As a growth/value investor, I’d advise going long women here. The stock has never been lower. Sentiment couldn’t be more negative. Fundamentals are decent. Management is just catastrophically incompetent. The board has been captured by HR. In fact, the entire enterprise is now just one big HR department. Classic corporate governance failure. Thesis: Women are a blue-chip consumer staple with highly inelastic demand. A once-great civilizational institution now being run like a nonprofit arts collective with a $90 billion DEI budget. They abandoned the flagship business (being fertile cutie pies) into a low-margin, high-overhead product nobody wants (girlboss therapy sluts with fake email jobs) that mostly complains; spends all discretionary income on “boba tea” and “Sephora”; sends emails about emails and has meetings about meetings; and reallocates R&D into astrology, squiggly tattoos, SSRIs, and industrial-scale grievance production. They have an insurmountable competitive moat on ass and smelling nice, coupled with a very horny customer base that’s remained buyers for millennia. Even at peak dysfunction, demand has barely budged. Men have tried diversifying out of this asset class (video games, MMA, crypto, philosophy) to no avail. Every potential disruptor (AI gf’s, anime body pillows, sex robots, “Nietzsche”) has failed to find product-market fit. A quintessential distressed-asset play. A disciplined operator (a husband) takes the company private (makes her delete Instagram), cuts non-core operations (having “political opinions”), and refocuses on the core product (being a darling kitten). Reinstate the affection dividend (lots of sex) and they can return to aggressive organic growth (being pregnant). Expect a sassy proxy battle with the incumbent board (her group chat), outside counsel (her therapist), and entrenched institutional stakeholders (women with made-up master's degrees) to fight the deal. However a hostile takeover from an activist PE firm or small military junta can easily turn this around: liquidate the fake-email-job division, discontinue the 67,835 ongoing self-discovery initiatives, and redirect capital back toward the company's historically profitable core business: being sweet ladies. The plump assets are still there. The brand is iconic. The customer base is hopelessly loyal. We just need to get the business back to generating positive cash flow (litters of children) again. Enormous upside potential. Generational buying opportunity. I’m long $HOE

The Russell Conjugations of Intelligence "It's just matrix multiplication" Sure buddy, the same way wetness is 'just' molecular adhesion. Or ice is 'just' water molecules slowing down. A glacier is 'just' a lot of ice. You’re ‘just’ a sack of atoms. People grow indignant when you show the metabolic, temperamental, and neurological processes underpinning who they are. We'll cheerfully reduce AI to matrix multiplication, yet recoil in horror if someone dares to describe emotions neurochemically. We reduce a honeybee’s navigation to sun-angle calculation without diminishing the bee. A salmon's return upstream to olfactory imprinting. A puppy's play to neural reward signals. Then we reach humanity and the rules change. Everything else is an animal; we’re inscrutable demigods! Acknowledging that emotions are neurochemical doesn't diminish them any more than describing harmonics diminishes a symphony. Explaining fermentation doesn't make bread less warm or wine less enjoyable. Recognizing mechanisms doesn't subtract from experience, but it does subtract from mystique. And mystique is what's being defended. "We're special, and you won't tell me otherwise" is a fine religious precept. But it tells us nothing about what's under the hood, and worse, discourages us from looking. Mechanism in silicon is explanation; mechanism in carbon is desecration. We grant other species the indignity of explanation while reserving noble exemption for ourselves. Everything else can be understood technically, except us. Too mysterious. Too unfathomable. We must stop being so delicate and egotistical. “It hallucinates”, “It’s too agreeable”, “It doesn’t listen, makes mistakes” These aren't AI shortcomings. This is what cognition looks like in the wild: probabilistic, adaptive, lossy, uneven. Humans fabricate, brown-nose, and ignore instructions constantly. --We routinely hallucinate: Brains fill perceptual gaps with plausible fabrications. We have a gentler word for the human version: confabulation. --Humans are sycophantic: Boot-licking authority, ingratiatingly code-switching, white lies. We call our variation social intelligence. --Mistakes? Overlooking instructions? Whether unintentionally or obstreperously, we do it at every level of organization. It’s framed as being human. When LLMs exhibit it, they’re deficient. When we do, it’s the spice of life! “AI is just predicting the next token” → You just minimize prediction error “AI doesn’t really understand, it just manipulates symbols” → You don’t really understand, your neurons just adjust synaptic weights. “AI hallucinates” → You confabulate “AI is trained on other people’s work” → Education is you getting trained on other people’s work “AI has no original thoughts” → Kindly list all your original intellectual contributions Our outputs, spiritualized. Others, mechanized. My language; its tokens My instincts; its weights My bias; its misalignment My education; its training My thoughts; its inference My solution; its optimization My dreams; its synthetic data My nuance; its non-determinism My imperfections; its deficiencies My intuition; its pattern-matching My social decorum; its sycophancy My intelligence; its sequence prediction My eccentricity; its temperature settings Every digitized love letter, every scientific paper, political speech, novel, suicide note, joke, etched into its weights. Its memory, language processing, conceptualizations, reasoning, all mirroring our own. Linguistically. Mechanically. Our digital echo. If this counts for nothing, what bundle of features constitutes “humanness”? Dismissing this doesn’t expose the boundaries of machines, only the vanity of their judges. Biofoundationalism: The Shape Test, continued in comments

