
Nathan Bell
650 posts








AXIOS: Some top Democrats are quietly debating a fraught question: whether the party's best bet for winning back the presidency in 2028 is to nominate a man — perhaps a straight, White, Christian man. Former first lady Michelle Obama fueled such talk recently, saying the U.S. is "not ready for a woman." Democratic strategists have put it bluntly, with several saying a version of "It has to be a white guy." axios.com/2026/03/29/som…





Federal investigators repeatedly missed chances to catch Epstein. In 2019 they pursued a limited case against him. And then they hardly looked at his financial and other enablers. Why the Epstein investigations took so long and did so little. nytimes.com/2026/03/01/us/…


How does a government that takes 40% of everyone’s money still end up being $38T in debt?






It's even worse than zero sum - electricity & hardware wasted, massive trading costs, and rampant fraud x.com/bennpeifert/st…


The AI scientist is here. This will be the end of wokeness A paper just published in Science — the most prestigious journal in the world — claims to have discovered how humans achieve the highest levels of performance. Its conclusion: child prodigies don't become top performers, early excellence negatively predicts peak performance, and parents should not push their kids for fear of burnout. I found it odd. I asked Claude to analyze it. Claude found a statistical error in the paper's core claim, designed a counter-study with 3x the sample size, ran it, and proved the paper wrong. The correct conclusion: talent is real, it's measurable by age 14, and it predicts who reaches the absolute top. We are not all born equal. The AI scientist doesn't care about your feelings — it just follows the math. Here's what happened: The paper (Güllich et al. 2025, Science) claims that elite youth and elite adults are "discrete populations" — that the kids who dominate at 14 are not the ones who dominate at 30. Its key chess finding was based on 24 players. It told millions of parents: don't push your kids, prodigies burn out. Claude applied Bayes' theorem to the authors' own numbers and showed the data actually proves a strong positive correlation between early and adult performance — the opposite of what was claimed. The "negative correlation" was a statistical illusion created by extreme quantile selection. Then Claude designed the study the authors should have run: collected age-14 Elo ratings and lifetime peak ratings for every super-grandmaster in chess history — 67 players, nearly 3x the paper's sample. Ran the regression. Result: β = +0.167, p = 0.003. Early achievement positively predicts peak performance. An AI just peer-reviewed the world's top scientific journal and won.






