Give to help Truce! Donate here. In the 1600s, an Irish Archbishop named James Ussher did a bunch of math. The Bible is full of numbers and genealogies. He sat down and calculated that, in his opinion, the Bible dated creation at 4004 BC. According to Ussher, that is when God created man. That number has really stuck around! I gathered my small group together to explore the Adams Synchronological Chart. It is a 23-foot-long timeline of human history, beginning in 4004 BC and ending in 1900. There it was! The 4004 BC number! Which brings up an interesting question, right? What did Christians really believe about evolution just before it became a linchpin battle for fundamentalists? I turned to Edward Larson for answers. He's a professor at Pepperdine University and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods". The book chronicles the Scopes "Monkey" trial that we'll be covering in the next two episodes. But it also gives us a great introductory look at what Christians believed about evolution in the build-up to the trial. It turns out that evangelical Christians and even fundamentalists were all over the place when it came to ideas of evolution. Many Christians, like William Jennings Bryan, believed in an old earth and even some forms of evolution. But they thought that it was God who caused that evolution. Charles Darwin, though, said that evolution was a matter of chance adaptations, thus cutting God out of the equation. Fundamentalists like Bryan were determined to stop the spread of Darwinian evolution for that very reason. They believed that if young people were taught that they were the result of grand mistakes then what reason did they have to treat each other with respect? To be good citizens? Helpful Sources "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin "The Birth of a Nation" on YouTube Article about James Ussher and his burial in Westminster Abbey Helpful article about Lamarck "The Evangelicals" by Francis Fitzgerald More about Henry Ford's Anti-Semitism An interesting article about "The Birth of a Nation" Discussion Questions: How did Cuvier and Lamarck differ in their ideas about evolution? Do you believe in a young or old earth? Do you believe in some evolution, macro-evolution, or no evolution at all? What is the best way to oppose an idea? When should we propose laws to combat ideas we don't like and when should we allow others to believe what they like? Do you think the fundamentalists were right to combat teaching evolution in schools? Now that you know about Bryan's failure to call out the KKK, what do you think of him? "Birth of a Nation" shaped American views about black people. Are there more modern films and series that have shaped society in similar ways? Or changed public opinion in other ways? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
My podcast with the brilliant Marc Andreessen is out!We discuss:* how AI will revolutionize software* whether NFTs are useless, & whether he should be funding flying cars instead* a16z's biggest vulnerabilities* the future of fusion, education, Twitter, venture, managerialism, & big techDwarkesh Patel has a great interview with Marc Andreessen. This one is full of great riffs: the idea that VC exists to restore pockets of bourgeois capitalism in a mostly managerial capitalist system, what makes the difference between good startup founders and good mature company executives, how valuation works at the earliest stages, and more. Dwarkesh tends to ask the questions other interviewers don't.Byrne Hobart, The DiffWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Similar episodesYou may also enjoy my interview of Tyler Cowen about the pessimism of sex and identifying talent, Byrne Hobart about FTX and how drugs have shaped financial markets, and Bethany McLean about the astonishing similarities between FTX and the Enron story (which she broke).Side note: Paying the billsTo help pay the bills for my podcast, I'm turning on paid subscriptions on Substack.No major content will be paywalled - please don't donate if you have to think twice before buying a cup of coffee.But if you have the means & have enjoyed my podcast, I would appreciate your support
Healthcare has historically been an important topic, but even more so as we navigate our way out of a global pandemic. Joining Chris to talk about one local university's endeavors is the Executive Vice President for Health Sciences at Michigan State University, Dr. Norm Beauchamp!
Patrick Bryant is a serial entrepreneur, professional speaker, and co-founder and CEO of software product agency CODE/+/TRUST. After co-founding Go To Team, Patrick launched six multi-million-dollar companies, in media, and software. Patrick shares wisdom gained from his experience in start-ups, his origin as a journalist, what he accomplished in video, and the CODE/+/TRUST “BHAG” for powering startups around the U.S. He discusses culture, scaling, storytelling, and how the first thing for an entrepreneur to do is to start.https://bit.ly/TLP-343 Key Takeaways [1:15] If you have listened to every episode of The Leadership Podcast, please contact Jan and Jim to let them know. They would love to hear it and there might be something in it for you! [2:27] Most people don't know that Patrick owns a rolling paper company that he started after investing in a cigar company. Most people know him from software, media, and other things, like speaking. [3:40] Patrick's always getting into unexpected situations. He just keeps showing up for work and looking for interesting things. He's curious and asks questions. His original profession was journalism and he learned to study industries and areas of interest to him. Many times, it results in a business idea. When he sees an opportunity, he strikes it. [6:07] Patrick believes entrepreneurship is the number one change agent in the world. It is amazingly helpful to society to do something new and do it right. [7:19] There are businesses that are built to scale and others that are not. In a field, you may have grass, bushes, and a large oak tree. The large oak tree did not start as a blade of grass! It takes time to know the “species” of businesses. Patrick started the video company, Go To Team, 25 years ago. It has 16 offices around the U.S. It hit a $1 million valuation when it was 10 years old. That felt great to Patrick! [8:43] Another company that started the same week as Go To Team is Google. In 10 years, Google had been publicly traded and people were using its name as a verb! Patrick wondered what he was doing wrong. He started to study innovation scale — how to build companies and products that are built to move quickly in a big way and be sold around the world. That pushed Patrick toward software. [9:58] Scaling is different between software and service companies. A service company can go a long time with continued operation, but not a lot of growth. A software product requires investments and a certain level of sales. If the sales don't come, it's over. The money's gone and the investors aren't going to pour more money into the company. There is risk involved in software. [12:43] Journalism, television, and all media have changed greatly since the start of the internet. There is confusion and fragmentation. Patrick foresees us slowly getting back to moderation and looking for experts and gatekeepers we can trust to provide us with the content we want in the way we want it. We don't yet have the new Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw. [15:39] Patrick's company, CODE/+/TRUST, sells code and trust. They help people start software companies. Their “BHAG” is to power 500 software startups in every state in the U.S. and be an official software development firm for entrepreneurs. They want to connect with good ideas, spend a lot of time on them, grow them, feel good about what they produce, and help entrepreneurs make money. [18:41] First and foremost, get one thing right. You can have multiple ways to attack a problem but you can only have one mission. The mission and values cannot change. [19:15] Patrick is working on a TEDx speech for March on the schizophrenic nature of advice to entrepreneurs. For instance, Winston Churchill's message of never giving up contrasts with the advice to fail fast. All leaders need to understand this: mission and values do not move. We are not giving up on our mission. Tactics and goals that don't get us there need to be stopped. [21:51] Patrick's big “Aha” moment is that not all advice is equal. Advice from your Grandma on how to live a good life might be great, but her advice on how to run your business might not be great. Where does the advice come from? How does it work with your core values? [23:14] Advice can be great for one individual that's not great for the next one. Patrick is a value investor. He likes to buy stocks that are low, for the long term. That's what he reads about. Blogs about day trade opportunities are not useful advice for him. Patrick says that if every CEO learned the right way to take advice, they would be the last 10% of “amazing.” It's one of the hardest things. [25:34] Patrick separates User Experience from Customer Experience or navigating the software from working the sales funnel. Patrick focuses on providing customers with what they need, not what they want. Henry Ford said that if he asked his customers what they wanted, they would have said, “a faster horse.” We have to have the view that we know some things about where the customer wants to go. [27:05] Patrick's business partner, CTO at CODE/+/TRUST, does software design. He's opinionated and will stand his ground in a positive way with customers because he believes he knows where the customer is trying to go. Designers must come to the discussion with views on what they believe for the customer. Patrick shares the surprising results of a Lay's Potato Chip survey and taste test. [28:59] The Lay's experience illustrates the way that we have to come to the process, which is customer first, but educated on how to make it as simple and clean and smooth an experience for them as possible, almost regardless of what they think. [30:38] Event.gives is a company of Patrick's in the non-profit space. Attendees fill out their profiles and can then move from event to event without re-entering their data. Nonprofits argued that it is their data, but Patrick points out that individuals own their data, and they are the ones with the right to release it to the non-profit. Always go back to the individual and what their rights and choices are. [33:20] Software and media for kids have the added responsibility of providing them with reasonable opportunities for learning. Patrick always tries to start at the core mission, protecting people's privacy, and allowing them the right to control their data. [34:53] As a journalist, Patrick learned that it's all about telling stories. Master storytellers influence in positive ways. The slogan for Go To Team for years was Passionate Storytellers. Storytelling is a helpful skill that allows you to communicate the data that you want and to emotionally connect with people. The goal is to be ordinarily extraordinary in your storytelling so people connect with your message. [36:29] Patrick explains how to use storytelling to make products socially contagious by connecting the brand to the customer's lifestyle. [37:32] Do not put your story in an email! How you tell your story depends on who the audience is. Patrick has run a video company for 25 years. He recommends using video to tell your story. It connects to people in a much more important way than the written word. Engaging with people in person and telling your story on stage is incredibly emotional and powerful. Connect with people in person. [39:30] Making people laugh and tugging at their heartstrings brings them along with the story. Use emotion to motivate people, educate them, and make them get excited. [41:59] Patrick refers to himself as a made entrepreneur. He doesn't have to go to work tomorrow and his basic life needs will be taken care of. Like many of his peers and friends, Patrick enjoys the fight. He enjoys being in the company. He enjoys starting new things. He enjoys the idea stage and helping others and finding connections with the product-market fit. He keeps coming back for that super joy. [42:55] When a company gets to have between 10 and 20 employees and people start asking Patrick about policies, that's his sign to go and start a new company. He doesn't want to write policies and procedures around when you get off of work and what days are holidays. He doesn't think that way. Starting another company re-energizes him to go attack the next idea. [43:51] As Patrick grows a company, and adds people, he's thrilled by it. He loves it. The mission still stands and the values are great. He can't wait to see the team execute on the goal. But it's no longer energizing for him. Starting the rollercoaster over is what he loves. [45:27] Patrick's closing thoughts, to anyone in a transition stage, just get started. Look for something that you can develop expertise in. What one thing can you do to sell that expertise and move forward an idea in that particular industry, right now, today? “That's my core advice, just get started.” [47:59] Closing quote: Remember, “Trust is the glue of life. It's the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It's the foundational principle that holds all relationships.” — Steven Covey Quotable Quotes “Well, I don't know how you could follow my path. I had the interesting time of being on the Mall two years ago, here in Washington D.C., where I am today, for January 6. I think of myself as a little bit of a Forrest Gump. I don't know how I get into some of these situations!” “I'm just curious. I ask people questions. As a journalist for many years of my life, … I just learned to study and get my head around industries and areas of interest of mine. And many times, that results in a business idea. And when I see opportunity, I strike it.” “Just start something, just talk to someone, just learn what someone needs. … I just don't understand why entrepreneurs … can't just take an opportunity and run with it. … So that's my number one piece of advice … find something you're interested in and get started.” “I believe entrepreneurship is the number one change agent in the world. I say it on stages around the United States. I just believe that as entrepreneurs, we are doing something profound and exciting when we are developing a new product … or bringing out a new process.” “The best way to make money is to make somebody else more money. That, to me, is where relationships come in and you're helping someone move forward as an entrepreneur.” “If you show up to help other people and do the good, right thing, you will have business for as long as you can see it because people will acknowledge and trust you and want to work with you on what they need.” “You can have multiple goals; … multiple tactics; … multiple ways that you're attacking a problem but you can only have one mission. You can have core values that support how you're going to move forward with that mission. The mission and the values can't change.” “Advice can be great for one individual that's not great for the next one.” “The way that we have to come at the process … is, customer first, but educated on how to make it as simple and clean and smooth an experience for them as possible, almost regardless of what they think.” “With storytelling and laughter, camaraderie, and building a culture that people really want to be there; they really want to help move the mission forward, you can get people going 60, 70 miles per hour without a lot of effort.” “Every time I get to a place of success, I immediately start thinking, ‘Man, it would be cool to go back to the beginning. How can we do this again?' It's just so much fun to start the rollercoaster over!” Resources Mentioned Theleadershippodcast.com Sponsored by: Darley.com Rafti Advisors. LLC Self-Reliant Leadership. LLC Patrick Bryant CODE/+/TRUST Go To Team Shine Rolling Papers Monica Lewinski Liberty Fellowship The Aspen Institute Walter Cronkite Tom Brokaw BHAG Colin Gray at Purdue The Experience Economy, by Joe Pine II and James H. Gilmore Joe Pine Jim Gilmore Lay's Potato Chips Event.gives Seth Godin EBITDA
On this episode of Our American Stories, few people are aware that John Moses Browning—a tall, modest man born in 1855 and raised as a Mormon in the American West-- invented the mechanism used in virtually all modern pistols, created the most popular hunting rifles and shotguns, and conceived the machine guns introduced in World War I which dominated air and land battles in World War II. Nathan Gorenstein (author of The Guns of John Moses Browning: The Remarkable Story of the Inventor Whose Firearms Changed the World) is here to tell the story of this little-known American legend whose impact on history ranks with that of the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this weeks episode, Sean and Catherine discuss the meaning behind the Henry Ford quote 'If I asked them what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse'. This leads in to some design talk and of course, a bit of squirreliness!
