Building a CRM for Telegram! https://teapaw.org/t.co/4bxCy7OIoc Interested in Telegram, Sales & SAAS. Lets connect!
Earth ❤️
Joined March 2021
- Tweets20.8K
- Following700
- Followers1.8K
- Likes21.1K
Pinned Tweet
Inspired by @romanbuildsaas and @pierreeliottlal 's Gojiberry, I made the below video for Entergram, the first Native to Telegram CRM!
Here is how exactly I did it with Opus and Claude:
a) First I downloaded 3 @gojiberryai videos and asked Opus 5.5 to review them.
b) Then I explained well what the problem is and how we solved.
c) I connected to ElevenLabs API for the voice.
e) It was ready within 5 minutes.
You dont need to re-invent the wheel. Find what works. Model them. Repeat till you become better.
PS: I still think Gojiberry videos are truly remarkable... My mission is to simply produce more videos so I learn more things, and eventually become as good, or better!
At the top and bottom, brute force is the only ruler.
Rules apply only in the middle.
I never thought in a million years I would ever have even the slightest twinge of sympathy for Chrissy, but my initial reaction here is that this is a hostage video.
When they appear in public with their face disfigured in some way that is the signal to the rest of the lieutenants, "Don't dare to step out of line."
Now, do what you are told, and replace Manny in France.
Denis retweeted
As someone who has personally spent $500k / mo+ on Google Ads for years, I can tell you with certainty:
This revenue growth in Search is artificial & extremely unhealthy for Google’s business long term
Search volumes are declining as legacy search is being increasingly cannibalized by non-monetized LLM queries
Google’s response?
Manufacture revenue growth via short-sighted, highly extractive, customer-hostile tactics. I.e. charge advertisers more for lower quality clicks, including clicks they do not want and explicitly did not approve Google to charge them for
A few examples to illustrate:
For all of its history until recently, Google operated on a 2nd price auction model
I.e. if you bid $5 CPC and the next highest bidder bids $1 CPC, Google charged you $1.01 for the click (one penny more than the 2nd highest bidder) rather than the $5 you bid
This was a genius move by Google early on as it incentivizes advertisers to input their true maximum willingness to pay rather than trying to play the game of bidding low and constantly adjusting to try to stay just ahead of the next highest bidder while still not paying too much
However recently, Google silently deprecated the 2nd price auction and began charging advertisers as much as their bid and budget caps allow, regardless of what anyone else is bidding
It’s a short-sighted cash grab at the expense of the long term health of the advertiser ecosystem
Making thing worse, Google also recently nerfed keyword targeting precision
Google previously had precise keyword targeting settings that allowed advertisers pick individual search phrases to bid on, defined down to the character w/ exact match or phrase match targeting
This was one of the core features that made search advertising magic, enabling advertisers to run extremely precise campaigns based on exactly what their target customer typed
But now, even if you bid on a specific term or phrase using the strictest exact
-match targeting settings, Google will show your ad across 1000’s of unrelated keywords, labeling them as as “exact match (close variant)”
The definition of “close variant” means whatever they want it to and changes constantly. The result is advertisers get billed for clicks that are totally irrelevant to their business and that their targeting settings explicitly forbid Google from targeting. Google does it anyway and there’s no ability to turn this off
So now exact match is broad match, and broad match is just meaningless spam
This is all very bad for advertisers, but for Google, it allows them to show your ad and bill you for clicks across 1000x more searches that were previously going unmonetized (mainly because they’re garbage queries no one wants)
This is how you grow revenue atop declining search volumes
Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, Google quietly stopped respecting budget caps by a factor of 2x. For example campaigns we’ve been running for years with $1000 daily budget caps suddenly began spending $2000+ per day
And the extra spend is entirely on the garbage keywords Google arbitrarily throws in as “exact match (close variants)” which have no value to our business, but can’t be turned off
Google offers no refunds nor any recourse for overspend or spend on keywords you explicitly did not target
These are not the actions of a healthy business. These are the actions of company whose core business is in decline but desperately needs to pump quarterly earnings so Wall Street will continue to fund insane capex while hopefully looking through their rapidly deteriorating negative free cash flow
Google operated a benevolent monopoly for the better part of 25 yrs
Meaning the value Google captured from Search was but a small fraction of the value it created, and that spread produced a potential energy that justified expectations of high earnings growth far, far into the future
This is now no longer the case
At the alter of AI capex, Google is sacrificing the golden goose
Q2 was an amazing quarter, with our AI investments redefining what’s possible across every part of our business.
Alphabet revenue grew 24% YoY and Google Cloud accelerated to 82% growth. We saw exciting momentum across the board from Search to YouTube to the Gemini app (which reached 950M monthly active users). Our model APIs are processing 22B tokens/min (up from 16B+ last quarter) driven by our workhorse Flash models. We’re also seeing great adoption of Gemini Enterprise, used by 90% of the Fortune 100, as well as strong demand for our security solutions.
Outstanding results and momentum, and such an exciting moment—thanks to all of our partners and employees around the world! 🙌 About to hop on the call!
Denis retweeted
🚨Brilliant interview!
💸💰💸💰💸💰💸
🚨How do banks create money ?
💸💰💸💰💸💰💸
🚨Prof Werner is incomparable.
In the 5000 yr history of banking no-one has ever done an imperical study of banking to show where the money comes from- until now. Step up the rock star economist Professor Richard Werner. His amazing qualifications and held positions makes the eye water. He is truly the authority on this subject. Banks are thought of as deposit taking entities who lend money - but that is just wrong. His assessment - Banks dont lend money but they misrepresent (lie) to their customers and say that they do.
That’s not even the biggest problem.
Imagine running a company where the CEO gets replaced every four years, along with most of the leadership team. Every new CEO arrives with different priorities, different people, and a completely different vision. How could that company ever build something meaningful over 20 or 30 years?
This, so call "president" spends the 1st year understanding how everything works, figuring out who to trust, who is competent, who needs to be replaced, and where the real "problems" and "priorities" are.
By the third year, everyone is already thinking about the next election. And by the fourth, the priority is no longer building something for the future. It's staying in power.
Then the whole cycle starts again. Shitshow!
Projects that require 10 or 20 years of consistent leadership are constantly interrupted by people who only have four years to prove themselves and "grab" as much as they can for their own interests.
And that's just one part of the problem.
The other is money.
In 1913, the United States introduced a federal income tax starting at just 1%. Today, in many countries, the highest income tax rates exceed 40%, and that's before considering consumption taxes, property taxes, and countless other charges.
Yet despite governments collecting enormous amounts of money, the money is still not enough.
We have better technology, more automation, more knowledge, and greater productivity than at any point in history. Building things should, in many ways, be easier - and cheaper - than ever.
So why does it take decades to build a railway? Why do infrastructure projects cost billions and still run over budget? Why are public services struggling despite record government spending?
And perhaps the biggest problem is the incentives.
A politician who knows they may only have four years in power has little incentive to make difficult decisions that will only produce results 15 years later. It's much easier to announce an ambitious project, spend the money, take the credit, and leave the consequences to whoever comes next - all while pocketing the spread!
The next administration can blame the previous one, cancel the project, rename it, or start something completely different - and they will do so, because they too want to capture some fees / spread from the "failed" project that the previous leader left.
Nobody is truly accountable for the full outcome.
Imagine a private company where executives could spend billions, abandon projects halfway through, blame their predecessors, and leave with no responsibility for the results. Investors would never accept that.
Yet in politics, this is normalized.
People managing that money, not only should "promise" to have the right incentives, but they should bring to the table enough transparency, and be held accountable for their actions - prison, be personally liable and so on.
Because a system that rewards short-term political survival over long-term results will eventually produce exactly that: short-term decisions, endless promises, and very little accountability.
And the people paying for those mistakes are the ones who have the least control over them: ordinary citizens.
In a recent podcast with @davidsenra, @NStoronsky, the founder of @Revolut , made an interesting point about the difference between founders and hired CEOs.
He argued that most professional CEOs are not truly motivated to build a great company over the long term.
Instead, they focus on protecting their positions, collecting bonuses, and maximizing their personal rewards during the three or four years they expect to remain in charge. As a result, they avoid difficult decisions, take fewer risks, and prioritize short-term results over long-term success.
A founder, on the other hand, often sees the company as an extension of themselves. Their personal success is directly connected to the company's future, almost the "same entity" even though legally they are not.
Hired CEOs, like most wanna be presidents, for the most part, have completely different incentives from the organizations - and countries - they're supposed to lead.
We’ve decided to migrate all our AI automations from ChatGPT -> to @SpaceX, @bot, and @grok.
We still use @ChatGPT and for some things but its reduced to almost nothing. We also use @claudeai for many day to day operations (eg coding, ops etc - but not for automations).
Interestingly, even though the transition to SpaceX is more expensive than that of ChatGPT, we’ve found that the results we get from our AI-powered automations are often more accurate and reliable than ChatGPT.
Our AI spending proportion now looks something like this:
Calude: 50% of AI budget
Grok: 45% of AI budget.
ChatGPT: 5% of AI budget.
Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes...
🚨 WIESO SCHAFFT ES VOLKSWAGEN, SOLCHE ELEKTROAUTOS IN CHINA ZU DIESEM PREIS ANZUBIETEN – ABER NICHT BEI UNS IN EUROPA?
Schaut euch mal den neuen VW ID. UNYX 09 an! Eine über 5 Meter lange Elektro-Limousine, gemeinsam mit XPENG entwickelt.
Nur mal ein paar technische Daten:
✅ 10–80 % Akkuladung in unter 12 Minuten!
✅ Bis zu 530 kW Ladeleistung!
✅ Bis zu 755 km CLTC-Reichweite!
✅ XPENG-KI-Fahrassistenz mit 750 TOPS!
Und jetzt kommt der Hammer:
In China verkauft VW dieses Fahrzeug ab umgerechnet gerade einmal 22.700 €! 🤯
Bei uns in Deutschland kostet schon ein VW ID.7 mindestens rund 54.500 €!
Warum bekommt VW solche Fahrzeuge in China zu diesen Preisen auf den Markt, während wir in Europa teilweise mehr als das Doppelte bezahlen?
Denis retweeted
reddit runs on Linux. Which now has AI contributions.
Therefore, r/OpenSource has to delete itself.
Denis retweeted
It is insane that home values go up over time.
The home should be most expensive when it is initially built. At that point, the structure is new and unused.
As the home experiences wear and tear, the home becomes used and should be worth less money over time.
A used home should cost less than a new home.
But that is not what happens.
Home prices continue to grow to the sky because the debasement of the dollar distorts the market, which enriches the home owners at the expense of the home buyer.
This is a silent wealth transfer that requires the home buyer to pay more for a less valuable product.
Just insane.
AI leaders PROMISE that In the future we will use AI for curing cancel, global hunger etc etc...
Right now? its all about surveillance, advanced weapon systems and so on...
If AI ends the world, its because of the people running it.
Denis retweeted
At some point in your founder journey, you have to stop building the product and start building the company.
Most founders who get somewhere are already good at building products, but many are very bad at building companies.
Build your company with the same passion you bring to building the product. Treat building the company as building the product.
Company building is the only way to get something sustainable. Being profitable or having cash flow isn’t enough. You need: culture, passionate people, incentives, a north star, systems.
The most important piece here is being able to recruit people smarter than you to execute your vision. You need to do unreasonable things to recruit the best people.
This is what the greatest companies in the world have.
I was really happy with our growth - it took us +1 year to get here... and suddenly, within 2 weeks, we doubled our MRR!
Simulation confirmed...
