John Lo

[Ballsack Sports @BallsackSports]

The LeBron Decision 3.0 2026

[QC @QiaochuYuan]

i completely missed this discourse the first time so lemme try. i pressed blue without thinking about it, my gut reaction was "blue is prosocial and red is antisocial," on reflection this still seems right to me

galaxy-brain game theory arguments in favor of red are completely missing the point. as others have pointed out, empirically blue wins, and this is a test of theory of mind more than anything else. the actual outcome is determined by what everyone else who is not you actually does, not by what game theory says they should do

a certain kind of nerd thinks game theory is just the "correct" framework for reasoning about this type of situation and that is absolutely not true either and can be questioned on intellectual grounds and not just vibes. among other things game theory assumes every participant is perfectly selfish and perfectly """rational""" (and that this is common knowledge among the participants). this is just totally false as a description of the actual world! multiple parents pointed out that parents have to remember that this test includes their children. and obviously the vast majority of people have never even heard of game theory but they do know what selfishness and selflessness are

funnily enough there's LW stuff around exotic decision theories that's actually relevant here. one of them i would describe roughly as "when you make a decision you are choosing to live in a world where people like you make decisions like that" and i'd rather choose to live in a world where people like me are prosocial

"blue is prosocial and red is antisocial" is also a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more people who believe it the more true it becomes. so believing it is partly a bet on how much other people believe it, partly an act of hyperstition to make it true. few

[‏ً @BALUCIAGA]

that’s not what she’s implying at all. she’s saying we need to assign “economic value” to natural resources like clean air, water and soil and include them on corporate and financial balance sheets. the goal is to stop businesses and economies from treating these essentials as completely free, unlimited and invisible. so that the real costs of depleting or polluting them become visible and influence decisions, rather than being ignored until systems collapse.

[Louise 💙 @louisedbegin]

Remove ALL the letters from ‘empty’… and it still sounds exactly the same when you say it. 😵‍💫

Why is English so hard?! 😂

[LOST IN VEGAS @lostinvegas83]

Salute to @JColeNC @Dreamville ! https://t.co/Ef5wHwAYVq

[SouthSide Behavior @SSBehavior]

in the US we just use this picture

[Oh No He Didn't @ohnohedidnt24]

Jeremy Lin with an awesome breakdown on how Luka is so good in isolation:

[Jack-Amin IBRAHIM @jack_anim]

My animations on Jujutsu Kaisen S3 episode 12. Many thanks to Tsushigami-san for the opportunity, and to Nakanishi-san and Yamasaki-san their amazing corrections !

#jujutsukaisen #呪術廻戦

[Whooping feet @WhoopingFeet]

J Cole admits he be lying in his songs saying he think he’s the best

“It’s a persona & I really be having people believing that ish”

“In real life if u ask me if im the best no, I just put on that cape”

Black Thought, Kendrick Lamar, Lupe etc are better on any given day

[chris evans @notcapnamerica]

Justin Timberlake when the officer told him to walk a straight line

[Anime Posts @animeposts]

Maomao's noises are so cute

[Sam Quinn @SamQuinnCBS]

This isn't how it's really worked.

When Kobe averaged 35.4, he was averaging 35.6% of his team's per-game points.

When Harden averaged 36.1, he was averaging 31.7% of his team's per-game points.

The best scorers tend to stabilize in the high 20s, low 30s, with a few outliers in the mid-to-high 30s. What changes is team offense around them.

This actually makes a fair bit of sense when you think about it. In low-offense environments, like parts of the 90s and 2000s, teams are so desperate for scoring that they just let their best perimeter players take whatever shots they want. They wind up getting their 25-30, but they do so inefficiently.

But in high-offense environments, as we've been transitioning towards over the past two decades or so, those individual scorers are suddenly getting their 25-30 more efficiently. But they're not the only ones benefitting. Suddenly it's much more efficient for their teammates to take shots as well. So whereas in the past, it made sense for stars to take a bunch of ugly, contested jumpers because their teammates weren't getting better shots, now, when someone like a James Harden can't get a good shot himself, he knows that extra defensive pressure is creating better looks for a teammate. So he passes into more corner 3s, more lobs, more cutters, more secondary creators in a position to punish a mismatch. Teams benefit from a star's scoring gravity way more now than they used to.

This has subtly shifted where an offensive star generates his value. Notice how there are fewer pure point guards now and more scorers who also rack up a bunch of assists? This is part of it. The great scorers of today score more efficiently because an offense-friendly environment gives them better access to good shots and therefore lessens their incentive to take bad ones and increases their incentive to use possessions that might in the past have been bad shots to pass into better ones for teammates instead.

As team scoring goes up, it's not star point totals that tend to increase. It's teammate totals. When Kobe averaged 35.4, his second-leading scorer averaged 14.8. That's roughly what SGA's third-leading scorer averaged when he put up 32.7 last season. The 06 Lakers had four players average double figures. The 25 Thunder had seven. The best players are scoring similar amounts, but a lower percentage of their team's total points.

Now, could you argue that older players scored a higher share of their team's point total because, in the past, the gap between the best players and the average player was bigger than it is today? Sure. I'd actually broadly support that idea because it's true in most human endeavors and actually sort of holds in NBA history too (the "Wilt averaging 50 during the plumbers and firemen era" concept). As knowledge about a sport increases, as access to proper training and medical care increases, yea, the average player does tend to get better at a faster rate than superstars do because suddenly the enormity of the advantage their natural gifts and outlier work ethics created is suddenly less meaningful because the competition is stiffer. So yea, I think it's reasonable to say that Michael Jordan had a bigger advantage over the average player of his day than, say, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has over the average player of today. Of course, that means if you plopped MJ in the modern game, he'd have less of an advantage over his peers than he did back then.

What I think all of this broadly means in the "MJ would average 50 today!!!" fake debate is that no, he wouldn't average 50 today. He'd average a similar number of raw points, but more of his game would shift towards playmaking and different sorts of shots because that's just sort of how modern basketball works. I'm open to the idea that Michael Jordan would be better at modern basketball than the players actually playing modern basketball if he'd come up in that ecosystem because he's Michael Jordan and I imagine he'd be incredible in whatever era he played in. But the idea that he'd average 50 or that anyone from the past would see their scoring total increase beyond modern norms just because they played in a league less friendly to offense is ridiculous and one of the dumber persistent NBA takes.

[IAMNJERA @IAMNJERA]

Two generations brought together by the blues. This is so special.

The power of Sinners >

[Mela Yela @_melayela_]

Me on Fridays

[PS @dostoevesque]

There is something slightly irritating about how youngsters today seem obsessed with diagnosing an entire generation of their parents using therapy language they picked up from reels and threads. We are effectively criticizing them for failing a test they didn't even know they were taking, using vocabulary that didn't exist in their world.

It is easy to call your own father a narcissist when you have grown up listening to podcasts that explain attachment theory and emotional patterns. It is harder to imagine what it meant to be a twenty five year old parent in the nineteen eighties with no language for feelings, no examples to follow, no online spaces to learn from, no therapy culture, only responsibility and pressure.

Instead of extending the empathy we have learned through this new vocabulary to those who never had access to it, we often turn that language into a weapon against them. Social media encourages this because anger feels powerful and validating. A label like narcissist or toxic neatly explains the pain and gives it a clear target.

By framing their behavior through complex diagnostic labels they cannot define, you strip them of the ability to defend themselves or explain their perspective. They retreat into silence because they literally do not have the words to counter your argument. It allows you to dominate the interaction not because you are morally right, but because you possess a vocabulary that makes them feel stupid and inferior.

[Onyx Hoops @onyxcoins]

Super Bowls ads this year

[YT: Kofie @Kofie]

Klay Thompson and Khris Middleton together

[SK⚡️ @raptalksk]

“Dee and I never got to do this on stage together… make time for the people you love while you can”

- Lauryn Hill before performing ‘Nothing Even Matters’ at the Grammys

[RNB RADAR @rnbradar]

Lauryn Hill leads a tribute performance honoring D’Angelo and Roberta Flack, with appearances from Raphael Saadiq, Anthony Hamilton, Chaka Khan, Leon Thomas, Bilal, Lucky Daye and more at the #GRAMMYs.

[XXL Magazine @XXL]

Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean perform “Killing Me Softly” in tribute to Roberta Flack at the 2026 #GRAMMY awards