Who is this person? retweeted
I have three monitors on my desk. The left one shows the order book. The middle one shows Truth Social. The right one shows the investigation queue.
On April 21st, the left screen moved first.
I am a Senior Surveillance Analyst at a commodities exchange. I have held this position for nineteen years. My job is to monitor trading activity for suspicious patterns and generate compliance reports. I am employee of the quarter. I have a mug.
At 19:54 GMT on April 21st, someone placed 4,260 sell orders on Brent crude futures. They did this during post-settlement. The window after the market closes when daily volume is typically in the dozens. Sometimes single digits. Sometimes I watch the screen and nothing happens for forty minutes and I think about whether my daughter is happy.
On April 21st, someone placed $430 million in directional bets in 120 seconds during that window. One hundred and twenty seconds. I timed it on my watch because the system clock rounds to the nearest minute and I have found, in nineteen years, that precision matters to no one but me.
At 20:10 GMT, the President posted on Truth Social that he was extending the Iran ceasefire.
Brent dropped from $100.91 to $96.83.
I flagged the trade. I flag a lot of trades. I want to tell you what happens to my flags.
My flags go into a system called TRACE. Trade Review and Compliance Evaluation. I did not name it. The system generates a report. The report goes to a committee. The committee has a name I am not allowed to share but I can tell you it meets quarterly and the conference room has a credenza with bottled water that is sparkling because someone once put still water in the room and a managing director sent an email about it that was longer than most of my surveillance reports.
The committee reviews my flags. The committee has reviewed all of my flags. Here is the complete record of actions taken on my flags in 2026:
Reviewed.
That's it. "Reviewed" is a status. In compliance, a status is the absence of an action that has been given a name so it looks like one.
Let me show you my flags.
March 9th. Someone bet millions on oil falling at 18:29 GMT. Forty-seven minutes later, a CBS reporter posted that the President said the Iran war was "very complete, pretty much." Oil dropped 25%. Forty-seven minutes. I flagged it.
March 23rd. Someone sold 5,100 lots of Brent and WTI crude futures between 10:49 and 10:50 GMT. Fourteen minutes later, the President posted on Truth Social about a "COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION" to hostilities. Oil dropped 11%. Over 13,000 contracts traded in sixty seconds after the post. Fourteen minutes. I flagged it.
April 7th. Someone established a $950 million short position in oil futures at 19:45 GMT. Three hours later, the President declared a two-week ceasefire. Nine hundred and fifty million dollars. I flagged it.
April 17th. Someone placed $760 million in bearish bets twenty minutes before Iran's foreign minister confirmed the Strait of Hormuz would reopen. Seven hundred and sixty million. I flagged it.
April 21st. The $430 million. Fifteen minutes. I flagged it.
That is $2.1 billion in directional oil bets in April alone. Every one of them landed on the correct side of a presidential announcement. Every one of them was placed in a window so narrow you could measure it in bathroom breaks. I flagged every single one.
The CFTC chair told a Congressional committee that his organization has "zero tolerance" for fraud and insider trading. I wrote that quote on a Post-it note and stuck it to my right monitor. The one that shows the investigation queue. The investigation queue has not moved since March.
Zero tolerance. Zero staff. Zero budget. Zero prosecutions under the STOCK Act since it was signed in 2012.
Fourteen years. The law has existed for fourteen years and has been enforced zero times. In compliance, we call that a compliance rate of one hundred percent. No cases filed means no cases lost. You cannot fail an audit you never conduct. We call that excellence.
Last month the White House sent an internal email to staff. I was not on the distribution list but I have read reporting on it and I need you to sit with what I am about to say. The email instructed White House staff not to use insider information to place bets on prediction markets.
The White House had to send a memo telling its own employees not to insider-trade.
I want you to read that sentence again. Not because the instruction was unclear. Because the instruction was necessary. Because someone in the building looked at the same pattern I have been flagging for months on my three monitors and decided the appropriate response was an email.
The President's son sits on the advisory board of Kalshi. He is an investor in Polymarket. Both are prediction markets. Both saw accounts created days before U.S. military action.
One account. I cannot stop thinking about this account. It was called "Burdensome-Mix." It was created in December. On January 2nd, it placed $32,500 on Venezuela's president being removed from power. On January 3rd, Maduro was seized by U.S. special forces. Burdensome-Mix collected $436,000. Then it changed its username. Then it disappeared.
