Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Working with animals 🐈 🐨 🐴 🦆 and fire 🔥....what could possibly go wrong?? 😂 Watch these funny bloopers and out-takes and don't let our Aussie firefighters hard earned efforts go to waste... get your 2025 calendars now so we can continue this 32 year tradition! ❤️ @australianfirefighterscalendar #消防队员...

11,891 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

YOUR REACTION: Following vote to hold him in contempt for withholding subpoenaed Biden audio tapes, Attorney General Garland rages, says, "There have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department." WATCH "We have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committees get responses to their legitimate requests. But this is not one to the contrary. This is one that would harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations. "Now, there have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department. This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just the most recent. The effort to threaten to defund our investigations and the way in which there are contributions to an atmosphere that puts our agents and our prosecutors at risk. These are wrong. "Look, the only thing I can do is continue to do the right thing. I will protect this building and its people. "Why don't we respond? You can answer this just now, but I was wondering, like, you know, what these, this combined with the efforts to defund Jack Smith and the other attacks on Biden, administration officials say about, you know, the broader effort to discredit you and to discredit the Justice Department, and also, how would you manage that? How are you resisting that, and what can you do about that? "As attorney general, we have to go about our work following the federal principles of prosecution. As I said, we follow the facts and the law. We screen out outside inappropriate influences. That's what we're doing here. We're protecting our ability to continue to do high profile and sensitive investigations, and we will continue to do that. "Seems vanishing. The acts now seem vanishingly small that the two Jack Smith federal cases are going to begin trial, let alone finish trial this year. What does that say about the pace of the justice system and confidence in this Justice Department? "Look, the special counsel brought both cases last year. He appropriately requested speedy trials. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary, and I'm not going to be able to comment any further."

Simon Ateba

710,407 views • 2 years ago

Many say that the catastrophic fires ravaging Los Angeles weren’t the fault of Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass. Fires are inevitable in Los Angeles, and the water ran out because no water system could withstand that many fires simultaneously, they add. But LA firefighters themselves disagree. They say the reason they arrived too late to stop the fires from becoming catastrophic was because of severe budget cuts. The Fire Department did not pre-deploy fire engines to strategic locations, and helicopters arrived half an hour too late to put out the Palisades. “That [Santa Ynez] reservoir being closed did not allow helicopters to drop and suck water up from five minutes away,” a new firefighter whistleblower, the third who has come forward, told me. “Instead, they had to fly 10 to 15 minutes away to go get water somewhere else.” The problem is that the LA Fire Department is one of the most severely understaffed of America’s 10 largest cities. It has less than a single firefighter per 1,000 residents compared to Chicago, Dallas, and Houston, which have twice as many. “ In 1960, our city population was 2.5 million, and we had 112 fire stations. In 2020, our city population was 3.9 million, and we had 106 stations,” a representative of LA’s firefighters ’ union testified last month. “That's 1.4 million more people and six fewer fire stations.” This undermines the Department’s ability to respond to emergencies. “In 2020, the average emergency response time was seven minutes and 53 seconds, nearly double the NFPA recommendation.” Part of the problem is that the number of homeless fires in LA doubled between 2020 and 2023 to an astonishing 38 per day. They start dangerous fires in many ways, including by breaking through the sidewalk into the city’s electrical system, which can result in explosions and death. Still, many say, it is wrong to blame homelessness for LA’s fires. They are victims of trauma and poverty. But the research is unequivocal. Over half of all fires that the LA Fire Department responds to are set by a homeless person. "There were two huge explosions, and when I looked out my apartment window, I saw plumes of black smoke," a resident told NBC-Los Angeles. "People are literally dying in the streets, in tents burning down around them.” And the evidence is clear: leaving homeless people on the street makes them three times more likely to die than people required to come inside to sleep in shelters. The third firefighter whistleblower says the firefighters are being put in danger by budget cuts. “Even last week,” the person said, “I wanted to work and I was told, ‘Sorry dude, we don't have a seat for you to fill because there's not enough apparatuses,’” meaning fire engines or other equipment. One hundred fire engines and other apparatus are currently out of service because the city cut the Fire Department’s budget, and it couldn’t afford to hire mechanics to fix equipment. “We have a crack about halfway down our water tank. Half of our [engines and other] apparatuses are broken. They were sending rookies, new probationary firefighters, out to the field last year with no department-required brush jackets.” The firefighters lack life-saving equipment. “We were running out of electrodes to do EKGs,” the person said. “We've been running out of gloves. We've been running out of drugs, you name it. There's been ambulances that have been having to steal stuff or borrow stuff from the hospitals just to stay available.” At the meeting last month, the president of the city’s firefighters union warned, “If we cut one position, if we close one station… the residents of Los Angeles are going to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and someone will die.” All this and yet Los Angeles is one of the richest cities in the world. Eighty-four of America’s richest 400 people live in California, and LA is home to 26 billionaires who collectively possess a net worth of approximately $185 billion. “It kills us when we see holes in the system,” said the whistleblower, “and we aren’t able to do the job we expect of ourselves, and if we had the appropriate resources and staffing, I don’t think any of the fires were inevitable. I know for a fact it would not be what it is. We saw my particular fire engine in maintenance for a year and a half.” Some politicians are demanding reform. ”There are large swaths of the city with no emergency response resources available,” said Councilmember Traci Park, who urged more funding for firefighting last year. “ I think that people are rightly upset, not only that this happened, but there is a sense that we as local leaders needed to do more for them. I feel like I let them down, and I've been screaming about it from the day I came in.” As such, the problem is not poverty, it is severe mismanagement and bad governance. Not only is the city’s mismanagement to blame for LA’s disastrous response to the fire, but it’s also responsible for the city’s ongoing homelessness disaster. Why is that? Part of the reason is the city’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programs. “The city will only purchase from vendors that support DEI,” said the firefighter. “So we'll go with a vendor that we have to pay twice as much, or the shipment may take twice as long, in order for it to be a DEI vendor rather than the vendor who has it at half the price and can get it to us tomorrow.” The whistleblower said that DEI programs put firefighters and the public in danger. “I personally witnessed in my own drill tower them making and passing women just to get their [female quota] numbers even though they didn't have to meet all the criteria the men did....” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

