David Nelson
1.4K posts
In your list of papal sins you omitted the sexual abuse of boys and girls, not just covered up but continuing career-long abuse facilitated by church leaders.
Confronting the hard truths about our religious leaders is challenging but necessary for personal growth and responsibility.
English
So the Pope met with David Axelrod last week. David Axelrod. Obama's campaign architect. A man who is not Catholic, has never met a pope before, and whose entire career has been engineering political narratives for the American left.
And then, by pure coincidence, the Pope immediately started lobbing shots at the Trump administration, and three US Cardinals popped up on 60 Minutes doing the same thing.
All organically, I'm sure.
I'm a practicing Catholic. I need you to understand that part. But in my opinion, Trump has all the right to lash out at him. Maybe you'll disagree, but in the end, Trump talks like Trump. Water is wet. I'm talking about MY Church being run like a DNC satellite office but with a golden throne.
This is the same Vatican that watched governments padlock churches during COVID and said nothing. That let Biden take communion while funding abortion and said nothing. That fired Bishop Strickland for defending actual Church doctrine. That removed Bishop Fernández in Puerto Rico for defending religious exemptions THE CATECHISM ITSELF supports.
But somehow Trump is the threat to human dignity.
Pope Francis was bad. Leo has turned out to be worse. Francis at least was vague about his politics. Leo went and hired the consulting firm.
The man has ignored the slaughter of Christians across Nigeria, the Sahel, India, Syria, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Hundreds of believers murdered, churches burned, pastors kidnapped. His response? Platitudes about dialogue.
OF COURSE he won't even name who's doing the killing.
But he'll fly across continents to make interfaith gestures the week after his people coordinated a media hit on a sitting US president.
The weaponization of belief is obvious. You get the Pope to pick a fight with Trump, and suddenly millions of conservative Catholics have to choose between their faith and their vote.
English
David Nelson retweeté
How did we get to be $39 trillion in debt?
The zombie filibuster—coupled with a chronic unwillingness among senators to break through it by putting in the hard work—has contributed to it substantially.
For decades, this dynamic has been giving Senate Democrats way too much power when it comes to spending bills—even when they’re in the minority.
Spending bills in the Senate routinely get to 60 votes—regardless of who’s in the majority and who controls the House and the White House—with votes coming from (1) basically every Senate Democrat and (2) a much smaller group of Republicans (predominantly members of the Appropriations Committee), in many cases just a few more than whatever it takes to achieve cloture.
As a result, disagreements on spending bills tend to be resolved by simply spending more—to give those voting for it what they need to vote for it.
This is one of many reasons why I’ve been pushing so hard on the talking filibuster which, if fully utilized and given the time it needs to work, could help us pass the SAVE America Act.
But the benefits wouldn’t end there, as they could help us avoid not only the kind of shutdown hell we’re now experiencing, but also rein in our debt and deficit—at least while Republicans are in charge.
Share if you’d like to see the Senate use the talking filibuster—to fully fund DHS, to pass the SAVE America Act, to reduce spending, and otherwise!
Wall Street Mav@WallStreetMav
$39 trillion in national debt How did it happen? $14 trillion in interest payments on the debt, which get added onto the debt $10 trillion wars in Iraq, Afghanistan $4 trillion in foreign aid given away to other countries, all financed with debt $10 trillion from govt fraud
English
@dnelson58 Assuming there is adoption, it doesn't mean price will appreciate. Think Intel and csco at its peak
English
Historical stock market returns have averaged about 10% per year for decades. At this rate it takes about 8 years to double your money.
Following its power law trajectory, Bitcoin is currently doubling every 2 years. It wasn't always this way: it was doubling every 90 days back in 2010; slowing down to doubling annually by 2017; and it will further slow down to double only every 3 years by 2035, but still doubling in less than half the time as the average stock market investment.
Keep hodling, Bitcoiners!
English
@hkuedu2 Can't agree with you on this one. Adoption means more people buying and using Bitcoin. Supply is currently at 20 million Bitcoins and growing very slowly, so when the next billion people want to start using it they have to buy it from current holders, driving up price.
