Dennis Consorte

#tolerance #stoicism #quoteoftheday #libertarian

@MichaelAArouet There's no such thing as left and right economics today. Consider Trump's excessive tariffs, government owning a stake in tech companies, government insuring cargo ships, and others of his foolish ideas.

All left policies fall into just two categories: 1. Growth potential reduction: like overtaxation, overregulation 2. Achieving the exact opposite: like rent price controls, minimum wage Can you name any left policy that doesn’t contradict basic economics and actually works?

Anthropic reports 99.36% uptime for @claudeai API yet my batch has been stuck for 2 hours. It's almost like small front-end users & enterprise clients get priority & mid-tier API users are deprioritized. Claude Opus 4.6 is by far the best model... with the worst infrastructure.

@aakashgupta Give Microsoft specific suggestions to improve Outlook, maybe they'll listen. chatgpt.com/share/69ad9e0e…

The fastest way to expose whether a CEO actually uses their own product: make them do the most basic task on camera. Outlook has over 400 million active users. Microsoft’s productivity segment generated $77.8 billion last year. And the official Microsoft support page for “Outlook search not working” tells users to open the Windows Registry Editor and manually create DWORD values. That’s the fix. For a product used by almost every Fortune 500 company on Earth. Edit your registry. The reason Outlook search has been broken for years is the same reason it will stay broken: Microsoft sells to IT procurement, not to the person trying to find last Tuesday’s email. The buyer and the user are completely different people. The CIO signs a 3-year enterprise agreement based on security compliance, Azure integration, and per-seat bundling. Nobody in that purchasing decision opens Outlook and types “Q3 budget” into the search bar to see what happens. This is why Gmail search works and Outlook search doesn’t. Google built for the end user first and sold enterprise later. Microsoft built for the enterprise buyer first and shipped whatever search users would tolerate. 345 million paid seats. The switching cost is so high that Microsoft could ship Outlook with no search at all and most companies would renew anyway. Every CEO of an enterprise software company knows this. The product doesn’t need to be good. It needs to be locked in.

@BillAckman @Microsoft @satyanadella Better to send them specifics. chatgpt.com/share/69ad9e0e…

Search on @Microsoft Outlook sucks. @satyanadella please fix it.

@elonmusk Funny, Grok gave me a verbose answer similar to what we'd expect to see on other platforms. When pressed, it said "No." x.com/i/grok/share/5…

Grok

@sama Original document: media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/20…

@sama This is a complete fabrication based on what the Department of War Pigs published. Please watch the original Terminator movie. You're literally creating Skynet by secretly agreeing to remove AI safety measures for military use.

Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War to deploy our models in their classified network. In all of our interactions, the DoW displayed a deep respect for safety and a desire to partner to achieve the best possible outcome. AI safety and wide distribution of benefits are the core of our mission. Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. We also will build technical safeguards to ensure our models behave as they should, which the DoW also wanted. We will deploy FDEs to help with our models and to ensure their safety, we will deploy on cloud networks only. We are asking the DoW to offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept. We have expressed our strong desire to see things de-escalate away from legal and governmental actions and towards reasonable agreements. We remain committed to serve all of humanity as best we can. The world is a complicated, messy, and sometimes dangerous place.

@APompliano Accurate. Best to get ahead of the curve. Prepare yourself for a post-work society now. When everyone else is struggling with UBI, you may have a shot.

People are going to freak out when they realize the large A.I. labs can train a model to do your job by simply feeding it a screen recording of what you do on a daily basis. The acceleration is coming.

@professornez @BarackObama Ok but what does this have to do with the Epstein files?

🛑Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard uncovered documents, hidden for a decade, showing Barack Obama led efforts to falsely link President Trump and Vladimir Putin to stealing the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. 🛑Obama ordered CIA Director John Brennan to create this fabricated assessment. 🛑This ties former President Obama directly to the Trump-Russia hoax. 🛑Obama led efforts to undermine Trump. 🛑Barack Obama, who promised "hope and change," was a blight on our country's history.

The killing of Alex Pretti is a heartbreaking tragedy. It should also be a wake-up call to every American, regardless of party, that many of our core values as a nation are increasingly under assault.

This is a really ill informed or dishonest take. The US has had as many as 17 bases on Greenland, through NATO. Trump's proposal to conquer Greenland through threat of tariffs now and later potential escalation is not "America vs Globalists." We already had the power, through NATO, to use Greenland for our defense. There's nothing complicated here. Here's a question: what sounds more "globalistic": A. Leaving Greenland alone and relying on our existing relationship with other NATO countries to leverage it for our defense as agreed. B. Claiming 'our hemisphere' and using coercion to rule over Venezuela and Greenland now, with talks of invading Mexico, Cuba and Colombia, and annexing Canada

The reason that Greenland is so controversial is that it ultimately pits globalists against nationalists. You either believe America should do what is in the best interest of America or you believe America should sacrifice its economy, national defense, and population at times for the greater good. There is no simple answer to complex problems. But this difference of viewpoints between globalists and nationalists are going to drive debate in many policies decisions over the next few years.

