Mark Valorian

@AlSultan_Meriam @RnaudBertrand Great post. Agree on all counts. If you’re gonna punish one, you have to punish both. They are guilty of the same crime.

This is actually not fine I worked at the legal team at YouTube 10 years ago, specifically for copyright infringement You only can use other people’s content for what’s known as “fair use” for commentary and additional value, it boils down to how said platform is designs, hence 𝕏 needs to define what they consider as such, since posts could have the video with text expressing one’s opinion of it. With that said… many accounts on 𝕏 act if they are reporters or journalists, simply stating what the videos is about, not a single thought or research done, even if the info is incorrect. In fact Massimo @Rainmaker1973 violated the US copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 501).
Copyright infringement, for unauthorized reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted work. He also makes money off of it which if he gets sued could be demanded the same amount of money plus damages. Now Viral Rush @ViralRushX account that Nikita is calling original creator actually creates nothing, he steals content and call them his original work, he puts his water mark on them, and doubles down by attacking those who stole his “original work” demanding they get punished for stealing it. That’s a copyright infringement US copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 501). + False designation of origin / misrepresentation under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), which covers false advertising and passing off someone else’s work as your own. It can also strengthen claims for statutory damages or willful infringement. So it’s 2 crimes not just one. Both are stealing content Viral Rush being a worse criminal than Massimo, and should be demonetized immediately! But according to Nikita if I post a @netflix movie here, it would be my original work if I just do it first and put my logo on it I wonder how Netflix would feel about that. Also this should be handled privately and by someone who actually understands the company’s terms of use and policies. @elonmusk please Hire people who do Trust and Safety, and handle legal requests This is not his this issue should’ve been handled.

I mean yeah…but if you’re Ken Griffin I feel like there are much more luxurious scenarios to allow them to pitch themselves to you lol. Why choose this as the venue for that ritual? Festivals are hot and loud and not very hospitable places but that “adversity” elevates the shared experience when you’re actually there to *have* the shared experience. If you’re just there to let some 25 year old ingratiate herself to you, why not just do that in an air conditioned penthouse suite with your own multi-million dollar sound system playing the music you like at an enjoyable volume?

@markvalorian he’s the beneficiary of this scenario, there is no feasible way a woman of her caliber wants polish kielbasa anywhere near her she’s pitching herself for accessibility and benefit and he’s reaping the reward

I always wonder how guys like that even enjoy a situation like this. The whole appeal of a festival is to meld with people on a level playing field. It’s a visceral thing where you are experiencing the moment alongside others and if your paths happen to collide and combine, that’s serendipity, and that’s what makes the whole thing worthwhile. But if you’re a well known billionaire…none of that is available to you. Nobody there is going to organically cross your path; they are all angling to get a piece of you. You cannot drop your guard and just experience the moment; you have to continually have your defenses up to fend off the Scavenger Siren class. I don’t get how that could possibly be enjoyable.

@atmoio Continuing to make your case for the best AI account on Twitter. Overcorrecting there slightly towards agent capabilities but I’m with you in spirit lol

I'm done. I'm f***ing done.

@max_spero_ Ah ok. For what it’s worth when I make the whole list myself, it gets it right…really is incredible

@markvalorian Oh, that’s more of a limitation on pangram’s granularity. At that length it’s likely still only making predictions on a single segment

If you give Pangram a random jumble of words, it should be classified as human-written. Unless, of course, an AI generated that list I have no idea why this works btw

@max_spero_ This is fascinating. Idk how you do anything else, if I had access to your code I wouldn’t be able to do anything else until I figured out how it was detecting this

@nikitabier @Rainmaker1973 @ViralRushX Ok but is “Viral Rush” not just stealing it from someone else?

@Rainmaker1973 After sourcing 2759 videos from @ViralRushX over the last 6 months, you're now circumventing attribution by simply cropping out his watermark? You cannot get more shameless than this. This is your last day in the creator program.

Chinese Dunhuang dance resurrects the breathtaking "flying apsaras" and whirling figures from the 1,000-year-old Buddhist murals found in the UNESCO World Heritage Mogao Caves.

@tenobrus Damn this includes plans as well…great tip.

this is ur regular public service announcement that Claude Code by default *permanently deletes* session files after they're 30 days old. i strongly recommend u set `cleanupPeriodDays` to 9999 in settings.json to retain this very valuable data #available-settings" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">code.claude.com/docs/en/settin…

Always so funny when journalists decide to interview other journalists. Like serving a bread sandwich. I like Sorkin. I would listen intently to his perspectives on interview techniques. But he is a journalist, not a trader or a market forecaster. And you see this come through in the comically “journalistic” tenor of this statement—framing it in the most evocative and alarming way possible…while taking 0 risk by not committing to any kind of timeframe. All filler.