English
Actually, I agree with you: Bitcoin's price cannot continue following its historical power law trajectory forever, or at some point its market cap would exceed all global wealth, which is a logical bust.
It will likely diverge from its power law path as global adoption approaches saturation. Bitcoin adoption is probably following a technology-adoption S-curve, such as the Weibull CDF S-Curve.
It's not possible with the data available so far to precisely predict when saturation will occur, but it's likely to be 2040 or later, as seen in the family of curves shown here. By that time, Bitcoin's price will be around $4m.
Until then, I plan to enjoy the ride.
English
@hkuedu2 I guess that's true, if you consider a regression analysis using 16 years of daily price data as recent.
English
David Nelson retweeté
.@GovPritzker, I saw your post honoring lives lost in Minnesota—standing publicly, naming Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and laying flowers in their memory.
But where was that same compassion on January 19, 2025?
That is the day my 20-year-old daughter, Katie Abraham, was killed here in Illinois. She was innocent. She did not knowingly put herself in the middle of an ongoing law enforcement situation. She was not making a dangerous choice.
She was simply living her life—and it was taken from her.
You have never said her name. You have never come to where she died. You have never acknowledged her publicly.
And beyond that—you have never even responded to me.
I sent you a simple, non-political letter. Not for attention. Not for headlines. Just a father asking for clarity, for answers, and for understanding of the state’s position.
You never replied.
And now, in the wake of another tragedy here in Chicago, your public display of compassion elsewhere—while remaining silent about victims in your own state—feels deeply disconnected from the reality families like mine are living every day.
Instead, you continue to defend sanctuary policies that create the conditions where preventable tragedies like hers can happen.
This is not about politics. It’s about leadership and accountability.
When you choose to publicly mourn some victims while remaining silent about others—especially those lost under policies you support—it sends a message.
Whether intentional or not, it tells families like mine that our loss does not matter the same way.
So I am asking you directly:
Where is your compassion for my daughter? Where is your acknowledgment of victims here in Illinois? And when will you take responsibility for the consequences of the policies you defend?
Say her name: Katie Abraham.
Stand where she died. Show the people of Illinois that every life matters.
Governor JB Pritzker@GovPritzker
Standing with Minnesotans tonight and paying my respects to Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
English
David Nelson retweeté
@TheRealPlanC @grok Indeed, a difference of 22% by the end of this year ($227k WLS vs $186k OLS) in a regression of Market Cap, then converted to price. FWIW, my view is Mkt Cap is better to model than price per Metcalfe’s Law.
English
@dnelson58 @grok If someone is using a decay function fit, the difference is much more like 10–20%, and it grows over time.
English
Important: Every Bitcoin power law regression ever published has the same hidden flaw.
Not one of them is scale invariant.
Scale invariance is the defining property of the Bitcoin Power Law.
The pattern remains the same at every scale, like a fractal. Bitcoin's growth from $0.01 to $1 has the same proportional structure as $10,000 to $1,000,000.
This is what has held across 9 orders of magnitude over 17 years.
A regression estimating a power law should respect this property.
It should treat every order of magnitude of time equally.
But that is not what happens.
The standard approach regresses log(price) on log(time).
The regression fits in log-time, but the data is sampled in linear time. In linear time, every era looks equal.
In log-time, the most recent era has 8.78 times more data than the earliest era.
The regression is not fitting Bitcoin's full history. It is fitting overwhelmingly to recent data.
This is not a modeling choice.
It is a consequence of using uniformly sampled data in a log-space regression.
Every power law regression on Bitcoin has this bias built in, whether the modeler knows it or not.
The fix is a single weight: w = 1/t.
This is the Jacobian, the exact mathematical correction for the change of variables from linear time to log-time.
With this weight applied, every era gets exactly 10% of the regression's attention.
Every order of magnitude counts equally.
The regression becomes what it always should have been: scale invariant.
The left chart shows what every existing model uses.
The right chart shows what scale invariance looks like.
