Pope Lando

@jbarro @robinsonmeyer Josh, the Rock is all walking and taking between Sean Connery and nic cage!

This week on Central Air: @robinsonmeyer on data center panic, why oil isn’t even more expensive right now, windmills, permitting reform and more. Plus: the continued decay of the social contract! open.substack.com/pub/centralair…

@RandyEischer @Matthuber78 @NathanJRobinson @nytopinion Don’t look up was about an asteroid, not global warming.

@Matthuber78 @NathanJRobinson @nytopinion "Don't Look Up" was entirely about global warming, so the analogy is spot-on. The idiocy is thinking voters can care only about one issue. Some single issues, though, like global warming & genocide, provide a perfect litmus test of who to vote for.

The reaction on bluesky to my @nytopinion piece has been absolutely unhinged, as expected, but nice to see the respected climate scientist David Ho defend what I was trying to do.

@matthewstoller Billionaires are morally bad, unless they agree with me and/or fund me, in which case they’re actually good is a morally and intellectually bankrupt position.

Michael Lind is an intellectual failure. His ideas don’t deliver anything which is why the populists on the right failed and he has nothing to say, still mumbling about the same old culture warring.

@Statford_Bridge Also, Enzo might leave this summer, but he’s been one of our two best players this season. Really hope he stays and fans stop giving him shit for saying out loud that Madrid is a nice place to live (duh).

Pretty clever freekick routine to get at Liverpool's weird deep block on deadballs thing

@hecubian_devil @alexandrascaggs This is literally the Ford Foundation model! How else would Matt Stoller survive?

How come rich people don’t become patrons anymore? Rich guy in 1430 would be supporting like 16 master artists and all their studios. Never see that anymore. They should do that again, but also for posters, specifically (the real artists of the 21st century)

@matthewstoller @AOC Unless of course the billionaires fund AELP, lol.

The elite rage at @AOC for saying something obviously true - billionaires are inherently extractive - is amazing. It’s the Epstein class at work. Snowflakes all of them.

@THEZONEEEEEE @KelseyTuoc @HalSinger It’s not really fine though given the original post. You can’t win elections by tossing anyone who disagrees with you out of the party. “I want a big tent except for anyone who disagrees with me on any issue” is laugh out loud self defeating.

@nicephoras @KelseyTuoc @HalSinger It matters, but not much in my eyes we disagree that’s fine

It’s just not possible for Dems to accommodate the Abundance folks, who seek deregulatory policies for their developer/investor clients. I’m all for a big tent, but up until the point that accommodation starts to undermine progressive messaging. And that message is that we need a muscular government to curb the excesses of unfettered markets, concentrated wealth, and the attendant political corruption (aka oligarchy). Besides, there’s already a political party that stands for small government, low taxation on wealth/income, and deregulation. Why can’t the Abundance folks just align naturally over there?

@THEZONEEEEEE @KelseyTuoc @HalSinger A “Who cares what voters think” attitude is a great way to lose elections. Of course it matters how voters perceive candidates!

@KelseyTuoc @HalSinger Who cares what they think, the point of being a politician is to persuade, are leaders just supposed to follow every whim of the electorate?

@HalSinger @KelseyTuoc @THEZONEEEEEE If this were true, Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren would keep winning national elections. But they can’t even win national primaries.

Dems have twice run corporatist, free-market candidates who embraced deregulation and opposed antitrust enforcement (H Clinton and K Harris) and they lost to Trump. At some point, you’ll have to accept the notion that “free markets” is not a successful counter to Trumpism/oligarchy/fascism.

@ddayen @adam_tooze Economics as morality. Not “may trigger” but “going to trigger”!

I was at the Milken Conference today, and none of the investors and hedge funders and private equity guys assembled wanted to think much about the war we started that is going to trigger a global recession. prospect.org/2026/05/05/com…

@TheStalwart What’s funny is that IG is basically the opposite (my life is the best!) and it’d be nice to combine the two.

These are all good topics to avoid. When it comes to personal topics, I would add two things. Never talk about how you prepare meat. People will yell at you for doing it wrong. And never give any indication that you have any joyfulness in your life. Please hate that.

@HighyieldHarry Is that when you became the joker?

Remember when they did a sequel to the Joker movie and made it a musical.

@cowardnutlick @TheStalwart While I don’t really want Joe’s solution (and think he’s mildly trolling), a counterattacking side can easily win on xG!

With all due respect, Mr Amorim, this is exactly the wrong take. What makes soccer or football interesting is the fact any one moment of brilliance can change the game. What you’re suggesting is effectively letting the xG (expected goals) winners win in the event of a draw - but that totally takes away from the fun of a counter-attacking side defending like hell against a far superior side and somehow winning because they had an individual moment of brilliance. These individual moments are what makes soccer different to basketball, American football etc. One play is all it takes to change everything.

I think I’ve fully come around to soccer. If I could change once thing, it wouldn’t be making the goal bigger or anything like that. But just if it’s a tie game, rather than going to penalty kicks, the winner should be whichever team had the higher Attack Momentum implied score.

@quantian1 Jacobin posting pro kulak takes to own the libs.

>Petit bourgeois coalition of suburban homeowners, conservative farmers, and zoning meeting NIMBYs >Jacobin: “Is this the working class coalition of our dreams?”

@HalSinger Haha, look at these losers considering their priors! The key is clearly never to reconsider one’s deeply held beliefs.

This the closest you’ll see an abundance bootlicker admit that they’ve misdiagnosed the housing affordability problem. They got the deregulation that developers/investors sought, but they didn’t get any lift in housing starts—a necessary element to reducing prices under their rubric. Perhaps it’s time to go back to the drawing board. Next time, choose a policy lever based on efficacy, as opposed to what gets the powerful founders going.

@quantian1 So my family and I can stay impoverished. Horsheshoe theory, but for camp poasters like Hasan and Chamath.

"my family and I can stay impoverished" oh no, better launch another SPAC to go -99% or you'll be stuck in the permanent underclass

@thaqafatalhind @adam_tooze Foxes are now holding a conferences about the moral failings of fences around henhouses!

@mikeduncan I’m delighted that you’ve found your way to Marxism, but for the rest of us, this is not a useful rubric.

MAGA is radical/radical. The leadership of the Democratic Party is conservative/conservative

In simple terms there are two axis to look at: means/ends and radical/conservative. The shooter was a radical conservative. Willing to use radical means to achieve conservative ends

@LukewSavage So the argument is that Obama’s first term was a success but his second term was a failure? That’s not a serious argument.

No denying Obama's popularity, but if his presidency had been a success Donald Trump would never have been elected

@Statford_Bridge I couldn’t tell if he was the one that failed to tackle aaronson but took out another defender.

My Tosin Tax sense is tingling