William Ions @williamions.bsky.social

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

Apropos of nothing...

https://t.co/C1KLMshp1d

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@JBMason

[Sawyer Merritt @SawyerMerritt]

Wow, the S&P Dow Jones Indices has just officially announced that they will NOT be changing their inclusion rules to make it easier for “MegaCap” companies (such as @SpaceX) to be fast-tracked into the S&P 500.

Their reasoning:
"S&P DJI determined that exceptions to the financial viability, seasoning, and IWF requirements should not be granted solely based on market capitalization. The decision not to adopt the proposed exceptions preserves core index principles by maintaining consistent application of these key requirements. Although there may be trade-offs between strict adherence to these eligibility requirements and broad representativeness, the current methodology provides substantial market coverage and sector balance. As a result, the indices can continue to meet their stated objectives while preserving their role as representative and investable benchmarks for the U.S. equity market.

No changes will be made to the eligibility criteria including financial viability screens, seasoning period, or minimum IWF, for the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400, or S&P SmallCap 600 as a result of the S&P Dow Jones Indices consultation on the treatment of MegaCap companies. Accordingly, there will be no changes to existing methodology for this index family."

This means that the earliest @SpaceX could be eligible to be added to the S&P 500 would now be June 2027.

The requirements that will now remain in place are:
• No changes to S&P 500 eligibility rules for mega-cap companies.
• Mega-cap companies will still need to wait 12 months after their IPO before being considered for S&P 500 inclusion.
• S&P will not waive profitability requirements for mega-cap companies. The company must have positive GAAP net income in the most recent quarter, and the sum of the most recent four consecutive quarters.
• S&P will not waive minimum public float requirements for mega-cap companies. At least 10% of a company's shares must be publicly tradable ("free float").

The S&P rejected proposals that would have:
• Reduced the IPO seasoning period from 12 months to 6 months
• Waived profitability requirements
• Waived minimum public float requirements

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@fabianschmid_09 Shhhhh!

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@moizali I'll never tell.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@doodlestein Are you able to disclose your methodology?

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@rockhillsranch The incentive is to pretend to enjoy reading. Not a great outcome.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@homerepaired @HansJen15917033 Depends on your time horizon.

[s.k. @worthlessslinky]

Remember: the “elite” talk shit about Harvard constantly calling it woke but send their kids there. Bad for you but good for them. Their entire world view and policies behind them are lies.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@TripleNetInvest "Don't just do something, stand there!"

[Trung Phan @TrungTPhan]

Conan salvaged 2026 commencement speech season with his Harvard commencent roast:

“The first graduating class in 1642 had only 9 graduates…and somehow they were all legacies. No university in our nation has produced more Nobel laureates or white-collar criminals. So, whether you choose good or evil, know that you are among the very best.”

[Dow @mark_dow]

Trump has won this war 7 times.

He’s negotiated a peace settlement 12 times.

And he’s opened the Strait of Hormuz at least 4 times.

What more do you want from him?

[Dr Doom @timztweet44]

@BobEUnlimited The facts are what they are. https://t.co/AeACnRoMfy

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@WSJ Tim Apple not Mark Apple...

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@CliftonSellers Pole

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@jonathanbylos @arpitrage French dude?

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@patrickberzai @DavidAstinWalsh No international flights dipshit.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@tailrisked @piktoggle_ Accurate.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@piktoggle_ NYAC is most fun and less pretentious than Union: You're already in the club, who wants to play status games? University is fine.

[William Ions @williamions.bsky.social @williamions]

@johnarnold Agree. Ban phones.

[Shivers @thinkingshivers]

I submitted a draft of my short story to Claude for copy editing. Sometimes he’ll suggest a re-write of a particular sentence.

My version: “She was just a rich girl, with a carelessness about her that could only come from being born into privilege.”

Claude’s suggestion: “She was just a rich girl, careless in the way only privilege allows.”

It's a matter of taste, but I personally think Claude's version is better. It's saying the same thing but more deftly. But when I swap his sentence in then plug the paragraph into Pangram, it goes from being high confidence that it's human to low confidence that it's human. If I keep doing this, will it start to read like AI slop? If I keep doing this, is it even my writing anymore?

So I'm keeping my version, the one I think is worse, and I'm disquieted by the fact that there could be a better version of this story that I now need to specifically avoid.