punished and rugged

The network states aren't going to build themselves, anon.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@tszzl @Clavicular0 Clavic al-Lar

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@kunalbagaria 100%
it was fine even till the openclaw craze, but now we're just signing into a random fully closed, "free" software without any TOS / presence ..
smh

[roon @tszzl]

today is a good day to note: I love America and I love its exceptional free speech norms, enshrined in law and protected by its people and culture. the ability to say true and unpleasant or destabilizing things is not a right most people (even in the Western world!) enjoy

this extends beyond merely what the first amendment and related doctrine legally protects to the nurture and support of the entire American culture. this culture allowed for the creation of the free-spirited Internet forums that birthed so much of modern thinking on artificial intelligence. wherever are the sacred cows, the free internet is able to poke and prod them, for better and for worse

the actual realized pdoom of our culture is much lower due to our ability to freely discuss things as off-putting and nasty as the chances of human extinction. even when powerful interests find this inconvenient, the discourse does not stop happening -in public, in excruciating detail, without needing anyone's blessing. companies allow or encourage this to a surprising degree, at least in part because they know the cultural immune reaction will be strong if surprising levels of free speech norms are not upheld, as seen in recent history

I know many of you are sick of “discourse”, having bathed in its sludge, its many pathologies, its propagandists bigots and sycophants, but the planet would be in much worse shape if all of this technological development was happening in cultures or countries where free discourse was stifled. this norm survives only because all of us keep choosing to encourage it and enforce it even when it's costly

[Roman Helmet Guy @romanhelmetguy]

Over the last 3 years we've gone from "that's not real art" to "that's not real math."

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@Indian_Bronson i unlocked an even more surreal experience by watching Rabbi Mizrachi right after.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

can't belive the tech discourse pre covid used to revolve around things like tailwind vs regular css.

simpler times

[roon @tszzl]

like all other technologies your equivalent agent swarm will cost a buck fifty in like a year. all this stuff will mean an unprecedented Enlightenment no matter the costs today

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@Indian_Bronson but regardless, this is absolutely true.
https://t.co/r71laOTX30

[ib @Indian_Bronson]

These people don't do anything. They just want you to keep them 'working' on a problem they never intend to solve. They're the parasites that NGOs are modeled on.

Their highest goal is going to DC galas and going on Fox News, while insider trading.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@Indian_Bronson, What do you think of a plausible explanation that electoral support can arrive before the institutional capacity to act on it?
Winning the presidency doesn’t instantly give the admin the people, plans, and support needed to execute the full agenda.

I think changing what’s considered possible can precede changing what institutions deliver. And so mass deportation being openly discussed may itself represent a political gain towards that direction.
And every act of deportation is a step towards normalizing the larger idea?

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@PalmerLuckey https://t.co/8sHkBY89lz

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

A country can be hollowed out one perfectly profitable transaction at a time.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@RichardHanania argument is even weaker than @paulg's:
> I believe the most qualified person should get the job.
https://t.co/pKosOIeuhG

The core claim of the essay, that a less productive worker is better if they are cheaper, is just profitability and not at all meritocratic.

And the core issue with this approach is the recurring labor-cost arbitrage. Why stop at hiring cheaper workers. When wages rise, find cheaper labor elsewhere.

If that keeps being easier than training Americans or improving production, firms have less incentive to invest in either. The employer captures the savings; workers and communities can bear the costs.

@RichardHanania's claim that "profits get spent or invested” proves nothing by itself. Wages get spent and saved too.

A higher corporate margin is not a national development strategy.

[Richard Hanania @RichardHanania]

Happy Labor Day.

Today is a good day to reflect on the dignity of work.

The first rule of having dignity: don't be a parasite.

Labor unions and economic nationalists are pro-parasitism. They make us poorer, and we should remember why they're the enemy.
https://t.co/nHWMHJVVbA

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

I agree with @PalmerLuckey on the central point: supporting skilled immigration is compatible with expecting immigration policy to benefit Americans.

I support O1. Attract extraordinary talent. H-1B also brings valuable skills. My objection is to fraud and using workers’ dependence on employers to undercut wages.
https://t.co/JbfHPxashK

[Palmer Luckey @PalmerLuckey]

Investors like Paul want the immigration debate to be strictly polar because it is the only way their traitorous ideas might seem reasonable.

They paint one side as racist, backwards, economically illiterate absolutists and the other as enlightened, growth-minded cosmopolitian realists. Support for laws that protect American citizens can be dismissed as uneducated, anyone who hires immigrants or foreigners in any capacity a hypocrite.

American law should, and does, advantage American citizens. We should not have to compete on an even playing field with billions of people who almost universally don't share our values or respect our institutions, even if they are "the most qualified" or willing to work double the hours for the same wages. The men running Operation Paperclip did not think Americans should have to compete with the entire Third World, they understood that a carefully controlled amount of highly-skilled expert immigration is net good for America even when allegience is in question.

It is worth noting that even on a purely economic level, ignoring all burdens of loyalty or allegiance to your countrymen and treating America as nothing but an economic activity zone, it still doesn't make sense to say without qualification that foreigners should get any job where they are more qualified than their American counterpart.

As just one easy example out of dozens, about 20% of immigrants return home after less than five years, taking all their savings and vested shares with them. Another 20% will leave within ten years, doing the same. All the while, they will wire, on average, ~15% of their wages out of the United States economy every month. Some occupations and origins average 30%! The idea that this should be completely ignored with regard to employment and immigration policy is rampant among the same people who tell you with a straight face that limits on immigrants will destroy the American economy, that the dumb rednecks need to be saved.

I lean very libertarian and have strongly supported immigration to America for many years with countless public examples. That doesn't put me on the same side as the men who want to sell out America, and no amount of long-past accomplishment obliges any of us to listen to their lectures from the other side of the Atlantic.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

A country can be hollowed out one perfectly profitable transaction at a time.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@RichardHanania argument is even weaker than @paulg's:
> I believe the most qualified person should get the job.
https://t.co/pKosOIeuhG

The core claim of the essay, that a less productive worker is better if they are cheaper, is just profitability and not at all meritocratic.

And the core issue with this approach is the recurring labor-cost arbitrage. Why stop at hiring cheaper workers. When wages rise, find cheaper labor elsewhere.

If that keeps being easier than training Americans or improving production, firms have less incentive to invest in either. The employer captures the savings; workers and communities can bear the costs.

@RichardHanania's claim that "profits get spent or invested” proves nothing by itself. Wages get spent and saved too.

A higher corporate margin is not a national development strategy.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

new learning.
do not tinker with the context limits / context compression settings on codex. they are perfect as they are.

Thanks @thsottiaux .

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@ThomBrady5 > We're confronting the entrenched consensus of the Boomer worldview: the bureaucracy of FDR

the original sin was always the NRA and the birth of the administrative state.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@DrewPavlou i see stuff like this and i think rabbi mizrachi was always right.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

@LeeKuanYimby +1.
they're always pointing to how the investigation was already open for years before @nickshirleyy, but nobody explains why nothing was done on the said investigation until the video was uploaded.

[punished and rugged @siddharthks]

immaculate articulation.

> Our ambition is enormous: we are fish attempting to change the ocean we're swimming in.

This really helps put into perspective how the recent rightward shift has actually been in the making for over a decade.

And the movement in the overton window is proof that there is a much bigger undercurrent happening.

[Citrini @citrini]

There’s a ton of “if you had invested $1,000 in <successful stock> 25 years ago, you’d have x today!”, but sometimes it’s interesting to look at the rest of them.

What if you had invested in one of the most exciting growth names a century ago?

In 1926, the major market themes were aviation, office/industrial automation and electrification. One of the best performing big board stocks over the next 3 years was Burroughs Adding Machines - a company that made, you guessed it, adding machines.

It rode the proliferation of office work to a +1,996% gain over the next 168 weeks.

And it still survives today. It acquired Sperry Rand in 1986 and the combined company was renamed Unisys, which trades today as UIS.

If you had invested $1,000 in Burroughs Adding Machines in 1926, the shares would have been worth ~$20,900 at the 1929 peak. And $2,800 today.

But Burroughs, like many companies a century ago, was an aggressive dividend payer. Assuming you reinvested dividends, you’d have around $35,000 today.

Seems decent, you outperformed the consumer price index by about 85%. But you’ve underperformed the index by a factor of 640 to 1.

That same $1,000 invested in the S&P500 (or similar large cap U.S. index, using Shiller/BLS data) would be worth $22.4 million today.

An investor in 1926 picks a defining technology winner of their generation, a company that manages to continue to exist for a century. But a century was long enough to go through disruption -> hypergrowth -> dominance -> maturity -> tech transition -> renewed relevance -> consolidation -> new disruption -> terminal decline.

I don’t know exactly what the point is here but I find it pretty interesting considering most of the historical stock selection focuses on companies that survived and thrived.

[Telt @twofifteenam]

If you’re blowing past your token budget why aren’t you rich yet.