@APompliano @Tiagosa03857257 You mean Trump's offering to buy Greenland using coercion. Kinda like the mob boss that makes you an offer you can't refuse.

@Tiagosa03857257 The US is going to buy it, not take it.

Only a matter of time...

@BitcoinPierre If your logic were correct, then the Fed would have raised interest rates in 2020 when Trump was in office, and they wouldn't have lowered rates further after he got elected.

Jerome Powell lowered rates for Biden /Kamala right before the 2024 election. That’s how independent the Fed is. Bitcoin fixes this.

@APompliano Pomp should discuss topics he understands, rather than amplifying inaccurate info. "They don't even know what the DOJ is looking into." DOJ accused him of false statements underestimating $2.5B as $1.9B spent on HQ renovation: banking.senate.gov/hearings/06/18…

The fact that so many previous Fed and Treasury officials came out in blind support of Jerome Powell yesterday makes me immediately suspicious. They don't even know what the DOJ is looking into, nor do they know the facts of the situation. We learned yesterday from the Attorney General that Powell and the Fed have been ignoring requests for information before an investigation was opened, so the government felt they had no choice but to make it official investigation. Whether that is true or not, that is the story we are being told. The whole situation immediately makes me think of the Russia hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop. Both situations immediately garnered blind support from "insiders" and turned out to be false. Because of this pattern, I think the odds went up slightly yesterday that Powell probably did actually mislead Congress. You can tell based on the way consensus was reached and dissent is being outlawed in public opinion.

@MichaelAArouet So everybody understands that Trump is lying when he threatens to invade Greenland, but Greenland will give him the upper hand in a negotiation because they think he's not lying when he threatens to invade. Got it.

The US won’t forcefully annex Greenland. Trump does what he always does: he negotiates. It will be a deal, rare earths and commodities in exchange for defense guarantees. Europe, with its preference for welfare and Net Zero over defense, has nothing to say. Tough consequences.

@DHSgov DHS leadership wants to deport 100 million people, in their own words. See if you can figure out the math on who they want to deport based on the numbers: 14mn "illegal immigrants" in the US. 36mn "legal immigrants" 340mn total US population 235mn white people

The peace of a nation no longer besieged by the third world.

@APompliano It's sad to see Pomp become such a sycophant of this administration. I'm no fan of the Fed, and Powell is no criminal. Trump is big mad that Powell won't violate the Fed's dual mandate, so he sicked his dogs on him to get a yes-man to replace him. That's all this is.

Jerome Powell had his video response posted online within minutes after the New York Times story broke. That suggests the Federal Reserve, and maybe Powell himself, were the ones to leak the DOJ investigation details to the press. Interestingly, President Trump didn’t jump into a flame war on X in response, but rather posted a picture of himself as the Acting President of Venezuela. The Venezuela picture started driving a news cycle on its own. Investigations. Media leaks. Memes. The future is going to be insane.

@BillAckman @realDonaldTrump Trump operates as if our threats and actions do not produce retaliatory responses. From a Game Theory perspective, he ranks lower than Biden and Obama. Only Bush was worse. Grok's Analysis: x.com/i/grok/share/x…

A very good take on @realDonaldTrump

@holle_fraulein Trump operates as if our threats and actions do not produce retaliatory responses. From a Game Theory perspective, he ranks lower than Biden and Obama. Only Bush was worse. Grok's Analysis: x.com/i/grok/share/x…

