Crime is legal now, but it may not always be Institutional capital needs to find a home where it cannot be clawed back easily in the event that crime is illegal once more #zec

What if the next billion dollar AI coin is currently sitting at $15m and you're just completely missing it?

BREAKING: France will deploy soldiers, radars and air defence systems to Saudi Arabia to protect the oil export facilities at Yanbu from Houthi attacks, with Macron not ruling out a French Air Force fighter deployment as well. "We are going to send military assets to protect the oil facilities at Yanbu in Saudi Arabia," Macron says. It comes two weeks after Trump refused MBS's requests for US strikes on the Houthis, and five days after Trump called off strikes with bombs already loaded on US warplanes.

How long until trump blames market weakness on an incoming democrat sweep ?

Oh my God

Always fun to periodically give a shoutout to people who thought the Iran war would be resolved within a few weeks.

It's a spectator sport in that this administration is only good at producing spectacles. You are a natural fit because you're not a real athlete, just an influencer who's also good at producing theatre. The administration is using you to distract from a foreign war that has made life more expensive in the United States. You are happy to participate because you have no real beliefs outside of self-promotion and making money.

I told you nerds don't panic sell your Mossad coins, Trump telegraphing anything = his 30 iq brainlet ahhhh thinks he's fooling Iranians with his bluffs

Jokes aside if ur betting on WW3 starting the bet is not shorts The bet is longing strategic assets

This thread is 100% gonna blow up and I am gonna look like a salty c****again but @icobeast pissed me off so now it's gonna get ugly Kalshi fakes their crypto volume and I can prove it NOTHING pisses me off more than watching a company treat its own customers like complete fucking idiots Grab some popcorn cause I dissected every piece of evidence one by one until there’s basically no way for him to respond without making this look even worse Oh and FYI, I left every source at the end so y’all can check the receipts yourselves 😘 1/x

Holy....who did this?? 🤣🤣

🥳

“Feds credibility” bro the FBI director just argued his case for allowing bestiality, no one in this administration has any credibility, for whatever reason their lack of credibility is why they are chosen

Kashkari in his July dissent said massive data center investment hS added a new demand element to high inflation. Will he be influenced by AI companies “slowing down” ?

If Warsh and the Fed really want to establish credibility and independence, they will hold this week and thereby notify the market that Fed Funds Futures don’t control their decisions.

macklemore is a perfect example of why one must separate the art from the artist. but for the opposite reason people usually mean

Genuinely embarrassing seeing all the e/acc’s, right wingers, random tech bros, and whoever else think that mathematicians are butthurt from not solving these problems rather than worried about the future of mathematics. Total idiots. Including @nntaleb.

imo a lot of people are deeply misreading this as lamenting the death of personal pleasures in the face of efficient goal-attaining when it's a lament of the death of actual goal-attaining in the face of optimized things-shaped-like-goals-attaining

A lot of people are missing Terence Tao’s point and thinking “mathematicians are upset that AI is better than them.” That’s not what he’s saying, and some people are forgetting that Tao is one of the most AI-pilled mathematicians out there. His point is that when people work on discovering something, along the way they invent new concepts. Those concepts later become useful far beyond the original goal, and enables further inventions. Finding a solution does matter, but the intermediate idea is often what makes the field richer, because other people can share it and build the next thing from it. In tech, we can use the analogy of collaborative software. We started with algorithms for merging changes in a Word document, and evolved that to concepts about versions, diffs, and merges, and later to real-time collaboration tools like Git, Google Docs, and Figma. Humans built upon these concepts and developed more powerful solutions. Terence’s worry is that a machine automating a solution robs the field of the value of developing the intermediate discoveries in the pursuit of larger discoveries. When automating a solution, the intermediate discoveries and invention of concepts can be buried or completely hidden in the black box. We don’t learn from them to build the next thing; it’s like we never made the invention of collaborative document editing and thus could not have the conceptual understanding to invent the next version – and since it’s hidden, we also don’t socialize them to allow other people to invent, too, a core tenet of collective discovery. So then, in both code and math, this leads to the atrophy of development of concepts in the field. In other words: pure ‘solution extraction’ that hides the process of discovery can leave the field with a checked-off theorem but little new insight or new questions to pursue. And it might prevent us from understanding a field deeper. I am seeing, first-hand, that atrophying of skills in software development. We push buttons and get solutions. There is much less incentive to develop new concepts and human skill. The bet most software companies are making is that LLMs are so effective in writing code that you’re still shipping overwhelmingly more value even with human skill atrophy, and it’s the right bet IMO. However, much of the software industry is built upon building things, not necessarily novel invention and research. In such an environment, you can say that you accept some atrophying of conceptual invention and human skill for more output. On the other hand, sectors like math and pure sciences that are focused on invention and insight might be the hardest hit by this. Practical/applied sciences might fall somewhere in the middle. An Alzheimer’s cure, room-temperature semiconductor, or highly effective carbon capture solution are far too valuable to sandbag and say only humans can do that to develop concepts in the ‘proper’ way. The outcome matters too much to treat the preservation of concept invention as the highest goal. Even there, though, hidden intermediates can slow the next breakthrough if nobody can see how the first one actually worked. So the question is not “is AI allowed to solve hard problems?” It is “in this field (math, science, tech, etc.), is the answer itself the main point, or are the concepts and abstractions we use to get there also the thing we need to maintain?”​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ In pure math, there’s an argument that the intermediates are often more useful than the solution, and atrophy in concept development is highly detrimental to the field. Solving Navier–Stokes, contrary to what some people claim, has little practical application, and pure math might be one of those fields where just finding a solution isn’t the entire point, and can actually be contrary to the field, which is what Tao is worried about.

Bro im literally up more than 400% YTD before the gains im about to get on market open, because I immediately understood to buy oil. You've been extremely wrong, unless you can post that your net worth is up more than 400% YTD?