y2theudi

CRE by day, trading by night, lifelong investor

[y2theudi @y2theudi]

@aleabitoreddit Curious to get your thoughts on FDX vs UPS - it seems like FedEx’s automation push is helping its efficiency story, so I’m wondering whether robotics can eventually offset UPS’s more bloated unionized workforce and higher labor costs.

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

In 1942, the Japanese rounded up all Chinese men in Singapore.

They were filtering out the healthy young ones to execute.

Lee Kuan Yew was 18. A guard pointed at him and said: "Go to that lorry."

He knew what that meant. The lorry went to the beaches. The beaches meant machine guns.

He asked: "Can I collect my other things?"

They said yes.

He walked away, found his family's gardener, and hid in his quarters for two days.

When they changed the screening inspectors, he tried again. This time, he got through.

The ones sent to that lorry were taken to the beaches and shot. Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 didn't survive.

60 years later, he sat down at Harvard to explain how he built Singapore from a tiny island into one of the wealthiest nations on Earth:

On what the war did to him:

"We lived in happy, placid colonial Singapore in the 1920s and 30s. The British Empire would have lasted another thousand years, so we thought."

Then the Japanese came. In less than one and a half months, the British collapsed.

"Three and a half years of hell. Butchery. Brutality. Many didn't survive. I was fortunate. I did."

"But it changed us."

"What right did they have to do this to us? Why did the British let us down so badly?"

When the war ended, Lee went to Cambridge to study law. But he was watching with different eyes.

"Can they govern me better than I can govern myself? Because they scooted when the Japanese came in. And why shouldn't I be running the place?"

On learning languages to lead:

Lee was the best speaker in English. But only 20% of Singapore spoke English.

The masses spoke Hokkien, Mandarin, and Malay.

"So every day at lunchtime, instead of having lunch, I would sit down with a Hokkien teacher and laboriously and painfully learn to convert my Mandarin into Hokkien."

"Had I not mastered that, the battle would be lost by default."

His first speech in Hokkien, the kids laughed at him.

"I said, please don't laugh. Help me. I'm trying to get you to understanding."

By 6 months, he could get his ideas across. By 2 years, he was fluent.

"Believe it or not, at the end of two years I could speak better than most of them."

"That came respect."

It showed two things: how determined he was, and how sincere. Here was a man doing all these other things and still learning their language just to talk to them.

On fighting the Communists:

The Communists had been organizing since 1923. The year Lee was born.

"Here we were in the 1950s trying to beat them. And they are professionals at organization."

They had elimination squads. Guerrillas in the jungle. Killer squads in the towns.

Lee stood up and said no.

"They denied that they were Communists. 'We're just left-wing socialists.' So I did a series of 12 broadcasts to set the scene. And I made it in three languages."

English. Malay. Mandarin. 20 minutes each.

"When I finished each broadcast, the director of the station couldn't see me. Went into the room and found me lying on the floor trying to recover my breath."

"But it was a fight for survival. Life or death."

On where trust comes from:

"It's difficult to establish trust in times of calm. You just say, 'Well, it's an argument, therefore I'm a better guy than you.'"

"But when the chips are down and you can get eliminated in a very unpleasant way and you show that you're prepared for it and you'll fight for them, it makes a difference."

"Without that trust, we could not have built Singapore."

On IQ vs EQ:

Harvard asked him: would you prefer high IQ or high EQ in a leader?

"IQ, you can get beautiful paper done. Complex formulas worked out. Elegant solutions."

"But when you've got to get a team to work and put that formula into practice, you're dealing with human beings."

"If you're not good at EQ, you can't sense that A doesn't get on with B, and you put them in the same team. It's no good."

He rated his own EQ as 7 or 8 out of 10. His IQ as "maybe 120."

But he had colleagues who could sense a person instantly.

"He shook hands with the man and said, 'I recoiled when I felt his palm. Evil man.' And he was. How does he know? I don't know."

"So I learned whenever I had to do interviews to choose people, I would get people who are very good at seeing through a candidate."

On corruption:

Singapore in the 1950s was full of deals, bribes, and organized crime.

"When we took over, we decided that this was the critical factor. If we did not make it so that every dollar put in at the top reaches the ground as one dollar, we're not going to succeed."

"We came in and made a symbolic act. We dressed in white shirts, white trousers, and said we will be what we represent."

He put the anti-corruption bureau under his personal portfolio.

"I gave the director the authority to investigate everybody and everything. All ministers. Including myself."

One of his own colleagues took half a million in bribes. When the investigation started, he asked to see Lee.

"I said, if I see you then I'll be a witness in court. So best not see me. Better see your lawyer."

The man committed suicide. Left a note saying: "As an oriental gentleman who believes in honor, I have to pay the supreme price."

"It's a heavy price. But it reminds every minister that there are no exceptions."

On consistency:

Lee had three journalists analyze 40 years of his speeches.

He asked them: what was the dominant theme?

All three said the same thing: consistency.

"What I said at the beginning, throughout all that period, the theme stayed loud and clear."

"That made it simple. Because you know where you stand with me. And you know what I want to do."

On delivering results:

"We deliver the homes, the schools, the jobs, the hospitals."

"Today, 98% of our people own their own homes. The smallest would be about $100,000 US. The biggest about $300,000."

"Once you own that amount of assets, you are not in favor of risking it with a crazy government. Your assets will go down in value."

"But that was planned."

Why? Because Singapore is small. Everyone does national service. If you're going to fight, you better be fighting for something you own.

"So we give everybody a stake."

On changing culture slowly:

Lee wanted Singapore to speak English. But he couldn't force it.

"Had I passed a law and said you will all learn English, we would have had mayhem. Riots."

Instead, he let parents watch who got the best jobs. The jobs were already there, from the multinationals and banks. They all used English.

"They watched and saw who got the best jobs. And they switched."

It took 16 years.

"I did not want to have said 16 years. Because in those 16 years I lost 20,000 Chinese graduates who had poor jobs. I wanted to make it shorter. I couldn't. I would have run into flack."

On whether leadership can be taught:

Lee quoted Isaac Singer, the Nobel Prize winner for Yiddish literature.

Someone asked Singer: "Can you make a writer write great literature?"

He paused. Then said: "If he has the writer in him, I will make him a good writer in a shorter time."

Lee's version:

"Can you make a leader of anybody? I don't think so."

"He must have some of the ingredients. He must have that high energy level. He must have the ability to project himself, his ideas. He must have the desire, almost instinctively, to say 'let's do something better.' Of wanting to do something for his fellow men and not just for himself and his family."

"You can't teach those things. He's either got it or he hasn't got it."

"But if he's got that, then you can save him a lot of trouble."

On sustaining yourself:

Harvard asked how he managed despair over decades of leadership.

"If your message is one of despair, then you should not be a leader. You must give people hope."

"But there are moments when you feel very down. Either because you're physically down, or emotionally down, or because the world has turned adverse against you."

"When you are in that condition, the first thing you do is get a good night's sleep. Then get a swim or chase a ball. Get the cobwebs out of your mind."

"If you're not fit, you're going to make mistakes. Physically fit. You must stay physically and mentally fit."

In his later years, he learned to meditate.

"At the end of 20 minutes to half an hour, my pulse rate can go down from 100 to about 60. You can feel yourself subside. You still your mind. You empty your mind."

"Then when you are rested, you resume quietly. You still got the same problems. Maybe you sleep on it. Come back. Look at it for a few days. Then decide."

This 2 hour Harvard interview will teach you more about leadership than every business book you've read combined.

Bookmark & give it 2 hours this weekend, no matter what.

[Citrini @citrini]

This may surprise some people but I largely agree with the below. This is where we are headed.

What I strongly believe, however, is that this transition won’t happen overnight. Dependent on the speed at which AI improves, that transition could prove painful.

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

In the 1920s, a Stanford psychologist tracked genius children for 50 years.

Malcolm Gladwell breaks down what he discovered:

Rich families → successful. Poor families → failures.

Not average. Failures. Genius-level IQs that produced nothing.

He spent 60 minutes at Microsoft explaining why we're wrong about success:

The psychologist was named Terman. He gave IQ tests to 250,000 California schoolchildren.

He identified the top 0.1%. Kids with IQs of 140 and above.

His hypothesis: these children would become the leaders of academia, industry, and politics.

He tracked them. And tracked them. For decades.

The results split into three groups.

The top 15% achieved real prominence. The middle group had average, moderately successful professional lives.

And the bottom group? By any measure, failures.

The difference wasn't personality. Wasn't habits. Wasn't work ethic.

It was simple: the successful geniuses came from wealthy households. The failures came from poor families.

Poverty is such a powerful constraint that it can reduce a one-in-a-billion brain to a lifetime of worse than mediocrity.

There's a concept called "capitalization rate."

It asks a simple question: what percentage of people who are capable of doing something actually end up doing that thing?

In inner city Memphis, only 1 in 6 kids with athletic scholarships actually go to college.

If our capitalization rate for sports in the inner city is 16%, imagine how low it must be for everything else.

Here's something stranger.

Gladwell read the birth dates of the 2007 Czech Junior Hockey Team:

January 3rd. January 3rd. January 12th. February 8th. February 10th. February 17th. February 20th. February 24th. March 5th. March 10th. March 26th...

11 of the 20 players were born in January, February, or March.

This isn't unique to the Czechs. Every elite hockey team in the world shows the same pattern. Every elite soccer team too.

Why?

The eligibility cutoff for youth leagues is January 1st.

When you're 10 years old, a kid born in January has 10 months of maturity on a kid born in October. That's 3 or 4 inches of height. The difference between clumsy and coordinated.

So we look at a group of 10 year olds, pick the "best" ones, give them special coaching, extra practice, more games.

We think we're identifying talent. We're just identifying the oldest.

Then we give the oldest more opportunities, and 10 years later they really are the best.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

The capitalization rate for hockey talent born in the second half of the year? Close to zero.

We're leaving half of all potential hockey players on the table because of an arbitrary date on a calendar.

Kids born in the youngest cohort of their school class are 11% less likely to go to college.

11% of human potential squandered because we organize elementary school without reference to biological maturity.

Now here's the part about math.

Asian kids dramatically outperform Western kids in mathematics. The gap is enormous and consistent across decades of testing.

Some people say it's genetic. It's not.

It's attitudinal.

When Asian kids face a math problem, they believe effort will solve it.

When Western kids face a math problem, they believe the answer depends on innate ability they either have or don't.

Here's the proof.

The international math tests include a 120-question survey. It asks about study habits, parental support, attitudes.

It's so long most kids don't finish it.

A researcher named Erling Boe decided to rank countries by what percentage of survey questions their kids completed.

Then he compared it to the ranking of countries by math performance.

The correlation was 0.98.

In the history of social science, there has never been a correlation that high.

If you want to know how good a country is at math, you don't need to ask any math questions. Just make kids sit down and focus on a task for an extended period of time.

If they can do it, they're good at math.

Why do Asian cultures have this attitude?

Gladwell's theory: rice farming.

His European ancestors in medieval England worked about 1,000 hours a year. Dawn to noon, five days a week. Winters off. Lots of holidays.

A peasant in South China or Japan in the same period worked 3,000 hours a year.

Rice farming isn't just harder than wheat farming. It's a completely different relationship with work.

There's a Chinese proverb: "A man who works dawn to dusk 360 days a year will not go hungry."

His English ancestors would have said: "A man who works 175 days a year, dawn to 11, may or may not be hungry."

If your culture does that for a thousand years, it becomes part of your makeup.

When your kids sit down to face a calculus problem, that legacy of persistence translates perfectly.

Now consider distance running.

In Kenya, there are roughly a million schoolboys between 10 and 17 running 10 to 12 miles a day.

In the United States, that number is probably 5,000.

Our capitalization rate for distance running is less than 1%.

Kenya's is probably 95%.

The difference isn't genetic. The difference is what the culture values and where it spends its attention.

Here's the most fascinating finding.

30% of American entrepreneurs have been diagnosed with a profound learning disability.

Richard Branson is dyslexic. Charles Schwab is dyslexic. John Chambers can barely read his own email.

This isn't coincidence. Their entrepreneurialism is a direct function of their disability.

How do you succeed if you can't read or write from early childhood?

You learn to delegate. You become a great oral communicator. You become a problem solver because your entire life is one big problem. You learn to lead.

80% of dyslexic entrepreneurs were captain of a high school sports team. Versus 30% of non-dyslexic entrepreneurs.

By the time they enter the real world, they've spent their whole life practicing the four skills at the core of entrepreneurial success: delegation, oral communication, problem solving, and leadership.

Ask them what role dyslexia played in their success and they don't say it was an obstacle.

They say it's the reason they succeeded.

A disadvantage that became an advantage.

Here's what Gladwell wants you to understand:

When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability.

We forget how much poverty, stupidity, and attitude constrain what people can become.

We refuse to admit that our own arbitrary rules are leaving talent on the table.

We cling to naive beliefs that our meritocracies are fair.

The capitalization argument is liberating.

It says you don't look at a struggling group and conclude they're incapable. It says problems that look genetic or innate are often just failures of exploitation.

It says we can make a profound difference in how well people turn out.

If we choose to pay attention.

This 60 minute Microsoft talk will teach you more about success than every self-help book you've ever read combined.

Bookmark this & give it an hour today, no matter what.

[y2theudi @y2theudi]

@graddhytrading How do you like REMX if I may ask? Just renewed for the first time today - this service has more than paid for itself, delivering 25x value. I’m especially grateful for the guidance through these past few difficult months.

[Millionaire Framework @Milli0nairePath]

Bruce Lee retired my brain with this...

[宝总的财富指南 @baozong_facai]

这 1 小时采访，值得反复听。

受访者是一位顶级数学家投资人，
创造了 1000 亿美元以上财富，
平均回报率高达 66%。

很多人认为，
他的认知深度甚至超过巴菲特、索罗斯和达利奥。
里面的投资知识，
比 20 万美元 MBA 还值钱。

先收藏，再书签。
无论如何，听完它。

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Elon Musk just put the entire university system on trial.

Not the curriculum. Not the professors. The premise.

Musk: “You don’t need college to learn stuff. Everything is available basically for free. You can learn anything you want for free.”

For a thousand years, universities held one monopoly. Access. You paid the toll or you stayed ignorant.

The internet erased that in a decade.

Every lecture. Every framework. Every textbook. Free. From any screen on Earth.

The six-figure tuition is no longer buying knowledge. It is buying a signal.

Musk: “There is a value that colleges have, which is seeing whether somebody can work hard at something, including a bunch of annoying homework assignments, and still do their homework assignments.”

That is the product. Not intelligence. Not creativity. Not vision. Compliance.

You are paying $200,000 to prove you can tolerate bureaucracy on a schedule.

Musk: “Colleges are basically for fun and to prove you can do your chores. But they’re not for learning.”

The entire system is a sorting machine for corporate HR. It does not measure what you can build. It measures whether you can sit still, follow directions, and deliver on command.

Four years of obedience dressed as education.

Musk: “If you’re trying to do something exceptional, you must have evidence of exceptional ability. I don’t consider going to college evidence of exceptional ability.”

The system optimizes for average. It rewards the compliant. It certifies the patient. It quietly filters out everyone who refuses to wait for permission.

The ones who reshaped the modern world never finished the test.

Musk: “Gates is a pretty smart guy, he dropped out. Jobs is pretty smart, he dropped out. Larry Ellison, smart guy, he dropped out.”

They did not drop out because it was too hard. They dropped out because the speed limit was too low.

The most dangerous thing a university does is convince a generational talent that finishing the syllabus is the achievement.

It is not. It is the floor.

A degree is a receipt for compliance. The future has never belonged to people who finish their homework. It belongs to the ones who never needed the assignment.

[Ian Miles Cheong @ianmiles]

Marc Andreessen highlights why the people who work for Elon Musk echo the exact same sentiment as those who worked for Steve Jobs. Even after difficult interactions or a sudden departure, they inevitably report that they did the best work of their entire lives because they were pushed to their absolute limits.