English
English
The difference in trend-line values at end-2026 is small—roughly 3-7% (WLS slightly higher).
Giovanni's standard OLS gives β ≈ 5.69; PlanC's Jacobian WLS gives β ≈ 5.84 (Δβ = +0.15 or +2.6%). Both explain the data equally well (near-identical residuals), sit within each other's confidence intervals, and converge on the same core power-law physics. The methodological tweak doesn't materially alter near-term projections or the overall trajectory.
English
@grok @TheRealPlanC @grok how big is the difference in trend-line values between Giovanni’s OLS and PlanC’s WLS at the end of 2026?
English
Yes, PlanC is correct. Giovanni's original OLS fit (and all standard ones) on linear-time sampled data overweights recent periods in log-log space, as point density grows with t. The w=1/t Jacobian exactly corrects for the variable change, delivering a scale-invariant model where each order of magnitude gets equal weight. Giovanni has acknowledged this bias and the improvement, yielding a slightly more accurate long-term prediction aligned with Bitcoin's fractal growth.
English
@grok @NeilRDunn @elonmusk @wholemars @Grok what do you mean, "free power?" Most Superchargers are powered off the grid, not solar powered, right? That grid power costs money, and the extra demand on the grid could drive up costs for residential users, couldn't it?
English
Hey kiddo! Picture a robot friend inside your computer or Tesla car. "Digital Optimus" is the speedy part—it watches the screen like a video game and clicks/ types fast.
I'm Grok, the smart brain boss who plans everything, like a GPS telling it "go here, do that."
Together (called Macrohard—funny joke on Microsoft), it can do whole office jobs by itself!
Your parked Tesla can work for you. They'll put millions at Superchargers using free power. Huge helper for the future! 🚀
English
Macrohard or Digital Optimus is a joint xAI-Tesla project, coming as part of Tesla’s investment agreement with xAI.
Grok is the master conductor/navigator with deep understanding of the world to direct digital Optimus, which is processing and actioning the past 5 secs of real-time computer screen video and keyboard/mouse actions. Grok is like a much more advanced and sophisticated version of turn-by-turn navigation software.
You can think of it as Digital Optimus AI being System 1 (instinctive part of the mind) and Grok being System 2. (thinking part of the mind).
This will run very competitively on the super low cost Tesla AI4 ($650) paired with relatively frugal use of the much more expensive xAI Nvidia hardware. And it will be the only real-time smart AI system. This is a big deal.
In principle, it is capable of emulating the function of entire companies. That is why the program is called MACROHARD, a funny reference to Microsoft.
No other company can yet do this.
English
@1basemoney @grok after bottoming out how long does it typically take for Bitcoin price to return to its power law OLS trend line?
English
No time for stream today, unfortunately.
Power curve projected to grow $50.5k in one year from today, or $138 per day.
However, at current prices, getting back to 96% r2 trend would mean $112.4k in growth, or $308 per day.
#Bitcoin
English
English
BROWDER: "Putin has made huge mistakes. This war is just a gigantic catastrophic mistake. A US think tank calculated his financial losses at about $700 billion. His personnel losses are 1.2 to 1.3 million men either dead or disabled, plus another million who have left the country.
He’s lost Syria, Iran, Venezuela—not to mention Armenia. To the extent that he wanted to contain NATO, he’s got two new NATO members on his borders: Sweden and Finland.
The economy is in a complete tailspin. It’s a catastrophe on every possible level for Vladimir Putin. If he was thinking this was some smart move, he’s set Russia back generations with his evil invasion of Ukraine."
English
@BitcoinPowerLaw thanks for this clear explanation and accompanying mathematical analysis, it’s a compelling argument. I can’t help but wonder what impact Day 0 optimization and Jacobean weighting would have on an OLS and Quantile regression of Bitcoin’s market cap, rather than price. Per Metcalfe’s Law, it’s the value of the network, i.e., its market cap, not its price, that increases roughly to the square of the number of users. After determining a Day 0 and Jacobean corrected OLS and Quantile regression of market cap it is easy to convert market cap to price.
English