Hi, I'm Christy Shriver, and we're to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us. I'm Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. This is episode 2 of our 4 part series discussing Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Today we will finish our discussion of part one of this book, chapters 1-5 and begin the transition into the second part. In other words, we will explore a progressive world of perfect containment and stability before shifting to a primitive one of risk and possibility. In episode 1, we introduced Huxley, the writer and thinker. We toured Brave New World's Hatchery in chapters 1-2- the beginnings. The Hatchery is where they mass-produce humans- assembly-line style. We see that the world is genetically and biochemically engineered into fixed classes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. For Huxley the political and economic leadership in our world has an interest in freezing the path for upward mobility, making sure all the political and economic power stays exactly where it is. Whoever is at the top has an interest in using the power of science and technology to produce a controllable standardized man. This standardized man would be a “perfect” man—or at least an artificially crafted perfect one, perfectly engineered for his predetermined role on this earth- Huxley uses a theological term- predestined. The overarching metaphor that pervades the novel is inspired by Henry Ford. In 1903, the Ford Motor Company was formed. The first product was the Model A, introduced in the same year. In order to produce a standardized car that everyone could afford, Ford introduced to the world the concept of assembly-line production. Their most successful product ever, the Model T, came out in September 1908. In 1909 a new Model T cost $850, but by 1924 the price had gone down to only $260. The average assembly line worker could purchase one with four months' pay in 1914. Everyone could drive a Model T. Eventually 15 million model Ts were manufactured and sold. It is estimated that 40% of American households owned one. In Huxley's world Ford is divine. The assembly-line model is the template for life. Community, Identity and Stability are globally accepted ideals, and man is standardized- produced in the hatcheries like the one we're visiting- the Central London Hatcheries and Conditioning Centre. We observe the process of fertilizing the eggs, bottling them, putting the lower castes through the Bokanovsky' process then finally decanting them- or preparing them for independent existence. We might call that birthing, but you can't really be birthed out of a bottle, so I think the word decanting as a replacement for birthing slightly funny. The Bokanovksy process in particular involves grotesque biological engineering. It's where lower castes are prenatally treated with x-rays then then are basically doused with alcohol and other poisons to be almost subhuman but capable of performing mind-numbing tasks. It's fetal alcohol poisoning scientifically administered for the purpose of subjugation. But they don't just poison the embryos, they also deprive the brains of oxygen during the assembly line process for and I quote the director here, there is “nothing like osygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par.” This is not considered immoral because these epsilons are still perfect. They are perfectly designed to do what they were designed to do perfectly. Christy, I used a chiasmus there! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On the heels of a brand redesign, Mike & Blaine tackle getting the opinion of the market for your idea. What's the right thing to do? Should you gather input from the market or do you know better because they haven't been exposed to the idea yet. Henry Ford said “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” We unpack the quote in this week's episode of Mike & Blaine.Today's Beer:Mike: Martin House Brewing Company - Astronaut Apocalypse Imperial StoutBlaine: Lost Abby - Noble Tendencies Czech Style Pilsner@martinhousebrewing @lostabbeyWatch on Youtube at https://youtu.be/Cu6toeO0xBQListen to all our episodes at: https://www.mikeandblaine.com/podcastcashflowmike.comdryrun.com#smallbusiness, #cashflow #finance #beer #friends #entrepreneur #smbs #craftbeer Support the showCatch more episodes, see our sponsors and get in touch at https://mikeandblaine.com/
On today’s Hard Factor…A now former VP of Wells Fargo Bank will be spending fourteen days in prison after peeing on an elderly woman aboard an Air India flight (00:34:31). President Biden, maybe in an attempt to gaslight the confidential documents wants to get rid of gas stoves (00:18:37). Watch Full Podcasts on Spotify and YouTube + Get Bonus Podcasts via Anchor and Patreon NEW “CREAM OF THE CROP” & “CUP OF COFFEE IN THE BIG TIME” MERCH IS OUT AT STORE.HARDFACTOR.COM ☕ Cup of Coffee in the Big Time ☕ (00:06:58) - Fun Fact: Florida Man investor Bruce Dietzen created a prototype of Henry Ford’s hemp car (00:08:30) - Italian Army is now growing medical marijuana for chronically ill Italians (00:09:06) - Coachella lineup is out (00:10:15) - Carlos Correa is BACK on the Twins after signing with both the giants and mets this offseason (00:11:35) - French Soccer Legend Zinadine Zidane has reportedly turned down the USMNT Coaching position “By George!” - DC Updates/Biden Time (00:15:10) - US intelligence materials related to Ukraine, Iran and UK found in Biden's private office (00:18:37) - Biden suggests banning gas stoves (00:19:45) Congress: Katie Porter announced she will run to replace Senator Dianne Feinstein in California (00:19:59) - George Santos: Brazilian authorities reactivate fraud case against fabulist congressman-elect (00:23:35) Latest Trending UFO clips going around the internet
What I learned from reading American Rascal: How Jay Gould Built Wall Street's Biggest Fortune by Greg Steinmetz.Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes [0:01] A series of spectacular financial triumphs had made Gould fabulously rich. At age thirty-six, he was the most notorious businessman in the country.[1:00] Vanderbilt told a newspaper that Gould was "the smartest man in America." Rockefeller, when asked who he thought had the best head for business, answered "Jay Gould" without pausing to think.They recognized Gould as a master of his craft. No one disputed that he was an extraordinary problem solver, an unparalleled negotiator, an expert communicator, a lightning-fast thinker, and a masterful tactician with a staggering memory.[2:00] Railroads changed America in the nineteenth century much as automobiles changed the country in the twentieth century and the internet has changed the twenty first century.[5:00] American Rascal shows the complex and quirky character of the nineteenth century's greatest robber baron. He was at once praised for his brilliance by Rockefeller and Vanderbilt and condemned for forever destroying American business values by Mark Twain. He lived a colorful life, trading jokes with Thomas Edison, figuring in Thomas Nast's best sketches, paying Boss Tweed's bail, and commuting to work in a 200-foot yacht.[6:00] I consider this part two in a two part series on Jay Gould. Make sure you listen to part 1: Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons by Edward J. Renehan Jr. (Founders #258)[9:00] He read whatever he could get his hands on. Jay was often nowhere to be found. He was off hiding somewhere with his books.[10:00] He would wake up at three to study by firelight.[10:00] My Life and Work by Henry Ford. (Founders #266)[12:35] “As you know. I'm not in the habit of backing out of what I undertake, and I shall write night and day until it is completed.”[13:00] Relentless and self-confident: Gould toyed with the idea of college. He visited Rutgers, Yale, Harvard, and Brown. He concluded college was an expensive indulgence. Why bother with college when he could teach himself from books?[13:00] I am determined to use all my best energies to accomplish this life's highest possibilities.[22:00] The Almanack of Naval Ravikant: A Guide to Wealth and Happiness by Naval Ravikant and Eric Jorgenson. (Founders #191)[22:00] All I Want To Know Is Where I'm Going To Die So I'll Never Go There: Buffett & Munger – A Study in Simplicity and Uncommon, Common Sense by Peter Bevelin[26:00] Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue by Ryan Holiday. (Founders #31)[30:00] The good ones know more. — Ogilvy on Advertising by David Ogilvy (Founders #82)[37:00] The story of how Gould seized Erie shows his brilliance as a financial strategist, his deep understanding of law, a surprising grasp of human nature, and a mastery of political reality.[41:00] Tycoon's War: How Cornelius Vanderbilt Invaded a Country to Overthrow America's Most Famous Military Adventurer by Stephen Dando-Collins (Founders #55)[42:00] There isn't any secret. I avoid bad luck by being patient. Whenever I'm obliged to get into a fight, I always wait and let the other fellow get tired first.[44:00] James J. Hill: Empire Builder of the Northwest by Michael P. Malone. (Founders #96)[52:00] Edison and Gould shared some traits. Both were born into poverty. Both thought about little beside their obsessions —inventions for Edison, money for Gould. Both worked all the time. Both had spent their childhoods reading anything that came their way.[53:00] Edison: A Biography by Matthew Josephson. (Founders #267)——Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes I use Readwise to organize and remember everything I read. You can try Readwise for 60 days for free https://readwise.io/founders/“I have listened to every episode released and look forward to every episode that comes out. The only criticism I would have is that after each podcast I usually want to buy the book because I am interested so my poor wallet suffers. ” — GarethBe like Gareth. Buy a book: All the books featured on Founders Podcast
Are you at a stage where you are looking to achieve something important? This episode of the Dive Into Your Career podcast may be the boost you need. "8 inspiring quotes about goals and goal setting" delivers what it promises and features goal setting quotes from Oprah Winfrey, C.S Lewis, Jim Rohn, Michelle Obama and more. Which ones feel particularly relevant for and / or encouraging to you right now.?Let's discuss via socials.Also, don't forget these other episodes about goal setting:087: Are you for or against making New Year's resolutions? 062: 3 powerful ideas from James Clear to take your goal setting to the next level Do feel free to engage with this topic (or indeed with me) at any of the below: Follow Your Career And Future on Instagram and TikTok Via "Gina Visram" on LinkedIn (where they may be a post with a link to this episode where you can contribute some wisdom / reflections) Sign up for the mailing list (for students and graduates... a list for their supporters will follow) E-mail me on email@example.com with any questions you have or suggestions for future podcast topics
Today's episode features four more quotes about goals. I start with a quote that continues last week's focus on shooting for big goals. Then I talk about never quitting and making sure to persevere through whatever comes your way on your quest. Finally, I talk about the kinds of people you want with you on your journey to help you achieve your goals.For more information to help you on your road to becoming your best, check us out at SlamDunkSuccess.com or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.As always, our background music is "Dance in the Sun" by Krisztian Vass.
Season 3! Agent X and Henry Ford read on page 76 and speak on their expereince recovering from Alcoholism using AA's 12 Steps as laid out in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.AA, 12 Steps, Recovery, Sober, Sobriety, Quit Drinking, Speaker talks, Speaker Tapes, Sobercast
Physicist Dr. Weiping Yu returns with the first Science and U segment this new year. Dr. Yu comments on NASA and Space X's plan to rescue astronauts from the ISS; a startup's geoengineering project; coal-like material transformed to amorphous graphite and nanotubes in simulations; the thoughts of Henry Ford; and more. Visit A Neighbor's Choice website at aneighborschoice.com
✅ FREE SUCCESS HYPNOSIS - click here to download my free success hypnosis to reprogram your subconscious mind ➡ https://www.jakeducey.com/hypnosis In this video we talk about 3 dangerous words blocking you from attracting money. I AM NOT - 3 DANGEROUS WORDS BLOCKING MONEY & WEALTH I AM NOT I am not is an admission that I am not good enough to earn more money. I am not is an admission that I cannot create more financial abundance. I am not is an admission that I am not enough. I am not is an admission that I am not smart enough, qualified enough, capable enough. I am not is an admission that you're not worthy of living a life of freedom and options. First, here's a list of 5 high achievers with major reasons to doubt their own potential: 1. Richard Branson, dyslexia and ADD. 2. Henry Ford, illiterate, elementary education. 3. Thomas Edison was kicked out of the school when he was only 12 years old and that was because people believed that he was too dumb. He faced difficulties in learning mathematics when he was still in school and it became hard for him to speak and pronounce words. All of these things happened because he suffered from dyslexia. 4. Ludwig van Beethoven - best composer in history. He gave his first public performance as a pianist at the age of 8 years. At the age of twenty, he gained fame all over the world as a great pianist. In 1796, began losing his hearing. Despite of this problem, he immersed himself in his work and he created some of the music history. He achieved different milestones despite being completely deaf for the last 25 years of his life. 5. Vincent Van Gogh suffered from depression and was admitted to psychiatric hospital. His problem continued to worsen over tine and on July 27, 1890, at the age of 37 he shot himself in the chest. - Additionally, I am not is blasphemy to everything we know about psychology, neuroscience, and religion, especially in relation to MONEY. So we'll start with psychology, hit neuroscience, then end with Religion and Spirituality… 1.) Psychology - this is what is called “assuming an identity.” Psychologists have relayed to us for years that our own self-image determines much of the quality of our life, and the results we create for ourselves. Your self-image is a collection of the ideas you hold about yourself that you believe to be true. For example, “I AM NOT.” Not good enough, not young enough, not smart enough for XYZ… 2.) Neuroscience - 50 years ago we didn't know that your brain actually responds to emotions and life circumstances. Your emotions literally get wired into your brain via “Hebb's Law.” 3.) Religion - - “Those who have more will be given, to those that do not have even that which they have will be taken away.” ✅ FREE SUCCESS HYPNOSIS - click here to download my free success hypnosis to reprogram your subconscious mind ➡ https://www.jakeducey.com/hypnosis
National bird day. Pop culture form 2005. 1st ocean liner, Ford pays $5 a day, Nebraska goes unicameral. Todays birthdays - George Reeves, Jane Wyman, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall, Ted Lange, Pamel Sue Martin, Marilyn Manson, Bradley Cooper. Sonny Bono died.
Historians have argued that the history of America can be told through the history of meat. The meat industry was often the first to innovate and make use of modern technologies: from the railroad and refrigerated cars to meat packing plant's dis-assembly lines that inspired Henry Ford's assembly line. This is especially true for Minnesota. The University of Minnesota was the first university to specialize in meat studies with the opening of the Andrew Boss Meat Lab. South Saint Paul's stockyards and meat packing plants were at one point the largest in the world. In the past hundred and fifty years Minnesota, meat, and the world changed. Reporter Matthew Schneeman follows how Minnesota changed the meat industry and changed meat itself. He also examines the ways that immigrant labor has been used to power the meat industry since the 20th century. This story starts by looking at people's different responses to a slaughtered chicken. Gross? Clean? Delicious? Horrifying? Support for MinneCulture on KFAI has been provided by the Minnesota Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund. Season 7 of the MinneCulture podcast is edited and executive produced by Julie Censullo and hosted by John Gebretatose.