What drives this intense environment is a demand for truth-seeking at all costs. People who criticize Elon often miss this fundamental trait. He genuinely wants to know the ground truth and has zero tolerance for anything else. When confronting bad news, he is absolutely ruthless and relentless in making sure he understands exactly what is actually going on.

This level of radical transparency is shockingly rare in the business world. The typical startup founder operates on forced optimism, constantly putting on a brave face, telling everyone to have faith, and promising that everything will be great just to keep talent from leaving.

Elon completely flips that standard script. He operates with pure urgency by simply telling the unfiltered truth, even when that truth is that the company will go bankrupt and die if they fail. In almost any other corporate environment, that level of blunt, existential dread would cause the talent pool to immediately bleed out.

But for the teams working under him, that brutal honesty acts as the ultimate catalyst. It strips away the corporate fluff and forces them to rise to the occasion, leaving them with the undeniable realization that, much like the engineers who built the first iPhone, they just completed the greatest work of their careers.

[Sarvesh Shrivastava @bloggersarvesh]

my wife thinks i'm obsessed...but I will keep repeating this.

Claude + SEO is going to create a bunch of “self made millionaires” this year.

don't bookmark this if it crosses your timeline.

just paste this entire thing into Claude.

thank me later.

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

MrBeast: "If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers in six months"

"Your videos suck. You think your videos are good, but they suck. They just do. And the sooner you learn how to make good, great videos that people actually want to watch, the sooner you'll get views."

MrBeast shares his early reality:

"When I was 14, I thought my videos were the best in the world. They weren't, they were terrible. To be successful, you kind of have to have a little bit of that ego where you think your content's great. But also, if you have sub-1,000 subscribers, there's a good probability your videos just suck. They just do."

He explains what to do about it:

"You need to make hundreds of videos. Improve something every time. And just get to the point where they don't suck. When you make good content, you'll blow up. It's not the algorithm. It's not anything. Most people who are in my position just made terrible videos, and that's okay. Because you've got to make a bunch of videos and improve over time to be great."

MrBeast uses an analogy:

"You don't just pick up a baseball and become an MLB-level athlete within a year. It takes many, many, many years. YouTube's kind of the same way."

On analysis paralysis:

"A lot of people get analysis paralysis. They'll sit there and plan their first video for three months. If you have zero videos on your channel, your first video is not gonna get views. Period. Your first 10 are not gonna get views. I can very confidently say that. So stop sitting there and thinking for months and months on end. Just get to work and start uploading."

He gives the formula:

"All you need to do is make 100 videos and improve something every time. Do that, and then on your 101st video, we'll start talking. Maybe you can get some views. But your first 100 are gonna suck."

How to improve something each time:

"The second video: put more effort into the script. The third one: learn a new editing trick. The fourth one: figure out a way to have better inflections in your voice. The fifth one: study a new thumbnail tip and implement it. The sixth one: figure out a new title. There's infinite ways. The coloring, the frame rate, the editing, the filming, the production, the jokes, the pacing, every little thing can be improved. There's literally no such thing as a perfect video."

On the algorithm:

"What YouTube wants is for people to click on a video and watch it. That's what it is at its core. By studying the algorithm, you'll learn that you're more studying human psychology. What do humans want to watch?"

MrBeast shares a simple reframe:

"Anytime you say the word 'algorithm,' just replace it with 'audience' and it works perfectly. 'The algorithm didn't like that video?' No, the audience didn't like that video. Literally, that's it. If people are clicking and watching, it gets promoted more. The algorithm just reflects what the people want."

On titles:

"Short, simple, and just so freaking interesting that you have to click. If someone reads it, are they like, do they have to watch it? Is it just so intrinsically interesting that it's gonna haunt them if they don't click?"

He adds nuance:

"Keep it below 50 characters. Above 50 characters, on certain devices it goes dot, dot, dot, and that's the worst thing because then people don't even know what they're clicking on."

MrBeast shares the extremity principle:

"The more extreme the opinion, typically the higher the click-through rate. 'Fiji water sucks', that'd do fine. But 'Fiji water is the worst water I've ever drank in my life', way more extreme, would do way better. But then you have to deliver. The more extreme you are, the more extreme you have to be in the video."

On the first 5 seconds:

"Before you film a video, what is the thumbnail? What is the title? Then what's the first 5 seconds? Then what's the first 30 seconds?"

He explains why autoplay changed everything:

"On YouTube now, videos automatically play. So many people don't even see the thumbnail because it autoplays so quickly. The thumbnail is irrelevant for them. I have to visually convince you to click on the video in the first 5 seconds. Before, the hook was important because you had to convince people to watch. Now you have to convince people to click and watch at the same time, with the first 5 seconds."

On matching expectations:

"Your title and thumbnail set expectations. At the very beginning of the video, to minimize drop-off, you want to assure them that those expectations are being met. If you click on a video called 'Tether is a scam' and at the very beginning, he starts talking about literally anything else, you're like, 'Oh, this is BS. This isn't what I clicked on.' But if at the very start you go, 'Tether is a scam and I'm gonna teach you why,' then it's like, okay, you match the expectations. Then you want to exceed them."

He emphasizes the importance:

"The thing people undervalue the most is literally the first 10 seconds of the video. That 15% difference in viewership between losing 35% of viewers in the first 30 seconds versus losing 20%, that really does make the difference between 2 million views and 10 million views. You just had a more strategic intro that hooked them."

On removing dull moments:

"You basically want to remove every dull moment. Find the 10 most critical people you know, make them watch the video, and just roast it. If I talk to a camera for 10 seconds without a cut, a lot of people will get bored. Having a B-cam and C-cam three seconds in, cutting to a different angle, now it's more interesting even though it's essentially the same thing."

On keeping viewers watching:

"Give them why they clicked. Tell them why they should watch. Then just stick on topic. That right there isn't even super complex, but I would already put you in the upper echelon of YouTube. A lot of people drag it out. It's like, 'I'm going to eat $100 ice cream, but first...' and then it's them birthday shopping for their mom. That's not why I came here."

On quality over quantity:

"It's much easier to get 5 million views on one video than 50,000 views on 100 videos. A lot of small YouTubers just post videos that aren't bad but aren't great, and none of them ever pop off, so they never get an audience. It might be better to upload half or a third or even a fifth of the videos, but make the videos you upload so freaking good that the algorithm has to promote it."

He warns against the consistency trap:

"When you set a consistent schedule and you're constantly having to upload videos that aren't as good as you'd like because you gotta hit 'Oh, this Monday I said I'd upload', that's a dangerous trap. The viewers notice the quality isn't as good and it makes them less likely to watch. I think it hurts your longevity."

On the real metric that matters:

"A big thing that everyone underestimates, what was your experience with your last video? If people loved the last video of yours that they watched, they're more likely to watch your next one. When people watch your video, you don't want them to go, 'Okay, that was good, but that's enough of you for the day.' What you want is them to go, 'Holy crap, that was crazy! Oh my god, what's that?' and they watch 10 videos. That's how you get high view counts. People watch 10 videos, not one."

On thumbnails:

"You want it to be simple. When they're scrolling, you want them to instantly understand what you're conveying and feel some type of emotion. Make it so interesting, or spike their curiosity so much, that if they don't click it, they'll wonder before they go to bed what happened?"

He gives an example:

"If you uploaded 'I rode a skateboard with 1,000 other people on it', and people are falling off the side, it's about to go off a big ramp if you don't click that, you're gonna be so curious. Later in the day, when you're daydreaming, you'll think, 'What happened to those 1,000 people on that skateboard?' That's the mindset you should have when making thumbnails."

On knowledge being the only barrier:

"It's all knowledge. It really is. I could start a new channel tomorrow without using my face or my voice, without ever promoting it, and in six months have 20 million subscribers. I just could. It's purely knowledge. If you knew what I knew, you could get 10 million subscribers no matter where you are right now within six months."

He addresses the skeptics:

"90% of the people watching don't agree with that. Everyone has excuses. 'Nah, YouTube just doesn't work like that, Jimmy.' But I mentor a lot of people. I see it all the time. It is possible. It is simply knowledge. The second you accept that it is knowledge and you start your journey of learning figuring out what makes a good video, what does my audience want, how can I elevate and then you take that knowledge and just assume 'I will never understand what the perfect video is' and every single day be devoted to learning and improving as much as possible there you go."

On money not being the barrier:

"There are tons of viral ideas that don't require money. It does not require money to go viral. One of my most-viewed videos was spending 24 hours in a desert, we just grabbed a tent and some stuff and went to the desert. It got 60-70 million views. People say, 'I could be MrBeast if I had money.' A, I didn't start off with money; I was poor, I had no money. It took me seven years just to buy a camera saving up from YouTube. And B, some of our most-viewed videos literally anyone can do."

On why no one will outwork him:

"No one's ever gonna do what I do better than me. It's just not humanly possible. I reinvest every penny I make. I work every hour I'm awake. I devote every atom in my brain to solving this. I hire the best people on the planet. I've been doing this for 14 years. And I think in decades, not years. I'm gonna be doing this for another 20-30 years. If I thought someone was doing better than me, I'd just start sleeping less so I could work even more."

But he doesn't recommend it:

"I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. My personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible. That is why I exist on this planet. And I don't recommend it. You should have work-life balance. You should not devote your entire life to this one thing. I have a mental breakdown every other week because I push myself so hard. I don't recommend it."

The only question that matters:

"Subscribers don't matter. Views don't matter. I mean, they do. But everything you want as a creator comes from making the best videos possible and thumbnails. The video part's the hard part. Ask: 'How can I make my videos better?' Do that every single day for years. And then you'll probably get views."

[Eric 𝕏 @WorldStrategist]

Singapore’s Foreign Minister on why he cannot accept negotiating with Iran for safe passage of ships. Definitely worth listening to:

[Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath]

When your working life rewards you, it’s easy to ratchet up the complexity: homes, cars, travel, possessions etc.

I have found that all that complexity comes at the sake of your most fleeting asset: your time. Instead of building things, all of a sudden you’re dealing with minutiae and logistics. Instead of talking mostly to engineers, you’re talking mostly to non-engineers. The building stops…the business of managing self inflicted complexity begins.

It’s worth noting that the best players in the game (Buffett, Elon) have kept their life extremely basic, almost monastic/nomadic, as success ratcheted them ever higher.

I think it’s the biggest secret hiding in plain sight:

When the world upgrades your status, downgrade your complexity.

[Founder Mode @Founder_Mode_]

Elon Musk was asked why his companies move faster than anyone else.

His answer:

"I'm constantly addressing the limiting factor. Whatever the limiting factor is on speed, I'm going to tackle that. If capital is the limiting factor, I'll solve for capital. If it's not the limiting factor, I'll solve for something else."

He then said something most managers never figure out:

"If something is going really well and making good progress, there's no point in me spending time on it."

"The irony is if something's going really well, they don't see much of me. But if something is the limiting factor, they'll see a lot of me."

He spends his time entirely on whatever is blocking the next step.

Not on what's interesting. Not on what he's best at. But on whatever is the bottleneck right now.

Most leaders do the opposite... They gravitate toward what they're comfortable with and away from the hard problem.

From: @dwarkesh_sp and @collision

[True market Leader @TmarketL]

This guy literally explained why some people become successful while others stay average.

The reason is uncomfortable. Game Theory

Watch this:

[The Long Investor @TheLongInvest]

You want the:

The delusional levels of Elon
The unwavering vision of Jobs
The laser like strategy of Buffett
The conviction or Soros
The execution level of Druckenmiller
The knowledge of Munger
The spirituality of Naval
The global dominance of Thiel
The need to learn like Dalio
And the Charisma and leadership of JFK

[Barrett Linburg @DallasAptGP]

K-1 season just started. Between now and early April, millions of investors will receive a form they do not understand from a partnership they invested in.

Most will forward it to their CPA without reading it. That is a mistake.

This is a plain-English guide to reading your K-1. No jargon. No accounting degree. Just the boxes that matter and what they mean for your money.

A Schedule K-1 is what you get when you own a piece of a partnership, an LLC, or a fund. These entities do not pay federal income tax. They pass everything through to you.

The income, the losses, the credits. You pay the tax on your personal return at your own rate.

The K-1 is how the IRS tells you what you owe.

The first thing most investors get wrong is the difference between income and distributions.

These are not the same thing.

Boxes 1 through 11 show your share of what the partnership earned or lost on paper. You owe tax on these amounts whether or not you received a check.

The IRS does not care if the cash hit your bank account. If the K-1 says you earned it, you owe it.

Box 19 shows the cash that went to your bank account. This is what you received.

Here is the part most investors miss.

In a well-run real estate partnership, Box 19 is often higher than the income boxes. That means you received more cash than you owe tax on. The gap is tax-free cash flow, created by depreciation.

If Box 2 shows a negative number, that is a paper loss. Your share of the depreciation. That loss can shield your other passive income from tax.

You collected real dollars. The IRS sees a loss. That is the engine of tax-efficient real estate.

Now go to Part II. Find Box I and Box L.

Box I shows Qualified Nonrecourse Financing. This is your share of the partnership's real estate debt. The IRS lets you count this toward your basis. That means you can take losses and receive cash distributions up to this amount without triggering a tax hit.

Box L tracks your tax basis. Think of it as your skin in the game. Starting in 2026, every K-1 must use the Tax Basis Method. This gives you a clear picture of how much room you have left to take future losses and distributions before you create a taxable event.

Most investors skip these two boxes. Do not. They tell you the health of your position in the deal.

Now the income boxes.

Box 1 is ordinary business income. For limited partners, this is almost always passive income from operations.

Box 2 is net rental real estate income. This is where depreciation lives. A negative number here is a good sign. It means the depreciation write-offs exceeded the rental income. That paper loss offsets other passive income on your return.

Box 9c is Unrecaptured Section 1250 gain. If the partnership sold a property, this is the IRS clawing back the depreciation you took over the years. It is taxed at up to 25%. Not fun, but important to understand.

That covers the basics. If you stopped here, you already know more about your K-1 than most investors.

But there is one more section. And this is where it gets interesting.

Go to Part III. Find these boxes.

Box 8. Short-term capital gains.
Box 9a. Long-term capital gains.
Box 9b. Collectibles gains.
Box 10. Net Section 1231 gain.

If any of those show a positive number, you are not just looking at a tax bill.

You are looking at an eligible capital gain. And eligible capital gains unlock the most tax-advantaged structure for real estate investing that exists in the tax code today.

The Opportunity Zone.

You can take those gains and roll them into a Qualified Opportunity Zone fund. In exchange, three things happen.

You defer the tax on your original gain. A 2025 gain that would create a bill in April 2026 gets pushed to April 2027. Your capital stays working for an extra year.

You invest in real estate that generates bonus depreciation. Those write-offs offset other passive income on your return before the building even stabilizes.

And after ten years, you sell the OZ investment and pay zero federal capital gains tax on the appreciation. Zero depreciation recapture. Every dollar of profit you built over that decade is yours.

No other structure does all three. Not a 1031 exchange. Not a cost segregation alone. Not a charitable trust.

One more thing most investors do not know.

Your K-1 gain has a different deadline than a stock sale. As a limited partner, you can elect to start your 180-day clock from the partnership's filing deadline on March 15. That means a 2025 K-1 gain could give you until September 2026 to invest.

So when your K-1 arrives this month, do not just forward it and forget it. Open it. Read it. Now you know what you are looking at.

And if Boxes 8, 9, or 10 show a positive number, you have a decision to make.

Pay the tax and move on.

Or put that capital to work in a structure designed to build tax-free wealth for the next decade.

[ℏεsam @Hesamation]

professor Jiang explains the universal law of game theory (how to win any game)

[Bricktop_NAFO @Bricktop_NAFO]

🚨🚨🚨🚨IN A BOMBSHELL INTERVIEW PROFESSOR JIANG PREDICTS THE UNITED STATES WILL LOSE THE WAR AGAINST IRAN AND EXPLAINS EXACTLY HOW🚨🚨🚨🚨

After everything thats going on and watching Iran's methods of retaliation. This all makes sense.

🚨THIS IS A SHOCKING MUST WATCH!🚨

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Think in probabilities