Suvy retweeted
We literally don't have flying cars.
Musk's demos are always flim-flam. We don't have the autonomous robots he's demoed for the last decade, we don't have the Roadster that he announced a decade ago. You cannot buy the car he demonstrated, it wasn't really even a car.
Yes, it was impressive as heck, to make something that looks like a car stick upside down then fly for a couple of seconds. Don't get me wrong, I was impressed.
It's just that we still don't have flying cars, nor is there is there a believable plan to have flying cars any time soon.
Suvy retweeted
AI won’t take your job. Someone who knows how to use AI better than you, will take your job.
We’re already starting to see what kind of new jobs AI is creating.
AI requires significant technical work and surrounding services to deploy into the economy. This means jobs for AI engineers that build applied AI products sold to (or within) enterprises, FDEs to deploy agents into companies, new services firms for deploying AI, and more.
And even the published stats of new jobs undercount all the existing jobs that are transitioning to new areas of AI work in an enterprise. Many prior data, research, and software jobs large enterprises are also being repositioned for working with AI.
Every bank, life sciences company, manufacturer, and even law firm is bringing on more technical talent -or repositioning existing roles- to help with agent deployment in their companies. It’s a lot easier to picture what AI can replace vs. what it creates until it starts happening. Now we’re seeing what this looks like.
Ravens vs Browns game is exactly what happens when you don't listen to analytics.
If the Ravens went for 4th and 4 at midfield w/2 min left, their chances of making the 1st down is >50%. Browns getting the ball back w/1:59 has a win probability of <30% for the Ravens.
Ppl do not understand how awful of a candidate Michael Whatley is unless you're in NC.
This is a hand picked guy from DC goons who doesn't know the state. He's spent all his time in DC for the last decade, is not from NC.
These are beltless squats for 5x195. The ankle mobility isn't there to go much deeper than this, but I'm getting below parallel on most of these (maybe missed 1-2).
Ankle mobility is getting better so I'm able to get a couple inches deeper, but it'll need more work to go ATG.
The AVERAGE swing since the House moved to 435 seats in 1913 has been 25-30 seats.
If we take all of US history, the average swing is ~5-7% which implying a ~22-30 seats swing w/Dems starting at ~214.
So qn average move puts Dems>235. In the case of a wave election, it's >250.
This is understating the chance Democrats have of winning the House and their seat totals.
Dems chance of taking the House is >90% w/an >2/3 chance of hitting 235+. There is an asymmetric nature to off year cycles ignored here.
An AVERAGE House swing puts Dems at >235.
I have consistently been doing high bar barbell back squats to at least parallel (usually below parallel) consistently for 7 weeks using weightlifting shoes.
I am not sure I have ever seen these kinda muscle gains in my life. This is shit is on par w/straight up noob gains.
It is very easy to get criminality to basically zero by using extremely authoritarian governance. That is not a good thing.
The job a politician is to maximize their personal power (ppl suggesting otherwise are delusional).
It is never in the interests of those in power to burn it down cuz they're burning things down that they have control over.
Burn it down politics will always be a failure.
We all see it. No serious pollster can dispute it.
That is the Burn It Down Coalition, sprinkled with MAHA Moms.
@JoshuaLisec and I literally wrote THE book on and warning about it, for THIS cycle.
Question: Why did Republicans refuse to address it?
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0HJRZ7JG…
👇👇👇👇
Are prediction markets biased by white men? Republicans? Young people?
Dartmouth professor Eric Zitzewitz analyzed 145 years of election prediction market data, spanning multiple exchanges and countries. His findings:
• No systematic evidence of political bias across different eras, countries, and offices.
• No systematic evidence of pricing bias based on candidates’ race, gender, or age in the recent elections studied.
• Traders weren’t always representative of the voting population, yet that didn’t translate into systematic bias in election forecasts.
The paper points to a powerful mechanism: people who spot a mispriced outcome have a financial incentive to correct it. Even if some participants trade on personal preferences, informed traders keep prices grounded in reality.
Open competition incentivizes research, challenges consensus, and gives the best ideas a chance to surface. People are rewarded for being right, regardless of their background or preferences.
The paper does find some pricing biases, including slight overpricing of longshots and underpricing of favorites. Its central finding on election markets remains: no systematic evidence of political or demographic bias.
In an increasingly polarized world, these markets give us something valuable: an impartial source of information shaped by people with an incentive to get it right.
This is a classic case of what I was talking about earlier: ppl in politics becoming so stupid they don't understand basic probability and chances.
It also shows structural flaws in thinking: they don't adjust outcomes as new information comes in, usually just double down.
The only way to not get new information is to either be dead in a coma).
You were in the packrat group chat of conservabros talking about how COVID would be over within a week and how Iran would be finished by now. They're exhibiting sub-human herd behavior, fucking animals.
So now we got balding eggheads calling ppl who are not voting (like myself) to be affiliated w/the other side.
These ppl keeping dumber.