‘Pull up your jogging pants and take some notes' because the three fitness experts offer actionable tips for health in the new year. On this episode of the Better Every Shift podcast, Zam joins forces with fellow firefighter fitness experts Chief Dan Kerrigan and Captain Jim Moss, authors of “Firefighter Functional Fitness,” to offer actionable tips for health in the new year – and non-fitness-guru Janelle learns that even experts need help from time to time. Plus, all this: Why mindset is the first piece of the health puzzle How smartphones impact firefighter health Who said it? “I crush ice cream and tequila like nobody's business, and I gotta stop.” What else … Don't miss: A simple pro-tip for hydration Hot seat sneak peek: What music the experts listen to during workouts Episode power quote: “Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right.” – Henry Ford via Jim Moss Resources we mentioned on the show … “Firefighter Functional Fitness” (book) Firefighter Functional Fitness (website) Fire Rescue Fitness Connect with us! Email email@example.com to share your feedback! Enjoying the show? Please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
The 5S Methodology In today's podcast, we'll be discussing the 5S Methodology. So - stay tuned. You can find the show notes to each episode, links to the information mentioned on the podcast, the social media platforms we're on, and anything else related to the podcast at WarehouseSafetyTips.com. If you're a seasoned Podcast Listener, this podcast will be different from most you listen to. It's based on exactly what the name implies - Warehouse Safety Tips. And since the people in that industry are busy - we know time is money so each episode will be as short and to the point as possible. And now that all that is out of the way - let's get to the Podcast! The 5S Methodology Many of the topics we cover here on Warehouse Safety Tips get repeated after a while. The reasons for this are simple. There are only so many tips and procedures to share - and many of them bear repeating. The 5S Methodology is one of those topics. If you were to list things that would make a facility run as smoothly as possible - the following items would certainly be on it: There's a place for everything - and everything is in its place. Waste is kept to an absolute minimum. Productivity is at its maximum. Cleanliness is a top priority. Safety is top of mind. There's always room for improvement! Even though you may not have known it - if you're facility has some or all of these items, it's probably implementing The 5S Methodology (6S - to include safety). Henry Ford had a method around 1920 called "Can Do" - which stood for Cleaning up, Arranging, Neatness, Discipline, and Ongoing improvement. The 5S Methodology we know today was developed in Japan after a team from Toyota visited Ford in the 50s - and is widely considered to be the base component of Lean Manufacturing today. The S's that make up the 5S Methodology are: Sort (Seiri) Straighten (Seiton) Shine (Seiso) Standardize (Seiketsu) Sustain (Shitsuke) Each step is designed to help workers identify and remove unnecessary items from their workspace and streamline their processes, which helps to increase efficiency and reduce costs. We'll be going over each one in detail over the next several weeks. Until then - thank you for being part of another episode of Warehouse Safety Tips. Have a great week, and STAY SAFE! Before moving on - here's a word from one of our sponsors. If you've ever been to or worked in a warehouse - you know just how important safety is to management and staff. It's almost impossible to go 10 steps without seeing Safety Tape, Angles, Signs, and/or products. These items show us how to be safe and avoid danger in the workplace. And if you're looking for the best products to make this happen - look no further than Mighty Line! Mighty Line Floor Signs / Floor Markings offer the best industrial products! Go to MightyLineTape.com/SafetyTips to request a Sample Pack of their incredible Safety Signs and Floor Markings. What makes Mighty Line the superior choice in keeping your facility safe and productive? Mighty Line Tape is the strongest floor tape on the market and has a beveled edge that increases durability for industrial brush scrubbers, forklifts, and heavy industrial wheel traffic. Easy installation and removal thanks to Mighty Line's peel-and-stick backing. You can apply and reapply it during installation - and it leaves no sticky residue should you need to remove it. This allows the ability to change workflow areas quickly and easily - and not have the downtime associated with painting or using floor markings that leave behind a mess when you remove them. Mighty Line Tape is 7 times thicker than the average Safety Floor Tape. Mighty Line's Signs and Markings come in various shapes, colors, and sizes. And if they don't have what you're looking for in stock - their Customize It Program allows you to create exactly what you're looking for. Mighty Line offers a Limited 3-Year Warranty on their Floor Signs and Markings. And last but certainly not least - Mighty Line Products are Patented and PROUDLY Made in the USA! We're proud to have Mighty Line as THE Official Floor Sign / Floor Marking Company for the Warehouse Safety Tips Podcast and Site. Again - Go to MightyLineTape.com/SafetyTips to request a Sample Pack of their incredible Safety Signs and Floor Markings. If you visit WarehouseSafetyTips.com - you'll find the Show Notes for this episode. Thank you for listening to Warehouse Safety Tips - and have a SAFE day!
It's me again. The same me. The year is different, we write (type?) different numbers in the date line now but the numbers in my heart remain unchanged. Time isn't real after all. We made it up so that Henry Ford could invent the 40 hour work week and make us all sad (boo). Anyway, Henry aside, this year is going to be a good one. Why, you may ask. Why not? I respond to you. All I can do is have a good time and hope for the best. So I will. This year I will finally create my HoLLa PatroL and expose my deepest feelings to the world. The world in this case, is my good friend Jeff. Shout out to Jeff. What a guy. When I first met Jeff over 20 years ago, he had short hair. As our friendship grew, so did his hair until it became a flowing mane draped across his back. As a child that was too afraid to have big hair, I marveled at Jeff and his ability to grow hair. We were friends outside of Jeff having long hair. That isn't the most important part of the story. Jeff cut his hair off and we are still friends. If you are Jeff, send me an email at : firstname.lastname@example.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/notatalkshow/support
“That's what I love about this work. We're really helping our clients build a system of care for each other.” Psychological safety describes an environment that promotes real conversations that empower individuals and teams, enabling them to reach peak performance. It's Performance By Design which is also the name of the company today's guest, Emile Studham, co-founded. They help create a culture within teams of all kinds that results in higher performance and resilience. Expert action steps: Take some time to articulate your purpose, your values and the behaviours you want to see as an individual and as a team. Do the work to cultivate these. Build your level of self awareness. Use an insights profile to get to know your mix of energy; introverted and extroverted, relationship focussed or task focussed. This will improve your leadership. Make time to practice realtalk. Discuss what's working, what you can do better, and steps for moving forward. For more info and a free 45 minute culture diagnostic, go to https://performancebydesign.co/ or contact Emile at email@example.com. Visit eCircleAcademy.com and book a success call with Nicky to take your practice to the next level.
What's up my Kate's Take listeners! I'm so grateful to be here with you today! Today is day 100 of 100. First, let's call on our 5 questions. These questions are the bookends to your day - answer 1 and 2 in the morning, and 3 - 5 at night. What's one thing I'm grateful for? What's one thing I'll accomplish today that will bring me one step closer to my goal? What's something that's working well for me right now? What's something that's not working well for me right now? How can I either solve what's not working right now, or get rid of it? Friends, WE MADE IT!!! Today is day 100, and I'm SO proud of you. Whether you've... accomplished your original goal in these 100 days, created even more goals during these 100 days, have pivoted and completely switched goals during these 100 days, or, maybe you're realizing that you haven't been super consistent over the past 100 days - and you want to change that, by going ALL IN for the next 100 days… I'm proud of you. Because you know what? Most people would have seen this challenge and thought “oh, that's a nice idea… might even be helpful… but I've got too many other things to focus on right now.” Or, “sounds great, but I don't know what my goal would be, so I'll revisit it another time…” Or, “not sure I can do anything for 100 days, so I'm going to pretend I didn't see that.” Truth is, we've all been there. But this time, you stepped up to the plate. Maybe with some doubts and fears and maybe even lacking the confidence that you'd be able to finish these 100 days… but you showed up. Please hear this: that is something you should be incredibly proud of. Because most people didn't, won't, never will… YOU understand the importance of taking action. YOU understand that no one else is going to hand you what you want. YOU understand that if you want to see a change in your life, in your business, in your relationships… that YOU have to choose it. Because as Henry Ford once said, “If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got" Kate's Take listeners, THANK YOU for joining me on this 100 day goal challenge, and for giving me the opportunity to share this incredible experience with you. I hope you've accomplished things in the past 100 days you never thought possible. And I hope you now see how equipped and capable you are of accomplishing anything you set your mind to.
Jobs To Be Done Hello, this is Hall T. Martin with the Startup Funding Espresso -- your daily shot of startup funding and investing. Jobs to be done is a mental model in which you look at the customer's workflow to determine what they might need to complete their jobs. This concept came from Clayton Christensen and provides insight into what product your startup should build. It provides a framework for understanding customer needs. As Henry Ford once said, if I had asked the customer what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". To implement jobs to be done in your startup consider the following: Start with the needs of the customer and what result they want. Look at how they currently solve the problem including the unnamed competitor ‘do nothing.' Look at competitors in other industries for potential solutions. Determine the buying criteria of your customer and create a short list of the three most important points. Consider the challenges in customer adoption for your proposed solution. Estimate the value of your solution by asking how much time or money would your solution save the customer. Consider viewing your customers and competitors through the jobs-to-be-done lens. Thank you for joining us for the Startup Funding Espresso where we help startups and investors connect for funding.Let's go startup something today. _______________________________________________________ For more episodes from Investor Connect, please visit the site at: Check out our other podcasts here: For Investors check out: For Startups check out: For eGuides check out: For upcoming Events, check out For Feedback please contact firstname.lastname@example.org Please , share, and leave a review. Music courtesy of .
Crafting the New Birthing a New Beginning She was born into an emerging America in 1890. Through the ninety-five years of life that stood in front of her she would watch an Industrial Revolution unfold, Henry Ford roll out the Model T, and Edison light the world. She would read the headlines of dough boys marching off to fight a Kaiser in what was originally called the ‘Great War'. Some twenty-four years later she would watch history repeat itself as millions of GI's marched off in similar fashion to fight a dictator in something called World War II. In-between it all, she would face the economic depravity and emotional ravages of a devastating depression within which her husband would abandon the family and summarily vanish. She was left to support three children on a meager income of scant dollars earned in the hot kitchen of a small diner. She never drove a car. She lived out most of her life on pocket change, making what seemed impossible possible. The furniture in her meager home was old, lending it the enchanting aroma of another era long vanished. It all was tenderly cared for in a manner that lent her home an indescribable, but wonderfully simple charm. The few appointments in her small home were tidy, clean, and above all cherished. She saw herself as marvelously blessed in the midst of manifold need, for Granny understood that ‘need' was more an issue of attitude than a matter of circumstance. And I was privileged to be touched by this solitary life until her passing in 1985. For over ten years, every month Granny would tease ten dollars out of her meager collection of dimes and dollars. And she would send it off to a young Hispanic girl whose father had abandoned her, and whose mother had placed her in an orphanage and summarily walked away. All Granny had was a single photo of a tattered little girl standing in front of a weathered hut. It sat in a slight frame on her tiny buffet. At the feet of the photo there laid a handful of yellowed letters that Granny had received from this little girl over that most precious decade. Some years after Granny had passed, another letter came. In it were several photos bearing the striking image of a young Hispanic woman in professional attire standing in a small but simple office setting. On the back of one photo in stuttering script it said, “Thank you for my new life.” My grandmother didn't live long enough to see the results of her sacrifices. However, while real sacrifice is committed to the result, it relishes the effort. Granny relished the effort and birthed something ‘new' into the life of a young woman. We Are the ‘New' Each of us possess ample resources to be the ‘new' in the life of another. It is not the execution of some strategy as we might think, or the happenstance of life that births something ‘new'. It is not about some level of tenacious persistence, or the right choices made at the right time. These things and many more can bring something ‘new' to our lives and the lives of those around us. But it is the raw power of that single human being stepping up and stepping into the life of another that can bring something ‘new' in ways that nothing else ever can or ever will. It is the energy of our humanity shared. It is the hope that is released in the touch of another. It is the voice of another that calls out when all other voices have long fallen silent. It is an investment that may cost us much, yet it is an expenditure that will cost us much more if we refuse it. It is pressing against the giant of greed and intentionally raising the eyes of our hearts past our own circumstances to focus on the circumstances of another. It is a passion that unleashes everything away from us so that it can be drawn into everyone around us. And it is this that sets the grand stage upon which to birth something ‘new' in another that would never have been ‘new' were it not for such a sacrifice. Be the ‘New' Might I suggest that this New Year, the ‘new' in our lives is making the choice to become the ‘new' in the life of another. In whatever manner we choose to do that, we all can change a life and in doing so change a world. Therefore, let us not contemplate ‘New Year's' resolutions. Rather, let us formulate ‘New Life' commitments. And let us begin to do that by becoming the ‘new' in the life of another.
There is something magical about being able to set your mind to achieve something. Henry Ford made the title quote a reality when he believed he could change the world by producing a car. We all have things that we have been able to achieve that we never thought we could. We've also been victims of failing, mainly because we just didn't think we could do it. In the episode, Mike and Blaine take on the mindset and the role it plays in being an entrepreneur. Today's Beer:Mike: Tupps - Juice Pack Double Dry Hopped Pale AleBlaine: Great Divide - Yeti Imperial Stout@tuppsbrewery @greatdividebrewListen to all our episodes at: https://www.mikeandblaine.com/podcastThank you to our sponsors! My Life in a Book: https://mylifeinabook.com/#smallbusiness, #cashflow #finance #beer #friends #entrepreneur #smbs #craftbeer Watch on Youtube at https://youtu.be/2J0RHA_zs5USupport the showCatch more episodes, see our sponsors and get in touch at https://mikeandblaine.com/
The 1930s are back! But this time, we're fighting dictators, wannabe dictators, and their propagandists on cable TV and social media platforms. Since the 1930s have returned, super-charged with new tech weapons, we should bring some of the heroes of the 1930s back, too. Enter historian Deborah Cohen, the author of Last Call at the Hotel Imperial, a riveting look at the generation of leading journalists who risked everything to rage against the machine. Some of the journalists she highlights in her book are sadly not as remembered as they should be today given that they helped win the war against the Nazis on American soil. One of the journalists in particular is Dorothy Thompson, a one-woman crusade against Hitler who she originally laughed off in her 1931 interview. Hitler never forgot it and suspended her Twitter account, we mean, kicked her out of Germany, once he took over. Thompson went on to confront the Republican isolationist Congress, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and the rest of the America First KKKlown Kar with her fierce independent journalism and moral clarity, even getting kicked out of the Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden. We bring back these heroes to see what inspiration and other lessons we need for today. In our very special bonus episode, we let loose on what TV shows and films we're watching to self-care and why. Television is something that we both take seriously, for different reasons, as we share in this discussion which covers a lot of ground on the importance and impact of culture in a time of encroaching autocracy. Let us know what shows you're watching and why in the comments section. To make sure you never miss an episode of Gaslit Nation, subscribe at the Truth-teller level or higher. And to submit questions to our regular Q&As and get access to exclusive events and more, subscribe at the Democracy Defender level or higher. Discounted annual memberships are available. Thank you to everyone who supports the show -- we could not make Gaslit Nation without you! We'll be back with an all new episode and Q&A next week. Until then, we wish you and your family a Happy New Year! *** You're invited to a live taping of Gaslit Nation January 24 12pm EST followed by a live audience Q&A. Tickets can be purchased by subscribing at the Democracy Defender level or higher -- look out for the Zoom link which will be sent out thirty minutes or so before the event. Thank you to everyone who supports the show -- we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!
Dave has a special challenge for us because he missed us all horribly and trivia asks us when the rumble seat last graced us with its presence. Dave threw down the gauntlet asking the gang to put together their very own roadtrip movie! Each submission would be scored on: The car and why that car The trip - Starting point, route, and destination The co-star and why? What's the point of this trip? Bonus - unexpected plot twist Ben leads off with 2 questionable (according to him) submissions. First he brings a 007-ish satire comedy through the US and follows up with a coming of age roadtrip through the US. Dawn had a slight misunderstanding, so showing her amazing ability to pivot, gives us an off the cuff Porsche flavored spy/romance cliffhanger begining with a high school reunion based in Europe. Mickey wrestled for a WHOLE 36 hours to deliver a Miami to LA race with a very special twist. Misty draws on her love for Egypt, Brendan Fraser, and The Mummy for an epic drive from Europe to Cairo with a brief segue into why The Mummy is a true love story for the ages, followed up with a book review about women and data bias. Who won? Listen and find out!! We take a strange turn into cyberpunk/steampunk DnD with a cyborg Henry Ford before finally finding out which auto was the last to have a rumble seat. And a delightful time was had by all. We welcome your support via Patreon and your questions and feedback via our website.
This is a solo episode, and I chose to go solo because it is the last episode for 2022, and I wanted to talk about a few essential topics that I think will make 2023 a more successful year for you, your career and your business. I've titled this episode, It's No Secret There's Money in Podiatry, and even though that is the same title as my 2014 book, the information I'm about to share is not in it. Important takeaways from this episode: Every big business started as a small business – Apple, Facebook and Nike all began as small businesses. Your attitude will determine your success – For every business screaming doom and gloom, another company is doing exceptionally well, which applies to every industry. "Whether you think you can or think you can't, either way, you're right". – Henry Ford. There are three things you must do: Set Business Goals – You must review them often because life tends to get in the way. Develop Business Systems – A business with systems will always sell for more than a business without systems. Understand Marketing Basics – This skill is required to avoid being ripped off and taken advantage of. If you have any questions about this episode, please email me at email@example.com. Business Coaching Are you looking for a Podiatry Business Coach who thinks differently and has a proven track record of helping podiatrists in business? If you are, please email me and let's chat to see if we're a good fit. Also, I only work with podiatrists. YouTube Are you SUBSCRIBED to my YouTube Channel, Tyson E Franklin - Podiatry Business Coach? YouTube is where I upload all the uncut videos from my podcasts and other short business tips. 12-Week Podiatry Business Reboot Have you done the 12-Week Podiatry Business Reboot? It will change how you think about your podiatry business, and there is a 100% money-back guarantee if you do not feel it is worth your investment. Podiatry Business Owners Club Please visit my group, the Podiatry Business Owners Club, on Facebook if you want to connect with like-minded podiatrists who enjoy business.
"Don't worry, forget about it, take action." No matter what's happening in your life or your business and no matter what approach you take to achieve your goals, it will require actionable steps. Michael Harris is here to remind you how to keep it simple by getting out of your own way. Don't worry about it. Forget about it. Take action. Michael speaks from experience, having overcome death and disability. He discovered that a person can defy the odds with the right mindset. His latest book, Falling Down, Getting Up tells his story and shares this message with the world. Michael is a business coach, yogi, and podcasting expert. He co-founded Endless Stages to help entrepreneurs, authors and message makers reach their audience and exponentially grow their business through podcast guesting. He helps people get their message out through writing, podcasting and public speaking. You can learn more about Michael at michaelbharris.com. Expert action steps: Don't worry about it. If you focus your mind on what you don't want, then that's what you will get. Get in alignment with the universe and be of service. Forget about it. Take action. Also in this episode: Page 25 in the book, The Law Of Success, by Napoleon Hill. James Arthur Ray Podmatch Dr. John E. Sarno Bill Harris Visit eCircleAcademy.com and book a success call with Nicky to take your practice to the next level.
What I learned from rereading The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie by Andrew Carnegie. Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can now ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes [1:01] 3 part series on Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick:Meet You In Hell: Andrew Carnegie Henry Clay Frick, and the Bitter Partnership That Transformed America by Les Standiford. (Founders #73) The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie by Andrew Carnegie (Founders #74) Henry Clay Frick: The Life of the Perfect Capitalist by Quentin Skrabec Jr. (Founders #75) [2:00] What these guys all had in common is they were hell bent on knowing their business down to the last cent. They were obsessed with having the lowest cost structure in their industry.[2:00] Highlights from Meet You in Hell: Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, and the Bitter Partnership That Changed America:—Cut the prices, scoop the market, watch the costs, and the profits will take care of themselves.—Frick knows his business down to the ground.—Frick's rise from humble beginnings was obviously intriguing to him. It signaled to Carnegie that Frick was another of the fellow “fittest,” and those were the individuals with whom Carnegie sought to align himself.—Carnegie would repeat the mantra time and again: profits and prices were cyclical, subject to any number of transient forces of the marketplace. Costs, however, could be strictly controlled, and in Carnegie's view, any savings achieved in the costs of goods were permanent.—On this issue the two men were of one mind. Frick had made his way in coke by the same reckoning that Carnegie had in rail and steel: if you knew your costs down to the penny, you were always on firm ground.[6:00] Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson. (Founders #115)[7:00] A sunny disposition is worth more than a fortune. Young people should know that it can be cultivated; that the mind like the body can be moved from the shade into sunshine.[7:00] The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder. (Founders #100)[8:00] The most important judge of your life story is yourself.[9:00] You can always understand the son by the story of his father. The story of the father is embedded in the son. —Francis Ford Coppola: A Filmmaker's Life by Michael Schumacher. (Founders #242)[10:00] Invest in technology, the savings compound, it gives you an advantage over slower moving competitors, and can be the difference between a profit and a loss.[17:00] He is working from sunrise to sunset for $1.20 a week and he is ecstatic about being able to help his family avoid poverty. [18:00] Andrew Carnegie had manic levels of optimism.[20:00] Do not delay. Do it now. It is a great mistake not to seize the opportunity. Having got myself in, I proposed to stay there if I could.[21:00] I felt that my foot was upon the ladder and that I was about to climb.[21:00] Lesson from Andrew Carnegie's early life: Focus on whatever job is in front of you at this very moment and do the best you can. You can never know what opportunities that will unlock in the future.[24:00] On the miracle of reading and having free access to a 400 volume personal library: In this way the windows were opened in the walls of my dungeon through which the light of knowledge streamed in. Every day's toil and even the long hours of night service were lightened by the book which I carried about with me and read in the intervals that could be snatched from duty. And the future was made bright by the thought that when Saturday came a new volume could be obtained.[26:00] To Colonel James Anderson, Founder of Free Libraries in Western Pennsylvania:He opened his Library to working boys and upon Saturday afternoons acted as librarian, thus dedicating not only his books but himself to the noble work. This monument is erected in grateful remembrance by Andrew Carnegie, one of the "working boys" to whom were thus opened the precious treasures of knowledge and imagination through which youth may ascend.[28:00] Running Down A Dream: How to Succeed and Thrive in a Career You Love by Bill Gurley[36:00] Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons by Edward J. Renehan Jr. (Founders #258)[43:00] This policy is a true secret of success: Uphill work it will be.[46:00] Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket.[46:00] The most expensive way to pay for anything is with time.[48:00] The men who have succeeded are men who have chosen one line and stuck to it. It is surprising how few men appreciate the enormous dividends derivable from investment in their own business.[48:00] My advice to young men would be not only to concentrate their whole time and attention on the one business in life in which they engage, but to put every dollar of their capital into it.[51:00] The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance by Ron Chernow. (Founders #139)[52:00] Last Train to Paradise: Henry Flagler and the Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Railroad that Crossed an Ocean by Les Standiford. (Founders #247)Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can now ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes —I use Readwise to organize and remember everything I read. You can try Readwise for 60 days for free https://readwise.io/founders/—“I have listened to every episode released and look forward to every episode that comes out. The only criticism I would have is that after each podcast I usually want to buy the book because I am interested so my poor wallet suffers. ” — GarethBe like Gareth. Buy a book: All the books featured on Founders Podcast
Enjoy another Quiz Quest episode featuring 30 new trivia questions about the historical information in the prior four episodes (Easter Island, Titanic Survival 3, Florence Nightingale, Henry Ford 3) & prior bonus episodes (Treasure Hunt of William Phips, Origins of Country Names, W. African Voyage of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Titanic 360, Great Prison Escape). … Continue reading 15 Quiz Quest | 30 new trivia questions about history
Henry Ford once said, “Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right.” Tony Overbay, LMFT, welcomes Nate Christensen, APCC, back to the Virtual Couch for his 6th appearance. Tony and Nate discuss David Robson's book “The Expectation Effect: How Your Mindset Can Change Your Word,” https://amzn.to/3vbtTCl Robson calls our brains “prediction machines” and says, “It turns out our brains constantly anticipate what will happen next, and this script is incredibly powerful. This does not mean, as some self-help exponents suggest, anything bad is the fault of the individual or that we can just ask the universe for whatever outcome we want; however, there appears to be some benefit in reframing experiences when our beliefs may not be helping us.” Tony and Nate give several examples from the book on the power of mindset, both positive and negative, and then give some tips on how to set yourself best up to take advantage of the power of the brain. Nate Christensen hosts a podcast called “Working Change” along with his wife Marla, and you can contact Nate through Tony's website using the contact form at http://tonyoverbay.com If you are interested in being coached in Tony's upcoming "Magnetic Marriage Podcast," please email him for more information. You will receive free marriage coaching and remain anonymous when the episode airs. Go to http://tonyoverbay.com/workshop to sign up for Tony's "Magnetize Your Marriage" virtual workshop. The cost is only $19, and you'll learn the top 3 things you can do NOW to create a Magnetic Marriage. You can learn more about Tony's pornography recovery program, The Path Back, by visiting http://pathbackrecovery.com And visit http://tonyoverbay.com and sign up to receive updates on upcoming programs and podcasts. Tony mentioned a product that he used to take out all of the "uh's" and "um's" that, in his words, "must be created by wizards and magic!" because it's that good! To learn more about Descript, click here https://descript.com?lmref=bSWcEQ
I am thrilled that Ali Reda, a humble guy, who sells a ton of cars consistently every month would block off time to visit with my Level Up Now class! It's December and the busiest month for most dealerships. But, Ali is determined to give back to all of us who will listen. He seems to have a bigger purpose in life than just selling cars - he cares deeply for people. And through relationships in his community, he has built an incredible business selling cars! Ali sells Chevy and Cadillac in Dearborn, MI. He says all the leads he needs is right here in his community of 110k. And, I must mention the home of Henry Ford and Ford Motor Co headquarters. He certainly loves a challenge! He went from 25 cars/month to his biggest month in 2021 - 200+ cars! Find out what you can do to get to levels you may never have thought possible! ✅Get his book - HowtoSell100cars.com | ✅Join his high performers group at ThePinnacleSociety.com Dealer Talk with Jen Suzuki Podcast |Jennifer@edealersolution.com | 800-625-1590 | edealersolutions.com Check out our sponsor! LotLinx.com is a VIN Management Platform that enables precision automotive retailing via /AI/ technologies that improves dealership profitability.
