I love this video

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Sen. Cynthia Lummis says "Democrats helped write the Clarity Act, securing more than 115 wins in the text." 👀 "Now they need to vote for the bill they built. Anything less is walking away from their own work."

Should the Senate vote on the Clarity Act?

Senate Democrats should think hard before killing a bipartisan Clarity Act — 11 months in the making. It protects consumers, arms law enforcement, keeps this industry in America, and includes a historic ethics agreement covering the President, VP, Congress & federal judiciary.

The government tried to secretly kill crypto in America. We sued to expose this, and we won. We'll always fight for financial freedom.

So cool

This is likely our last chance to get real legislation for digital assets on the books before 2030. If we fail to pass the Clarity Act, we are ensuring another country will write the rules for digital assets and we spend the next decade catching up.

Be like Elon Musk, not Zohran Mamdani. Be a maker, not a taker.

Elon made this happen!

Elon Musk created thousands of millionaires in his career. Elizabeth Warren created 1, herself. Keep that in mind.

Vote them out

One of the Best Films of 2026 #ProjectHailMary

A US Senator just casually explained how you can store BTC in your brain during a legislation markup: "It provides people who are being tortured in foreign countries the opportunity to walk away with their money in their head. Because Bitcoin can be memorized." Magic ✨

₿oundless possibilities. I'm incredibly impressed by Adm. Paparo's foresight & use of Bitcoin for natl security. We're watching digital assets integrate into global power infrastructure. It’s time we welcome them back on our soil. Pass the Clarity Act, secure America’s future.

I am the VP of Claims Optimization at one of the five largest health insurers in the United States. I do not practice medicine. I have never practiced medicine. I have an MBA from Wharton and a background in supply chain logistics. Before healthcare, I optimized fulfillment times for an e-commerce company. The transition was seamless. In e-commerce, the product is a package. In healthcare, the product is a claim. Both are routed, processed, and occasionally denied. The denial rate for packages was 0.3%. The denial rate for claims is 34%. The margins are better in healthcare. The algorithm is called nH Predict. We did not name it. The vendor named it. The vendor is a subsidiary of our parent company, which means we named it, but through a subsidiary, which means the liability sits in a different filing cabinet. nH Predict processes a claim in 1.2 seconds. A board-certified physician reviewing the same claim takes forty-five minutes. We replaced the forty-five minutes. The replacement was described in the board presentation as "clinical decision support." It supports the decision to deny. My team processes 1.4 million claims per quarter. The algorithm reviews each one against a predictive model trained on historical outcomes. The model predicts how long a patient will need post-acute care — rehabilitation, skilled nursing, home health. Then it recommends a coverage duration. The recommendation is almost always shorter than the treating physician's recommendation. The physician sees the patient. The algorithm sees the data. We trust the data. The data is cheaper. Here is what I am not supposed to tell you. We know the reversal rate. We have always known the reversal rate. When a patient appeals a denial, 90% of denials are reversed. Ninety percent. This means nine out of ten times, the algorithm was wrong. Not arguably wrong. Not borderline wrong. Reversed-on-appeal wrong. The appeal is reviewed by a human physician. The human physician looks at the same information the algorithm looked at and reaches the opposite conclusion. This has been happening for three years. We have not recalibrated the algorithm. Recalibration would increase the approval rate. An increased approval rate would decrease the margin. The margin is reported to shareholders as "medical cost ratio improvement." Nobody asks what the words mean. The business model is the gap between denial and appeal. Sixty-three percent of patients do not appeal. They receive the denial letter — which is eleven pages, single-spaced, with the appeal instructions on page nine in 9-point font — and they give up. They pay out of pocket. They skip the rehabilitation. They go home early. Some of them fall. Some of them are readmitted. The readmission is a new claim. The new claim is processed by nH Predict. The 37% who appeal wait an average of 43 days for a decision. Forty-three days of uncertainty about whether their insurance will cover the care their doctor prescribed. During those 43 days, many of them have already been discharged. The appeal is retroactive. The care is not. I have a dashboard. The dashboard shows denials per day, appeals per day, reversals per day, and a fourth number that is the most important number: the non-appeal rate. The non-appeal rate is 63%. I report this number weekly. It has never been described as a problem. It has been described as "patient engagement efficiency." When the non-appeal rate rises, I am congratulated. When it falls, I am asked what happened. The class action lawsuit uses the phrase "bad faith." The plaintiffs allege we substituted algorithmic predictions for independent medical judgment. This is accurate. The substitution saves $2.1 billion annually. The lawsuit seeks $1.3 billion. Even if we lose, the math works. Three years of $2.1 billion is $6.3 billion. Minus $1.3 billion is $5 billion. The settlement will include the phrase "without admitting wrongdoing." The settlement always includes that phrase. I am the Vice President of Claims Optimization. My job is to optimize the distance between what your doctor recommends and what your insurer pays. The distance is the product. I have been optimizing it for three years. The algorithm gets faster. The appeals process gets longer. The font on page nine gets smaller. The margin gets wider. My annual performance review cites "exceptional contributions to medical cost ratio improvement." The review does not mention the 90% reversal rate. The review does not mention the 63% non-appeal rate. The review does not mention the patients. The algorithm does not practice medicine. I want to be clear about that. It predicts. It denies. It profits. The prediction, the denial, and the profit are three separate functions. The separation is important. For legal purposes.

