Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

النجاح لا يبدأ بفكرة فحسب، بل بالبيئة التي تحتضن هذه الفكرة وتنميها. #السليمان_بيزنس_كمباوند صممنا لك مساحة تتجاوز مفهوم المكتب التقليدي؛ لتجمع بين الإبداع، الرفاهية، والإنتاجية في شمال #الرياض بيئة عمل متكاملة، خدمات فندقية، وكل ما تحتاجه لتنمو أعمالك في مكان واحد. Success is more than an idea; it's about...

AlsolimanRE's profile picture

Alsoliman Real Estate | السليمان العقارية

55,388 subscribers

102,405 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

#السليمان_بيزنس_كمباوند#الرياض
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

نحن لا نتشكل في لحظات اليقين، بل في لحظات الاختيار. ليس عندما يكون الطريق واضحًا، بل عندما يكتنفه الشك، ومع ذلك نواصل السير. تعلمت أن النمو لا يبدأ بالمعرفة، بل بالتساؤل — بالبقاء فضوليًا على قيد الدهشة في عالم يصر على قولبة الأشياء. لأن التقدم ليس سعيًا فرديًا، بل وعد مشترك. وفي HEC Paris، وجدت مكانًا يُحترم فيه هذا الوعد. وسط عقول حادة وقلوب سخية، طرحنا الأسئلة الصعبة، وأعدنا كتابة المسلّمات، وتعلّمنا، وأعدنا التعلُّم. اكتشفنا أن القيادة لا تأتي من الإجابات، بل من شجاعة السؤال. وأن الاستراتيجية مهمة — لكن السكون كذلك. وأن البيانات ضرورية — لكن الحدس لا يقل أهمية. وأن الذكاء بلا تعاطف ما هو إلا حسابات جافة. شكرا لأساتذتنا الذين طالبونا بما هو أكثر من المعرفة — علمتمونا أن الأعمال بلا روح مجرد أرقام، وأن القيادة بلا غاية مجرد تمثيل. وشكرًا لعائلاتنا وشركائنا وأصدقائنا — أنتم من ضحّى معنا، ومن حمل عنا الأعباء لنحمل نحن أحلامنا. هذا الإنجاز يحمل بصمتكم. ولزملائي الأعزاء — كنتم أكثر من دفعة، كنتم كوكبة من النجوم أضاءت لي الدرب في العتمة. ومع دخولنا عالمًا مثقلاً بعدم المساواة، بالنزاعات، والتشريد — دعونا لا نحيد أنظارنا. فلا يمكننا أن نتحدث عن القيادة ونتجاهل الظلم. ولا أن نحتفل بالامتياز دون الاعتراف بحرمانه عن غيرنا. فلتكن قيادتنا حامية للحياة بكل أشكالها الهشة. ولتكن طموحاتنا مقرونة بإنسانيتنا. وليكن نجاحنا في خدمة هدفٍ يتجاوز ذواتنا. فالعالم لا يحتاج إلى سير ذاتية مصقولة بقدر ما يحتاج إلى قلوب حقيقية. قادة لا يوجّههم الربح فقط، بل المبدأ. ابنوا برحمة. وواجهوا بتواضع. ولا تنسوا الأحلام الصامتة التي مهدت هذا الطريق. واحملوا إرثها بكل قوة ووفاء ودون اعتذار. دفعة الدوحة 2025 — وزملاؤنا من دفعة الرياض، بشعلتنا المتقدة، وحكمتنا، وقلوبنا المتّحدة: نحن هنا. ونحن مستعدون. شكرًا لكم. This journey has been one of becoming—shaped not in moments of clarity, but in the choices made when the path was uncertain. Standing here today because of the quiet persistence that has guided me all my life. I wasn’t the loudest voice in the room, but I listened, I wondered, and I grew. Here, among sharp minds and kind hearts, I found more than education—I found a community. We challenged assumptions, rewrote narratives, and supported each other through sleepless nights and soul-stretching questions. I’ve learned that leadership is not about knowing it all—it’s about asking the questions no one else dares to ask. And as we step into a world that aches with injustice and inequality, I carry with me a commitment: to lead with principle, to build with compassion, and to honor the dreams of those who came before us. To my professors, my family, and my classmates—thank you. This achievement is ours. And now, here we are. And we are ready. HEC Paris Business School Qatar Foundation HEC Paris Business SchoolMBA Executive Education #HECGRAD25
8:58

نحن لا نتشكل في لحظات اليقين، بل في لحظات الاختيار. ليس عندما يكون الطريق واضحًا، بل عندما يكتنفه الشك، ومع ذلك نواصل السير. تعلمت أن النمو لا يبدأ بالمعرفة، بل بالتساؤل — بالبقاء فضوليًا على قيد الدهشة في عالم يصر على قولبة الأشياء. لأن التقدم ليس سعيًا فرديًا، بل وعد مشترك. وفي HEC Paris، وجدت مكانًا يُحترم فيه هذا الوعد. وسط عقول حادة وقلوب سخية، طرحنا الأسئلة الصعبة، وأعدنا كتابة المسلّمات، وتعلّمنا، وأعدنا التعلُّم. اكتشفنا أن القيادة لا تأتي من الإجابات، بل من شجاعة السؤال. وأن الاستراتيجية مهمة — لكن السكون كذلك. وأن البيانات ضرورية — لكن الحدس لا يقل أهمية. وأن الذكاء بلا تعاطف ما هو إلا حسابات جافة. شكرا لأساتذتنا الذين طالبونا بما هو أكثر من المعرفة — علمتمونا أن الأعمال بلا روح مجرد أرقام، وأن القيادة بلا غاية مجرد تمثيل. وشكرًا لعائلاتنا وشركائنا وأصدقائنا — أنتم من ضحّى معنا، ومن حمل عنا الأعباء لنحمل نحن أحلامنا. هذا الإنجاز يحمل بصمتكم. ولزملائي الأعزاء — كنتم أكثر من دفعة، كنتم كوكبة من النجوم أضاءت لي الدرب في العتمة. ومع دخولنا عالمًا مثقلاً بعدم المساواة، بالنزاعات، والتشريد — دعونا لا نحيد أنظارنا. فلا يمكننا أن نتحدث عن القيادة ونتجاهل الظلم. ولا أن نحتفل بالامتياز دون الاعتراف بحرمانه عن غيرنا. فلتكن قيادتنا حامية للحياة بكل أشكالها الهشة. ولتكن طموحاتنا مقرونة بإنسانيتنا. وليكن نجاحنا في خدمة هدفٍ يتجاوز ذواتنا. فالعالم لا يحتاج إلى سير ذاتية مصقولة بقدر ما يحتاج إلى قلوب حقيقية. قادة لا يوجّههم الربح فقط، بل المبدأ. ابنوا برحمة. وواجهوا بتواضع. ولا تنسوا الأحلام الصامتة التي مهدت هذا الطريق. واحملوا إرثها بكل قوة ووفاء ودون اعتذار. دفعة الدوحة 2025 — وزملاؤنا من دفعة الرياض، بشعلتنا المتقدة، وحكمتنا، وقلوبنا المتّحدة: نحن هنا. ونحن مستعدون. شكرًا لكم. This journey has been one of becoming—shaped not in moments of clarity, but in the choices made when the path was uncertain. Standing here today because of the quiet persistence that has guided me all my life. I wasn’t the loudest voice in the room, but I listened, I wondered, and I grew. Here, among sharp minds and kind hearts, I found more than education—I found a community. We challenged assumptions, rewrote narratives, and supported each other through sleepless nights and soul-stretching questions. I’ve learned that leadership is not about knowing it all—it’s about asking the questions no one else dares to ask. And as we step into a world that aches with injustice and inequality, I carry with me a commitment: to lead with principle, to build with compassion, and to honor the dreams of those who came before us. To my professors, my family, and my classmates—thank you. This achievement is ours. And now, here we are. And we are ready. HEC Paris Business School Qatar Foundation HEC Paris Business SchoolMBA Executive Education #HECGRAD25

شريفة مسلم البرعمي

40,081 просмотров • 1 год назад

I paid Alex & Leila Hormozi $5,000 for their 2-day scaling workshop. Why? To grow my business from $6 million to $12 million in 2025. These 12 lessons from the event will help me get there: 1. The fastest-moving entrepreneurs are obsessive resource allocators. Similar to investors, they seek the best risk-adjusted returns with the resources they have. The main resources of the business are: • Time (of the team) • Attention (of the team) • And capital (of the business) So resource allocation is: • Aligning attention on the most important thing • Properly allocating everyone’s time to achieve that thing the fastest • Strategically investing capital to accelerate the outcome or increase its likelihood of achievement 2. $3m to $10m in EBITDA is where the majority of the value in a business is created. $3m in EBITDA likely gets a 1x multiple, so $3m of enterprise value. The process of going to $10m (when done well), not only 3.3x’s the EBITDA, but can take the multiple from 1 to 4 -> which is a 13.2x return. The EV goes from $3m to $40m, and that is the stage we are in right now as a business. 3. LTV:CAC are two metrics you must have staring at you and constantly audited. LTV = lifetime value of the customer CAC = customer acquisition cost The scope of calculating those is beyond this write-up, but basically you want this metric to be ~8:1 or higher when aggressively scaling a service-based business. On top of that, these are the only two metrics that you can “improve” in your business → either making customers worth more or reducing the cost to acquire them. You should be able to tie every project on your list directly to the improvement of one of these metrics. 4. We need a single dashboard with the most important metrics in the business. The quality of the dashboard is: • How many people use it on a daily basis • And how clearly they can connect their performance to the performance of the main numbers on the dashboard. We have data thrown about across Airtable, Google Sheets, and various Slack channels. Now, it’s time to unite them such that we can make even better decisions as a team. 5. Leveling up in business is transitioning from selling to people to selling to employees. In the beginning, you are the one creating all of the value. Over time, you will replace yourself out of certain functions that are customer-facing (if you are approaching business correctly). However, your job then becomes selling to your employees to spark their highest performance and retain them. 6. Brand is the best way to improve LTV and reduce CAC at the same time. It makes it cheaper to acquire customers since you have fixed media expenses (just labor) but unlimited upside in the number of eyeballs you can reach. It increases LTV because the continued content you create makes customers likely to keep purchasing because they associate the good content with the purchase they made, whether it’s free content or not. 7. Every single thing in your business is trainable, you just lack the skill of training. Seeing their presentations, their handshakes, the way they repeat the question back to the audience, it was so clear that Alex & Leila did this first, then obsessively role-played and drilled each person on their performance until it was indistinguishable from theirs. 8. The people doing it at the highest level of an obsessive, intentional standard. It was so evident the way these employees conducted themselves that they: • Loved working there • Loved the culture of high performance • And had been trained with extreme repetition and attention to detail 9. Past $3-5m in revenue, anything “new” starts with “who” not “how.” I made the mistake last year of trying to “bootstrap” our cold ads initiative (while continuing to run the rest of the business & sales team). I spent roughly ~200 hours on this throughout the year, which took time away from both my content and the management of the sales team. But for whatever reason, I thought I “had” to be the one who got it off the ground, then handed it off to a new hire or media buyer. But I had the sequence flipped. I should have spent the first 50 hours finding a world-class director of paid marketing, someone with far more experience than me building out a cold traffic acquisition system. Heck, I could have even spent 200 hours on it and ended up with a far greater return than I ended up with. 10. Excellence is a remarkably high number of extremely small details done well. Throughout the workshop, I paid close attention to the event operations, taking notes on how to run a great in-person event in case we wanted to do so in the future. Several things stood out that were clearly “iterations” from prior events, all based around eliminating the small, annoying parts of attending any kind of seminar. • High-quality food • Greeters at the door • Clear bathroom signs • A barista for fresh coffee • WiFi signs posted everywhere • Constant 15-minute breaks every 90 minutes The list goes on and on. 11. Any change you make in a business you should expect a 20% “decrease” in performance to start. That makes the hurdle rate to doing “new” at least 20% for it to be worth it, and arguably 40%. This happens because the switching cost leads to an immediate drop just from having to retrain the team. Change a meeting cadence, change a sales script, change an onboarding flow, all of these are going to come with a switching cost the team must overcome. Therefore, the highest risk-adjusted return is always to just do more or better or whatever you’re already doing, rather than add something new. 12. The ultimate size of the business is the sum of the intelligence of its people. Alex laid out this golden nugget during one of his talks and I found it interesting for a few reasons. First, because of his definition of intelligence = speed of learning, that means the ultimate size of the company is how quickly everyone can learn things. And so said another way, the ultimate size of the company is correlated to the speed of its iterations. The second reason I found this interesting is because you can create a culture of iteration through constant, rapid feedback on every behavior. And when I say constant, I mean constant. You could tell they’ve built this culture by the way their presenters all presented the exact same way as Alex and Leila. Aaand that’s it! I go deeper into all these lessons in this video, check it out: Timestamps 00:37 The Fastest Moving Entrepreneurs Are Obsessive Resource Allocators 04:09 $3m To $10m EBITDA Is Where The Majority Of The Value In A Business Is Created 07:00 LTV:CAC Are Two Metrics You Must Have Staring At You 10:04 You Need A Single Dashboard With The Most Important Metrics In The Business 12:03 Leveling Up In Business Is Transitioning To Selling To People To Selling To Employees 14:10 Brand Is The Best Way To Improve LTV And Reduce CAC At The Same Time 16:02 Every Single Thing In Your Business Is Trainable, You Just Lack The Skill Of Training 18:54 The People Doing It At The Highest Level Have An Obsessive, Intentional Standard 20:04 Past $3-5m In Revenue, Anything "New" Starts With "Who" Not "How" 23:33 Excellence Is A Remarkably High Number Of Extremely Small Details Done Well 26:23 Any Change You Make In A Business You Should Expect A 20% "Decrease" In Performance To Start 28:07 The Ultimate Size Of The Business Is The Sum Of The Intelligence Of It's People
31:43

I paid Alex & Leila Hormozi $5,000 for their 2-day scaling workshop. Why? To grow my business from $6 million to $12 million in 2025. These 12 lessons from the event will help me get there: 1. The fastest-moving entrepreneurs are obsessive resource allocators. Similar to investors, they seek the best risk-adjusted returns with the resources they have. The main resources of the business are: • Time (of the team) • Attention (of the team) • And capital (of the business) So resource allocation is: • Aligning attention on the most important thing • Properly allocating everyone’s time to achieve that thing the fastest • Strategically investing capital to accelerate the outcome or increase its likelihood of achievement 2. $3m to $10m in EBITDA is where the majority of the value in a business is created. $3m in EBITDA likely gets a 1x multiple, so $3m of enterprise value. The process of going to $10m (when done well), not only 3.3x’s the EBITDA, but can take the multiple from 1 to 4 -> which is a 13.2x return. The EV goes from $3m to $40m, and that is the stage we are in right now as a business. 3. LTV:CAC are two metrics you must have staring at you and constantly audited. LTV = lifetime value of the customer CAC = customer acquisition cost The scope of calculating those is beyond this write-up, but basically you want this metric to be ~8:1 or higher when aggressively scaling a service-based business. On top of that, these are the only two metrics that you can “improve” in your business → either making customers worth more or reducing the cost to acquire them. You should be able to tie every project on your list directly to the improvement of one of these metrics. 4. We need a single dashboard with the most important metrics in the business. The quality of the dashboard is: • How many people use it on a daily basis • And how clearly they can connect their performance to the performance of the main numbers on the dashboard. We have data thrown about across Airtable, Google Sheets, and various Slack channels. Now, it’s time to unite them such that we can make even better decisions as a team. 5. Leveling up in business is transitioning from selling to people to selling to employees. In the beginning, you are the one creating all of the value. Over time, you will replace yourself out of certain functions that are customer-facing (if you are approaching business correctly). However, your job then becomes selling to your employees to spark their highest performance and retain them. 6. Brand is the best way to improve LTV and reduce CAC at the same time. It makes it cheaper to acquire customers since you have fixed media expenses (just labor) but unlimited upside in the number of eyeballs you can reach. It increases LTV because the continued content you create makes customers likely to keep purchasing because they associate the good content with the purchase they made, whether it’s free content or not. 7. Every single thing in your business is trainable, you just lack the skill of training. Seeing their presentations, their handshakes, the way they repeat the question back to the audience, it was so clear that Alex & Leila did this first, then obsessively role-played and drilled each person on their performance until it was indistinguishable from theirs. 8. The people doing it at the highest level of an obsessive, intentional standard. It was so evident the way these employees conducted themselves that they: • Loved working there • Loved the culture of high performance • And had been trained with extreme repetition and attention to detail 9. Past $3-5m in revenue, anything “new” starts with “who” not “how.” I made the mistake last year of trying to “bootstrap” our cold ads initiative (while continuing to run the rest of the business & sales team). I spent roughly ~200 hours on this throughout the year, which took time away from both my content and the management of the sales team. But for whatever reason, I thought I “had” to be the one who got it off the ground, then handed it off to a new hire or media buyer. But I had the sequence flipped. I should have spent the first 50 hours finding a world-class director of paid marketing, someone with far more experience than me building out a cold traffic acquisition system. Heck, I could have even spent 200 hours on it and ended up with a far greater return than I ended up with. 10. Excellence is a remarkably high number of extremely small details done well. Throughout the workshop, I paid close attention to the event operations, taking notes on how to run a great in-person event in case we wanted to do so in the future. Several things stood out that were clearly “iterations” from prior events, all based around eliminating the small, annoying parts of attending any kind of seminar. • High-quality food • Greeters at the door • Clear bathroom signs • A barista for fresh coffee • WiFi signs posted everywhere • Constant 15-minute breaks every 90 minutes The list goes on and on. 11. Any change you make in a business you should expect a 20% “decrease” in performance to start. That makes the hurdle rate to doing “new” at least 20% for it to be worth it, and arguably 40%. This happens because the switching cost leads to an immediate drop just from having to retrain the team. Change a meeting cadence, change a sales script, change an onboarding flow, all of these are going to come with a switching cost the team must overcome. Therefore, the highest risk-adjusted return is always to just do more or better or whatever you’re already doing, rather than add something new. 12. The ultimate size of the business is the sum of the intelligence of its people. Alex laid out this golden nugget during one of his talks and I found it interesting for a few reasons. First, because of his definition of intelligence = speed of learning, that means the ultimate size of the company is how quickly everyone can learn things. And so said another way, the ultimate size of the company is correlated to the speed of its iterations. The second reason I found this interesting is because you can create a culture of iteration through constant, rapid feedback on every behavior. And when I say constant, I mean constant. You could tell they’ve built this culture by the way their presenters all presented the exact same way as Alex and Leila. Aaand that’s it! I go deeper into all these lessons in this video, check it out: Timestamps 00:37 The Fastest Moving Entrepreneurs Are Obsessive Resource Allocators 04:09 $3m To $10m EBITDA Is Where The Majority Of The Value In A Business Is Created 07:00 LTV:CAC Are Two Metrics You Must Have Staring At You 10:04 You Need A Single Dashboard With The Most Important Metrics In The Business 12:03 Leveling Up In Business Is Transitioning To Selling To People To Selling To Employees 14:10 Brand Is The Best Way To Improve LTV And Reduce CAC At The Same Time 16:02 Every Single Thing In Your Business Is Trainable, You Just Lack The Skill Of Training 18:54 The People Doing It At The Highest Level Have An Obsessive, Intentional Standard 20:04 Past $3-5m In Revenue, Anything "New" Starts With "Who" Not "How" 23:33 Excellence Is A Remarkably High Number Of Extremely Small Details Done Well 26:23 Any Change You Make In A Business You Should Expect A 20% "Decrease" In Performance To Start 28:07 The Ultimate Size Of The Business Is The Sum Of The Intelligence Of It's People

Dickie Bush 🚢

62,036 просмотров • 1 год назад

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just gave THE MOST accelerated talk on how scaling will continue to make models exponentially more powerful for a long time to come — and that there is "NO WALL." 🔥 - From 'Alex Kantrowitz' YT Channel (Full Video link in comment) --- "The thing I think is real that I've said over and over again is the exponential. The idea that every few months we get an AI model that is better than the AI model we got before. And we get that by investing more compute in AI models, more data, more new types of training models. Initially, this was done by what's called pre-training, which is when you just feed a bunch of data from the internet into the model. Now we have a second stage that's reinforcement learning or test time compute or reasoning or whatever you want to call it. I think of it as a second stage that involves reinforcement learning. Now both of those things are scaling up together, as we've seen with our models and as we've seen with models from other companies. I don't see anything blocking the further scaling of that. There's some stuff about how do we broaden the tasks on the RL side of it. We've seen more progress on, say, math and code, where the models are getting pretty close to a high professional level, and less on more subjective tasks, but I think that is very much a temporary obstacle. So when I look at it, I see this exponential and I say, look, people aren't very good at making sense of exponentials, right? Like, if something is doubling every 6 months, then 2 years before it happens, it looks like it's only 1/16th of the way there. And so we are sitting here in the middle of 2025, and the models are really starting to explode in terms of the economy. If you look at the capabilities of the model, they're starting to saturate all the benchmarks. If you look at revenue, and you know, Anthropic's revenue every year has grown 10x. Every year we’re kind of conservative and we say, it can’t grow 10x this time. I never assume anything and actually always am very conservative in saying I think it's going to slow down on the business side. But we went from zero to $100 million in 2023, we went from $100 million to $1 billion in 2024, and this year, in the first half of the year, we've gone from $1 billion to, I think as of speaking today, it's well above $4 billion, it might be $4.5 billion. And so if you think about it, suppose that exponential continued for 2 years. I'm not saying it will, but suppose it continued for 2 years. You're well into the $100 billions. I'm not saying that'll happen. I'm saying the situation is that when you're on an exponential, you can really get fooled by it. 2 years away from when the exponential goes totally crazy, it looks like it's just starting to be a thing. And so that's the fundamental dynamic. We saw that with the internet in the '90s, right? Where it was like networking speeds and the underlying speed of the computers were getting fast, and over a few years it became possible to have to basically build a digital global communications network on top of all this when it wasn't possible just a few years ago and and almost no one except for a few people really saw the implications of that and how fast it." - Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei
2:26

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just gave THE MOST accelerated talk on how scaling will continue to make models exponentially more powerful for a long time to come — and that there is "NO WALL." 🔥 - From 'Alex Kantrowitz' YT Channel (Full Video link in comment) --- "The thing I think is real that I've said over and over again is the exponential. The idea that every few months we get an AI model that is better than the AI model we got before. And we get that by investing more compute in AI models, more data, more new types of training models. Initially, this was done by what's called pre-training, which is when you just feed a bunch of data from the internet into the model. Now we have a second stage that's reinforcement learning or test time compute or reasoning or whatever you want to call it. I think of it as a second stage that involves reinforcement learning. Now both of those things are scaling up together, as we've seen with our models and as we've seen with models from other companies. I don't see anything blocking the further scaling of that. There's some stuff about how do we broaden the tasks on the RL side of it. We've seen more progress on, say, math and code, where the models are getting pretty close to a high professional level, and less on more subjective tasks, but I think that is very much a temporary obstacle. So when I look at it, I see this exponential and I say, look, people aren't very good at making sense of exponentials, right? Like, if something is doubling every 6 months, then 2 years before it happens, it looks like it's only 1/16th of the way there. And so we are sitting here in the middle of 2025, and the models are really starting to explode in terms of the economy. If you look at the capabilities of the model, they're starting to saturate all the benchmarks. If you look at revenue, and you know, Anthropic's revenue every year has grown 10x. Every year we’re kind of conservative and we say, it can’t grow 10x this time. I never assume anything and actually always am very conservative in saying I think it's going to slow down on the business side. But we went from zero to $100 million in 2023, we went from $100 million to $1 billion in 2024, and this year, in the first half of the year, we've gone from $1 billion to, I think as of speaking today, it's well above $4 billion, it might be $4.5 billion. And so if you think about it, suppose that exponential continued for 2 years. I'm not saying it will, but suppose it continued for 2 years. You're well into the $100 billions. I'm not saying that'll happen. I'm saying the situation is that when you're on an exponential, you can really get fooled by it. 2 years away from when the exponential goes totally crazy, it looks like it's just starting to be a thing. And so that's the fundamental dynamic. We saw that with the internet in the '90s, right? Where it was like networking speeds and the underlying speed of the computers were getting fast, and over a few years it became possible to have to basically build a digital global communications network on top of all this when it wasn't possible just a few years ago and and almost no one except for a few people really saw the implications of that and how fast it." - Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei

Rohan Paul

74,406 просмотров • 1 год назад

In 1984, Apple tried hiring “professional management.” Steve Jobs: “It didn’t work at all.” “Most of them were bozos.” “They knew how to manage. But they didn’t know how to do anything.” He spent 4 minutes explaining what actually works: "The greatest people are self-managing. They don't need to be managed." "Once they know what to do, they'll go figure out how to do it. They don't need to be managed at all." "What they need is a common vision. And that's what leadership is." "Having a vision. Being able to articulate it so the people around you can understand it. And getting a consensus on a common vision." So who should manage? "If you're a great person, why do you want to work for somebody you can't learn anything from?" "You know who the best managers are?" "They're the great individual contributors who never ever want to be a manager." "But decide they have to be a manager because no one else is going to be able to do as good a job as them." Apple hired two professional managers from outside the company. Fired them both. Then Jobs gambled on Debbie Coleman. A member of the Macintosh team. 32 years old. English literature major with an MBA from Stanford. A financial manager with no experience in manufacturing. Put in charge of manufacturing. Debbie Coleman: "There's no way in the world anybody else would give me this chance to run this kind of operation. I don't kid myself about that." "It's an incredible high risk. Both for myself personally and professionally. And for Apple as a company. To put a person like myself in this job." "We're betting that my skills at organizational effectiveness override all lack of technology, lack of experience, lack of time in manufacturing." "I'm just an example. Almost every single person on the Mac team, you could say that about." "This is a place where people were afforded incredibly unique opportunities to prove they could write the book again." Hiring was the most important job. "I consider the most important job of someone like myself is recruiting." "We agonized over hiring." "Interviews would start at 9 or 10 in the morning and go through dinner." "A new interviewee would talk to everybody in the building. At least once. Maybe a couple times." "Then come back for another round of interviews. Then we'd all get together and talk about it." "And then they'd fill out an application." He laughs. "No. They never filled out an application." Here's how they knew someone was right. "The critical part of the interview, at least to my mind, was when we finally decided we liked them enough to show them the Macintosh prototype." "We sat them down in front of it." "If they were just kind of bored, or said 'this is a nice computer,' we didn't want them." "We wanted their eyes to light up. For them to get really excited." "Then we knew they were one of us." Once you get the right people, something changes. "When you get a core group of ten great people, it becomes self-policing as to who they let into that group." "Everybody just wanted to work. Not because it was work that had to be done." "But because it was something we really believed in. That was going to really make a difference." "We all wanted exactly the same thing. Instead of spending our time arguing about what the computer should be, we all knew what the computer should be." "And we just went and did it." Inside the casing of every Macintosh, unseen by the consumer, are the signatures of the whole team. Apple's way of affirming that their innovation is a product of the individuals who created it. Not the corporation. This 4 minute video will teach you more about hiring, leadership, and why professional managers fail than every business book combined. Bookmark & give it 4 minutes today, no matter what.
3:32

In 1984, Apple tried hiring “professional management.” Steve Jobs: “It didn’t work at all.” “Most of them were bozos.” “They knew how to manage. But they didn’t know how to do anything.” He spent 4 minutes explaining what actually works: "The greatest people are self-managing. They don't need to be managed." "Once they know what to do, they'll go figure out how to do it. They don't need to be managed at all." "What they need is a common vision. And that's what leadership is." "Having a vision. Being able to articulate it so the people around you can understand it. And getting a consensus on a common vision." So who should manage? "If you're a great person, why do you want to work for somebody you can't learn anything from?" "You know who the best managers are?" "They're the great individual contributors who never ever want to be a manager." "But decide they have to be a manager because no one else is going to be able to do as good a job as them." Apple hired two professional managers from outside the company. Fired them both. Then Jobs gambled on Debbie Coleman. A member of the Macintosh team. 32 years old. English literature major with an MBA from Stanford. A financial manager with no experience in manufacturing. Put in charge of manufacturing. Debbie Coleman: "There's no way in the world anybody else would give me this chance to run this kind of operation. I don't kid myself about that." "It's an incredible high risk. Both for myself personally and professionally. And for Apple as a company. To put a person like myself in this job." "We're betting that my skills at organizational effectiveness override all lack of technology, lack of experience, lack of time in manufacturing." "I'm just an example. Almost every single person on the Mac team, you could say that about." "This is a place where people were afforded incredibly unique opportunities to prove they could write the book again." Hiring was the most important job. "I consider the most important job of someone like myself is recruiting." "We agonized over hiring." "Interviews would start at 9 or 10 in the morning and go through dinner." "A new interviewee would talk to everybody in the building. At least once. Maybe a couple times." "Then come back for another round of interviews. Then we'd all get together and talk about it." "And then they'd fill out an application." He laughs. "No. They never filled out an application." Here's how they knew someone was right. "The critical part of the interview, at least to my mind, was when we finally decided we liked them enough to show them the Macintosh prototype." "We sat them down in front of it." "If they were just kind of bored, or said 'this is a nice computer,' we didn't want them." "We wanted their eyes to light up. For them to get really excited." "Then we knew they were one of us." Once you get the right people, something changes. "When you get a core group of ten great people, it becomes self-policing as to who they let into that group." "Everybody just wanted to work. Not because it was work that had to be done." "But because it was something we really believed in. That was going to really make a difference." "We all wanted exactly the same thing. Instead of spending our time arguing about what the computer should be, we all knew what the computer should be." "And we just went and did it." Inside the casing of every Macintosh, unseen by the consumer, are the signatures of the whole team. Apple's way of affirming that their innovation is a product of the individuals who created it. Not the corporation. This 4 minute video will teach you more about hiring, leadership, and why professional managers fail than every business book combined. Bookmark & give it 4 minutes today, no matter what.

Jaynit

176,209 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

MIT announces the Initiative for New Manufacturing | Peter Dizikes, MIT News The Institute-wide effort aims to bolster industry and create jobs by driving innovation across vital manufacturing sectors. MIT today launched its Initiative for New Manufacturing (INM), an Institute-wide effort to reinfuse U.S. industrial production with leading-edge technologies, bolster crucial U.S. economic sectors, and ignite job creation. The initiative will encompass advanced research, innovative education programs, and partnership with companies across many sectors, in a bid to help transform manufacturing and elevate its impact. “We want to work with firms big and small, in cities, small towns and everywhere in between, to help them adopt new approaches for increased productivity,” MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the Institute community this morning. “We want to deliberately design high-quality, human-centered manufacturing jobs that bring new life to communities across the country.” Kornbluth added: “Helping America build a future of new manufacturing is a perfect job for MIT — and I’m convinced that there is no more important work we can do to meet the moment and serve the nation now.” The Initiative for New Manufacturing also announced its first six founding industry consortium members: Amgen, Flex, GE Vernova, PTC, Sanofi, and Siemens. Participants in the INM Industry Consortium will support seed projects proposed by MIT researchers, initially in the area of artificial intelligence for manufacturing. INM joins the ranks of MIT’s other presidential initiatives — including The Climate Project at MIT; MITHIC, which supports the human-centered disciplines; MIT HEALS, centered on the life sciences and health; and MGAIC, the MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium. “There is tremendous opportunity to bring together a vibrant community working across every scale — from nanotechnology to large-scale manufacturing — and across a wide-range of applications including semiconductors, medical devices, automotive, energy systems, and biotechnology,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s chief innovation and strategy officer and dean of engineering, who is part of the initiative’s leadership team. “MIT is uniquely positioned to harness the transformative power of digital tools and AI to shape future of manufacturing. I’m truly excited about what we can build together and the synergies this creates with other cross-cutting initiatives across the Institute.” The initiative is just the latest MIT-centered effort in recent decades aiming to expand American manufacturing. A faculty research group wrote the 1989 bestseller “Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge,” advocating for a renewal of manufacturing; another MIT project, called Production in the Innovation Economy, called for expanded manufacturing in the early 2010s. In 2016, MIT also founded The Engine, a venture fund investing in hardware-based “tough tech” start-ups including many with potential to became substantial manufacturing firms. As developed, the MIT Initiative for New Manufacturing is based around four major themes: - Reimagining manufacturing technologies and systems: realizing breakthrough technologies and system-level approaches to advance energy production, health care, computing, transportation, consumer products, and more; - Elevating the productivity and experience of manufacturing: developing and deploying new digitally driven methods and tools to amplify productivity and improve the human experience of manufacturing; - Scaling new manufacturing: accelerating the scaling of manufacturing companies and transforming supply chains to maximize efficiency and resilience, fostering product innovation and business growth; and - Transforming the manufacturing base: driving the deployment of a sustainable global manufacturing ecosystem that provides compelling opportunities to workers, with major efforts focused on the U.S. The initiative has mapped out many concrete activities and programs, which will include an Institute-wide research program on emerging technologies and other major topics; workforce and education programs; and industry engagement and participation. INM also aims to establish new labs for developing manufacturing tools and techniques; a “factory observatory” program which immerses students in manufacturing through visits to production sites; and key “pillars” focusing on areas from semiconductors and biomanufacturing to defense and aviation. The workforce and education element of INM will include TechAMP, an MIT-created program that works with community colleges to bridge the gap between technicians and engineers; AI-driven teaching tools; professional education; and an effort to expand manufacturing education on campus in collaboration with MIT departments and degree programs. INM’s leadership team has three faculty co-directors: John Hart, the Class of 1922 Professor and head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering; Suzanne Berger, Institute Professor at MIT and a political scientist who has conducted influential empirical studies of manufacturing; and Chris Love, the Raymond A. and Helen E. St. Laurent Professor of Chemical Engineering. The initiative’s executive director is Julie Diop. The initiative is in the process of forming a faculty steering committee with representation from across the Institute, as well as an external advisory board. INM stems partly from the work of the Manufacturing@MIT working group, formed in 2022 to assess many of these issues. The launch of the new initiative was previewed at a daylong MIT symposium on May 7, titled “A Vision for New Manufacturing.” The event, held before a capacity audience in MIT’s Wong Auditorium, featured over 30 speakers from a wide range of manufacturing sectors. “The rationale for growing and transforming U.S. manufacturing has never been more urgent than it is today,” Berger said at the event. “What we are trying to build at MIT now is not just another research project. … Together, with people in this room and outside this room, we’re trying to change what’s happening in our country.” “We need to think about the importance of manufacturing again, because it is what brings product ideas to people,” Love told MIT News. “For instance, in biotechnology, new life-saving medicines can’t reach patients without manufacturing. There is a real urgency about this issue for both economic prosperity and creating jobs. We have seen the impact for our country when we have lost our lead in manufacturing in some sectors. Biotechnology, where the U.S. has been the global leader for more than 40 years, offers the potential to promote new robust economies here, but we need to advance our capabilities in biomanufacturing to maintain our advantage in this area.” Hart adds: “While manufacturing feels very timely today, it is of enduring importance. Manufactured products enable our daily lives and manufacturing is critical to advancing the frontiers of technology and society. Our efforts leading up to launch of the initiative revealed great excitement about manufacturing across MIT, especially from students. Working with industry — from small to large companies, and from young startups to industrial giants — will be instrumental to creating impact and realizing the vision for new manufacturing.” In her letter to the MIT community today, Kornbluth stressed that the initiative’s goal is to drive transformation by making manufacturing more productive, resilient, and sustainable. “We want to reimagine manufacturing technologies and systems to advance fields like energy production, health care, computing, transportation, consumer products, and more,” she wrote. “And we want to reach well beyond the shop floor to tackle challenges like how to make supply chains more resilient, and how to inform public policy to foster a broad, healthy manufacturing ecosystem that can drive decades of innovation and growth.”
3:54

