mark retweeted
Saying there’s no reason to buy Bitcoin because anyone can create a cryptocurrency is like saying there’s no reason to learn English because anyone can invent a language.
always loved this part of Raphael's massive painting
Plato on the left pointing up, to the heavens and his abstract ideals. Aristotle on the right pointing down, to more practical earthly concerns
in The School of Athens learning happens via dialogue (dia-logos), not lectures
What people say in certain circles, in salons, at dinners, in public assemblies, and in books, even when it is supposed to help people to know society, is false and insufficient. A person may respond to all of it with the italian phrase per la predica [for a sermon] or the latin one ad populum phaleras [glittering tinsel for the people]. What is true and instructive is what an honest man who has seen very much and seen it clearly says to his friend in a quiet corner near a fire: a number of such conversations have taught me more than every book and the usual commerce of society. They put me on the right path and made me reflect more.
—Chamfort (1741-1794)
mark retweeted
for those who actually took the time to listen to peter thiel's lectures & interviews over the last few years, he explicitly mentions many times that middle management's purpose has expired.
his intellectual influences regularly invoke burnham, who was the west's chief critic of managerialism—considering how influential thiel is now more so than ever before, he has the ear of so many ceo’s. it’ll be interesting to see how landscape shifts with respect to labor dynamics.
there is a reckoning coming for middle management & it could be a bloodbath—would highly recommend reading burnham (published in 1941).. what a fantastic read.
mark retweeted
I’m at a fast food place where Mambo #5 was just playing and it’s the first time I realized not a single couplet in the chorus actually rhymes.
mark retweeted
Apple CEO @johnternus is in Austin to kick off sales of the Duo. Not NYC, Not SF, Not LA, Austin.
The signs are there if you look.
mark retweeted
Here’s Michael @saylor casually predicting apple services will grow to $100+ billion 12 years before they actually hit that target. To a grand total of 3 likes (at the time of this repost).
But sure continue to fade this guy, you’re doing great.
It seems likely that #Apple can build a $100+ billion revenue stream around #iCloud,# iTunes, #iBooks & #iPayments. businessinsider.com/apple-ec…
mark retweeted
Wow the Palo Duro Canyon here in Texas. The second largest canyon in the US after the Grand Canyon. What a view!
mark retweeted
Hey @grok, have any of Al Gore's apocalyptic predictions from his 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth" come true, 20 years later?
mark retweeted
Not only does walking more make you less likely to die of any cause by a huge margin, it also makes you less likely to be mentally ill, including in children
Children averaging 5,000 to more than 12,000 steps per day day had fewer mental health symptoms than those taking less than 5,000.
Mental health symptoms were progressively lower across higher step counts with no apparent plateau, even at 12,000+ steps per day.
Brain scans also linked higher step counts to greater thickness in two specific regions of the cortex, the brain’s outer layer.
Daily movement deserves much more attention as a potential way to support kids’ mental health. That's especially clear when you consider that modern-day digital and urban environments provide little opportunity for movement throughout the day.
mark retweeted
i often think of David Deutsch talking about Beethoven sensing that something in his creation wasn't quite right
feeling that something needs to change for a work of art to finally feel right
almost like a scientist trying to get closer to the truth
mark retweeted
this California wealth tax thing is just incredible.
so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time).
polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it).
there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate.
supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right?
well as it turns out, they did.
a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative.
proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave.
just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues.
but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion.
so when you add it all up you get:
+ $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated)
- $69b in present value of lost future income taxes
= - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax
of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time.
and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes.
[1]: nber.org/system/files/workin…
ecco soundtracks are slept on bigtime
Tides of Time performed by Fimi. Makes me cry.
eccothedolphin.com/media-pla…







































