Rae

enthusiastic about the future, though currently present

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Nelson the donkey has never once been in a hurry, and I have come to believe he is the wisest animal on the farm.

While the horses fret and the sheep panic and the dogs vibrate with purpose, Nelson stands, considers, and declines. The rain begins, and the horses mill about looking martyred, and Nelson walks, without urgency, into the field shelter, because a donkey came originally from dry African hills and sees no reason to pretend otherwise. He does not care for the wet. He has arranged his entire life around a firm position on the wet.

Ask Nelson to do anything at speed and he will give you the flat, ancient patience of a creature that has correctly identified your emergency as not his. Where a horse will bolt first and think later, a donkey stops, works out whether the frightening thing can actually hurt him, and then, having decided it cannot, ignores it completely. What we call obstinacy in a donkey is really just a refusal to panic on somebody else's schedule.

There is a lesson in him I keep having to relearn. The world will try to rush you. It will dress up its urgency as your urgency. It will insist that this, now, is a crisis. And the donkey's gift, the one worth stealing, is the pause. The long, level look. The quiet private ruling on whether the thing is worth moving for.

Usually it is not.

Nelson stood in his shelter, dry and unbothered, watching the rain fall on a field full of animals who had not yet worked out what he settled years ago.

Then he had a doze. He had earned it, by doing nothing, on purpose, extremely well.

[Rae @raemondo]

@elonmusk @karpathy @kuroke01 @gallabytes How about a Socratic filter option, to see only posts that are true, good and useful

[Rae @raemondo]

@hashjenni @IfindRetards 👆🏼

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.

Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.

Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.

Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.

Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.

La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

[Rae @raemondo]

@oramufc 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 👀 And football

[Peter McCormack 🏴‍☠️🇬🇧🇮🇪 @PeterMcCormack]

A little econ 101 for the silly socialists.

The natural state of the economy is deflationary. As humans we innovate, we become more productive so everything ‘should’ get cheaper to produce.

Well it does, everything you see getting more expensive is getting cheaper to produce but the inflation of the money supply is causing prices to go up.

So what is the mechanics of this, the two primary ones are:
1. Governments keep running deficits because democracy rewards them for lying and spending.
2. Banks create money out of thin air through lending and the people closest to credit get it first. Asset prices pump and wealth shifts toward those who already have assets.

When things go up in price, say energy due to war, this is not inflation. Some politicians say it is, but they are lying or stupid. That’s a supply shock. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

Inflation is good for the state, it wipes away their debt. The mechanics of inflation are good for the rich, because they have assets.

Inflation is terrible for everyone else - products get smaller, ingredients get worse and prices go up. It’s how companies manage inflation.

Inflation forces dependency policies so people can scrape by - minimum wage, energy caps, renters rights. They are demanded by the public.

But this the slow hollowing out of society, it is what breaks everything which is good. It puts pressure on a system which takes us from high trust to low trust.

Why do I make fun of @zackpolanski and the socialists? Because they will run this experiment on crack. The Green’s model as far as I can see is:
- Attack the productive class
- Reward the unproductive class

The problem with this is the rich will leave, the ambitious may leave and they will face the same question as both Labour and the Conservatives which is how do we pay for this? They will either have to raise taxes or borrow (print) more money, which accelerates the problem.

So we will get lower productivity, higher taxes, more borrowing and guess what, more inflation.

This is the exact mechanics which have destroyed every socialist state.

I get it, socialism sounds warm and fuzzy - nobody should go without, free stuff for everyone. But the end result is poverty and misery, as it has been every single time.

If you want jobs, good, medicine then you need a growing and prosperous economy which means unshackling the entrepreneurs.

There is no other option on the table. It is the only thing that has ever worked.

I haven’t voted in three elections. I will only vote if someone comes with a real economic plan which means a chainsaw to the state and driving growth.

[Rae @raemondo]

@0xleegenz @grok is this AI?

[DAN KOE @thedankoe]

Most people quit because they forget that you have to be bad at something before you can be good at it. It's so obvious. You suck. Of course you're not going to win in 2 weeks. But if you can learn to enjoy extended periods of failure, you will make it very, very far in life.

[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.

[Rae @raemondo]

@MbalulaFikile @IfindRetards psst 👆🏼

[Rae @raemondo]

the pee joke in Austin Powers gets funnier once you reach a certain age

[Mr PitBull Stories @MrPitbull07]

I drive Uber. Night shift mostly. Last week picked up an old man at 11 PM. He got in and said: "I need you to drive me to five places tonight. I'll pay you $500. Cash. But you can't ask why until we're done." Handed me five addresses. First stop: a house in the suburbs. He sat in the car. Stared at it for ten minutes. Crying silently. "Okay. Next one." I drove.

Second stop: elementary school. Empty. Dark. He got out. Walked to the playground. Sat on a swing. Stayed there twenty minutes. Came back to the car. "I taught here. 43 years. Best job I ever had." Third stop: diner. He went inside. Ordered coffee. Sat alone in a booth. Didn't drink it. Just sat. Looking around. Fifteen minutes. Came back. "My wife and I had our first date here. 1967." Fourth stop: cemetery.

He got out at the cemetery. Walked to a grave. Stood there. Talking to it. Couldn't hear what he said. Thirty minutes. When he came back his eyes were red. "My wife. Three years today." Fifth stop: hospital. He asked me to park. Wait. "This is the last one." He looked at me. "Now I'll tell you why. I have stage four cancer. Weeks left. Maybe days. Tonight I wanted to see my whole life. One last time. Before I can't anymore."

I started crying. Right there. "The house - that's where I raised my kids. The school - where I found my purpose. The diner - where I fell in love. The cemetery - where I said goodbye. And here. The hospital. Where I'm checking in tonight. Hospice floor. I'm not going home." He handed me $500. "Thank you for driving me through my life. You're the last stranger who'll ever be kind to me. I wanted it to be gentle. You made it gentle."

I refused the money. "I can't take this." He insisted. "Please. I have nobody to leave it to. My kids don't talk to me. I have no friends left. You gave me three hours of kindness. That's worth more than $500 to me." He got out. Grabbed his small suitcase. Turned back. "What's your name?" "Marcus." "Thank you, Marcus. For being the last good thing." He walked into the hospital. I sat in my car. Sobbing. For an hour.

Couldn't stop thinking about him. Went back next day. Asked for him. "Mr. Patterson. Room 412." Brought flowers. Knocked. He was in bed. Smiled when he saw me. "Marcus. You came back." "Couldn't leave it like that. Are you okay?" "Dying. But I got to see my life last night. So yes. I'm okay." We talked for two hours. About his wife. His students. The kids who stopped calling. The life he lived.

I visited every day for two weeks. Brought coffee. Read him the news. Sat in silence sometimes. He told me everything. The regrets. The joys. The moments he'd relive. "I thought I'd die alone," he said one day. "But you're here. A stranger who became family in my last days. That's a gift." I held his hand. "You're not dying alone. Not anymore." He cried. "Thank you for seeing me. When I was invisible."

Mr. Patterson died on a Tuesday. 3:17 AM. I was there. Holding his hand. His last words: "Tell people. Tell them to look at strangers. Really look. Everyone's dying. Some faster than others. But we're all heading somewhere. Be kind on the way. You were kind. You saved my last days." He closed his eyes. Heart monitor flatlined. I stayed another hour. Couldn't let go. He died with someone. That mattered.

His funeral had six people. Me. Three nurses. A lawyer. One former student who saw the obituary. That's it. A man who taught for 43 years. Loved a woman for 52. Lived 81 years. Six people. I spoke. "Mr. Patterson taught me something in his last two weeks.

Every stranger is someone's whole world. Every Uber passenger has a story. Every person you pass is living and dying and hoping someone sees them. He paid me $500 to drive him through his life. But he gave me something worth more. The knowledge that kindness to strangers isn't extra. It's everything. Because we're all strangers. Until someone stops. Looks. Listens. Stays." I keep the $500 in my glove box. Never spent it. It's a reminder.

[Rae @raemondo]

@Uber and @UberUK far too often drivers accepts and don’t move closer, hoping for a cancel. this morning a pre-booked pickup, driver shows arrived & outside but not there. turned off phone after arriving. Only calling support is the £31.75 cancellation free reversed. Joke service

[Rae @raemondo]

@ChazakielDoremi This guys sums it up well https://t.co/f6xwRcI1OP

[Rae @raemondo]

@bryan_johnson Pls share livestream link

[Rae @raemondo]

@elonmusk @grok is making shit up and then owning up to it and laughing about it when called out, on really basic verifiable stuff. WTF?

[Rae @raemondo]

@elonmusk Now imagine you could use all the highly energy efficient human brains for distributed inference capacity with some kind of brain implant 🤔

[Rae @raemondo]

@CheslinKolbe @Springboks @SiyaKolisi @EbenEtzebeth Chessie, you sir are fucking IMENSE!! ❤️ you

[Rae @raemondo]

@HustleBitch_ @IfindRetards yay or nay?

[Rae @raemondo]

@TommyFleetwood1 @PGATOUR Yeeeeeessssss man!!!!