What I learned from rereading Jeff Bezos' Shareholder Letters (for the 3rd time!) Read Jeff's letter in book form: Invent and Wander: The Collected Writings of Jeff Bezos or for free online: Amazon Investor Relations—This episode is brought to you by: Tiny: Tiny is the easiest way to sell your business. Quick and straightforward exits for Founders.—Follow one of my favorite podcasts Invest Like The Best Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can now ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes [2:30] Amazon hopes to create an enduring franchise[3:00] Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh trade-offs differently than some companies.[4:00] We will continue to focus relentlessly on our customers.[4:00] We will work hard to spend wisely and maintain our lean culture. We understand the importance of continually reinforcing a cost-conscious culture.[4:00] We set out to offer customers something they simply could not get any other way.[5:00] Word of mouth remains the most powerful customer acquisition tool that we have.[5:00] We are working to build something important, something that matters to our customers, something that we can all tell our grandchildren about. Such things aren't meant to be easy.[6:00] "To read Bezos' shareholder letters is to get a crash course in running a high-growth internet business from someone who mastered it before any of the playbooks were written." — From CB Insights[7:00] Common themes repeated in Jeff's letters:more innovation is ahead of usit is still early — the opporunity —if we execute well — is enourmouswe will move quicklywe will endure. amazon will be a durable long lasting companywe will focus on cash flowonce in a lifetime opportunities will be risky (jeff gave himself a 30% chance of success at best)customer obsession is our north star. it is what we will bet the company on.BOLD frugal lean culture that sam walton would approve ofthis will be hard — all valuable things arewe will have to learn along the way[8:00] Sam Walton: Made In America by Sam Walton. (Founders #234)[11:00] I would love to ask Jeff the question, “If you could only have one word to describe you on your tombstone, what would it be?” My guess is he would pick “relentless.”[16:00] We believe we have reached a "tipping point," where this platform allows us to launch new ecommerce businesses faster, with a higher quality of customer experience, a lower incremental cost, a higher chance of success, and a faster path to scale and profitability than any other company. (A company that builds companies)[17:00] Made in Japan: Akio Morita and Sony by Akio Morita. (Founders #102)[19:00] We will continue to invest heavily in introductions to new customers. Though it's sometimes hard to imagine with all that has happened in the last five years, this remains Day 1 for ecommerce, and these are the early days of category formation where many customers are forming relationships for the first time. We must work hard to grow the number of customers who shop with us. (He was right about this — what is the lifetime value of an Amazon customer over 17 years?)[21:00] To us, operational excellence implies two things: delivering continuous improvement in customer experience and driving productivity, margin, efficiency, and asset velocity across all our businesses.Often, the best way to drive one of these is to deliver the other.For instance, more efficient distribution yields faster delivery times, which in turn lowers contacts per order and customer service costs. These, in turn, improve customer experience and build brand, which in turn decreases customer acquisition and retention costs.[22:00] Creative Selection: Inside Apple's Design Process During the Golden Age of Steve Jobs by Ken Kocienda (Founders #281)[24:00] Jeff Bezos on The Electricity Metaphor for the Web's Future[27:00] Repeat this loop: Focus on cost improvement makes it possible for us to afford to lower prices, which drives growth. Growth spreads fixed costs across more sales, reducing cost per unit, which makes possible more price reductions. Customers like this, and it's good for shareholders. Please expect us to repeat this loop.[29:00] The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon by Brad Stone. (Founders #179)[35:00] My Life and Work by Henry Ford. (Founders #266)[40:00] Jeff Bezos is unapologetically extreme. He is already the best and still wants to be better.[41:00] This part is incredible— on the need for good judgement and why data may lead you to make the wrong decision:Our quantitative understanding of elasticity is short-term. We can estimate what a price reduction will do this week and this quarter. But we cannot numerically estimate the effect that consistently lowering prices will have on our business over five years or ten years or more. Our judgment is that relentlessly returning efficiency improvements and scale economies to customers in the form of lower prices creates a virtuous cycle that leads over the long term to a much larger dollar amount of free cash flow, and thereby to a much more valuable Amazon.[43:00] Don't build an undifferentiated commodity business. — Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future by Peter Thiel. (Founders #278)[44:00] Differentiation is survival.[49:00] Missionaries build better products.[50:00] Long-term thinking levers our existing abilities and lets us do new things we couldn't otherwise contemplate. It supports the failure and iteration required for invention, and it frees us to pioneer in unexplored spaces. Seek instant gratification-or the elusive promise of it-and chances are you'll find a crowd there ahead of you. Long-term orientation interacts well with customer obsession. If we can identify a customer need and if we can further develop conviction that that need is meaningful and durable, our approach permits us to work patiently for multiple years to deliver a solution.[52:00] Problems are just opportunities in work clothes.[53:00] Similar idea said two different ways:Jeff Bezos: The financial results for 2009 reflect the cumulative efforts of 15 years of customer experience improvements.Peter Thiel: If you focus on near-term growth above all else, you miss the most important question you should be asking: will this business still be around a decade from now?[55:00] The most radical and transformative of inventions are often those that empower others to unleash their creativity—to pursue their dreams.[57:00] A dreamy business offering has at least four characteristics.—Customers love it—It can grow to very large size—It has strong returns on capital—It's durable in time-with the potential to endure for decades.When you find one of these get married.[1:03:00] Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren't used to an environment where excellence is expected. — Inside Steve's Brain by Leander Kahney. (Founders #204)[1:03:00] I believe high standards are teachable. High standards are contagious. —Jeff Bezos[1:04:00] Leaders have relentlessly high standards. Many people may think these standards are unreasonably high.[1:07:00] The key point here is that you can improve results through the simple act of teaching scope-that a great memo probably should take a week or more.[1:10:00] Differentiation is Survival and the Universe Wants You to be TypicalIn what ways does the world pull at you in an attempt to make you normal?How much work does it take to maintain your distinctiveness?To keep alive the thing or things that make you special?We all know that distinctiveness – originality – is valuable.What I'm asking you to do is to embrace how much energy it takes to maintain that distinctiveness.The world wants you to be typical – in a thousand ways, it pulls at you.Don't let it happen.Subscribe to listen to Founders Premium — Subscribers can now ask me questions directly which I will answer in Ask Me Anything (AMA) episodes —I use Readwise to organize and remember everything I read. You can try Readwise for 60 days for free https://readwise.io/founders/—“I have listened to every episode released and look forward to every episode that comes out. The only criticism I would have is that after each podcast I usually want to buy the book because I am interested so my poor wallet suffers. ” — GarethBe like Gareth. Buy a book: All the books featured on Founders Podcast
In this episode I sit with Tisha Richmond.Tisha Richmond is a passionate and innovative district tech instructional specialist and former high school culinary arts teacher of twenty-two years from Southern Oregon. She is passionate about infusing joy, passion, play, and gamified experiences into classrooms to make learning MAGICAL. She received the 2018 Golden Pear High School Teacher of the Year award in her district and was a 2018 first- place winner in Henry Ford's Innovation Nation Teacher Innovator Awards. She is a connected educator who is continually collaborating, sharing, and learning with her personal learning network. Tisha loves sharing her passion for teaching and learning and speaks nationally on gamification and various innovative strategies.Find her at:TishaRichmond.com@tishrich
Nadia Asparouhova is currently researching what the new tech elite will look like at nadia.xyz. She is also the author of Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software.We talk about how:* American philanthropy has changed from Rockefeller to Effective Altruism* SBF represented the Davos elite rather than the Silicon Valley elite,* Open source software reveals the limitations of democratic participation,* & much more.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:00:26) - SBF was Davos elite(0:09:38) - Gender sociology of philanthropy(0:16:30) - Was Shakespeare an open source project?(0:22:00) - Need for charismatic leaders(0:33:55) - Political reform(0:40:30) - Why didn't previous wealth booms lead to new philanthropic movements?(0:53:35) - Creating a 10,000 year endowment(0:57:27) - Why do institutions become left wing?(1:02:27) - Impact of billionaire intellectual funding(1:04:12) - Value of intellectuals(1:08:53) - Climate, AI, & Doomerism(1:18:04) - Religious philanthropyTranscriptThis transcript was autogenerated and thus may contain errors.Nadia Asparouhova 0:00:00You start with this idea that like democracy is green and like we should have tons of tons of people participating tons of people participate and then it turns out that like most participation is actually just noise and not that useful. That really squarely puts SPF into like the finance crowd much more so than startups or crypto. Founders will always talk about like building and like startups are like so important or whatever and like what are all of them doing in their spare time? They're like reading books. They're reading essays and like and then those like books and essays influence how they think about stuff. Dwarkesh Patel 0:00:26Okay, today I have the pleasure of talking with Nadia Asperova. She is previously the author of Working in Public, the Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software and she is currently researching what the new tech elite will look like. Nadia, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me. Yeah, okay, so this is a perfect timing obviously given what's been happening with SPF. How much do you think SPF was motivated by effective altruism? Where do you place them in the whole dimensionality of idea machines and motivations? Nadia Asparouhova 0:01:02Yeah, I mean, I know there's sort of like conflicting accounts going around. Like, I mean, just from my sort of like character study or looking at SPF, it seems pretty clear to me that he is sort of inextricably tied to the concepts of utilitarianism that then motivate effective altruism. The difference for me in sort of like where I characterize effective altruism is I think it's much closer to sort of like finance Wall Street elite mindset than it is to startup mindset, even though a lot of people associate effective altruism with tech people. So yeah, to me, like that really squarely puts SPF in sort of like the finance crowd much more so than startups or crypto. And I think that's something that gets really misunderstood about him. Dwarkesh Patel 0:01:44Interesting. Yeah, I find that interesting because if you think of Jeff Bezos, when he started Amazon, he wasn't somebody like John Perry Barlow, who was just motivated by the free philosophy of the internet. You know, he saw a graph of internet usage going up into the right and he's like, I should build a business on top of this. And in a sort of loopholy way, try to figure out like, what is the thing that is that is the first thing you would want to put a SQL database on top of to ship and produce? And I think that's what books was the answer. So and obviously, he also came from a hedge fund, right? Would you play somebody like him also in the old finance crowd rather than as a startup founder? Nadia Asparouhova 0:02:22Yeah, it's kind of a weird one because he's both associated with the early computing revolution, but then also AWS was sort of like what kicked off all of the 2010s sort of startup. And I think in the way that he's started thinking about his public legacy and just from sort of his public behavior, I think he fits much more squarely now in that sort of tech startup elite mindset of the 2010s crowd more so than the Davos elite crowd of the 2000s. Dwarkesh Patel 0:02:47What in specific are you referring to? Nadia Asparouhova 0:02:49Well, he's come out and been like sort of openly critical about a lot of like Davos type institutions. He kind of pokes fun at mainstream media and for not believing in him not believing in AWS. And I think he's because he sort of like spans across like both of these generations, he's been able to see the evolution of like how maybe like his earlier peers function versus the sort of second cohort of peers that he came across. But to me, he seems much more like, much more of the sort of like startup elite mindset. And I can kind of back up a little bit there. But what I associate with the Davos Wall Street kind of crowd is much more of this focus on quantitative thinking, measuring efficiency. And then also this like globalist mindset, like I think that the vision that they want to ensure for the world is this idea of like a very interconnected world where we, you know, sort of like the United Nations kind of mindset. And that is really like literally what the Davos gathering is. Whereas Bezos from his actions today feels much closer to the startup, like Y Combinator post AWS kind of mindset of founders that were really made their money by taking these non-obvious bets on talented people. So they were much less focused on credentialism. They were much more into this idea of meritocracy. I think we sort of forget like how commonplace this trope is of like, you know, the young founder in a dorm room. And that was really popularized by the 2010s cohort of the startup elite of being someone that may have like absolutely no skills, no background in industry, but can somehow sort of like turn the entire industry over on its head. And I think that was sort of like the unique insight of the tech startup crowd. And yeah, when I think about just sort of like some of the things that Bezos is doing now, it feels like she identifies with that much more strongly of being this sort of like lone cowboy or having this like one talented person with really great ideas who can sort of change the world. I think about the, what is it called? The Altos Institute or the new like science initiative that he put out where he was recruiting these like scientists from academic institutions and paying them really high salaries just to attract like the very best top scientists around the world. That's much more of that kind of mindset than it is about like putting faith in sort of like existing institutions, which is what we would see from more of like a Davos kind of mindset. Dwarkesh Patel 0:05:16Interesting. Do you think that in the future, like the kids of today's tech billionaires will be future aristocrats? So effective altruism will be a sort of elite aristocratic philosophy. They'll be like tomorrow's Rockefellers. Nadia Asparouhova 0:05:30Yeah, I kind of worry about that actually. I think of there as being like within the US, we were kind of lucky in that we have these two different types of elites. We have the aristocratic elites and we have meritocratic elites. Most other countries I think basically just have aristocratic elites, especially comparing like the US to Britain in this way. And so in the aristocratic model, your wealth and your power is sort of like conferred to you by previous generations. You just kind of like inherit it from your parents or your family or whomever. And the upside of that, if there is an upside, is that you get really socialized into this idea of what does it mean to be a public steward? What does it mean to think of yourself and your responsibility to the rest of society as a privileged elite person? In the US, we have this really great thing where you can kind of just, you know, we have the American dream, right? So lots of people that didn't grow up with money can break into the elite ranks by doing something that makes them really successful. And that's like a really special thing about the US. So we have this whole class of meritocratic elites who may not have aristocratic backgrounds, but ended up doing something within their lifetimes that made them successful. And so, yeah, I think it's a really cool thing. The downside of that being that you don't really get like socialized into what does it mean to have this fortune and do something interesting with your money. You don't have this sort of generational benefit that the aristocratic elites have of presiding over your land or whatever you want to call it, where you're sort of learning how to think about yourself in relation to the rest of society. And so it's much easier to just kind of like hoard your wealth or whatever. And so when you think about sort of like what are the next generations, the children of the meritocratic elites going to look like or what are they going to do, it's very easy to imagine kind of just becoming aristocratic elites in the sense of like, yeah, they're just going to like inherit the money from their families. And they haven't also really been socialized into like how to think about their role in society. And so, yeah, all the meritocratic elites eventually turn into aristocratic elites, which is where I think you start seeing this trend now towards people wanting to sort of like spend down their fortunes within their lifetime or within a set number of decades after they die because they kind of see what happened in previous generations and are like, oh, I don't want to do that. Dwarkesh Patel 0:07:41Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's interesting. You mentioned that the aristocratic elites have the feel that they have the responsibility to give back, I guess, more so than the meritocratic elites. But I believe that in the U.S., the amount of people who give to philanthropy and the total amount they give is higher than in Europe, right, where they probably have a higher ratio of aristocratic elites. Wouldn't you expect the opposite if the aristocratic elites are the ones that are, you know, inculcated to give back? Nadia Asparouhova 0:08:11Well, I assume like most of the people that are the figures about sort of like Americans giving back is spread across like all Americans, not just the wealthiest. Dwarkesh Patel 0:08:19Yeah. So you would predict that among the top 10 percent of Americans, there's less philanthropy than the top 10 percent of Europeans? Uh, there's... Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. I guess, does the ratio of meritocratic to aristocratic elites change how much philanthropy there is among the elites? Nadia Asparouhova 0:08:45Yeah, I mean, like here we have much more of a culture of like even among aristocratic elites, this idea of like institution building or like large donations to like build institutions, whereas in Europe, a lot of the public institutions are created by government. And there's sort of this mentality of like private citizens don't experiment with public institutions. That's the government's job. And you see that sort of like pervasively throughout all of like European cultures. Like when we want something to change in public society, we look to government to like regulate or change it. Whereas in the U.S., it's kind of much more like choose your own adventure. And we don't really see the government as like the sole provider or shaper of public institutions. We also look at private citizens and like there's so many things that like public institutions that we have now that were not started by government, but were started by private philanthropists. And that's like a really unusual thing about the U.S. Dwarkesh Patel 0:09:39There's this common pattern in philanthropy where a guy will become a billionaire, and then his wife will be heavily involved with or even potentially in charge of, you know, the family's philanthropic efforts. And there's many examples of this, right? Like Bill and Melinda Gates, you know, Mark Zuckerberg. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And Dustin Moskovitz. So what is the consequence of this? How is philanthropy, the causes and the foundations, how are they different because of this pattern? Nadia Asparouhova 0:10:15Well, I mean, I feel like we see that pattern, like the problem is that what even is philanthropy is changing very quickly. So we can say historically that, not even historically, in recent history, in recent decades, that has probably been true. That wasn't true in say like late 1800s, early 1900s. It was, you know, Carnegie and Rockefeller were the ones that were actually doing their own philanthropy, not their spouses. So I'd say it's a more recent trend. But now I think we're also seeing this thing where like a lot of wealthy people are not necessarily doing their philanthropic activities through foundations anymore. And that's true both within like traditional philanthropy sector and sort of like the looser definition of what we might consider to be philanthropy, depending on how you define it, which I kind of more broadly want to define as like the actions of elites that are sort of like, you know, public facing activities. But like even within sort of traditional philanthropy circles, we have like, you know, the 5.1c3 nonprofit, which is, you know, traditionally how people, you know, house all their money in a foundation and then they do their philanthropic activities out of that. But in more recent years, we've seen this trend towards like LLCs. So Emerson Collective, I think, might have been maybe the first one to do it. And that was Steve Jobs' Philanthropic Foundation. And then Mark Zuckerberg with Chan Zuckerberg Initiative also used an LLC. And then since then, a lot of other, especially within sort of like tech wealth, we've seen that move towards people using LLCs instead of 5.1c3s because they, it just gives you a lot more flexibility in the kinds of things you can fund. You don't just have to fund other nonprofits. And they also see donor advised funds. So DAFs, which are sort of this like hacky workaround to foundations as well. So I guess point being that like this sort of mental model of like, you know, one person makes a ton of money and then their spouse kind of directs these like nice, feel good, like philanthropic activities, I think is like, may not be the model that we continue to move forward on. And I'm kind of hopeful or curious to see like, what does a return to like, because we've had so many new people making a ton of money in the last 10 years or so, we might see this return to sort of like the Gilded Age style of philanthropy where people are not necessarily just like forming a philanthropic foundation and looking for the nicest causes to fund, but are actually just like thinking a little bit more holistically about like, how do I help build and create like a movement around a thing that I really care about? How do I think more broadly around like funding companies and nonprofits and individuals and like doing lots of different, different kinds of activities? Because I think like the broader goal that like motivates at least like the new sort of elite classes to want to do any of this stuff at all. I don't really think philanthropy is about altruism. I just, I think like the term philanthropy is just totally fraud and like refers to too many different things and it's not very helpful. But I think like the part that I'm interested in at least is sort of like what motivates elites to go from just sort of like making a lot of money and then like thinking about themselves to them thinking about sort of like their place in broader public society. And I think that starts with thinking about how do I control like media, academia, government are sort of like the three like arms of the public sector. And we think of it in that way a little bit more broadly where it's really much more about sort of like maintaining control over your own power, more so than sort of like this like altruistic kind of, you know, whitewash. Dwarkesh Patel 0:13:41Yeah. Nadia Asparouhova 0:13:42Then it becomes like, you know, there's so many other like creative ways to think about like how that might happen. Dwarkesh Patel 0:13:49That's, that's, that's really interesting. That's a, yeah, that's a really interesting way of thinking about what it is you're doing with philanthropy. Isn't the word noble descended from a word that basically means to give alms to people like if you're in charge of them, you will give alms to them. And in a way, I mean, it might have been another word I'm thinking of, but in a way, yeah, a part of what motivates altruism, not obviously all of it, but part of it is that, yeah, you influence and power. Not even in a necessarily negative connotation, but that's definitely what motivates altruism. So having that put square front and center is refreshing and honest, actually. Nadia Asparouhova 0:14:29Yeah, I don't, I really don't see it as like a negative thing at all. And I think most of the like, you know, writing and journalism and academia that focuses on philanthropy tends to be very wealth critical. I'm not at all, like I personally don't feel wealth critical at all. I think like, again, sort of returning to this like mental model of like aristocratic and meritocratic elites, aristocratic elites are able to sort of like pass down, like encode what they're supposed to be doing in each generation because they have this kind of like familial ties. And I think like on the meritocratic side, like if you didn't have any sort of language around altruism or public stewardship, then like, it's like, you need to kind of create that narrative for the meritocratically or else, you know, there's just like nothing to hold on to. So I think like, it makes sense to talk in those terms. Andrew Carnegie being sort of the father of modern philanthropy in the US, like, wrote these series of essays about wealth that were like very influential and where he sort of talks about this like moral obligation. And I think like, really, it was kind of this like, a quiet way for him to, even though it was ostensibly about sort of like giving back or, you know, helping lift up the next generation of people, the next generation of entrepreneurs. Like, I think it really was much more of a protective stance of saying, like, if he doesn't frame it in this way, then people are just going to knock down the concept of wealth altogether. Dwarkesh Patel 0:15:50Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that's really interesting. And it's interesting, in which cases this kind of influence has been successful and worse not. When Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, has there been any counterfactual impact on how the Washington Post has run as a result? I doubt it. But you know, when Musk takes over Twitter, I guess it's a much more expensive purchase. We'll see what the influence is negative or positive. But it's certainly different than what Twitter otherwise would have been. So control over media, it's, I guess it's a bigger meme now. Let me just take a digression and ask about open source for a second. So based on your experience studying these open source projects, do you find the theory that Homer and Shakespeare were basically container words for these open source repositories that stretched out through centuries? Do you find that more plausible now, rather than them being individuals, of course? Do you find that more plausible now, given your, given your study of open source? Sorry, what did? Nadia Asparouhova 0:16:49Less plausible. What did? Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:51Oh, okay. So the idea is that they weren't just one person. It was just like a whole bunch of people throughout a bunch of centuries who composed different parts of each story or composed different stories. Nadia Asparouhova 0:17:02The Nicholas Berbaki model, same concept of, you know, a single mathematician who's actually comprised of like lots of different. I think it's actually the opposite would be sort of my conclusion. We think of open source as this very like collective volunteer effort. And I think, use that as an excuse to not really contribute back to open source or not really think about like how open source projects are maintained. Because we were like, you know, you kind of have this bystander effect where you're like, well, you know, someone's taking care of it. It's volunteer oriented. Like, of course, there's someone out there taking care of it. But in reality, it actually turns out it is just one person. So maybe it's a little bit more like a Wizard of Oz type model. It's actually just like one person behind the curtain that's like, you know, doing everything. And you see this huge, you know, grandeur and you think there must be so many people that are behind it. It's one person. Yeah, and I think that's sort of undervalued. I think a lot of the rhetoric that we have about open source is rooted in sort of like early 2000s kind of starry eyed idea about like the power of the internet and the idea of like crowdsourcing and Wikipedia and all this stuff. And then like in reality, like we kind of see this convergence from like very broad based collaborative volunteer efforts to like narrowing down to kind of like single creators. And I think a lot of like, you know, single creators are the people that are really driving a lot of the internet today and a lot of cultural production. Dwarkesh Patel 0:18:21Oh, that's that's super fascinating. Does that in general make you more sympathetic towards the lone genius view of accomplishments in history? Not just in literature, I guess, but just like when you think back to how likely is it that, you know, Newton came up with all that stuff on his own versus how much was fed into him by, you know, the others around him? Nadia Asparouhova 0:18:40Yeah, I think so. I feel I've never been like a big, like, you know, great founder theory kind of person. I think I'm like, my true theory is, I guess that ideas are maybe some sort of like sentient, like, concept or virus that operates outside of us. And we are just sort of like the vessels through which like ideas flow. So in that sense, you know, it's not really about any one person, but I do think I think I tend to lean like in terms of sort of like, where does creative, like, creative effort come from? I do think a lot of it comes much more from like a single individual than it does from with some of the crowds. But everything just serves like different purposes, right? Like, because I think like, within open source, it's like, not all of open source maintenance work is creative. In fact, most of it is pretty boring and dredgerous. And that's the stuff that no one wants to do. And that, like, one person kind of got stuck with doing and that's really different from like, who created a certain open source projects, which is a little bit more of that, like, creative mindset. Dwarkesh Patel 0:19:44Yeah, yeah, that's really interesting. Do you think more projects in open source, so just take a popular repository, on average, do you think that these repositories would be better off if, let's say a larger percentage of them where pull requests were closed and feature requests were closed? You can look at the code, but you can't interact with it or its creators anyway? Should more repositories have this model? Yeah, I definitely think so. I think a lot of people would be much happier that way. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting to think about the implications of this for other areas outside of code, right? Which is where it gets really interesting. I mean, in general, there's like a discussion. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah. Nadia Asparouhova 0:20:25Yeah, I mean, that's basically what's for the writing of my book, because I was like, okay, I feel like whatever's happening open source right now, you start with this idea that like democracy is green, and like, we should have tons and tons of people participating, tons of people participate, and then it turns out that like, most participation is actually just noise and not that useful. And then it ends up like scaring everyone away. And in the end, you just have like, you know, one or a small handful of people that are actually doing all the work while everyone else is kind of like screaming around them. And this becomes like a really great metaphor for what happens in social media. And the reason I wrote, after I wrote the book, I went and worked at Substack. And, you know, part of it was because I was like, I think the model is kind of converging from like, you know, Twitter being this big open space to like, suddenly everyone is retreating, like, the public space is so hostile that everyone must retreat into like, smaller private spaces. So then, you know, chats became a thing, Substack became a thing. And yeah, I just feel sort of like realistic, right? Dwarkesh Patel 0:21:15That's really fascinating. Yeah, the Straussian message in that book is very strong. But in general, there's, when you're thinking about something like corporate governance, right? There's a big question. And I guess even more interestingly, when you think if you think DAOs are going to be a thing, and you think that we will have to reinvent corporate governance from the ground up, there's a question of, should these be run like monarchy? Should they be sort of oligarchies where the board is in control? Should they be just complete democracies where everybody gets one vote on what you do at the next, you know, shareholder meeting or something? And this book and that analysis is actually pretty interesting to think about. Like, how should corporations be run differently, if at all? What does it inform how you think the average corporation should be run? Nadia Asparouhova 0:21:59Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think we are seeing a little bit, I'm not a corporate governance expert, but I do feel like we're seeing a little of this like, backlash against, like, you know, shareholder activism and like, extreme focus on sort of like DEI and boards and things like that. And like, I think we're seeing a little bit of people starting to like take the reins and take control again, because they're like, ah, that doesn't really work so well, it turns out. I think DAOs are going to learn this hard lesson as well. It's still maybe just too early to say what is happening in DAOs right now. But at least the ones that I've looked at, it feels like there is a very common failure mode of people saying, you know, like, let's just have like, let's have this be super democratic and like, leave it to the crowd to kind of like run this thing and figure out how it works. And it turns out you actually do need a strong leader, even the beginning. And this, this is something I learned just from like, open source projects where it's like, you know, very rarely, or if at all, do you have a strong leader? If at all, do you have a project that starts sort of like leaderless and faceless? And then, you know, usually there is some strong creator, leader or influential figure that is like driving the project forward for a certain period of time. And then you can kind of get to the point when you have enough of an active community that maybe that leader takes a step back and lets other people take over. But it's not like you can do that off day one. And that's sort of this open question that I have for, for crypto as an industry more broadly, because I think like, if I think about sort of like, what is defining each of these generations of people that are, you know, pushing forward new technological paradigms, I mentioned that like Wall Street finance mindset is very focused on like globalism and on this sort of like efficiency quantitative mindset. You have the tech Silicon Valley Y company or kind of generation that is really focused on top talent. And the idea this sort of like, you know, founder mindset, the power of like individuals breaking institutions, and then you have like the crypto mindset, which is this sort of like faceless leaderless, like governed by protocol and by code mindset, which is like intriguing to me. But I have a really hard time squaring it with seeing like, in some sense, open source was the experiment that started playing out, you know, 20 years before then. And some things are obviously different in crypto, because tokenization completely changes the incentive system for contributing and maintaining crypto projects versus like traditional open source projects. But in the end, also like humans are humans. And like, I feel like there are a lot of lessons to be learned from open source of like, you know, they also started out early on as being very starry eyed about the power of like, hyper democratic regimes. And it turned out like, that just like doesn't work in practice. And so like, how is CryptoGhost or like Square that? I'm just, yeah, very curious to see what happened. Dwarkesh Patel 0:24:41Yeah, super fascinating. That raises an interesting question, by the way, you've written about idea machines, and you can explain that concept while you answer this question. But do you think that movements can survive without a charismatic founder who is both alive and engaged? So once Will McCaskill dies, would you be shorting effective altruism? Or if like Tyler Cowen dies, would you be short progress studies? Or do you think that, you know, once you get a movement off the ground, you're like, okay, I'm gonna be shorting altruism. Nadia Asparouhova 0:25:08Yeah, I think that's a good question. I mean, like, I don't think there's some perfect template, like each of these kind of has its own sort of unique quirks and characteristics in them. I guess, yeah, back up a little bit. Idea machines is this concept I have around what the transition from we were talking before about, so like traditional 5.1c3 foundations as vehicles for philanthropy, what does the modern version of that look like that is not necessarily encoded in institution? And so I had this term idea machines, which is sort of this different way of thinking about like, turning ideas into outcomes where you have a community that forms around a shared set of values and ideas. So yeah, you mentioned like progress studies is an example of that, or effective altruism example, eventually, that community gets capitalized by some funders, and then it starts to be able to develop an agenda and then like, actually start building like, you know, operational outcomes and like, turning those ideas into real world initiatives. And remind me of your question again. Dwarkesh Patel 0:26:06Yeah, so once the charismatic founder dies of a movement, is a movement basically handicapped in some way? Like, maybe it'll still be a thing, but it's never going to reach the heights it could have reached if that main guy had been around? Nadia Asparouhova 0:26:20I think there are just like different shapes and classifications of like different, different types of communities here. So like, and I'm just thinking back again to sort of like different types of open source projects where it's not like they're like one model that fits perfectly for all of them. So I think there are some communities where it's like, yeah, I mean, I think effective altruism is maybe a good example of that where, like, the community has grown so much that I like if all their leaders were to, you know, knock on wood, disappear tomorrow or something that like, I think the movement would still keep going. There are enough true believers, like even within the community. And I think that's the next order of that community that like, I think that would just continue to grow. Whereas you have like, yeah, maybe it's certain like smaller or more nascent communities that are like, or just like communities that are much more like oriented around, like, a charismatic founder that's just like a different type where if you lose that leader, then suddenly, you know, the whole thing falls apart because they're much more like these like cults or religions. And I don't think it makes one better, better or worse. It's like the right way to do is probably like Bitcoin, where you have a charismatic leader for life because that leader is more necessarily, can't go away, can't ever die. But you still have the like, you know, North Stars and like that. Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:28Yeah. It is funny. I mean, a lot of prophets have this property of you're not really sure what they believed in. So people with different temperaments can project their own preferences onto him. Somebody like Jesus, right? It's, you know, you can be like a super left winger and believe Jesus did for everything you believe in. You can be a super right winger and believe the same. Yeah. Go ahead. Nadia Asparouhova 0:27:52I think there's value in like writing cryptically more. Like I think about like, I think Curtis Yarvin has done a really good job of this where, you know, intentionally or not, but because like his writing is so cryptic and long winded. And like, it's like the Bible where you can just kind of like pour over endlessly being like, what does this mean? What does this mean? And in a weird, you know, you're always told to write very clearly, you're told to write succinctly, but like, it's actually in a weird way, you can be much more effective by being very long winded and not obvious in what you're saying. Dwarkesh Patel 0:28:20Yes, which actually raises an interesting question that I've been wondering about. There have been movements, I guess, if I did altruism is a good example that have been focused on community building in a sort of like explicit way. And then there's other movements where they have a charismatic founder. And moreover, this guy, he doesn't really try to recruit people. I'm thinking of somebody like Peter Thiel, for example, right? He goes on, like once every year or two, he'll go on a podcast and have this like really cryptic back and forth. And then just kind of go away in a hole for a few months or a few years. And I'm curious, which one you think is more effective, given the fact that you're not really competing for votes. So absolute number of people is not what you care about. It's not clear what you care about. But you do want to have more influence among the elites who matter in like politics and tech as well. So anyways, which just your thoughts on those kinds of strategies, explicitly trying to community build versus just kind of projecting out there in a sort of cryptic way? Nadia Asparouhova 0:29:18Yeah, I mean, I definitely being somewhat cryptic myself. I favor the cryptic methodology. But I mean, yeah, I mean, you mentioned Peter Thiel. I think like the Thielverse is probably like the most, like one of the most influential things. In fact, that is hard. It is partly so effective, because it is hard to even define what it is or wrap your head around that you just know that sort of like, every interesting person you meet somehow has some weird connection to, you know, Peter Thiel. And it's funny. But I think this is sort of that evolution from the, you know, 5163 Foundation to the like idea machine implicit. And that is this this switch from, you know, used to start the, you know, Nadia Asparova Foundation or whatever. And it was like, you know, had your name on it. And it was all about like, what do I as a funder want to do in the world, right? And you spend all this time doing this sort of like classical, you know, research, going out into the field, talking to people and you sit and you think, okay, like, here's a strategy I'm going to pursue. And like, ultimately, it's like, very, very donor centric in this very explicit way. And so within traditional philanthropy, you're seeing this sort of like, backlash against that. In like, you know, straight up like nonprofit land, where now you're seeing the locus of power moving from being very donor centric to being sort of like community centric and people saying like, well, we don't really want the donors telling us what to do, even though it's also their money. Like, you know, instead, let's have this be driven by the community from the ground up. That's maybe like one very literal reaction against that, like having the donor as sort of the central power figure. But I think idea machines are kind of like the like, maybe like the more realistic or effective answer in that like, the donor is still like without the presence of a funder, like, community is just a community. They're just sitting around and talking about ideas of like, what could possibly happen? Like, they don't have any money to make anything happen. But like, I think like really effective funders are good at being sort of like subtle and thoughtful about like, like, you know, no one wants to see like the Peter Thiel foundation necessarily. That's just like, it's so like, not the style of how it works. But you know, you meet so many people that are being funded by the same person, like just going out and sort of aggressively like arming the rebels is a more sort of like, yeah, just like distributed decentralized way of thinking about like spreading one's power, instead of just starting a fund. Instead of just starting a foundation. Dwarkesh Patel 0:31:34Yeah, yeah. I mean, even if you look at the life of influential politicians, somebody like LBJ, or Robert Moses, it's how much of it was like calculated and how much of it was just like decades of building up favors and building up connections in a way that had no definite and clear plan, but it just you're hoping that someday you can call upon them and sort of like Godfather way. Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. And by the way, this is also where your work on open source comes in, right? Like, there's this idea that in the movement, you know, everybody will come in with their ideas, and you can community build your way towards, you know, what should be funded. And, yeah, I'm inclined to believe that it's probably like a few people who have these ideas about what should be funded. And the rest of it is either just a way of like building up engagement and building up hype. Or, or I don't know, or maybe just useless, but what are your thoughts on it? Nadia Asparouhova 0:32:32You know, I decided I was like, I am like, really very much a tech startup person and not a crypto person, even though I would very much like to be fun, because I'm like, ah, this is the future. And there's so many interesting things happening. And I'm like, for the record, not at all like down in crypto, I think it is like the next big sort of movement of things that are happening. But when I really come down to like the mindset, it's like I am so in that sort of like, top talent founder, like power of the individual to break institutions mindset, like that just resonates with me so much more than the like, leaderless, faceless, like, highly participatory kind of thing. And again, like I am very open to that being true, like I maybe I'm so wrong on that. I just like, I have not yet seen evidence that that works in the world. I see a lot of rhetoric about how that could work or should work. We have this sort of like implicit belief that like, direct democracy is somehow like the greatest thing to aspire towards. But like, over and over we see evidence that like that doesn't that just like doesn't really work. It doesn't mean we have to throw out the underlying principles or values behind that. Like I still really believe in meritocracy. I really believe in like access to opportunity. I really believe in like pursuit of happiness. Like to me, those are all like very like American values. But like, I think that where that breaks is the idea that like that has to happen through these like highly participatory methods. I just like, yeah, I haven't seen really great evidence of that being that working. Dwarkesh Patel 0:33:56What does that imply about how you think about politics or at least political structures? You think it would you you elect a mayor, but like, just forget no participation. He gets to do everything he wants to do for four years and you can get rid of in four years. But until then, no community meetings. Well, what does that imply about how you think cities and states and countries should be run? Nadia Asparouhova 0:34:17Um, that's a very complicated thoughts on that. I mean, I, I think it's also like, everyone has the fantasy of when it'd be so nice if there were just one person in charge. I hate all this squabbling. It would just be so great if we could just, you know, have one person just who has exactly the views that I have and put them in charge and let them run things. That would be very nice. I just, I do also think it's unrealistic. Like, I don't think I'm, you know, maybe like modernity sounds great in theory, but in practice just doesn't like I really embrace and I think like there is no perfect governance design either in the same way that there's no perfect open source project designer or whatever else we're talking about. Um, uh, like, yeah, it really just depends like what is like, what is your population comprised of? There are some very small homogenous populations that can be very easily governed by like, you know, a small government or one person or whatever, because there isn't that much dissent or difference. Everyone is sort of on the same page. America is the extreme opposite in that angle. And I'm always thinking about America because like, I'm American and I love America. But like, everyone is trying to solve the governance question for America. And I think like, yeah, I don't know. I mean, we're an extremely heterogeneous population. There are a lot of competing world views. I may not agree with all the views of everyone in America, but like I also, like, I don't want just one person that represents my personal views. I would focus more like effectiveness in governance than I would like having like, you know, just one person in charge or something that like, I don't mind if someone disagrees with my views as long as they're good at what they do, if that makes sense. So I think the questions are like, how do we improve the speed at which like our government works and the efficacy with which it works? Like, I think there's so much room to be made room for improvement there versus like, I don't know how much like I really care about like changing the actual structure of our government. Dwarkesh Patel 0:36:27Interesting. Going back to open source for a second. Why do these companies release so much stuff in open source for free? And it's probably literally worth trillions of dollars of value in total. And they just release it out and free and many of them are developer tools that other developers use to build competitors for these big tech companies that are releasing these open source tools. Why did they do it? What explains it? Nadia Asparouhova 0:36:52I mean, I think it depends on the specific project, but like a lot of times, these are projects that were developed internally. It's the same reason of like, I think code and writing are not that dissimilar in this way of like, why do people spend all this time writing, like long posts or papers or whatever, and then just release them for free? Like, why not put everything behind a paywall? And I think the answer is probably still in both cases where like mindshare is a lot more interesting than, you know, your literal IP. And so, you know, you put out, you write these like long reports or you tweet or whatever, like you spend all this time creating content for free and putting it out there because you're trying to capture mindshare. Same thing with companies releasing open source projects. Like a lot of times they really want like other developers to come in and contribute to them. They want to increase their status as like an open source friendly kind of company or company or show like, you know, here's the type of code that we write internally and showing that externally. They want to like recruiting is, you know, the hardest thing for any company, right? And so being able to attract the right kinds of developers or people that, you know, might fit really well into their developer culture just matters a lot more. And they're just doing that instead of with words or doing that with code. Dwarkesh Patel 0:37:57You've talked about the need for more idea machines. You're like dissatisfied with the fact that effective altruism is a big game in town. Is there some idea or nascent movement where I mean, other than progress ideas, but like something where you feel like this could be a thing, but it just needs some like charismatic founder to take it to the next level? Or even if it doesn't exist yet, it just like a set of ideas around this vein is like clearly something there is going to exist. You know what I mean? Is there anything like that that you notice? Nadia Asparouhova 0:38:26I only had a couple of different possibilities in that post. Yeah, I think like the progress sort of meme is probably the largest growing contender that I would see right now. I think there's another one right now around sort of like the new right. That's not even like the best term necessarily for it, but there's sort of like a shared set of values there that are maybe starting with like politics, but like ideally spreading to like other areas of public influence. So I think like those are a couple of like the bigger movements that I see right now. And then there's like smaller stuff too. Like I mentioned, like tools for thought in that post where like that's never going to be a huge idea machine. But it's one where you have a lot of like interesting, talented people that are thinking about sort of like future of computing. And until maybe more recently, like there just hasn't been a lot of funding available and the funding is always really uneven and unpredictable. And so that's to me an example of like, you know, a smaller community that like just needs that sort of like extra influx to turn a bunch of abstract ideas into practice. But yeah, I mean, I think like, yeah, there's some like the bigger ones that I see right now. I think there is just so much more potential to do more, but I wish people would just think a little bit more creatively because, yeah, I really do think like effective altruism kind of becomes like the default option for a lot of people. Then they're kind of vaguely dissatisfied with it and they don't like think about like, well, what do I actually really care about in the world and how do I want to put that forward? Dwarkesh Patel 0:39:53Yeah, there's also the fact that effective altruism has this like very fit memeplex in the sense that it's like a polytheistic religion where if you have a cause area, then you don't have your own movement. You just have a cause area within our broader movement, right? It just like adopts your gods into our movement. Nadia Asparouhova 0:40:15Yeah, that's the same thing I see like people trying to lobby for effective altruism to care about their cause area, but then it's like you could just start a separate. Like if you can't get EA to care about, then why not just like start another one somewhere else? Dwarkesh Patel 0:40:28Yeah, so, you know, it's interesting to me that the wealth boom in Silicon Valley and then tech spheres has led to the sound growth of philanthropy, but that hasn't always been the case. Even in America, like a lot of people became billionaires after energy markets were deregulated in the 80s and the 90s. And then there wasn't, and obviously the hub of that was like the Texas area or, you know, and as far as I'm aware, there wasn't like a boom of philanthropy motivated by the ideas that people in that region had. What's different about Silicon Valley? Why are they, or do you actually think that these other places have also had their own booms of philanthropic giving? Nadia Asparouhova 0:41:11I think you're right. Yeah, I would make the distinction between like being wealthy is not the same as being elite or whatever other term you want to use there. And so yeah, there are definitely like pockets of what's called like more like local markets of wealth, like, yeah, Texas oil or energy billionaires that tend to operate kind of just more in their own sphere. And a lot of, if you look at any philanthropic, like a lot of them will be philanthropically active, but they only really focus on their geographic area. But there's sort of this difference. And I think this is part of where it comes from the question of like, you know, like what forces someone to actually like do something more public facing with their power. And I think that comes from your power being sort of like threatened. That's like one aspect I would say of that. So like tech has only really become a lot more active in the public sphere outside of startups after the tech backlash of the mid 2010s. And you can say a similar thing kind of happened with the Davos elite as well. And also for the Gilded Age cohort of wealth. And so yeah, when you have sort of, you're kind of like, you know, building in your own little world. And like, you know, we had literally like Silicon Valley where everyone was kind of like sequestered off and just thinking about startups and thinking themselves of like, tech is essentially like an industry, just like any other sort of, you know, entertainment or whatever. And we're just kind of happy building over here. And then it was only when sort of like the Panopticon like turned its head towards tech and started and they had this sort of like onslaught of critiques coming from sort of like mainstream discourse where they went, oh, like what is my place in this world? And, you know, if I don't try to like defend that, then I'm going to just kind of, yeah, we're going to lose all that power. So I think that that need to sort of like defend one's power can kind of like prompt that sort of action. The other aspect I'd highlight is just like, I think a lot of elites are driven by these like technological paradigm shifts. So there's this scholar, Carlotta Perrins, who writes about technological revolutions and financial capital. And she identifies like a few different technological revolutions over the last, whatever, hundred plus years that like drove this cycle of, you know, a new technology is invented. It's people are kind of like working on it in this smaller industry sort of way. And then there is some kind of like crazy like public frenzy and then like a backlash. And then from after that, then you have this sort of like focus on public institution building. But she really points out that like not all technology fits into that. Like, not all technology is a paradigm shift. Sometimes technology is just technology. And so, yeah, I think like a lot of wealth might just fall into that category. My third example, by the way, is the Koch family because you had, you know, the Koch brothers, but then like their father was actually the one who like kind of initially made their wealth, but was like very localized in sort of like how he thought about philanthropy. He had his own like, you know, family foundation was just sort of like doing that sort of like, you know, Texas billionaire mindset that we're talking about of, you know, I made a bunch of money. I'm going to just sort of like, yeah, do my local funder activity. It was only the next generation of his children that then like took that wealth and started thinking about like how do we actually like move that onto like a more elite stage and thinking about like their influence in the media. But like you can see there's like two clear generations within the same family. Like one has this sort of like local wealth mindset and one of them has the more like elite wealth mindset. And yeah, you can kind of like ask yourself, why did that switch happen? But yeah, it's clearly about more than just money. It's also about intention. Dwarkesh Patel 0:44:51Yeah, that's really interesting. Well, it's interesting because there's, if you identify the current mainstream media as affiliated with like that Davos aristocratic elite, or maybe not aristocratic, but like the Davos groups. Yeah, exactly. There is a growing field of independent media, but you would not identify somebody like Joe Rogan as in the Silicon Valley sphere, right? So there is a new media. I just, I guess these startup people don't have that much influence over them yet. And they feel like, yeah. Nadia Asparouhova 0:45:27I think they're trying to like take that strategy, right? So you have like a bunch of founders like Palmer Luckey and Mark Zuckerberg and Brian Armstrong and whoever else that like will not really talk to mainstream media anymore. They will not get an interview to the New York Times, but they will go to like an individual influencer or an individual creator and they'll do an interview with them. So like when Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta, like he did not get grant interviews to mainstream publications, but he went and talked to like Ben Thompson at Strategory. And so I think there is like, it fits really well with that. Like probably mindset of like, we're not necessarily institution building. We're going to like focus on power of individuals who sort of like defy institutions. And that is kind of like an open question that I have about like, what will the long term influence of the tech elite look like? Because like, yeah, the human history tells us that eventually all individual behaviors kind of get codified into institutions, right? But we're obviously living in a very different time now. And I think like the way that the Davos elite managed to like really codify and extend their influence across all these different sectors was by taking that institutional mindset and, you know, like thinking about sort of like academic institutions and media institutions, all that stuff. If the startup mindset is really inherently like anti-institution and says like, we don't want to build the next Harvard necessarily. We just want to like blow apart the concept of universities whatsoever. Or, you know, we don't want to create a new CNN or a new Fox News. We want to just like fund like individual creators to do that same sort of work, but in this very decentralized way. Like, will that work long term? I don't know. Like, is that just sort of like a temporary state that we're in right now where no one really knows what the next institutions will look like? Or is that really like an important part of this generation where like, we shouldn't be asking the question of like, how do you build a new media network? We should just be saying like, the answer is there is no media network. We just go to like all these individuals instead. Dwarkesh Patel 0:47:31Yeah, that's interesting. What do you make of this idea that I think, let's say, that these idea machines might be limited by the fact that if you're going to start some sort of organization in them, you're very much depending on somebody who has made a lot of money independently to fund you and to grant you approval. And I just have a hard time seeing somebody who is like a Napoleon-like figure being willing long term to live under that arrangement. And that so there'll just be the people who are just have this desire to dominate and be recognized who are probably pretty important to any movement you want to create. They'll just want to go off and just like build a company or something that gives them an independent footing first. And they just won't fall under any umbrella. You know what I mean? Nadia Asparouhova 0:48:27Yeah, I mean, like Dustin Moskovitz, for example, has been funding EA for a really long time and hasn't hasn't walked away necessarily. Yeah. I mean, on the flip side, you can see like SPF carried a lot of a lot of risk because it's your point, I guess, like, you know, you end up relying on this one funder, the one funder disappears and everything else kind of falls apart. I mean, I think like, I don't have any sort of like preciousness attached to the idea of like communities, you know, lasting forever. I think this is like, again, if we're trying to solve for the problem of like what did not work well about 5.1c3 foundations for most of recent history, like part of it was that they're, you know, just meant to live on to perpetuity. Like, why do we still have like, you know, Rockefeller Foundation, there are now actually many different Rockefeller Foundations, but like, why does that even exist? Like, why did that money not just get spent down? And actually, when John D. Rockefeller was first proposing the idea of foundations, he wanted them to be like, to have like a finite end state. So he wanted them to last only like 50 years or 100 years when he was proposing this like federal charter, but that federal charter failed. And so now we have these like state charters and foundations can just exist forever. But like, I think if we want to like improve upon this idea of like, how do we prevent like meritocratic elites from turning into aristocratic elites? How do we like, yeah, how do we actually just like try to do a lot of really interesting stuff in our lifetimes? It's like a very, it's very counterintuitive, because you think about like, leaving a legacy must mean like creating institutions or creating a foundation that lasts forever. And, you know, 200 years from now, there's still like the Nadia Asparuva Foundation out there. But like, if I really think about it, it's like, I would almost rather just do really, really, really good, interesting work in like, 50 years or 20 years or 10 years, and have that be the legacy versus your name kind of getting, you know, submerged over a century of institutional decay and decline. So yeah, I don't like if you know, you have a community that lasts for maybe only last 10 years or something like that, and it's funded for that amount of time, and then it kind of elbows its usefulness and it winds down or becomes less relevant. Like, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. Of course, like in practice, you know, nothing ever ends that that neatly and that quietly. But, but yeah, I don't think that's a bad thing. Dwarkesh Patel 0:50:44Yeah, yeah. Who are some ethnographers or sociologists from a previous era that have influenced your work? So was there somebody writing about, you know, what it was like to be in a Roman Legion? Or what it was like to work in a factory floor? And you're like, you know what, I want to do that for open source? Or I want to do that for the New Tech Elite? Nadia Asparouhova 0:51:02For open source, I was definitely really influenced by Jane Jacobs and Eleanor Ostrom. I think both had this quality of, so yeah, Eleanor Ostrom was looking at examples of common pool resources, like fisheries or forests or whatever. And just like, going and visiting them and spending a lot of time with them and then saying like, actually, I don't think tragedy of the commons is like a real thing, or it's not the only outcome that we can possibly have. And so sometimes commons can be managed, like perfectly sustainably. And it's not necessarily true that everyone just like treats them very extractively. And just like wrote about what she saw. And same with Jane Jacobs sort of looking at cities as someone who lives in one, right? Like she didn't have any fancy credentials or anything like that. She was just like, I live in the city and I'm looking around and this idea of like, top down urban planning, where you have like someone trying to design this perfect city that like, doesn't change and doesn't yield to its people. It just seems completely unrealistic. And the style that both of them take in their writing is very, it just it starts from them just like, observing what they see and then like, trying to write about it. And I just, yeah, that's, that's the style that I really want to emulate. Dwarkesh Patel 0:52:12Interesting. Nadia Asparouhova 0:52:13Yeah. I think for people to just be talking to like, I don't know, like Chris just like just talking to like open source developers, turns out you can learn a lot more from that than just sitting around like thinking about what open source developers might be thinking about. But... Dwarkesh Patel 0:52:25I have this, I have had this idea of not even for like writing it out loud, but just to understand how the world works. Just like shadowing people who are in just like a random position, they don't have to be a lead in any way, but just like a person who's the personal assistant to somebody influential, how to decide whose emails they forward, how they decide what's the priority, or somebody who's just like an accountant for a big company, right? It's just like, what is involved there? Like, what kinds of we're gonna, you know what I mean? Just like, random people, the line manager at the local factory. I just have no idea how these parts of the world work. And I just want to like, yeah, just shadow them for a day and see like, what happens there. Nadia Asparouhova 0:53:05This is really interesting, because everyone else focuses on sort of like, you know, the big name figure or whatever, but you know, who's the actual gatekeeper there? But yeah, I mean, I've definitely found like, if you just start cold emailing people and talking to them, people are often like, surprisingly, very, very open to being talked to because I don't know, like, most people do not get asked questions about what they do and how they think and stuff. So, you know, you want to realize that dream. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:33So maybe I'm not like John Rockefeller, and that I only want my organization to last for 50 years. I'm sure you've come across these people who have this idea that, you know, I'll let my money compound for like 200 years. And if it just compounds at some reasonable rate, I'll be, it'll be like the most wealthy institution in the world, unless somebody else has the same exact idea. If somebody wanted to do that, but they wanted to hedge for the possibility that there's a war or there's a revolt, or there's some sort of change in law that draws down this wealth. How would you set up a thousand year endowment, basically, is what I'm asking, or like a 500 year endowment? Would you just put it in like a crypto wallet with us? And just, you know what I mean? Like, how would you go about that organizationally? How would you like, that's your goal? I want to have the most influence in 500 years. Nadia Asparouhova 0:54:17Well, I'd worry much less. The question for me is not about how do I make sure that there are assets available to distribute in a thousand years? Because I don't know, just put in stock marketers. You can do some pretty boring things to just like, you know, ensure your assets grow over time. The more difficult question is, how do you ensure that whoever is deciding how to distribute the funds, distributes them in a way that you personally want them to be spent? So Ford Foundation is a really interesting example of this, where Henry Ford created a Ford Foundation shortly before he died, and just pledged a lot of Ford stock to create this foundation and was doing it basically for tax reasons, had no philanthropic. It's just like, this is what we're doing to like, house this wealth over here. And then, you know, passed away, son passed away, and grandson ended up being on the board. But the board ended up being basically like, you know, a bunch of people that Henry Ford certainly would not have ever wanted to be on his board. And so, you know, and you end up seeing like, the Ford Foundation ended up becoming huge influential. I like, I have received money from them. So it's not at all an indictment of sort of like their views or anything like that. It's just much more of like, you know, you had the intent of the original donor, and then you had like, who are all these people that like, suddenly just ended up with a giant pool of capital and then like, decided to spend it however they felt like spending it and the grandson at the time sort of like, famously resigned because he was like, really frustrated and was just like, this is not at all what my family wanted and like, basically like, kicked off the board. So anyway, so that is the question that I would like figure out if I had a thousand year endowment is like, how do I make sure that whomever manages that endowment actually shares my views? One, shares my views, but then also like, how do I even know what we need to care about in a thousand years? Because like, I don't even know what the problems are in a thousand years. And this is why like, I think like, very long term thinking can be a little bit dangerous in this way, because you're sort of like, presuming that you know what even matters then. Whereas I think like, figure out the most impactful things to do is just like, so contextually dependent on like, what is going on at the time. So I can't, I don't know. And there are also foundations where you know, the donor like, writes in the charter like, this money can only be spent on you know, X cause or whatever, but then it just becomes really awkward over time because