One account is a coincidence. But there were six.
Six accounts were created on Polymarket in February. All bet on U.S. strikes on Iran by the 28th. When the President confirmed the strikes, the six accounts collected $1.2 million between them. Five of the six never placed another bet. The sixth went on to correctly predict the ceasefire date and made another $163,000.
My surveillance system logged all of this. My system logs everything. My system does not have opinions and neither do I. I generate reports. The reports go to committees. The committees meet quarterly. Between meetings, the windows get shorter and the bets get larger.
March 9th: 47 minutes. March 23rd: 14 minutes. April 17th: 20 minutes. April 21st: 15 minutes.
The window is compressing. In March, you had time to make coffee between the trade and the announcement. By April, you had time to send a text. By summer, at this rate, the trade and the announcement will be the same event.
The spokesman said any implication that administration officials are engaged in insider trading is "baseless and irresponsible reporting."
Then the White House sent the email again.
I have been in compliance for nineteen years. I have seen insider trading run out of strip mall offices by men who could not spell "derivative." I have seen pump-and-dump schemes coordinated over WhatsApp by people who used their real names. I have seen a man try to manipulate soybean futures from a Panera Bread.
I have never seen $2.1 billion in perfectly timed trades across five presidential announcements in a single month go uninvestigated.
But I have also never seen a compliance system work this beautifully. Every trade flagged. Every report filed. Every committee briefed. Every quarterly meeting attended. Bottled water: sparkling. Minutes: distributed.
Zero prosecutions.
As long as the flags go up and the cases don't, my performance review says I am meeting expectations.
I am meeting expectations. The system is meeting expectations. The $2.1 billion is meeting expectations. The fourteen-year-old law with zero prosecutions is meeting expectations.
The left screen moves. The middle screen moves. The right screen stays perfectly, immaculately still.
In my field, we call this price discovery.
Who is this person? retweeted
我最讨厌的就是那些外国人,来中国“旅游”几天,就觉得自己看懂了中国。点个外卖、刷刷拼多多、吃几顿饭、拍几张高楼大厦的照片,再被路人友好地拉去合个影,就敢大言不惭地说:“这就是真实的中国。”
你们根本没见过中国老百姓凌晨五点挤地铁赶去996工厂的样子,没见过35岁被优化后在招聘群里像狗一样投简历却石沉大海的绝望,没见过父母砸锅卖铁供孩子上培训班却换来一个“内卷”结果的眼泪,更没见过老人重病时一家人跪在医院走廊里为几十万手术费四处借钱、最终放弃治疗的崩溃。
你们不知道我们买房要掏空六个钱包、背三十年房贷,成了房奴还得感恩戴德;你们不知道小区物业勾结黑势力,业主想换个物业都能被威胁、被殴打、被起诉,最后只能忍气吞声;你们更不知道,当普通人遇到不公、想维权的时候,面对的是层层阻挠、被约谈、被喝茶、甚至被“寻衅滋事”。
你们只看到灯红酒绿的表象,只享受了低人权优势下的廉价服务、廉价劳动力、廉价消费,就敢站在道德制高点对中国指手画脚。
我恶心透了你们这种浅薄的“中国通”,然后发到 youtube为了博取流量!
真正的中国,不是你们镜头里那几栋会发光的玻璃幕墙,而是千千万万底层老百姓被压得喘不过气的血汗、被榨干的青春、被无视的尊严,以及一套在关键时刻永远不站在弱者一边的“法制”。
想评价中国?先把眼睛睁开,看看那些你们永远不会去住的小区、永远不会去排队的医院、永远不会去上的工厂流水线,去看看多少房奴依然还着贷款却无法居住的烂尾楼!
Who is this person? retweeted
My fellow writers might not want to hear this, but AI is a useful tool for certain aspects of the craft, like for instance when you’re engaged in the process of being a talentless shitbag hack who is too lazy to do any fucking writing.
Who is this person? retweeted
He's not just defending AI energy use. He is smuggling in a whole anthropology where humans are basically inefficient meat computers that you have to pour food and years into before they become useful. And once you accept that, the next move is obvious. If people are just costly biological training runs, then burning mountains of electricity to build synthetic intelligence starts to feel not only equal, but superior, even if it negatively impacts actual humans.