America can’t afford to wait. Congress must move quickly to pass the Clarity Act. Let’s make the U.S. the digital asset capital of the world.

an audience member who’s a doctor asked cillian how he copes with playing such traumatised characters, and he goes “you’re a doctor? see, now that’s a real job” 😭

Think AI will reduce demand for doctors? Consider this: Claude writes 100% of its own code, yet Anthropic's engineering team is exploding. We aren't looking at the end of the physicians, but the birth of Medical Orchestrators. When asked why Anthropic is still aggressively hiring, Boris Cherny, the creator of Claude Code, said: “Someone has to prompt the Claudes, talk to customers, coordinate with other teams, decide what to build next. Engineering is changing and great engineers are more important than ever.” The need for software engineers isn’t going away, but the role of an engineer is evolving. This offers a blueprint for how to think about the future physician. Even as Ambient AI evolves from scribing to assessing and ordering, this doesn’t mean health systems need fewer physicians. But it does mean that physicians will need to evolve to become “Medical Orchestrators” - doctors who can direct AI clinical agents, validate AI clinical outputs, and have good judgment on when and how AI outputs should be integrated into direct patient care - while STILL also talking to patients and dealing with the people dynamics of collaborating with the broader care team. In some ways, being an Orchestrator is not a new concept to physicians. Academic physicians experience this daily - they lead a team of fellows, residents and medical students to care for a large number of patients. In the same way that you orchestrate a team with varying levels of skill and experience, you’ll do the same managing a crew of AI clinical agents with varying levels of reliability and utility. Soon the AI scribe will be near perfect and you’ll treat it autonomously like a fellow, but AI draft orders are still in the early phases and you’ll review the output very closely, just as you would closely review the work of a 3rd year medical student. In other words, the value of a physician will increasingly shift from the ability to perform every task, to the wisdom of knowing when and how to integrate the AI output into direct patient care. Now it may feel as if AI is reducing work through all this automation, but actually, the limitations of AI in the current state will reveal the next white space that clinicians will finally have time and mental bandwidth to focus on. For decades, physicians have been unable to optimize patient care because they had been buried under doing the basic requirements for each patient. But when AI automates documentation, chart summarization, discharge summaries and paperwork, this creates bandwidth for physicians to tackle new and important challenges that AI can’t - e.g. complex care coordination, re-engineering care delivery models and making the most difficult clinical and ethical judgments for patients. Even if AI further evolves from automating administrative tasks to automating diagnosis, we will only see an explosion in demand for physicians to not only grow actual care delivery, but to play a critical role in elevating the care we deliver.

As a patient, I want my physician unburdened by the trivial anxieties of this world. I don’t want them thinking about their mortgage when they walk into my exam room. I don’t want my neurosurgeon annoyed and distracted because the EHR demanded 37 meaningless clicks before they could even scrub. I don’t want my orthopedic surgeon delayed because someone requires an “H&P Update” that amounts to writing no changes—whether that’s one line on a sheet of paper or another 37 clicks in EPIC. I don’t want my internist spending half my visit typing like a court stenographer instead of examining, thinking, and, ideally, doctoring. I want my physicians to own the place where I receive care. I want them in control of the environment. I want them to know the nurses, know the housekeepers, know where the supplies came from, and know that the entire institution is oriented around my health—not around billing codes, compliance checkboxes, or corporate abstractions. And if that means my physician drives a Ferrari? I hope they have two. Because a focused, empowered, well-supported physician is worth infinitely more to me than any bureaucrat’s opinion about what a doctor “should” earn. My life is in their hands—and I’m going to be a little selfish here (it is my life, after all): I want the best of the best. I had a tailor for years whose slogan was, “Quality is economy.” Translation: buy cheap, buy twice. In healthcare, that’s not just expensive—it’s lethal. Friends, you get what you pay for. And when it comes to my life, the lives of my family, and the people I care about, I want my physicians compensated so well, supported so well, and unburdened so entirely that their focus is 100% on my health and wellbeing. The cost in our system has never been physicians.The cost is the posers, fakers, and wannabes. It’s the goobers, the gomers, and the grifters who siphon billions while adding nothing to patient care. They’re the ones who profit—not the people actually saving lives. I’m tired of it. And you should be too.