Toni Frnz

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

#SP500 (blue), #Russell2000 (red), #Nasdaq (purple), and #DowJones (green).

Dow Theory's confirmation principle states that a market trend is more reliable when major indices move in the same direction.

What do you think?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@kimaboe @Pan_y_vino_BE @ChessProblem Interesting. And what are you projecting, then, when you describe Kramnik that way: “disingenuous asshat”, “talking bullshit”, “bad-faith”, “malicious”, etc.?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@kimaboe @ChessProblem What do you understand as the opposite to that?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@Pan_y_vino_BE @ChessProblem ¿No es tu nombre el cuerpo y la sangre de cristo?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@Pan_y_vino_BE @ChessProblem Yes, good faith has legal origins, but it later took on political-moral meaning too (incl. in Christian thought). Here it’s not used legally, it’s a moral judgment about someone’s intent, not evidence. At that point it’s not law, it’s belief and character.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@ChessProblem You went from calling me a bot to calling me a literary expert. Stop the moral preaching about "good vs bad guys" and judging intentions and "faith", Otherwise, go start a religion or a political party, it would suit you better.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@JinHakazura @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf I am a single-cell organism that apparently reasons more than you. You only throw insults. Who are you to morally judge intentions behind actions and people? These ones are "malicious," those ones have "good intentions", very dangerous way of thinking.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@ben_heras @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf @ChaeDoc @grok Chesscom evaluating intentions behind actions: Danya using an engine = good intentions (educational), Kramnik = bad intentions (malicious). I propose that Chesscom and its associates become the moral standard, they will tell us what is good or bad.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf From “mind” to “faith���, wow! Good faith vs bad faith, pure Manichaeism and circular reasoning. Showing his monitor setup at that point convinced neither Kramnik nor me.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf I’m not a psychiatrist, but it seems you are. I don’t know if Naroditsky lies, but in his response videos he mostly throws insults and no reasoning. He even claimed Kramnik wants to physically harm him, no idea if that’s a metaphor, misuse of language, or just nonsense.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf Okay, let’s assume the theory of mind is valid. That still doesn’t mean your reading or interpretation of someone’s intentions is correct. You interpret Kramnik’s intentions as malicious, and I don’t.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf You’re the one who shifted the topic to your so-called “theory of mind.” As for Kramnik, I don’t casually attribute intentions to people or interpret their actions based on cheap psychology and supposed “mind-reading.”

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf More than learning, I’ve unlearned. I’ll ask you again: what is the "mind"? I think I read something like that once, in scholastic books, they also called it the theory of the "soul."

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@notadampaul @ChaeDoc @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf Curious, I didn’t know the “theory of mind” was about classifying people as “malicious” or “good” based on your own emotional projections. That’s not science, that’s manichaeism with a makeover. And by the way, the theory of “mind” is a psychological theory. What is the "mind"?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@DiniMini2 @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf @ChaeDoc @grok Hikaru, is that you?

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@DiniMini2 @AbcdEfgas4gsdnf @ChaeDoc @grok Yes, everyone who doesn’t think like you and doesn’t buy the dominant emotional-victim narrative must be Kramnik.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@PelphreyMike @ChaeDoc Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Toni Frnz @FrnzToni]

@AbcdEfgas4gsdnf @ChaeDoc You yourself are admitting that he was a c… So you can’t say those are baseless accusations, right? Kramnik presented some evidence based on his streams (like the one we’re referring to), statistics, etc, not emotions, intentions, everyone keeps talking about.