long compared to ours. Or extremely short. We simply don’t know and should not assume anything. "Hostility implies intent: that they 'intend' to destroy us somehow. They have not done so, the argument goes, so they must not be hostile. The problem with this argument is that we are assuming they would manifest their hostility by blowing something up, or attacking us the way we attack and invade our enemies. They might have been attacking us for centuries already, in ways that make sense to them and which further an agenda we can’t begin to imagine or understand. "What if they are attacking us through the manipulation of consciousness? That sounds far-fetched, but we have been doing that ourselves for a long time. It’s called psychological warfare, and includes propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, etc. including – again ironically – using the UFO Phenomenon as a means of distracting us from our own secret weapons systems. "Many contactees report communication with the 'alien' by means of telepathy. That automatically presents us with the possibility that human consciousness may be vulnerable to direct outside interference or manipulation by the 'alien.' "We are simply not trying hard enough to understand the 'alien'. "We must proceed on the assumption that the Phenomenon is dangerous to us (perhaps in ways we can’t imagine, and I can’t stress that enough) and proceed slowly and carefully."

Joe Murgia

26,067 views • 2 months ago

We have all heard of the Japanese researcher, 'Dr Masaru Emoto', whose experiments showed how our attitude, WORDS, thoughts, MUSIC, emotions, actions, and SOUND 'dynamically' effect WATER in a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE way. Literally changing the structure. As WE are around 70% water, SHOULD we be 'mindful' of what we bring into our bodies, not just in the PHYSICAL sense. The science (some say is pseudoscience) of EPIGENETICS is said to prove that our body's ability to HEAL and REPAIR itself is greatly affected by our ATTITUDE, and that our DNA can literally be REPROGRAMMED Well, if this IS pseudoscience, our attitude is STILL something we should consider in any case. Everything has its own signature FREQUENCY, and we know the positive and negative EFFECTS of certain 'frequencies' on our body. Some believe it's through these 'frequencies' that WE are able to be 'controlled'... BUT is it less 'effective' depending on 'our' ATTITUDE? Could it act as a COUNTERMEASURE?...
0:20

We have all heard of the Japanese researcher, 'Dr Masaru Emoto', whose experiments showed how our attitude, WORDS, thoughts, MUSIC, emotions, actions, and SOUND 'dynamically' effect WATER in a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE way. Literally changing the structure. As WE are around 70% water, SHOULD we be 'mindful' of what we bring into our bodies, not just in the PHYSICAL sense. The science (some say is pseudoscience) of EPIGENETICS is said to prove that our body's ability to HEAL and REPAIR itself is greatly affected by our ATTITUDE, and that our DNA can literally be REPROGRAMMED Well, if this IS pseudoscience, our attitude is STILL something we should consider in any case. Everything has its own signature FREQUENCY, and we know the positive and negative EFFECTS of certain 'frequencies' on our body. Some believe it's through these 'frequencies' that WE are able to be 'controlled'... BUT is it less 'effective' depending on 'our' ATTITUDE? Could it act as a COUNTERMEASURE?...

WhatdoIknow

63,276 views • 2 years ago

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."
3:44

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

123,564 views • 5 months ago

They are all the same. They think the same way, that is why we are different and it is important for us to stay in our different countries. What he is saying makes sense to many Nigerians but to many of us it makes not sense, it is nonsense!
2:05

They are all the same. They think the same way, that is why we are different and it is important for us to stay in our different countries. What he is saying makes sense to many Nigerians but to many of us it makes not sense, it is nonsense!

Nitos Mitros🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦

17,984 views • 1 month ago

INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN IS PRIORITY: Usha Vance was asked about her efforts to help the literacy rate of children increase, and it's something she's PASSIONATE about: "I think one way we can kind of counteract that is giving them the tools they need to be able to think critically and pursue whatever it is that they care about, but also the gift of concentration and focus in a really challenging world and I see childhood literacy is the start of all that." Our children are the FUTURE of the country, and we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to ensure that they have a foundational education that sets them up for SUCCESS!
6:20

INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN IS PRIORITY: Usha Vance was asked about her efforts to help the literacy rate of children increase, and it's something she's PASSIONATE about: "I think one way we can kind of counteract that is giving them the tools they need to be able to think critically and pursue whatever it is that they care about, but also the gift of concentration and focus in a really challenging world and I see childhood literacy is the start of all that." Our children are the FUTURE of the country, and we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to ensure that they have a foundational education that sets them up for SUCCESS!

Gunther Eagleman™

30,287 views • 6 months ago