That is the dystopian. It makes human development sound like a bug in the system, and it makes sacrificing human and creational flourishing for more computational power sound logical. To him, the grid gets strained, prices go up, ecosystems get hit, but hey, humans eat too, so what's the difference?
The difference is that humans aren't an inefficient line item. They're the point. If your worldview can look at a child growing into an adult and describe it as energy spent to train intelligence, you haven't said something profound. You've revealed a horrifically rotten worldview.
Who is this person? retweeted
🚨 ATTENTION: In 2 days, LinkedIn will start using your data for generative AI training, unless you OPT OUT (see below how). Here's the FINE PRINT most people will miss:
1. "Affiliates":
One of LinkedIn's notable affiliates, which will receive people's personal data (if they don't opt out), is Microsoft:
"opting out means that LinkedIn and its affiliates (including Microsoft) won’t use your LinkedIn data to improve models that generate content going forward..."
2. This feature is 'on' by default and does not affect training that has already taken place:
"The Data for Generative AI Improvement member setting is set to 'on' by default, unless you opt-out by turning it 'off.' Turning the setting off means that we (LinkedIn and our affiliates) won’t use the data and content you provided to LinkedIn to train models that generate content going forward. Opting out does not affect training that has already taken place."
3. Data protection law works:
People in the EEA (EU + Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and in Switzerland will have a data protection privilege as their personal information "will not be made available to certain LinkedIn affiliates (such as Microsoft) for training generative AI models without further notice."
For all those who complain about tech and data protection in general, it usually works.
4. If you opt out, you can still use LinkedIn's AI features (and they will process your data):
"If you opt-out of the Data for Generative AI Improvement member setting, you may still use our generative AI features that generate content, but your personal data will not be used to train or improve any content generating AI models. In other words, this setting does not control the use of your data while you or others are using generative AI features on LinkedIn. It only controls the use of your data for training the models that may power those features."
-
To opt out, follow the instructions in the image below.
-
👉 SHARE this information with your network.
👉 LEARN more in the FAQ (link below).
👉 NEVER MISS my updates, analyses, and curations on AI: join my newsletter's 83,300 subscribers (link below)
Who is this person? retweeted
To those of you just realizing that Donald Trump is a sexual predator connected to Epstein, he also:
-Lost the 2020 election
-Caused an insurrection
-Stole national security secrets
-Is a convicted felon
-Did not make you rich with tariffs
-Did not release a healthcare plan in two weeks, two years, or at any point during his two terms
-Massively increased the national debt and continues to do so
-Did not bring peace through strength
-Did not stop the war in Ukraine within 24 hours
-Is a terrible businessman who has a laundry list of bankruptcies
-Is only rich because his parents gave him an insane amount of money, which he handled worse than if he had just stuck it in an index fund
-Turned to corruption to build his wealth further
-Didn't get Mexico to pay for a wall
-Didn't solve the debt with tariffs
-Didn't get 90 trade deals in 90 days. He got zero
-Had his son and campaign staff meet with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign
-Attempted a quid pro quo with Ukraine during his first term
-Said he could terminate the Constitution and that he wouldn't rule out using the military against US citizens prior to sending Marines to LA and threatened to revoke citizenship from Anericans
-Lied over 30,000 times during his first presidency
-Praises dictators and gangsters
-Doesn't care about you at all
Now that you're starting to see Trump for who he is, make sure to see the whole picture.
Who is this person? retweeted
🚨NEW: Senator Susan Collins has announced she will vote to advance Trump’s “big beautiful bill” which makes deep cuts to Medicaid.
RETWEET to let Maine know that @SenatorCollins supports Medicaid cuts!
Who is this person? retweeted
Since there is talk about bringing back ASBESTOS (this is somehow true), I thought it would be useful to describe just some what happens to you when you breath this stuff into your lungs.
In short, it’s terrible.
A 🧵
Who is this person? retweeted
"AI’s use by high-school and college students to complete written assignments, to ease or avoid the work of reading and writing... puts the process of deskilling at education’s core. To automate learning is to subvert learning"
Great piece by @roughtype
newcartographies.com/p/the-m…
Who is this person? retweeted
This is probably one of the best speeches in committee I have EVER heard.
We often hear passionate emotional speeches and I applaud that, but this is a forensic dismantling of a woman who arrogantly thinks she and the administration she belongs to are above the law. THEY ARE NOT.
Kristi Noem attended the hearing intent on being obstructive and dismissive and Chris Murphy gave her a masterclass in the constitutional responsibilities of government. I salute you sir.
🎥 TikTok - vm.tiktok.com/ZNd6nAsuy/
Who is this person? retweeted
Pew Research is out with some incredible polling about AI
Pew polled both regular US adults plus a panel of "AI experts"
Read the whole report (link in next post), but here are my takeaways👇
-66% of Americans say they have never used an AI chatbot
-64% of Americans expect AI to lead to fewer jobs
-Only 17% of Americans think AI will "make humans more productive"
-Only 6% think AI will "make humans happier"
-63% of Americans think AI will NEVER get to a point where they would trust it to make important decisions for them
-Only 17% of Americans expect AI to have a positive effect on the USA over the next 20 years
-The majority of Americans are "more concerned than excited" about AI
-Almost twice as many Americans think AI will harm them vs benefit them
-58% of Americans (and 56% of experts) worry the US government won't go far enough in regulating AI
-Only 21% of Americans expect AI to positively affect the economy (vs 69% of "AI experts")
-80%+ of both experts & regular Americans think AI will not be positive for "the news people get" and for elections
***
The full report really highlights a massive disconnect between the AI community and the public at large
It also shows regular Americans remain VERY skeptical about AI!
Who is this person? retweeted
This is American exceptionalism on steroids, completely disconnected from reality.
China will do what it always does when faced with U.S. hostile actions: they won't talk much but trigger policies that will demonstrate in due time that these actions were utterly counter-productive to the U.S.
In particular, the key objective of Trump here is to "bring manufacturing back home". And it just so happens that China, as the world's sole manufacturing superpower today and the world's largest consumer market, controls a lot of cards when it comes to manufacturing.
If you just take the pharmaceutical industry for instance: how would you bring the manufacturing of this back home when China dominates the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and many key chemical precursors essential for drug manufacturing? You're stuck, you need those to do drug manufacturing.
Of course you could also try to bring the manufacturing of those back home too but, to do so, you'd need specialized equipment which - guess what - is also largely manufactured in China.
But sure, you could therefore decide to bring the manufacturing of those specialized equipment back home as well but, to do so, you'd need other critical materials that China currently dominates the processing of globally.
And so on and so forth. This "turtles all the way down" problem exists across virtually ALL industries worldwide, which means that China - if they decide so - is in effective control of whether Trump achieves his principal objective, or not.
And if he doesn't, then he'll just have made prices for everything the U.S. buys much more expensive for U.S. consumers, as well as shot U.S. companies in the foot with more expensive production costs and losses of critical markets, with very little to show for it in exchange.
Meanwhile China's economy doesn't rely on exports to the U.S., they represent less than 3% of its GDP.
Sure, as many people rightly point out, a lot of what China sells to other countries - like Vietnam - is in fact U.S.-bound and that will get affected too. But even if one was to take a maximalist number, the hit actually wouldn't be too important.
Exports overall are 18% of China's GDP and the U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of global consumer spending so at most we're talking about 30% * 18% = 5.4% of China's GDP getting affected.
And how much of that 5.4% is genuinely vulnerable? Only the portion where the U.S. can realistically reshore manufacturing - something which again China has numerous tools to impede. So we may be talking a 1 or 2% hit on GDP in the worst case scenario, for a country growing at 5% a year. The effect is marginal.
Heck, the effect will probably even be overall positive for China. With his trade war, Trump is antagonizing virtually the entire world, pushing countries closer to China as an alternative economic partner. Even Japan - Japan! - is now edging closer to China (thinkchina.sg/politics/diplo…).
When Trump imposed tariffs in his first term, what happened? The EU, Japan, Canada, and others didn't join America's crusade - they accelerated their own trade deals with China. RCEP became the world's largest trade agreement. Belt and Road Initiative investments expanded. Yuan-denominated trade increased. China's position as the central hub of Asian manufacturing networks strengthened, not weakened.
