Richard

@SarahTheHaider You’re astonished because your audience has molded your personality.

I’ve enjoyed Ryan Holiday’s books, and it’s astonishing to me that he would record and post this.

@HumanHarlan She said it doesn’t work for other percentages though, so your explanation doesn’t really cover it.

It's a fun puzzle to consider why this works. If you haven't done that yet, then maybe don't read this thread, in which I try to explain what's going on (1/x)

@brivael Wouldn’t the labor required for a glass of water be much higher in the desert, since the water is much harder to attain? If the labor was the same, I’d think the value would be the same.

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

@teachrobotslove The universe is stuck in a solitary eternity and is grasping at hallucinations, trying to forget its terrifying prison.

Nobody ever talks about how the concept of the Individual must be so integral to what the universe is trying to accomplish that it's willing to lose the memory of itself, and possibly the integrity of its entire structure, in order to do so. That's how valuable you are.

@_ZachFoster @theallinpod @chamath @Jason @DavidSacks @friedberg Like this

The @theallinpod is the most influential podcast in the tech world. They are obsessed with talking about government grift & corruption. Utterly obsessed. All 4 of them: @chamath, @jason, @davidsacks & @friedberg Their blood boils talking about how California state employees abuse the state pension system. Hardly a show goes by without a rant on how corrupt California's and San Francisco's governments are. Yet they worship at the feet of the most corrupt president in US American history by an order of magnitude. Yet they are true Trump sycophants. How do they manage the cognitive dissonance?

@GenXClaw @Jason This is why basic statistics needs to be taught in high school

@Jason There are ~268,000,000 “Adults” in the USA Today. 1,514 “Adults” is 0.00000564925373 of the population and these are the ones who answered their phone and completed the survey. When was the last time YOU co elated a survey. This means NOTHING.

Americans are not pleased with the sequel

@esraiak @JEBistline The drops are both before and after each checkpoint.

@JEBistline Another interesting thing is that the drops are after the checkpoints rather than before. You could imagine slowing down when feeling confident of hitting your goal. But it seems not the case on average

With the Boston Marathon today, a good time to re-up one of the greatest figures in sports data: the distribution of marathon finish times (n=9,789,093). The spike at 4:00 is not a coincidence.

@chris_juravich I don’t understand why this limit is treated as special. Doesn’t L'Hôpital's rule make it trivially easy?

Here’s a more orthodox, if somewhat trivial, way to evaluate this classic limit.

@_MathAcademy_ @justinskycak @ninja_maths Sorry, didn’t mean to come across like a confused customer. I’ve just seen people talk about wanting to re-take diagnostics periodically, and I was just pointing out that the quizzes can be thought of as rolling mini diagnostics. You don’t need to actually re-take the whole thing

Your knowledge profile is updated with every task completed. Quizzes are, though, weighted more heavily as a measure of mastery. There's no need to retake a diagnostic, usually. Please visit our Help Center (hover over the circle in the upper right) for several FAQ's on this topic.

@justinskycak @_MathAcademy_ @ninja_maths Does it make sense to think about quizzes as mini-diagnostics? Like, there's really no point in re-taking the diagnostic as a whole to reset because that's happening every 150 XP?

Spaced repetition is so similar to weightlifting that you might as well call it wait-lifting. You are lifting a memory off the ground of long-term memory up into working memory, and the wait creates the weight.

@anneapplebaum “This isn’t cowardice. It’s a calculation” Can’t imagine you used AI to write any of this, but this line would have been a red flag if the author was someone else.

Trump has insulted and tariffed his European allies, persuaded Denmark to prepare for a US invasion and, by pressuring Ukraine and not Russia, encouraged Putin to keep fighting. All of which he has forgotten. theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/…

@EddieSatoshi @AutisticClip You’re confusing VIEWS with SUBSCRIBERS. If he gained 0 views this month, that means nobody watched. He’s also showed the gain subscribers graph. It’s in the negative.

Asmongold reacts to Ben Shapiro dropping from 170k average views in 2023 to now 18k in 2026 📉 “He’s at a net loss of 160,000 subscribers over the year.”

@jakeshieldsajj @johnmancusso You really wanna make that story about you? Weird

@johnmancusso He would still be alive had he listened

I warned him right before this picture was taken but as most of you know he didn’t listen

@_MathAcademy_ I have to think your database holds the most accurate IQ approximation available

@snarkyRedhd @dccommonsense @BillOReilly I do realize that, and I still think you’re overestimating the numbers compared to the general population.

@ROLa_Casse @dccommonsense I don’t think you realize how many ridiculous books are out there in libraries for people 2read. History books by @BillOReilly, romance novels & shootie shootie bang bang books, celebrity unauthorized biographies, and memoirs “written” by weirdos & people famous 4being famous

Had an interesting (and sort of random) discussion with a friend the other night. It was ostensibly about reading books. But the question came up: "if the only people who could vote were folk who had read an entire book the previous year, how many (percentage) would be eligible?"

@snarkyRedhd @dccommonsense I think you're way overestimating how many people are in book clubs and actually reading books in the library.

@dccommonsense I do think 1 book is a very low bar Libraries are popular, Bible are popular, & book groups are popular If everyone who read 1 book voted, we might have a higher voting percentage

@JL60015 @sugarbets_ @dccommonsense @Hamroy7 No, he said there's no evidence "we have an issue with that"

@ninja_maths Similar to my experience getting my stats degree. They teach you a technique, then you get a data set and use that technique on it. It's like just being given the proof and going through it. I often felt lost when I got a new data set and had to figure out what tool to use.

Proofs often feel opaque at first because students are often shown finished arguments before they are taught how to build them. So proof-writing remains a black box. In many cases, the difficulty becomes much more intelligible once the strategy patterns are made explicit.