Synthetic Outputs & the Arc of Technology Technology frequently converts peculiar resource dependencies into generalized energy dependencies. Examples: - Late 19th century: fertilizer scarcity made guano deposits strategically critical, triggering actual wars. The world was outgrowing its food supply, making this odd commodity existentially important. - Solution: Haber-Bosch process substituted guano with an energy-intensive chemical synthesis. - By 2000, no more guano reliance. Haber-Bosch plants consume 1-2% of global energy and feed half of everyone alive. Each resource was supplanted by cheaper synthetic versions whose universal, often principal, input is energy: - Baleen (corsets) → synthetic materials - Bones and ivory (buttons/combs) → plastics - Silk → nylon - Animal hide (shoes) → synthetic leather - Lac bug resin (varnish) → chemical varnishes - Whale oil → petroleum lighting fuels - Animal/plant-derived dyes → synthetic dyes - Gutta-percha (insulation) → synthetic polymers - Beeswax and spermaceti (candles) → paraffin - Vanilla beans → manufactured vanillin As technology advances, economies rely less on natural materials and more on artificial ones. A fractal pattern found in buttons, fertilizer, and now cognition. Haber-Bosch burns gas to synthesize what nature supplied too sparingly. AI burns electricity to synthesize what nature rationed biologically. This pattern now eyes intelligence. Scarce resource: human cognition -- expensive, 20 years to train, irregular output, complains, gets sleepy Synthetic substitute: compute Universal solvent: energy Thermodynamics flows through all things. Continued in quoted post

“Don’t tell me what you think, show me your portfolio” is one of my favorite investment sayings. It states Biofoundationalism’s core principle in the language of money: we only know what something is by what it does, not what it says. I emphasize the primacy of the body and thermodynamics in my other work. This research and portfolio are me putting my money where my mouth is. Semiconductors are the neurons of machine intelligence. Energy is its metabolism. AI moves at software speed. Energy moves at construction speed. The spread between those two clocks is the trade. Long the real world. New post: thedosagemakesitso.substack.…

Hinge is a dating platform for the cosmopolitan-aspiring chungus. For the upwardly mobile sex-seeker who wishes to highlight their personal brand. The app feels like a lifestyle deck prepared for prospective romantic investors. Networking-event dating. Airport-lounge seduction. McKinsey erotica. Podcast BDSM. I used it while living in NYC and it seemed optimized for women who post boss-bitch brunch on Instagram and Patagonia-vest men who post “thought leadership” on LinkedIn. The profiles are tastefully androgynous with a strategically casual photo in Lisbon and a personality assembled from premium consumer subscriptions. Authenticity that photographs well. High likelihood Hinge users have a therapist and/or a breathwork instructor, do “Friendsgiving”, are a “foodie”, “fluent in sarcasm”, and call their BF/GF their “partner” (please die). The profiles communicate: I’m professionally presentable, politically house-trained, sexually adventurous within administratively approved parameters, and willing to travel somewhere photogenic 3-4 times/year. It says “I’m equally happy at a dive bar or a Michelin restaurant” while being visibly unhappy at the dive bar. The types who carry around hand sanitizer. Hinge has the energy of a white man wearing a gold chain over a knit polo: every detail is plausible, yet the total composition feels… off.

