Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗟𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗜𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗮 🚂 Lipton Hard Tea is the ultimate example that kickoff starts wherever you crack a can—tailgate anything, anywhere 💥 #ad

Trainwreck Sports

21,809 subscribers

11,053 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Jordan Peterson on why you must never give yourself an "easier" task to avoid the hard one: Peterson explains a psychological trap that almost everyone falls into when facing something difficult. "Don't practice what you do not want to become." He describes what happens inside your brain when you're avoiding a hard task: "If you're really sneaky when you're trying to do something hard, what your brain does is give you something else hard to do that's not quite as hard, so that you can feel justified in not doing the thing you're supposed to 'cause you're doing something else useful." This is the trap. You feel productive. You're busy. But you're not doing the thing. And every time you give in, you make it worse: "If you give into that temptation which you often will, then it wins. And because it wins, it gets a little dopamine kick and it grows stronger. Anything you let win the internal argument grows. And anything you let be defeated shrinks, because it's punished." This is Peterson describing neurology: "Those are neurological circuits. You build those things in there. They're not going anywhere. You can build another little machine to inhibit them. That's the best you can do. Once they're in there, you can't get them out." Even the circuits you build to resist the bad habit aren't permanent: "The ones you build to inhibit can be taken out by stress and the old habits will come back up." So what's the actual lesson? Every time you dodge the hard thing, you're casting a vote for the version of yourself that avoids hard things. You're wiring that pattern deeper into your brain.

Jordan Peterson on why you must never give yourself an "easier" task to avoid the hard one: Peterson explains a psychological trap that almost everyone falls into when facing something difficult. "Don't practice what you do not want to become." He describes what happens inside your brain when you're avoiding a hard task: "If you're really sneaky when you're trying to do something hard, what your brain does is give you something else hard to do that's not quite as hard, so that you can feel justified in not doing the thing you're supposed to 'cause you're doing something else useful." This is the trap. You feel productive. You're busy. But you're not doing the thing. And every time you give in, you make it worse: "If you give into that temptation which you often will, then it wins. And because it wins, it gets a little dopamine kick and it grows stronger. Anything you let win the internal argument grows. And anything you let be defeated shrinks, because it's punished." This is Peterson describing neurology: "Those are neurological circuits. You build those things in there. They're not going anywhere. You can build another little machine to inhibit them. That's the best you can do. Once they're in there, you can't get them out." Even the circuits you build to resist the bad habit aren't permanent: "The ones you build to inhibit can be taken out by stress and the old habits will come back up." So what's the actual lesson? Every time you dodge the hard thing, you're casting a vote for the version of yourself that avoids hard things. You're wiring that pattern deeper into your brain.

Big Brain Psychology

12,779 views • 3 months ago

Joe Rogan tells billionaire Marc Andreessen why Socialism is the ultimate scam that only benefits poor lazy people: ROGAN: “It’s never worked ever.” ANDREESSEN: “If I work twice as hard as you why should we both get an equal slice?” ROGAN: “The beautiful thing about America is you can work 20 hours a day and achieve something spectacular.” ANDREESSEN: “Anyone that’s been apart of a group project in school knows there’s one kid who does all the work and the entire group gets credit. That’s not fair.” ROGAN: “Socialism kills motivation which is everything for people that achieve things. Nobody achieves anything spectacular without some sort of motivation that there will be a worthwhile reward at the end.”

Joe Rogan tells billionaire Marc Andreessen why Socialism is the ultimate scam that only benefits poor lazy people: ROGAN: “It’s never worked ever.” ANDREESSEN: “If I work twice as hard as you why should we both get an equal slice?” ROGAN: “The beautiful thing about America is you can work 20 hours a day and achieve something spectacular.” ANDREESSEN: “Anyone that’s been apart of a group project in school knows there’s one kid who does all the work and the entire group gets credit. That’s not fair.” ROGAN: “Socialism kills motivation which is everything for people that achieve things. Nobody achieves anything spectacular without some sort of motivation that there will be a worthwhile reward at the end.”

Fan Commentary: Joe Rogan Recaps

613,154 views • 1 month ago

A very candid moment for the Princess of Wales who is so used to weathering her storms in private: "You put on a sort of brave face and stoicism through treatment... the treatment is finished ‘it’s like: “I can crack on, get back to normal,” but actually the phase afterwards is really, really difficult."❤️‍🩹 "You’re not able to function normally at home as you once used to. and actually having someone to talk you through that, show you, sort of guide you through that phase that comes after treatment, is valuable"🥹❤️‍🩹 When you hear her, you realise this is exactly how Catherine has weathered all the worldwide scrutiny and mediatic harrassment she has endured for over 20 years since meeting William: She never complain, she simply ignore the noise, and crack on living her life👌 However, You cannot do that with Cancer and It must indeed be very hard to realise when it comes to Cancer recovery, you cannot just crack on. Your body has to heal and has its own timetable to get there🔥 The path to full recovery is long and has many ups and down. For Catherine, the new challenge is to truly tune out all the white noise from the mentally deranged crowd who cannot stop making demands on her and focus on having patience with herself and her body❤️‍🩹 As one lives and ages, wisdom teaches you that Good Health is the ultimate invaluable Wealth that even money cannot afford. We have to look after ourselves. 📹Victoria Derbyshire

A very candid moment for the Princess of Wales who is so used to weathering her storms in private: "You put on a sort of brave face and stoicism through treatment... the treatment is finished ‘it’s like: “I can crack on, get back to normal,” but actually the phase afterwards is really, really difficult."❤️‍🩹 "You’re not able to function normally at home as you once used to. and actually having someone to talk you through that, show you, sort of guide you through that phase that comes after treatment, is valuable"🥹❤️‍🩹 When you hear her, you realise this is exactly how Catherine has weathered all the worldwide scrutiny and mediatic harrassment she has endured for over 20 years since meeting William: She never complain, she simply ignore the noise, and crack on living her life👌 However, You cannot do that with Cancer and It must indeed be very hard to realise when it comes to Cancer recovery, you cannot just crack on. Your body has to heal and has its own timetable to get there🔥 The path to full recovery is long and has many ups and down. For Catherine, the new challenge is to truly tune out all the white noise from the mentally deranged crowd who cannot stop making demands on her and focus on having patience with herself and her body❤️‍🩹 As one lives and ages, wisdom teaches you that Good Health is the ultimate invaluable Wealth that even money cannot afford. We have to look after ourselves. 📹Victoria Derbyshire

Canellecitadelle

265,646 views • 1 year ago

Some organ donors in America are not truly brain dead when the organ procurement process begins, says Dr. Joseph Varon, co-founder of Independent Medical Alliance. “I have seen multiple occasions where a person supposedly was brain dead. If you are brain dead, you don't need any permission from anybody to disconnect somebody from a machine…but there are specific criteria as to what constitutes a patient that is brain dead. So a brain dead person, for example, would not have any feeling. When I was doing my fellowship training…I would fly with a cataract surgeon to wherever was the dead person. So we would examine the lungs, and if the lungs were good, we would get the lungs out. In order to do that, I would do a procedure called bronchoscopy, where you put in a scope into the lungs, and if you are dead, you don't cough, you don't move, you don't do anything. There was more than one instance where I would go in, I put in my little scope, and the patient starts either moving or coughing. And you look at the nursing staff and you say, ‘Hey, this person is not dead.’”

Some organ donors in America are not truly brain dead when the organ procurement process begins, says Dr. Joseph Varon, co-founder of Independent Medical Alliance. “I have seen multiple occasions where a person supposedly was brain dead. If you are brain dead, you don't need any permission from anybody to disconnect somebody from a machine…but there are specific criteria as to what constitutes a patient that is brain dead. So a brain dead person, for example, would not have any feeling. When I was doing my fellowship training…I would fly with a cataract surgeon to wherever was the dead person. So we would examine the lungs, and if the lungs were good, we would get the lungs out. In order to do that, I would do a procedure called bronchoscopy, where you put in a scope into the lungs, and if you are dead, you don't cough, you don't move, you don't do anything. There was more than one instance where I would go in, I put in my little scope, and the patient starts either moving or coughing. And you look at the nursing staff and you say, ‘Hey, this person is not dead.’”

Jan Jekielek

37,083 views • 9 months ago

🚨Jürgen Klopp on Salah leaving Liverpool: 🗣️ Klopp: “Look, what can I say about Mo? Wow. He was never just a player for us, absolutely not. He was... how can I say it? He was a feeling. A guarantee. A moment just waiting to explode. “In the absolute biggest games—especially against Pep and his unbelievable City team, my god—you just knew. Give the ball to Mo and let the magic happen. He was our weapon, the ultimate difference-maker. When you have him on the pitch, you just believe.” “To see him go... pfff, it is hard. It is really not easy. Not for me, not for anyone who loves Liverpool. But what he gave us? That is forever. True legends, they don't really leave. They stay in the songs of the Kop, in the stories, in the soul of this club” “Liverpool will miss him like crazy, that is clear. But Liverpool is his home, always. And wherever he goes next, he knows it... he will never, ever walk alone….𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲

🚨Jürgen Klopp on Salah leaving Liverpool: 🗣️ Klopp: “Look, what can I say about Mo? Wow. He was never just a player for us, absolutely not. He was... how can I say it? He was a feeling. A guarantee. A moment just waiting to explode. “In the absolute biggest games—especially against Pep and his unbelievable City team, my god—you just knew. Give the ball to Mo and let the magic happen. He was our weapon, the ultimate difference-maker. When you have him on the pitch, you just believe.” “To see him go... pfff, it is hard. It is really not easy. Not for me, not for anyone who loves Liverpool. But what he gave us? That is forever. True legends, they don't really leave. They stay in the songs of the Kop, in the stories, in the soul of this club” “Liverpool will miss him like crazy, that is clear. But Liverpool is his home, always. And wherever he goes next, he knows it... he will never, ever walk alone….𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲

Naoki

82,839 views • 3 months ago

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 views • 1 year ago

jihoon cutely ranting and asking yg for a longer vacation period 🥹 🐶 YG, next time you give us a vacation, please make it a little longer 🔫 🐶 hey it’s not that I want to rest more or anything. im just saying, if you’re going to give us a vacation next time, make it just a little bit longer. just a little longer. okay?? 🐶 in return, i’ll work hard until then. i’ll work at 140% of the quota you expect from me. so next time, please make the vacation a bit longer. 🐶 there are so many things I want to do. okay? 🐶 YG seriously. promise. seriously promise. for real. YG Entertainment, i have never really let you down, have I? 🐶 I always work hard. I always try my best. I always show you. every time. right? 🐶 so next vacation, make it longer than the last one okay? 🐶 and stop giving us vacations during peak travel season. give them during the off-season. when you give us vacations during peak season, it’s hard to book flights, hard to go anywhere, hard to do anything. you always give us vacation in January. since it’s around the end and beginning of the year, everywhere is crowded. 🐶 dont think I’m asking for too much. actually, I am asking for a lot. thats true 🐶 im just saying it’d be nice if you could do it that way. if you can’t, then it can’t be helped! if it doesn’t work out, then just give us whatever vacation you can. 🐶 im grateful for any vacation ofc but if possible, that’s what i’d like. everyone, this doesn’t mean I want to rest or quit or anything like that. 🐶 im going to keep working hard. starting Friday, 2 days from now, im going to work hard. not only harder than anyone else, but I want to show that I can do it better than anyone else. bc im someone who can do that. I’ll show you how well I can do it. im confident i’ll do well 🐶 I’ll spend 3 good days in Seoul. I’ll do well in Japan too. then when we come back and start preparing for another album? i’ll work hard again. 🐶 I’ll work hard on the album, and then I’ll work hard preparing for year-end award shows and year-end stages. I’ll work harder than anyone else. I’ll do better than anyone else 🐶 what I’m saying is… if you’re going to give me this opportunity… if happen to receive it… then this is what i’d like.

jihoon cutely ranting and asking yg for a longer vacation period 🥹 🐶 YG, next time you give us a vacation, please make it a little longer 🔫 🐶 hey it’s not that I want to rest more or anything. im just saying, if you’re going to give us a vacation next time, make it just a little bit longer. just a little longer. okay?? 🐶 in return, i’ll work hard until then. i’ll work at 140% of the quota you expect from me. so next time, please make the vacation a bit longer. 🐶 there are so many things I want to do. okay? 🐶 YG seriously. promise. seriously promise. for real. YG Entertainment, i have never really let you down, have I? 🐶 I always work hard. I always try my best. I always show you. every time. right? 🐶 so next vacation, make it longer than the last one okay? 🐶 and stop giving us vacations during peak travel season. give them during the off-season. when you give us vacations during peak season, it’s hard to book flights, hard to go anywhere, hard to do anything. you always give us vacation in January. since it’s around the end and beginning of the year, everywhere is crowded. 🐶 dont think I’m asking for too much. actually, I am asking for a lot. thats true 🐶 im just saying it’d be nice if you could do it that way. if you can’t, then it can’t be helped! if it doesn’t work out, then just give us whatever vacation you can. 🐶 im grateful for any vacation ofc but if possible, that’s what i’d like. everyone, this doesn’t mean I want to rest or quit or anything like that. 🐶 im going to keep working hard. starting Friday, 2 days from now, im going to work hard. not only harder than anyone else, but I want to show that I can do it better than anyone else. bc im someone who can do that. I’ll show you how well I can do it. im confident i’ll do well 🐶 I’ll spend 3 good days in Seoul. I’ll do well in Japan too. then when we come back and start preparing for another album? i’ll work hard again. 🐶 I’ll work hard on the album, and then I’ll work hard preparing for year-end award shows and year-end stages. I’ll work harder than anyone else. I’ll do better than anyone else 🐶 what I’m saying is… if you’re going to give me this opportunity… if happen to receive it… then this is what i’d like.

shan

84,730 views • 1 month ago

Where is the triangle? Alex O'Connor thinks consciousness is the one thing materialism can't explain away and he has a deceptively simple argument for it. Close your eyes. Picture a triangle. You can see it. The shape, the angles, maybe even the colour. It's right there, vivid and undeniable. Now ask yourself: where is that triangle? According to Alex, this single question cuts to the heart of one of philosophy's oldest problems. A strict materialist, someone who believes everything in the universe reduces to physical matter has to say that triangle exists somewhere in the neurons of your brain. But if a neurosurgeon cracked open your skull right now, they wouldn't find a triangle anywhere inside. "If everything you experience is reducible to the material when I close my eyes and see a triangle, there really is a triangle there. I can see it. It's there. And I think well, where is that triangle? The materialist has to say it's reducible to just somewhere in your brain. But if I cut open your brain I'm not going to find a triangle inside of it." He anticipates the obvious pushback. When he raised this on YouTube, commenters pointed to computers as a counter-example: if you cut open a computer, you won't find the triangle it's displaying on screen either. But the hardware is still producing a real image on a real screen. Alex's response is that this analogy doesn't hold because the mind has no screen. There is no separate interface between the brain's processing and the experience of seeing. The brain is the computer and the screen. Which only deepens the mystery: somehow, purely physical processes are generating a first-person, subjective experience: colours, shapes and images that can't be located anywhere in physical space. "It's as if the computer itself somehow had a triangle in the computer's own first-person subjective experience. Like where is that triangle that you can picture in your head? Where the hell is it?" For Alex, consciousness isn't just another interesting puzzle in the philosophy of mind. It's the big objection to materialism. The thing that, once you sit with it, seems to demand that there is something more going on than matter arranged in clever ways. He points to something as ordinary as dreaming as a case in point. Every night you produce vivid images full scenes, faces, colours without any external input. An entire visual world conjured from nowhere. Where does it come from? Where does it go? "Even just when you have an average dream, it's fascinating to think what's going on there. You've got images in your head, you can close your eyes and you can picture things, you can see colours, you can see shapes in your head. Like where are those shapes?" The triangle thought experiment has a way of making this undeniable. It's not abstract. You can do it right now. And when you do, you run headfirst into the hard problem of consciousness: the gap between the physical description of the brain and the felt quality of experience that no amount of neuroscience has yet bridged. Whether you find Alex's argument convincing or not, the question it raises is genuine: how does purely physical matter give rise to the inner world we each inhabit a world of colours, shapes, memories, and dreams that exists nowhere except in the first person?

Where is the triangle? Alex O'Connor thinks consciousness is the one thing materialism can't explain away and he has a deceptively simple argument for it. Close your eyes. Picture a triangle. You can see it. The shape, the angles, maybe even the colour. It's right there, vivid and undeniable. Now ask yourself: where is that triangle? According to Alex, this single question cuts to the heart of one of philosophy's oldest problems. A strict materialist, someone who believes everything in the universe reduces to physical matter has to say that triangle exists somewhere in the neurons of your brain. But if a neurosurgeon cracked open your skull right now, they wouldn't find a triangle anywhere inside. "If everything you experience is reducible to the material when I close my eyes and see a triangle, there really is a triangle there. I can see it. It's there. And I think well, where is that triangle? The materialist has to say it's reducible to just somewhere in your brain. But if I cut open your brain I'm not going to find a triangle inside of it." He anticipates the obvious pushback. When he raised this on YouTube, commenters pointed to computers as a counter-example: if you cut open a computer, you won't find the triangle it's displaying on screen either. But the hardware is still producing a real image on a real screen. Alex's response is that this analogy doesn't hold because the mind has no screen. There is no separate interface between the brain's processing and the experience of seeing. The brain is the computer and the screen. Which only deepens the mystery: somehow, purely physical processes are generating a first-person, subjective experience: colours, shapes and images that can't be located anywhere in physical space. "It's as if the computer itself somehow had a triangle in the computer's own first-person subjective experience. Like where is that triangle that you can picture in your head? Where the hell is it?" For Alex, consciousness isn't just another interesting puzzle in the philosophy of mind. It's the big objection to materialism. The thing that, once you sit with it, seems to demand that there is something more going on than matter arranged in clever ways. He points to something as ordinary as dreaming as a case in point. Every night you produce vivid images full scenes, faces, colours without any external input. An entire visual world conjured from nowhere. Where does it come from? Where does it go? "Even just when you have an average dream, it's fascinating to think what's going on there. You've got images in your head, you can close your eyes and you can picture things, you can see colours, you can see shapes in your head. Like where are those shapes?" The triangle thought experiment has a way of making this undeniable. It's not abstract. You can do it right now. And when you do, you run headfirst into the hard problem of consciousness: the gap between the physical description of the brain and the felt quality of experience that no amount of neuroscience has yet bridged. Whether you find Alex's argument convincing or not, the question it raises is genuine: how does purely physical matter give rise to the inner world we each inhabit a world of colours, shapes, memories, and dreams that exists nowhere except in the first person?

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

12,267 views • 3 months ago

beat xl x kengnamping Q&A — snippet pt 7 #KengNamping #เก่งน้ำปิง 💬 is there anything that fans don’t know but a small habits that only you both know each other’s? for example, sleeping position, favourite words. 🦆 the way when he sleeps on his stomach, y’all definitely never seen it before (obv thats your man 😀). he resembles a small animal when he sleeps on his stomach, this image only i have seen it before. 🐰 if there is a top favourite, definitely would be sunflower seeds! because he really loves cracking seeds! from the moment we boarded the bus, he doesn’t stop cracking, he speaks no words, its like he’s stuck in his world cracking seeds. i guess when he was young he often watched Hamtaro!! 🦆 for real, i really like watching it when i was young! 🐰 right?! you see, like i said ~ (solved case) everyone needs to observe and see when he starts cracking seeds! 🦆 we can crack seeds together ~ (sends invitation to 🐰) // im melting djbekend

beat xl x kengnamping Q&A — snippet pt 7 #KengNamping #เก่งน้ำปิง 💬 is there anything that fans don’t know but a small habits that only you both know each other’s? for example, sleeping position, favourite words. 🦆 the way when he sleeps on his stomach, y’all definitely never seen it before (obv thats your man 😀). he resembles a small animal when he sleeps on his stomach, this image only i have seen it before. 🐰 if there is a top favourite, definitely would be sunflower seeds! because he really loves cracking seeds! from the moment we boarded the bus, he doesn’t stop cracking, he speaks no words, its like he’s stuck in his world cracking seeds. i guess when he was young he often watched Hamtaro!! 🦆 for real, i really like watching it when i was young! 🐰 right?! you see, like i said ~ (solved case) everyone needs to observe and see when he starts cracking seeds! 🦆 we can crack seeds together ~ (sends invitation to 🐰) // im melting djbekend

c สมศรี 🦆🐰

25,167 views • 5 months ago

Naval on when to trust your gut: “I think the gut is what decides. The head is kind of what rationalizes it afterwards. The gut is the ultimate decision-maker. And what is a gut? The gut is refined judgment, it's taste. [The gut is an aggregator]…it could be aggregated through evolution, and it's in your genes, in your DNA, or it could be aggregated through your experiences and what you've thought through. The mind is good at solving new problems, and new problems in the external world that have defined edges, you know, beginnings and ends and objectives. What the mind is actually really bad at is making hard decisions. So when you have a hard decision to make, I find it's better to — yes, you ruminate on it, you think through all the pros and cons — but then you sleep on it, you wait a couple of days, you wait until the gut answer appears with conviction and it feels right. And when you're younger, it takes longer. Because you just don't have as much experience. And when you're older, it can happen much faster. […] It takes time to develop your gut instinct and judgment. But once you've developed them, don't trust anything else. Because you can't go against your gut, it'll bite you in the end.” *** Full episode with Chris Williamson:

Naval on when to trust your gut: “I think the gut is what decides. The head is kind of what rationalizes it afterwards. The gut is the ultimate decision-maker. And what is a gut? The gut is refined judgment, it's taste. [The gut is an aggregator]…it could be aggregated through evolution, and it's in your genes, in your DNA, or it could be aggregated through your experiences and what you've thought through. The mind is good at solving new problems, and new problems in the external world that have defined edges, you know, beginnings and ends and objectives. What the mind is actually really bad at is making hard decisions. So when you have a hard decision to make, I find it's better to — yes, you ruminate on it, you think through all the pros and cons — but then you sleep on it, you wait a couple of days, you wait until the gut answer appears with conviction and it feels right. And when you're younger, it takes longer. Because you just don't have as much experience. And when you're older, it can happen much faster. […] It takes time to develop your gut instinct and judgment. But once you've developed them, don't trust anything else. Because you can't go against your gut, it'll bite you in the end.” *** Full episode with Chris Williamson:

Trung Phan

63,605 views • 1 year ago

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,329 views • 1 year ago

David Kipping on why building AI megastructures might be the strongest evidence that we're alone in the universe: The argument starts with something we can already observe: how much energy AI consumes. "One thing we see already with these AI models is how energy hungry they are." P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) extrapolates from there. If the only purpose of these data centers is to compute as much as possible as fast as possible, then they'll demand vast amounts of energy. And the orbital data centers that billionaires are getting excited about wouldn't be invisible to us. He explains that such structures would leave a detectable signature: "We should probably see that in James Webb. We could probably already put limits on the existence of essentially artificial rings... emitting a lot of infrared because they're warm." Then comes the unsettling turn. If humanity can build these machines, so could anyone else. And that carries a dark implication. "But if we make that breakthrough, I think the biggest point is it seems to imply that we are alone. Because if we can do it, surely someone else could have done it." This connects to what he refers to as Hart's Fact A. The strange observation that everything we look at in the cosmos appears completely natural: "Everything about the universe: we see stars, galaxies, clouds of plasma. Everything is consistent with nature. There's no hint anywhere of anything artificial, no engineering, nothing in the whole universe. As far as we can see, that's true. That is weird." The more powerful the technology we can imagine, the worse that silence looks. Dyson spheres everywhere, colonising wherever they want, faster-than-light spaceships if any of that is achievable, the sky should be full of evidence. It isn't. "It just massively exacerbates the Fermi paradox to the point where you'd probably conclude this is it." His honest conclusion: "It would make me even more pessimistic about the probabilities of intelligent life in the universe."

David Kipping on why building AI megastructures might be the strongest evidence that we're alone in the universe: The argument starts with something we can already observe: how much energy AI consumes. "One thing we see already with these AI models is how energy hungry they are." P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) extrapolates from there. If the only purpose of these data centers is to compute as much as possible as fast as possible, then they'll demand vast amounts of energy. And the orbital data centers that billionaires are getting excited about wouldn't be invisible to us. He explains that such structures would leave a detectable signature: "We should probably see that in James Webb. We could probably already put limits on the existence of essentially artificial rings... emitting a lot of infrared because they're warm." Then comes the unsettling turn. If humanity can build these machines, so could anyone else. And that carries a dark implication. "But if we make that breakthrough, I think the biggest point is it seems to imply that we are alone. Because if we can do it, surely someone else could have done it." This connects to what he refers to as Hart's Fact A. The strange observation that everything we look at in the cosmos appears completely natural: "Everything about the universe: we see stars, galaxies, clouds of plasma. Everything is consistent with nature. There's no hint anywhere of anything artificial, no engineering, nothing in the whole universe. As far as we can see, that's true. That is weird." The more powerful the technology we can imagine, the worse that silence looks. Dyson spheres everywhere, colonising wherever they want, faster-than-light spaceships if any of that is achievable, the sky should be full of evidence. It isn't. "It just massively exacerbates the Fermi paradox to the point where you'd probably conclude this is it." His honest conclusion: "It would make me even more pessimistic about the probabilities of intelligent life in the universe."

High Signal AI

10,431 views • 1 month ago

lIf you do anything today, watch Maeve Halligan at the Cambridge Union. I genuinely think this was the first time many people in that room were confronted with the hard reality of the trans debate, rather than the slogans that usually surround it. Buck Angel Transsexual was exceptional: calm, articulate, humane. Ultimate respect. And then there was Helen Webberley. I remember once thinking the criticism directed at her by GC women was excessive, especially the claim she was ‘pure evil’. After hearing her speak, I no longer think that. She is totally insincere. I can deal with hard ideologues- they believe they are telling the truth; they are genuine, Dr Helen Webberley (she/her) is different. One audience member, a trans-identified male and former patient of hers, stood to speak during points of information. His account of how he had been treated was deeply disturbing. Watch the full debate. It is worth your time.

lIf you do anything today, watch Maeve Halligan at the Cambridge Union. I genuinely think this was the first time many people in that room were confronted with the hard reality of the trans debate, rather than the slogans that usually surround it. Buck Angel Transsexual was exceptional: calm, articulate, humane. Ultimate respect. And then there was Helen Webberley. I remember once thinking the criticism directed at her by GC women was excessive, especially the claim she was ‘pure evil’. After hearing her speak, I no longer think that. She is totally insincere. I can deal with hard ideologues- they believe they are telling the truth; they are genuine, Dr Helen Webberley (she/her) is different. One audience member, a trans-identified male and former patient of hers, stood to speak during points of information. His account of how he had been treated was deeply disturbing. Watch the full debate. It is worth your time.

Thea Sewell

634,929 views • 2 months ago

this AI-generated ad promoting an 'AI ads' course made a FORTUNE... here’s why the ad caught the viewers attention and made them buy instantly: it kicks off with a girl jumping up in bed, hair everywhere, screaming at the top of her lungs: “AI ADS!!!” – instant scroll-stopper then it hard-cuts to a dude mid-meltdown: “why the hell does this look like trash?!” the setup is painfully relatable: → burned cash on 10 random subscriptions, broke before breakfast → facebook ads tanking, nicotine cloud filling the room → client threatening: 8 hours left or the contract’s gone → rent due tomorrow, account balance basically zero → girlfriend with her bags at the door → mom just heard from her that he’s a “hopeless failure” anyone that's grinding in marketing can relate to this but then the vibe flips... he’s on the toilet, doom-scrolling tiktok with that brainrot 'tralarelo tralala' audio loop in the background… suddenly: “wait… a $47 ai ads course? done.” his whole world shifts in an instant: - from a tiny apartment to a villa with luxury cars lined up - palm trees, champagne spraying - a freaking lion lounging by the pool and then he hits the viewer with a CTA: “this hook is more addictive than gambling ads. you’re not watching hollywood - this was made in 2 hours with ai, for under $10. the same course shows you how.” he rides the lion straight at the camera: “you keep making weak ads and you’re still watching this… i guess it works.” next scene? him on a rainbow-colored dragon yelling at people to click it hits because it mirrors the lowest point (broke, desperate, no way out) and then delivers an instant, ridiculous transformation it takes the viewer through peak vulnerability to proof the impossible can happen and then hits them with a low-ticket course and then there's the meta-layer: the ad IS the product, you're demonstrating it directly in the ad Like, RT + Reply "VEO" and I'll send you more viral veo3 ads that are printing rn so you can copy them for your product (must follow so i can dm) example of viral veo ad below

this AI-generated ad promoting an 'AI ads' course made a FORTUNE... here’s why the ad caught the viewers attention and made them buy instantly: it kicks off with a girl jumping up in bed, hair everywhere, screaming at the top of her lungs: “AI ADS!!!” – instant scroll-stopper then it hard-cuts to a dude mid-meltdown: “why the hell does this look like trash?!” the setup is painfully relatable: → burned cash on 10 random subscriptions, broke before breakfast → facebook ads tanking, nicotine cloud filling the room → client threatening: 8 hours left or the contract’s gone → rent due tomorrow, account balance basically zero → girlfriend with her bags at the door → mom just heard from her that he’s a “hopeless failure” anyone that's grinding in marketing can relate to this but then the vibe flips... he’s on the toilet, doom-scrolling tiktok with that brainrot 'tralarelo tralala' audio loop in the background… suddenly: “wait… a $47 ai ads course? done.” his whole world shifts in an instant: - from a tiny apartment to a villa with luxury cars lined up - palm trees, champagne spraying - a freaking lion lounging by the pool and then he hits the viewer with a CTA: “this hook is more addictive than gambling ads. you’re not watching hollywood - this was made in 2 hours with ai, for under $10. the same course shows you how.” he rides the lion straight at the camera: “you keep making weak ads and you’re still watching this… i guess it works.” next scene? him on a rainbow-colored dragon yelling at people to click it hits because it mirrors the lowest point (broke, desperate, no way out) and then delivers an instant, ridiculous transformation it takes the viewer through peak vulnerability to proof the impossible can happen and then hits them with a low-ticket course and then there's the meta-layer: the ad IS the product, you're demonstrating it directly in the ad Like, RT + Reply "VEO" and I'll send you more viral veo3 ads that are printing rn so you can copy them for your product (must follow so i can dm) example of viral veo ad below

MAX

16,551 views • 10 months ago

The Cybertruck is the ULTIMATE vehicle, it can really do whatever your heart desires. Want to go fast? It goes faster than your favorite sports car, 0 to 60 mph in 2.6 seconds will make your heart skip a beat. Want to swerve in & out of lanes? It has better handles than a Model S and the steering wheel is connected by wires, making your turns super responsive to your steering movement. Want to be safe? The stainless steel surrounding the truck is bullet resistant and the glass is shatter resistant. If you get in an accident, I feel bad for the other car. Want to go on a road trip? Despite its size & weight, it’ll go 300+ miles on a single charge, which is more than plenty. Want to listen to high quality music? It has the best sound system of any vehicle, has 15 speakers, including two dedicated subwoofers. Want to go off-roading? It’s built better than a monster truck with its adaptive suspensions that make you feel like you’re gliding on the bumpy rocks. Want to cook? It’s got 3 outlets in the back for you to convert your trunk into your favorite kitchen. Want to camp? You can convert your trunk into a tent, in fact you can just sleep in the truck bc there’s so much space. Or you can just tow an RV, essentially anything up to 11,000 lbs. Want energy? It can power your home and other EVs, you heard that right. Want to be entertained? You can watch movies, tv shows, and has the best arcade system. Want to go in the water? It has Wade mode that allows your truck to go in the water & float like a boat. Want to be chauffeured? All Cybertrucks come equipped with the capability to drive itself via FSD. It will be able to drive you anywhere with a software update soon. There’s really nothing this truck can’t do, for real. 💯

The Cybertruck is the ULTIMATE vehicle, it can really do whatever your heart desires. Want to go fast? It goes faster than your favorite sports car, 0 to 60 mph in 2.6 seconds will make your heart skip a beat. Want to swerve in & out of lanes? It has better handles than a Model S and the steering wheel is connected by wires, making your turns super responsive to your steering movement. Want to be safe? The stainless steel surrounding the truck is bullet resistant and the glass is shatter resistant. If you get in an accident, I feel bad for the other car. Want to go on a road trip? Despite its size & weight, it’ll go 300+ miles on a single charge, which is more than plenty. Want to listen to high quality music? It has the best sound system of any vehicle, has 15 speakers, including two dedicated subwoofers. Want to go off-roading? It’s built better than a monster truck with its adaptive suspensions that make you feel like you’re gliding on the bumpy rocks. Want to cook? It’s got 3 outlets in the back for you to convert your trunk into your favorite kitchen. Want to camp? You can convert your trunk into a tent, in fact you can just sleep in the truck bc there’s so much space. Or you can just tow an RV, essentially anything up to 11,000 lbs. Want energy? It can power your home and other EVs, you heard that right. Want to be entertained? You can watch movies, tv shows, and has the best arcade system. Want to go in the water? It has Wade mode that allows your truck to go in the water & float like a boat. Want to be chauffeured? All Cybertrucks come equipped with the capability to drive itself via FSD. It will be able to drive you anywhere with a software update soon. There’s really nothing this truck can’t do, for real. 💯

Teslaconomics

336,355 views • 2 years ago

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)

Jean-Luc Godard on why people disliked like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) & the psychology of the audience: "Interviewer: Truffaut once said that if the public did not like a film of his then he considered that it was a failure. Do you feel that 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) is a failure because it did not attract the public? Godard: No, I don’t think so, because a certain number of people liked it. You must remember that Truffaut is half producer, half director – in the morning he is a businessman, in the afternoon an artist – and so this question of the public is more pressing for him. I think one must aim to attract the widest possible audience, but obviously this will be smaller for 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) or 'Paris nous appartient' (1961) than for 'Ben-Hur' (1959). One must be sincere, believe that one is working for the public, and aim at them. In my early days I never asked myself whether the audience would understand what I was doing, but now I do. If Hitchcock, for example, thinks that people will not understand something, he will not do it. At the same time I feel that one must sometimes just go ahead – light may always dawn in a few years time. But of course one must be sure one knows what one is about, because if one just goes ahead and does something, saying, “They won’t understand but it won’t matter,” one may be disastrously wrong and find that it does matter. Interviewer: I brought this up because the opening scene of 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) seems to me to be a bold directorial conception which stands a strong chance of being misunderstood. Godard: Perhaps, but I think that as soon as people see something a little unusual on the screen they try too hard to understand. They understand perfectly well, really, but they want to understand even more. If you show them someone drinking tea or saying goodbye, they immediately say yes, but why is he drinking tea? People didn’t like 'A Woman is a Woman' (1961) because they didn’t know what it meant. But it didn’t mean anything. If you see a bouquet of flowers on a table, does it mean something? It doesn’t prove anything about anything. I simply hoped that the film would give pleasure. I meant it to be contradictory, juxtaposing things which didn’t necessarily go together, a film which was gay and sad at the same time. One can’t do that, of course, one must be either one or the other, but I wanted to be both at once." (Jean-Luc Godard's interview with Tom Milne, 1962)

DepressedBergman

13,543 views • 6 months ago

🔥💥🛸👽 Dr. Eric Davis: I Swear On My Life and My Children's Life That I Saw Photos of Non-Human Craft and Bodies 👽🛸💥🔥 @jamescfox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Fox: "1930s, crash retrieval?" Davis: "Yes. It's in the classified record that that's a real event." Fox: "1940s?" Davis: "Yes. Roswell... One in (19)53 and one in (19)58, but there are others." ~~~ Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "So, when do you think this first occurred?" Grusch: "Previously, 1930s." (I bought the newest edition of, "Moment of Contact: New Revelations of Alien Encounters" the other day, and even if you're skeptical about Varginha, the opening segment on crash retrievals is worth the price of admission. Excellent job (as always) by Fox.)

🔥💥🛸👽 Dr. Eric Davis: I Swear On My Life and My Children's Life That I Saw Photos of Non-Human Craft and Bodies 👽🛸💥🔥 @jamescfox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Fox: "1930s, crash retrieval?" Davis: "Yes. It's in the classified record that that's a real event." Fox: "1940s?" Davis: "Yes. Roswell... One in (19)53 and one in (19)58, but there are others." ~~~ Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "So, when do you think this first occurred?" Grusch: "Previously, 1930s." (I bought the newest edition of, "Moment of Contact: New Revelations of Alien Encounters" the other day, and even if you're skeptical about Varginha, the opening segment on crash retrievals is worth the price of admission. Excellent job (as always) by Fox.)

Joe Murgia

63,538 views • 13 days ago

Marc Andreessen on why the best founders don't hire, they convert believers. When you're a 3-person startup with no revenue, how do you convince top talent to choose you over Google or Microsoft? Marc's answer cuts straight to the heart of it: "The difference between a vision and a hallucination is that other people can see the vision." This is the real skill behind great hiring, and it has nothing to do with compensation packages. Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 points to Steve Jobs as the ultimate example. He describes what he calls Jobs' "reality distortion field": "If you get within 10 ft of Steve Jobs, whatever he says the next 20 minutes, you're going to walk out of there believing whatever he says. He can say the sky is purple and you'd be like, 'Yep, that makes total sense.' And 4 hours later you're like, 'Well, I don't really know what he meant by that, but it was really, really compelling at the time.'" That's the superpower the best founders share. They can describe where the world is going with such clarity and conviction that people don't just understand the vision. They feel it. They want to be part of it. As Marc puts it: "It's essentially sales. Selling to employees." But here's the counterintuitive part about hiring that Marc has observed over the years: The frustration is actually doing exactly what it's supposed to. When a candidate turns you down after multiple conversations, it stings. It feels like wasted time. But Marc reframes it: "Of all the people you interview, if you hired them all, it would turn out that a good two-thirds or three-quarters of them you probably shouldn't have hired anyway." Rejection is the selection process working exactly as it should. The best companies lean into this by presenting a brutally honest picture of who they are. Not a polished recruitment pitch, but a stark and polarising reality, and that clarity of identity is what makes the right people self-select in. "If in your hiring process you're turning people off as often as you're turning them on, I think that's a good thing." Stop trying to convince everyone. Be so specific about who you are and where you're going that the right people find you, and the hiring problem starts to solve itself.

Marc Andreessen on why the best founders don't hire, they convert believers. When you're a 3-person startup with no revenue, how do you convince top talent to choose you over Google or Microsoft? Marc's answer cuts straight to the heart of it: "The difference between a vision and a hallucination is that other people can see the vision." This is the real skill behind great hiring, and it has nothing to do with compensation packages. Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 points to Steve Jobs as the ultimate example. He describes what he calls Jobs' "reality distortion field": "If you get within 10 ft of Steve Jobs, whatever he says the next 20 minutes, you're going to walk out of there believing whatever he says. He can say the sky is purple and you'd be like, 'Yep, that makes total sense.' And 4 hours later you're like, 'Well, I don't really know what he meant by that, but it was really, really compelling at the time.'" That's the superpower the best founders share. They can describe where the world is going with such clarity and conviction that people don't just understand the vision. They feel it. They want to be part of it. As Marc puts it: "It's essentially sales. Selling to employees." But here's the counterintuitive part about hiring that Marc has observed over the years: The frustration is actually doing exactly what it's supposed to. When a candidate turns you down after multiple conversations, it stings. It feels like wasted time. But Marc reframes it: "Of all the people you interview, if you hired them all, it would turn out that a good two-thirds or three-quarters of them you probably shouldn't have hired anyway." Rejection is the selection process working exactly as it should. The best companies lean into this by presenting a brutally honest picture of who they are. Not a polished recruitment pitch, but a stark and polarising reality, and that clarity of identity is what makes the right people self-select in. "If in your hiring process you're turning people off as often as you're turning them on, I think that's a good thing." Stop trying to convince everyone. Be so specific about who you are and where you're going that the right people find you, and the hiring problem starts to solve itself.

Big Brain Business

46,695 views • 4 months ago

#PraewLivexEnemiesWithBenefits #JanJingjing C: i’ve shared rooms with everyone but not p’jing. she seems like someone who takes care of others, for example… 🦊: i’ve shared rooms with jingjing, like woah… C: not true? 🦊: after a while, (gibberish). she’s memorizing lines. she’s memorizing lines again C: was she dreaming? 🦊: no! i remember we were filming at the beach together. she was sitting at the makeup table and reading the script. then, she’s reading on the bed. still reading. after a while, (murmurs) “why is it like this?” C: let’s start over! i’d share room with p’pook just like before! p’pook is more peaceful 🦊: i stopped focusing on myself for a bit and was like, “let me eavesdrop a bit” 🐯: OH! 🦊: “oh, she’s reading her lines!” i thought she was chanting something over there C: then do you toss and turn when you sleep? 🐯: i sleep in one position all night 🦊: she stays in the same spot for the whole night — 🐯: that night, when p’jan you asked me, “do you want me to leave the lights on while sleeping?” 🦊: you’re scared? jingjing yu was scared. but i can sleep anywhere. no matter if it’s noisy, with the lights on, or whatever. i can sleep through anything 🐯: after a while, she fell asleep before i did, like this 🦊: i’m fine with anything

Sensitive content

#PraewLivexEnemiesWithBenefits #JanJingjing C: i’ve shared rooms with everyone but not p’jing. she seems like someone who takes care of others, for example… 🦊: i’ve shared rooms with jingjing, like woah… C: not true? 🦊: after a while, (gibberish). she’s memorizing lines. she’s memorizing lines again C: was she dreaming? 🦊: no! i remember we were filming at the beach together. she was sitting at the makeup table and reading the script. then, she’s reading on the bed. still reading. after a while, (murmurs) “why is it like this?” C: let’s start over! i’d share room with p’pook just like before! p’pook is more peaceful 🦊: i stopped focusing on myself for a bit and was like, “let me eavesdrop a bit” 🐯: OH! 🦊: “oh, she’s reading her lines!” i thought she was chanting something over there C: then do you toss and turn when you sleep? 🐯: i sleep in one position all night 🦊: she stays in the same spot for the whole night — 🐯: that night, when p’jan you asked me, “do you want me to leave the lights on while sleeping?” 🦊: you’re scared? jingjing yu was scared. but i can sleep anywhere. no matter if it’s noisy, with the lights on, or whatever. i can sleep through anything 🐯: after a while, she fell asleep before i did, like this 🦊: i’m fine with anything

²²

36,955 views • 26 days ago