Meine 2 Cent zu Trump: Viele halten #Trump für unberechenbar oder gar wahnsinnig. Das ist ein krasser Denkfehler. Was viele für Chaos halten, ist in Wahrheit eine sehr konsistente Strategie mit flexibel wechselnder Taktik. 1) Grundprinzip Trumps außenpolitische Logik ist nicht ideologisch, sondern macht- und wirtschaftspolitisch: Die #USA sollen geopolitisch dominieren, Geld verdienen und strategische Rivalen schwächen – vor allem #China, #Russland und den #Iran. Er ändert nicht seine Ziele, sondern nur seine Hebel. 2) #Ukraine Sein Ziel war von Beginn an klar: den Krieg beenden. Nicht aus Moral, sondern weil: ▪️Krieg den Westen schwächt ▪️Russland weiter in Chinas Arme treibt ▪️und wirtschaftliche Kooperation blockiert Darum übt er wechselweise Druck auf #Putin und #Selenskyj aus. Nicht aus Unentschlossenheit, sondern um herauszufinden, auf welcher Seite der geringste Widerstand liegt, um einen Deal zu erzwingen. Das ist eine klassische Verhandlungsstrategie. 3) #Venezuela Venezuela ist für Trump kein Menschenrechtsprojekt, sondern ein geopolitischer Frontstaat. Dort haben: ▪️China ▪️Russland ▪️Iran sowie deren Netzwerke (Hizbullah, #Hamas etc.) massiv Einfluss gewonnen – mitten in der westlichen Hemisphäre. Das ist für jede US-Regierung ein strategischer Albtraum. Sein Ziel ist: ✔️diesen Block zurückzudrängen ✔️US-Einfluss wiederherzustellen ✔️und amerikanischen Firmen den Zugang zum größten Ölvermögen der Welt zu sichern Dass sich dadurch die Lebensbedingungen der Venezolaner verbessern, ist ein positiver Nebeneffekt – aber nicht der Haupttreiber. 4) Warum er das Regime nicht stürzt Viele kritisieren, dass Trump die Leute von #Maduro nicht einfach entfernt. Aber genau das ist der Punkt: Er hat aus dem #Irak gelernt. Dort hat man die gesamte Führungsebene entfernt – und ein Machtvakuum geschaffen, das Chaos, Terror und Bürgerkrieg produziert hat. Trump macht das Gegenteil: Er lässt die bestehende Machtstruktur stehen, bringt sie aber unter Kontrolle. Das sichert Stabilität, Lieferketten, Durchsetzbarkeit und verhindert das Chaos, das seine Vorgänger im Irak, in Libyen, in Syrien und in Afghanistan angerichtet haben. Die Oppositionsführerin (Machado) wurde getestet – sie hat aber weder Militär noch Institutionen hinter sich. Sie einzusetzen wäre ein sicherer Weg in Chaos und Instabilität gewesen. 5) #Grönland & Arktis Auch hier sehen viele nur Größenwahn ind Imperialismus. In Wahrheit geht es um Geostrategie. Durch den Klimawandel öffnen sich neue Seewege zwischen Arktis und Nordatlantik. Russland baut schon gezielt eine Eisbrecherflotte auf. China folgt. #Dänemark allein kann diese Region nicht sichern. Trump will verhindern, dass sich dort ein zweites Südchinesisches Meer entwickelt – diesmal direkt vor der Haustür der #NATO. Dass er dabei mit maximalen Forderungen startet („Militäreinsatz nicht ausgeschlossen“) ist keine Kriegsdrohung, sondern Verhandlungstaktik – genau so, wie er sie selbst in „The Art of the Deal“ beschreibt. Fazit Trump handelt nicht impulsiv – er denkt strategisch in Machtzonen, Ressourcen, Handelswegen und Rivalitätsblöcken. Wer ständig nur auf seine anscheinend wechselnden Schritte schaut, übersieht die konstante Linie dahinter. Was wie Unberechenbarkeit wirkt, ist für jeden, der Verhandlungslogik versteht, ein kalkulierter Druckaufbau. Nicht Chaos. Sondern Strategie mit flexibler Taktik. #hartaberfair #Lanz #maischberger #Merz #UlrikeHermann #Ronzheimer @ronzheimer @robinalexander_ @PeterRNeumann @GordonRepinski @MichaelBroecker @HeleneBubrowski @gaborsteingart

More government intervention in the market will not solve this perceived credit card interest and fee problem. And, the idea that rewards programs need to be subsidized by unqualified card holders is myopic. Look at it through a marketing and customer retention lens. 99% of my credit card purchases are on my no-fee 3% back Capital One card, and my no-fee Amazon Prime card with 5% back on Amazon purchases & 2% back on gas. Here's what the card issuers get when you zoom out: 1. Their cards stay in my wallet. Every time I use them, they reinforce each brand in my mind. My bank accounts are at Capital One and Chase (the issuer of the Amazon Prime card). I do this out of convenience because I can pay off my cards online with relative ease. I also do it because I get something in return. As long as I get those rewards, I'll stay a customer. 2. They get word of mouth advertising and brand recognition. I tell people about these cards and I imagine some of them sign up for their own accounts, and move some of their capital into the providing banks. Every time I use their card with a merchant, it flows through a server, cashier or customer service rep's hands. They get exposure to the brand, and I expect some of them explore getting their own accounts. They also get free publicity whenever a publication does a story on rewards programs or posts like this pop up.

On the topic of credit cards: It seems unfair that the points programs that are provided to the high income cardholders are paid for by the low-income cardholders that don’t get points or other reward programs with their cards. Points and rewards programs are in effect a rebate on every purchase. The higher the reward benefits, the higher the discount fee the card company charges the retailer to cover the cost of the benefits. The greater the rewards, the higher the discount fee. Discount fees can be as low as ~1.5% for cards without rewards but as high as 3.5% or more for ‘black’ or ‘platinum’ cards. Since the retailers or service establishments charge all consumers the same price for the same items or services, the millions of lower income consumers with no reward benefits are in effect subsidizing the platinum cardholder when he uses his card. In other words, the low income consumer is paying an extra 2% on his credit card purchases to cover the rewards points for the platinum cardholder. This doesn’t seem right to me. What am I missing?