Creative Code Solutions

I am looking for how to save this giff just like everyone else on x today

A friend in need is a friend in deed

Genuine question @grok Why does 20% of the world hold the largest wealth gotten from the remaining 80%

Good morning! ☀️ Remember when you prayed for some of the things you now consider normal? Don't let today's struggles make you forget yesterday's blessings. There's still plenty to be grateful for. Keep believing.

Start clipping Start earning Counts as original content

If you're so good at day trading, why don't you just day trade? He was discussing businesses that require serious money, deep expertise, and significant barriers to entry. Then he brought up day trading. He acknowledged that there are plenty of day-trading courses and people selling the dream of making money from the financial markets. But instead of explaining how to become a successful trader, he asked one question: "If you're so good at day trading, why should you just day trade?" And then he said he'd leave it alone. It's a short remark, but it raises a much bigger question about an entire industry. If someone has genuinely discovered a reliable way to make enormous amounts of money trading financial markets, why would they spend their time selling courses teaching other people to do it? Why not simply exploit the opportunity themselves? Of course, teaching can be a legitimate business, and successful traders can have multiple income streams. But his question challenges the credibility of people whose primary business is selling the promise of trading success. So here's the question: If someone has a genuinely profitable money-making strategy, why is selling you the strategy sometimes more profitable than using it themselves?

You're not poor because you aren't working hard. You might be in the wrong business. Some people work harder, are smarter, and have more business experience than others, yet make significantly less money. According to this entrepreneur, the reason isn't necessarily their ability. It's the business they chose. He calls his framework the "Idiot Index." After seeing more than 10,000 businesses, he noticed something unusual: some business owners who weren't particularly intelligent or hardworking were making enormous amounts of money, while others who were exceptionally talented struggled to make a fraction of that. He uses Warren Buffett to explain why. Buffett once described a friend from business school who was smarter and worked harder than him. After graduating, the friend went into the steel business while Buffett went into investing. The result? Buffett made significantly more money. His explanation was that the difference wasn't necessarily the person. It was the vehicle they chose. He takes this argument further by challenging successful gym owners. He says that even some of the most successful gym owners would probably make significantly more money if they took the management skills they'd developed running multiple gyms and applied them to a different industry. Then he asks a rather uncomfortable question: How many independent, service-based gym owners do you know who are billionaires? His argument is that people often spend their entire lives trying to become exceptionally successful in businesses that have a natural ceiling. You can be the best person in a limited business model and still make less than an average person in a much more lucrative industry. The uncomfortable question is: Are you struggling because you haven't worked hard enough, or because you've spent years trying to win in a business that was never capable of giving you the financial outcome you wanted?

Good morning! Sometimes the biggest achievement of the day is simply refusing to give up. You may not have the money yet, the opportunity yet or the breakthrough yet, but you're still in the game. And that's something.

Some experiments you cannot even carry out . 1000 ways to die

I love robots really But then I believe there is a particular reason a lot of people don't keep wild animals at home It might be raised to be a pet yadah yadah But it has the tendency to be wild . Computers have tendencies to be hacked Imagine 20k of these robots hacked like common tech reports when they say 20l accounts were compromised

Some people don't even recognize Duplex as a type of house they can rent Only one of the following Single room A room self con Room and parlor 2 bedroom

If you see any of my posts it means x algo predicted that you are most likely to engage on it Now I have to wonder who to sue between you and x because I don't know why you ain't engaging

Physics must be something else Elon Musk said the physics said it's possible and I am here wondering how the physics said so. Definitely not in my New school physics text book .

Who has noticed this recent Chatgpt changes? When you ask it a question on a subject after some explanations and examples it ask you a related question and ask you to select an answer from multiple Choice . My understanding of Calculus and Area is one level stronger

AI is getting smarter. It can write, analyze, research, and make recommendations faster than most people. But Alex Hormozi thinks there's a dangerous mistake people are making with it. They're outsourcing their thinking. In a conversation about the future of AI, Alex makes a distinction that most people overlook. AI can give you all the recommendations in the world. But somebody still has to own the decision. Somebody has to take responsibility when things go wrong. Somebody has to risk the money. Somebody has to own the company. And that's where human value remains. He uses an interesting example from entertainment. Imagine MrBeast releases a video promising $5 million to a winner. But the money isn't real. The Lamborghini isn't real either. Would people care? Probably not. Because the stakes are what make the experience interesting. Chess is another example. Computers can beat humans at chess, but people still want to watch human players compete. The same goes for Formula 1. You could replace Lewis Hamilton with a robot, but would people be equally interested? His argument is that people don't just want intelligence. They want real people making decisions, taking risks, and having something to lose. And there's another problem with relying too heavily on AI. If you outsource your thinking and decision-making to it, you risk becoming less capable of doing those things yourself. AI might become one of the most powerful tools humans have ever created. But if you stop developing your own judgment, what happens when you actually need it? **Are we using AI to become more intelligent, or slowly training ourselves not to think?**