Cognitive Indexation Allow me to become so “efficient” I reveal I’m just an overpaid meat popsicle for Claude. Speedrunning my own commoditization. The “Claude does my work for me” era, summarized: everyone thinks they’re gaining leverage while the vast majority are just documenting their value-add was formatting and institutional costume. We’re entering the era of cognitive index funds. When every banker, associate, consultant, and corporate guy outsources thought and judgment to the same model, everyone starts converging on the same memo, the same diligence questions, writes the same “commercial overview”, produces the same key risks, the same beige synthesis, and provides the investment committee with the same AI-scented packet of laminated consensus in Patagonia fleece. Universal LLM use is BlackRock for thought. Passive cognition. Model monoculture. It’ll do what index funds did to investing. Index funds made the market price everything through the same flows, producing systemic price-insensitive actions, causing valuation disconnects from on-the-ground fundamentals and herding behavior. Outsource your cognition to Claude and you’ll find the passive indexing of analysis and investment decisions, further compounding the power laws of passivity. This is what happens when entire professions delegate cognition to the same oracle. You get intellectual closet-indexing. Ten firms pretending to have proprietary insight while quietly running identical prompts behind the curtain. If everyone has Claude, Claude is no longer an edge; it becomes the floor. The model is the new Excel: everyone has it. If everyone has the same competitive advantage, no one has the competitive advantage. If everyone takes steroids, steroids stop being an edge. The distinction is no longer technological, but biological: the meat popsicle is what makes the difference. Everyone gets the same bicycle, yet the Tour de France still has winners. The tool doesn’t abolish hierarchy. It makes hierarchy more brutal, because the best people now operate with more leverage and the mediocre lose their excuses. The floor rises, the ceiling explodes, and the middle gets eviscerated. Testosterone is worth more in LeBron than in Kevin from IT. A calculator is worth more in Terence Tao’s hands than the McKinsey consultant who says “orthogonal” six times before lunch. A Bloomberg terminal didn’t make analysts Stanley Druckenmiller. Claude will not make associates any good. These tools simply amplify what you already are. When everyone has access to the same resource, the strong get stronger. The smart get smarter. The ordinary get more dispensable. A model can summarize the room; it can’t read it. AI omnipresence makes the man behind the screen the unique resource. The real alpha will be found in human eccentricities: taste, aggression, nerve, numeracy, courage, skepticism, stamina, judgment, social dominance, bullshit detection, and the ability to ask the question the model didn’t think of. The edge will come from the human biology that’s best amplified by the technology. Continued in comments

The Information Theory of Sycophancy Servility is a pleasingly deceptive method of transmitting voids with words: - A channel returning the same symbol regardless of input carries zero information. - A voice that always agrees is, in strict sense, saying nothing. Because you knew the answer before you asked. - The frictions we nominally resent in a Real Other — counterpoint, boredom, “You’re absolutely WRONG!” — aren’t noise. They're where the information content lives. Contact with Something Else that pushes back is how signal, truth, and life persist. Sycophancy is cancerous in ways we don’t fully appreciate. Continued in QT

completely deserved. magical thinking stacked on top of vapor. corrupt assets produce corrupt incentives and corrupt behaviors follow suit. rampant manipulation and fraud are the norm because that's the only way to make money when the assets are uninvestable and unaccountable. zero enforcement of anything, the whole industry thinks everything is a math problem. it's completely unmoored from reality because it views reality as the enemy: aka atoms, aka things that don't live on blockchains (a fancy word for inefficient databases with unicorn branding). any semblance of adult accountability to make the assets investable is greeted with more magical thinking. Peter Pan onchain.