For the first time in a *very* long time, I am actually excited that it is a market holiday tomorrow. I have a whole extra day to dive deep into the AI development world. The psychological draw that comes from the potential of AI coding is unlike anything I’ve ever felt. You have infinite potential to do anything right at your fingertips, and are only really constrained by time. I can’t express how unusual it is for me to want to do anything other than watch and trade markets but now, I feel like the market is almost secondary…something that would have been unthinkable to say only a couple months ago.

@patefortworth Wow…I had to look this up, but this is Highland Park Villiage? That is incredible. Kind of puts the no-tree subdivision look in perspective as just a stage of development.

@markvalorian DFW is largely farmland/prairie (no trees to start except in river bottoms), but trees grow well here when they’re planted. Long-term even the far flung suburbs will look nice once the vegetation grows in. Below is the best non-coastal real estate in the U.S. (~90 years ago).

Texas real estate is a fascinating thing. Infinite sprawling developments on totally flat land with no trees and zero lot lines. Some have nicer looking individual houses than others, but they all fit the same overall motif: Maximum occupancy “People Farms” Each person is afforded their own little “ostensibly unique” cookie-cutter node to sleep in between ventures out into the Concrete Corridor System to their job and chain businesses. It seems innocuous at first, but the more you see of it, the more it grates on your soul.

@patefortworth Yeah it’s not all bad…but there is a lot of bad… There are still a lot of very nice areas in DFW, but it seems like the percentage of development that fits the “people farm” mold is much higher than in other places.

@markvalorian I’ll take the other side here. Yes there is some zero lot line development (this one is in Southlake and the owners very specifically want it and could afford otherwise). There is also large lot development and not all land is flat or treeless. But it’s easy to poke at these.

Yeah the “farm house on the prairie” thing definitely works…but as soon as a developer buys the family farm and tracks it out…not much you can do. They pack some of these things so tightly, I don’t think you can even get trees to grow if you wanted to. And the bigger DFW grows, and the more dense the inner parts become, the harder that kind of feel is to escape.

Yup. DFW really is a nightmare when it comes to the lack of natural tree cover. Only real way to compensate for it, short of planting trees and waiting, is to have huge lots. And do the whole grass prairie, blue-bonnets thing. If that gets gutted & concreted out, w/ track homes left and right, becomes extremely ugly and depressing.

Yeah I should have probably qualified with DFW instead of Texas more generally. Trees really do make a huge difference. That’s one of the biggest things I notice between DFW and the east coast DMV <—> NYC area…just so much more green. When I land back on the east coast after having been in Texas for a while it’s like overwhelming how green everything is.

@markvalorian This is more of a problem in DFW than Houston IMO. Houston has plenty of trees, and they change everything, even with respect to cramped designs like this. You put that in the Woodlands with a forest of trees encircling it, will change the feel massively, even without lot lines.

I love this statement: “AI has zero measurable ROI.” It’s like looking outside during a torrential downpour and saying we can’t conclude it is raining because we don’t have a water gauge set up. So silly, yet so common.

@RnaudBertrand Thanks for this, great breakdown.