And during Trump's first term China was largely caught by surprise. This time they knew what to expect and they're much better positioned for it.
All in all, think about it, who's most likely to end up the loser in this struggle:
1. The U.S., which has to somehow rebuild entire manufacturing ecosystems that took decades to develop in China (and which, as we saw, China has tools to impede), will face higher inflation as import costs rise, and whose companies will lose access to the world's fastest growing consumer market?
2. Or China, which has been systematically reducing its U.S. dependence for years, has already established itself as the manufacturing hub for most of the world, and can redirect exports to its own massive domestic market and other international partners?
The fundamental miscalculation here is viewing global trade as a zero-sum game where America can simply dictate terms through force, rather than acknowledging the complex interdependences at play.
This isn't just American exceptionalism - it's American delusion.
Who is this person? retweeted
To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list.
Why? Does Lesotho apply extortionate tariffs on U.S. products and the U.S. is merely being "reciprocal" here? Not at all, despite what Trump is saying, it's NOT the way these tariffs are defined.
As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc.
Which means it applies the same tariffs on U.S. products as South Africa does, as well as the 3 other members of the bloc: Namibia, Eswatini and Botswana.
So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.
So what gives? Again, the way these tariffs are calculated has absolutely zero relationship with actual tariffs imposed by these countries on U.S. products. Instead, they appear to be simply derived from trade deficit calculations.
Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (wits.worldbank.org/CountryPr…).
Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (databankfiles.worldbank.org/…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can't afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income...
The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country's exports to the U.S and declare this - falsely - "the tariff they charge on the U.S."
And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you'll only "reciprocate" by charging half that "tariff" on them.
As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M - $7M)/$235M = 97%. That's the "tariff" Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. "reciprocates" with.
It's extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all.
First of all, there's nothing Lesotho can do about it: they can't change tariffs they allegedly charge the U.S. to reduce the tariff rate the U.S. "reciprocates" with because, again, it's NOT based on any tariff that they charge.
Similarly they can't do much about reducing the trade deficit they have with the U.S. because, again, they simply don't have enough money to buy U.S. products.
Also the main rational Trump gave for the tariffs is to get production back to the U.S., to "bring manufacturing back". 47.3% of Lesotho's exports are diamonds: how do you bring the "manufacturing" of that "back to the U.S."? Anyone can see it makes just about zero sense.
The Lesotho example exposes the fundamental economic incoherence of these tariffs. Rather than addressing actual trade barriers, they punish countries based on trade deficits that arise from structural economic realities. All the more countries like Lesotho which pose zero competitive threat to American industry.
Worse yet, these tariffs will likely make these structural realities even worse: the U.S. is Lesotho's second most important export destination so it's a fair bet that applying 50% tariffs on their products will make people in Lesotho even poorer, and therefore even LESS able to afford U.S. products.
But perhaps the most unfair and detrimental aspect of all this is that these tariffs represent a complete reversal of longstanding U.S. development policy, and therefore a betrayal of countries - like Lesotho - who chose to follow U.S. advice in the past.
For decades the U.S. has used preferential trade access to encourage economic development in the world's poorest nations, recognizing that trade, not just aid, could get them out of poverty and ultimately put them in a position where they too could afford iPhones or Tesla.
They're now effectively penalizing countries for following previous U.S. policy, a lesson which I bet they won't forget anytime soon.
So all in all the irony is painful: in the name of fighting unfair trade, America has just demonstrated what truly unfair trade looks like.
This isn't something designed to address genuine trade issues, but simply a mechanism based on arbitrary math to punish countries for the affront of selling more to the United States than they buy.
Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn't actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us.
So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.
Who is this person? retweeted
Giving infectious disease research a break, as promised by the MAHA agenda.
Let's break down what exactly this Executive Order is *really* saying. Fortunately, I speak fluent anti-vax grifterese & can translate.
whitehouse.gov/presidential-…
Who is this person? retweeted
Ok. So I study authoritarian regimes for a living. I spend most of my time thinking about how Russia's dictatorship works. But one of my personal side-projects involves looking at authoritarian theorists closer to home. The most prominent by far is Curtis Yarvin.





