254,969 views • 1 year ago

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE

1tokki

3,756,494 views • 1 year ago

🚨 WATCH: Nigel Farage's New Year message to Britain "As 2025 draws to a close, I can’t remember the country ever being gloomier. People are getting poorer. More people are becoming unemployed. Inflation is proving sticky and our debt is running completely out of control, with a Chancellor who doesn’t seem to have a clue what she’s doing. "Worse than that, people are frightened now to walk down the street wearing a watch, wearing jewellery. Oh, and by the way, if you see anything rude on Facebook, you may well get a knock at the door! Well, I’ve come here today to Greenwich to have a think about what this country used to be, what it represented, and what it can become. "Greenwich was here at the very height of Britain’s naval power. And that wasn’t just about winning the Battle of Trafalgar and it wasn’t just about building the biggest empire the world had ever seen. It was also about a Royal Navy that spent decades, at huge cost, driving slavery off the high seas. We have an enormous amount of our past to be proud of, and yet our education system under both of the last governments now teaches our kids to be ashamed of the past. "Well, the first thing a Reform government will do is make sure kids are taught correctly about our history. But if you look behind these magnificent buildings, you see Canary Wharf, you see the 21st century, and not just traditional stocks and shares and bonds, but a whole new world developing: a world of cryptocurrencies, a world of AI, a world of digital assets. "And neither the Conservative or Labour seem to even understand this world in any way at all. Let me promise you that we do. These are the technologies of growth as we head forward in this century. But none of it can be done unless we produce our own energy, lots of it, and at cheap rates. Because of fanatical net zero policies, we will literally be left behind. "One in seven of you own a digital asset of some kind. Yet the government, the authorities, simply don’t seem to care. And that’s the point. We need change in this country, real change. And if we go on voting for the same old parties, I promise you nothing will change. "Think, just in the last few days, of the El-Fattah case. Here’s a guy that’s come out of Egypt, come back to Britain, who’s put out the most abominable, hateful tweets about killing Jews, killing white people, fighting the police. And this man was given citizenship by the Conservative Party and welcomed back into Britain by the Labour Party. Frankly, there is little to choose between the two. "We’re the people offering hope. We’re the people offering change. And 2025 showed you, with those county elections which we won comfortably, what we are capable of. As we look forward to 2026, we have a massive set of elections: the whole of Scotland and Wales, all 32 London boroughs and thousands of council seats all over the country. "And yet, what are we now seeing? We’re seeing a Labour government saying to those councils that if you want to cancel the elections, in some cases for the second year in a row, you can do so. And already East and West Sussex, controlled by the Conservatives, have said, thank you very much, we’ll cancel the elections. That is the kind of authoritarian country that we are now living in. "They’re even beginning to take away our right to vote. Well, they’ll cancel some, but most of those elections will go ahead. They will be the single most important set of elections between now and the next general election. "I’ll make this prediction: if Reform win those elections, if we come top, it will put us way ahead of the other parties. Already, we’ve led for 175 opinion polls in a row. Our average lead is 10%. If we get this right on May the 7th this year, we will go on and win that general election. "We will then absolutely have a chance of genuinely, fundamentally changing the whole system of government in Britain. We may well be the last chance this country has to actually restore some proper values. "Those are family, community, country, the ones upon which I based this policy when I founded it in the very beginning. But we cannot do this without you. And you will not get the change you want without us. "So let me ask you one thing. Please make it your New Year’s resolution to do something. Support Reform. Join Reform. Go out and spread the message that we are the party of hope. "We are the party of change. And we are genuinely the last chance for Britain"

Politics UK

93,303 views • 6 months ago

HORRIFYING‼️ Our Food Is About To Be Poisoned With NEW “Transgenic Edible Vaccines” 💉☣️ They’re Being Funded Right Now BY TAXPAYERS, mRNA Food Vaccine FACTORIES 🚨 “The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to fund any grant related to any transgenic edible vaccine. Does the term transgenic edible vaccine sound far-fetched? Well, it's not. We're funding it. In fact, scientists from the University of California, Riverside, funded with your taxpayer dollars, have been studying whether they can turn edible plants such as lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine factories, thereby creating a transgenic edible vaccine. One associate professor at UCR explained that, ideally a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person. We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens. Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it. I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think the American people should be funding this. And I think, and I would hope, that we've learned something from the COVID experience with SARS-CoV-2, that some of our science projects aren't the best ideas. And with that, I reserve. Gentlemen from Kentucky is recognized. My colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about keeping prices low. I think there's more to it than that for the American people. He also speaks as if these vaccines, these transgenic edible plant vaccines, are only used for livestock. Well, in fact, they have been used for livestock. I'll get to that in a second. But they're also being used for people. That is the intended outcome of many of these programs that we are funding, funding with money from the USDA. What could possibly go wrong with this research? Well, we found out a few years ago when a biotech company was experimenting growing in corn a vaccine to keep pigs from getting diarrhea. What happened? Well, the next year where the corn was grown, the prior year the corn came up, and it got co-mingled with soybeans that were being grown there. It contaminated 500 bushels of soybeans, which were then co-mingled with 500,000 bushels of soybeans. And those all had to be recalled and destroyed. Luckily, they caught it. Do we want humans eating vaccines that were grown in corn meant to stop pigs from getting diarrhea? I don't think we want that to happen. Yet that almost happened, and it could happen. There's another case where the pollen cross-contaminated another crop of corn, and 155 acres of corn had to be burned. What are the cases where we're not discovering this? I think it's dangerous to play God with our food. I think we need a safe food supply. And this is about food safety. Ultimately, the people in this country need to know what's in their food. And if we start contaminating the DNA of our food with DNA from other animals or viruses, the pollen could spread, and we don't know what could happen. And I would hope we've learned a lesson from the Wuhan lab that sometimes things escape sometimes things don't go as you plan and so that's why i think it's a bad idea to fund transgenic edible plant vaccine research from the u.s. day i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky those in favor say aye those opposed say no in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the amendment is agreed to”

Wall Street Apes

494,593 views • 2 years ago

Junkyu being open about his burnout and how he overcame that phase is something that truly amazed me. His beautiful words that encourage everyone why pacing yourself actually matters 🥺🤍 🐨: I actually went through myself a burnout recently… was it in 2025? It’s not that I started to hate music, but when it came to making music, to working on it, I hit burnout. I really did. Nothing felt fun anymore, and no matter what I did, I just couldn’t move forward. No matter what—seriously, no matter what. 🐨: I work on music on my Mac, right? and I didn’t turn it on for a whole year. A year? Maybe even a year and a half? Since sometime in late 2024? It’s not that I chose not to turn it on—I couldn’t. That thought kept coming to me, “Even if I turn it on, nothing will come out” or maybe, “Even if I turn it on, I won’t get anywhere close to what I want”. My interest just… how should I say it… completely dropped. So I couldn’t turn it on. I was scared—scared that I’d have to face that feeling again. So I kept my distance from it. 🐨: But this time, starting in Korea and then going on tour, meeting TEUMEs a lot as we move through 2025 and into 2026, without even realizing it, I felt refreshed. Like I’d been aired out and I thought, “Huh? should I try again?”, “I kind of want to do it again”. “I want to go back to when I really enjoyed this”. “I want to try again—the thing I loved back then. So I finally made up my mind and turned it on. and when I did… it had been so long that I got chills. I’d forgotten everything—the details, the keys, everything. “How did I even do this before?”, “What values did I use?” I’d forgotten it all. 🐨: I completely panicked. I thought, “Oh… is this how it ends?”, “Is this how I lose the thing I love?” I was honestly really scared. And then another thought came to me “turn a crisis into an opportunity”. Maybe this is a chance for me to find something else I love. Maybe I should let it go. I was almost halfway in a state of giving up. But somehow, my body followed through anyway. My hands kept moving—on their own. Somehow, I knew what to do, how to do it. and naturally, without stopping, the flow didn’t break. So maybe I want to stay with music for a really long time in my life. And I think this process of slowing myself down a bit was part of that. Looking back now, the pace had been way too fast, and I couldn’t control myself. I’d pushed myself to the limit of what I could create, and after that, there was nothing left. 🐨: At that point, I was kind of cruel to myself. I blamed myself for everything… It’s a really bad habit, I think, but it just happens reflexively. So I was really hard on myself. That’s when I realized I needed to take a step back, give myself some distance, and look at things over a longer period of time. Yeah… if you just move at your own pace—not faster, not slower—you can do something for a long time. So I think if you want to spend your life with something you really love—whatever it is—you can’t go too fast. If your passion just burns up too quickly, it can cause problems. That’s why pacing yourself matters. If you manage your pace, you can live your life alongside the things you love for a long, long time. I really felt it this time. And because of that, I was so happy. Being able to do what I love again brought back so many memories, and it felt like I’d returned to those days when I used to enjoy it so purely. That made me incredibly happy.

