Thomas Delk

[Ayzaa @Ayzacoder]

If you have a Gmail account, you need to read this.

Google's AI now scans your emails and attachments, bank statements, tax files, medical letters, all of it. It turned on by default, and there's a class-action lawsuit over how.

Here are 5 moves to shut it off, the switch is hidden in two places:

[Ryan Reynolds @VancityReynolds]

The fans got Deadpool off the ground so many years ago. Yesterday, 10 years after the first film and exactly 2 years after Deadpool & Wolverine, I felt so lucky to be on the #SDCC floor with everyone whose unapologetic devotion brings so much joy to this world.

[zre @zrebroia]

Anthropic paga a los ingenieros más de $750,000 al año para entender cómo funcionan los LLMs.

Stanford acaba de publicar una conferencia que cubre el 80% de ello GRATIS.

Guarda esto como favorito y dedícale 2 horas hoy.

[Nate Silver @NateSilver538]

@jarvis_best Jim Acosta is a Patriot, focusing on issues that profoundly everyday Americans like the White House Correspondents Dinner, the White House Ballroom, and the Lincoln Memorial Reflection Pool. You're just an anonymous "X"er with a Prince Edward Island fetish. Check your privilege?

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Therapy does far more harm than good, Exhibit 9,008,765

[Nate Silver @NateSilver538]

It's kind of funny because the overall quote is probably even worse in context, despite the slightly inaccurate paraphrase, and Mr. Robinson's pedantic attempt to correct it only draws more attention to the clip.

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

This is concerning. For the first time, a Chinese model Kimi K3 has taken #1 on the Frontend Code Arena and is scoring at or near the frontier on other benchmarks.

Meanwhile America is tying itself in knots: politicians and bureaucrats are banning new data centers, piling on state regulations, and pushing for new federal agencies to pre-approve frontier models.

This is how you lose the AI race. The rest of the world won’t play by our rules if we bog ourselves down. Permissionless innovation is how America won the internet and became the technological envy of the world. We can do it again with AI -- while addressing risks in a targeted way -- or we’ll watch our lead evaporate.

[kuz @kylekuzma]

Ngl it’s exhausting hearing athletes break down how their millions “aren’t really millions” after taxes and fees. 40M after taxes is still 40M.
The real issue isn’t the system, it’s lifestyle creep. Nobody told you to live like a king, buy 5 cars, or move with a 10‑person entourage. Modest is allowed.

[Pete Sampson @PeteSampson_]

And so it begins. The SEC is the best league because SEC teams play other SEC teams that are in the SEC, which is the best conference.

No counter arguments will be allowed.

[College Football 27 @EASPORTSCollege]

An update from the College Football 27 Team. #CFBGoPlay

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Hello Mrs. Owens,

You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson "wasn't even there." That you felt "confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk."

He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: "I am, I'm sorry." He engraved "Hey Fascist! Catch!" on the ammunition a month before he used it.

You said police "didn't even question" Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it.

You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson's DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days.

You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater.

You called Erika Kirk a "clinical psychopath" to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was "an occult ritual." You said Charlie was "sitting in a pentagram." You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu.

You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man's name.

And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson's own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They're challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely.

Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him.

So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath.

Every single one failed.

I don't know why you did this. I'm not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I've spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man's murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow.

The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality... under oath, on the record, where it counts.

I'll be here for all of it... because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and @TPUSA and @MrsErikaKirk from evil.

[Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @christopherrufo]

The Tyler Robinson case is going to expose a lot of the worst grifters and psychopaths on the Right, and the audience will eventually feel burned and start to turn on them. We're at the top of the market for right-wing conspiracy slop. Correction incoming.

[Lyndsey Fifield @lyndseyfifield]

I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.

It was by design.

The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite talking to two of my friends.

I gave them the contact information for five friends.

They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse but would be able to affirm our relationship timeline, events, etc.

They simply did not call the other three.

I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house (which was about 5 houses down from his) and waiting for me to return. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and I discussing it.

I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked.

I told them that during pre-marital counseling I had spoken to my ex-fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror any time he lost his temper. They said oh NO we don't need to bother HIM (or my priest). Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail, they reassured.

As the weeks dragged on I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim.

My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that yes, I had told them that he was abusive—long before he ran for Senate.

Besides, they assured, my part in their reporting would be small. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman.

Jenny and I - having never met or spoken - both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse/love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well.

But tell me again how they “could not corroborate.”

[U.S. Soccer Men's National Team @USMNT]

All About U.S. 🇺🇸

#USMNT x The @HomeDepot

[databallr @databallr]

Here's my explanation of why Jaylen Brown's offensive analytics are underwhelming:

Jaylen Brown is a great scorer.

But “great scorer” and “offensive engine” are not the same thing.

An offensive engine creates impact in 3 distinct ways:

1. Score efficiently on big volume
2. Reduce team turnovers while carrying huge usage
3. Create better shots for teammates

That is what people mean by offensive impact.

Not just: did you score points?
Not just: did you get assists?

Did the team score points more efficiently because you were on the floor?

Jaylen is interesting because he had a good scoring season. I estimate his scoring impact last year around +2, the best mark of his career.

But if we are asking whether he is an elite offensive engine, the bar is much higher.

Let's start with scoring efficiency.

Jaylen took around 36 shots per 100 possessions at 57.5% TS last season. ("shots" includes freethrow possessions).

At that volume, TS% (True Shooting Percentage) has enormous leverage. Every 1% of TS% is worth roughly +0.6 points per 100 possessions on the scoreboard.

So the gap between 57.5 TS% and 62 TS% is not cosmetic. It matters. That is roughly +2.5 points of offensive impact. Scoring at 62% TS would move him from a top 50 per possession analytics season to a top 20 one last year.

But right now, among high-usage offensive stars, the efficiency gap is clear.

Shai: 67.0 TS%
Giannis: 65.9%
Curry: 64.8%
Kawhi: 63.3%
Luka: 61.8%
Mitchell: 61.7%
Brunson: 59%

Jaylen: 57.5 TS%

Jaylen’s scoring still has value because the volume is massive, but he's not generating the impact that some of these other guys do from scoring.

The second path is turnover value.

This part is underrated. If you are using a huge number of your team's possessions, how often you turn the ball over before you shoot matters on the scoreboard.

Historically, a lot of high-volume creators give their teams a significant advantage in the turnover game. Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Lou Will, T-Mac, Melo, Shai, Kawhi, Brunson types. All of these guys have generated significant impact from reducing team turnovers and it's clear as day in the impact analytics.

They shoot a ton, and they also help the team avoid turnovers because the possession ends in a shot instead of a mistake more often than the league does.

Jaylen does not provide that kind of impact.

His box-score profile estimates his offensive turnover impact around neutral, historically, and last year. The 5-year lineup data, and the eyes, agree.

That does not mean he is killing the offense with turnovers.

It means he is not creating the turnover advantage that many true engines create.

Let's look at a stat called "Scoring Turnover Rate". It is defined as non-passing turnovers divided by scoring attempts. It's typically the ball handlers fault when he turns it over on something that isn't a pass.

Here are some high usage scorers around the league in Scoring Turnover Rate (Lower is better)

Jaylen Brown: 10.3%
Giannis: 10.5%
Paolo: 9%
Ant: 6.6%
Shai: 4.4%.
Kawhi: 5.5%.
Brunson: 4.1%
Mitchell: 5.3%
Tatum: 6.5% (2025)

Lower is better, and when the scoring volume is massive this accumulates to a meaningful amount of turnover differences between players which translates to offensive impact.

You see Brunson scored at 59% TS, a down year for him, but he turned the ball on handling related mistakes, per scoring attempt, at 4.1% vs Jaylen's 10.3%.

If you are on-ball enough to shoot over a third of your team’s shots, ball security gets magnified. The skill of getting to your shot without losing the possession is a big part of offensive value.

Top players can generate up to +2.5 points of offensive impact from reducing team turnovers.

Imagine if you could just imbue Jaylen Brown with Kawhi's handle. How much better would you feel about him having the ball in his hands even if he was shooting the same shots at the same efficiency. Instinctively, you know it matters, analytically it undeniably does. Having Kawhi's turnover economy alone would move him from a top 50 analytics season to a top 20 one last year.

(Passing turnovers matter too and he's average there but it's less meaningful to discuss because he's not passing the ball that much.)

The third path is playmaking.

Jaylen took 36 shots per 100 possessions and generates only 13 potential assists per 100 (shots, if they were made, that would be an assist for JB).

He shoots almost 3x as much he directly creates a potential assist. He's much more of a scorer than he is a passer.

Shai is at 34 shots to 18 potential assists which is lower than 2:1 ratio. So you see, even the best scorer in the league has a more balanced distribution of shots and potential assists.

Jaylen averages only around 2 rim assists per 100, which is low compared to the best playmakers, so he's not creating obvious value via lobs and easy layups.

A scoring heavy profile can be great if the scoring efficiency and turnover efficiency are overwhelming like it is for Kawhi or Shai, but neither are for Jaylen. That's the problem. Just one of the two being elite, or both being good, can be enough to get him to engine status. But he has neither. Perhaps he can still improve.

But if the scoring efficiency is low for the top stars, and the turnover value is around neutral, and the playmaking is limited, the elite-engine case falls apart. It just does.

You have other players like Cade and LaMelo who have similar scoring efficiency profiles to Jaylen, but those players are elite playmakers according to both the analytics and the public. Not only are they passing the ball a lot more, but they are generating a ton of assists to players at the rim, which are markers of elite playmaking.

The point is not that Jaylen Brown is bad.

He is a positive player who plays a lot of minutes.

The point is that his team impact has been very weak for a supermax offensive centerpiece because he has not proven himself to be a real offensive engine.

The question is whether he can become one in Philly. I think the Boston system was a pretty awesome environment to thrive. If Jaylen Brown was playing elsewhere and traded to Boston I would be bullish on his fit there. I just don't really see Maxey and Embiid as being the type of players that fit particularly well with him and increase his impact. Its certainly going to reduce his usage, which might be good. I'm not sure JB is in his optimal role as a ultra high usage player with his current handling.

I think Jaylen becoming more impactful offensively is mostly about his own skill development as a handler/3P shooter, and an improvement in shot selection. There's a lot of upside for him if he does that. Most people can't create the shots that Jaylen does. So that's the thing with Jaylen.

In any case, I'm excited to see how it plays out next year.

As for who won the trade?

I like it for Boston. They are fixing a potential long term salary cap issue and bringing in PG who can provide 2 way impact Boston. He's a much better 3 point shooter and defender. His durability and decline is the main issue.

Really I think Philly is rolling the dice on whether Jaylen Brown can improve. If he does it could turn out to be an excellent trade. If he's the same player here as he was in Boston, I don't think it's a good trade. The contract is massive and the synergy with Maxey/Embiid is questionable.

[Patrick Mahomes II @PatrickMahomes]

Man what……

[Josh Hart @joshhart]

Bro that’s a red card?!

[Shams Charania @ShamsCharania]

BREAKING: LeBron James will continue his NBA career for the 2026-27 season and has informed the Los Angeles Lakers that the franchise can move on without him because he will play elsewhere, Klutch Sports CEO Rich Paul tells ESPN.