So I spent some time studying the new Twitter/X algorithm today since the latest version was published about a week ago on Github (#updates--may-15th-2026" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/xai-org/x-algo…). My goal was to answer why so many people have seemingly seen such a dramatic drop in their posts' reach. The first answer, which is actually somewhat unrelated to the ranking algorithm on Github, is the auto-translate feature, rolled out worldwide on April 7, 2026 (x.com/nikitabier/sta…). Before that date, if you wrote in English about, say, the Trump-Xi Beijing summit, you were competing for attention with maybe 5,000 other English-language accounts writing on geopolitics. After that date, your post is competing for attention with other posts on the same topic IN EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH. For some topics that do command global attention like geopolitics, that's a very brutal multiplier: you used to be one of 5,000, you're suddenly one of 50,000 (something of that order): MUCH more difficult to stand out. Secondly, the number of followers you have matters far less than it used to: each post now has to earn its audience reader by reader, on the predicted engagement of the post, and how its topic matches what each reader has recently been engaging with. Here is how the algorithm works, in simple terms: when you, as a reader, open your feed, the algorithm doesn't load "posts from accounts you follow." Instead it runs a 2-stage prediction of what posts you're likely to engage with in that very moment. The first stage is the retrieval stage. The system narrows billions of posts on X/Twitter that day down to roughly 1,500 candidates by matching the semantic content of each post - what it's about - against what you as a reader have recently engaged with. Some candidate posts come from accounts you follow; others are pulled from across the platform by pure topic similarity to your recent interests. You can test this retrieval stage easily: start disproportionally engaging with - say - Brad Pitt videos and you'll bit by bit see your timeline flooded with Brad Pitt content, most of it from accounts you've never followed and never heard of. Then there's the ranking stage. Each of these candidate posts for your feed is fed through a Grok-based model that tries to understand if you'll engage with the post. It looks at 15 engagement metrics: 1) P(favorite) — the reader likes the post 2) P(reply) — the reader replies to it 3) P(repost) — the reader reposts it 4) P(quote) — the reader quote-tweets it 5) P(click) — the reader clicks a link in it 6) P(profile_click) — the reader taps through to your profile 7) P(video_view) — the reader watches the video 8) P(photo_expand) — the reader expands an image 9) P(share) — the reader shares it (DM, off-platform, etc.) 10) P(dwell) — the reader stops scrolling and lingers on the post 11) P(follow_author) — the reader follows you after seeing it 12) P(not_interested) — the reader marks "not interested" 13) P(block_author) — the reader blocks you 14) P(mute_author) — the reader mutes you 15) P(report) — the reader reports the post Fifteen predicted actions, each multiplied by a weight, summed: that sum is the score that determines in which priority a post will be seen among other candidates. Please note that posting something with a video or an image can give your post an advantage as 2 actions are specifically for these: video_view and photo_expand. No video or photo and you don't get a score for these. Also, naturally, having a video maximizes the chance that a user will "dwell" on your post to watch it. Also note that 4 of these actions carry negative weights (not_interested, block_author, mute_author and report): meaning that if the model expects a post to generate a lot of negativity, it'll get de-boosted quite dramatically. But note, first and foremost, what's NOT in there: none of the things that, naively, one might think a serious information platform would weigh. There is no P(this post is true and well-sourced). No P(the author actually knows what they're talking about). No P(this person has spent a decade building a body of work that has held up). No P(this account has earned the right to be taken seriously on this topic). No P(the author has a large following from credible people). The model does not seem to care - at all - about any of that. Every post starts from zero. You could have ten years of rigorous, well-sourced analysis behind you - or you could be just an uneducated rando who registered yesterday. To this algorithm, you're both just a bag of engagement probabilities. Now, sure, to be fair, there is a "brand" effect that's not covered by the algorithm: someone who has in fact built a brand will naturally have better engagement metrics because people recognize their account. But that's an indirect, second-order effect. And crucially, it's legacy: those "brands" were built under earlier versions of the algorithm that gave followers and reputation more weight. Lastly, several other features of the new algorithm compound the dilution, none of them visible from outside but all consequential. The May 15 update added an "impression bloom filter," tightening the rule that once a reader has been served a post, the system won't serve it to them again. Before, a strong post could marinate in someone's feed across multiple refreshes and accumulate engagement on the second or third pass. Now it basically gets one shot. Also, your own posts compete with each other. An "Author Diversity Scorer" inside the ranking stage attenuates the score of every subsequent post of yours that ends up in a reader's candidate pool. In plain terms: if multiple of your posts land in a reader's candidate pool, the system shows one at full strength and dampens the others. So don't post several times consecutively on the same topic. And, last but not least, another huge impact on reach is that, in the old algorithm, when someone reposted or quote-tweeted you, your post was broadcast to their followers' timelines - a repost from an account with 100,000 followers was a huge boost. In the new algorithm, that mechanism is vastly demoted: reposts - like every post - need to go through the retrieval and ranking stage mentioned above, so a repost from a big account is a long way from the boost it used to be. This is especially brutal for low-effort quote tweets, which used to function as cheap amplification: now they often can't even clear the retrieval stage - they simply don't contain enough novel semantic content for the system to match them to anyone's interests. So, putting it all together, the reach collapse comes from many forces stacking at once: - Auto-translate makes your posts compete for attention against an order of magnitude more content - The retrieval stage matches posts by topic, not by who follows you - The ranking stage scores purely on predicted engagement with no weight for credibility, expertise, or track record - The bloom filter narrows every post's window to one strong shot - The diversity scorer penalizes prolific posting - Reposts no longer carry much distribution power Each of these alone would dent your reach. Combined, they amount to a complete reset: your audience that you built painstakingly over years basically doesn't matter much anymore, and it's much - much - harder to stand out even if you're a big account. People structurally rewarded by this algorithm are folks who: - Post visually (videos/images) - Post on globally popular topics because they clear the retrieval stage easily - Provoke strong emotional reactions - likes, replies, reposts - Don't care about accuracy or seriousness because the algorithm doesn't measure it - Don't care about their existing audience because every post is judged in isolation anyway In short this new algorithm, like so many on social media, is all about maximizing whether people will engage with something - not about whether they should.

@AJamesMcCarthy Incredible footage man, this is awesome

This is probably the best look at the shockwaves I’ve seen from the latest Starship flight. Captured from a GoPro I clamped onto a proper camera to record simultaneous video. (I’ll show you the photo the better camera took in the reply)