ᯓ★

43,569 views • 5 months ago

Sucharit Bhakdi describes how not only the mRNA Covid injections—but any and all mRNA injections—"set the Book of Life on fire" via the creation of DNA–RNA hybrids. These hybrids, Bhakdi says, damage the genome, causing tumors, autoimmune disease, miscarriages, and death. This clip of Bhakdi, a retired Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and former Chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, is taken from a discussion with Charles Kovess (Charles Kovess) et al. posted to Rumble on December 16, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "They made the mod RNA on the plasmids. After that, these were, of course came off and they tried to destroy most of the DNA, but they didn't because it's not easy to destroy so much DNA plasmid. And so what Kevin McKernan found three years ago was that the vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it. Okay. "But anyway, we won't go into what they found then, but just that they found a lot of DNA and they published this. And what did the authorities say is that, oh, well, it doesn't matter, they won't do any harm. Right? Just don't, don't think about it. Yeah. They've done so much good. They've saved so many millions of lives. So why not put some DNA into it? "Now that DNA, of course, was also impackaged in these lipid nanoparticles. And it was clear that this DNA would enter cells. And that is actually what our colleagues showed last year. That was their first publication, the InModia publication that came out last year, that showed that the DNA that was in the vaccine vials did enter cells, human cells in culture, and remain stable in cells for days. Okay. As also was the mod RNA now. "But they said. Poo poo, never mind. Don't worry, be happy. Okay, nothing will happen. Now, guys, things have changed radically and dramatically because of the latest discovery that Kevin McKernan made just three weeks ago. Just three weeks ago. "When a gene is transcribed in the chromosome. So, going back to the first part again, okay? This comes off. Then, there are always little accidents that happen during the production. Byproducts that are not supposed to be there. And the byproducts that are generated during every transcription is that some strand, some mRNA don't detach from the DNA where they're formed. And what happens is that hybrids of DNA and RNA come off together. "So it's the MRNA and the corresponding DNA, they come off as hybrids. And these hybrids are dangerous. Okay. They're sort of like, sparks of a sparkler, okay. And many of them come off. And these sparks have to be extinguished immediately. So there's an enzyme in the cell called RNase H. Now normal physicians don't know about this. I didn't. I had to read up on this because Jessica Rose said read up on RNase H, and that's what I did, okay? And the RNase H takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately. "Because if they don't, then they cause, by different mechanisms, damage, to the chromosome. They, they, they can set the chromosomes on fire. Little fires light up, and the chromosomes get damaged where the fires come. Okay? Now what this will cause is haphazard. It can do anything. It can cause everything and nothing, okay? Depending on where the fires take place. But, for sure, most of the fires will cause dangerous damage. And as a result, you can get any illness that you see in the textbooks of medicine. "Anything and everything, including, of course, sorry, tumors, okay? Neoplastic disease, autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, of course, dead births, or death. It's clear you don't want to have your Book of Life be put on fire. You know, I, I talked about the, the genes and the chromosomes as the books of life, and I still do. And they can be set on fire. And that's what happens if these hybrids are not extinguished. "I've been giving interviews every week now, all right? I talked to Gary Null last week, and told him this, and I'm telling you this, and this is going around the world, okay? Is this is akin to attempted murder. And I tell you, I call on all the physicians in the world. Don't do it. It's not a good idea, okay? Because if you do so, you will be charged for attempted murder. "And the wonderful thing is that this is not only the COVID vaccine, it is all mod RNA vaccines. You know that you have new mod RNA vaccines coming on the market without anyone knowing that they're there. There's the flu vaccine mod RNA vaccine that's out already, and so on and so forth. There are, I think, veterinary vaccines that are being used on animals, mRNA based. But, they will always be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids. "And it is the duty of all authorities, controlling authorities, to not turn around, and say, never mind, if they don't look now, they are going to be facing court. They will be facing court because they are not fulfilling their duties."

Sense Receptor

50,143 views • 7 months ago

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

37,596 views • 4 months ago

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

Joe Murgia

18,951 views • 4 months ago

#WilliamEst #วิลเลี่ยมเอส ———— [2025 Year in Review] 🎸: Wow, that's a great question. Let me take my time with this... 🦈: This is going to be a long story—could probably talk about it for an hour. 🎸: If I had to summarize briefly, I feel like I've been constantly growing. More people know us now, and I feel like I've put more of myself into each project. The longer you're in this industry, the more you want to make your work better. 🦈: Honestly, this year has been like a roller coaster. Full of ups and downs, full of changes. But I think it's been an amazing year because we've really been through so much. This was also the year ThamePo aired, and seeing everything that's happened, I'm really happy. 🦈: I'm happy too. We often say we hope to keep growing together. From being paired up, auditioning together, being cast as the leads of ThamePo—back then we weren't even sure if we could work as a CP, if we'd get along, how the project would turn out, or if people would like us. But having come this far and been through so much, I think as long as you believe in yourself and believe in your partner... In the end, I'm just really happy to be where we are today, and I'm incredibly grateful for our fans' tremendous support. [Surprises of 2025] 🎸: Speaking of surprises, I'd say it's today. Because I never imagined I could win an acting award. This really exceeded my expectations. Receiving this award motivates me even more to act and to learn. I feel like I'm still lacking in this area—I've often asked P'Est or others for advice, just wanting to keep getting better. 🦈: There have been many memorable moments, but I also want to say today. I'm really happy to receive this award. I actually have a lot of trophies at home, but they're all from swimming competitions—from school to university, to national and international competitions. I never thought I could win an award outside of swimming. Today I received my first entertainment industry award, and my mom even texted saying she's proud of me. I'm happy to make the people around me proud, and I'm happy I chose this path. This award is also proof that I made the right choice. [Goals for 2026] 🎸: My goal for next year is to become a better actor. I want to keep improving my skills. 🎸: Also, I want to release solo single. I want to try and explore more different things, including various music styles. 🦈: I hope more people will pay attention to our work, and I hope more people will discover us. I also hope that both William's and my individual projects, as well as our collaborative work, can take us further. [Three Songs for 2025] 🦈: When it comes to three songs that represent 2025, everyone knows ระหว่างทาง (Along the Way) has to be one of them. 🦈: The lyrics of this song really fit us. We often say the road to success isn't easy, but because we have each other, it doesn't feel as hard. 🦈: There's also ยังคู่กัน (Still Together). We're still together, just like William said at the ThamePo Final EP—no matter what the future holds, we're still WilliamEst. 🦈: The last one is Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You. Nothing can change our love for each other. Because I feel like we've already been through so many difficult things, and if something difficult happens again in the future, it won't be as hard as before. Even if it is hard, it can no longer change us. 🎸: Yes. My first choice is also ระหว่างทาง (Along the Way). I chose this song because getting to this point, standing here—it's been really hard. I never imagined what life would be like now, how many twists and drama we'd go through. But we faced problems together, learned together, and now everything is on track. This song is really touching. 🎸: Another one is คนสุดท้าย (The Last One). This song was also played at our fan meeting. We talked from the very beginning about how much we love this song, including because of the lyrics. I might have never said this before, but if I ever get to do another BL or something like that in the future, P'Est is my only partner. There won't be anyone else. 🎸: He's the first and the last. I don't want to get to know and adjust to a new person anymore because it's too exhausting. From getting to know each other, to truly understanding each other, to the chemistry we have now—this journey has been really difficult. So I've always thought this in my heart, and I've always believed it: I hope he's truly the last one. MC: How do you feel hearing this? 🦈: I'm very touched hearing this. Actually, I've always had this sense of security. When I feel uncertain, he's always the one who stays firm. Even though I know how he feels, having him say it in front of the media and everyone still surprises me. Because we really went through times when we never thought we'd be where we are today, so deep down I'd already prepared myself for all kinds of possibilities. But when those things didn't happen, I actually felt relieved, and in the end it made this relationship even stronger. 🎸: The last song is สิ่งที่มีกำลังเกิด (What's Happening). Every line, every part of this song really hits deep. It's like two people from different worlds meeting and then walking hand in hand—like some kind of destined fate. So I chose this one.

SUDA

58,468 views • 6 months ago

The Naked Truth ‼️ Sometimes People Don't Want To Hear The Truth Because They Don't Want Their Illusions Destroyed MUST WATCH: The most important interview of our time Russia-Ukraine War The Best Explaned Jeffrey Sachs: Biden Has DESTROYED Ukraine, More Funding Would Be INSANE ➡️The longer it continues, the less there will be of Ukraine. ➡️Russia will capture more territory. ➡️Russia will capture Odessa, Kiev. ➡️It was about NATO enlargement, where the Russians said, no NATO on our borders. ➡️Americans who were following this, like our CIA director Bill Burns, who was then the US ambassador to Russia in 2008, said, this is crazy. No way. ➡️The entire russian political class is against this. ➡️But Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, they just barged ahead. They've wrecked everything. ➡️That's our american foreign policy. That's when this war started. This war didn't start in February 2022. It started in February 2014. It started with Nuland. It started with Blinken. It started with Sullivan. It started with Biden, who was a key person in that whole thing. ➡️Putin escalated. He didn't start the war. 📑Well, first of all, this is purely money down the drain. So if they want to rip up another $61 billion, which is not chump change, they seem intent on doing it, but it will mean nothing except more destruction for Ukraine. The fact of the matter is, if you don't listen to the nonsense in our mainstream media but listen to your show and others, people would know that this war has destroyed Ukraine. And the longer it continues, the less there will be of Ukraine. It's very simple, actually. If this goes on longer, Russia will capture more territory. If it goes on long enough, Russia will capture Odessa, Kiev. If we continue the way we're doing, and this is a Biden project that goes back ten years now, will completely destroy Ukraine. So the idea that this is siding with Ukraine is absurd. Anyone who really follows events knows that we're not siding with Ukraine. We have paid for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to go to the front lines and die for more and more territory to be lost. Because the most basic point of this war, which is that we overthrew a government in Ukraine in 2014 that wanted neutrality so that we could push NATO enlargement, was reckless, stupid, and doomed to fail, and it failed. Now Biden is just trying to hide the failure to get past November, but the failure is seen on the battleground every day. If the Republicans play into this, its unbelievable shame on them. Theyre basically on the right side, although Biden bludgeons them every day. Youll be the one to lose Ukraine. Well, the truth of the matter is Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine for a decade. The disaster is there in the graves of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and lost territory. This is a war that never should have happened. It was about NATO enlargement, where the Russians said, no NATO on our borders. And Americans who were following this, like our CIA director Bill Burns, who was then the US ambassador to Russia in 2008, said, this is crazy. No way. The entire russian political class is against this. But Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, they just barged ahead. They've wrecked everything. And now they want another $61 billion to get them past November. It's a disgrace. It's completely a disgrace. To play devil's advocate. Let me give you the other side and then allow you to respond to that. What do you say to people that maybe acknowledge there were certainly missteps with the expansion of NATO and the provocation, but nevertheless, Russia chose to respond to that with an invasion. The situation in Ukraine is due to that invasion. And so what do you say to people who think, well, so we are now responding to that invasion by funding, not committing american troops, but funding a resistance in Ukraine that wants to continue fighting? Well, yeah, the war began ten years ago when Victoria Nuland not only passed out cookies on Maidan, but engaged in insurrection to violently overthrow a government in Ukraine. Pretty stupid. Pretty stupid to have a regime change operation on a country with the 2000 kilometer border with Russia. That's our american foreign policy. That's when this war started. This war didn't start in February 2022. It started in February 2014. It started with Nuland. It started with Blinken. It started with Sullivan. It started with Biden, who was a key person in that whole thing. And then the fighting went on for ten years. And then in December 2021, Putin said, look, stop the NATO enlargement. We can avoid an escalation. I talked to the White House at that point. Nah, we don't stop anything. They just thought they had all the cards. We're going to cut them out of this SWIFT banking system. We're going to bring the economy to the knees. Bunch of nonsense by ignorant people. And so Putin escalated. He didn't start the war. He escalated the war. And within, basically a week, Zelenskyy said, okay, okay, okay, we can be neutral. And the Turks mediated negotiations. And then, though the US government wants to hide all of these facts, which are sitting out there for those who know where to find them, the US intervened and told the Ukrainians, you keep fighting. And we have our senators who say, this is the best the money can buy, because it's Ukrainians dying, not Americans. They're weakening Russia. Well, they're not weakening Russia, but they are killing Ukrainians. So this is not responding to Putin's invasion. The war started ten years ago, and we kept refusing every off ramp till this day, Robbie, you know, you hear Putin say, and if you listen, every day, we're open to negotiations. And then these fools in the US government say, there's no one to negotiate. They don't want to negotiate. And then President Putin says, oh, we're open to negotiation. Oh, there's no one to negotiate, is what we hear from the US side. This is just narrative. It's destroyed Ukraine, and they just rip up money like there's no tomorrow. So another 61 billion. And now I hear from. From you that the latest plan is to take the illegally confiscated assets of Russia because there's no legal basis to do this and use that. That'll be really great for the international financial system. I'll tell you. Because these are people who don't think ahead one day. They just improvise day by day, and then they'll find out, oh, things don't work out so well for the US dollar, for the US as reserve currency for the US place in the world, because these people are acting like clowns, frankly, day by day, not thinking ahead, doubling down on lost gambles and everything to tell a story so that they can get to the elections in the way they see fit. Professor, I want to ask you about how the United States gets out of this now, because I'm reminded of conversations that surrounded the war in Afghanistan for years, which was that we shouldn't have gotten into it. This is a mistake. But now we've destabilized the country. We're in neck deep. We can't just stop funding and abandon this project. And that's a hamster wheel of sorts, right? So there are some people that I think are gonna listen to this and say, well, I agree with everything you're saying, but what do you do at this point? Is it just a sunk cost? Or is there some obligation to unwind this in a way that's responsible and doesn't leave Ukrainians high and dry? Ukrainians are high and dry no matter what we do. We've killed nearly half a million of them through this stupid project. And the ones that throw good money after bad are the ones themselves that are personally culpable for this. This is Biden's project. So this is the first starting point. You don't throw good lives after those already dead and good money after bad when you have an absolute failure and disaster on your hands. By the way, this is like every american effort. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam. The same words said about Vietnam. We do this over and over and over again in the US because our so called leaders have no sense and they don't think ahead. So, yes, we have to stop this. But the one thing that we don't do, and it's really a bit of a mystery to me, it's the worst I've seen in my whole lifetime. We don't negotiate. Does Biden call Putin, say, we need to talk? No, that would be weakness. That would be appeasement. They don't even have the idea that you negotiate anything. And, you know, if you try everything by a military approach and a failed one, and you do it in these proxy wars where it's the people themselves in these countries that are dying on the front lines, and you don't know anything about diplomacy? Well, you make a complete mess of the world. And so the answer is the first thing is the US and Russia should talk to each other because there's a cause of this war and that's NATO enlargement. And by the way, that's no secret and that's not propaganda. Even the secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that absolutely explicitly, as did the top negotiator for Zelensky, Davyd Arakhamia. This is a war about NATO enlargement. So why doesn't Biden call up Putin, say, you know what, we gotta stop the war. And that whole NATO enlargement that I was party to going back to the 1990s and to 2014 coup and all that was a bad idea. Figure out how to stop the war, recognize mutual security, and stop the bloodshed and massacres in Ukraine. If Biden were really acting like a president, thats what he would do. Its been about a year since a group of economists wrote an open letter about you, accusing you of denying the agency of Ukraine peddling Putin talking points, all of those kinds of things. It's a year later. How do you respond to them? Well, I don't respond. I tell them I told you so. I told them so from the beginning that this would be a complete disaster for Ukraine. People don't want to hear this. They don't understand. They don't know enough about american history. I told them Ukraine is going to be like Afghanistan and boy is it like Afghanistan right now. So they didn't want to hear. That's not right. That's not fair. Professor Sacks. I was telling them facts. I was giving them some good advice. They didn't want to hear that. They wanted to hear about victory, glory, how Ukraine's going to succeed, that great counteroffensive, all the rest, all the baloney. But I said from the beginning that this would be a disaster. I said this is just the latest neocon debacle. And I said explicitly it was going to leave Ukraine like Afghanistan and it was completely avoidable. So that's what I tell them. I'm sorry. Listen, pay attention. Learn something. That's what I say to them.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