MIT announces the Initiative for New Manufacturing | Peter Dizikes, MIT News The Institute-wide effort aims to bolster industry and create jobs by driving innovation across vital manufacturing sectors. MIT today launched its Initiative for New Manufacturing (INM), an Institute-wide effort to reinfuse U.S. industrial production with leading-edge technologies, bolster crucial U.S. economic sectors, and ignite job creation. The initiative will encompass advanced research, innovative education programs, and partnership with companies across many sectors, in a bid to help transform manufacturing and elevate its impact. “We want to work with firms big and small, in cities, small towns and everywhere in between, to help them adopt new approaches for increased productivity,” MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the Institute community this morning. “We want to deliberately design high-quality, human-centered manufacturing jobs that bring new life to communities across the country.” Kornbluth added: “Helping America build a future of new manufacturing is a perfect job for MIT — and I’m convinced that there is no more important work we can do to meet the moment and serve the nation now.” The Initiative for New Manufacturing also announced its first six founding industry consortium members: Amgen, Flex, GE Vernova, PTC, Sanofi, and Siemens. Participants in the INM Industry Consortium will support seed projects proposed by MIT researchers, initially in the area of artificial intelligence for manufacturing. INM joins the ranks of MIT’s other presidential initiatives — including The Climate Project at MIT; MITHIC, which supports the human-centered disciplines; MIT HEALS, centered on the life sciences and health; and MGAIC, the MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium. “There is tremendous opportunity to bring together a vibrant community working across every scale — from nanotechnology to large-scale manufacturing — and across a wide-range of applications including semiconductors, medical devices, automotive, energy systems, and biotechnology,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s chief innovation and strategy officer and dean of engineering, who is part of the initiative’s leadership team. “MIT is uniquely positioned to harness the transformative power of digital tools and AI to shape future of manufacturing. I’m truly excited about what we can build together and the synergies this creates with other cross-cutting initiatives across the Institute.” The initiative is just the latest MIT-centered effort in recent decades aiming to expand American manufacturing. A faculty research group wrote the 1989 bestseller “Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge,” advocating for a renewal of manufacturing; another MIT project, called Production in the Innovation Economy, called for expanded manufacturing in the early 2010s. In 2016, MIT also founded The Engine, a venture fund investing in hardware-based “tough tech” start-ups including many with potential to became substantial manufacturing firms. As developed, the MIT Initiative for New Manufacturing is based around four major themes: - Reimagining manufacturing technologies and systems: realizing breakthrough technologies and system-level approaches to advance energy production, health care, computing, transportation, consumer products, and more; - Elevating the productivity and experience of manufacturing: developing and deploying new digitally driven methods and tools to amplify productivity and improve the human experience of manufacturing; - Scaling new manufacturing: accelerating the scaling of manufacturing companies and transforming supply chains to maximize efficiency and resilience, fostering product innovation and business growth; and - Transforming the manufacturing base: driving the deployment of a sustainable global manufacturing ecosystem that provides compelling opportunities to workers, with major efforts focused on the U.S. The initiative has mapped out many concrete activities and programs, which will include an Institute-wide research program on emerging technologies and other major topics; workforce and education programs; and industry engagement and participation. INM also aims to establish new labs for developing manufacturing tools and techniques; a “factory observatory” program which immerses students in manufacturing through visits to production sites; and key “pillars” focusing on areas from semiconductors and biomanufacturing to defense and aviation. The workforce and education element of INM will include TechAMP, an MIT-created program that works with community colleges to bridge the gap between technicians and engineers; AI-driven teaching tools; professional education; and an effort to expand manufacturing education on campus in collaboration with MIT departments and degree programs. INM’s leadership team has three faculty co-directors: John Hart, the Class of 1922 Professor and head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering; Suzanne Berger, Institute Professor at MIT and a political scientist who has conducted influential empirical studies of manufacturing; and Chris Love, the Raymond A. and Helen E. St. Laurent Professor of Chemical Engineering. The initiative’s executive director is Julie Diop. The initiative is in the process of forming a faculty steering committee with representation from across the Institute, as well as an external advisory board. INM stems partly from the work of the Manufacturing@MIT working group, formed in 2022 to assess many of these issues. The launch of the new initiative was previewed at a daylong MIT symposium on May 7, titled “A Vision for New Manufacturing.” The event, held before a capacity audience in MIT’s Wong Auditorium, featured over 30 speakers from a wide range of manufacturing sectors. “The rationale for growing and transforming U.S. manufacturing has never been more urgent than it is today,” Berger said at the event. “What we are trying to build at MIT now is not just another research project. … Together, with people in this room and outside this room, we’re trying to change what’s happening in our country.” “We need to think about the importance of manufacturing again, because it is what brings product ideas to people,” Love told MIT News. “For instance, in biotechnology, new life-saving medicines can’t reach patients without manufacturing. There is a real urgency about this issue for both economic prosperity and creating jobs. We have seen the impact for our country when we have lost our lead in manufacturing in some sectors. Biotechnology, where the U.S. has been the global leader for more than 40 years, offers the potential to promote new robust economies here, but we need to advance our capabilities in biomanufacturing to maintain our advantage in this area.” Hart adds: “While manufacturing feels very timely today, it is of enduring importance. Manufactured products enable our daily lives and manufacturing is critical to advancing the frontiers of technology and society. Our efforts leading up to launch of the initiative revealed great excitement about manufacturing across MIT, especially from students. Working with industry — from small to large companies, and from young startups to industrial giants — will be instrumental to creating impact and realizing the vision for new manufacturing.” In her letter to the MIT community today, Kornbluth stressed that the initiative’s goal is to drive transformation by making manufacturing more productive, resilient, and sustainable. “We want to reimagine manufacturing technologies and systems to advance fields like energy production, health care, computing, transportation, consumer products, and more,” she wrote. “And we want to reach well beyond the shop floor to tackle challenges like how to make supply chains more resilient, and how to inform public policy to foster a broad, healthy manufacturing ecosystem that can drive decades of innovation and growth.”

Owen Gregorian

77,197 просмотров • 1 год назад

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:
31:35

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 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."
8:29

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,107 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

من ساحة مستشفى الشفاء الذي شهد قتلا وتشريدا وحرقا… هذه الساحة ساحة الشهداء التي دُفن فيها العشرات… نعيش في وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية أسوأ الظروف في المستشفيات ومراكز الرعاية الأولية… نعاني شُحّا غير مسبوقا في الأدوية والمستلزمات بسبب استمرار إغلاق المعابر… يوجد 170000 جريح وكل جريح يحتاج في المتوسط 3 عمليات ما يعني أننا نحتاج لأكثر من 400000 عملية جراحية… إذا استمر إغلاق المعابر سيموت هؤلاء أمام أعيننا في ظل النقص الحاد وحتى عدم توفر الماء النظيف في المستشفيات… لا بد من فتح المعابر والتزام الاحتلال بما اتُّفق عليه وقد اتفق الوسطاء على إدخال 600 شاحنة بينها شاحنات أدوية وإمداد طبي لإنقاذ المستشفيات وإنشاء المراكز الطبية… على المجتمع الدولي أن يُلزم الاحتلال بفتح المعابر وإدخال الإمداد الطبي لإنقاذ مئات الآلاف من المرضى والمصابين… نتحدث عن شعب أُصيبت غزة فيه بمجاعة مُعلنة وتحتاج إلى إجراءات وتدخلات سريعة بإدخال مراكز تغذية للأطفال والأمهات وتوفير حمض الفوليك والحديد وسائر رعاية الأمومة والطفل… استلمنا 90 جثمانا طاهرا على دفعتين 45 و45 وننتظر دفعة ثالثة تقارب 30… المشاهدات الأولية تُظهر تعذيبا وتكبيلا وآثار جنازير دبابات ووجود جثامين مُشرَّحة تحتاج لتدقيق من لجان مختصة… لدينا تجربة سابقة تُظهر إفراغ مضامين بعض الجثامين من الأعضاء ووضع القطن والقماش وسُرقت قرنيات وكِلى وحتى كبد… لا نستطيع تأكيد أو نفي سرقة الأعضاء إلا بعد استكمال الإجراءات الروتينية عبر لجنة من القضاء العالي والنيابة العامة ووزارة الصحة. From the courtyard of al-Shifa Hospital, which witnessed killing, displacement, and burning… this courtyard is the martyrs’ square where dozens were buried… we at the Palestinian Ministry of Health are living through the worst conditions in hospitals and primary care centers… we are suffering an unprecedented shortage of medicines and supplies due to the continued closure of the crossings… there are 170000 wounded, and each needs on average 3 operations, meaning we require more than 400000 surgical procedures… if the crossings remain closed, these people will die before our eyes amid severe shortages and even the lack of clean water in hospitals… the crossings must be opened and the occupation must abide by what was agreed, and mediators agreed to allow in 600 trucks, including medicine and medical-supply trucks, to save hospitals and establish medical centers… the international community must compel the occupation to open the crossings and bring in medical supplies to save hundreds of thousands of patients and the injured… we are talking about a people for whom Gaza has been declared to be in famine and who need rapid measures and interventions by setting up nutrition centers for children and mothers and providing folic acid, iron, and all maternal and child care… we received 90 pure bodies in two batches, 45 and 45, and we are awaiting a third batch of about 30… initial observations show torture, shackling, the tracks of tank treads, and bodies that were autopsied, which require verification by specialized committees… we have prior experience showing that some bodies were emptied of organs and stuffed with cotton and fabric, and corneas, kidneys, and even a liver were stolen… we cannot confirm or deny organ theft until routine procedures are completed by a committee from the High Judiciary, the Public Prosecution, and the Ministry of Health.
12:23

من ساحة مستشفى الشفاء الذي شهد قتلا وتشريدا وحرقا… هذه الساحة ساحة الشهداء التي دُفن فيها العشرات… نعيش في وزارة الصحة الفلسطينية أسوأ الظروف في المستشفيات ومراكز الرعاية الأولية… نعاني شُحّا غير مسبوقا في الأدوية والمستلزمات بسبب استمرار إغلاق المعابر… يوجد 170000 جريح وكل جريح يحتاج في المتوسط 3 عمليات ما يعني أننا نحتاج لأكثر من 400000 عملية جراحية… إذا استمر إغلاق المعابر سيموت هؤلاء أمام أعيننا في ظل النقص الحاد وحتى عدم توفر الماء النظيف في المستشفيات… لا بد من فتح المعابر والتزام الاحتلال بما اتُّفق عليه وقد اتفق الوسطاء على إدخال 600 شاحنة بينها شاحنات أدوية وإمداد طبي لإنقاذ المستشفيات وإنشاء المراكز الطبية… على المجتمع الدولي أن يُلزم الاحتلال بفتح المعابر وإدخال الإمداد الطبي لإنقاذ مئات الآلاف من المرضى والمصابين… نتحدث عن شعب أُصيبت غزة فيه بمجاعة مُعلنة وتحتاج إلى إجراءات وتدخلات سريعة بإدخال مراكز تغذية للأطفال والأمهات وتوفير حمض الفوليك والحديد وسائر رعاية الأمومة والطفل… استلمنا 90 جثمانا طاهرا على دفعتين 45 و45 وننتظر دفعة ثالثة تقارب 30… المشاهدات الأولية تُظهر تعذيبا وتكبيلا وآثار جنازير دبابات ووجود جثامين مُشرَّحة تحتاج لتدقيق من لجان مختصة… لدينا تجربة سابقة تُظهر إفراغ مضامين بعض الجثامين من الأعضاء ووضع القطن والقماش وسُرقت قرنيات وكِلى وحتى كبد… لا نستطيع تأكيد أو نفي سرقة الأعضاء إلا بعد استكمال الإجراءات الروتينية عبر لجنة من القضاء العالي والنيابة العامة ووزارة الصحة. From the courtyard of al-Shifa Hospital, which witnessed killing, displacement, and burning… this courtyard is the martyrs’ square where dozens were buried… we at the Palestinian Ministry of Health are living through the worst conditions in hospitals and primary care centers… we are suffering an unprecedented shortage of medicines and supplies due to the continued closure of the crossings… there are 170000 wounded, and each needs on average 3 operations, meaning we require more than 400000 surgical procedures… if the crossings remain closed, these people will die before our eyes amid severe shortages and even the lack of clean water in hospitals… the crossings must be opened and the occupation must abide by what was agreed, and mediators agreed to allow in 600 trucks, including medicine and medical-supply trucks, to save hospitals and establish medical centers… the international community must compel the occupation to open the crossings and bring in medical supplies to save hundreds of thousands of patients and the injured… we are talking about a people for whom Gaza has been declared to be in famine and who need rapid measures and interventions by setting up nutrition centers for children and mothers and providing folic acid, iron, and all maternal and child care… we received 90 pure bodies in two batches, 45 and 45, and we are awaiting a third batch of about 30… initial observations show torture, shackling, the tracks of tank treads, and bodies that were autopsied, which require verification by specialized committees… we have prior experience showing that some bodies were emptied of organs and stuffed with cotton and fabric, and corneas, kidneys, and even a liver were stolen… we cannot confirm or deny organ theft until routine procedures are completed by a committee from the High Judiciary, the Public Prosecution, and the Ministry of Health.

