@
@
@cb_doge
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@HeidiBriones
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@DavidSacks
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
R to @mezaoptimizer: Paul Ehrlich has done immense damage to humanity. Immense. I despise him.
@
@mezaoptimizer
Guest
Ok WHAT. I had no idea “The Population Bomb” led to the sterilization of 8 million Indians and Paul Ehrlich just lives out his life as a beloved professor. From a recent ACX post—
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@GailAlfarATX
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@Stanovaya
Guest
Below is a brief description of Prigozhin's mutiny and the factors that contributed to its outcome. We, as observers, initially missed important details due to the scarcity of information and lack of time for in-depth analysis. Here's the perspective that currently seems most plausible:
Prigozhin's rebellion wasn't a bid for power or an attempt to overtake the Kremlin. It arose from a sense of desperation; Prigozhin was forced out of Ukraine and found himself unable to sustain Wagner the way he did before, while the state machinery was turning against him. To top it off, Putin was ignoring him and publicly supporting his most dangerous adversaries.
Prigozhin's objective was to draw Putin's attention and to impose a discussion about conditions to preserve his activities - a defined role, security, and funding. These weren't demands for a governmental overthrow; they were a desperate bid to save the enterprise, hoping that Prigozhin's merits in taking Bakhmut (that's why he needed it!) would be taken into account and the concerns would catch Putin's serious attention. Now it appears that these merits helped Prigozhin to get out of this crisis alive, but without a political future in Russia (at least while Putin is in power).
Prigozhin was caught off-guard by Putin's reaction and found himself unprepared to assume the role of a revolutionary. He also wasn't prepared for the fact that Wagner was about to reach Moscow where his only option remained - to "take the Kremlin" - an action that would inevitably result in him and his fighters being eradicated.
Those in the elites who were able reached out to Prigozhin with offers to surrender. This likely added to his sense of impending doom. However, I don't believe any high-level negotiations took place. Lukashenko presented Prigozhin with a Putin-endorsed offer to retreat on the condition that Prigozhin would leave Russia and Wagner would be dissolved.
I don't think Prigozhin was in a position to make demands (such as the resignation of Shoigu or Gerasimov - something many observers expect today. If that happens, it will be due to another reason.) After Putin's address in the morning of June 24th, Prigozhin's primary concern was to find an off-ramp. The situation would have led to inevitable death in merely a few hours. It is possible that Putin has promised him safety on the condition that Prigozhin remains quietly in Belarus.
I stand by my previous assertion that Putin and the state have been dealt a severe blow (which will have significant repercussions for the regime). However, I want to emphasize that image has always been a secondary concern for Putin. Setting optics aside, Putin objectively resolved the Wagner and Prigozhin problem by dissolving the former and expelling the latter. The situation would have been far worse if it had culminated in a bloody mess in the outskirts of Moscow.
And no, Putin doesn't need Wagner or Prigozhin. He can manage with his own forces. He's now certainly convinced of that.
I will disclose many more details in my bulletin to be issued tomorrow evening.
Prigozhin's rebellion wasn't a bid for power or an attempt to overtake the Kremlin. It arose from a sense of desperation; Prigozhin was forced out of Ukraine and found himself unable to sustain Wagner the way he did before, while the state machinery was turning against him. To top it off, Putin was ignoring him and publicly supporting his most dangerous adversaries. Prigozhin's objective was to draw Putin's attention and to impose a discussion about conditions to preserve his activities - a defined role, security, and funding. These weren't demands for a governmental overthrow; they were a desperate bid to save the enterprise, hoping that Prigozhin's merits in taking Bakhmut (that's why he needed it!) would be taken into account and the concerns would catch Putin's serious attention. Now it appears that these merits helped Prigozhin to get out of this crisis alive, but without a political future in Russia (at least while Putin is in power). Prigozhin was caught off-guard by Putin's reaction and found himself unprepared to assume the role of a revolutionary. He also wasn't prepared for the fact that Wagner was about to reach Moscow where his only option remained - to "take the Kremlin" - an action that would inevitably result in him and his fighters being eradicated. Those in the elites who were able reached out to Prigozhin with offers to surrender. This likely added to his sense of impending doom. However, I don't believe any high-level negotiations took place. Lukashenko presented Prigozhin with a Putin-endorsed offer to retreat on the condition that Prigozhin would leave Russia and Wagner would be dissolved. I don't think Prigozhin was in a position to make demands (such as the resignation of Shoigu or Gerasimov - something many observers expect today. If that happens, it will be due to another reason.) After Putin's address in the morning of June 24th, Prigozhin's primary concern was to find an off-ramp. The situation would have led to inevitable death in merely a few hours. It is possible that Putin has promised him safety on the condition that Prigozhin remains quietly in Belarus.I stand by my previous assertion that Putin and the state have been dealt a severe blow (which will have significant repercussions for the regime). However, I want to emphasize that image has always been a secondary concern for Putin. Setting optics aside, Putin objectively resolved the Wagner and Prigozhin problem by dissolving the former and expelling the latter. The situation would have been far worse if it had culminated in a bloody mess in the outskirts of Moscow.
And no, Putin doesn't need Wagner or Prigozhin. He can manage with his own forces. He's now certainly convinced of that.
I will disclose many more details in my bulletin to be issued tomorrow evening.
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@DogeAccept
Guest
@
@OMG_Like_Really
Guest
It was a day of fing around...
...it was a day of finding out.
@Johnnthelefty's Photo-Bomb-Nazis will NOT be allowed to mix into crowds & skew optics w/ their Hitler salutes in Southern Bloc.
It was not a request.
Trying to push your way in doesn't work.
Brovo-Zulu, PB's. 🫶
...it was a day of finding out.
@Johnnthelefty's Photo-Bomb-Nazis will NOT be allowed to mix into crowds & skew optics w/ their Hitler salutes in Southern Bloc.
It was not a request.
Trying to push your way in doesn't work.
Brovo-Zulu, PB's. 🫶
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@MattWallace888
Guest
Remember When They Called Us Conspiracy Theorists For Saying The Feds Were Planting Fake Nazis at Rallies? 
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@bpoppenheimer
Guest
Shortly after Steve Jobs returned as the CEO of Apple in 1997, he met with Jony Ive, Apple’s Senior VP of industrial design.
Apple had 40 products on the market.
“Jony, how many things have you said no to?” Jobs asked.
Ive was confused.
“You have to understand,” Jobs said,
“There are measures of focus, and one of them is how often you say no.”
“What focus means,” Jobs taught Ive, “is saying no to something that you—with every bone in your body—think is a phenomenal idea, and you wake up thinking about it, but you say no to it because you're focusing on something else.”
Jobs walked up to a whiteboard and drew a 2 x 2 grid. On top, he wrote “Consumer” and “Professional.” Down the side, “Portable” and “Desktop.”
Four products—meet Apple’s new radically focused product line, Jobs said.
After that meeting, over the next two decades, Jobs and Ive—focused on making a few high-quality products while saying no to everything else—transformed a dying, near-bankrupt company into one of the most valuable companies in the world, worth over $2.9 trillion.
Takeaway 1:
The philosopher Marcus Aurelius pointed out that the focus of doing less “brings a double satisfaction.”
You get the satisfaction of having fewer things to do. And…you get the satisfaction of doing those fewer things at a higher level.
You get “to do less, better.”
During Steve Jobs’ first visit to Jony Ive’s design studio, he looked around, and then he said, “do, you’ve not been very effective, have you?”
It was clear to Jobs that Ive was full of ideas and potential he wasn’t able to execute or fulfill under Apple’s previous leadership.
In the Jobs era of “doing less, better,” Ive was very effective.
Some products he designed include: iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods.
Takeaway 2:
Even though he slashed the product line down to four products, Jobs loved to have and hear ideas.
“Steve used to say to me,” Ive said, “and he used to say this a lot, ‘Hey, Jony, here’s a dopey idea.’ And sometimes they were: really dopey. Sometimes they were truly dreadful.
But sometimes they took the air from the room, and they left us both completely silent.”
It made me think of what Jerry Seinfeld identifies as the ultimate skill of the artist: “taste and discernment.”
“It’s one thing to create,” Seinfeld says. It’s one thing to have ideas.
“The other is you have to choose. ‘What are we going to do, and what are we not going to do?’” What are we going to add to the product line, and what are we not going to add?
“This is a gigantic aspect of [artistic] survival,” Seinfeld continues.
“It’s kind of unseen—what’s picked and what is discarded—but mastering that is how you stay alive.”
- - -
“Everything just got simpler. That’s been one of my mantras—focus and simplicity.” — Steve Jobs
Follow @bpoppenheimer for more content like this!
Apple had 40 products on the market.
“Jony, how many things have you said no to?” Jobs asked.
Ive was confused.
“You have to understand,” Jobs said,
“There are measures of focus, and one of them is how often you say no.”
“What focus means,” Jobs taught Ive, “is saying no to something that you—with every bone in your body—think is a phenomenal idea, and you wake up thinking about it, but you say no to it because you're focusing on something else.”
Jobs walked up to a whiteboard and drew a 2 x 2 grid. On top, he wrote “Consumer” and “Professional.” Down the side, “Portable” and “Desktop.”
Four products—meet Apple’s new radically focused product line, Jobs said.
After that meeting, over the next two decades, Jobs and Ive—focused on making a few high-quality products while saying no to everything else—transformed a dying, near-bankrupt company into one of the most valuable companies in the world, worth over $2.9 trillion.
Takeaway 1:
The philosopher Marcus Aurelius pointed out that the focus of doing less “brings a double satisfaction.”
You get the satisfaction of having fewer things to do. And…you get the satisfaction of doing those fewer things at a higher level.
You get “to do less, better.”
During Steve Jobs’ first visit to Jony Ive’s design studio, he looked around, and then he said, “do, you’ve not been very effective, have you?”
It was clear to Jobs that Ive was full of ideas and potential he wasn’t able to execute or fulfill under Apple’s previous leadership.
In the Jobs era of “doing less, better,” Ive was very effective.
Some products he designed include: iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods.
Takeaway 2:
Even though he slashed the product line down to four products, Jobs loved to have and hear ideas.
“Steve used to say to me,” Ive said, “and he used to say this a lot, ‘Hey, Jony, here’s a dopey idea.’ And sometimes they were: really dopey. Sometimes they were truly dreadful.
But sometimes they took the air from the room, and they left us both completely silent.”
It made me think of what Jerry Seinfeld identifies as the ultimate skill of the artist: “taste and discernment.”
“It’s one thing to create,” Seinfeld says. It’s one thing to have ideas.
“The other is you have to choose. ‘What are we going to do, and what are we not going to do?’” What are we going to add to the product line, and what are we not going to add?
“This is a gigantic aspect of [artistic] survival,” Seinfeld continues.
“It’s kind of unseen—what’s picked and what is discarded—but mastering that is how you stay alive.”
- - -
“Everything just got simpler. That’s been one of my mantras—focus and simplicity.” — Steve Jobs
Follow @bpoppenheimer for more content like this!