Olusegun Adetuyi

[Breezy🌻 @BreezyKirsten]

Day 57 of waking up as premier league champions 🏆

[Olusegun Adetuyi @SegeBeeZ]

@winexviv Well done @winexviv

[Сarm1ne @carm1nee]

Carl Icahn told Larry Fink to his face that BlackRock is "an extremely dangerous company" - then told Wall Street "the mafia has a better code of ethics than you guys"

this is him explaining why BlackRock is pushing the economy off a cliff, why Wall Street keeps selling junk to the middle class, and what 50 years on Wall Street taught him about what's coming next

"BlackRock is an extremely dangerous company. people are buying these bonds not understanding what they're buying"

"the mafia has a better code of ethics than you guys. you're selling this crap and you keep selling it and you're shorting some of it"

"they're all on this party, having a drink, having fun, pushing this thing toward a cliff. you know what's going to destroy it? they're going to hit a Black Rock"

"I've been around a long time. I saw it in '69, '74, '79, '87, 2000. I think a time is coming that might make some of those times look pretty good"

bookmark & watch the full conversation ↓

[Olusegun Adetuyi @SegeBeeZ]

Hmmm

[Ben Norton @BenjaminNorton]

The US loves to boast about how wealthy it is, but its wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs.

US oligarchs are so insanely rich that they make average wealth seem very high.

But *median* wealth in the US is lower than in Slovenia & Portugal, and half of Italy's

[Dr Joe Abah, OON @DrJoeAbah]

When you sell your dignity to powerful people to seek their recognition or approval, they will never respect you. They know you are weak. They know you are an inferior man. They know you are nothing. And they’ll tell everyone who cares to listen.

I am Ezemmuo. I know things.

[Olusegun Adetuyi @SegeBeeZ]

@winexviv Inspiring

[Dr Joe Abah, OON @DrJoeAbah]

Everyone I’ve spoken with who is currently serving in government has told me that this Prince Adeniyi case is simply a scam, but when I start asking questions, none of them has been able to answer.

Yes, you can forge an appointment letter and claim that you are a DG but appointment letters are signed by the SGF not the COS. Who allegedly issued his appointment letter or what signature is his allegedly forged appointment letter showing?

Someone higher than a DG must ask that you be allocated office space in the Federal Secretariat. Who made that request?

Someone higher than a DG must write asking that you be given an alleged take-off grant. You cannot yourself write to the Budget Office and the Office of the Accountant General that you should be given a take-off grant. Who allegedly wrote?

How did the agency get into the budget?

Usually, you will go for budget defence as part of a cohort. In this case, it will probably be as part of the State House cohort. Who defended or coordinated the defence of the budget estimates before the National Assembly before they were appropriated?

Did the guy earn a salary in the more than one year he was there? If so, who documented him and asked that he be paid?

With which money was the guy running the office for more than one year if nothing was allegedly released?

Who allegedly wrote to the CBN asking them to open an account for the ‘Council’? The ‘Council’ cannot just walk into CBN and ask to open an account, as if it’s a commercial bank looking for customers.

Who allegedly approved the ‘Council’s’ manning levels and who allegedly approved the waiver to recruit 300 staff?

Was the guy allegedly really that good? Or were there egregious failings at multiple points in the system?

These questions and more are often met with deafening silence. Everyone sighs heavily and uses the ubiquitous expression “Na waa.” Me sef, I sigh heavily and answer “Na real waa!”

This is a case of the proverbial tse tse that has landed on the scrotum. Leave it and it will cause sickness and pain. Swat it and it will cause pain because of its location.

Anyhow you look at it, there are questions begging for answers. And whatever the answers will be, they will not be good.

Still, I hope that there’ll be some answers soon…for the sake of our public administration system.

I am Ezemmuo. I know things.

[Palantir @PalantirTech]

Our thoughts on the importance of AI sovereignty.

1. Your AI sovereignty dictates your institution’s future. Sovereignty is the precondition for choice. Relinquishing sovereignty transfers the future choices of your institution to others, who are likely to exploit it for their gain and your loss.

2. Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. Your ability to win is dictated by your ability to recognize and use your unique edges, and you keep winning by compounding the underlying data to generate new insights. Transferring that data hands over access to your pre-existing winning plays and yields the means of production for new ones.

3. Tokenmaxxing hijacks your value orientation and decreases your institutional fortitude and intelligence. The pursuit of high token usage incentivizes disposable scripts over robust software — with the addictive feeling of false progress. There is a reason why those selling tokens refuse to charge based on value.

4. Controlling your weights is controlling your fate. Weights are the distilled form of hard-won, accumulated institutional knowledge. If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.

5. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and alpha. The architecture that maximally preserves sovereignty is one that enables institutions to own their tribal knowledge, and to compound it as alpha.

6. Politicizing the technical issues involving sovereignty is what your adversary wants. Techno-politicization is the wellspring of false sovereignty. Techno-politicization drives decisions that seem to reduce dependency, but ultimately limit agency — especially on the battlefield in the West.

7. Real expertise is existential. Allowing politics or favoritism to determine your technical decisions rewards whoever is best at politics, not whoever is right. Listen to those closest to the problems, not those speaking most compellingly about them.

8. Learn from institutions that are winning or that have consistently delivered. Institutions facing existential threats do not have the luxury of making technical decisions based on political preferences.

9. Only listen to institutions, countries, and people who have a proven record of being right. A track record of correctness is the best and only signal for future correctness. Judging something as right or wrong based on who you like is exceedingly misguided.

[Bitcoin Blaize @bitcoinblaize]

This has the most alpha per minute of anything you’ll see on mainstream TV maybe ever. Karp came on and spoke straight truth, facts and deep relevant perspective that the main stream audience has no insight into and it’s awesome. There’s really nothing to agree or disagree with on here, just learn, that’s how great it is.

[Anatoli Kopadze @AnatoliKopadze]

Google just dropped a free 8-minute lesson on building your first AI agent.

This is the clearest explanation of AI agents and loops you'll find anywhere.

People are paying $500 for courses that teach less than this.

Watch it, then read the step by step guide on building loops for your agents below.

[Trung Phan @TrungTPhan]

Here my notes on LKY's memoir...with an emphasis on how he spent ~10% of the country's GDP in 1981 to build Changi Airport.

Says one of the country's "best investments" for recruiting talent and tourist. Now, frequently ranked among world's best airport:https://t.co/RuwvBq5Ci7

[Damir Akaza @Damir_Akaza]

Jane Street, one of the richest and most secretive firms in the world, paid him between $330,000 and $600,000 a year, and in just a couple of months he built an AI system that runs TRILLIONS of operations per second

"we just hired a kid... and he turned out to be a supercomputer in a human body" is what they're whispering now at Jane Street

a math genius who pushed supercomputers to their limit. now Wall Street's quant traders are in shock

in this hour-long lecture he breaks down how to use his machine to process trillions of data points

bookmark it right now and watch it instead of reels to learn how to do the same ↓

[David Hundeyin @DavidHundeyin]

If there is something you need to watch this week, let it be this

[Jack @jackcoder0]

Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy.

Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes.

The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled.
The conclusion is one sentence.
"At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand."

An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody.
Here is how you get there.
A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself.

Because the workers who were fired were also customers.
When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation.

The loop has no natural exit.
The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements.
Every single one failed in the model.
The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger.

No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it.
Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion."
Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem.

Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it.
Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place.

Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University ·

[Olusegun Adetuyi @SegeBeeZ]

@Arsenal @AyoAkiwowo Woooooooowww

[zostaff @zostaff]

Jim Simons made 66%/YEAR for thirty years at Renaissance and never let an outside dollar through the door. Andrew Lo runs the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering and trained half the senior quants at Citadel, AQR, and Two Sigma.

In 2019 they sat down at MIT for one hour and 28 minutes. The only time Simons ever talked publicly about money with someone who understood the math.

Sitting on the Finance at MIT channel. Almost nobody outside academia has watched it through.

Bookmark it tonight. Then read the article below.

[Olusegun Adetuyi @SegeBeeZ]

https://t.co/I2T5ZveXtv

[Jouhatsu | AI Influence Operator @Jouhatsu_ai]

Formation complète Claude Code 6 HEURES.
La formation Claude la plus complète d'internet.

Gardez-la précieusement en Signet 🔖

de A à Z : configuration, création de workflows, déploiement de sites web, création d'équipes d'agents, automatisation du navigateur, recherche de clients et tarification de vos services.

Le tout sans écrire une seule ligne de code.

À la fin : vous utilisez Claude Code comme un pro et vous monétisez vos compétences.

Débutant ou avancé, tout est là en un seul endroit, ce cours couvre tout.

Ça vaut plus que tous les cours à 500$ que t’as failli acheter.