271,503 views • 2 years ago

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) 📷 Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when you’re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether it’s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. I’ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. It’s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UK’s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. It’s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, I’m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, I’ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners – and indeed occasionally those we’d label as adversaries – across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. You’ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as ‘Q’, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Let’s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges – military, technological, social, ethical even – each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But there’s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they ‘converge’ to create science-fiction-like tools. There’s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth – one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the government’s understanding of China’s rise and the implications for UK national security. I’m going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putin’s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putin’s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. It’s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare – sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? It’s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our ‘open and connected’ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important – because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6’s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UK’s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britain’s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into – if you like – our historical SOE instincts. We’re at our best when we’re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britain’s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest – how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to what’s really going on. I’ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in what’s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, I’ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence won’t help. To proliferators and smugglers who’ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their children’s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away – and that telling us what’s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6’s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face won’t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children don’t get duped by information manipulation. Let’s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in – a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation – are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, ‘Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without them’. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters – and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdom’s global voice has never rested solely on strength – it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element – the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice – the exercise of human agency – has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025

John Sweeney

42,257 views • 7 months ago

The Idea of NHI on Earth. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ 🔥"The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified." ~Dr. Phil 🔥 "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious?" ~BZ to Dr. Phil (I'm so glad Bryce went there.) "There will be people...who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening." ~Mellon ~ Dr. Phil: "We know in the last 80 years there have been no overt hostile acts that we know about. That doesn't mean there could be things happening that are attributable to these forces that we don't know about. But, we certainly don't have any attacks that we can attribute to these UAPs or whatever." (Well, there's Colares in 1977. If that was non-human in nature, I'd say that qualifies as overt. And the Thomas Mantell incident in 1948 where he crashed and died after pursuing a UFO. Was that overt? Unfortunately, we don't know what happened and probably never will.) Dr. Phil: "And if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, I think people can take some comfort in knowing that if they were gonna melt us with a ray gun or something of that nature, they've had ample opportunity to do that. "They may have been here 1000 years before we were here. Who knows what the situation is? But we do know that as long as we've been monitoring this and tracking it, there have been no overt hostile acts and I think people can take some comfort in that, and should." (See the work of Peter Levenda for a deeper look at that. "They might have been attacking us for centuries already, in ways that make sense to them... What if they are attacking us through the manipulation of consciousness? ~Peter Levenda More... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ ~ (I'm glad Bryce pushed back a bit.) Bryce Zabel: "They should. The only thing I would say is, if we're dealing with a non-human intelligence - or an NHI, as we like to say now - we'd have to assume that they think differently than us. So even in our own world, in the United States, we tend to think in four-year terms because of presidential terms, right? So you can't get something off the ground if it can't get done right away. The Chinese may think in 100-year terms when they think about Taiwan or whatever. "It's possible there are alien or non-human intelligences that think in a different time frame. If their time frame was 1000 years, then they could just be getting started. "And on the topic of the nuclear issue, which I share concern of. I mean, I think the nuclear issue means it is at least a national-security issue of some kind. Now, I've heard people talk about this, Dr. Phil, two different ways. Some people say, 'Well, you know, they're looking at our nuclear capabilities because they want to protect us from ourselves.' "Okay, that's great, I hope that's true. But the other would be: what do you do before you actually go to war with anybody, is you do reconnaissance. You try to find out what the other guy has. What are their assets? What are their capabilities?" (That may freak out some people but all angles should be considered.) Zabel: "So, I think the problem that we need to overcome in this country is getting to a place where we understand this phenomenon that we're encountering enough that we can at least start to figure out intent. What is the intent? "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious? What is it? And so, we got a lot of work to do, and I think that's why I am so supportive of your current efforts because you're, basically, saying, 'Let's get started, people. Let's really take this seriously. Let's quit fooling around and stigmatizing people that want to take it seriously, and let's get to work.' But let's get to work as a human race. Let's start sharing what we know and let's make progress. That's where I'm coming from, too." (Bringing up abductions is important because it IS part of this discussion and it shouldn't be avoided. Kudos to Bryce!) Dr. Phil: "I saw a study that said 71% of Americans believe that there are aliens that have been or are in our earthly space. And it's interesting...I read that in one context, it said, 'Look, this is not going to be such a big deal if this gets verified.' "You know, there's one thing to say that in the abstract, like, 'Yeah, I think yeah probably there are.' It's a whole other different situation if you turn around and see somebody standing there. The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified. (100%. That's my favorite part of the interview and it's so true.) Dr. Phil: "And I hope that we are going to put enough context around this, particularly knowing that there are segments of our population that are very vulnerable. There are some elderly folks that aren't up on technology and might be overwhelmed by the reality of this. "We have certain populations that might be easily disoriented or destabilized in the mental emotional fringes of the population. And I worry about those that are easily exploitable. You know, you need to get out of the urban areas, buy our buried school bus in the mountains, and you'll be safe forever. You know the con artists and the scammers are going to find every opportunity to prey upon those that are concerned and worried about this. "And I think we need to be prepared to take care of those that might be destabilized by this information that's coming out right now, we can't pretend they aren't there. We've made those mistakes in the past, like during COVID, for example. There are those that are more impacted than others, and we need to be prepared to handle that." Christopher K. Mellon: "We, recently, commissioned a study by a group of six psychologists, PhD psychologists, on this topic of how the public would receive this information. And it was generally very encouraging. And what they found was that the great bulk of the population, as they have in the past with other epical changes such as the Copernican principle, or evolution, or general relativity, it takes people a while to process this information. There's a period of resistance. But most people will get up, get out of bed, go to work the next day. They're not devastated, even though there's nothing quite comparable to this, perhaps." (There's no perhaps. A government or respected figure admitting that we're not alone on this planet would be unprecedented and there is NOTHING we can compare it to.) Mellon: "What the study did find is that there is likely, however, to be a subset of people, maybe 15% of the population, that are going to need some help. And that we are not necessarily prepared in our present state to provide that kind of assistance, and we need to be doing more to get ready for that." (If he's talking world population, that's about 1.2 BILLION people who are going to need some help dealing with this. Holy crap. 😬) Mellon: "And also, to work on the messaging. The messaging is so important, clear and consistent messaging from the government, trying to develop trust with the American people so that the information is is accepted and acted on." (For me, I want the whole truth more than the right "message.") Mellon: "A lot of the difference will be people who can't get their head around it, even though they really understand it. But because of their own belief structure, the architecture of their own belief structure, for some reason, in their particular individual case, it's particularly threatening or disruptive. "So there will be people who fall into that category, according to this study, who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening."

Joe Murgia

30,339 views • 9 days ago

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

Mike

14,195 views • 7 months ago

Attorneys Bobbie Anne Cox & Warner Mendenhall recall how the "unconstitutional" Covid LOCKDOWNS destroyed small landlords, making way for BlackRock to buy up properties so we all can "own nothing" Cox: "Remember folks, the government did that to its people... Not the virus..." This clip of Cox (Bobbie Anne Cox), who's also a legal commentator and Fellow at the Brownstone Institute (Brownstone Institute), is taken from a conversation with Jeffrey A Tucker () and attorney Warner Mendenhall (Warner Mendenhall) posted to The Epoch Times Youtube channel on November 1, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- Cox: "But just to connect the dots, when they did these lockdowns, and people were, businesses were going belly up and people were really experiencing, I mean, horrible mental negative, impacts, not just from the isolation, but also from the financial burden that was now being thrust upon them. Remember folks, the government did that to its people. The government. Not the virus, not the person next door to you. The government did that to everybody. "And then what did the government do? Oh, march within a month, maybe two, the most. The CARES Act. $2.1 trillion worth of spending that they issued, doling it out to the citizens. Right? Giving it to, to keep everybody, you know, afloat, whatever. What did they do in that time period? As Jeffrey said, the CDC simultaneously issues. The CDC, The Center for Disease Control issues a nationwide eviction moratorium, announcing that you can't evict your tenants if they stop paying rent, because if you do that, eviction will cause further spread of COVID. "[It was] completely absurd. But they got away with it for over a year. The courts would not hear an eviction case for over a year. What is, what does that do? And the CARES Act money. The $2.1 trillion is not going to the landlords as a rent voucher. No, it's going directly to the tenants who are, as I had landlords calling me up daily. My tenants won't pay rent. But I just saw them walking into their apartment with a brand new big screen TV. Mendenhall: "And let's tie this to some bigger movement that's going on out there. So you kill the landlords and there are a lot of small landlords out there... You're killing them and they're going bankrupt. And BlackRock's coming in and buying up those properties and you will own nothing. They do not like these small mom and pop landlords. They don't like these small mom and pop businesses because what does that do? They're independent thinking people who won't necessarily go along with the programs." Cox: "And... it took over a year. It took a year and a half for the lawsuit filed against, you know, the lockdown, the. I'm sorry, the nationwide eviction moratoriums. Finally goes up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS finally says, nope, sorry, CDC, wrong, wrong branch of government. Congress could do that. Which they never would, because that would be political suicide. But you can't do that. You're an agency. But why did it do it? Because it's an agency and they're not elected. They're unelected bureaucrats, and they can't be removed. "So the CDC did it. They get away with it, by the way, in New York, they continued that eviction moratorium for another year. So you had some landlords in New York State that couldn't collect rent for two years. It was done intentionally, and it was done, with a very sly hand, I have to say. The other thing, a year later. Right. So in 20— That was March of 2020. March of 2021, the federal government issues... they called it the American Rescue Plan. I wrote it down so I wouldn't get it wrong. And the American Rescue plan, that was another $1.9 trillion that they started to dole out. "So what are they doing? They're increasing our debt, and they are putting a Band-Aid on the real problem. But this is all stemming from what they did. They locked everybody down for months on end. And it's people. It's like this. You know, you said yesterday, at some point, you know, people want to just pretend. I think it was your opening statement. People just want to pretend it didn't happen. And I'm thinking to myself, we are still recovering... From the legal end and the calls I get in my office. Can you help me with this? Can you help me? People are still recovering. Tucker: "Quickly, on the Supreme Court, ruling on the rent, a term about which I had forgotten. Does that entitle the victims of these policies to some sort of compensation?" Cox: "No, no, no. It only said CDC. You can't do this. Okay. Yeah. No, I mean, that would. That would probably bankrupt them if they had to again." Mendenhall: "It's a Taking. Same. Same kind of issue." Tucker: "So they got away with it, in other words?" Cox: "Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, for sure. Yeah. [And] the agencies doing, you know, what they're doing, over these past five years, whether it's state level or it's federal level, a lot of what they're doing is, you know, what we would call unconstitutional. They don't have the power to do it. But they're doing it anyway. And sometimes the legislature steps back and says, 'Oh, well, better for them to do it.' Like in the case of the nationwide eviction moratorium."

