Amara's Law

1. I'm going to collect tweets that are so good at describing the failed logistics of certain discussions that I know I'll scramble to find them later on if I don't keep them in one handy thread. Starting with this @NateSilver538 gem: twitter.com/natesilver538/…

Logging off, but one thing I've learned is that muting certain trending topics makes this site far less of a distraction. Maybe that's a sign I'll be using this more often again and will finally pay for verification? 😄

By all means downsize government in a predictable manner! But don't cut spending if the following applies: 1. It serves what is arguably a necessary goal. 2. Non-governmental substitutes aren't ready to fill the gap yet. Journey matters as much as destination 👍

Cutting spending is only good when the cost of that spending exceeds the output of that spending. Don't get me wrong, I think there are LOTS of things voluntary contributions and free market exchange can do better. But this must be kept in mind: x.com/paulnovosad/st…

The derpiest people treat government spending like an outcome metric without context (Goodhart's Law). Left-wingers act like more spending is the same thing as better results (it isn't!). Right-wingers act like cutting *any* spending overnight is always good (it depends!).

An update: I almost never log into this site as of late for the following reasons... 1. Finishing up a degree (won't go into detail about that here). 2. There is a LOT of bot accounts/astroturfing on this site meant to monetize engagement that distract me. And there's more...

When these studies are debunked, the culprit usually isn't some super subtle, complex, technical thing. It's the sort of potential problem you'd learn in a first-year stats class. Science needs to give the public more compelling reasons to trust it.

A famous study found that Black babies have higher survival rates if attended by Black doctors than White doctors. But a re-analysis of the data shows the effect disappears after accounting for the fact that low birth weight babies more often see White doctors. [Link below.]

If DOGE were a serious endeavor, they'd bring @JessicaBRiedl on board. Single-handedly the best government budget analyst alive if you ask me.

This is probably the best piece about Elon Musk that I've read all year 🔥 Basic point: Musk may be a smart guy when it comes to certain fields, but he's blind to what he doesn't know when it comes to topics he has no experience with (govt reform). And that can be a problem 😬

Groyper idiots and other racist ilk have spent years insisting this would never happen. Political polarization along racial lines is slowly starting to fade, and that's something to be optimistic about if you want policy to matter more than partisanship.

One of the most underrated trends in the past few decades is the extent to which credentials have become less and less correlated with actual ability. Companies that adjust their hiring practices to this reality have a lot to gain 💡

Most time is wasted, because it’s spent in anticipation of something in the future, rather than for the thing at hand.

It’s demoralizing watch the discourse around American industrial revitalization focus on protecting companies from global competition rather than enabling them to actually get good enough to beat global competitors Setting the stage for all of this to go down as a dumb sideshow

TEN POINTS ON TARIFFS Tariffs are not a good idea for the US. Deregulation should be pursued instead. Here's why. (1) Tariffs only protect the home market. First, at best, tariffs protect the US home market. But China only sends ~16% of its goods to the US! So even Trump's 10% tariff doesn't phase them, because they are selling 84% to other countries: (2) Tariffs hurt allies. Next, as the US imposes tariffs on allies, they become less likely to abide by US-requested trade restrictions on China. For example, the Netherland is no longer classifying ASML machines as dual-use, opening them up for China. (3) Tariffs are small incentives at high costs. Third, tariffs are at best a small incentive on the margins to manufacture in the US. A producer might make more money over the long run if a tariff is sure to persist. But these huge tariffs keep blinking in and out, which is the worst of all worlds. The uncertainty means you can't plan on tariffs being there tomorrow, and the high cost means you can't ignore them when they are imposed today. Breaking supply chains in this way just wrecks anyone exporting or importing into the US. (4) Tariffs don't help exports. Once retaliatory tariffs are imposed, US companies become even less competitive abroad in the 100+ countries where American and Chinese products compete. In fact, US tariffs open the door for China to move into Western Europe, Canada, and Mexico — the only places it hasn't yet become the dominant trade partner: (5) Tariffs aren't specific. Remember, the US has a money printer! So it can just directly invest in specific industries it thinks are strategic, rather than adopting the extremely imprecise instrument of tariffs. Subsidizing alcohol to Canada is not strategic. (6) Tariffs aren't realistically autarkic. There are only 77M MAGA but almost 1B+ in the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined. There is just no way that 77M MAGA can produce as much as that "Golden Billion" economic union set up at great expense over 80 years. If you push the world to make everything autarkically within a single country, then China wins — because it has 1B+ scale. (7) Tariffs are irrational nationalism. Relatedly, tariffs do not correctly implement the who/whom or friend/enemy distinction. MAGA should understand that many allies like @PierrePoilievre are non-American, while many declared enemies are Blue Americans. If you're alienating Canadian conservatives while subsidizing the American far left, you're doing it wrong: (8) Tariffs are a diplomatic loser. While the US is alienating economic allies, China is signing free trade agreements (FTAs) with dozens of countries. The PRC has ~25 signed and 18 more on the way. (9) Tariffs are an unnecessary fight. Given that Republicans already inherited a Hot War with Russia, a Cold War with China, and a Cold Civil War with Democrats...why open up completely new conflicts with Canada (!?) (10) Tariffs aren't deregulation. Finally, easing domestic regulation is far better for improving production than adding new regulations in the form of tariffs. Because deregulation doesn’t cause retaliation, and it also unlocks new production. There is political will to deregulate, so why not do that? TLDR: don't increase regulation via tariffs. Deregulate instead.

At least once a month there's some big polarizing event in the news that makes me think back to this classic tweet. 🔥 The plane/helicopter collision and the major fires from recently especially stand out for how they made many talking heads react like this:

These are the CCP's misinformation superspreaders, it's good when they finally shut down:

Oswald. It's always been Oswald. This used to be easier for Americans to believe because there was a widespread faith in the institutions. Also: We used to be less stupid, less prone to mythical thinking, not so easily coopted by hucksters and conspiracy theorists.

Good sign. He might be learning it might actually be useful to know some things if you’re going to be making policy.

Regardless of political affiliation, there's no reason to think Putin is a good guy. Case in point: