Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

✍️ | 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿! 🌞 😴 ...but we're sure you don't mind! 😏 Steve Evans makes Reece James our 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵 signing in May! 🤯 #rufc | #ForeverTogetherForeverProud

RotherhamUnited's profile picture

Rotherham United

120,171 subscribers

644,264 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

#rufc#ForeverTogetherForeverProud
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Yorum

BringBackPaulWarne profil fotoğrafı
BringBackPaulWarne2 yıl önce

I knew his Chelsea career was in trouble but dam

Joel profil fotoğrafı
Joel2 yıl önce

A left back from Wendy… don’t even 😭

VikingWolf🐺🐼😇🦉🌻 profil fotoğrafı
VikingWolf🐺🐼😇🦉🌻2 yıl önce

Thank you for everything you did at Wednesday Reece, and good luck at your new club... 🥹🦉

Tom profil fotoğrafı
Tom2 yıl önce

Brilliant signing, hate to say it but you will storm this league

🔴⚪️🔴 profil fotoğrafı
🔴⚪️🔴2 yıl önce

Evans building a league one super team

RUFC_1884 profil fotoğrafı
RUFC_18842 yıl önce

All of a sudden, after 40 years of supporting the Millers, my wife suddenly wants a season ticket. 🤔

Harry profil fotoğrafı
Harry2 yıl önce

when we only win the league by 20 points 😬

UTM profil fotoğrafı
UTM2 yıl önce

All aboard ⚓️

Benzer Videolar

We launched ViralCuts just over a month ago. And we're crushing it for customers: - 100,000,000+ video views - Millions of engagements - Hundreds of thousands of followers added Oh yeah... We just crossed 7-figures in ARR A few lessons on building a productized service 👇 --- 1️⃣ Your Pricing Model is Everything We've iterated our pricing 3 times. Within a month. With every new sales call and customer, we're learning how to optimize our price & offer. Make sure you're hitting the sweet spot between the value your customer gets and your own need to have healthy margins. Ideally this is something like cost Staff Cost * 4 / Project Capacity = Price 2️⃣ Obsess Over Customer Experience Within minutes of signing up all new customers receive a warm welcome from their Project Manager. We make sure they understand how everything works. We offer to hop on a call to answer any questions when getting started. We communicate updates daily. Feedback is addressed instantly. Across all of our businesses we make sure customers know that we really give a sh*t. 3️⃣ Maintain the Highest Standards Our team is really, really good. I'd argue the best. But we still have the occasional struggle. Sometimes a video is a miss. Sometimes a ball gets dropped. Every time there's a little turbulence, we write down what happened, our solution to the problem, and then we update our Guidelines and Process. You can't avoid all mistakes. But you can learn from them and create systems & expectations to avoid them from repeating. 4️⃣ Don't Stress Your Capacity If you're lucky enough to get a lot of demand, you may be tempted to take on more work than you can handle. Don't. Yeah, money is cool and all, but delivering a poor experience and hurting your reputation is a stain that you can't wash out. Only take on customers if you're certain you can deliver the highest-quality work and experience for them. 5️⃣ Choose Your Partners Carefully Greatest decision I made in building ViralCuts was easily who I chose to partner with. Codie Sanchez and Sam Parr have been huge when it comes to: - video quality feedback - customer process - content & growth - financial fine-tuning Here's a new video to show you what ViralCuts is all about. Roll that beautiful footage! 🎥
0:39

We launched ViralCuts just over a month ago. And we're crushing it for customers: - 100,000,000+ video views - Millions of engagements - Hundreds of thousands of followers added Oh yeah... We just crossed 7-figures in ARR A few lessons on building a productized service 👇 --- 1️⃣ Your Pricing Model is Everything We've iterated our pricing 3 times. Within a month. With every new sales call and customer, we're learning how to optimize our price & offer. Make sure you're hitting the sweet spot between the value your customer gets and your own need to have healthy margins. Ideally this is something like cost Staff Cost * 4 / Project Capacity = Price 2️⃣ Obsess Over Customer Experience Within minutes of signing up all new customers receive a warm welcome from their Project Manager. We make sure they understand how everything works. We offer to hop on a call to answer any questions when getting started. We communicate updates daily. Feedback is addressed instantly. Across all of our businesses we make sure customers know that we really give a sh*t. 3️⃣ Maintain the Highest Standards Our team is really, really good. I'd argue the best. But we still have the occasional struggle. Sometimes a video is a miss. Sometimes a ball gets dropped. Every time there's a little turbulence, we write down what happened, our solution to the problem, and then we update our Guidelines and Process. You can't avoid all mistakes. But you can learn from them and create systems & expectations to avoid them from repeating. 4️⃣ Don't Stress Your Capacity If you're lucky enough to get a lot of demand, you may be tempted to take on more work than you can handle. Don't. Yeah, money is cool and all, but delivering a poor experience and hurting your reputation is a stain that you can't wash out. Only take on customers if you're certain you can deliver the highest-quality work and experience for them. 5️⃣ Choose Your Partners Carefully Greatest decision I made in building ViralCuts was easily who I chose to partner with. Codie Sanchez and Sam Parr have been huge when it comes to: - video quality feedback - customer process - content & growth - financial fine-tuning Here's a new video to show you what ViralCuts is all about. Roll that beautiful footage! 🎥

Hunter Hammonds

106,205 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"
0:59

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

46,764 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

WATCH: Texas Governor Greg Abbott to a journalist demanding he find out “who is to blame” for the deadly Texas floods... “You ask — I'm going to use your words. ‘Who's to blame?’ Know this: That's the word choice of losers. Let me explain one thing about Texas, and that is Texas — every square inch of our state cares about football. You can be in Hunt, Texas. Huntsville, Texas. Houston, Texas. Any size community. They care about football, high school, Friday night lights, college football, or pro and know this: Every football team makes mistakes. The losing teams are the ones that try to point out who's to blame. The championship teams are the ones that say, don't worry about it, man, we got this. We're going to make sure that we go score again and we're going to win this game. The way winners talk is not to point fingers. They talk about solutions. What Texas is all about is solutions. In fact, I want to read you something that I received last night that's worth emphasizing to put this in context: “Tragedy has come. That part is done. What we do now, who we are now, that's what the story is still being written. Let it be one of grace, of grit, of fierce love in the face of grief. Let it be the kind of story that proves that the Hill Country may flood, but it does not fail. Say what you will about Texas, but when the rivers rise, so do we. Not with blame, not with bitterness, but with boots on the ground, arms around strangers and hearts wide open. That's the Texas I know. And that's the America that I believe in.’ What this person wrote is what I know is true for all Texans and what we will achieve every single day.”
2:09

WATCH: Texas Governor Greg Abbott to a journalist demanding he find out “who is to blame” for the deadly Texas floods... “You ask — I'm going to use your words. ‘Who's to blame?’ Know this: That's the word choice of losers. Let me explain one thing about Texas, and that is Texas — every square inch of our state cares about football. You can be in Hunt, Texas. Huntsville, Texas. Houston, Texas. Any size community. They care about football, high school, Friday night lights, college football, or pro and know this: Every football team makes mistakes. The losing teams are the ones that try to point out who's to blame. The championship teams are the ones that say, don't worry about it, man, we got this. We're going to make sure that we go score again and we're going to win this game. The way winners talk is not to point fingers. They talk about solutions. What Texas is all about is solutions. In fact, I want to read you something that I received last night that's worth emphasizing to put this in context: “Tragedy has come. That part is done. What we do now, who we are now, that's what the story is still being written. Let it be one of grace, of grit, of fierce love in the face of grief. Let it be the kind of story that proves that the Hill Country may flood, but it does not fail. Say what you will about Texas, but when the rivers rise, so do we. Not with blame, not with bitterness, but with boots on the ground, arms around strangers and hearts wide open. That's the Texas I know. And that's the America that I believe in.’ What this person wrote is what I know is true for all Texans and what we will achieve every single day.”

Curtis Houck

66,729 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Senator Ron Johnson: "I'd never even heard of Building 7. Twenty years later, I had never heard of Building 7. And all of a sudden you see the video and you go, 'Sure, looks like controlled demolition to me.'... so why can't [we] even ask these questions?" This clip of sitting Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson (Senator Ron Johnson) is taken from an interview with James Corbett posted to The Official Corbett Report Rumble channel on September 7, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "I'm just asking these very legitimate questions. Why can't we do that? Which of course just raises my suspicion level. So that's, that's pretty well the, you know, you're the expert in this. I mean the Richard Gages of the world, the structural engineers, the firefighters who, who know the history of, you know, these steel buildings not coming down because basically fires. You need something else. "The first time I'd never even heard of Building 7. Twenty years later I had never heard of Building 7. And all of a sudden you see the video and you go, sure, looks like controlled demolition to me. "And then you start watching the documentaries and you hear about the structural engineering professor, up in Alaska doing a four year study on that completely refutes what NIST, study, hear about the 9/11 Commission. Again, I can just go on and on. I'm not an expert on this. I've just heard all the questions, and they sound completely legitimate to me. "And so you ask yourself the question, so why can't even ask these questions? I think an interesting component of this is because people don't want to know the answer. I mean, it opens up, which I can, completely understand from the position of the President of the United States, our relationship with foreign— I can certainly understand why, if the truth were ever known, we may want to just slam that Pandora's box closed. So that's kind of the position we're in right now. "I think the questions are legitimate. They've been raised. People don't want the answers. A lot of people do, but a lot of people don't."
1:47

Senator Ron Johnson: "I'd never even heard of Building 7. Twenty years later, I had never heard of Building 7. And all of a sudden you see the video and you go, 'Sure, looks like controlled demolition to me.'... so why can't [we] even ask these questions?" This clip of sitting Senator from Wisconsin Ron Johnson (Senator Ron Johnson) is taken from an interview with James Corbett posted to The Official Corbett Report Rumble channel on September 7, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "I'm just asking these very legitimate questions. Why can't we do that? Which of course just raises my suspicion level. So that's, that's pretty well the, you know, you're the expert in this. I mean the Richard Gages of the world, the structural engineers, the firefighters who, who know the history of, you know, these steel buildings not coming down because basically fires. You need something else. "The first time I'd never even heard of Building 7. Twenty years later I had never heard of Building 7. And all of a sudden you see the video and you go, sure, looks like controlled demolition to me. "And then you start watching the documentaries and you hear about the structural engineering professor, up in Alaska doing a four year study on that completely refutes what NIST, study, hear about the 9/11 Commission. Again, I can just go on and on. I'm not an expert on this. I've just heard all the questions, and they sound completely legitimate to me. "And so you ask yourself the question, so why can't even ask these questions? I think an interesting component of this is because people don't want to know the answer. I mean, it opens up, which I can, completely understand from the position of the President of the United States, our relationship with foreign— I can certainly understand why, if the truth were ever known, we may want to just slam that Pandora's box closed. So that's kind of the position we're in right now. "I think the questions are legitimate. They've been raised. People don't want the answers. A lot of people do, but a lot of people don't."

Sense Receptor

35,572 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

"Machinery really does exist. It's consciousness driven." ~Robert Bigelow Is Robert Bigelow a Firsthand Witness to Non-Human "Machinery"? (Not new but may have slipped under your radar. This is not the clip I was looking for but I watched it again and always wanted to share. ) Robert Bigelow: "You're leaving out, you know, kind of the holy grail of the topic. You know, machinery." George Knapp: "Yeah. Is there machinery? The New York Times reported that you modified your facility here in order to house some material from somewhere else." ~From that NYT article on 12/16/2017~ "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (helene cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean received a lot of flack for that paragraph as people took it to mean that Bigelow (BAASS) received those materials/alloys. But that's not what they wrote. They modified buildings IN CASE they received that stuff. And we now know (or, have been told) that one of those "materials" was an alleged non-human craft from Lockheed Martin. Reportedly, they were trying to divest themselves of it due to a lack of success in reverse engineering efforts.) Link to full article: ~ Knapp: "Did you ever have it?" Bigelow: "We never had any." Knapp: "Did you ever see it?" (I transcribed Mr. B's answer word-for-word because he looked and sounded really uncomfortable answering. I have zero doubt he's telling the truth, but that doesn't mean ANY of this is proof that we have these craft.) Bigelow: "Umm. Well, I've...there's, I, umm... You know, do you see, do you see, uhh, things that are photos, or do you see things in person, and so forth? So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future." Knapp: "Yeah." (If Mr. Bigelow was shown government photos or videos (with proper provenance) of craft that were presented to him as being manufactured by non-humans or an intelligence of unknown origin, is that enough to call him a firsthand witness? If he saw "machinery" and saw it "in person," then he's 100% a firsthand witness. Did Lacatski take him to see the craft that was described in "Initial Revelations"? 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 ) “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? ~End Excerpt from Initial Revelations~ ~~~ Bigelow: "So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future. And...because who knows what might happen in terms of a coalescing of intersections that could happen? And so..." Knapp: "You don't wanna spill any beans that causes you, it puts you in a bad light somewhere down the road." Bigelow: "Well, I just, I, I, you know, of...I think that... Machinery really does exist. It does exist, you know? And so, but the problem has been the inability to back engineer. And I kind of think that some things require a weightless environment. So, part of that is, we don't have it here, terrestrially. So, what you need is a manufacturing facility where there's a weightless environment." Knapp: "It's part of the reason you developed Bigelow Aerospace." Bigelow: "For certain amalgams and certain kinds of things, but it's also like, you know, it doesn't do you much good to own a sliver of a case that holds a cell phone to understand, was it even a case? Was it holding something, and what was that something it was holding? And much less, how does a cell phone work? And, oh, by the way, it doesn't work at all if you don't have all the communication capabilities that that cell phone needs to communicate with, and all that kind of thing. So it's like...it could just domino out into a thousand different things. So, having an answer on a small sliver of something isn't necessarily much, right?" (On thing I've consistently said is: If we're going to wake up the masses, materials won't do it. A rectangular piece of metal from an alleged NHI craft that a scientist says cannot be manufactured on Earth with known technology, is interesting, but not enough. IMO, we need a full (or partial) craft (machinery) and bodies.) Bigelow: "So, we are embarrassingly - as a specie, as a science, as a space-faring, attempting specie - behind. We're a galactic embarrassment, almost. I mean, we're so far freaking behind, we really are. It's a galactic embarrassment and we may not even be able to, consciously, be able to operate the things, you know? Because it's not like fingerprints or anything, you know? It's consciousness driven. So you taste that a little bit in being able to have some communications." (If it's truly consciousness driven, then what jakebarber and Skywatcher have spoken about makes complete sense: Using telepathy or psi to attract/summon craft and then operate them from a distance.) Bigelow: "And we have other areas of psi and phenomenology, where mentally, people can have macro PK, you know? They can execute macro-PK events, and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Our physics and science says, 'No, you can't do that.' And yet it's happening, right? So whether it's Bob Jahn's and Brenda Dunne's work in micro PK on subatomic particles, or macro PK with Kulagina in Russia, and with her bell jar and all that kind of thing. And she's lifting a pencil or bottle cap." Here are a few clips of Kulagina. I'm not sure if she's done this under more strict controls. ( I love that Bigelow is well read on these subjects and knows they're legit. But I wonder when the masses will realize it?) ~~~ Bigelow: "You're sniffing at something that's really not on our radar as a parochial-educational system in physics or anything. You're totally outside the boundary, right? And we're still dealing with fire engines, right? Okay? So, it's really frustrating and the potential might some day be there to try to back engineer more. And we've heard stories about little bitty things that maybe the Russians have back engineered. "And so, we're still enough of, potentially, the Klingons to turn things into weapons, right? So that's a big problem. Is the fact that we don't have an intersection. If you have two lines, one on spirituality and technology. Where's the intersection ever happening? Because we're flatlined on spiritual evolution, but our technological evolution is not only vertical, it's segmented, it's jumping. It's jumping faster, you know? And so. where's that intersection of harmony supposed to be? I don't see it. I don't see it 100 years from now, or 200 years from now. I don't see anything on the horizon today that's saying, 'Well, the spirituality line is gonna start to really accelerate [and] this other one (technological) is going to start to stop. And eventually, there's going to be an intersection of harmony where there's an integration of the two. I don't see...I can't possibly foresee that, I don't see it at all. So it's a big worry." (Steven Greer has said: "The [ETs] that are here, they'd be like Gandhi. No civilization that is capable of interstellar travel is allowed out of their solar system until they're peaceful. Otherwise, they're quarantined. But actually, we have technology that can go interstellar. We're not allowed to. And the reason is, we're still savages." ~Greer on his IG (I have no idea if that's true and neither does Greer.) Bigelow: "If you were an occupying...if you were another specie on another planet, a thinking specie of intelligence, and we had the capabilities to get to you, you should be damn concerned about the human race." Knapp. "Yeah. If I had that technology, I would not give it to us." Bigelow: "Yeah! Okay, you just said it. That's exactly right. You just said that. That is the big enchilada, right there. You just said it, that's the plate." (I want this tech shared with the world if it can help clean up our planet or advance our science and medicine. But if it can be used as a weapon, it's hard to argue with what Mr. B and Knapp said there. This assumes we've been able to reverse engineer certain aspects of the tech we allegedly have in our possession.)
5:55

"Machinery really does exist. It's consciousness driven." ~Robert Bigelow Is Robert Bigelow a Firsthand Witness to Non-Human "Machinery"? (Not new but may have slipped under your radar. This is not the clip I was looking for but I watched it again and always wanted to share. ) Robert Bigelow: "You're leaving out, you know, kind of the holy grail of the topic. You know, machinery." George Knapp: "Yeah. Is there machinery? The New York Times reported that you modified your facility here in order to house some material from somewhere else." ~From that NYT article on 12/16/2017~ "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (helene cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean received a lot of flack for that paragraph as people took it to mean that Bigelow (BAASS) received those materials/alloys. But that's not what they wrote. They modified buildings IN CASE they received that stuff. And we now know (or, have been told) that one of those "materials" was an alleged non-human craft from Lockheed Martin. Reportedly, they were trying to divest themselves of it due to a lack of success in reverse engineering efforts.) Link to full article: ~ Knapp: "Did you ever have it?" Bigelow: "We never had any." Knapp: "Did you ever see it?" (I transcribed Mr. B's answer word-for-word because he looked and sounded really uncomfortable answering. I have zero doubt he's telling the truth, but that doesn't mean ANY of this is proof that we have these craft.) Bigelow: "Umm. Well, I've...there's, I, umm... You know, do you see, do you see, uhh, things that are photos, or do you see things in person, and so forth? So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future." Knapp: "Yeah." (If Mr. Bigelow was shown government photos or videos (with proper provenance) of craft that were presented to him as being manufactured by non-humans or an intelligence of unknown origin, is that enough to call him a firsthand witness? If he saw "machinery" and saw it "in person," then he's 100% a firsthand witness. Did Lacatski take him to see the craft that was described in "Initial Revelations"? 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 ) “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? ~End Excerpt from Initial Revelations~ ~~~ Bigelow: "So, you don't want to, you don't want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future. And...because who knows what might happen in terms of a coalescing of intersections that could happen? And so..." Knapp: "You don't wanna spill any beans that causes you, it puts you in a bad light somewhere down the road." Bigelow: "Well, I just, I, I, you know, of...I think that... Machinery really does exist. It does exist, you know? And so, but the problem has been the inability to back engineer. And I kind of think that some things require a weightless environment. So, part of that is, we don't have it here, terrestrially. So, what you need is a manufacturing facility where there's a weightless environment." Knapp: "It's part of the reason you developed Bigelow Aerospace." Bigelow: "For certain amalgams and certain kinds of things, but it's also like, you know, it doesn't do you much good to own a sliver of a case that holds a cell phone to understand, was it even a case? Was it holding something, and what was that something it was holding? And much less, how does a cell phone work? And, oh, by the way, it doesn't work at all if you don't have all the communication capabilities that that cell phone needs to communicate with, and all that kind of thing. So it's like...it could just domino out into a thousand different things. So, having an answer on a small sliver of something isn't necessarily much, right?" (On thing I've consistently said is: If we're going to wake up the masses, materials won't do it. A rectangular piece of metal from an alleged NHI craft that a scientist says cannot be manufactured on Earth with known technology, is interesting, but not enough. IMO, we need a full (or partial) craft (machinery) and bodies.) Bigelow: "So, we are embarrassingly - as a specie, as a science, as a space-faring, attempting specie - behind. We're a galactic embarrassment, almost. I mean, we're so far freaking behind, we really are. It's a galactic embarrassment and we may not even be able to, consciously, be able to operate the things, you know? Because it's not like fingerprints or anything, you know? It's consciousness driven. So you taste that a little bit in being able to have some communications." (If it's truly consciousness driven, then what jakebarber and Skywatcher have spoken about makes complete sense: Using telepathy or psi to attract/summon craft and then operate them from a distance.) Bigelow: "And we have other areas of psi and phenomenology, where mentally, people can have macro PK, you know? They can execute macro-PK events, and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Our physics and science says, 'No, you can't do that.' And yet it's happening, right? So whether it's Bob Jahn's and Brenda Dunne's work in micro PK on subatomic particles, or macro PK with Kulagina in Russia, and with her bell jar and all that kind of thing. And she's lifting a pencil or bottle cap." Here are a few clips of Kulagina. I'm not sure if she's done this under more strict controls. ( I love that Bigelow is well read on these subjects and knows they're legit. But I wonder when the masses will realize it?) ~~~ Bigelow: "You're sniffing at something that's really not on our radar as a parochial-educational system in physics or anything. You're totally outside the boundary, right? And we're still dealing with fire engines, right? Okay? So, it's really frustrating and the potential might some day be there to try to back engineer more. And we've heard stories about little bitty things that maybe the Russians have back engineered. "And so, we're still enough of, potentially, the Klingons to turn things into weapons, right? So that's a big problem. Is the fact that we don't have an intersection. If you have two lines, one on spirituality and technology. Where's the intersection ever happening? Because we're flatlined on spiritual evolution, but our technological evolution is not only vertical, it's segmented, it's jumping. It's jumping faster, you know? And so. where's that intersection of harmony supposed to be? I don't see it. I don't see it 100 years from now, or 200 years from now. I don't see anything on the horizon today that's saying, 'Well, the spirituality line is gonna start to really accelerate [and] this other one (technological) is going to start to stop. And eventually, there's going to be an intersection of harmony where there's an integration of the two. I don't see...I can't possibly foresee that, I don't see it at all. So it's a big worry." (Steven Greer has said: "The [ETs] that are here, they'd be like Gandhi. No civilization that is capable of interstellar travel is allowed out of their solar system until they're peaceful. Otherwise, they're quarantined. But actually, we have technology that can go interstellar. We're not allowed to. And the reason is, we're still savages." ~Greer on his IG (I have no idea if that's true and neither does Greer.) Bigelow: "If you were an occupying...if you were another specie on another planet, a thinking specie of intelligence, and we had the capabilities to get to you, you should be damn concerned about the human race." Knapp. "Yeah. If I had that technology, I would not give it to us." Bigelow: "Yeah! Okay, you just said it. That's exactly right. You just said that. That is the big enchilada, right there. You just said it, that's the plate." (I want this tech shared with the world if it can help clean up our planet or advance our science and medicine. But if it can be used as a weapon, it's hard to argue with what Mr. B and Knapp said there. This assumes we've been able to reverse engineer certain aspects of the tech we allegedly have in our possession.)

Joe Murgia

89,936 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Mayorkas Comes Unglued When John Kennedy Confronts Him With Illegal Immigration Facts Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is facing a looming impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, had a 'meltdown' on Wednesday when Republican Congressman John Kennedy confronted him with several 'inconvenient' facts about illegal immigration under his tenure. "Mr. Secretary, I don't hate anybody," Kennedy said. "I look for grace wherever I can find it. And I certainly don't hate you. My chairman talked about the Woolly Mammoths in the room, and I'm glad he brought that up. The chairman's immigration bill was negotiated by two members of my party, Senator Langford and Senator McConnell, and I don't speak for either one. They're both good men. The chairman said that the Republicans who negotiated his bill trusted you and wanted you there." "And I'm not doubting his word," he continued. "It gives me no joy to say this us, but most Republicans don't trust you, and a vast majority of the American people don't trust you. That's why you've been impeached." "Now, my Democratic colleagues are going to try to sweep your impeachment under the rug and violate 200 years of Senate precedent in doing it," he added. "I don't think that they will be able to sweep the issue, maybe your impeachment, but not the issue under a rug as big as the United States of America." "Again, it gives me no joy in saying this," he went on. "I think, well, more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior and President Biden's behavior, our southern border is an open bleeding wound. I think they believe that our southern border is chaotic." "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political," he said. "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design and that all of this is intentional. And I think while a vast majority of the American people who don't trust you believe in immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration, and they think you do and they think President Biden does, and they think that's why the border is open." "And they think that your attitude and President Biden's attitude is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the President when you say that it's not your problem," he added. "I think that needed to be said. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the President allow into our country counts for Congressional district reapportionment?" "Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing," Mayorkas shot back. "Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?" Kennedy asked again. "Same answer," Mayorkas repeated. "Okay. You don't know," Kennedy replied. "I don't understand your question," Mayorkas said. "Never crossed your mind," Kennedy followed up. "The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous," Mayorkas claimed. "And if I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform and far more importantly that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform to stem illegal immigration, build lawful, safe and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system," he added. "And we only wish, we only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term..." "Mr. Secretary, you are using up my time," Kennedy interrupted. "You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it and I know it, that the more people you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for reapportionment and the more people that you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now, maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you've done nothing for four years, notta, zero." "Absolutely false," Mayorkas claimed. "Zilch," Kennedy reiterated. "And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants. And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it. I don't hate anyone, but that's why you've been impeached. And my colleagues may try to cover it up. They're going to try to cover it up, but they can't cover up the facts." President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' boss, on Wednesday said that he is 'examining' if he has the power to shut down the border. The dubious narrative was quickly exposed and deconstructed by X commentator KanekoaTheGreat. "Biden took 94 executive actions in his first 100 days to decimate border security — and has all the authority he needs to reverse course and end the border crisis," he noted. "On day one, he signed executive orders that incentivize illegal immigration: Paused Deportations; Suspended "Remain in Mexico"; Stopped Border Wall Construction. "Since these policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected," he added. House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Wednesday also proposed a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census. H.R. 7109, or the Equal Representation Act, would amend title 13 "to add a citizenship inquiry to the decennial census" and exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base for the 2030 census and any future census.
6:33

Mayorkas Comes Unglued When John Kennedy Confronts Him With Illegal Immigration Facts Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is facing a looming impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, had a 'meltdown' on Wednesday when Republican Congressman John Kennedy confronted him with several 'inconvenient' facts about illegal immigration under his tenure. "Mr. Secretary, I don't hate anybody," Kennedy said. "I look for grace wherever I can find it. And I certainly don't hate you. My chairman talked about the Woolly Mammoths in the room, and I'm glad he brought that up. The chairman's immigration bill was negotiated by two members of my party, Senator Langford and Senator McConnell, and I don't speak for either one. They're both good men. The chairman said that the Republicans who negotiated his bill trusted you and wanted you there." "And I'm not doubting his word," he continued. "It gives me no joy to say this us, but most Republicans don't trust you, and a vast majority of the American people don't trust you. That's why you've been impeached." "Now, my Democratic colleagues are going to try to sweep your impeachment under the rug and violate 200 years of Senate precedent in doing it," he added. "I don't think that they will be able to sweep the issue, maybe your impeachment, but not the issue under a rug as big as the United States of America." "Again, it gives me no joy in saying this," he went on. "I think, well, more than a majority of the American people think that as a result of your behavior and President Biden's behavior, our southern border is an open bleeding wound. I think they believe that our southern border is chaotic." "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that a lot of it is political," he said. "I think a vast majority of the American people believe that it is chaotic by design and that all of this is intentional. And I think while a vast majority of the American people who don't trust you believe in immigration, they don't believe in illegal immigration, and they think you do and they think President Biden does, and they think that's why the border is open." "And they think that your attitude and President Biden's attitude is that while they may be poorer under President Biden, that they're stupid enough to believe you and the President when you say that it's not your problem," he added. "I think that needed to be said. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and the President allow into our country counts for Congressional district reapportionment?" "Senator, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can surely share with you that I disagree with its phrasing," Mayorkas shot back. "Isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the number of illegal immigrants that you and President Biden have allowed into our country counts for allocating electoral votes?" Kennedy asked again. "Same answer," Mayorkas repeated. "Okay. You don't know," Kennedy replied. "I don't understand your question," Mayorkas said. "Never crossed your mind," Kennedy followed up. "The notion, Senator, that we intend to allow illegal immigration is nothing short of preposterous," Mayorkas claimed. "And if I may, it is disrespectful to the extraordinarily hard work that we perform and far more importantly that the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and across this administration perform to stem illegal immigration, build lawful, safe and orderly pathways, and invest in a working system," he added. "And we only wish, we only wish that that bipartisan legislation about which I have not heard a critical term..." "Mr. Secretary, you are using up my time," Kennedy interrupted. "You do this every single time. You do this every single time. And it's a fact, and you know it and I know it, that the more people you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for reapportionment and the more people that you allow into our country and legally, the more people are counted for allocating electoral votes. Now, maybe that's a coincidence, but that's a fact. And you know that. And you've done nothing for four years, notta, zero." "Absolutely false," Mayorkas claimed. "Zilch," Kennedy reiterated. "And in fact, the only people I know in this country who are better off today than they were four years ago are illegal immigrants. And that's as a result of your policy. I don't hate you for it. I don't hate anyone, but that's why you've been impeached. And my colleagues may try to cover it up. They're going to try to cover it up, but they can't cover up the facts." President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' boss, on Wednesday said that he is 'examining' if he has the power to shut down the border. The dubious narrative was quickly exposed and deconstructed by X commentator KanekoaTheGreat. "Biden took 94 executive actions in his first 100 days to decimate border security — and has all the authority he needs to reverse course and end the border crisis," he noted. "On day one, he signed executive orders that incentivize illegal immigration: Paused Deportations; Suspended "Remain in Mexico"; Stopped Border Wall Construction. "Since these policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected," he added. House Oversight Chairman James Comer on Wednesday also proposed a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census. H.R. 7109, or the Equal Representation Act, would amend title 13 "to add a citizenship inquiry to the decennial census" and exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base for the 2030 census and any future census.

Kyle Becker

1,508,197 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

MIND BLOWN 💥 🤯 “You wanna know what I just realized about all the legislation that's being passed. Literally, all of it is to stop a revolution” - “We got the 702 bill, which allows them to go through our text messages and make sure we're not colluding with foreign adversaries, but they're also looking for words like revolution - We have the Bill (S.3589 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024) that stops us if there's more than a million people talking about one topic or assembling. It's illegal, which isn't even the right term because they're passing statutes and regulations. They're not passing laws. - Banning TikTok because TikTok is our only access to uncensored information. We get to see people on the f*cking ground where the shit is happening, telling us what's actually happening. So the story that they spinning doesn't work anymore. Nobody's going to the news outlets. Nobody's looking at the newspaper because we all see that it's propaganda now. Do you know what that tells me? That either we're about to find out something that they have been doing that directly affects us, which is literally every f*cking thing that they've been doing. Or they're about to do something so drastic that it's gonna cause for us to uprise. Now it could have something to do with that guy burning himself alive in front of the Trump, um, trial in New York. He was basically saying they're running a Ponzi scheme allegedly using Bitcoin. So you're putting your money into Bitcoin. They're going on the back end and taking your money out. So eventually, Bitcoin, cryptocurrency is gonna crash because there's no money in it. Now that doesn't surprise me because they are doing the same thing with our retirement plans, with our 401ks, and the trust funds that half of us don't know that we got. - They're worried about a million of us standing up. What could they possibly be doing? Drop your thoughts in the comments.”
1:47

MIND BLOWN 💥 🤯 “You wanna know what I just realized about all the legislation that's being passed. Literally, all of it is to stop a revolution” - “We got the 702 bill, which allows them to go through our text messages and make sure we're not colluding with foreign adversaries, but they're also looking for words like revolution - We have the Bill (S.3589 - Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024) that stops us if there's more than a million people talking about one topic or assembling. It's illegal, which isn't even the right term because they're passing statutes and regulations. They're not passing laws. - Banning TikTok because TikTok is our only access to uncensored information. We get to see people on the f*cking ground where the shit is happening, telling us what's actually happening. So the story that they spinning doesn't work anymore. Nobody's going to the news outlets. Nobody's looking at the newspaper because we all see that it's propaganda now. Do you know what that tells me? That either we're about to find out something that they have been doing that directly affects us, which is literally every f*cking thing that they've been doing. Or they're about to do something so drastic that it's gonna cause for us to uprise. Now it could have something to do with that guy burning himself alive in front of the Trump, um, trial in New York. He was basically saying they're running a Ponzi scheme allegedly using Bitcoin. So you're putting your money into Bitcoin. They're going on the back end and taking your money out. So eventually, Bitcoin, cryptocurrency is gonna crash because there's no money in it. Now that doesn't surprise me because they are doing the same thing with our retirement plans, with our 401ks, and the trust funds that half of us don't know that we got. - They're worried about a million of us standing up. What could they possibly be doing? Drop your thoughts in the comments.”

Wall Street Apes

1,951,948 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

240421 #LAY & #CHANYEOL Full IG Live Translation *May contain inaccuracies as some parts are inaudible 🐑: "Ya Chanyeol-ah!" 🍒: "Lay~ Lay!~ you're in Korea right?" 🐑: "Eoh?" 🍒: "You're in Korea right?" 🐑: "Yeah, i'm in Korea" 🍒: "I'm not in Korea right now" 🐑: "I know that you're not in Korea" 🍒: "Are you doing live right now?" 🐑: "Yeah, i'm doing live right now, can i show-" 🍒: "Can they see me?" 🐑: "Should i show you?" 🍒: "Yes, i'm gonna greet them~" 🐑: "Hello everyone~" 🍒: "Hello! We are one!" 🐑: "One! Hello, we're EXO" 🍒: "We're EXO~ oh hyung! I saw your music show performance!" 🐑: "Oh really? Which one did you like the most?" 🍒: "For me.." 🐑: "Should i (hold the phone) this way so you can be seen on the live or?" 🍒: "Yeah yeah it's fine! I still can see hyung's face, anyway, i liked the one where you were wearing like an orange jacket? Something orange?" 🐑: "Orange? Orange? When was that?" 🍒: "Is it not? The one from yesterday, what was yesterday's?" 🐑: "Red! x3" 🍒: "Ah red red! I saw that one, i like it!" 🐑: "Ah that one, right right" 🍒: "I also saw the MV hyung!" 🐑: "But, when i went to the broadcasting station..." 🍒: "It makes you think of (the members) right?" 🐑: "Yeah (it makes me think) 'I miss my members a lot'" 🍒: "Me too, when i go around alone, i think of that a lot" 🐑: "When are you going to have a comeback? I came to Han river right now, because i have to go tomorrow, so i came to look around at Han river and walk down the path that we used to walk in the past, you know right i'm always reminiscing of memories" 🍒: "Memories..." 🐑: "Yeah..." 🍒: "Me too hyung, mine is also coming out soon" 🐑: "When?" 🍒: "That's a secret, it's gonna be a spoiler so i can't say it~" 🐑: "For real?" 🍒: "Yes, it's a solo!" 🐑: "Okay~" 🍒: "Okay, please post it on insta" 🐑: "Yeah, but also, please come to China and do something" 🍒: "If i can, i definitely would!" 🐑: "In China too, there's a lot of our fans who are waiting" 🍒: "Hyung please also tell (the fans) that i want to do things in China" 🐑: "We have to do it" 🍒: "My mandarin has improved, hyung" 🐑: "Okay, try doing it! Hahahaha" 🍒: "Hello! I'm Chanyeol~ i really like EXO-L! I want to go to China" 🐑: "That's right, it's perfect, 'i want to go to China' is correct" 🍒: "Yes!! Bye~" 🐑🍒: "Hahahaha" 🐑: "But for real, if it's possible, i'm not kidding, you should really try recording a chinese song and show it to Eris in China" 🍒: "For sure!" 🐑: "Let's do it!" 🍒: "Okay (???)~" 🐑: "Oh? Then if you record a chinese song, i'll feature in it for you if you need it!" 🍒: "Okay, deal! Do it (feature) for free!" 🐑: "Of course, we're in a relationship where we don't need those things (paying fees)!" 🍒: *joking* "then if i (feature) in hyung's, can i get paid?" 🐑: "Aishh this saekkiya (punk), this is a live broadcast ish!" 🍒: "HAHAHAHAHA HE SAID SAEKKI! Alright hyung i'll go get ready (for the performance)~" 🐑: "Okay, do well on your performance in Japan~" 🍒: "Okay, jiayou (fighting)!" 🐑: "Thank you, bye bye!" 🍒: "Bye bye!"
3:38

240421 #LAY & #CHANYEOL Full IG Live Translation *May contain inaccuracies as some parts are inaudible 🐑: "Ya Chanyeol-ah!" 🍒: "Lay~ Lay!~ you're in Korea right?" 🐑: "Eoh?" 🍒: "You're in Korea right?" 🐑: "Yeah, i'm in Korea" 🍒: "I'm not in Korea right now" 🐑: "I know that you're not in Korea" 🍒: "Are you doing live right now?" 🐑: "Yeah, i'm doing live right now, can i show-" 🍒: "Can they see me?" 🐑: "Should i show you?" 🍒: "Yes, i'm gonna greet them~" 🐑: "Hello everyone~" 🍒: "Hello! We are one!" 🐑: "One! Hello, we're EXO" 🍒: "We're EXO~ oh hyung! I saw your music show performance!" 🐑: "Oh really? Which one did you like the most?" 🍒: "For me.." 🐑: "Should i (hold the phone) this way so you can be seen on the live or?" 🍒: "Yeah yeah it's fine! I still can see hyung's face, anyway, i liked the one where you were wearing like an orange jacket? Something orange?" 🐑: "Orange? Orange? When was that?" 🍒: "Is it not? The one from yesterday, what was yesterday's?" 🐑: "Red! x3" 🍒: "Ah red red! I saw that one, i like it!" 🐑: "Ah that one, right right" 🍒: "I also saw the MV hyung!" 🐑: "But, when i went to the broadcasting station..." 🍒: "It makes you think of (the members) right?" 🐑: "Yeah (it makes me think) 'I miss my members a lot'" 🍒: "Me too, when i go around alone, i think of that a lot" 🐑: "When are you going to have a comeback? I came to Han river right now, because i have to go tomorrow, so i came to look around at Han river and walk down the path that we used to walk in the past, you know right i'm always reminiscing of memories" 🍒: "Memories..." 🐑: "Yeah..." 🍒: "Me too hyung, mine is also coming out soon" 🐑: "When?" 🍒: "That's a secret, it's gonna be a spoiler so i can't say it~" 🐑: "For real?" 🍒: "Yes, it's a solo!" 🐑: "Okay~" 🍒: "Okay, please post it on insta" 🐑: "Yeah, but also, please come to China and do something" 🍒: "If i can, i definitely would!" 🐑: "In China too, there's a lot of our fans who are waiting" 🍒: "Hyung please also tell (the fans) that i want to do things in China" 🐑: "We have to do it" 🍒: "My mandarin has improved, hyung" 🐑: "Okay, try doing it! Hahahaha" 🍒: "Hello! I'm Chanyeol~ i really like EXO-L! I want to go to China" 🐑: "That's right, it's perfect, 'i want to go to China' is correct" 🍒: "Yes!! Bye~" 🐑🍒: "Hahahaha" 🐑: "But for real, if it's possible, i'm not kidding, you should really try recording a chinese song and show it to Eris in China" 🍒: "For sure!" 🐑: "Let's do it!" 🍒: "Okay (???)~" 🐑: "Oh? Then if you record a chinese song, i'll feature in it for you if you need it!" 🍒: "Okay, deal! Do it (feature) for free!" 🐑: "Of course, we're in a relationship where we don't need those things (paying fees)!" 🍒: *joking* "then if i (feature) in hyung's, can i get paid?" 🐑: "Aishh this saekkiya (punk), this is a live broadcast ish!" 🍒: "HAHAHAHAHA HE SAID SAEKKI! Alright hyung i'll go get ready (for the performance)~" 🐑: "Okay, do well on your performance in Japan~" 🍒: "Okay, jiayou (fighting)!" 🐑: "Thank you, bye bye!" 🍒: "Bye bye!"

큥베리 | Grace 💫

241,460 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

👽👽 New Lacatski! - Entities, Spies, Orbs, and Men in Black 👽👽 "We can be pretty well sure we're not dealing with humans." ~Dr. James Lacatski 🔥🔥🔥 ~NOT a full transcript of the video below~ Knapp: "We are in a race for the tech?" Lacatski: "Yes. Yes, absolutely." ~ Lacatski: "And it's not our belief or conjecture or the opinion of the authors. It's facts from the program. These are from official sources, from what the public has paid for." Knapp Voicoever: "Dr. James Lacatski spent most of his career with the DIA, analyzing the technology of America's adversaries. Weapons that could, potentially, wipe out the world. He was and is, a keeper of secrets, and regarded his oath and security clearance as gospel. But these days, he is cautiously, and meticulously sharing what he can about AAWSAP, the largest acknowledged UFO investigation ever funded by the U.S. government. Lacatksi designed and managed AAWSAP," inspired by, "Hunt for the Skinwalker" (which was written by Knapp and Colm Kelleher) and an odd experience he had while visiting Skinwalker Ranch as a guest of Robert Bigelow. Lacatski: "You know, we wanted to learn what could be weaponized here. And, basically, that was our job at DIA." Knapp Voiceover: With AAWSAP, "Lacatski and his team produced an astounding amount of material, including 115 thick documents and the world's largest UFO data warehouse (CAPELLA). Fourteen years after AAWSAP ended, the DIA has yet to release any of the original material. Lacatski is doing it himself. His latest book, 'New Insights: Inside the U.S. Government's UFO Program,' makes the case that UFOs, and paranormal phenomena related to UFOs, are generated by something that is not us." ~ Knapp: "Can we say they're not human?" Lacatski: "Uh, I don't think you can... Oh! We can be pretty well sure we're not dealing with humans." Knapp: "How do you know it's a craft if it has no fuel, no fuel tank, you didn't actually see it fly? Are you convinced it is some sort of a craft, a machine?" Lacatski: "Yes. And by the way, Senator Reid asked the same question." Reid paused the money for AAWSAP because he discovered he had a spy in his DC office who was leaking info. to his opponent. The last thing he needed was the AAWSAP info. getting out and his reputation being tarnished. He believed that would lose him the election, and Lacatski agreed. He wound up winning in a surprising cakewalk.
6:40

👽👽 New Lacatski! - Entities, Spies, Orbs, and Men in Black 👽👽 "We can be pretty well sure we're not dealing with humans." ~Dr. James Lacatski 🔥🔥🔥 ~NOT a full transcript of the video below~ Knapp: "We are in a race for the tech?" Lacatski: "Yes. Yes, absolutely." ~ Lacatski: "And it's not our belief or conjecture or the opinion of the authors. It's facts from the program. These are from official sources, from what the public has paid for." Knapp Voicoever: "Dr. James Lacatski spent most of his career with the DIA, analyzing the technology of America's adversaries. Weapons that could, potentially, wipe out the world. He was and is, a keeper of secrets, and regarded his oath and security clearance as gospel. But these days, he is cautiously, and meticulously sharing what he can about AAWSAP, the largest acknowledged UFO investigation ever funded by the U.S. government. Lacatksi designed and managed AAWSAP," inspired by, "Hunt for the Skinwalker" (which was written by Knapp and Colm Kelleher) and an odd experience he had while visiting Skinwalker Ranch as a guest of Robert Bigelow. Lacatski: "You know, we wanted to learn what could be weaponized here. And, basically, that was our job at DIA." Knapp Voiceover: With AAWSAP, "Lacatski and his team produced an astounding amount of material, including 115 thick documents and the world's largest UFO data warehouse (CAPELLA). Fourteen years after AAWSAP ended, the DIA has yet to release any of the original material. Lacatski is doing it himself. His latest book, 'New Insights: Inside the U.S. Government's UFO Program,' makes the case that UFOs, and paranormal phenomena related to UFOs, are generated by something that is not us." ~ Knapp: "Can we say they're not human?" Lacatski: "Uh, I don't think you can... Oh! We can be pretty well sure we're not dealing with humans." Knapp: "How do you know it's a craft if it has no fuel, no fuel tank, you didn't actually see it fly? Are you convinced it is some sort of a craft, a machine?" Lacatski: "Yes. And by the way, Senator Reid asked the same question." Reid paused the money for AAWSAP because he discovered he had a spy in his DC office who was leaking info. to his opponent. The last thing he needed was the AAWSAP info. getting out and his reputation being tarnished. He believed that would lose him the election, and Lacatski agreed. He wound up winning in a surprising cakewalk.

Joe Murgia

70,723 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."
12:19

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."

Jaynit

153,068 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Much as I like to have fun on this channel, I do want to address a serious topic. June is Men's Mental Health Month. Men are expected to be strong and bear heavy burdens, but even the strongest person needs reassurance sometimes. Sonic in SatAM is a chill guy who loves to goof around. But the reality is that he's surviving a nightmare. His world has been taken over by a tyrant, his family is gone, and his beloved Uncle Chuck was turned into a robot against his will. As much as Sonic tries to stay strong and maintain a positive outlook, there is only so much one person can bear. Seeing Sonic cry over his uncle humanizes him. It reminds us that there are layers to his character in SatAM that go far beyond his cool attitude and catchphrases. Thankfully, Sonic had friends to help him through it. No one judged him for his sadness, because even strong men need to cry. As much as Sonic saves the world, sometimes he needs to be saved too. Sally may often get annoyed by Sonic's antics, but she loves him enough to provide vital emotional support when he breaks down. We all need people like that in our lives. There is a reason Sonic and Sally’s bond is so strong. They have proven they can depend on each other in their darkest moments. Sonic might be the one fighting SWAT-Bots, but Sally is the one making sure he is mentally able to keep going. Like most men, Sonic doesn't want to admit when he can't carry the weight anymore. Men are often conditioned to just keep moving forward, which makes having a supportive, nurturing circle so vital. A woman's gentle touch means the world to men like that. The point is, if you know a man who is stressed out or going through a lot, reach out to him. As a man myself, I can confirm we're not always willing to admit when something is bothering us. But if you give it time, and if we trust you, we'll open up. And if you're the one struggling, you don't have to broadcast it to the world. If you need to do it in private, that's completely fine. Reach out to someone in real life, in DMs, or a private Discord server. Talk to someone you are close with. It doesn't make you any less of a man to do so. After all, confronting your problems is the true essence of masculinity. Here's to Men's Mental Health Awareness. To all you guys out there: take care of yourselves. ~MR
1:06

Much as I like to have fun on this channel, I do want to address a serious topic. June is Men's Mental Health Month. Men are expected to be strong and bear heavy burdens, but even the strongest person needs reassurance sometimes. Sonic in SatAM is a chill guy who loves to goof around. But the reality is that he's surviving a nightmare. His world has been taken over by a tyrant, his family is gone, and his beloved Uncle Chuck was turned into a robot against his will. As much as Sonic tries to stay strong and maintain a positive outlook, there is only so much one person can bear. Seeing Sonic cry over his uncle humanizes him. It reminds us that there are layers to his character in SatAM that go far beyond his cool attitude and catchphrases. Thankfully, Sonic had friends to help him through it. No one judged him for his sadness, because even strong men need to cry. As much as Sonic saves the world, sometimes he needs to be saved too. Sally may often get annoyed by Sonic's antics, but she loves him enough to provide vital emotional support when he breaks down. We all need people like that in our lives. There is a reason Sonic and Sally’s bond is so strong. They have proven they can depend on each other in their darkest moments. Sonic might be the one fighting SWAT-Bots, but Sally is the one making sure he is mentally able to keep going. Like most men, Sonic doesn't want to admit when he can't carry the weight anymore. Men are often conditioned to just keep moving forward, which makes having a supportive, nurturing circle so vital. A woman's gentle touch means the world to men like that. The point is, if you know a man who is stressed out or going through a lot, reach out to him. As a man myself, I can confirm we're not always willing to admit when something is bothering us. But if you give it time, and if we trust you, we'll open up. And if you're the one struggling, you don't have to broadcast it to the world. If you need to do it in private, that's completely fine. Reach out to someone in real life, in DMs, or a private Discord server. Talk to someone you are close with. It doesn't make you any less of a man to do so. After all, confronting your problems is the true essence of masculinity. Here's to Men's Mental Health Awareness. To all you guys out there: take care of yourselves. ~MR

Sally4All

19,550 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

MIND-BLOWING 🤯 Angel investor perfectly sums up how the "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" strategy is being implemented with UBI, AI, and tokenization "This is the hidden wealth transfer" "Assets are going to become harder and harder to own as a result of AI" "couple that with tokenization, where they won't even let you own the asset" "They want the custodian to own the asset and you to own the token" "AI essentially threatens to separate consumption from ownership" "the universal basic income, or what Elon Musk calls the universal high income, it doesn't solve the problem. It concentrates wealth significantly" "you need to become an owner rather than a consumption supporter" "It's going to be the subordination industrial complex, the subscription industrial complex" "They want you to rent... rather than own the assets, and specifically the assets that are [productive]... that's why they create these manufactured crises to make sure that you own nothing and you're happy" This clip of Simon Dixon (Simon Dixon), an angel investor, Bitcoin OG investor, and former investment banker, is taken from a video posted to the Simon Dixon YouTube channel on June 14, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Assets are going to become harder and harder to own as a result of AI. Now couple that with tokenization, where they won't even let you own the asset. They want the custodian to own the asset and you to own the token. "And you've got these structural paper contracts where they don't want you to own the Bitcoin, they want you to own the paper Bitcoin. So daily life gets cheaper, but ownership gets more expensive. And that's what I think we're witnessing. "That's the trend that I'm looking out for and that's what I think the data is. This is the hidden wealth transfer. So the headlines during this whole thing will say to you, everything's getting cheaper. "AI is making everyone's life better. You now have universal basic income. You don't need to work, but it is a wealth transfer between those different things that are happening. And so the middle class was effectively built upon ownership. "That was the boomers after World wars that were able to get the real estate at an affordable rate. They were able to leverage up the debt. They own the property, they own the businesses, they own the stocks, they have the savings. And AI essentially threatens to separate consumption from ownership. "And that's what I think everyone needs to prepare for. So citizens may consume more, but they'll be owning less if they don't get this trend right, if they don't become the asset owner. "And that is really the universal basic income, or what Elon Musk calls the universal high income. It doesn't solve the problem. It concentrates wealth significantly. That's why I've always said you got to have a plan for the next five, 10 years. Even if it, takes longer, takes shorter, whatever it is, you still got to start working. "I talked about, there was an episode on my blog, SimonDixon(.)com how to develop a 10-year plan, how to understand these different trends. But UBI is effectively consumption support, let's call it what it actually is. "And ownership is wealth creation. And you need to become an owner rather than a consumption supporter. It's going to be the subordination industrial complex, the subscription industrial complex. Basically a monthly payment is not the same as owning the productive assets. You don't get more productive and get ahead unless you get more productive and then own the assets. "And that's why you got to lean into this maximum productivity increase in order to spend less than you earn and invest the difference in the assets. Own more Bitcoin. This month in the sovereign strategy and then diversify accordingly in order to play some of the different things. "Now, remember, the future may become a world where citizens rent access to virtually all sorts of things. And so really, that is the subscription industrial complex. They want you to rent it rather than own the assets, and specifically the assets that are producing it, because that's why they create these manufactured crisis to make sure that you own nothing and you're happy."
3:20

MIND-BLOWING 🤯 Angel investor perfectly sums up how the "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy" strategy is being implemented with UBI, AI, and tokenization "This is the hidden wealth transfer" "Assets are going to become harder and harder to own as a result of AI" "couple that with tokenization, where they won't even let you own the asset" "They want the custodian to own the asset and you to own the token" "AI essentially threatens to separate consumption from ownership" "the universal basic income, or what Elon Musk calls the universal high income, it doesn't solve the problem. It concentrates wealth significantly" "you need to become an owner rather than a consumption supporter" "It's going to be the subordination industrial complex, the subscription industrial complex" "They want you to rent... rather than own the assets, and specifically the assets that are [productive]... that's why they create these manufactured crises to make sure that you own nothing and you're happy" This clip of Simon Dixon (Simon Dixon), an angel investor, Bitcoin OG investor, and former investment banker, is taken from a video posted to the Simon Dixon YouTube channel on June 14, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Assets are going to become harder and harder to own as a result of AI. Now couple that with tokenization, where they won't even let you own the asset. They want the custodian to own the asset and you to own the token. "And you've got these structural paper contracts where they don't want you to own the Bitcoin, they want you to own the paper Bitcoin. So daily life gets cheaper, but ownership gets more expensive. And that's what I think we're witnessing. "That's the trend that I'm looking out for and that's what I think the data is. This is the hidden wealth transfer. So the headlines during this whole thing will say to you, everything's getting cheaper. "AI is making everyone's life better. You now have universal basic income. You don't need to work, but it is a wealth transfer between those different things that are happening. And so the middle class was effectively built upon ownership. "That was the boomers after World wars that were able to get the real estate at an affordable rate. They were able to leverage up the debt. They own the property, they own the businesses, they own the stocks, they have the savings. And AI essentially threatens to separate consumption from ownership. "And that's what I think everyone needs to prepare for. So citizens may consume more, but they'll be owning less if they don't get this trend right, if they don't become the asset owner. "And that is really the universal basic income, or what Elon Musk calls the universal high income. It doesn't solve the problem. It concentrates wealth significantly. That's why I've always said you got to have a plan for the next five, 10 years. Even if it, takes longer, takes shorter, whatever it is, you still got to start working. "I talked about, there was an episode on my blog, SimonDixon(.)com how to develop a 10-year plan, how to understand these different trends. But UBI is effectively consumption support, let's call it what it actually is. "And ownership is wealth creation. And you need to become an owner rather than a consumption supporter. It's going to be the subordination industrial complex, the subscription industrial complex. Basically a monthly payment is not the same as owning the productive assets. You don't get more productive and get ahead unless you get more productive and then own the assets. "And that's why you got to lean into this maximum productivity increase in order to spend less than you earn and invest the difference in the assets. Own more Bitcoin. This month in the sovereign strategy and then diversify accordingly in order to play some of the different things. "Now, remember, the future may become a world where citizens rent access to virtually all sorts of things. And so really, that is the subscription industrial complex. They want you to rent it rather than own the assets, and specifically the assets that are producing it, because that's why they create these manufactured crisis to make sure that you own nothing and you're happy."

Sense Receptor

49,807 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Tiago Forte has pioneered the concept of a Second Brain. As the author of two books, he's learned that quantity and quality aren't opposing forces. Here's what else he's taught me about writing: 1. The brain is for having ideas, not storing them. Write stuff down. 2. If you really want to learn something, don't just consume information. Create something about it. 3. Note-taking is a form of time-travel. You don’t just take notes to remember ideas. You also take notes to remember experiences. Reading your notes takes you back to a different state of consciousness. Note-taking is a rebellion against the entropy of memory. 4. Save only the best notes: Don't hoard information. Save only the top 5-10% of your ideas. That way, you can trust that everything in your note-taking system is high-quality. 5. Tiago’s dad is an artist who taught him an important lesson: the energy to create art can dissipate in small, invisible ways if you let it. Set up a structure where you have the peace of mind and the bandwidth to do art. 6. The ultimate goal of note-taking is to improve your ideas. Too many people treat note-taking as an end in itself. But the goal of note-taking isn’t to save information. It’s to have ideas you wouldn’t have had otherwise. To be smarter, faster, and more creative. 7. Link notes together. Organize your ideas by topic, not by source. As you browse your note-taking system, consider the serendipity you want to create for your future self. For example, if you read two books about a topic, link those notes together. 8. In school, we’re taught to research before we write. Do the opposite. Compile notes over time. Then, once you have an idea, start writing immediately — right when you have an epiphany. Start researching after you've written a draft. 9. Create evergreen notes. Like a good investment, the benefits of your note-taking system should compound in value. Save ideas that will stay relevant for many years. Read the classics, skip the news. 10. Tiago publicly tested every idea in his book. For most, the internet is a blackhole of distraction. But it can instead be used as a place to do low-stakes experiments before you go all in. 11. The more expensive the location for a writer's retreat, the more it forces you to be productive. 12. "Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work." — Gustave Flaubert, one of Tiago's favorite quotes. 13. The less formal and “official” a software program feels, the better Tiago writes. And he believes some of the best turns of phrase come out in messaging apps with friends. Stuck on something? Close the word doc and text a friend about it. 14. Every time you compress an idea, you make it more accessible. But you also lose context, depth, and nuance. 15. The ultimate test of how well you understand something is how clearly you can explain it in writing — clear writers are clear thinkers. 16. Twitter can help too. Stuck on a paragraph while writing your book? Well, send a tweet about it. If the idea resonates, bring it into your book. 17. Too many choices can cloud our creative process. The key to making progress is knowing when to take in new information and when to shut off all sources of distraction. Divergence and Convergence. 18. Anything you might want to accomplish—executing a project at work, getting a new job, learning a new skill, starting a business—requires finding and putting to use the right information. 19. Instead of working in “Heavy Lifts,” you can work in “Slow Burns.” Taking notes makes you less dependent on those long blocks of creative time you need when you have to complete creative projects in a single sitting. 20. Tiago: “If I could leave you with one last bit of advice, it is to chase what excites you.” 21. A bonus: “Run after your obsessions with everything you have. Just be sure to take notes along the way.” I've shared the full conversation with Tiago Forte here. If you'd rather listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple, check out the replies below.
1:02:33

Tiago Forte has pioneered the concept of a Second Brain. As the author of two books, he's learned that quantity and quality aren't opposing forces. Here's what else he's taught me about writing: 1. The brain is for having ideas, not storing them. Write stuff down. 2. If you really want to learn something, don't just consume information. Create something about it. 3. Note-taking is a form of time-travel. You don’t just take notes to remember ideas. You also take notes to remember experiences. Reading your notes takes you back to a different state of consciousness. Note-taking is a rebellion against the entropy of memory. 4. Save only the best notes: Don't hoard information. Save only the top 5-10% of your ideas. That way, you can trust that everything in your note-taking system is high-quality. 5. Tiago’s dad is an artist who taught him an important lesson: the energy to create art can dissipate in small, invisible ways if you let it. Set up a structure where you have the peace of mind and the bandwidth to do art. 6. The ultimate goal of note-taking is to improve your ideas. Too many people treat note-taking as an end in itself. But the goal of note-taking isn’t to save information. It’s to have ideas you wouldn’t have had otherwise. To be smarter, faster, and more creative. 7. Link notes together. Organize your ideas by topic, not by source. As you browse your note-taking system, consider the serendipity you want to create for your future self. For example, if you read two books about a topic, link those notes together. 8. In school, we’re taught to research before we write. Do the opposite. Compile notes over time. Then, once you have an idea, start writing immediately — right when you have an epiphany. Start researching after you've written a draft. 9. Create evergreen notes. Like a good investment, the benefits of your note-taking system should compound in value. Save ideas that will stay relevant for many years. Read the classics, skip the news. 10. Tiago publicly tested every idea in his book. For most, the internet is a blackhole of distraction. But it can instead be used as a place to do low-stakes experiments before you go all in. 11. The more expensive the location for a writer's retreat, the more it forces you to be productive. 12. "Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work." — Gustave Flaubert, one of Tiago's favorite quotes. 13. The less formal and “official” a software program feels, the better Tiago writes. And he believes some of the best turns of phrase come out in messaging apps with friends. Stuck on something? Close the word doc and text a friend about it. 14. Every time you compress an idea, you make it more accessible. But you also lose context, depth, and nuance. 15. The ultimate test of how well you understand something is how clearly you can explain it in writing — clear writers are clear thinkers. 16. Twitter can help too. Stuck on a paragraph while writing your book? Well, send a tweet about it. If the idea resonates, bring it into your book. 17. Too many choices can cloud our creative process. The key to making progress is knowing when to take in new information and when to shut off all sources of distraction. Divergence and Convergence. 18. Anything you might want to accomplish—executing a project at work, getting a new job, learning a new skill, starting a business—requires finding and putting to use the right information. 19. Instead of working in “Heavy Lifts,” you can work in “Slow Burns.” Taking notes makes you less dependent on those long blocks of creative time you need when you have to complete creative projects in a single sitting. 20. Tiago: “If I could leave you with one last bit of advice, it is to chase what excites you.” 21. A bonus: “Run after your obsessions with everything you have. Just be sure to take notes along the way.” I've shared the full conversation with Tiago Forte here. If you'd rather listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple, check out the replies below.

David Perell

101,346 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:
31:35

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

Mike

14,195 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

"Multiple members of Congress received a briefing from an agency task force (it's the FBI). All of that info. will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw [that] we can't explain." ~Luna (I think Luna did an excellent job on tonight's Real Time - Overtime with Bill Maher. Transcript and my thoughts below.) ~ Bill Maher: "The first question is for you. Do you think we are headed, Congresswoman, for a full disclosure and transparency about UAPs, which we used to call UFOs? I do. I mean, I think it was just this week, didn't they start a website for releasing this information?" Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: "From my understanding, they're gonna put it on the National Archives (website), but if they've booked the website... So I actually head up the Disclosure Task Force in Congress on Declassification of Federal Secrets. And what I will tell you is, there's something..." Maher: "So that's why you know so much stuff (audience laughs)? I see." Luna: "(laughs) I'm a nerd. In all seriousness, there's some things that we can't explain, and there is a problem with over-classification. But also, when you have duly-elected members of Congress being denied access, that's a problem, because we're supposed to be the, you know, check and balance on some of these agencies. And so, you'll see some interesting stuff. The federal government will ever come out and tell you what to believe." Maher: "I think they're here." Luna: "Well, there's definitely stuff that we can't explain." Maher: "I'm not shy about it." Paul Begala: "I'm still searching for intelligent life on Earth, so I'll be very (audience and Luna laugh)... I'm not into that." (Begala saying he's, "not into that" most likely means he's ignorant on the subject. IMO, anybody who takes the time to look at the decades of evidence, with an open mind, will be "into" the possibility that another intelligence is sharing this planet with us.) Luna: "I think we're in a big Universe." Maher: "Well, you may not be into that, but they're into you, okay?" Begala: "Ohhh." Maher: "I mean, whether you want [to] believe it or not, things..." Begala: "Why do they always put the probes there? If they're that sophisticated, can't they just like, scan us or something?" (Maybe they're trying to extract semen from a prostate orgasm to help with their hybrid/breeding program? Not a new theory.) Maher: "But, you know, but see, there's...okay. But if you want to be serious about it, there was an era where we heard a lot about probing. That ended." (Has it ended? I'd love to hear from experiencers and people like hypnotherapist/researcher, Yvonne Smith, who works with experiencers, to hear what people are saying about their experiences nowadays.) Maher: "Because, I mean, we never heard about any of it before we got nuclear weapons. Right after the nuclear bomb went off in 1945, suddenly, the aliens were like, maybe we ought to pay attention to these people." (Not exactly true.) Luna: "Well, there were reports of sightings and whatnot dating back into even, you know, for many, many, many, many centuries." Maher: "If you're talking about some of the stuff like what we see in the hieroglyphics and drawings, it could be, yes, it could be like they built the pyramids. That's true." (Absolutely no need to jump to the hypothesis that whatever is here (aliens?) built the pyramids. We just know that sightings and abduction cases go back to before the atomic age.) Luna: "Well, I think that there's a lot of theories, but based on what we're seeing, evidence-wise, there is one specific agency where multiple members of Congress, to include myself, received a briefing from. All of that information will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw in that briefing we can't explain." (Luna has spoken to Matt Laslo and others about being briefed by the FBI about UAP but the FBI effort was first reported in February 2025 by Politico: "FBI agents who are part of a secretive group investigating the surge of 'unidentified anomalous phenomena,' what the government uses to refer to UFOs... "The existence of the FBI’s informal working group on the issue has not been disclosed publicly before." Link to article in replies... ~~~ Maher: "But, I mean, if I can get back to the anal probing, um...." (Everybody laughs/smiles.) Luna: "Odd topic." Maher: "It seems like there was a time where they needed to do that to find out about if they...I mean, like so many people have this, almost the exact same recollection. Maybe it's some psychological phenomenon that we don't realize, but people, independently, seem to have this kind of vague memory, and (laughs) they lost a little track of time. Maybe it was the GHB (date-rape drug. ~Joe), I don't know (audience laughs). But, it seemed like the aliens were trying to find out: What makes these people tick? Who are these humans? And then, I think, they got that information. "And in the last ten, twenty, years, it's not been that. What it's been has been very, very serious people. I'm talking about military people, who are constantly saying, 'We see things we cannot explain. Either China has a weapon we don't know about, which is unlikely, or it's just something you're gonna have to tell me what it is.' (Very serious (including military) people have been reporting these things for decades. It's just getting a lot more coverage in the media now, and more people who have had access to classified data are speaking up.) Luna: "What we've seen in the briefings... And I actually asked this question to Secretary Clinton, as she was actually going to, had she won her election, be in charge of disclosure and actually releasing some of this information. And she thinks that the American people - I think this is one of the most bipartisan things in Congress, currently, and bicameral in the Senate as well - but we should be able to release the information that we have, specifically pertaining to this and let the American people decide what it is. "Look, some of it is balloons, some of it is drones, and then there's a portion of it that we can't explain where you have credible people from all walks of life confirming it. And I will tell you, based on the evidence that we have seen, there's something there." Maher: "And credible people, not just in the military, but in government, including Democrats." Begala: "I was struck by what President Obama said, and I agree with it. The vastness of the Universe is such that the arithmetic makes it pretty likely." Maher: "Right!" Begala: "And, the vastness of the Universe is such, it's pretty unlikely that we're gonna cross paths. And I think that's also true." (Well, as I've said (and others have, too), we don't know if "they" (whatever "they" turns out to be) are traveling any great distance to get here or need to "cross paths" with us. They may have been here the entire time and consider Earth their home, just like we do.) Begala: "I mean, it's just, it seems to... I'm a skeptic, but I like what you're doing, Congresswoman. Put it all out, let people decide. I'm a skeptic. Maybe you can persuade me?" Luna: "I think this gets into a deeper...if you have time listen to the Joe Rogan podcast I did. But this gets into a deeper discussion on where you are at ,spiritually. And I think there's just a lot that we have, and can't explain." (IMO, I don't think our spiritual beliefs or "where you are at, spiritually," has anything to do with what we're dealing with. As I've said before, I think the phenomenon is just part of the natural world that we don't yet understand or comprehend.) Luna: "But look, my biggest concern and why I got involved is because I had the Department of Defense at the time tell me that we were not allowed access, and I have the highest clearance possible." (She has a TS-SCI clearance. That doesn't mean she has access to, or is read into, every compartment where various Special Access Programs (SAPs) reside, or that she has a need-to-know for everything. Some feel every member of Congress should have access to everything. Others disagree. We've also heard about the DoE, which, supposedly, has their own levels of clearance. Also, in 2020, as I worked on my Wilson/Davis MegBlog, I made a cold call to someone who was the executive secretary of the Special Access Program Oversight Committee in the mid-90s.) ~Begin MegaBlog Excerpt~ "I spoke with a former military man mentioned in the Wilson/Davis documents who, in theory, also should have had access to every SAP during a specific portion of his time with the government. He told me, "that there may be levels of secrecy people don’t know about." ~End MegaBlog Excerpt~ ~~~ Luna: So if you have a duly-membered, elected-member of government - not just myself, but other members - being denied access, you have this aspect of then, who's really in control? If we're writing the checks, if you have the Pentagon failing audits...denying access, this is a problem. And so, there is this aspect of government transparency, going back to, how do we actually fix this country, and you have to start with transparency." Begala: "I'm with you on that." (Audience applauds.)
4:54

"Multiple members of Congress received a briefing from an agency task force (it's the FBI). All of that info. will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw [that] we can't explain." ~Luna (I think Luna did an excellent job on tonight's Real Time - Overtime with Bill Maher. Transcript and my thoughts below.) ~ Bill Maher: "The first question is for you. Do you think we are headed, Congresswoman, for a full disclosure and transparency about UAPs, which we used to call UFOs? I do. I mean, I think it was just this week, didn't they start a website for releasing this information?" Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: "From my understanding, they're gonna put it on the National Archives (website), but if they've booked the website... So I actually head up the Disclosure Task Force in Congress on Declassification of Federal Secrets. And what I will tell you is, there's something..." Maher: "So that's why you know so much stuff (audience laughs)? I see." Luna: "(laughs) I'm a nerd. In all seriousness, there's some things that we can't explain, and there is a problem with over-classification. But also, when you have duly-elected members of Congress being denied access, that's a problem, because we're supposed to be the, you know, check and balance on some of these agencies. And so, you'll see some interesting stuff. The federal government will ever come out and tell you what to believe." Maher: "I think they're here." Luna: "Well, there's definitely stuff that we can't explain." Maher: "I'm not shy about it." Paul Begala: "I'm still searching for intelligent life on Earth, so I'll be very (audience and Luna laugh)... I'm not into that." (Begala saying he's, "not into that" most likely means he's ignorant on the subject. IMO, anybody who takes the time to look at the decades of evidence, with an open mind, will be "into" the possibility that another intelligence is sharing this planet with us.) Luna: "I think we're in a big Universe." Maher: "Well, you may not be into that, but they're into you, okay?" Begala: "Ohhh." Maher: "I mean, whether you want [to] believe it or not, things..." Begala: "Why do they always put the probes there? If they're that sophisticated, can't they just like, scan us or something?" (Maybe they're trying to extract semen from a prostate orgasm to help with their hybrid/breeding program? Not a new theory.) Maher: "But, you know, but see, there's...okay. But if you want to be serious about it, there was an era where we heard a lot about probing. That ended." (Has it ended? I'd love to hear from experiencers and people like hypnotherapist/researcher, Yvonne Smith, who works with experiencers, to hear what people are saying about their experiences nowadays.) Maher: "Because, I mean, we never heard about any of it before we got nuclear weapons. Right after the nuclear bomb went off in 1945, suddenly, the aliens were like, maybe we ought to pay attention to these people." (Not exactly true.) Luna: "Well, there were reports of sightings and whatnot dating back into even, you know, for many, many, many, many centuries." Maher: "If you're talking about some of the stuff like what we see in the hieroglyphics and drawings, it could be, yes, it could be like they built the pyramids. That's true." (Absolutely no need to jump to the hypothesis that whatever is here (aliens?) built the pyramids. We just know that sightings and abduction cases go back to before the atomic age.) Luna: "Well, I think that there's a lot of theories, but based on what we're seeing, evidence-wise, there is one specific agency where multiple members of Congress, to include myself, received a briefing from. All of that information will be declassified, and the stuff that we saw in that briefing we can't explain." (Luna has spoken to Matt Laslo and others about being briefed by the FBI about UAP but the FBI effort was first reported in February 2025 by Politico: "FBI agents who are part of a secretive group investigating the surge of 'unidentified anomalous phenomena,' what the government uses to refer to UFOs... "The existence of the FBI’s informal working group on the issue has not been disclosed publicly before." Link to article in replies... ~~~ Maher: "But, I mean, if I can get back to the anal probing, um...." (Everybody laughs/smiles.) Luna: "Odd topic." Maher: "It seems like there was a time where they needed to do that to find out about if they...I mean, like so many people have this, almost the exact same recollection. Maybe it's some psychological phenomenon that we don't realize, but people, independently, seem to have this kind of vague memory, and (laughs) they lost a little track of time. Maybe it was the GHB (date-rape drug. ~Joe), I don't know (audience laughs). But, it seemed like the aliens were trying to find out: What makes these people tick? Who are these humans? And then, I think, they got that information. "And in the last ten, twenty, years, it's not been that. What it's been has been very, very serious people. I'm talking about military people, who are constantly saying, 'We see things we cannot explain. Either China has a weapon we don't know about, which is unlikely, or it's just something you're gonna have to tell me what it is.' (Very serious (including military) people have been reporting these things for decades. It's just getting a lot more coverage in the media now, and more people who have had access to classified data are speaking up.) Luna: "What we've seen in the briefings... And I actually asked this question to Secretary Clinton, as she was actually going to, had she won her election, be in charge of disclosure and actually releasing some of this information. And she thinks that the American people - I think this is one of the most bipartisan things in Congress, currently, and bicameral in the Senate as well - but we should be able to release the information that we have, specifically pertaining to this and let the American people decide what it is. "Look, some of it is balloons, some of it is drones, and then there's a portion of it that we can't explain where you have credible people from all walks of life confirming it. And I will tell you, based on the evidence that we have seen, there's something there." Maher: "And credible people, not just in the military, but in government, including Democrats." Begala: "I was struck by what President Obama said, and I agree with it. The vastness of the Universe is such that the arithmetic makes it pretty likely." Maher: "Right!" Begala: "And, the vastness of the Universe is such, it's pretty unlikely that we're gonna cross paths. And I think that's also true." (Well, as I've said (and others have, too), we don't know if "they" (whatever "they" turns out to be) are traveling any great distance to get here or need to "cross paths" with us. They may have been here the entire time and consider Earth their home, just like we do.) Begala: "I mean, it's just, it seems to... I'm a skeptic, but I like what you're doing, Congresswoman. Put it all out, let people decide. I'm a skeptic. Maybe you can persuade me?" Luna: "I think this gets into a deeper...if you have time listen to the Joe Rogan podcast I did. But this gets into a deeper discussion on where you are at ,spiritually. And I think there's just a lot that we have, and can't explain." (IMO, I don't think our spiritual beliefs or "where you are at, spiritually," has anything to do with what we're dealing with. As I've said before, I think the phenomenon is just part of the natural world that we don't yet understand or comprehend.) Luna: "But look, my biggest concern and why I got involved is because I had the Department of Defense at the time tell me that we were not allowed access, and I have the highest clearance possible." (She has a TS-SCI clearance. That doesn't mean she has access to, or is read into, every compartment where various Special Access Programs (SAPs) reside, or that she has a need-to-know for everything. Some feel every member of Congress should have access to everything. Others disagree. We've also heard about the DoE, which, supposedly, has their own levels of clearance. Also, in 2020, as I worked on my Wilson/Davis MegBlog, I made a cold call to someone who was the executive secretary of the Special Access Program Oversight Committee in the mid-90s.) ~Begin MegaBlog Excerpt~ "I spoke with a former military man mentioned in the Wilson/Davis documents who, in theory, also should have had access to every SAP during a specific portion of his time with the government. He told me, "that there may be levels of secrecy people don’t know about." ~End MegaBlog Excerpt~ ~~~ Luna: So if you have a duly-membered, elected-member of government - not just myself, but other members - being denied access, you have this aspect of then, who's really in control? If we're writing the checks, if you have the Pentagon failing audits...denying access, this is a problem. And so, there is this aspect of government transparency, going back to, how do we actually fix this country, and you have to start with transparency." Begala: "I'm with you on that." (Audience applauds.)

Joe Murgia

146,499 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨BOMBSHELL: Forged Documents & PSYCHOPATHY — The SHADY Origins Of Erika Kirk EXPOSED🤯 Candace Owens just released a total scorcher in Episode 4 of The Bride of Charlie, and this time, she’s bringing the receipts from the courtroom. ⚖️ If you thought Erika Kirk’s rise to CEO of TPUSA was fast, wait until you see the trail of "clerical errors" and fraudulent filings that defined her childhood. Candace reveals a decade’s worth of court documents that don't just look "off"—they look like a total fabrication. The "Clerical Error" That Lasted 10 Years The debunkers claim it was just a mistake, but Candace proves that across ten years and six different legal filings, Erika’s parents and the courts consistently listed her birthday as November 22nd, 1988. The Problem? Her "official" birthday today is November 20th. The Documents: From shared parenting plans in '98 to medical support in '99 and child support emancipation in 2007—no one seemed to know when she was actually born. Handwritten Changes & Fake Signatures? Candace highlights the "most egregious" filing from September 10, 1998: No Notary: Kent Frantsvey allegedly waived his parental rights without a notary present. No Judge’s Signature: Vital child support documents were filed without a judge signing off. "Vibe" Filings: Hand-edited dates, missing pages, and signatures between Erika’s mother (Lori) and father (Kent) that look suspiciously identical. ✍️👯‍♀️ Is Erika Kirk a Psychopath? Candace revisits the chilling thesis from investigator Elizabeth Lane: Erika isn't a sociopath—she’s a psychopath. "Psychopaths are not born, they are created... and they are typically created in their youth." — Candace Owens Candace argues that the "weirdness" we feel when watching Erika—the lack of matching facial expressions, the "uncanny valley" energy—is a natural defense mechanism our bodies have when encountering a psychopath. To understand the "Bride," Candace says we must look at the childhood that was buried under a mountain of fraudulent paperwork. If the foundation is a lie, what does that say about the woman currently holding the keys to Charlie’s legacy? FOLLOW Candace Owens and RT to expose Erika's shady past for the world to see. Be sure to watch the FULL episode linked below.👇 We are so close to unraveling this mystery
5:59

🚨BOMBSHELL: Forged Documents & PSYCHOPATHY — The SHADY Origins Of Erika Kirk EXPOSED🤯 Candace Owens just released a total scorcher in Episode 4 of The Bride of Charlie, and this time, she’s bringing the receipts from the courtroom. ⚖️ If you thought Erika Kirk’s rise to CEO of TPUSA was fast, wait until you see the trail of "clerical errors" and fraudulent filings that defined her childhood. Candace reveals a decade’s worth of court documents that don't just look "off"—they look like a total fabrication. The "Clerical Error" That Lasted 10 Years The debunkers claim it was just a mistake, but Candace proves that across ten years and six different legal filings, Erika’s parents and the courts consistently listed her birthday as November 22nd, 1988. The Problem? Her "official" birthday today is November 20th. The Documents: From shared parenting plans in '98 to medical support in '99 and child support emancipation in 2007—no one seemed to know when she was actually born. Handwritten Changes & Fake Signatures? Candace highlights the "most egregious" filing from September 10, 1998: No Notary: Kent Frantsvey allegedly waived his parental rights without a notary present. No Judge’s Signature: Vital child support documents were filed without a judge signing off. "Vibe" Filings: Hand-edited dates, missing pages, and signatures between Erika’s mother (Lori) and father (Kent) that look suspiciously identical. ✍️👯‍♀️ Is Erika Kirk a Psychopath? Candace revisits the chilling thesis from investigator Elizabeth Lane: Erika isn't a sociopath—she’s a psychopath. "Psychopaths are not born, they are created... and they are typically created in their youth." — Candace Owens Candace argues that the "weirdness" we feel when watching Erika—the lack of matching facial expressions, the "uncanny valley" energy—is a natural defense mechanism our bodies have when encountering a psychopath. To understand the "Bride," Candace says we must look at the childhood that was buried under a mountain of fraudulent paperwork. If the foundation is a lie, what does that say about the woman currently holding the keys to Charlie’s legacy? FOLLOW Candace Owens and RT to expose Erika's shady past for the world to see. Be sure to watch the FULL episode linked below.👇 We are so close to unraveling this mystery

Project Constitution

23,661 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce