Joel Seely

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@MorEdge_Insight Check out a short story called A Logic Named Joe written in 1946. That’s impressive.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Evidently you struggle with both reading and graph comprehension.

So, I’ll lay it down it again. 💅

Over the last century, there has been no increase in heatwaves in the United Stares. My findings have been confirmed in a new paper published in the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Christy (2026).

🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘛𝘔𝘢𝘹 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 1899, 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 1925–1954.”

🔗 https://t.co/DSJXxVVKZa

These trends are consistent across most of North America too.

In eastern Australia, where fairly reliable century-long records exist, heatwaves were more common and severe prior to the 1910s.

🔗 https://t.co/cIwS2jVIXq

Most of Africa, Asia, and South America don’t have an abundance of data prior to 1950, so a fair long-term comparison is impossible, though there have been decreases in Southern Africa (Meque et al., 2022).

🔗 https://t.co/PGH3vino7P

Now, if you think it’s entirely “CO₂ and humans,” do us all a favor and net zero yourself so that you quit contributing to the problem. You’re not special or better than anyone else.

[Giga Based Dad @GigaBasedDad]

This

[Giga Based Dad @GigaBasedDad]

LOL

[Seth Cohen @OverReactor1776]

Now that I’m out of government, I can finally respond for myself: Get bent, soyboy. We didn’t do this for “Silicon Valley . . . companies.” We did this for you, for your family, your community, your state, your nation, and your species.

Nuclear energy provides the safest, highest density, reliable power available on our planet. My career colleagues at DOE and NRC inspired me to think about nuclear as a way to forge American steel and electrolyze aluminum without releasing particulate matter, to desalinate water in the Middle East and save humanity from resource wars. By rejecting the false narratives and Cold War hysteria, we can secure the next American century while raising whole countries out of poverty.

Do you really think I left an incredible career at Kirkland, paid out of pocket for an apartment in DC and dozens of cross-country trips, and left my family on the west coast because I wanted to enrich people I never met before taking this job? I came to D.C. to do something that mattered, to satisfy a driving curiosity (more on that later), and, most importantly, to serve.

As I learned more about nuclear energy and its history, I developed a conviction that one nuclear’s biggest issues was a culture of cynicism: nothing new or exciting could happen because it would end in disappointment, and that militated against rocking the boat even a tiny bit. The career staff in government and their industry counterparts lived through dark winters before and stopped believing that warm springs could bloom into summers.

I have two core philosophies. First, I believe in ruthless optimism. Rational decision making requires detached risk analysis. But we also cannot win if we believe we can lose. Merging the two requires orienting teams around driving missions. That way, when a real opportunity presents itself, you can take a huge swing.

If I take credit for anything—honestly, almost all of the success belongs to the incredible and dedicated people at @ENERGY and @NRCgov—it’s countering the cultural rot and morass that risked forfeiting American excellence. My colleagues and I gave cover to the scientists and engineers, which freed them up to focus on delivering safe power. And, as success materialized, they started to dream again. That’s why the pilot program succeeded, and why I feel confident about the future of NLICs and NRC reform. Nobody needs me anymore because they can innovate on their own.

My second core philosophy is to assume positive intent. Avi, I know that you heard about my real motivations from multiple people you interviewed when preparing your hit piece on me. Rather than telling that story, one which could help inspire another generation of people to use their talents for the greater good, you ignored them. Instead, you implied that Peter Thiel recruited me for nefarious purposes. (I’ve never met him, but, @peterthiel, if you’re reading this, I’m a huge fan!)

Nuclear regulation starts and ends with safety. I promised everyone I worked with that I would resign before doing or pushing for anything that could compromise public safety. But I also distinguished between real safety and performative bullshit. That’s what the careers came to embrace, too. We love nuclear, why would we do anything that could risk threatening its future?

America faces a crossroads. We can either trod a road of cultural decay or hike our way back to the peak of global innovation. Join me on the latter path. Correct the fear mongering and conspiracies and tell the story of America’s great reindustrialization. Tell the story of our public servants, our great entrepreneurs, our scientific dominance. Tell the real story about how DOGE went nuclear.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Karl’s Dad was cool

[Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne]

I know philosophers who dine out their whole career in exposition of the brilliant Hannah Arendt.

When COVID-19 hit, every single one kept his mouth shut.

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@Kristinartz Mouli or Mandolin

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@WallStreetMav Not just movies. Life in general.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Gilles, je vais démonter ta prémisse de départ, parce que tout le reste de ton argument s'effondre avec elle.

Tu pars du principe qu'il faut une « sensibilité de gauche » pour ne pas laisser créver les gens de faim. C'est l'inverse total de ce que dit l'histoire économique des 50 dernières années.

Les chiffres bruts.

1990 : 2,3 milliards de personnes en pauvreté extrême. 38% de l'humanité.
2025 : 831 millions. Environ 10%.

1,5 milliard d'êtres humains sortis de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l'histoire de l'espèce.

Qui a fait ça ?

Pas l'aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la « sensibilité de gauche ».

Le marché. L'ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng en 1978 qui abandonne le maoisme. L'Inde en 1991 qui libéralise. Le Vietnam, l'Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s'ouvrent au capitalisme.

Les seuls endroits où l'extrême pauvreté a EXPLOSÉ sur la même période ? Le Vénézuela socialiste : de 27% de pauvres en 2008 à plus de 80% en 2018, avec une inflation de 130 000% et un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos par dénutrition. La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe.

La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique.

Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre US a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, l'air conditionné, internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz.

Ton argument selon lequel « le social aux USA est un désastre » repète une légende française. La réalité : le PIB par habitant américain est de 80 000$. Français : 45 000$. Un Mississippien — l'État US le plus pauvre — a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen.

La vérité que la gauche française refuse de regarder : dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées.

ÊTRE de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n'est pas avoir de la « sensibilité ». C'est ignorer 35 ans de preuves accablantes. C'est préférer la posture morale au résultat.

La compassion sans résultats, ça s'appelle de la vanité.

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@learning_yohei Python.

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@BrianRJohnston @thisisdumbafppl @TheEXECUTlONER_ My father did the same thing. I didn’t think much about it as a kid. But as an adult we did an addition and put the air conditioners (2) in the side yard. They’re loud and they take up space that could have been used to make the side yard into a shaded patio. Roof would be better

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@LizzardSpeak @chalavyishmael Ask about Mao! In 1930 he was in the background in the Chinese Communist Party. I’m curious what the LLM would say about him.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

https://t.co/C2RZTjnAZr

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.

Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.

Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.

Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.

Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.

À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.

Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.

Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.

Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.

Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.

Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.

Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.

Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :

"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

One of Picard’s finest moments #startrek #picard #startrekthenextgenerat... https://t.co/pDuIAvT07G via @YouTube

[C-Reason🇺🇸 @CreasonJana]

This is a hilarious Parody on Socialism (@DemSocialists) by @iamNickPeterson.

If you want a good laugh with a slap of reality … this is the video for you.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Socialists (SPCS)

A Sarah McLachlan Parody

[Travis Couture @TravisSCouture]

Lots of word salad in Olympia. Let me translate some of the frequently used buzzwords I’ve heard in the legislature since I’ve been here, and what I found they often really mean in this place.

Democrat Buzzword Translator

Inclusive
Means only people who agree with us are welcome to participate.

Lived experience
Means personal anecdotes elevated above evidence.

Trauma-informed
Means we recognize trauma, but only for our preferred groups.

Evidence-based
Means evidence that supports our pre-decided conclusions, or that was fabricated by supporters with data manipulation.

Culturally appropriate
Means aligned with progressive ideology, regardless of culture.

Diversity
Means differences in appearance/identity, not differences in thought or experience.

Equity
Means unequal treatment justified by politics.

Safe spaces
Means spaces protected from disagreement.

Hate speech
Means speech we dislike or can’t rebut.

Misinformation
Means information that challenges official narratives.

Disinformation
Means true information shared by the wrong people.

Protecting democracy
Means protecting outcomes we approve of, even if we have to erase democratic rights.

Our democracy
Means democrat political power, not the people’s power.

Community standards
Means rules written by activists, enforced selectively.

Experts say
Means we found someone with a credential who agrees with us.

Settled science
Means no further debate allowed.

Whole-child approach
Means the state decides what your child needs.

Gender-affirming care
Means medical or social intervention without parental consent.

Public health
Means government authority without limits or choice.

Justice-involved individual
Means criminal, but we don’t want to say it.

Underserved
Means politically useful.

Disproportionate impact
Means unequal outcomes assumed to be discrimination.

Harm reduction
Means reducing the harm to ideology, not the person suffering.

Restorative justice
Means less accountability for criminals.

Progress
Means permanent change, never revisited, even if it fails.

Compassion
Means policy that feels good, regardless of results.

We know
Means there’s disagreement, but we’re declaring it settled.

Community
Means a small group of activists who claim to speak for everyone.

Stakeholders
Means activists and consultants, not parents or taxpayers.

Best practices
Means the latest ideological trend adopted without proof it works.

Data-driven
Means the data we selected after deciding the outcome.

Republican/Conservative
Means a dog whistle we use to signal the desired opposition of common sense ideas or principles.

Trump
Means things we hate and need a scapegoat for things we do.

MAGA
Means anyone we hate and can put a label to it.

End Hate
Means only for people who agree with us.

Discrimination
Means wrong in theory, acceptable in practice.

[Michael O'Fallon - Sovereign Nations @SovMichael]

One of the oldest - and most dangerous - justifications for totalitarianism is the appeal to the “common good” or the “greater good.” It sounds noble. It sounds compassionate.

But history tells a very different story: every totalitarian regime wraps itself in this language, claiming the collective - the state, the people, the race - matters more than the individual.

And once you accept that premise, everything else follows: total control, forced sacrifice, the crushing of dissent.

Your rights don’t disappear all at once - they’re surrendered piece by piece, all in the name of some perfect, utopian, unified vision that always seems to require someone else to suffer first.

Totalitarianism always starts with the same lie: that society is some living, organic whole that matters more than the individuals who make it up. And once you accept that idea, total state control becomes easy to justify.

The so-called “common good” is redefined as some higher cause - national expansion, racial purity, a utopian future - anything except the real well-being of actual, sovereign individuals the way our Founding Fathers understood it.

And that’s the switch. Rights are no longer inherent; they’re conditional. Private interests are no longer protected; they’re suspect. You are told that you must surrender yourself to the collective, to “the people,” to the cause.

The Nazis had a name for it - Volksgemeinschaft, the people’s community - but the principle is always the same. Once the individual is subordinated to an abstract collective, freedom doesn’t just erode. It disappears.

And here’s the heartbreaking part: too many naïve Christian leaders have been pulled into this trap - embracing a totalitarian idea of the “common good” under the banner of what’s being called Christian Nationalism. But let’s be honest about what this really is. It isn’t rooted in the American tradition of liberty or the Protestant understanding of cognitive liberty. It’s far closer to Roman Catholic Integralism, just repackaged with Protestant language and symbols (sacralism).

And that should alarm every believer who understands the dangers of promoting a coercive, ever-evolving religioin with centralized power. When the monarchial episcopate starts defining righteousness, and the “common good” is used to override individual conscience, history tells us exactly where that road leads - and it never ends with freedom.

And let me be very clear about this: the so-called “common good” now being pushed by the totalitarian Right is no different from the tyranny of the “common good” we’ve been living under from the Woke, religious Left for the past two decades. The language is identical. Only the branding has changed.

Covid lockdowns - for the common good.
Distributism - for the common good.
Mass surveillance - for the common good.
Social justice mandates - for the common good.
Forced compliance with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals- for the common good.
Vaccinations - for the common good.

It’s always the same script.
Fear first.
Moral pressure second.
Coercion last.
And every time, you’re told that surrendering your rights, your conscience, and your freedom isn’t oppression - it’s compassion. Different sides, same poison. Because when the “common good” is used to override the individual, liberty is always the casualty.

[Joel Seely @JoelSeely]

@TheKingDaughtaa I brought a sharpie with me when our kids were born. I wrote their names on their feet as soon as they were dried off and wrapped in a blanket so I could make sure our children weren’t switched inadvertently.