Sense Receptor

15,413 views • 8 months ago

🚨🚨🚨🚨 Dr Mike Yeadon's Austrian Testimony Please watch and share - 15 Mins --------------------------------------- My name is Dr. Mike Yeadon and in the next 10 to 15 minutes I'm going to focus on one major point which is that the purported "vaccines" against this alleged illness, COVID-19 were in my view deliberately designed intentionally to injure, kill and, and reduce fertility. Now this is an allegation I've been making for around three and a half years. In that time, if I was wrong, ladies and gentlemen, I think numerous scientists would have rebutted what I've said in writing and in video. And if I was wrong, I would have expected the drug companies whose products I am maligning to have sought and secured a court injunction to stop me repeating these allegations. Neither of those things have ever happened. What has happened instead is that I have been extraordinarily censored and smeared sideways. And I think I offer that to you as strong evidence that I may be "over the target", at least in relation to these injectable products that have definitely injured and killed many people. So first just brief few words of introduction in terms of credentials. So Mike Yeadon, I've been a professional research scientist for over 30 years in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech. My first degree was in biochemistry and toxicology. It was a joint honours degree. I got a first, then I did a second degree, a PhD. It's a research based piece of work lasting three years and my focus was respiratory pharmacology, the study of impact of drugs on respiration and so on. And that led into my career where I became a senior research scientist responsible for new drugs to treat allergic, respiratory and later dermatology diseases. I was at one point Vice President and the most senior research person within Pfizer Global R&D, and I left in 2011. And for 10 years after that, seven of those I was founder and CEO of a biotech called ZIARCO which was acquired by Novartis in 2017, since when I've been a consultant although I've discontinued those activities in the last four and a half years or so. So I've not earned a penny from speaking out in the last four and a half years and I don't want to either. There is a longer video by me recorded a month or so ago, 22 minutes long and it's called Silver Bullet and it's on my telegram channel and I hope rather more widely. But today I'm just going to focus on the design and effects of these so called vaccines. So I've been involved all of my professional life with other talented people trying to design and test potential new treatments for respiratory disease and as I say later on dermatology applications. So I can tell you that this, with my background in toxicology and my own research experience, 30 years in the industry, this qualifies me, I think better than any other commentator to evaluate what was in the minds of the people who designed these products. Let me tell you that every component in a medicine is chosen. It's chosen to be there. It's not random. It's chosen to be there to achieve some purpose, that's normal, perhaps to help a drug dissolve, to be absorbed, to persist in your blood, or to leave your body quickly to penetrate the brain if it was a neurological drug, or to stay close to the lung if it was an inhaled drug. So it's quite normal to make choices with objectives in mind. So I believe the intentions of the designers are written into the choices they made, the structures and components, formulation of these products. So I'm going to use those skills, as it were, to back calculate what was in their mind, what objectives did they have when they chose these structures and formulations. So I'm going to just say, before I get into that, just one thing about these so called "vaccines". My experience of the industry over 30 years tells me it is formally impossible to invent, research, test, evaluate, manufacture, gain authorization for, and launch a complex new biological product in under a year. It's formally impossible. I don't care how much money and people you put on it, there are a series of linear steps which when taken together, unless you miss some out, cannot be completed under several years. So if someone told you they had brought a brand new airline to market with new engines in under a year, I think you would know it's formally impossible to do a clean sheet design, to stress test, to manufacture, to test, to flight test, optimise the engines and get regulatory clearance and be ready to take you across the Atlantic in under a year. And of course it's never been done and it's never been done with complex biological products in under a year. So whatever else they did, they didn't do what they said because it cannot be done in under a year. Secondly, and I'll come to the examples in a moment, there are in these products numerous features which in my view, my peers, people like me, people with my training and experience would know for sure would give rise to the toxicities that I pointed out in 2020. They're not, they don't require particular skills you need to know how to do drug discovery and what can go wrong. But I'm not acting like a complete genius in spotting these, just someone who is a professional from this industry that has pointed out numerous features built in by choice that I believe I think they obviously confer toxicology, toxicity to the recipients. And as I've said, people designing these, people like me in wherever they were, pharmaceutical industries or the military, knew these things were going to happen. And that's why I say it's intentional. I'm going to give you three examples that you can go and test. So the first one is these are so called gene based products, that is they've got a string of genetic information in them. Now there aren't any products like that that are in routine use anywhere in the world. So they're brand new technology. But what you'll remember they told you that they do is they cause your body to make as a protein whatever was in that genetic code. Now it's absolutely basic immunology. How is it, do you think your body knows that what's inside of you is meant to be there and you don't attack it? And yet if something gets into your body from the outside or a tumour form, something that shouldn't be in you, your body can recognise that that's foreign or non-self and can attack it. And the answer is you tolerate everything that's meant to be inside your body. When you're in your mum's womb, we, we ruled out the ability to attack ourselves. Unless you get an autoimmune disease in later life, you play nice with yourself until something gets inside you or something goes wrong inside you. So ladies and gentlemen, if you are injected with a genetic sequence that causes you to manufacture a foreign protein, whether it's a virus or something out of a computer, it's not you and it's not meant to be in you, I assure you, your body recognises that it's been invaded, something's in there that shouldn't be and it launch a fatal attack on every cell that it thinks has gone wrong. It's trying to save you. So and that autoimmune reaction that destruction which your body is trying to, is doing because it's trying to protect you, that will happen anywhere in your body, any cell, tissue, organ in your body where unluckily your dose of what was injected into you lands. So if it lands in your heart, you could get myocarditis or a heart attack. If it lands in your brain, you could get a stroke or neurological conditions. If it's in your eyes, you could go blind. If it's in your ovaries, it may sterilise you. But that explains, in my view, a lot of the enormously diverse toxicity that's been seen with these products. So that's one, your body is being made to manufacture something that does not belong in it. And when that happens, everybody with the first lecture of immunology will understand why that happens. It's not an accident, it's in the design. It's a deliberate choice. The second one, then what was encoded in the so called "vaccines", now we're told it's spike protein. I don't think there is a natural spike protein, but proteins with sequences like that are known to be acutely toxic to blood cells, prompting blood clots to nerve cells, causing them to malfunction and probably other things I don't know anything about. So that's the second thing your body was making, was forced to make not only a foreign protein, something that didn't belong in your body, you were, your body was forced to make something that was directly toxic to your body. And the person who chose that sequence knew that's what the property of it was. It's not an accident, it's intentional. Then the third one is absolutely shocking. It's normal for drugs to be formulated that is to be wrapped in something. You'll see them in capsules or tablets. They might have a coating. If it's an inhaler, there might be some liquid with it so it can be propelled. In the case of these injectables, they were wrapped in really fatty globules called lipid nanoparticles, which means tiny little particles of fat. Lipid nanoparticles. Ladies and gentlemen, there were papers published as early as 2012, which I read a couple of years ago, that said that it is well understood in the industry by formulators that the payload that's contained within lipid nanoparticles when injected into animals and people leads to a disproportionate deposition of the payload into your ovaries. I remember the day I read that paper, I really couldn't sleep. The person who chose to use lipid nanoparticles to formulate the Moderna and Pfizer products knew perfectly well that what they would do is allow them to drift all through your body, through membranes as if they weren't there, and disproportionately deposit in your ovaries. And given I've told you the first two things, which is that will induce your body to attack every cell in the body that follows the instructions. And that instruction by the way, is to make a poison, you should no longer be surprised that people have been injured and killed and had their fertility reduced. I wish I didn't have to communicate this information. But there is no possibility that the people involved in designing these products did not know that they would have the effects that I predicted and that so many people have actually experienced it is intentional. There is ample evidence that this assault, which is not the only thing that's ever happened, unfortunately it's the first I noticed. I was a so called normie until 2020. I believe everything I was told. But this is part of a long planned assault by powerful wealthy people operating above the level of nation. So I'm afraid organisations like the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Economic Forum are populated by the people who I believe have orchestrated this attack on humanity and they're going to do it again. There are factories all around the world busy manufacturing these so called "vaccines" and formulating them in the way I just described. And they're going to come up with contrived reasons why you need to roll your sleeve up and I'm telling you, for the love of God, please don't do it. The only way we will push these people away is by speaking out as we see it and simply refusing to follow absurd instructions no matter what ostensible reason they come up with for you to do that.. So I mentioned I have been subject to astonishing censorship and smearing. And that's true. I've always said, if you hear me, please repeat what I have said to other people. I've got a tiny reach because I'm censored and no one else is coming to save us. It's just a small number of us who are not willing to stay quiet while this is done to us. But it's part of a wider deception. The pandemic lie is a major one. I don't have time to go into it now, but see my other recording. But there wasn't a pandemic. There's never been a pandemic. They can't happen. It's a lie. The so called human induced climate change crisis, that's all a lie as well. It's the same people who put this together at the end of the 1960s, the Club of Rome, they chose these two topics of infectious disease and climate change to scare people because they realised it would force a response from above the level of nation. But I'm saying, stand on your own feet and tell them to get lost with their absurd lies. And there's a third lie which underlies these, and it's they believe. They tell us we've been told all our lives, that the world is overpopulated. And it's literally absurd if you're up in an aeroplane within a few minutes, even over a busy city, the place is just full of cities and forests and fields. So that's yet another lie. But I think that's what's driving them. They think there's too many of us little people, and they seek to control us digitally and then eventually inject us to death. Its only going to be stopped then by refusal to cooperate. And that's my testimony. I hope that was helpful to.

aussie17

78,583 views • 1 year ago

[Behavioral Scientist's Analysis] NewJeans, Now Even Stronger, HYBE in Trouble I’ll listen again. Danielle: “Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable.” Danielle clearly stated this and also expressed it in English. So, in terms of the NewJeans issue, international fans who don’t have much information may not have had a clear perception of Ms. Min Hee-jin or how to view this issue. If you look at the comments, it was very poorly organized. In Korea, we now have clear information, so NewJeans fans, Bunnies, are cheering for NewJeans and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin. It has become clearly sorted out like this. However, internationally, it hasn’t been clearly explained. But with Danielle explaining it so well in English, I expect that from now on, the international atmosphere will shift towards attacking HYBE, criticizing Bang Si-hyuk, and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin and NewJeans worldwide. So, now that the artist has clearly stated their position and made it clear that the identity and assets of the NewJeans brand come from Ms. Min Hee-jin, regardless of any legal disputes or lawsuits, in the minds of the fans, NewJeans equals Min Hee-jin. And as for the current management of ADOR and HYBE, they will be seen as the ones attacking NewJeans and the mysterious people with no clear motive, such as Bang Si-hyuk. I think this will now be clear. Considering the nature of the entertainment industry, like many creative industries and the cultural industry, this is not manufacturing. Many things can’t be determined through legal processes like patents for ideas or lawsuits. The B2C market, or the market for services and consumption of an artist's brand, is driven by sensitivity. People consume it because of the emotional connection and enjoy it because of that sensitivity. So, what’s the point of winning a legal case? Even if HYBE were to win any legal case, do you think consumers wouldn’t boycott NewJeans’ music or other products afterward? I believe HYBE will be punished in some way for its actions towards ADOR and its current management. The way they are handling risk management is shortsighted, as they fail to understand people’s emotions. They seem to only rely on the advice of legal professionals and accountants, and their entire approach to this issue is so narrow-minded and misguided. It feels incredibly foolish to me. So, to summarize: NewJeans’ branding was done by Ms. Min Hee-jin. The identity and assets of the NewJeans brand were created by her, and we did it together because of her. Haerin: “However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step.” The current situation is shocking, but this is not just about this one incident; they’ve been continuously receiving unfair treatment from HYBE. The fact that they are saying this publicly now is truly shocking. They’ve been discussing these unfair treatments with their parents and Ms. Min Hee-jin while continuing their activities as NewJeans. They are saying that the unfair treatment from HYBE has been ongoing. It’s hard to understand as an outsider, but now the artists themselves have confirmed that there have been instances where the company has mistreated them. This is no longer a matter of speculation or exaggeration. NewJeans has officially admitted that HYBE has been continuously mistreating them. Moving forward, this changes the entire perspective on the issue. It’s no longer just NewJeans vs. HYBE or Min Hee-jin vs. Bang Si-hyuk. It’s hard to even imagine the reality of this situation. Now that the NewJeans artists have come out and said that HYBE has mistreated them, regardless of how HYBE tries to communicate going forward, they will now be framed as the ones mistreating NewJeans. How can they possibly shake off this perception now? I don’t think they can. Hanni: “Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that.” I still don’t understand why that happened, even now. When I think about it, I feel like it was really ridiculous. This story from Hanni was so frustrating and absurd. Wow, what Hanni just shared is really shocking. She mentioned meeting an artist, and that artist's manager told them to ignore her. If this happened in middle or high school, people would probably dismiss it as childish fighting, but this happened among adults, and it's becoming a huge issue. Honestly, the NewJeans members aren’t sharing these stories to stir things up. They’re probably just speaking truthfully about their experiences and trying to be genuine with their fans, saying, “It’s time we express our stance honestly.” The timing and approach they’ve taken are actually perfect. They started by clearly explaining their motivations and why they’re speaking out, then moved on to using English to express what NewJeans’ identity is and the members' feelings, as well as their history with their manager. They made it clear how they feel about these situations. Now, they've started sharing more detailed stories. The way they’ve structured everything is so good because people remember stories more than abstract thoughts or philosophies. When you say, “This happened to me,” people are much more likely to remember that than vague statements. Hanni shared her unfair experience in such an honest way, and I think it’s going to spread widely. I can already imagine netizens trying to figure out which manager it was, which artist, and so on. This story will likely go viral. People remember stories like this because they stick in their minds. For example, remember when Bang Si-hyuk didn’t return NewJeans’ greeting, and it became a huge thing about face blindness? People don’t remember the details, but they remember that someone important didn’t greet them. It became a memorable story. Minji: “When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us.” Hanni: “I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Heejin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next.” I want to make two points here. First, this is clearly “invisibility.” It’s not physical violence, but it’s about not acknowledging someone’s greeting, deliberately ignoring them, and so on. While it may not seem like a big deal, it still deeply hurts someone’s feelings. There’s been a lot of research on how these kinds of actions negatively affect an organization, spreading like poison and making people feel bad. It’s something we should really work against. The second point is about third-party justice. Hanni raised a legitimate concern, and it wasn’t handled properly within the company. This made Hanni, Minji, and others realize that the new management isn’t on their side. When others witness this, they’ll also realize that this company doesn’t have their best interests at heart. This realization leads to a loss of trust. People will remember these events, and once this perception sticks, it’s hard to change. It affects not just NewJeans, but also other artists who will think, “Oh, this is how HYBE treats people.” And it even affects the employees who work there. Minji: “Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our production, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all.” What’s worth discussing here is the perception of hypocrisy. People really dislike hypocrisy, and when you think about it, it makes sense. When humans are surviving, if there’s an enemy or a difficult environment, they overcome it as part of life. But the most dangerous situation is when you think someone is an ally, but they turn out to be an enemy. When you thought they were on your side but they stab you in the back — that’s when people are really upset. That’s why people hate it when there’s a discrepancy between outward appearances and inward intentions. It creates a near-hatred, especially when someone claims to be acting for your benefit but it’s clear that they’re not. This is what Minji is clearly pointing out — these people are hypocrites. New Jeans has already reached a conclusion internally: this new management team, in less than a month, has revealed themselves to be hypocrites. And they’ve shared this with the fans and everyone else. This isn’t just some interesting topic on a live broadcast; this will cause a huge impact, and I am certain of that. New Jeans has come to a solid realization — these people are not working for us. They are liars and hypocrites. Therefore, the new management can no longer properly lead the company. They will not be able to continue, and this system cannot be maintained. Why? Because the artist has called them out as hypocrites. The only way they can recover is by proving they aren’t hypocrites, but even then, that’s not effective — New Jeans would have to say it. But the chance of that happening is zero. In short, these people have been socially branded as hypocrites. The new management’s time is up. Less than a month, and their time is over. In the creative industry, especially in culture and the arts, content production — such as creating songs or music videos — cannot be separated from management. That’s how we’ve always worked, and it was good for us. Min Hee-jin was a remarkable creator and artist who understood all of this. The harmony between management and artistic decision-making brought about the incredible phenomenon of New Jeans. But now, they’ve created a system where that harmony can’t exist anymore. Moreover, the new management is culturally ignorant. They don’t understand art, music, or creativity. They have shown this clearly, especially with their mishandling of Director Shin Woo-seok’s music video and the associated fan content, like those on the Dolphiners YouTube channel. They’ve demanded to delete content without protecting the artists, or respecting the work of those who collaborated on it. Their management decisions show a complete lack of sensitivity or empathy. So once again, I say: "the new management’s time is over." Danielle: “As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far.” Personally, they just want to be left alone—just "Leave us alone. Don't interfere; just leave us alone.” This is what they’re saying to both ADOR and HYBE. It's become clear now that HYBE and ADOR can no longer meddle with NewJeans, and I think things will flow that way from now on. The fans won’t stand still either. In entertainment, it’s not about titles like "I’m the CEO," or "I own shares." These are shallow understandings of what makes the entertainment business work. The real value created in this industry is the love and recognition from the fans. No amount of shares or CEO titles matter when that love disappears in an instant. NewJeans is asking to be left alone, and because of this, the new management of HYBE and ADOR can no longer act. I believe the future will unfold accordingly. One important thing I want to emphasize is that NewJeans is a unique group. They’re not just factory-produced idols. The distinctive nature of NewJeans’ music is felt by everyone who listens to them. For example, producer 250, who played a significant role in shaping the NewJeans sound, alongside other talented producers like those from the Banana Culture label, was brought in by CEO Min Hee-jin. This collaboration birthed the unique musical style of NewJeans, which many have come to appreciate. Their latest album, which incorporated elements like New Jack Swing, wasn’t just NewJeans making this music—it was 250's creative vision, drawing inspiration from 70s and 80s funk, R&B, and American black music, and reinterpreting them. If 250 no longer works with NewJeans, their music might become indistinguishable from other idol groups. The choreography, another element that set NewJeans apart, also contributed to their success. However, with the recent tensions, it's obvious that working with key figures like director Shin Woo-seok, who directed many of NewJeans' music videos, will become difficult moving forward. Director Shin wasn’t even interested in music videos before but was inspired to work with NewJeans after a conversation with Min Hee-jin. If Min Hee-jin and people like director Shin are ousted from ADOR, it’s inevitable that the core assets of NewJeans, including their distinctive musical and visual style, will vanish. This is not just a simple matter of one person being ousted—it’s about losing the core elements that made NewJeans what they are. WE STAND WITH NEWJEANS #버니즈_뉴진스와함께_준비갈완료 #방시혁_2주준다_민희진_복귀시켜라

1tokki

39,222 views • 1 year ago