Dr.Muneer Alboursh د.منيرالبرش

32,045 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

What happens when AGI nukes jobs? Let's look at the macroeconomics of the future! Have you ever stopped to ask how money actually gets into your pocket? Not the work you do to earn it, but the actual plumbing of the economy that pushes purchasing power from the top of the financial system down to your bank account. Right now, that plumbing is designed around a single, potentially fragile pipe called the job market. And that pipe may be about to spring some serious leaks. In our current system, the circulation of money is what economists might call labor-mediated. It starts at the top with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, which create liquidity and lend it to businesses. Those businesses take that capital and, crucially, hire people. This is the critical transmission step that makes everything else possible. The primary mechanism for distributing money to regular households is wages. You sell your time, the business pays you, and that is how purchasing power reaches the bottom of the pyramid. The entire system relies on a core assumption: that businesses need human labor to grow. When companies borrow money to expand, they hire more people, and money circulates through the economy. Households spend their wages, businesses earn revenue, and the cycle continues. It is an elegant design that has powered industrial economies for over a century. But we are entering an era where that foundational assumption is beginning to fail. As automation and artificial intelligence allow companies to produce more with fewer people, the link between business growth and hiring weakens. A company can now take a loan to deploy a fleet of robots or implement a sophisticated AI system and produce massive value without hiring a single new employee. The productivity gains are real, but the wages never materialize. This creates a structural problem that goes beyond unemployment statistics. When the wage pipe narrows, money gets stuck at the corporate level or circulates only among asset owners. The purchasing power that once flowed to millions of households instead pools in corporate treasuries and financial markets. The money exists, but the transmission mechanism that delivers it to ordinary people is broken. This is the core economic challenge of what some are calling the post-labor economy. It is not that there will be no jobs at all, but that jobs will cease to be the reliable, universal distribution mechanism for economic participation. If we do not redesign the plumbing, we risk an economy where productivity soars while most people are locked out of the gains. The framework of Post-Labor Economics proposes a fundamentally different way to wire the machine. Instead of relying on wages to move money to people, we shift to a capital-mediated cycle. In this new regime, the circulation of money can bypass the labor market entirely when necessary. The value generated by automated production does not just sit in corporate treasuries. Instead, it flows into shared ownership vehicles like sovereign wealth funds, social wealth funds, and community asset trusts. The key insight here is that ownership becomes the new channel for distribution. Rather than earning income by selling labor time, households receive income because they hold a stake in the productive machinery of society. When the robots get more productive, ordinary people get paid more, not less. This is not redistribution in the traditional sense. It is a redesign of who owns what and how returns flow. This shift also requires new infrastructure. Open payment rails and digital public infrastructure become essential for sending money directly to citizen wallets. Think of systems like India’s UPI or Brazil’s Pix, which can move small payments to millions of people instantly and cheaply. Without this kind of infrastructure, distributing dividends to an entire population would be slow, expensive, and dependent on private gatekeepers who extract fees at every step. The tax base must also evolve. You cannot fund a society by taxing payrolls if there are no payrolls. Post-Labor Economics proposes shifting the tax base from labor income toward land, resources, data, and automation itself. Levies on the value added by machines, land value taxes that capture economic rent, and resource royalties become the new foundation of public revenue. This money is then recycled back into the shared ownership vehicles that pay out to citizens. One of the most important effects of this redesign is maintaining what economists call the velocity of money. In the current system, if money concentrates among the wealthy, velocity drops because rich people cannot possibly spend all their income. They save it, and it sits idle in financial assets. By systematically moving money from high-saving entities like corporations and billionaires to high-consuming entities like ordinary households, the new system keeps money circulating through the real economy. Think of it as building a permanent detour around a blocked road. Today, if the job market is blocked by automation, the flow of money stops reaching households, and the economy stalls. Demand collapses, businesses lose customers, and a vicious cycle begins. In a Post-Labor Economics world, we build a direct line from national productivity to your digital wallet, ensuring the economy keeps moving even when traditional employment contracts. The Federal Reserve and central banks still manage the supply of money at the top. The basic mechanics of monetary policy do not disappear. But the path that money takes to get to you changes fundamentally. It stops being primarily a reward for labor you perform and starts being a dividend on the society you help constitute. It is a shift from earning your keep to owning your share. This is not utopian speculation. It is a structural necessity for an economy that wants to keep functioning as technology reshapes the relationship between capital and labor. The question is not whether we will need new distribution mechanisms, but whether we will build them in time. The plumbing of the twentieth-century economy served us well, but the water pressure is changing. We need new pipes.
21:49

What happens when AGI nukes jobs? Let's look at the macroeconomics of the future! Have you ever stopped to ask how money actually gets into your pocket? Not the work you do to earn it, but the actual plumbing of the economy that pushes purchasing power from the top of the financial system down to your bank account. Right now, that plumbing is designed around a single, potentially fragile pipe called the job market. And that pipe may be about to spring some serious leaks. In our current system, the circulation of money is what economists might call labor-mediated. It starts at the top with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, which create liquidity and lend it to businesses. Those businesses take that capital and, crucially, hire people. This is the critical transmission step that makes everything else possible. The primary mechanism for distributing money to regular households is wages. You sell your time, the business pays you, and that is how purchasing power reaches the bottom of the pyramid. The entire system relies on a core assumption: that businesses need human labor to grow. When companies borrow money to expand, they hire more people, and money circulates through the economy. Households spend their wages, businesses earn revenue, and the cycle continues. It is an elegant design that has powered industrial economies for over a century. But we are entering an era where that foundational assumption is beginning to fail. As automation and artificial intelligence allow companies to produce more with fewer people, the link between business growth and hiring weakens. A company can now take a loan to deploy a fleet of robots or implement a sophisticated AI system and produce massive value without hiring a single new employee. The productivity gains are real, but the wages never materialize. This creates a structural problem that goes beyond unemployment statistics. When the wage pipe narrows, money gets stuck at the corporate level or circulates only among asset owners. The purchasing power that once flowed to millions of households instead pools in corporate treasuries and financial markets. The money exists, but the transmission mechanism that delivers it to ordinary people is broken. This is the core economic challenge of what some are calling the post-labor economy. It is not that there will be no jobs at all, but that jobs will cease to be the reliable, universal distribution mechanism for economic participation. If we do not redesign the plumbing, we risk an economy where productivity soars while most people are locked out of the gains. The framework of Post-Labor Economics proposes a fundamentally different way to wire the machine. Instead of relying on wages to move money to people, we shift to a capital-mediated cycle. In this new regime, the circulation of money can bypass the labor market entirely when necessary. The value generated by automated production does not just sit in corporate treasuries. Instead, it flows into shared ownership vehicles like sovereign wealth funds, social wealth funds, and community asset trusts. The key insight here is that ownership becomes the new channel for distribution. Rather than earning income by selling labor time, households receive income because they hold a stake in the productive machinery of society. When the robots get more productive, ordinary people get paid more, not less. This is not redistribution in the traditional sense. It is a redesign of who owns what and how returns flow. This shift also requires new infrastructure. Open payment rails and digital public infrastructure become essential for sending money directly to citizen wallets. Think of systems like India’s UPI or Brazil’s Pix, which can move small payments to millions of people instantly and cheaply. Without this kind of infrastructure, distributing dividends to an entire population would be slow, expensive, and dependent on private gatekeepers who extract fees at every step. The tax base must also evolve. You cannot fund a society by taxing payrolls if there are no payrolls. Post-Labor Economics proposes shifting the tax base from labor income toward land, resources, data, and automation itself. Levies on the value added by machines, land value taxes that capture economic rent, and resource royalties become the new foundation of public revenue. This money is then recycled back into the shared ownership vehicles that pay out to citizens. One of the most important effects of this redesign is maintaining what economists call the velocity of money. In the current system, if money concentrates among the wealthy, velocity drops because rich people cannot possibly spend all their income. They save it, and it sits idle in financial assets. By systematically moving money from high-saving entities like corporations and billionaires to high-consuming entities like ordinary households, the new system keeps money circulating through the real economy. Think of it as building a permanent detour around a blocked road. Today, if the job market is blocked by automation, the flow of money stops reaching households, and the economy stalls. Demand collapses, businesses lose customers, and a vicious cycle begins. In a Post-Labor Economics world, we build a direct line from national productivity to your digital wallet, ensuring the economy keeps moving even when traditional employment contracts. The Federal Reserve and central banks still manage the supply of money at the top. The basic mechanics of monetary policy do not disappear. But the path that money takes to get to you changes fundamentally. It stops being primarily a reward for labor you perform and starts being a dividend on the society you help constitute. It is a shift from earning your keep to owning your share. This is not utopian speculation. It is a structural necessity for an economy that wants to keep functioning as technology reshapes the relationship between capital and labor. The question is not whether we will need new distribution mechanisms, but whether we will build them in time. The plumbing of the twentieth-century economy served us well, but the water pressure is changing. We need new pipes.

David Shapiro (L/0)

33,268 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Cyberpunk City: Stepping Boldly Into a New Era At Cyberpunk City, innovation and ambition have always driven us. We’ve built more than just a game—we’ve created an entire ecosystem where blockchain technology meets immersive experiences. From our token-powered economy to NFT-backed in-game assets, we’ve consistently pushed boundaries. Along the way, we’ve achieved significant milestones, expanded our community, and shown resilience in the ever-changing world of Web3. Now, we’re excited to announce a pivotal new chapter for Cyberpunk City as we prepare to migrate to a new blockchain that aligns perfectly with our long-term goals. This move represents not just a transition, but an opportunity to build on our successes and scale the project further. With exciting updates on the horizon, we’re confident this journey will unlock new opportunities for our community and propel Cyberpunk City to new heights. Reflecting on Our Achievements Before diving into the future, we want to acknowledge the milestones and achievements that have shaped Cyberpunk City: Strong Token Economy: We’ve built a thriving token-based ecosystem and ensured real utility for in-game assets through NFT integration. Commitment to Decentralization: With the launch of @CyberpunkStake, we showed our dedication to decentralization and rewarded our community with substantial token distributions. Impressive NFT Volume: Cyberpunk City is currently ranked 10th in all-time volume among NFT projects, a testament to the trust and activity within our community. Price Action and Market Strength: Our token has demonstrated consistent strength in price action, reflecting confidence in our vision and project execution. Meaningful Partnerships and Community Events: We’ve secured valuable partnerships and organized gaming events that brought our community together. Recognition at xDay: Cyberpunk City has proudly participated in two xDay events, earning two awards that highlight the project’s innovation and impact. These achievements reflect the hard work of our team, the enthusiasm of our supporters, and our shared vision for building something remarkable. As we prepare for the next chapter, we’ll continue to build on these successes, creating more opportunities and experiences for everyone involved. What Does This Mean for Our Community? This transition is more than just a technical shift—it’s a chance to elevate the Cyberpunk City ecosystem, refine our offerings, and tap into larger, more vibrant ecosystems. Our mission is to ensure that Cyberpunk City thrives in an ecosystem that can support our ambitions. Here are the key updates that will take place during this migration: 1. Token Ticker Change Earlier, our community voted through a DAO process, selecting $CYB as the new token ticker. As part of this transition, $CYBER holders will be able to bridge their tokens to $CYB on the new chain. 2. Asset Bridging All community-owned NFTs and tokens will be bridgeable to the new chain. Our Cyberpunk City dApp will facilitate these transactions, ensuring the process is as smooth as possible. Some assets will receive enhancements, but rest assured, all updates will be completed within a reasonable timeframe. 3. xExchange Trading Our token will continue to be traded on xExchange throughout the migration process, maintaining liquidity and flexibility. You will also have the option to bridge your tokens to the new blockchain at your convenience. 4. Timeline and Chain Announcement The official chain announcement will be made on November 8, 2024, and the migration will be completed by year-end. The new blockchain aligns with our vision of expanding Cyberpunk City into a vast, more diverse ecosystem, with a significantly larger user base and even greater opportunities for growth. 5. Whitepaper V2 We’ve received many inquiries about our new whitepaper, and we’re excited to share that Whitepaper V2 will be part of a coordinated series of announcements. Due to uncertainties over the past 10 months, we postponed its release to ensure it aligns with the new direction of the project. Now, with a clear path ahead, we are working on a whitepaper that reflects new features and insights gained over three years of development. 6. Website Redesign Alongside the chain announcement, we’re launching a completely revamped website to elevate the Cyberpunk City experience. With a cutting-edge design that mirrors the sophistication and quality of our game, the new site will be more dynamic, visually immersive, and crafted to engage a growing community of gamers. This update will also roll out with Whitepaper V2, providing a clear and comprehensive vision of our roadmap and future plans. The redesigned website reflects our commitment to delivering a premium experience and attracting a larger audience. 7. Marketing Strategy Our decision to keep the blockchain confidential for now is part of a carefully crafted marketing strategy. We aim to reach the largest audience possible with this announcement and are preparing the necessary content and campaigns to ensure a smooth and exciting reveal. 8. Business Development and Partnerships Our business development team is actively working to establish new partnerships on the new blockchain. Once the transition becomes public, we’ll be announcing multiple collaborations to accelerate growth and expansion in our new ecosystem. A New Chapter for Cyberpunk City This transition is a bold and necessary step toward scaling Cyberpunk City into a truly global ecosystem. It’s not just a technical shift—it’s a new beginning, filled with opportunities to build on our past successes and embrace new challenges. We’re confident that this move will unlock new possibilities, helping us reach more players, forge deeper partnerships, and create a thriving community. We’re excited to share this journey with you and look forward to what lies ahead. Stay tuned for updates and get ready to experience the next evolution of Cyberpunk City! Thank you for your support—we’re just getting started!
1:00

Cyberpunk City: Stepping Boldly Into a New Era At Cyberpunk City, innovation and ambition have always driven us. We’ve built more than just a game—we’ve created an entire ecosystem where blockchain technology meets immersive experiences. From our token-powered economy to NFT-backed in-game assets, we’ve consistently pushed boundaries. Along the way, we’ve achieved significant milestones, expanded our community, and shown resilience in the ever-changing world of Web3. Now, we’re excited to announce a pivotal new chapter for Cyberpunk City as we prepare to migrate to a new blockchain that aligns perfectly with our long-term goals. This move represents not just a transition, but an opportunity to build on our successes and scale the project further. With exciting updates on the horizon, we’re confident this journey will unlock new opportunities for our community and propel Cyberpunk City to new heights. Reflecting on Our Achievements Before diving into the future, we want to acknowledge the milestones and achievements that have shaped Cyberpunk City: Strong Token Economy: We’ve built a thriving token-based ecosystem and ensured real utility for in-game assets through NFT integration. Commitment to Decentralization: With the launch of @CyberpunkStake, we showed our dedication to decentralization and rewarded our community with substantial token distributions. Impressive NFT Volume: Cyberpunk City is currently ranked 10th in all-time volume among NFT projects, a testament to the trust and activity within our community. Price Action and Market Strength: Our token has demonstrated consistent strength in price action, reflecting confidence in our vision and project execution. Meaningful Partnerships and Community Events: We’ve secured valuable partnerships and organized gaming events that brought our community together. Recognition at xDay: Cyberpunk City has proudly participated in two xDay events, earning two awards that highlight the project’s innovation and impact. These achievements reflect the hard work of our team, the enthusiasm of our supporters, and our shared vision for building something remarkable. As we prepare for the next chapter, we’ll continue to build on these successes, creating more opportunities and experiences for everyone involved. What Does This Mean for Our Community? This transition is more than just a technical shift—it’s a chance to elevate the Cyberpunk City ecosystem, refine our offerings, and tap into larger, more vibrant ecosystems. Our mission is to ensure that Cyberpunk City thrives in an ecosystem that can support our ambitions. Here are the key updates that will take place during this migration: 1. Token Ticker Change Earlier, our community voted through a DAO process, selecting $CYB as the new token ticker. As part of this transition, $CYBER holders will be able to bridge their tokens to $CYB on the new chain. 2. Asset Bridging All community-owned NFTs and tokens will be bridgeable to the new chain. Our Cyberpunk City dApp will facilitate these transactions, ensuring the process is as smooth as possible. Some assets will receive enhancements, but rest assured, all updates will be completed within a reasonable timeframe. 3. xExchange Trading Our token will continue to be traded on xExchange throughout the migration process, maintaining liquidity and flexibility. You will also have the option to bridge your tokens to the new blockchain at your convenience. 4. Timeline and Chain Announcement The official chain announcement will be made on November 8, 2024, and the migration will be completed by year-end. The new blockchain aligns with our vision of expanding Cyberpunk City into a vast, more diverse ecosystem, with a significantly larger user base and even greater opportunities for growth. 5. Whitepaper V2 We’ve received many inquiries about our new whitepaper, and we’re excited to share that Whitepaper V2 will be part of a coordinated series of announcements. Due to uncertainties over the past 10 months, we postponed its release to ensure it aligns with the new direction of the project. Now, with a clear path ahead, we are working on a whitepaper that reflects new features and insights gained over three years of development. 6. Website Redesign Alongside the chain announcement, we’re launching a completely revamped website to elevate the Cyberpunk City experience. With a cutting-edge design that mirrors the sophistication and quality of our game, the new site will be more dynamic, visually immersive, and crafted to engage a growing community of gamers. This update will also roll out with Whitepaper V2, providing a clear and comprehensive vision of our roadmap and future plans. The redesigned website reflects our commitment to delivering a premium experience and attracting a larger audience. 7. Marketing Strategy Our decision to keep the blockchain confidential for now is part of a carefully crafted marketing strategy. We aim to reach the largest audience possible with this announcement and are preparing the necessary content and campaigns to ensure a smooth and exciting reveal. 8. Business Development and Partnerships Our business development team is actively working to establish new partnerships on the new blockchain. Once the transition becomes public, we’ll be announcing multiple collaborations to accelerate growth and expansion in our new ecosystem. A New Chapter for Cyberpunk City This transition is a bold and necessary step toward scaling Cyberpunk City into a truly global ecosystem. It’s not just a technical shift—it’s a new beginning, filled with opportunities to build on our past successes and embrace new challenges. We’re confident that this move will unlock new possibilities, helping us reach more players, forge deeper partnerships, and create a thriving community. We’re excited to share this journey with you and look forward to what lies ahead. Stay tuned for updates and get ready to experience the next evolution of Cyberpunk City! Thank you for your support—we’re just getting started!

Cyberpunk City

30,601 просмотров • 1 год назад

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.
1:12:41

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.

Compounding Quality

620,915 просмотров • 2 лет назад

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.
47:51

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

Jaynit

423,205 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Sundial has raised $23M to build the analytics platform for the AI era! Our work is personal to me (though many have asked: Why? Aren't you into intuition and taste and experience which is ultimately unmeasurable?) But hear me out: I love building, and I have a deep respect for it. Making something people love is one of the hardest and most humbling endeavors. The art comes down to making high-quality decisions, which comes from an obsession with the cliff’s edge between customer understanding and product capability. You need to know what’s working and what isn’t. That’s why data matters. Data is *information* about how reality works. At Sundial, we live by the mantra: diagnose with data; treat with design. What does masterful decision-making look like? It comes down to 3 things: 1. extreme alignment 2. shared curiosity to unpeel deeper and deeper layers of truth 3. urgent execution The very fact is that good intuition and taste comes from data internalized across many, many reps. Yes, reality is infinitely more complex than what can be measured. But measuring gives us a better grasp of reality. Alas, using data well is like learning a new language. It requires years of skill and context building. It's easy to misuse, whether misguidedly or intentionally. I know this all too well. Mastery requires everything from how to break down an ambiguous question, to fluently reading triangle charts and dense tables, to remembering the specific name of a specific column using a specific dialect of SQL. Too many people, like me, regularly feel frustrated by a) how long it takes to get answers b) how to draw the right interpretations c) how much noise I have to wade through to find actually actionable insights. Instead of greater confidence and quality, we get conflicting signals, cherry-picked facts, and analysis paralysis. Sundial is our attempt to solve those problems. We’re bottling up opinionated intelligence to guide decision-makers towards faster and more confident decisions. We envision a world where *everyone* can be their own expert analyst. Sundial uses AI and expert analytical techniques to make insights accessible to every decision-maker. Exemplary analysis takes the listener through a story. Data should speak the language of business, not the other way around. Sundial is also smart in the ways you’d expect of an AI-native tool. It’s not just about looking up data (“What’s India ARR last month?”), which has become table stakes; rather, Sundial can also tackle deep, complex analysis (”Why did ARR decline? What are my levers?”). In a crowded landscape of fragmented data tools—dashboards, notebooks, ETL systems—Sundial brings it all together into one intuitive platform. We believe this era of AI will see teams doing far more with less, and moving faster than ever before. Our mission is to build the data brain for the next generation of AI-powered companies. We're thrilled to be backed by dj patil at GPV—the first U.S. Chief Data Scientist and coiner of the term "data scientist”, alongside industry luminaries like Amjad Masad, tobi lutke, Fidji Simo, alex schultz 🏳️‍🌈, Shishir, Ruchi Sanghvi, Avichal - Electric ϟ Capital, Drew Houston, Howie Liu and firms including Sequoia Capital, Tribe Capital, Sunflower Capital, Unusual Ventures. The best part of building Sundial is the people we get to work with. Funding announcements are nice and all, but what really fuels us is the feedback and growth trajectory of our customers. There’s nothing better than working on interesting problems with people you like. Onward! (P.S. We’re hiring for AI engineers, data engineers, and data scientists in the Bay Area -- DM me if you resonate with our mission, love dissecting big problems down into smaller ones, and appreciate the consistent practice of craft.)
0:20

Sundial has raised $23M to build the analytics platform for the AI era! Our work is personal to me (though many have asked: Why? Aren't you into intuition and taste and experience which is ultimately unmeasurable?) But hear me out: I love building, and I have a deep respect for it. Making something people love is one of the hardest and most humbling endeavors. The art comes down to making high-quality decisions, which comes from an obsession with the cliff’s edge between customer understanding and product capability. You need to know what’s working and what isn’t. That’s why data matters. Data is *information* about how reality works. At Sundial, we live by the mantra: diagnose with data; treat with design. What does masterful decision-making look like? It comes down to 3 things: 1. extreme alignment 2. shared curiosity to unpeel deeper and deeper layers of truth 3. urgent execution The very fact is that good intuition and taste comes from data internalized across many, many reps. Yes, reality is infinitely more complex than what can be measured. But measuring gives us a better grasp of reality. Alas, using data well is like learning a new language. It requires years of skill and context building. It's easy to misuse, whether misguidedly or intentionally. I know this all too well. Mastery requires everything from how to break down an ambiguous question, to fluently reading triangle charts and dense tables, to remembering the specific name of a specific column using a specific dialect of SQL. Too many people, like me, regularly feel frustrated by a) how long it takes to get answers b) how to draw the right interpretations c) how much noise I have to wade through to find actually actionable insights. Instead of greater confidence and quality, we get conflicting signals, cherry-picked facts, and analysis paralysis. Sundial is our attempt to solve those problems. We’re bottling up opinionated intelligence to guide decision-makers towards faster and more confident decisions. We envision a world where *everyone* can be their own expert analyst. Sundial uses AI and expert analytical techniques to make insights accessible to every decision-maker. Exemplary analysis takes the listener through a story. Data should speak the language of business, not the other way around. Sundial is also smart in the ways you’d expect of an AI-native tool. It’s not just about looking up data (“What’s India ARR last month?”), which has become table stakes; rather, Sundial can also tackle deep, complex analysis (”Why did ARR decline? What are my levers?”). In a crowded landscape of fragmented data tools—dashboards, notebooks, ETL systems—Sundial brings it all together into one intuitive platform. We believe this era of AI will see teams doing far more with less, and moving faster than ever before. Our mission is to build the data brain for the next generation of AI-powered companies. We're thrilled to be backed by dj patil at GPV—the first U.S. Chief Data Scientist and coiner of the term "data scientist”, alongside industry luminaries like Amjad Masad, tobi lutke, Fidji Simo, alex schultz 🏳️‍🌈, Shishir, Ruchi Sanghvi, Avichal - Electric ϟ Capital, Drew Houston, Howie Liu and firms including Sequoia Capital, Tribe Capital, Sunflower Capital, Unusual Ventures. The best part of building Sundial is the people we get to work with. Funding announcements are nice and all, but what really fuels us is the feedback and growth trajectory of our customers. There’s nothing better than working on interesting problems with people you like. Onward! (P.S. We’re hiring for AI engineers, data engineers, and data scientists in the Bay Area -- DM me if you resonate with our mission, love dissecting big problems down into smaller ones, and appreciate the consistent practice of craft.)

Julie Zhuo

129,037 просмотров • 1 год назад

My biggest takeaways from Dhanji Prasanna, CTO of Block: 1. Block’s internal AI agent "Goose" is saving employees on average 8 to 10 hours per week. The company built an open-source tool called Goose that handles tasks from organizing files to writing code. Across the entire company, they’re seeing roughly 20% to 25% of manual work hours saved, and that number keeps climbing. 2. Non-technical teams are getting the biggest productivity boost from AI, not engineers. People in legal, risk management, and operations are now building their own software tools that previously would have required months on an engineering team’s roadmap. What used to take weeks now takes hours, and employees do it themselves without waiting. 3. Changing organizational structure unlocked more productivity than any AI tool. To transform into a truly “technology driven” company, Block reorganized from separate business units (each with their own GM and engineering teams) to a single functional structure where all engineers report to one leader. This “boring” change enabled a unified technology strategy and drove more acceleration than any AI tool. 4. Code quality has almost nothing to do with product success. YouTube became one of Google’s most successful products despite storing videos as blobs in a MySQL database with a slow Python stack. Meanwhile, Google Video had superior technology with more formats and higher resolution but failed completely. The lesson: Focus on solving real problems for people, not on perfect code. 5. AI enables teams to explore multiple paths simultaneously instead of choosing one up front. Previously, limited resources meant teams had to pick their best guess for an experiment. Now AI can build multiple different approaches overnight, allowing teams to compare five or six options and throw away entire features if they don’t feel right—a practice that was unthinkable before. 6. Most successful products start as tiny experiments, not big initiatives. Cash App began as a hack-week idea. Goose started as one engineer’s side project. Block’s Bitcoin product came from a three-person hackathon team. In contrast, Google Wave had 70 to 80 engineers before having real users and failed. Small experiments that prove value beat large up-front investments. 7. Leaders must use AI tools daily to drive real organizational adoption. Block’s CEO Jack Dorsey, the CTO, and the entire executive team use Goose every single day. This hands-on experience teaches them how workflows actually change and drives authentic adoption throughout the organization far more than reading articles or attending conferences about AI. 8. AI excels at new projects but struggles with complex legacy systems. Teams building new applications or working on greenfield platforms see aggressive productivity gains. But in existing codebases with years of accumulated complexity, the gains aren’t there yet. Deploy AI where it works best rather than everywhere at once. 9. Giving away valuable technology for free can be a winning strategy. Block open-sourced Goose even though it could have been a standalone billion-dollar business. Even their competitors actively use it. The philosophy: build things that benefit everyone and outlast your own company. This commitment to open-source technology attracts talent and builds industry goodwill while advancing everyone’s capabilities. 10. Purpose should drive your technology choices, not the other way around. Rather than chasing every AI trend or trying to be at the forefront of every technology, identify what truly matters to your company and customers. Block stays focused on economic empowerment, which guides their technology decisions and keeps them from getting distracted by every new advancement. Listen now 👇 • YouTube: • Spotify: • Apple: Thank you to our wonderful sponsors for supporting the podcast: 🏆 Sinch — Build messaging, email, and calling into your product: 🏆 Figma Make — A prompt-to-code tool for making ideas real: 🏆 — A global leader in digital identity verification: A
1:41

My biggest takeaways from Dhanji Prasanna, CTO of Block: 1. Block’s internal AI agent "Goose" is saving employees on average 8 to 10 hours per week. The company built an open-source tool called Goose that handles tasks from organizing files to writing code. Across the entire company, they’re seeing roughly 20% to 25% of manual work hours saved, and that number keeps climbing. 2. Non-technical teams are getting the biggest productivity boost from AI, not engineers. People in legal, risk management, and operations are now building their own software tools that previously would have required months on an engineering team’s roadmap. What used to take weeks now takes hours, and employees do it themselves without waiting. 3. Changing organizational structure unlocked more productivity than any AI tool. To transform into a truly “technology driven” company, Block reorganized from separate business units (each with their own GM and engineering teams) to a single functional structure where all engineers report to one leader. This “boring” change enabled a unified technology strategy and drove more acceleration than any AI tool. 4. Code quality has almost nothing to do with product success. YouTube became one of Google’s most successful products despite storing videos as blobs in a MySQL database with a slow Python stack. Meanwhile, Google Video had superior technology with more formats and higher resolution but failed completely. The lesson: Focus on solving real problems for people, not on perfect code. 5. AI enables teams to explore multiple paths simultaneously instead of choosing one up front. Previously, limited resources meant teams had to pick their best guess for an experiment. Now AI can build multiple different approaches overnight, allowing teams to compare five or six options and throw away entire features if they don’t feel right—a practice that was unthinkable before. 6. Most successful products start as tiny experiments, not big initiatives. Cash App began as a hack-week idea. Goose started as one engineer’s side project. Block’s Bitcoin product came from a three-person hackathon team. In contrast, Google Wave had 70 to 80 engineers before having real users and failed. Small experiments that prove value beat large up-front investments. 7. Leaders must use AI tools daily to drive real organizational adoption. Block’s CEO Jack Dorsey, the CTO, and the entire executive team use Goose every single day. This hands-on experience teaches them how workflows actually change and drives authentic adoption throughout the organization far more than reading articles or attending conferences about AI. 8. AI excels at new projects but struggles with complex legacy systems. Teams building new applications or working on greenfield platforms see aggressive productivity gains. But in existing codebases with years of accumulated complexity, the gains aren’t there yet. Deploy AI where it works best rather than everywhere at once. 9. Giving away valuable technology for free can be a winning strategy. Block open-sourced Goose even though it could have been a standalone billion-dollar business. Even their competitors actively use it. The philosophy: build things that benefit everyone and outlast your own company. This commitment to open-source technology attracts talent and builds industry goodwill while advancing everyone’s capabilities. 10. Purpose should drive your technology choices, not the other way around. Rather than chasing every AI trend or trying to be at the forefront of every technology, identify what truly matters to your company and customers. Block stays focused on economic empowerment, which guides their technology decisions and keeps them from getting distracted by every new advancement. Listen now 👇 • YouTube: • Spotify: • Apple: Thank you to our wonderful sponsors for supporting the podcast: 🏆 Sinch — Build messaging, email, and calling into your product: 🏆 Figma Make — A prompt-to-code tool for making ideas real: 🏆 — A global leader in digital identity verification: A

Lenny Rachitsky

812,251 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:
24:49

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:

1tokki

104,638 просмотров • 1 год назад

Peter Costello was Treasurer of Australia from 1996 to 2007 - longer than anyone else in the country's history. He architected and led the most complex tax reform in the postwar era (maybe even in the whole of Australian history): the introduction of a value-added consumption tax, the GST, in 2000. I wanted to chat with Peter for three specific reasons. First, to gain a more concrete and visceral appreciation of exactly what a reform of this scale takes. On this, it was interesting to hear his war stories: for example, the Australian government believed there were about 1 million businesses in Australia. But when it began issuing ABNs (Australian Business Numbers) to businesses that registered for the GST, more than 2 million businesses came out of the woodwork! That is, despite Australia's unusually high state capacity, the government thought there were fewer than half as many businesses in the country as actually existed. Another example: the GST prompted the very first use of PowerPoint in the Australian Cabinet. Peter recalls giving an 8-hour (!) PPT presentation about the GST to his cabinet colleagues in 1998. He thinks that he wouldn't have been able to get their agreement without the specific technology of PowerPoint, because it enabled him to easily show the distributional effects of the new tax and accompanying compensation. Second, I wanted hear Peter's theories as to why it's seemingly become so much harder for the Australian government to achieve reforms of the scale of the GST. After 2000, the reform process has looked more and more like wading in molasses. Peter buys the story that we've become victims of our own prosperity - Australia's success has reduced the evolutionary pressure to continue enhancing productivity (a sort of 'good times create soft people' story). I think this is plausible, but not the whole story (see my second chat with Ken Henry for other theories). A specific lesson Peter shares for would-be reformers: you have to go for broke in your first term in government. "[M]y experience in government was that, as you go on in government, you get worn down... you get more tired, your opponents get a fix on you. You’ve expended enormous political capital...". Third, and unrelated to the GST, I wanted to chat with Peter about the baby bonus that he introduced in 2004. This was a lump sum payment of $3,000 (soon increased to $4,000, then $5,000, before it was means-tested, and then, in 2014 abolished and replaced with paid parental leave) to families with newborn children. Strikingly, the baby bonus led to an increase (albeit temporarily) in Australia's total fertility rate: it rose in the mid-2000s, peaking locally at ~1.98 in 2008. Australia is one of the only western countries to have reversed its declining TFR since the demographic transition began. Surprisingly, I learned from Peter that the government did not initially conceive of the baby bonus as a tool for increasing the TFR. Rather, it was simply a consolidation and rationalisation of a bunch of disparate benefits for families with new children. So the uptick in births was a (happy) accident. In picking apart the causes of the uptick, Peter thinks the narrative effect (as he famously said, "have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country") was much more important than the financial effect. Interestingly, his view is consistent with one of the main explanations for declining fertility coming out of the field of cultural evolution (see, for e.g., my 2024 conversation with Rob Boyd and Pete Richerson). Anyhow, it was a very fun conversation. You can watch it on any of the podcast apps or on YT (link below). Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:01:21) - Inside Australia's most complex tax system overhaul (the GST). (0:47:05) - Why Costello hid revenue estimates from the PM. (0:49:57) - Lessons for getting big things done in government. (1:10:32) - The 2004 baby bonus, & how Australia achieved the impossible (increasing its total fertility rate).
1:37:57

Peter Costello was Treasurer of Australia from 1996 to 2007 - longer than anyone else in the country's history. He architected and led the most complex tax reform in the postwar era (maybe even in the whole of Australian history): the introduction of a value-added consumption tax, the GST, in 2000. I wanted to chat with Peter for three specific reasons. First, to gain a more concrete and visceral appreciation of exactly what a reform of this scale takes. On this, it was interesting to hear his war stories: for example, the Australian government believed there were about 1 million businesses in Australia. But when it began issuing ABNs (Australian Business Numbers) to businesses that registered for the GST, more than 2 million businesses came out of the woodwork! That is, despite Australia's unusually high state capacity, the government thought there were fewer than half as many businesses in the country as actually existed. Another example: the GST prompted the very first use of PowerPoint in the Australian Cabinet. Peter recalls giving an 8-hour (!) PPT presentation about the GST to his cabinet colleagues in 1998. He thinks that he wouldn't have been able to get their agreement without the specific technology of PowerPoint, because it enabled him to easily show the distributional effects of the new tax and accompanying compensation. Second, I wanted hear Peter's theories as to why it's seemingly become so much harder for the Australian government to achieve reforms of the scale of the GST. After 2000, the reform process has looked more and more like wading in molasses. Peter buys the story that we've become victims of our own prosperity - Australia's success has reduced the evolutionary pressure to continue enhancing productivity (a sort of 'good times create soft people' story). I think this is plausible, but not the whole story (see my second chat with Ken Henry for other theories). A specific lesson Peter shares for would-be reformers: you have to go for broke in your first term in government. "[M]y experience in government was that, as you go on in government, you get worn down... you get more tired, your opponents get a fix on you. You’ve expended enormous political capital...". Third, and unrelated to the GST, I wanted to chat with Peter about the baby bonus that he introduced in 2004. This was a lump sum payment of $3,000 (soon increased to $4,000, then $5,000, before it was means-tested, and then, in 2014 abolished and replaced with paid parental leave) to families with newborn children. Strikingly, the baby bonus led to an increase (albeit temporarily) in Australia's total fertility rate: it rose in the mid-2000s, peaking locally at ~1.98 in 2008. Australia is one of the only western countries to have reversed its declining TFR since the demographic transition began. Surprisingly, I learned from Peter that the government did not initially conceive of the baby bonus as a tool for increasing the TFR. Rather, it was simply a consolidation and rationalisation of a bunch of disparate benefits for families with new children. So the uptick in births was a (happy) accident. In picking apart the causes of the uptick, Peter thinks the narrative effect (as he famously said, "have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country") was much more important than the financial effect. Interestingly, his view is consistent with one of the main explanations for declining fertility coming out of the field of cultural evolution (see, for e.g., my 2024 conversation with Rob Boyd and Pete Richerson). Anyhow, it was a very fun conversation. You can watch it on any of the podcast apps or on YT (link below). Enjoy! Timestamps: (0:00:00) - Introduction. (0:01:21) - Inside Australia's most complex tax system overhaul (the GST). (0:47:05) - Why Costello hid revenue estimates from the PM. (0:49:57) - Lessons for getting big things done in government. (1:10:32) - The 2004 baby bonus, & how Australia achieved the impossible (increasing its total fertility rate).

