Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
๐๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐จ๐๐ค ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ข ๐๐ข๐ซ๐๐ฌ, ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ง. ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ญ๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐จ, ๐ฅ๐๐ญ ๐ฅ๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฐ๐ง; Vanguard will crater the power company as the scapegoat and buy up the land through settlement offers. Itโs really simple folks. ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ฌ... show more
750,895 views โข 3 years ago โขvia X (Twitter)
9 Comments
Starting a spaces on this very subject. Co-host spot open. Speakers welcomed with bounds. Speak respectfully. Will post as scheduled.
Hit the reminder! 30 minutes from now.
๐Who caused the fires in Hawaii ๐
Iโm curious how a forest fire that could melt aluminum without an oven or crucible could start from trees that are still standing and green?
The photo he's referring to has been proven to be a still from a Space X launch. Not a DEW or anything else. However, I absolutely agree something is fkd with these fire especially the Maui ones. But these ridiculous videos using misinformation+ spread by others doesn't help.
Isnโt that what he said in the video? Saying he shows it as a conspiracy is incorrect. He calls it out. Watch again.
Listen to the spaces before commenting. Many comments are answered in the space.
Interesting too that Fires happened in Boulder, CO where they want to expand the airport for shipping.
@samtripoli Amazing video. However the MAIN conspiracy going around just attaches itself to this. They did this so they can buy up the land. This is just how they did it.
![Could Liberal Party Senator Dave Sharmaโs comments on #QandA last night re the Moira Deeming MP v John Pesutto saga have been any more ignorant and tone-deaf? ๐ ๐ฌ โ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค [๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ก ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง] ๐๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐.โ โ What about the chilling effect that slurring women as Nazi supporters has on political debate, Dave? ๐ฌ โ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎโ๐ซ๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ซ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ค๐ ๐๐จ๐ก๐ง ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ โ. โ You know whatโs also life altering, Dave? Being unjustly expelled and defamed as a Nazi associate by your own party leader. ๐ฌ โ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ/๐จ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ข๐.โ โ I donโt think โcriticismโ means what you think it means, Dave. For clarity, it doesnโt include being defamed as a Nazi sympathiser. ๐ฌ โ๐๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐.โ โ Good one Dave. We all know how keen the media is to tell the truth and come to the defence of women who stand up for sex-based rights and child safeguarding against radical gender ideology. ๐ฌ โ๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐๐ฅ๐.โ โ Well Dave, imagine how โuncomfortableโ (traumatic) it has been for Moira over the past couple of years as she fought lie after lie in order to clear her and her familyโs name? Boy do the Liberal Party have a long way to go. #LetWomenSpeak #WomenWillSpeak](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1924780774848606470/amplify_video_thumb/1924780704065585155/img/hAvUC8hX36G8ixdt.jpg)
![๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐] ๐๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐ข ๐๐๐๐ค๐ข: ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ; ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐; ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซโฆ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ; ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ ๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐ง๐ค), ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ ๐.๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌโฆ ๐ฉ๐๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ค, ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ). ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ข๐๐จ๐จ; ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ; ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ NtsikiMazwaiMedia delivering more ๐ for the nation. Fascinating chat! ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ โThe ANC had the power, and it still has the power, to come up with economic policy that benefits everybody but, as I pointed out, through things like Black Economic Empowerment, a lot of its leaders have been co-opted, to just leave things as they are.โ โThese guys who are in these BEE schemesโฆThatโs one of the main drivers of this corruptionโฆ these BEE schemes. [But] for big business โ as long as you donโt touch my business โ when you steal, actually, a lot of this corruption is stealing taxpayersโ money.โ โthey (big business) chose black leadersโฆ These guys set up Black Economic Empowerment. Many people naively think that Black Economic Empowerment is there to advance Black people. Actually, itโs there to do the opposite.โ โLetโs take one step Back. The wealth of S Africa was largely created by Black South Africans. First, they own the land. So it was their land. It was taken from them; and the minerals under the land were also taken from themโฆ They became the workers to build the mines. So, in real terms, the profits and the capital belongs to them as well. So, when weโre talking about capital in S Africa, itโs actually a national asset. [But] people think itโs a white man this, white man thatโฆ When you start to look at who owns these big companies in South Africaโฆ Many people naively think that the white managers own them (big companies). They donโt. Actually, a big part of some of these companies are owned by the Black people through their pension funds, their medical aid, their savingsโฆ but they donโt understandโฆ how to get the profits and have a say in how these companies are managed. They just give it to fund managersโฆ You are actually a co-owner of Anglo Americanโฆ If you donโt ask, they wonโt tellโฆ Your money, your savings are in Sanlam, in Old Mutual. You are a co-owner of this. So we have to be careful about who owns the wealth of S Africa. A lot of the wealth of South Africa is actually owned by Black peopleโฆ but they are not in insisting thatโฆโ โBlack people in South Africa have a lot of powerโฆ but they donโt quite know how to use their power and, of course, the other side is not gonna tell youโฆ They say, leave it to us, we will invest the money and, now and then, pay your pension, or whatever it is; the profits that comeโฆ Thatโs what our trade unions were supposed to do - One of the things they were supposed to do. In fact, when I was at COSATU, I suggested that they set up a bank of their own COSATU (Bank), because COSATU then had 1.8 million membersโฆ paying, every week (dues). I said letโs setup a commercial bank, which will finance black entrepreneurs, which will finance housing for our members, who were living in the shanty townsโฆ but I was overruledโฆ ๐๏ธ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1747872282997866541/amplify_video_thumb/1747870936844419072/img/lY2m-f1QviA2Exw4.jpg)
![Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm๐๏ธ 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:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1994972575768727743/amplify_video_thumb/1994972220930621440/img/_5CCZJyz89oDfqQJ.jpg)
![๐ธ Vegas UFOs ๐ธ Wanna support my efforts? Info. is at the end. And, as always, my comments are in ( ). "Jim Dolan (owns Sphere) and Jane Rosenthal made me an offer: 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' Dolan is interested in finding whether there is some alien intelligence out there." ~Avi (Since I live here, this is pretty cool! It also doesn't hurt that the owner (Dolan) of my favorite basketball team (NEW YORK KNICKS), and 2nd-fav hockey team (New York Rangers) is one of the folks who helped get this started. Learn something new every day!) Dr. Avi Loeb: "This one is about Sphere in Las Vegas. As you know, it's the most impressive venue for entertainment in the world. Not only have I been [there], I've been to the top of the Sphere, which is like 120 meters high. Here you see me from inside the Sphere. This is the exosphere, by the way, it's covered with LED displays. We went all the way to the top. Why? "Because a year ago, two very distinguished visitors came to the front door of my home. By the way, lots of interesting people show up at my front door. This was Jim Dolan, who owns the Madison Square Garden, as you know, and also the Sphere, and jane rosenthal, the CEO of Tribeca Enterprises, and they made me an offer that I cannot refuse. I'm leading the Galileo Project to look for unusual objects around the Earth. And they said, 'Could you build an observatory on top of the Sphere?' "Because, you know, Jim Dolan really is interested in science, and especially in finding, you know, whether there is some alien intelligence out there. And I said, 'Of course! I will be delighted.' So that was September 2024, one year after the Sphere was opened with a concert, as you may know. I don't know if you've been there." Joe Rogan: "Yeah, I've been there for the UFC." Avi: "Yeah. UFC, exactly. So anyway, I was there just a few months ago with my research team. We went all the way to the top and installed, as you can see here, an array of infrared cameras that monitors the entire sky above Vegas, at all times. So you can see some of these images show the landscape of Vegas in the background. It's like a freckle, you know, on top of the Sphere, the exosphere, which is the biggest display on Earth. But we measured that there is not much light pollution, actually, and we can operate this observatory." (I'm surprised they measured "not much light pollution" since we all know that one nickname for Vegas is The City of Lights due to the millions of lights from the casinos on The Strip and surrounding area.) Avi: "We also put an array of visible-light cameras there, and it's operating, okay? And we hope to see a few million objects over the sky of Vegas and decide whether any of them has performance that deviates from the envelope of human-made technologies." (Absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if anybody craps on it, ask them if they're even interested in this subject.) Avi: "How do we do that? We have the Sphere as one point, but then we put two copies of that observatory ten kilometers away on a triangle. And that allows us to look at objects in the sky from different directions, just like we have two eyes so we can gage the distance. So here we have three eyes looking at the sky above Vegas, and we can tell the distance, the velocity, the acceleration of objects, and ask whether they are lying within the performance envelopes of human-made objects. And that would be amazing, it's very exciting." (It would be nice if there were people who could (allegedly) summon UAP to the Vegas area by meditating or using technology. Oh, wait... ๐ฝ ) Avi: "I see that also as an opportunity to communicate to the public the excitement about science. That's what Jim Dolan and Jane Rosenthal really wanted to deliver. And I'm hoping that we will find something really anomalous. You know, because, as we know, the intelligence agencies are reporting to the U.S. Congress about objects they cannot identify. And, you know, that could be two things." (It can be more than two things. A few possibilities: Foreign adversaries. A human, non-state actor that has acquired a technological breakthrough. A previous human civilization that had a technological breakthrough, survived a cataclysm, and remains hidden on this planet in smaller numbers. A non-human intelligence that's based here and has always been here. A non-human intelligence from another planet. Time-traveling humans. Non-humans who exist in other dimensions that humans can't perceive with their normal senses. Aka Interdimensional or a shadow biome. Nod to Dr. Eric Davis for the latter.) ~ Avi: "They're getting, you know, the defense budget for 2026 is a trillion dollars, okay? If they tell us that with a trillion dollars, there are still objects they cannot identify above the U.S., they're not doing their job. They're not doing their job, and we should be worried." (100%. But there may be some folks in government who CAN identify some of these objects and they're keeping that information hidden for various reasons.) Avi: "Who sent these objects? Could it be adversarial nations? Okay? That's one possibility, which has to do with national security. The second possibility is that it's maybe something from outside of this Earth which would be even more significant." (Again, there are plenty of other possibilities.) Avi: "So either way, we need to figure this out. And I don't think I'm wasting my time leading the Galileo Project to figure out whether there are anomalies, you know, that go beyond human-made technologies. Because if it turns out that all the objects are human made, I will be happy to deliver the set of sensors we developed with the machine-learning software that we developed, to the Department of War ๐บ๐ธ so that they can employ it for national-security purposes. So my time was not wasted, as a scientist. I'm doing something useful to society." Rogan: "Of course." Avi: "The Department of War can use it. I have no problem. Everything made by humans, by the way, is boring, as far as I'm concerned. I want to see something from outside the solar system, which is not what the government should be about. The government should worry about national security, not about what lies outside the solar system. That's my job definition as an astrophysicist, okay?" (Not to sound like a broken record, but...some of what we're seeing that appears to be anomalous may be from within this solar system or, potentially, Earth-based.) Avi: "And so, I feel that this is worthy [of] pursuing, but the Galileo Project is really the first organized project that constructed a reliable set of sensors in an observatory configuration that does systematic study of the sky to collect millions of objects in the sky per year. We have three observatories, one in Las Vegas, as I mentioned. And by the way, this is the first time it's mentioned publicly, so..." Rogan: "That's amazing." Avi: "And another one in Massachusetts, and a third one in Pennsylvania. They were all funded by people who approached me and said, 'Here is the money.'" Rogan: "Let me ask you this: If it wasn't for those, how many observatories are looking for objects that are not from this Earth? Like, is that very rare?" Avi: "None." Rogan: "None?" Avi: "Well, there are some teams that are, you know, doing it, making a trip to collect some data." Rogan: "There is not constant observation?" Avi: "Of scientific-quality data? No." Rogan: "That's crazy." Avi: "That's crazy! That's what I'm saying." ~ (One of the groups that collected data was the AAWSAP/BAASS team headed up by Dr. James Lacatski. This is from my March 2024 post... Here's an excerpt from "Initial Revelations" by Lacatski, Kelleher and George Knapp. Chapter 18 Integrated Sensor Package to Detect UAP An autonomous sensor package to detect UAP for AAWSAP BAASS was developed by an engineering team located at Bigelow Aerospace. The following is a short summary of the specifications by which the BAASS engineering team began designing an autonomous sensor package. The project started at the conceptual stage with a meeting in late January 2009 and a complete operational prototype was built by August 2009. Design Goals: Device will operate unattended Autonomous data collection Survivability: weather, vandalism, critters Portable: โTwo men and a truck.โ Limited power No reliance on AC power Must be sized for full nighttime operations Sufficient communications May use WiFi, satellite phone, and cellular phone transmis- sions as the situation warrants Internet appliance for remote connection Short-range sensing (<20ft.) Long-range sensing (up to 5-mile planar radius, indeterminate altitude) Internal clock: GPS or network time-based COTS (Commercial Off-The_Shelf ~Joe) or very near COTS components only Reduce on-site maintenance to the minimum possible Camouflage based on geographic location Sensor Suite Visual, IR, near-IR, and UV spectra cameras Microwave band detection Radio band detection EMI detection in the electronics emission band RADAR LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Audio Radiation (gamma, beta, alpha) Gravimeter See equipment details and illustrations in Tweets 2 and 3. ~End "IR" Excerpt~ ~ Avi: "And, by the way, I gave a briefing to the U.S. congress on May 1, 2025 and Congresswoman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna was there and she was very excited about the work we are doing. But the day before that, I visited an office in the Pentagon that is called the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office - AARO - All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And I asked them, 'You looked into all these unidentified objects reported in the past by military personnel. Did anything trigger your attention as something truly anonymous?' And they said, 'Not really. There are some reports by FBI agents that's really crazy stuff, but we don't have any data from instruments.'" (Here's a tweet from me about the director of AARO, Jon Kosloski, describing three, potentially, anomalous cases AARO is analyzing. ) ~ Avi: "And this is an office within the Pentagon which is funded to figure out things. And so, obviously, what they might want to do is imitate the Galileo Project that I'm leading. But you would think that it would be sort of the vested interest of government, you know, to invest in research related to that, which is what the Galileo Project is doing." Rogan: "Well, here's the thing. I would have thought it was already done." Avi: "I don't know." Rogan: "Until we're having this conversation, I can't believe that they're not monitoring the sky constantly for anomalous objects." Avi: "Well, you remember the Chinese spy balloon that was missed, right? And shot down?" Rogan: "Yes. Yeah, but that was silly." Avi: "So the thing to keep in mind, they're getting data on things in the sky, but if you don't have the right software now, with AI. If you don't have high-quality scientists, the way that the Manhattan Project employed, you might not figure out things. There is a reason why the Manhattan Project recruited the very best scientists. "So I say, put a billion dollars on this or more, bring in the best scientists in the world to figure it out. I'm funded at the level of millions of dollars through the Galileo Project. The government can do a billion... What is a billion dollars? It's a drop in the bucket for the Pentagon. But, if, you know, you should think about the potential risk from drones that are used by adversarial nations and..." (1000%. Put a billion dollars into that and also an AAWSAP-like program that is run by a PUBLIC company, and make all of their data available to us as soon as they receive it.) ~ If you appreciate what I do on Twitter/X (and my Blog and, occasional, YT), and wanna support my efforts, you can subscribe on here. Or.... Patreon - PayPal - ufojoe11@aol.com Venmo - My Patreon is simple. No hidden content and no tiers. If you DO support me, it will be much appreciated. If you can't afford it, don't think twice. I've been there and I get it. If you don't think my content is worth supporting, I still appreciate you reading and commenting on tweets, articles and videos.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1983635340494803377/amplify_video_thumb/1983584911736070144/img/_2338jo98pR7iciz.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people ๐ฏ Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs ๐ Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR ๐ Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcherโs revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public servicesโeven when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherismโs shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something betterโa better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, โIโm more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.โ I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the Houseโon the Opposition BenchesโI get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class peopleโthe public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their placeโat the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curveโthey are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the publicโa model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industryโits excessesโhave cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisationโs inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Governmentโs economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternativeโan alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the publicโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapseโthese are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UKโs water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: ยฃ72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this countryโ Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companiesโselling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our waterโare not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009โnot in a boy bandโI experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about itโit is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human rightโa right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problemโit is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, โBut we have just passedโโ Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can nowโfor my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, โBut we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?โ Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered downโ[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one inโit was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targetsโjust vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. Noโwe must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our countryโs water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Governmentโs legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the roomโwho owns our waterโhas been ruled out of the Cunliffe commissionโs operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasuryโhe probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the Peopleโs Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Governmentโs Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one exampleโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is outโlicence terminated and on its bikeโand those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, โWhere will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?โ I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 yearsโI am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than ยฃ60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than ยฃ7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now ยฃ15.2 billion in debt and countingโwork that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a ยฃ3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownershipโsomething that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Waterโs case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith roseโ Mark Ferguson roseโ Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Waterโthat half a billion pounds in interest paymentsโwill keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should haveโfrom us, the publicโand every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell gamesโjust clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each otherโs backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbertโs novel โDuneโ believed: โA manโs flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribeโ. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
![This battery is about to change the world in 3 months, or make this guy a fool | Fred Lambert, Hacker News Donut Lab lit the EV and energy storage industry on fire last week with its announcement of a 400 Wh/kg solid-state battery cell that can last for 100 years. At face value, if true, we are looking at the single most disruptive announcement in the history of the electric vehicle industry and energy storage as a whole. We arenโt just talking about a better motorcycle battery. If the claims of a 5-minute charge, 100,000-cycle life, and ~400 Wh/kg energy density are accurate and scalable, as Donut Lab claims, this is the holy grail of energy storage. Battery breakthrough announcements generally donโt catch fire like this, but Donut Labโs did because it said that the cell was already in production and will be in a production vehicle, Vergeโs electric motorcycle, this quarter. It gave credibility to the claim, pushing everyone to report on it. Now, we have interviewed Donut Labโs CEO and investigated the technology. At this point, it looks like either this battery changes the world within the next 3 months, or it will make the CEO look like a fool. In this article, we discuss the impact of the battery, whether real or not, as well as clues about the secret sauce behind its chemistry. The Holy Grail of Energy Storage Consider the implications. A battery that lasts 100,000 cycles is effectively immortal in human terms. You could charge it every single day for 270 years, and it would still be working. It means the battery outlives the vehicle, not just once, but ten times over. It changes the economics of transportation entirely: you buy the battery once, and you swap it into your next five cars. The power density required for a 5-minute charge and the 400 Wh/kg of energy density opens the door to commercial electric aviation, a sector currently strangled by the weight and slow charging speeds of lithium-ion. It solves the grid storage problem by offering a medium that doesnโt degrade, meaning utility companies could amortize the cost over a century rather than a decade. If this is real, the internal combustion engine didnโt just die today; it was buried 100 feet deep, and every other battery is not far behind. But, and this is a massive โbutโ, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Donut Lab has yet to release that proof. And that brings us to the man making them. The Man Betting His Reputation I spoke with Marko Lehtimรคki, the CEO of Donut Lab and Chairman of Verge Motorcycles. My goal was simple: ask him about the chemistry behind his battery and, if that doesnโt work, look him in the eye and figure out if heโs selling vaporware or if heโs sitting on the breakthrough of the century. Marko isnโt a random guy shouting about a battery breakthrough that will change the world. He is a legit entrepreneur. A computer scientist who built a no-coding app builder years before โvibe codingโ was even a thing and sold it to SAP. After the successful exit, he became an investor and serial entrepreneur with his biggest, or most well-known, company being Verge Motorcycles, which has real products on the road. By announcing that this โmiracle batteryโ is already in production and will be shipping in customer vehicles within 10 weeks, he is betting his entire personal reputation on this technology. If he misses this timeline or if the specs are fake, Donut Labs and Verge Motorcycles might not survive the credibility loss. He has a lot to lose here. In my article about the battery announcement last week, I noted that Markoโs presentation was incredible. He basically described a perfect battery: record energy density, incredible charge rate, unprecedented longevity, no rare metals, a cost lower than traditional Li-ion cells, and in scalable production right now. Sounds too good to be true? The only thing he didnโt share was details about the chemistry, beyond saying it doesnโt use lithium or other rare metals. Whatโs the point of protecting the chemistry if the battery is already in production and it will be in a product shipped this quarter? If thatโs true, the battery will be reverse-engineered before the snow completely melts. We discussed it with Marko during our interview. His logic is that once the bikes ship, competitors will tear them down and figure it out anyway. But that wonโt happen for another 10 weeks or so, and the head start is critical for a technology this disruptive. In the meantime, Donut Labโs goal with the announcement was to get the attention of OEMs and ship them battery packs for validation. Marko said: We are right now shipping demo packs to OEMs under NDAs and under tight disclosures so that they can test that all of that is true, which serves our business very well [better than disclosing the chemistry]. But these programs with OEMs are likely to take a long time before they become public. Shorter term, thereโs Verge Motorcycles shipping bikes with the battery by the end of the quarter. Before that, Marko also said that we should soon see third-party testing of those cells: We rather right now ship it to authorized research and science center that tests everything without opening it and telling everybody whatโs in there. In short, we should have a good idea whether the claims are true or not in just a few weeks no matter what. What does Marko, or Donut Lab, have to gain by lying about this? I also discussed this with Marko and the only thing I could come up with is if he happens to be raising capital right now, but he shut that down: There are a million investors chasing us right now, but we are literally not talking to anybody. We tell investors that we can discuss terms after we have done all our disclosures. Marko insisted that Donut Lab is not taking any investment until they have proven their cells work. In short, itโs hard to find an upside for Donut Lab in making this announcement if the claims are not true. It doesnโt mean that they are, but it makes you think. The Investigation: What Is the โDonut Batteryโ? So, what is the secret sauce? Marko wouldnโt say, but after digging into public records, supply chains, and research papers, I believe we have a pretty good idea. Let me preface this by saying that Iโm not a chemist or physicist, but Iโve been a journalist covering electric vehicles for more than a decade, and Iโm pretty good at connecting the dots, and in this case, Iโve had the help of a couple of great sources, too. Iโm not saying that this is the Donut Lab battery, but since they are not sharing much, we have to speculate, and all evidence points to a Finnish nanotechnology startup called Nordic Nano and its Chief Scientist, Dr. Bela Bhuskute. Donut Lab invested in Nordic Nano in October 2025, just months before this announcement. At the time of writing this, the press release has fewer than 200 views. The announcement went under the radar, and while Marko said that Nordic Nano is more of a โsolar companyโ during our interview, the announcement mentions both solar and energy storage. Dr. Bhuskuteโs research at Tampere University focuses on amorphous Titanium Dioxide nanostructures, which could benefit many different technologies, including batteries. It fits the โmiracleโ specs perfectly: - 100,000 Cycles: Traditional solid-state batteries are crystalline (like a brick wall) and crack when ions rush in. Dr. Bhuskuteโs amorphous Titanium Dioxide is disordered (like a sponge) and โbreathes,โ allowing it to expand and contract without breaking. - 5-Minute Charge: This chemistry stores energy via โpseudocapacitance,โ which is basically like Velcro. Ions stick to the surface almost instantly rather than having to burrow deep inside the material. - The Manufacturing: Nordic Nano uses a โnanofluidโ printing process for its solar product using the technology. This aligns with Donut Labโs description of a โclay-likeโ material that enables an easier manufacturing process. Some call this โbattery printingโ, which could explain Donut Labโs ability to bring this to production in record time. When I asked Marko for the volumetric energy density (Wh/L), he claimed he โcouldnโt rememberโ. Volumetric energy density is one of the few specs that Donut Lab hasnโt released. This battery is lighter than lithium-ion, but it could be bigger due to the amorphous nature of the titanium dioxide. However, the CEO claimed it has a higher volumetric density than traditional Li-ion batteries, without providing a specific number. If thatโs true, not only could electric vehicles and energy storage switch to this new chemistry, but even personal electronics, such as smartphones. In 2025, Nordic Nano has been making moves, including securing a former large retail location in Imatra, Finland, near the Russian border: It could be where the company has set up production. Following investment from the Finnish government, Nordic Nano had to elaborate a bit on its products and confirmed that it is working on โsolar energy systems and energy storage solutionsโ: The companyโs range of products includes two product families: solar energy systems and energy storage solutions: The ultra-thin and flexible solar film collects twice the amount of energy compared to traditional silicon-based solar panels. Solid-state salt batteries are manufactured by printing from nanofluid, which enables the efficient use of space and the production of batteries in varying shapes. Furthermore, the company confirmed that it is using a โscreenprintingโ manufacturing method. This is not new. Other companies have produced battery cells with this technology with varying degrees of success. It appears that the bet is that the amorphous rather than crystalized titanium dioxide nanostructure could be more easily adapted and scaled with this manufacturing technology. Electrekโs Take Iโm naturally skeptical, and this screams โtoo good to be trueโ, but I canโt find anything that categorically rejects the claims. I get battery breakthrough announcements in my inbox every week, and most of the time they never amount to anything. If I decide to spend some time researching them and talking to experts, I generally quickly hit a problem or two that make them commercially unviable. This announcement is different. We canโt really investigate the actual breakthrough; we can only speculate about it, since it is guarded. Markoโs logic for guarding the chemistry is sound, and the incentives to lie about what they have arenโt clear if he is not currently raising money. Then, because they claim this is already in production and will be in a deliverable product within weeks, we will know whether the claims are true in short order, and their reputations, especially Markoโs, are on the line. During my interview, Marko didnโt seem too worried about it. It doesnโt sound like someone who needs to quickly figure out how to deliver this, but rather someone who has a couple of aces in their hand and is looking to maximize them. Itโs also strange that this innovation and then production quickly comes from a relatively small company. I thought researching Donut Lab would make me more skeptical about the claims, but itโs the contrary. It confirms that their technology stems from years of research, backed by university and government funding for its commercialization. Could it be that this critical research went under the radar and a small electric motorcycle startup in need of a significant bump in energy density stumbled upon it? Then, a savvy entrepreneur quickly found a way to optimize the impact of this potentially groundbreaking tech by spinning out a startup from the motorcycle company to market the battery to a broader market. Maybe? This could be real, or it could be hype. Again, Iโm still skeptical, but I canโt point to anything specific that would disprove any claim made about this miracle battery. Again, if this is true, we are talking about a complete reset of the entire energy and transportation sectors. Donut Lab would become one of the biggest companies in the world. A Nobel Prize would be coming to Dr. Bhuskute and her colleagues in the near future. If itโs not, Marko and Donut Labโs reputation would be destroyed. There might also be a middle conclusion where the battery is nearly as good as they claim, but when you ramp up production, other problems arise, such as scrap, which has been the undoing of another company that recently tried screenprinting batteries. Who knows? But it sounds like we should find out soon. Within weeks, we should get independent verifications of the specs. Then the bikes get delivered within months. You can fake a presentation, but there are things you canโt fake.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2012141965471522941/amplify_video_thumb/2012141829290905600/img/DKuKZ0Te4x4eMdfe.jpg)
![๐ฝ๐ธ Stratton: "It's Not from Here" and We Don't Know If It's Hostile - Plus: A PSYOP to Protect Us? And...God ๐ธ๐ฝ (I'm behind on this but my posts take time, and I think many will find this interesting.) Sean Hannity ๐บ๐ธ: "Has the government been hiding the existence of UFOs from the people of this country? Here with more, the director and producer of this new documentary, Dan Farah, and the former director of the U.S. government's UAP Task Force, Jay Stratton. "Let me just tell you where I am: I am really curious about it. I've asked a lot of questions about it. I've been told...I've been given both sides in terms of the answer to the question. Some people swear it's true. Other people say, 'Nah, it's not true.' You know, like, Area 51, et cetera, et cetera." (Would be nice to know who's telling him it's true vs. not true.) Hannity: "I'm somewhat agnostic. I believe with God, all things are possible. If God created universes, within universes, within universes. Are we that arrogant to believe that there couldn't be life elsewhere that might be even more intelligent than we are? And we're not that intelligent sometimes." (I think it's interesting to see Hannity say he's agnostic about UAP/NHI, and has heard different things about about the validity of related claims - which feature a ton of anecdotal evidence, government reports, some photos, videos and radar, and current-day, high-level folks telling him they've seen classified data - but he doesn't question the existence of God? Where's the evidence for God and Jesus? Double standard. There's much more evidence for the existence of true-unknown, UFOs, than there is for God.) Hannity: "But what makes you think...why are you so certain?" Farah: "Well, look, I made this film in pursuit of the truth, to find the answers to those big questions. I interviewed 34 very-high-level government, military and intelligence officials, ranging from Marco Rubio to sitting senators to intelligence officials, admirals, generals. And collectively, they all broke their silence to reveal an 80-year cover-up of the existence of non-human intelligent life." (I really enjoyed "The Age of Disclosure" but the amount of people in it who we had never heard from before, on camera, and who "broke their silence" for this film, is just a handful of folks.) Farah: "And a high-stakes, secret Cold War race that the United States is in with adversarial nations to reverse engineer technology of non-human origin. And this has all been kept from the public, from Congress..." Hannity: "Can I interrupt you, Dan, one second?" Farah: "Yeah, yeah." Hannity: "Are you saying to me that Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed to you that not only do UFOs exist and life from some other location exists, but we are fully aware of it, and we are...there's almost a cold war going on that has never been revealed to the American people? Marco Rubio said that to you?" (That's what people may come away thinking if they just watch the film, so I'm glad Hannity asked that and Farah clarified.) Farah: "Rubio confirms on camera that UFOs, UAP, which they're now called, are in fact real. That's not a debate anymore. The only question now is: Who's controlling them? Where are they from? What is their intention? He says, on camera, that UAP are penetrating our most secure airspace, like our nuclear-weapons sites, military bases, and it's a major concern." (100% true, and it's nice to see a new, wider audience see and hear Rubio say that. But, he's been saying that, on camera, for over four years now.) Hannity: "Okay. Jay, where do you think this is coming from? Do we have any suspicion at all?" Stratton: "Well, the best way I can say, Sean, is it's not from here. You know, I spent 20 years researching this topic, working this topic directly on behalf of the American people, and I did everything I could, and did confirm that some of the things that are seen are obviously, you know, completely terrestrial, whatever word you want to use there. You know, from potential-adversary nations, from, you know, defense contractors and companies here, you know, commercial sources. However, there were still cases that we could not attribute to any nation on Earth, and that says a lot." (The follow-up should have been: "Jay, you claim some of this is, "not from here." In the movie, you say that you have seen non-human craft and beings with your own eyes. Can you explain that and share some details?) Hannity: "Do you both believe that they're hostile? Dan? Hostile forces, entities, if you will?" Farah: "I think that's to be determined." (Stratton nods his head up and down in agreement.) Hannity: "So we don't know for sure?" Stratton: "No." Farah: "We don't know what their intentions are." Hannity: "Jay?" (I REALLY wanted to hear Stratton answer the question about intent because his family, reportedly, went through a rough time with the phenomenon (Read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." Axelrod = Stratton) and, again, he says in the movie that he has seen non-human craft and beings with his own eyes. He helped start AAWSAP (2008-2010), created AATIP (in 2015) and was the director of the UAPTF (which began in 2020 and was replaced by AARO). Unfortunately, Farah had already started answering so we never heard about intent from Stratton. Big-time, missed opportunity.) Farah: "Look, I interviewed 34 military [and] government intelligence officials, Sean. They couldn't tell us any better than you could what the intention of non-human, intelligent life is, right?" (Stratton nods his head up and down in agreement. The question we all want to know: Do any of the people in The (alleged) UAP Legacy Program who have had access to ALL of the data have educated opinions about intent? If so, what are they?) Farah: "All we know is that this is a real situation, it exists. There are UAP penetrating our most sensitive airspace. It is a problem. And even if you can't wrap your head around the idea of it being non-human, intelligent life, what are the choices you're left with?" (Stratton nodded his head in agreement for all of that. โฌ๏ธ) Farah: "An adversarial nation like China or Russia that leapfrogged us, technologically, and is invading our most classified and protected airspace? That's not great, either. So, you know, no matter how you have to look at it to get your head wrapped around it, it's gotta become a serious conversation, a serious national conversation, a serious global conversation." (Stratton nods in agreement, again. He should have been the one doing most of the talking here because, besides the Q&A at the premiere during the SXSW festival, this is the only interview we have with Stratton since the movie came out. I'll link to the SXSW transcript in the replies.) Farah: "And, you know, the film reveals there has been a deeply-hidden, crash retrieval and reverse engineering program in the United States. China has one, Russia has one." (I would argue: Claims are made in the film but nothing is "revealed.") Farah: "There is, in fact, a high-stakes secret Cold War race. Rubio talks about this race, on camera, on the record, in the film. And makes it clear that if we don't get our act together as a nation, we're gonna wake up one day - to quote him - he literally says, 'We will wake up one day, and China will have beat us. And we won't know how they got there or when they got there, but we will be screwed.'" (Just to be clear: Nowhere does Rubio (or Rounds) say that they believe the U.S., Russia or China have a UAP crash retrieval program or that we're in a race to back engineer non-human technology. But what IS said...) Lue Elizondo: "Some of this UAP activity we are seeing here in the United States may actually be a result of a Chinese UAP reverse engineering program." Senator Rounds: "If Xi Jinping had access to this, if Putin had access to this, and they thought that we did not have access to similar capabilities than what they did, do you think for a second that they wouldnโt consider using it to achieve their ends of domination?" SoS Marco Rubio: "And if their approach to it is driven by science, and a desire to match what they think is ours, weโll wake up one day and realize, I donโt know how they got there, but they got there ahead of us, and now weโre screwed." (To keep it simple: In other words, if China or Russia acquire advanced technology, no matter the origin, they will do everything in their power to reverse engineer it in an attempt to surpass us, technologically. Meanwhile, in the U.S., these alleged programs are hidden away with no congressional oversight and are so stove-piped that our top scientists and brightest minds, apparently, aren't able to be brought on board in an attempt to reverse engineer whatever we have in said programs. So, we've kind of handcuffed ourselves and slowed down any progress. Then again, we have have mixed messages on how much progress HAS or HAS NOT been made. Dr. Eric Davis in 2019: "The crash retrieval program is [a] very small program. It is not a massive, huge government infrastructure. Itโs a very poorly-funded program and it hasnโt actually, probably hasnโt had any money for a while. I do know that the program was terminated in 1989 for lack of progress in reverse engineering, anything that they had, any of the hardware that they had. And theyโll resurrect it every, maybe so often, so many years go by and theyโll try it again. And they just donโt succeed because compartmentalization is a killer. Scientists cannot communicate with other scientists to get help." Dr. James Lacaski has said (on WEAPONIZED in 2025) progress has been made but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." And Retired Naval Commander Will Miller told me in 2020: "Itโs my firm belief that yes, we โ the Russians, probably the Germans, and perhaps the Chinese have at least partial technologies (pieces), and most likely for the U.S. โ entire operational craft. I believe we have our own trans-luminal velocity craft that can take us anywhere in space and time. Did we develop this technology independently? Probably not!" Which one is accurate? We also have Dylan Borland (2012 at Langley AFB), Daniel Gockerell (2006 at Eglin AFB), and others, saying they saw triangular (and other) craft with unique properties of flight. Did we back engineer those from UAP craft we acquired? Remember what Rounds said? "If Xi Jinping had access to this, if Putin had access to this, and they thought that we did not have access to similar capabilities than what they did, do you think for a second that they wouldnโt consider using it to achieve their ends of domination?" ~Senator Mike Rounds in AoD The PSYOP Angle: If the U.S. has not achieved any progress in reverse engineering this advanced tech (assuming we've acquired it) and China and/or Russia HAVE? And Russia and/or China suspect this? Wouldn't it make sense to pretend like we HAVE made progress? That would keep Russia and China from attacking us and achieving, "their ends of domination." So are the comments by Davis (lack of progress) accurate, and Lacatski and Miller (notable, but not full progress, and full progress) just doing their best to make China and Russia believe that we HAVE made progress, when, in reality, we have not? A PSYOP to protect our country and citizens? Or maybe we actually HAVE made progress? It's VERY confusing.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1998160320578429222/amplify_video_thumb/1998157634529353728/img/jWZXJhkIt81OuBnz.jpg)
![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] ์ฆ์๊ฐ๋๊ธฐTV 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. Weโre 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, itโs no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. Iโve 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 donโt know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, Iโm 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, itโs unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesnโt 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 canโt 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 isnโt about a single member leaving; itโs 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-jinโs girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesnโt 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 thereโs 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. Itโs 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 doesnโt 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 arenโt many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instanceโtheyโve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, itโs 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 theyโre to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didnโt 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 werenโt 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. BTSโs fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who donโt feel they belong to the mainstreamโwhether 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 thereโs talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. Itโs 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 Bangโs 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 someoneโs 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 Webtoonโs 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 manageโthey'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, doesnโt 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 theyโre dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. Itโs 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 housesโthey might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The managerโs job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way thatโs meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, itโs 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. Itโs 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 Koreaโs entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of todayโs 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, thereโs not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what theyโve 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, itโs clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that โeveryone is crazy about money,โ and I think thatโs 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. Thatโs why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasnโt 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. Thatโs 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 wasnโt familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. Thatโs what talent isโturning 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 cultureโitโs not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industryโs 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 wonโt just be about losing one personโit could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyoneโs 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, weโre just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, letโs pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1842046662933610609/amplify_video_thumb/1842042079117246465/img/At1wmSEbkseQtgQZ.jpg)
