Видео

“Anyone who says GTM is broken has something to sell you.” 👏 Absolutely this. GTM isn’t broken - it’s just hard work that requires constant attention and reinvention. Great show, guys!

lol at no blaming the product.

this was TAAACCCTICALL - very good

Such a great deep dive here!

Sam, did you consider that maybe your Airbnb host was just in founder mode that week? 😂. Great episode guys. Love Topline.

Great episode!

Apologies for the lower audio quality. I didn’t realize my webcam mic was activated instead of my regular headset. 😃

Absolutely sharing this with the early stage founders I advise and provide fractional GTM work

Many companies do not know when that have it or believe they have it when in actuality they do not

Excellent. Being obsessed with the customer and everything about them. That is so true

Super interesting thoughts from Mark about what the future of AI might look like. I'm excited about AI that doesn't just automate existing processes, but actually creates entirely new experiences and achieves GTM goals differently than current ways.

Loved the prompt engineering practices and getting a closer look at copyai. Looking forward to checking out the automation next week.

Hello sir Are you looking for a professionals RUclips thumbnail designer?

Great convo

gotta know who ****** is? 😂

Thanks @Pavilion for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

*promosm*

Your intro and outro are identical. That gave me a deja vu moment 😀. But in the end, humans have been being subjugated for a long time - by other humans - and with nasty outcomes. Whose to say being subjugated to machines will necessarily be worse?