EGBENCHONG ♊

5.8K posts

EGBENCHONG ♊ banner
EGBENCHONG ♊

EGBENCHONG ♊

@JosephAyuk

Building quietly. Thinking deeply.

Intercontinental Katılım Eylül 2015
418 Takip Edilen601 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
I've had many reach out over the past year asking for the deeper meaning behind this simple but unsettling line I pinned. The questions haven't stopped, and the curiosity hasn't faded. So today, I'm offering a clear and fully articulated explanation, one that does justice to the weight of that statement and, I hope, brings clarity, insight, and illumination to anyone who wrestled with it. This statement captures one of the deepest truth in theology, anthropology, and the philosophy of human agency. It's not just a slogan. It is a framework for understanding how divine sovereignty and human responsibility coexist without contradiction. At it's core, the four points below explain the deep meaning behind this statement: 1. Divine intention does not cancel human participation. God sets the direction, provides the power, and the possibilities, but He rarely overrides human will. Scripture is full of moments where God could act alone, yet chose not to. The Exodus required Moses. The preservation of Israel required Joseph. The rebuilding of the wall required Nehemiah. Even salvation required Mary's yes. God does not impose; He invites. Without God's grace, man is powerless. But without man's cooperation, God's purposes for man remain unmanifested. 2. Human beings are not passive recipients of destiny; they are co-laborers. My statement restores dignity to human agency. God doesn't treat humanity as spectators in the story of the world but as participants whose choices shape outcomes. Prayer, obedience, discipline, vision, moral courage etc... are not optional spirituality; they are the means through which divine intention becomes earthly reality. In other words, God doesn't do for man what He has empowered man to do with Him. 3. It resolves the tension between fatalism and self-reliance. The modern world has two extremes: "Everything is up to me" "Everything is up to God" My statement dismantles both. It's a way of saying grace supplies power; discipline supplies action. Providence opens doors; responsibility walks throughout them. God gives the seed, man must plant it. This is what theologians call divine-human synergy. It's why faith without works is dead and why works without faith are empty. 4. It is the foundation of how transformation, personal or societal, truly happens. Every lasting change is born from this partnership: God's wisdom + man's obedience; God's calling + man's stewardship. When either side is missing, potential collapses. When both align, history shifts. TLDR: God chooses to work through man, not instead of man and man can only rise because God empowers him.
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk

Without God, man cannot and without man, God will not..

English
2
2
11
1.6K
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
@asemota Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfied......May his soul rest in peace 🙏
English
0
0
0
29
EGBENCHONG ♊ retweetledi
George Kao
George Kao@GeorgeKao·
For more creative ideas, go for a 10m walk while talking out your ideas (can be recorded)... then sit down and continue. Walking indoors (eg treadmill, or how about back and forth down the hallway?) is nearly as helpful as outdoors.
Carlos E. Perez@IntuitMachine

🧵 1/12 Your best ideas don’t come at your desk. They come when you’re walking. A 2014 Stanford study (published in Journal of Experimental Psychology) proved it with 4 clean experiments: walking literally gives your ideas legs. 81% of people got more creative while walking. The effect lasts even after you sit down. This is the creativity hack nobody talks about enough. Let’s break it down. 🚶‍♂️🧠 🧵 2/12The paper is called “Give Your Ideas Some Legs” by Marily Oppezzo & Daniel L. Schwartz. They tested two types of thinking: Divergent (wild, original ideas — Guilford’s Alternate Uses test) Convergent (one correct answer — Compound Remote Associates) Walking crushed divergent thinking. It actually hurt convergent thinking a bit. Translation: Walking = idea generation machine. Not idea judging. 🔥 🧵 3/12 Experiment 1 (treadmill, indoors, blank wall): People did the creativity test sitting → then walking. 81% became more creative while walking. Average boost: ~60%. They also generated 50% more total ideas (good + bad). Walking didn’t just make them talk more — it made a higher percentage of those ideas actually creative. Wild. 🧵 4/12 Experiment 2 added the killer detail: Sit → Walk Walk → Sit Sit → Sit (control) Walking beat sitting. But sitting AFTER walking was just as good as walking. The creative boost lingers. You can walk, then sit down and still ride the wave. Game-changer for meetings & writing. 🧵 5/12 Experiment 3 took it outside (real campus walk). Same massive boost. Even better: the effect didn’t wear off after a second walk. Switching rooms in the sit-sit condition didn’t help — it was the walking, not just “changing scenery.” 🧵 6/12 Experiment 4 was the most elegant: Four conditions — Sit inside Walk inside (treadmill) Sit outside (wheeled in wheelchair) Walk outside Only walking produced the highest-quality, most novel analogies (Barron’s Symbolic Equivalence test). Being outside helped novelty a bit… but walking was the real driver. The legs win again. 🧵 7/12Key takeaways: ✅ Walking boosts appropriate novelty (the actual definition of creativity) ✅ Works on treadmill OR outdoors ✅ Effect is immediate + has a ~10–15 min residual boost ✅ 81–100% of participants improved depending on the study ✅ It’s free, healthy, and requires zero training Nietzsche was right: “All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.” 🧵 8/12Why does this work? The researchers ruled out: Just “exercise” Outdoor stimulation alone Embodied cognition (you don’t need to keep moving) Likely mechanisms: more associative memory flow + reduced executive suppression of weird ideas. Walking = mild distraction that unlocks your brain’s default network. 🧵 9/12 Real-world application Stuck on a problem? Go for a 10–15 min walk Talk your ideas out loud (they recorded responses) Come back and write Want to brainstorm with your team? Walk + talk. Creativity + exercise in one move. The ultimate life cheat code. 🧵 10/12 This study is from 2014 and still criminally under-known. In an era of endless sitting, Zoom fatigue, and “I’m not creative” excuses… Walking is the simplest, most evidence-backed intervention we have. No apps. No courses. Just stand up and move. 🧵 11/12. If you: Write Design Code Teach Manage Or just want better ideas… Make walking your non-negotiable creativity ritual. I’ve started doing it. The difference is ridiculous. 🧵 12/12 Drop a 🔥 if you’re going for a walk after reading this. Tag a friend who needs to hear this. Your next great idea is literally one walk away. Now stand up. Thread end. 🧵🚶‍♂️

English
0
1
1
41
Kachanyi
Kachanyi@Chanyi29_·
Whatever you do in this life as a man.....Abeg no lef woman buy you phone. I di cam , make I move my sim for this phone first.😂💔
English
28
12
83
1.9K
mubiouš
mubiouš@Mubarak_mubious·
what industry is entirely built on a house of cards and would collapse overnight if people realized the truth about it ??
English
1.4K
277
3K
1.3M
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
most people do not develop their minds in college either. They develop the performance of having developed their minds, which is a different and less durable thing. skipping college to work on a startup is taking on the same responsibility that every serious person faces regardless of the institutional path they took. The only downside is that there are fewer social structures to hide the failure when it happens.
Paul Graham@paulg

If you skip some or all of college to start a startup, it's on you to develop your mind the way college would have. And that's not something that happens by default in most startups.

English
0
0
0
34
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
most people do not develop their minds in college either. They develop the performance of having developed their minds, which is a different and less durable thing. skipping college to work on a startup is taking on the same responsibility that every serious person faces regardless of the institutional path they took. The only downside is that there are fewer social structures to hide the failure when it happens.
English
0
0
0
94
Paul Graham
Paul Graham@paulg·
If you skip some or all of college to start a startup, it's on you to develop your mind the way college would have. And that's not something that happens by default in most startups.
English
287
312
5.9K
435.8K
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
@mideseniordev @kunalvg This doesn't give a generalist an edge over a specilist in their domain. That is the whole aim of having a specialist. If you have working knowledge in that field, great. But you can never stand in equal grounds with a specialist. This shouldn't be a debate
English
2
0
0
14
mideseniordev
mideseniordev@mideseniordev·
@JosephAyuk @kunalvg Yes it takes time. Building knowledge should be an incremental and continuous process. Specialists become very myopic because the zone into a domain. Generalist would typically develop abilities to create and innovate because of their multidomain knowledge.
English
1
0
0
15
Kunal Gandhi
Kunal Gandhi@kunalvg·
Being a generalist was always the right bet.
English
82
148
1.3K
55.3K
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
@mideseniordev @kunalvg It's very rare to have depth in multiple domains. It takes years of experimentation to achieve such mastery. Generalists have working knowledge which is good, but depth ? It requires years of toil and dedication
English
1
0
0
18
mideseniordev
mideseniordev@mideseniordev·
@JosephAyuk @kunalvg How about depth in multiple domains? Being a generalist does not necessarily mean shallow knowledge in every field. Theres M Shaped also not just T shaped
English
1
0
0
12
Melissa 🇨🇦
Melissa 🇨🇦@MelissaLMRogers·
HOLY CRAP 🇨🇦 Rogers Communications, a Canadian based company, is offering 25,000 employees an EXIT PACKAGE. Half its workforce 25,000 people Scary
English
905
1.4K
6.8K
491K
EGBENCHONG ♊ retweetledi
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
Knowing the stack is the floor. Knowing when the stack is the wrong answer is the ceiling. Jensen is selling you the floor and calling it the ceiling. The developer worth hiring is not the one who can name every agent framework and workflow tool. It is the one who has been burned enough times by the gap between the demo and the production system to have developed genuine judgment about where that gap lives, and who can communicate that judgment clearly enough to prevent the people around them from making expensive mistakes. That developer exists at the intersection of deep technical knowledge and hard-won epistemic humility about what the technology can actually do. No amount of framework tutorials produces that intersection. Only serious problems and honest post-mortems do. Bookmark this instead.
Khairallah AL-Awady@eng_khairallah1

🚨 CEO of Nvidia: "I'd hire the graduate who's expert in AI over the one who isn't. Every time" he's not talking about people who use AI everyone uses AI. he's talking about people who know the stack. agents. frameworks. tools. workflows. Bookmark it.

English
0
1
1
72
EGBENCHONG ♊ retweetledi
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
I love this piece from @paulg and it got me thinking about founders building for African markets. The African markets with the most significant unmet needs are domains where the problem understanding required to build well is the scarcest resource. These are not domains where you can read your way to PMF. They require the embedded knowledge that only comes from extended presence in the market. The founder who has that knowledge and who starts with the problem, and later discovers that AI can amplify their solution by 10x will be in the position @paulg describes. I see many founders building for African markets adopt the inverse. They start with AI capability and work down towards the problem. Reminds me of this great piece from Steve Jobs.
Paul Graham@paulg

The biggest opportunity for would-be startup founders is AI. But the most underpriced opportunity is probably non-AI ideas. So if you have a good non-AI idea, go for it, because everyone else is going to overlook it.

English
0
1
1
35
EGBENCHONG ♊ retweetledi
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
I agree with the test and disagree with the conclusion being drawn from it. The test correctly identifies which companies have no proprietary technology. It incorrectly implies that companies without proprietary tech have no moat. The most durable monopolies in business history, the likes of Coca-Cola, LVMH etc... have had minimal proprietary tech and enormous moats built from brand, distribution, customer relations, and institutional trust. A weekend vibe coding test would have disproved all of them. The more interesting diligence question is not whether the tech can be cloned but whether the customer relationships, the brand position, the operational knowledge and distribution can be cloned. Such tests cannot be run over a weekend. It requires the kind of deep market understanding that takes time, humility, and direct engagement with the people who actually use and choose the product.
Sid Trivedi@sidtriv

Diligence in 2026 is wild. My friends in PE are now spending the weekend before IC trying to rebuild the company they're acquiring in Claude Code. If the clone works, the deal dies. Cheapest moat test in human history.

English
0
1
1
30
EGBENCHONG ♊ retweetledi
EGBENCHONG ♊
EGBENCHONG ♊@JosephAyuk·
Every significant productivity tool in the history of software dev has generated this same prediction. Compilers were supposed to displace assembly programmers. They did displace the activity of writing assembly while dramatically expanding the number and complexity of programs being written, which increased the demand for software engineers overall. Fourth-gen programming languages in the 80s were supposed to allow business users to write their own software without programmers. They created a new category of programmer-adjacent work while expanding the software market dramatically. No-code and low-code tools in the 2010s were supposed to democratize software dev to the point of eliminating the need for professional developers. They created new categories of software that required professional developers to build and maintain the infra those tools ran on. This pattern is consistent across every transition. The mechanical layer of software dev is automated, which expands the market for software dramatically, which increases the total demand for SWE judgement even as it reduces the demand for mechanical coding specifically (junior devs). This prediction is possible but not yet demonstrated. And the person making the prediction just happens to be the CEO of the company selling the automation tool, which is the same position every previous prediction-maker occupied in every previous cycle.
AI Edge@aiedge_

Anthropic CEO (Dario Amodei): "Coding is going away first, then all of software engineering." What do you think about this?

English
0
1
1
19