Joseph Noel Walker

29,558 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

**Doris Yin Speech at China Guizhou Zunyi GCV Barter Conference** Hello to the community leaders, GCV ambassadors, merchants, and pioneers of GCV Guizhou in China! Today is January 12, 2025, marking the first GCV Barter Conference in China in New Year and the 13th Barter Conference overall. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the organizers of this conference, the Guizhou Zunyi GCV Community, and the co-organizers, Barter Huishang (Guizhou) Digital Economy Industry Group Co., Ltd. I also want to acknowledge the following GCV ambassadors for their active dedication and contributions to this conference: **GCV Ambassador of China:** - Yang Zhizhong - Cai Zaiqiao **Ambassadors of Guizhou Province GCV:** - Wang Shiqiong - Cai Weisheng - Guo Jiaqing **Zunyi GCV Ambassadors:** - Wang Jianbo - Luo Nanlu **GCV ambassadors at the district and county level in Zunyi City** Additionally, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to our numerous GCV merchants and sponsors. Without your support, we would not have been able to hold such a grand and large-scale event. Today's gathering in Zunyi, a sacred site of the revolution, reminds me of the Red Army's 25,000-mile Long March. Their perseverance and sacrifice continue to inspire us. The Zunyi Conference took place from January 15 to 17, 1935, and exactly 90 years later, we are gathered here today. The defining characteristics of the Zunyi Conference included the commitment to uphold the truth, correct mistakes, establish the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee, and creatively develop and implement strategies that fit the nature of the Chinese revolution. Today, our Zunyi Conference will also be recorded in the history of blockchain, as every effort you have put in has contributed to building a strong network ecosystem. Our partial fiat and partial distribution policy serves as a solution for the rapid development of the ecosystem during the closed mainnet of the Pi Network. As we all know, the first quarter of this year will bring about the successful mainnet launch of Pi Network. After six long years of challenges and perseverance, all of our pioneers will have the opportunity to witness this significant historical moment. What an exciting and proud day this will be! It has not been easy for everyone to persist through these six years; it requires great blessings, unwavering faith, and the courage to overcome difficulties. Today, our pioneers in Zunyi, Guizhou Province, gathering for this GCV barter conference holds great significance. I see that ten companies are providing products for barter, with nine companies, including Guizhou Meitan County Daoqin Hospital and Barter Huishang (Guizhou) Digital Economy Industry Group Co., Ltd., sponsoring this event. Once again, I extend my heartfelt thanks to all of you. The GCV Barter Conference serves multiple purposes. It is not only about creating GCV data or demonstrating the strength of our China region to CT, but also about showing how closely we align with their vision and mission. Additionally, it provides robust evidence for a substantial number of KYC and migration initiatives in China. More importantly, what we do today aims to boost China’s future economic development. Once the main network of the Pi Network is launched, we anticipate a significant demand for Chinese products from numerous international pioneers, which will in turn generate a large volume of export orders. At the same time, there will be international merchants looking to export their products to China. Once OM, import and export transactions will be conducted using the new currency, facilitating the vision of a stable currency and enabling seamless and reliable exchanges with fiat currency. Therefore, the merchants who engage now will have the advantage of being early adopters. The Pi Network offers a partner program and a MapofPi program. To participate in the partnership, businesses are required to have a company website. We invite businesses with websites to join us. However, if you do not have a company website, you can still join the Mapofpi program, which encompasses a wide range of industries, allowing participation from both large companies and small traders. Registration for the Mapofpi does not require a business license or website; various entities including shops, hospitals, schools, hair salons, accounting firms, law firms, restaurants, and hotels are welcome to register. Please select an active merchant and support GCV at $314,159. Prior to the OM launch, it is advisable to use partial fiat currency and partial Pi to ensure that merchants can cover their costs and fulfill their tax obligations. Recently, on January 9, we established the China GCV Industry Chain Alliance, which aims to create an industrial chain that facilitates the circulation of Pi among merchants, thereby reducing the burden of exchanging fiat currency after OM. During the enclosed mainnet, you can assist merchants in registering as Pi Network Partners and Mapofpi . Ms. Lumari is our Global GCV CT executive director and her goal is to have 200,000 registered Mapofpi merchants worldwide. My personal target is to reach 100,000 registered merchants in China alone. This goal is achievable given the over 58 million enterprises and more than 20 million pioneers in China. If we can effectively convey that Pi Network WEB 3.0 blockchain technology will significantly enhance human productivity and that the business opportunities from accepting partial Pi and partial FIAT during the 60 days before OM will present numerous benefits and minimal risks to merchants, then it is likely that no merchant will be unfavorably surprised by the initiative. This strategy offers a multitude of advantages with virtually no downsides. Furthermore, it benefits pioneers by allowing them to transfer purchasing power to the community and minimize fiat currency expenses in their daily life. Consequently, the GCV data we generate will significantly benefit the Chinese pioneers, as a large number of registered merchants can transform the China region from a high-risk area to a safe zone. Not only can this region be promoted to a VIP area, which would enjoy expedited KYC and mapping processes, but it will also allow pioneers and merchants to thrive together in our ecosystem. This collaboration will enhance the prosperity of our country and empower the China region to contribute to the welfare of communities worldwide. Once OM, it will play a crucial role in the economic development of both China and the world. If you pay attention to our migrartion speed, you might have noticed that it has slowed down recently. From December 17th to around the 30th, the migrating speed was over 50,000 to 100,000 per day, but now it has dropped to just over 10,000. What is the reason for this decline? If it was previously possible to migrate over 100,000 per day, why has it changed? The CT has stated that they will OM until the first quarter of this year to bring the migratiion in line with KYC amounts. However, if it's technically feasible to achieve a higher migration speed, why isn’t it being done? The answer is quite simple: it depends on what everyone does with the Pi after such large migration numbers. If pioneers rush to buy and sell, hold onto their Pi coins, or trade at low value, it will impact the speed and efficiency of the next migration in these regions. This principle is not only theoretically valid but has proven true in practice. For instance, countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia have a solid educational foundation in GCV. Most pioneers there are highly aware of the risks involved in participating in the black market, which allows them to generate a substantial amount of GCV data. As a result, their migration speed is notably fast, and there are many large wallet migrated. To help the CT regain momentum, we all need to cooperate. Engage with the migrated Pi and participate in the GCV barter ecosystem. Be cautious of individuals who aim to deceive you for personal gain; devaluing the Pi often serves as a tactic to exchange something small for your valuable treasure. It's crucial to educate pioneers about the true value of what they hold and encourage them to avoid dishonest practices. I urge everyone to actively participate in partial Pi and partial FIAT barter. The more GCV data we generate, the more secure our wallets will be. Therefore, it's important for everyone to read and share the Pioneer Handbook I wrote which has been translated into 30 languages to raise awareness among pioneers. By learning from the Pioneer Handbook and participating in GCV bartering, we can improve China's migration efforts and foster ecological development. This stability can ensure that the value of our Pi endures for future generations, rather than becoming worthless in a few years. Wouldn't that be something we want to preserve for our children and grandchildren? Today's message is lengthy but very important, and I hope you take the time to understand it. I wish our Guizhou Zunyi Conference great success! Thank you to all GCV Ambassadors, Merchants, and Pioneers for your incredible support! Your efforts today are planting the seeds for a prosperous future, and I hope you find safety and fulfillment in the days to come. May your wishes come true! Wishing you health and happiness! Let’s work together to create a better future! I also hope you all have a joyful Chinese New Year! Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement January 12, 2025
0:14

**Doris Yin Speech at China Guizhou Zunyi GCV Barter Conference** Hello to the community leaders, GCV ambassadors, merchants, and pioneers of GCV Guizhou in China! Today is January 12, 2025, marking the first GCV Barter Conference in China in New Year and the 13th Barter Conference overall. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the organizers of this conference, the Guizhou Zunyi GCV Community, and the co-organizers, Barter Huishang (Guizhou) Digital Economy Industry Group Co., Ltd. I also want to acknowledge the following GCV ambassadors for their active dedication and contributions to this conference: **GCV Ambassador of China:** - Yang Zhizhong - Cai Zaiqiao **Ambassadors of Guizhou Province GCV:** - Wang Shiqiong - Cai Weisheng - Guo Jiaqing **Zunyi GCV Ambassadors:** - Wang Jianbo - Luo Nanlu **GCV ambassadors at the district and county level in Zunyi City** Additionally, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to our numerous GCV merchants and sponsors. Without your support, we would not have been able to hold such a grand and large-scale event. Today's gathering in Zunyi, a sacred site of the revolution, reminds me of the Red Army's 25,000-mile Long March. Their perseverance and sacrifice continue to inspire us. The Zunyi Conference took place from January 15 to 17, 1935, and exactly 90 years later, we are gathered here today. The defining characteristics of the Zunyi Conference included the commitment to uphold the truth, correct mistakes, establish the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee, and creatively develop and implement strategies that fit the nature of the Chinese revolution. Today, our Zunyi Conference will also be recorded in the history of blockchain, as every effort you have put in has contributed to building a strong network ecosystem. Our partial fiat and partial distribution policy serves as a solution for the rapid development of the ecosystem during the closed mainnet of the Pi Network. As we all know, the first quarter of this year will bring about the successful mainnet launch of Pi Network. After six long years of challenges and perseverance, all of our pioneers will have the opportunity to witness this significant historical moment. What an exciting and proud day this will be! It has not been easy for everyone to persist through these six years; it requires great blessings, unwavering faith, and the courage to overcome difficulties. Today, our pioneers in Zunyi, Guizhou Province, gathering for this GCV barter conference holds great significance. I see that ten companies are providing products for barter, with nine companies, including Guizhou Meitan County Daoqin Hospital and Barter Huishang (Guizhou) Digital Economy Industry Group Co., Ltd., sponsoring this event. Once again, I extend my heartfelt thanks to all of you. The GCV Barter Conference serves multiple purposes. It is not only about creating GCV data or demonstrating the strength of our China region to CT, but also about showing how closely we align with their vision and mission. Additionally, it provides robust evidence for a substantial number of KYC and migration initiatives in China. More importantly, what we do today aims to boost China’s future economic development. Once the main network of the Pi Network is launched, we anticipate a significant demand for Chinese products from numerous international pioneers, which will in turn generate a large volume of export orders. At the same time, there will be international merchants looking to export their products to China. Once OM, import and export transactions will be conducted using the new currency, facilitating the vision of a stable currency and enabling seamless and reliable exchanges with fiat currency. Therefore, the merchants who engage now will have the advantage of being early adopters. The Pi Network offers a partner program and a MapofPi program. To participate in the partnership, businesses are required to have a company website. We invite businesses with websites to join us. However, if you do not have a company website, you can still join the Mapofpi program, which encompasses a wide range of industries, allowing participation from both large companies and small traders. Registration for the Mapofpi does not require a business license or website; various entities including shops, hospitals, schools, hair salons, accounting firms, law firms, restaurants, and hotels are welcome to register. Please select an active merchant and support GCV at $314,159. Prior to the OM launch, it is advisable to use partial fiat currency and partial Pi to ensure that merchants can cover their costs and fulfill their tax obligations. Recently, on January 9, we established the China GCV Industry Chain Alliance, which aims to create an industrial chain that facilitates the circulation of Pi among merchants, thereby reducing the burden of exchanging fiat currency after OM. During the enclosed mainnet, you can assist merchants in registering as Pi Network Partners and Mapofpi . Ms. Lumari is our Global GCV CT executive director and her goal is to have 200,000 registered Mapofpi merchants worldwide. My personal target is to reach 100,000 registered merchants in China alone. This goal is achievable given the over 58 million enterprises and more than 20 million pioneers in China. If we can effectively convey that Pi Network WEB 3.0 blockchain technology will significantly enhance human productivity and that the business opportunities from accepting partial Pi and partial FIAT during the 60 days before OM will present numerous benefits and minimal risks to merchants, then it is likely that no merchant will be unfavorably surprised by the initiative. This strategy offers a multitude of advantages with virtually no downsides. Furthermore, it benefits pioneers by allowing them to transfer purchasing power to the community and minimize fiat currency expenses in their daily life. Consequently, the GCV data we generate will significantly benefit the Chinese pioneers, as a large number of registered merchants can transform the China region from a high-risk area to a safe zone. Not only can this region be promoted to a VIP area, which would enjoy expedited KYC and mapping processes, but it will also allow pioneers and merchants to thrive together in our ecosystem. This collaboration will enhance the prosperity of our country and empower the China region to contribute to the welfare of communities worldwide. Once OM, it will play a crucial role in the economic development of both China and the world. If you pay attention to our migrartion speed, you might have noticed that it has slowed down recently. From December 17th to around the 30th, the migrating speed was over 50,000 to 100,000 per day, but now it has dropped to just over 10,000. What is the reason for this decline? If it was previously possible to migrate over 100,000 per day, why has it changed? The CT has stated that they will OM until the first quarter of this year to bring the migratiion in line with KYC amounts. However, if it's technically feasible to achieve a higher migration speed, why isn’t it being done? The answer is quite simple: it depends on what everyone does with the Pi after such large migration numbers. If pioneers rush to buy and sell, hold onto their Pi coins, or trade at low value, it will impact the speed and efficiency of the next migration in these regions. This principle is not only theoretically valid but has proven true in practice. For instance, countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia have a solid educational foundation in GCV. Most pioneers there are highly aware of the risks involved in participating in the black market, which allows them to generate a substantial amount of GCV data. As a result, their migration speed is notably fast, and there are many large wallet migrated. To help the CT regain momentum, we all need to cooperate. Engage with the migrated Pi and participate in the GCV barter ecosystem. Be cautious of individuals who aim to deceive you for personal gain; devaluing the Pi often serves as a tactic to exchange something small for your valuable treasure. It's crucial to educate pioneers about the true value of what they hold and encourage them to avoid dishonest practices. I urge everyone to actively participate in partial Pi and partial FIAT barter. The more GCV data we generate, the more secure our wallets will be. Therefore, it's important for everyone to read and share the Pioneer Handbook I wrote which has been translated into 30 languages to raise awareness among pioneers. By learning from the Pioneer Handbook and participating in GCV bartering, we can improve China's migration efforts and foster ecological development. This stability can ensure that the value of our Pi endures for future generations, rather than becoming worthless in a few years. Wouldn't that be something we want to preserve for our children and grandchildren? Today's message is lengthy but very important, and I hope you take the time to understand it. I wish our Guizhou Zunyi Conference great success! Thank you to all GCV Ambassadors, Merchants, and Pioneers for your incredible support! Your efforts today are planting the seeds for a prosperous future, and I hope you find safety and fulfillment in the days to come. May your wishes come true! Wishing you health and happiness! Let’s work together to create a better future! I also hope you all have a joyful Chinese New Year! Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement January 12, 2025

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

18,338 просмотров • 1 год назад

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.
0:40

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.

Devon Eriksen

126,470 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад