University Professor, Claremont Graduate University. New free book: "Graduate School, Augmented: The Joys of Learning, Creating, and Finding Your Way with AI"

Claremont, CA
Joined December 2011
How This Started How It's Going
2
32
1,334
Fascinating and important. Can’t wait to discuss with grad students.
67
So much fun!
Everything is out of control now. 😂😂
75
Many compassionate things to like—and then this . . .
Every word is James Talarico’s. 27 clips. 4 minutes. 2019–2026. “God is non-binary.” “…many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six.” “If you deny your child’s gender identity… it’s abusive for sure.” “There’s only one person who can determine a child’s gender identity, and that’s the child.” “I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care too.” “…the bill that would have denied gender-affirming health care to trans children… All these ideologies stem from this Christofascism movement.” “The way I fought for trans kids in the legislature is how I will fight for the U.S. Senate, and my position hasn’t changed.” “Prophetic voices like Jesus have helped me reckon with my own whiteness.” “It’s always rich to me that defund the police is considered off limits…” “Prison is violence.” “Tear down this secret police force.” Assault weapons ban? “Absolutely.” Send this to 10 Texas voters and tell them to vote today.
2
52
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Absolutely brilliant from Kemi Badenoch. Nice push back against one of the ‘journalists’.
158
753
94
7,351
794,060
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
G.K. Chesterton on mysticism
49
654
65
3,514
88,854
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Some people want to end the witch hunts. Others want to choose different witches. I am anti-woke but that can mean two different things: 1. 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚, but happy to use woke tactics on the left 2. 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙨, and won’t use them on anyone We should distinguish between these and have words for them. I propose the terminology of “tribal anti-woke” and “principled anti-woke”. Tribal anti-wokes are happy to use these methods against the left: • 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 (e.g. the wave of firings over Charlie Kirk comments) • 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 (e.g. forced deportation without due process) • 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 (e.g. barring the AP from the press pool for not saying “Gulf of America”) • 𝗨𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗯𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀: “woke,” “communist,” or “DEI hire” • 𝗨𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 ___𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗿 (e.g. any criticism of Israel = antisemitism) • 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 (e.g. Libs of TikTok targeting teachers) • 𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀’ 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 (e.g. gloating over Kimmel’s suspension) • 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 (e.g. dismissing someone’s argument because they’re a woman, trans, white, male, etc.) • 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 (e.g. treating all immigrants as criminals) • 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 (e.g. federal grant reviews flagging terms like “diversity” and “equity”) • 𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮 (e.g. Florida school libraries) • 𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 (e.g. freezing a university’s funding over some students’ protests) • 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (e.g. Trump threatening to blacklist Nikki Haley’s donors) • 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (e.g. revoking student visas over op-eds) • 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 (e.g. “their rhetoric caused this” as grounds to punish speech, not just criticize it) • 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 (e.g. purging “RINOs”) • 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (e.g. “more conservatives got banned, so it’s bias”) • 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 (e.g. Twitter Files bad, FCC threats fine) Some examples of people who are principled anti-woke: • @slatestarcodex • @tracewoodgrains • Greg Lukianoff @glukianoff • Paul Graham @paulg • Myself Some examples of people who are tribal anti-woke: • Trump • Brendan Carr • Laura Loomer • Chaya Raichik (Libs of TikTok) Of note: it might be better to think of it as tribal/principled anti-woke 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 rather than a whole identity. Sometimes a person who is usually a principled anti-woke person may slip into tribal. The same is true vice versa.
I am anti-woke & proud. Here’s a manifesto of what this means & why I fight woke ideology. I’m not alone in this. If you believe these too, you’re one of us. (See the end for a definition of woke.) ——— 𝟭. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 We believe individuals should be hired based on their skills and experience, not based on their race or gender. If you think that will disadvantage a race or gender, you’re actually being racist or sexist. ——— 𝟮. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺 Back in the day, people default believed the man in rape allegations. That was bad. Woke nowadays tries to make it so people default believe the woman in rape allegations. That is 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 bad. We believe in due process. Hear both sides. Decide on each case based on the evidence. ——— 𝟯. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 Make sure everybody can apply. Sometimes this will lead to group differences, and that’s OK. Women used to be barred from most professions. When we removed the barriers, they flocked to medicine and law and now it’s close to 50-50 among students there. They didn’t flock to STEM - and that’s 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦. The reason doesn’t matter. They can join STEM if they want, and plenty of women do. But we shouldn’t aim for 50-50 women in STEM. We shouldn’t aim for “proportional representation” in any field. We should just make sure everybody’s allowed to try, and some will take up the opportunity and others won’t. Let people be adults. ——— 𝟰. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗱 Did you descend from slave-owners? Or are you white, with no ancestors who owned slaves, but the same race as those who did? So what? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 never owned slaves. You’re against slavery. You shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for something outside of your control. ——— 𝟱. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 Did a black person commit a crime? Did a woman kill her husband? Did a non-white person loot a store during a riot? Then they should be held accountable for their crimes. They should not have a mob of people saying that they only did it because of racism/sexism/what-have-you. Maybe a white criminal did it because they had a hard childhood. Maybe a man raped a woman because he’s mentally ill. Nobody ever says we should let them off the hook because of that. We should apply the same standards to everybody, regardless of irrelevant group membership. Including black people and women. ——— 𝟲. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 It used to be that people by default believed white people instead of black people. That was bad. Nowadays they’re trying to make it so that, by default, you believe black people instead of white people. That is 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 bad. We should believe people based on their arguments and evidence, not based on race. The same goes for gender and all other possible group identities. ——— 𝟳. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 We believe if we disagree on an ethical question, we should try to persuade the person with reasons. We don’t believe we should bully them into submission and exile them if they don’t sufficiently bend the knee to a mob. ——— 𝟴. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 We believe police officers are there to protect people. And usually they do. Sometimes they make mistakes or there are ways to improve the institution. But we shouldn’t eliminate an institution because it could be better. ——— 𝟵. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 The ideal is to not see race. To make being black or any form of non-white a complete non-issue, much like how nobody cares if you’re descended from the Irish or Italians nowadays. Talking about race all the time and encouraging non-white people to be afraid of white people and constantly bringing up old grievances is stirring up ethnic tensions. ——— 𝟭𝟬. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 Did you feel unsupported at work? Did you feel offended by something a colleague said? Did you feel it was unfair that somebody had more power or status than you? Fine. Welcome to the real world. Deal with it. Your every discomfort is not meant to be catered to. Life is uncomfortable. Get a helmet. ——— 𝟭𝟭. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗺𝗮 Life is hard. Lots of minor to major things will happen to you and you can handle it. In fact, you can grow from it. Believing things will cause trauma creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We believe the solution to dealing with life’s slings and arrows is to develop a thick skin. Not to create a bubble environment where the smallest thing causes you to freak out and seek a “safe space”. ——— 𝟭𝟮. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝘆 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 Yes, men commit far more violence than women. Yes, some white men commit domestic abuse or hate women. Yes, some white police officers harm black people. But we should not judge a group by its worst members. Most white men never harm women. Most white police officers do not harm black people. In fact, both groups are far more likely to protect those groups than to harm them. The vast majority of men are ethical. The vast majority of men will 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 a woman in danger. That’s why judging men by their worst members is misandry. ——— 𝟭𝟯. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 Did a mentally ill sex worker say she was a victim? Did an indigenous disabled woman comment on the Indian Act? Who cares? That doesn’t make them more credible. What makes people more credible is knowledge. Being a member of a group doesn’t magically make you an expert. Depending on the mental illness, it should 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 your credibility. It might mean you’re experiencing paranoid delusions or interpreting ambiguous events as dangerous. ——— 𝟭𝟰. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Even if you don’t have much knowledge about a group or situation, you’re allowed to comment on it. Nobody should be silenced based on race or gender. ——— 𝟭𝟱. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗹𝗲 We believe if somebody makes a genuine mistake, the solution isn’t to exile them or get them fired. We believe in a path to redemption. We believe in trying to change their minds with reason and moral persuasion. We believe that if they see the error of their ways, we should forgive them. ——— 𝟭𝟲. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆, 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 Woke will do everything it can to preserve the culture and traditions of non-white people. Then they’ll turn and say any feelings of pride for white people are “white supremacy”. People are allowed to feel proud of their history without hating other groups. ——— 𝟭𝟳. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘄𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 The indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest were warlike slave societies. The Iroquois ethnically cleansed the Wendat in the 1600s. Should they spend their days feeling guilty about their ancestors’ sins? Or should we all acknowledge that, yes, those bad things were bad, learn from them, and move on? Some white people did bad things in the past. They also did good things. Like, for example, ending slavery. That doesn’t mean we should feel endlessly guilty. We didn’t do anything bad. We should feel responsible for our own actions and those we can influence, not things beyond our control. ——— 𝟭𝟴. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 Sometimes you will have the best of intentions and still hurt somebody’s feelings. That should be taken into account when thinking about what to do about the situation. We need to respond differently to somebody who was trying to hurt you vs somebody who made an honest mistake. ——— 𝟭𝟵. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 Woke’s rallying cry for why people should come and defend the victim-heroes is that they “felt unsafe”. We say: so what? Feelings sometimes point to something real, sometimes not. You have to check. Just because you felt unsafe around a man, just because you’re afraid he’ll retaliate, doesn’t mean he’s actually dangerous. Check. If there’s real evidence, act on it. If there’s no reason to actually be afraid, get over it. The problem is 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. Fix them. Don’t make your feelings other people’s problem. ——— 𝟮𝟬. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘅𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆, 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗶𝗮 Playing the game of spot the racism/sexism/transphobia/____ism makes you fear large swathes of society. Believing most men are predators out to hurt you or sexually assault you makes you fear and dislike half of the whole population. Focusing on every single bad thing a police officer has ever done leads to distrusting the institutions designed to protect you. All of this leads to a general paranoia, believing anybody could be out to get you and distrusting every person’s intentions. Believing your skin color means you’re guilty for every single bad thing a white person has ever done makes you depressed. Same goes for feeling guilty for being a man, straight, or cis. ——— 𝟮𝟭. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁-𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 The biggest warning sign you’re in a cult is that it encourages cutting off people who are not part of the cult. If they say you should cut off family members or friends because they disagree with you, that’s bad. They are isolating you and this leads down a road of echo chambers, loneliness, and escalating abuse. ——— 𝟮𝟮. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 ____𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 Not every group difference is because of racism/sexism/transphobia, etc. It’s important to explore other possibilities. If somebody proposes another hypothesis, they should not be fired or exiled. Their arguments should be engaged with. ——— 𝟮𝟯. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 If you enjoyed or didn’t mind something at the time, it’s terrible emotional intelligence to later re-interpret it as traumatizing. It’s downright unethical to then turn that reframing into ruining the life of the person who you “were traumatized by”. You can reframe hard things into something good or neutral. You can also reframe good or neutral things into bad. One is healthy and good. The other is unhealthy and bad for the person doing it and their target. ——— 𝟮𝟰. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 A woman can choose to have sex while drunk and regret it the next day. We believe a woman can sleep with a powerful man to advance her career. We believe a woman can get a job where she thinks the work is beneath her or doesn’t like the boss. We believe a woman can get jealous or mad at a man and do serious damage and even kill him. They’re adults, and they will be treated the same as men. This is what equality means. If they did something they regret, that’s on them. They made that decision. If they committed something unethical, they will be held accountable by society. No special treatment. ——— 𝟮𝟱. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗱, 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 The indigenous people aren’t the “original” people of an area. Every single area was conquered back and forth for millennia prior. Thinking that a land belongs to a certain race and the others should all leave is racist ethnonationalism. We should not do it. ——— 𝟮𝟲. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗢𝗞 Nobody calls the Olympics black supremacist because athletes of West African descent dominate in sprinting. They’re just better at sprinting for some reason. It’s probably genetic. And that’s OK. There might be genetic differences between races and genders, and that’s OK. Judge each person as an individual, not their group averages. ——— 𝟮𝟳. 𝗪𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 It used to be that black people and women were silenced. That was bad. Nowadays, they’re trying to silence white people and men. That is 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 bad. Everybody should be allowed to speak, regardless of race, gender, or group membership. ——— 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗜 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝘆 “𝘄𝗼𝗸𝗲”? Woke is a cluster of beliefs and behaviors that makes a point of hating any label, because the name inevitably becomes stigmatized. That’s because a large percentage of society hates everything they stand for. It is not stigma. It is earned dislike. But to define them: • Some other words for the cluster: social justice warriors, the far left, critical theorists, critical social justice, left identitarianism, identity politics, the Great Awokening, the regressive left • It’s the ideology that everything is about oppression, race/gender/trans, power imbalances, believing all alleged victims, cancel culture, playing spot the racism/sexism/transphobia/etc. • Its central cases are White Fragility, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, DEI
6
4
3
42
2,745
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
The reason people are so excited and impressed by Elon’s flying car, despite its impracticability, is that it’s one of the first times in recent memory of a physical innovation. Not another app, not another software, not another chatbot, a real three dimensional thing that changes how we interact with the physical world. I think this is what the irritation with tech has been for many “luddites” of late, it all seems to be pulling us into a screen. Whereas Elon’s invention seems to be finally doing the opposite. If you’re building things in the real world too, even if it’s paintings, cashmere sweaters, books or sculptures, you’ll appreciate this.
249
180
38
2,139
35,969
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred. The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead. By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable. Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini. The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place. Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers. On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse. When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting. On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT. On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment." The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients: An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations. As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board. When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family. At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims. I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis. The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide. [In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.] On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David. Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice. Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest. The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment. While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view. To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation. Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here. And the reputational damage was not just to David. David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?" For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts. How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time. For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute. I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world. To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here. At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report. Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
581
1,718
239
13,167
1,263,388
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Everyone denouncing @elonmusk for allegedly “cutting off Starlink to Ukraine” (particularly European broadsheets, whose certainty seems to exceed their grasp of the facts) conveniently overlooks just how critical @SpaceX has been to Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. A few facts worth remembering: 1/ February 2022: Within 48 hours of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Musk activated @Starlink at the Ukrainian government’s request and rapidly deployed satellite terminals. As Moscow attempted to seize Kyiv in a lightning offensive, SpaceX provided resilient communications infrastructure that became critical to Ukraine’s defence as Russia attacked conventional networks. 2/ 2022: When Russia attempted to jam Starlink, SpaceX engineers rapidly deployed software updates that defeated the attack. The speed of their response astonished Pentagon electronic-warfare specialists, who publicly praised SpaceX. A commercial technology company was countering Russian military electronic warfare in real time. 3/ 2022–2026: Starlink became indispensable to Ukraine’s military operations: command and control, battlefield communications, artillery coordination, reconnaissance and drone warfare. By July 2026, Reuters was documenting Starlink-enabled Ukrainian precision drones striking Russian fuel depots, supply routes, air defences and command centres deep behind the front lines. Satellite connectivity had become a major enabler of Ukraine’s ability to fight a vastly larger military. 4/ 2023–2025: SpaceX expanded Ukraine’s access to military-grade satellite communications through Pentagon-backed Starshield arrangements, strengthening secure, encrypted and jamming-resistant connectivity. 5/ February 2026: At Kyiv’s request, SpaceX again intervened directly, helping Ukraine disable unauthorized Russian Starlink terminals, including those used on attack drones. Ukrainian officials reported serious disruption to Russian communications and assault operations. ⸻ Top line: @SpaceX is a commercial company that initially provided Starlink to Ukraine voluntarily. It had no general obligation to enter the war or answer Kyiv’s appeals for help. Starshield, Starlink’s military counterpart, operates under U.S. government authority (not Musk’s personal discretion!). Ignoring SpaceX’s extraordinary contribution to Ukraine’s war effort while rushing to blame Musk is hardly serious analysis. But perhaps it’s no surprise. The Financial Times actually ran a headline calling Musk a “real-life Bond villain” on the day of SpaceX’s historic IPO. For supposedly sophisticated commentators, blaming Musk for every evil seems easier than grappling with the facts. It’s predictable, boring, and a major cognitive trap.
55
95
15
421
18,639
Important and discouraging
I got a few questions about the Maryland in class AI study and how it relates to @alldaytahelps. Short answer: you need care to design AI assistants! A few things I notice (and we see these bad patterns *all the time* in university-created in-class AI): 1/10
54
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
The early puritan settlers of America were not anti-sex. In fact, their writings were so explicit they were later censored. What they were is *particular* about sex. They punished infidelity and especially perversion. But they were not modern “prudes”. They thought a healthy sex life was an essential part of the contract of marriage (they were very contractarian in general) and actually punished some husbands for failing to perform. They were strictly and universally against wife (or husband) beating and punished both kinds of abuse. They even punished spousal yelling, again with remarkable gender balance. They were adamant that marriage should be a peaceful and loving union in service of God. People think of the puritans and they basically imagine poor victorians. This is false. The puritans were much closer to nature and much more honest. And they deeply valued romantic love. The worst thing you can say about them is they were intrusive. If the community detected marital strife, they intervened and demanded harmonious resolution. They remained strictly patriarchal, theologically and socially. There are many literarily excellent love letters written by educated puritan women aligning with the theme of the husband as the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the Church, describing the intensity of love they felt. Yet women enjoyed more formal rights there than almost anywhere else. This is America’s heritage, or at least part of it. It is more special than you know. It is not merely English heritage. It is the particular culture of East Anglia, which has always been more protestant, more rebellious, more independent, more egalitarian, and more romantic in the deep sense of the term. It was the most influenced by Germanic invaders, and the most influenced by those who skinned them alive. Both warrior cultures. I am summarizing readings from Albion’s Seed and will continue to do so as I read more.
People are always posting this bottom chart, but just look at it. Like actually read the chart. How would you interpret this? Well, pretty clearly it says that people who get married as virgins have more stable marriages. What is this telling us? These are religious people who have a religious commitment to marriage. More sex isn’t ruining the other people on the chart. Having more sex just means you’re not the kind of person already who gets married as a virgin. And you lose that status pretty much the first time you have premarital sex, which is demonstrated by the huge jump from virgin to one partner. What else does the chart say? It says that in the 1980s and 1990s, having 10+ partners before marriage meant a *lower* rate of divorce than at two partners. It’s only in the 2000s that we see an increase in divorce for people with 10+ partners. What was this big jump? Risk of divorce in the 2000s appears to increase from about 30% at two partners to something like 33% at 10+ partners. That’s the big scary risk of having 10+ partners before marriage? Finally, as with the virgin brides, you probably shouldn’t assume that more premarital sex is ruining the people who are more likely to get divorced after 10+ partners. They were already that kind of person. That’s why they have 10+ partners. You’re selecting for all the people who value novelty and who aren’t satisfied staying with one person. So it’s more like this is an indicator, something to keep in mind, but it’s obviously not determinative. If anything, this chart shows us that premarital sex of any kind, in any amount, to any degree, is predictive of a higher rate of divorce. What it does not show us is that much sluttier people have much higher rates of divorce. The effect is locked in at one or two partners.
35
124
13
2,337
96,758
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
My @FT letter on the @AnthropicAI and @OpenAI IPOs and AI regulation: "The prospective flotations of Anthropic and OpenAI offer a one-off opportunity to establish a wider governance regime for frontier AI (“Charles hosts summit on AI frontier risks”, Report, September 18). Both companies have already accepted the principle that ordinary corporate governance is not enough. Anthropic is a public benefit corporation with a Long-Term Benefit Trust; OpenAI has retained foundation control of its public benefit corporation. Both recognise that the potential effects of frontier AI extend far beyond their shareholders. Governments should build on that principle before these companies enter the public markets and their ownership structures become entrenched. The aim should not be to regulate every AI company. It should be to establish a category of systemically important frontier AI institutions, with special obligations: independent safety oversight and model evaluation, mandatory reporting of serious incidents and threats, protected public-interest governance, and structured legal powers for government to delay deployment where exceptional risks justify it. Banking offers a useful analogy. Systemically important banks remain private businesses, but their potential externalities justify special governance, stress-testing and supervision. Public capital markets are a privilege as well as a source of finance. To allow these AI behemoths to float without addressing their wider responsibilities would be to squander a remarkable opportunity."
3
4
787
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Thank you @NICKIMINAJ 👏👏💖💖
JUST IN🚨: Nicki Minaj expresses gratitude to Elon Musk for his acquisition of X, highlighting his stance on free speech and saying she wanted him to know how much she appreciates it.
315
1,735
31
12,756
665,432
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
Mike Evans on what he said to Trevon Diggs: “I was blocking him until the whistle and he said I’m doing extra or something like that, and I didn’t know that was him at first because I played against him a few times and we’ve always been cool. He’s a good player. I honestly didn’t know it was him because in the helmet it’s hard to tell sometimes. I said who are you and looked to make sure and I was like 'Oh, it’s fucking Diggs', and then he mushed me. That should have been a penalty. It is what it is.”
51
365
47
7,221
393,301
An all-time response to thrash talk
You probably wish you did this to Crabtree huh? 😂😂😂
1
94
Robert Klitgaard retweeted
This poem is unbearable. But what‘s more unbearable is the slap in our face to try to sell it as poetry, and make us pretend that we like being slapped in the face by reading it.
A poem by Anne Carson, who was awarded the 2026 Nobel Prize in Literature. Read it in full: newyorker.com/magazine/2001/…
133
195
13
1,639
73,383
“We mathematicians didn’t ask for this…”
When the proof of Fermat's last theorem was announced by Wiles in June 1993, newspapers around the world covered it extensively. I was a ten-year-old boy in Calcutta, India, and the story was splashed across my local newspaper. A few months later, I went to a bookshop with my grandfather and bought two popular books that tried to explain what all the excitement was about. Yesterday was the single greatest day of mathematical breakthroughs in history. This is not an exaggeration. In terms the collective significance and depth of the results released, this was at least ten times, perhaps even a hundred times, as momentous as the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. So where is the media? Where are the headlines, the breathless newsrooms, the door to door conversations? Where is the sense of incredible wonder this moment deserves?
89
Important and exemplary thread
Just did some number crunching using latest (Oct 1) ECMWF seasonal data, and I must say that I've never seen such high predictive confidence in a very wet California winter. This is a truly extraordinary forecast amid a record-strength El Niño event. [Thread: please read to end.]
90