Andrew Ma

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.

Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.

Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.

Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.

Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.

La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

[Manhattan Institute @ManhattanInst]

Only 50% of young women hold a positive view of men. That number drops to 35% for women under 25.

How is the feminization of society working out?

@HMDatMI and @MrWinMarshall on the consequences of female-dominated universities, corporations, and government:

[Colin Wright @SwipeWright]

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE!

We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”

But that’s not really true.

Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.

And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.

This isn’t exactly new.

In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.

Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.

The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.

And today, the problem is even worse.

We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”

But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.

That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.

And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”

That is untenable.

So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”

The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.

A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.

Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?

If yes, it gets published.

And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.

That’s how science is supposed to work.

Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.

Now it’s time for academics to use it.

Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗https://t.co/gqkDE7aaDC

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

@SawyerMerritt Will the FSD subscription price stay at $99/month? Or, will it go up for Cybercabs?

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

@AIPandaX AI expands on th points she provided: https://t.co/fqCndXC2mc

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

https://t.co/OnoXDxAOUo

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

NBC News is turning around and telling the truth on illegal border crossings. Hope this spreads to other subjects and other MSM. https://t.co/NrRNHH1Thh

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

Why Modern Progressivism has redefined itself to be the opposite of traditional Progressivism https://t.co/uwWc9qVQRl via @YouTube

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

With 30 people arrested everyday for what they post on social media, this is an excellent interview of one of them. British police now operates the “show me the man and I will find you the crime” campaign. Title: 17-year-old citizen journalist 'Young Bob' arrested for speaking his mind https://t.co/u3a9wxYlZh via @YouTube

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

Why did Dems sent planes to foreign nations to directly fly illegal migrants to swing states, bypassing the U. S. border? https://t.co/o1j3oV2rhg

[Saggezza Eterna @FinalTelegraph]

The teacher celebrating Charlie Kirk's death wasn't an outlier. She was a product of a system. For decades, our schools have been systematically repurposed from halls of learning into factories of leftist indoctrination. They are forging the next generation into political weapons. This thread exposes their playbook. 🧵

[TUSHAR @TUXHXR_X]

@benleo

[PeterSweden @PeterSweden7]

Britain.

1. A 14 year old girl was s*xually assaulted by Ethiopian as*lum seeker

2. Locals in Epping organized massive protests to shut down the as*lum seeker hotel

3. The local council in Epping closed the hotel

4. The government says the rights of as*lum seekers is more important than locals

5. So the government is taking Epping council to court to force them to reopen the hotel.

UNREAL.

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

@SawyerMerritt @Tesla Does any insurance company offer Tesla discounts if it has FSD? There are discounts for snow tires as it makes the car safer.

[Alumni Free Speech Alliance @afsaalumni]

Stanley Zhong had a 4.42 GPA, a 1590 SAT, and ranked in the top 1% of the USA Computing Olympiad (Platinum). He built a free e-signing platform, reached the semifinals of Google Code Jam, and placed 2nd in MIT’s Battlecode.

Still, 15 of 18 colleges rejected him — including Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and even Cal Poly.

But numbers aside, what’s most striking is hearing from Stanley himself. In the clip below, you’ll see a thoughtful, humble young man who even admits he didn’t expect to get into every top school — but still thought the state schools were within reach.

He’s not alone. Stories like this are surfacing everywhere. Students are asking: When did merit stop mattering?

It’s time we start rewarding it.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@garrytan 💯

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@SawyerMerritt Sounds like corruption

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

🇬🇷STUDY: 45% OF “COVID DEATHS” IN ATHENS WEREN’T REALLY FROM COVID

Researchers checked 530 hospital deaths during the Omicron wave — and found 45.3% didn’t die from COVID at all.

Most actually died from cancer, sepsis, strokes, heart failure, or kidney failure — but because they tested positive, they got stamped as “COVID deaths” anyway.

Some didn’t even have COVID symptoms — but hey, a positive test was all it took to make the numbers look scarier.

Dying with COVID and dying because of COVID are two very different things… but the officials pretended they were the same.

Source: Scientific Reports
Media Source: @thackerpd

[Andrew Ma @Andrewiphone3]

Commenting the left leaning mass media, Sky News Australia Leftie Looses It is a great show segment

https://t.co/LA0bPKmT5r