Nick Varone

"Sometimes facts do exist-and people ignore them. In this instance people either don't care what the facts are or don't want the facts to be what they are. They're peddling in either bullsh*t or lies. Neither of those options is enticing" -@MattFtheOracle 💯💯

@Hatchman41 I went on Monday in 2019 when tiger won. Best golf experience of my life, would highly recommend

Finally won the Masters lottery and it's for Monday practice round. Feel like I still need to go? Has anyone been on Monday?

@southerncrossra @Spotonparts @DNARacing2023 @MrMeNFTs Congrats!

@Spotonparts @DNARacing2023 @MrMeNFTs @nickvarone Yeah the skins add a great touch and Personalisation just so happens the name and colour work there hey

So pumped @DNARacing2023 got the top of the podium for spin wars, was such a tight competition, Hard luck to fullmetal and @MrMeNFTs who missed out on winning outright by .14sec, shout out to @nickvarone who bought the bike off

Imagine we find out the cop bet on xander

@TomeyBones Absolutely killed it!!

So how did we like Mr pervert

Get all the way out of here with this. Getting absolutely paid to create a chaotic mess for pro golf and then hollering about how other people need to be responsible for cleaning it all up because it's clearly above your pay grade. Come on.

Earlier this week on Spaces, someone asked me about how poker has informed my view of business risk. In short, profoundly. Poker is a fundamentally defensive game when played at an elite level. A defensive game doesn’t mean you can’t generate huge profits. In fact, poker can yield enormous profits but the way it happens is unintuitive to most. Maximum profits in poker, and other defensive games for that matter, occur when your error rate is less than your opponent’s error rate. So their errors - your errors = your profit. If you minimize your errors, you maximize your potential profit. This simple formula forces you to learn that a lot of the time, the biggest enemy of your success is you. By managing yourself in a predictable, reliable way, you give yourself time for your opponent to self-own themselves. This is true in poker, but it is even more true in business. As an example, suppose you have an R&D budget and you’re trying to build a product. Once you have some initial product market fit, the most important thing to do is to allocate your remaining resources in a thoughtful way. You should have many small bets that extend the product area. If any one of these fail, it won’t be life-threatening and you will have learned something that will reduce your future error rate. These small bets can then ladder into a few medium-sized bets which ultimately lead to a few large bets. In such a process, you’ve not only taken many bets, of various sizes, you’ve also done this over a long quantum of time. In that same time, a less organized competitor will eventually do something wrong/stupid/both. Said differently, you’ve de-risked your error rate in a thoughtful methodical way and have evidence that things are working while giving your competitor enough time to flail and eventually fail. In so many companies that I’ve invested in and companies that I’ve worked for, I’ve seen enormous bets being made too early, and mostly out of ego. These bets are rarely rooted in data and most have eventually been rolled back. The second thing to understand in poker is that when you make many small bets, you can play more hands - and some of these can lead to huge pots. Some of the biggest pots I’ve won have been with 2-2 and 8-6 suited while some of the biggest pots I’ve lost are with A-A! In business, as in poker, you have to make unconventional bets if you want to win huge pots. And the no-brainer bets are rarely big winners and can sometimes come back and sting you. So as an investor, by keeping my bets small I keep my errors small while giving myself a chance to win big by doubling and tripling down at the right time.

The first overtime playoff game under the NFL’s new rules:

Border security deal was just voted down in the Senate. The problem was that it was tethered to more money for Ukraine. So voting for the rational decision of more border security for the US and less graft for Ukraine wasn’t possible. Now everyone has plausible deniability to blame the other depending on what you believe. We need to make our politicians write and pass bills one at a time again. Stop merging every issue together and stand on the logic of each issue on its own.

49ers’ honorary captain today:

Didn’t Ding Liren do something similar in China to get the minimum number of games before getting the rating spot in 2021-22 over @LevAronian ?

Less meritocracy increases mediocrity

December 3, 2023 Dear President Gay, Since my letter to you of November 4th to which you did not reply or even acknowledge, I have received substantial feedback and input from senior members of the Harvard faculty about a number of the issues I raised in my letter concerning free speech, antisemitism, and the impact of the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (OEDIB) at Harvard. I thought to share this feedback with you now as it may inform your testimony and potential questions you may receive from the Congress on Tuesday. Free Speech at Harvard In several of your communications since October 7th, you have emphasized Harvard’s commitment to free speech as the reason why the university has continued to permit eliminationist and threatening language on campus – i.e., calls for Intifada (suicide bombings, knifings, etc. of Israeli civilians) and the elimination of the state of Israel “From the River to the Sea.” You explained your tolerance for these protests on October 13th: “[O]ur university embraces a commitment to free expression. That commitment extends even to views that many of us find objectionable, even outrageous.” In my letter to you, however, I noted that In The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Free Speech Rankings, Harvard has consistently finished in the bottom quartile in each of the past four years. I note that Harvard’s ranking has deteriorated each year, receiving its lowest free speech ranking ever for the 2023 academic year, last out of 254 universities with a rating of 0.00, the only university with an “abysmal” speech climate. After sending my letter, I reached out to the faculty to reconcile your free speech absolutist commitment with Harvard having the lowest free speech ranking of any university. The faculty had a lot to say on this issue, as well as on antisemitism and the OEDIB. Notably, they were willing to share their views so long as I committed to keep their identities confidential. I have quoted their remarks below: On Free Speech “Years ago, Harvard stopped being a place where all perspectives were welcome.” “Harvard is a place where loud, hate-filled protests appear to be encouraged, but where faculty and students can’t share points of view that are inconsistent with the accepted narrative on campus.” “Harvard became a place where if you toed the party line, there was applause. If you disagree, you are drowned out. The gatekeepers of speech continue to further narrow what they deem acceptable speech.” “The primary problem with speech at Harvard is that if you say the wrong thing, you will be cancelled, which leads to self-censorship. The result is what you actually think is not what you say.” “Saying anything that doesn’t highlight the importance of slavery and colonialism as animating forces of history is not acceptable speech. Lived experience and ideology become the dominant forces of conversation. All of the courses follow the same playbook ideology. Ideology poses as coursework.” On Antisemitism, Support for Hamas, and the Protests Against Israel When I asked members of the faculty about the causes behind the Israeli/Gaza protests and the tolerance for antisemitism on campus, they explained: “Whiteness at Harvard is deemed fundamentally oppressive. Indigenous peoples are presented as in need of justice and reparations. Jews are presented as white people. It is therefore ok to hate Israel and Jews as they are deemed to be oppressors.” I asked: “Why are the protests only about Israel versus other conflicts in the Middle East and around the globe where Palestinians and other civilians were killed?” “Israel is the rare case where we have a hot conflict between people that are deemed ‘white’ versus people of color.” The Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (ODEIB) “The primary animating force of the ODEIB is racism-colonialism and the denial of indigenous rights. The ODEIB is a home for people who are perceived to have been victimized.” “The ODEIB was meant to include Asians, but it does not. It is focused on communities that experienced colonialism.” “Recency matters. India is not included because they got autonomy 70 years ago.” “The ODEIB is at the service of black students, to a lesser extent brown students, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ students.” “It’s about whiteness versus people of color.” “The DEI framework prioritizes people on the oppressed side of the narrative.” Hiring Practices at Harvard One topic which emerged when I spoke to the faculty was the issue of hiring at Harvard, an issue about which the faculty clearly has a lot of consternation. When I asked why Harvard’s faculty has shifted sharply leftward in recent years, they explained: “Each department decides whom they want, and the university can accept or reject the candidate. Left-leaning faculty appoint other left-wing faculty because they get to decide whom to hire and promote. It’s a bit like the Twitter algorithm which continues to feed you the points of view you want to hear. Eventually, each department reaches the tipping point.” One senior member of the faculty shared that it is made abundantly clear that they cannot hire new faculty members unless they meet ODEIB requirements. That is, the candidate has to be a woman, person of color, or have LGBTQ+ status. Straight white males are “off the table.” Asians and those of South Asian (i.e., India) heritage are similarly disadvantaged in the process as they are deemed successful, overachieving minorities. A number of the faculty bemoaned that in many cases they cannot hire the substantially more qualified person if he is a white or Asian straight male as the proposed candidate “has to be a woman or BIPOC person.” I was told that behind closed doors, it is common to hear: “I clearly don’t think this is the strongest candidate, but we can see where the train is headed. I therefore have no choice but to vote for the [lesser-qualified candidate.]” It is made clear to the faculty that Harvard’s discriminatory approach to hiring should never be acknowledged or written about in an email. One professor said that he has been continually amazed that no one has brought a lawsuit as these practices are clearly illegal. One faculty member explained that it is not just the administration that has been putting forth these requirements, but that external organizations like The Chronicle of Higher Education (TCHE) do “investigative reporting” where they do racial and gender audits of university departments. TCHE publicly scolds university departments that don’t meet their diversity requirements further reinforcing Harvard’s requirement for ODEIB-preferred candidates. On all of the above issues, I know you will not rely on my survey of the faculty. I therefore encourage you to commission a highly credible, third-party firm to do an anonymous survey of the Harvard faculty. I am confident it will confirm and reinforce all that I have outlined above. Discrimination at Harvard Is Not Limited to Antisemitism The problems at Harvard are clearly not just about Jews and Israel. It is abundantly clear that straight white males are discriminated against in recruitment and advancement at Harvard. That is also apparently true to a somewhat lesser extent for men who are Asians or of Indian origin. The ODEIB is an important culprit in this discrimination on campus as it sees the world in a framework of oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressor class includes white males, Asians, Jews and other people perceived to be successful and powerful. While Harvard claims that it is committed to free expression, in practice free expression appears to only happen “behind closed doors” or among faculty and students speaking anonymously. Conservative voices are squelched and often outright cancelled on campus. Tyler J. VanderWeele and Carole K. Hooven are two recent examples. In March of this year, Mr. VanderWeele, the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology, a practicing Catholic, was effectively excommunicated from Harvard (saved only by his tenure) when it was discovered he had signed an amicus brief in 2015 which affirmed his view that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and when he surfaced his pro-life views. See: sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Earlier this year, Ms. Hooven, an evolutionary biologist was cancelled and eventually forced to resign because she stated that one’s sex was biological and binary on Fox and Friends. See: link.springer.com/article/10.100… I am saddened that the Harvard I love has lost its way. I am embarrassed for not having been aware and previously taken the time to investigate these issues until antisemitism exploded on campus. I should have paid more attention as it did not take a forensic analysis to surface and better understand these issues. Discrimination at Harvard is not just illegal, but it is extremely damaging to our nation’s competitiveness, which is critically important in a world with growing geopolitical conflict and turmoil. Harvard should be an institution for our best and brightest, taught by our best and brightest who are in search of Veritas and excellence. Russia, China, and our other competitor nations are not selecting their scientific and educational leaders using Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion metrics. President Gay, beginning with your testimony to Congress on Tuesday, you can begin to address the antisemitism that has exploded on campus during your presidency, the seeds for which began years before you became President. But as I hope you recognize, the issues at Harvard are much more expansive than antisemitism. Antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine for other discriminatory practices at Harvard. As President you have both the opportunity and the responsibility for addressing these critically important issues. It won’t be easy for you as I have been told that your recent “pivot on antisemitism” is already making the radical left wing of the faculty highly skeptical of you. When 34 Harvard student organizations came out in support of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, it was a wake up call for me. I hope that having to face the Congress on Tuesday will be a wake-up call for you. Sincerely, William A. Ackman, A.B. 1988, MBA 1992 Cc: Ms. Penny Pritzker, Chairman, and The Harvard Corporation Board

@stats_feed No sentinel GBSD? Or weren’t able to confirm distance?

Most powerful missiles (based on deliver range): 🇷🇺 RS-28 Sarmat: 18,000 km 🇮🇳 Surya: 12,000-16,000 km 🇷🇺 R-36M2 Voevoda: 11,000-16,000 km 🇨🇳 DF-5: 12,000-15,000 km 🇰🇵 Hwasong-15: 13,000 km 🇺🇸 Minuteman III: 13,000 km 🇨🇳 DF-41: 12,000-15,000 km 🇷🇺 RS-24 Yars: 12,000 km 🇨🇳 DF-31A: 12,000 km 🇷🇺 R-29RMU Sineva: 11,547 km 🇺🇸🇬🇧 Trident II: 11,300+ km 🇮🇳 Agni-VI: 11,000-12,000 km 🇷🇺 R-29RMU2 Layner: 11,000+ km 🇷🇺 Topol-M: 11,000 km 🇷🇺 Topol: 10,500 km 🇫🇷 M51: 10,000 km+ 🇨🇳 JL-3: 9,000-12,000 km 🇷🇺 RSM-56 Bulava: 8,000-10,000 km 🇨🇳 DF-31: 8,000 km 🇮🇳 Agni-V: 7,000-8,000 km 🇰🇵 Hwadong-14: 6,700-10,000 km 🇷🇺 R-29R: 6,500 km Note: this is a list of intercontinental ballistic missiles in operational, under development, and unknown statuses. Inactive missiles are excluded from the list.

THREAD: How to verify images online? Social media is awash with false or misleading images, some of which get millions of engagements. So, here's a simple guide on ways you can quickly check the veracity of an image you see on your social media feeds.

Derek Carr bombing it 10 yards out of bounds… then losing his mind the WR didn’t run his route into the bench to catch it is pure comedy

An excerpt from an interview with Wesley So, who turns 30 today: "I learned chess when I was seven or eight. A lot of people played on every corner of the neighborhood I lived in. You see, chess is very popular in the Philippines, because in third-world countries, chess is the poor man’s game. Rich people play tennis, polo, and golf, while poor people play chess because you don’t need anything—no uniform, no field or courts. Children don’t need money to play chess. People make the pieces out of bottle caps, or whatever materials they have. So every week I would cut out newspaper clippings about famous grandmaster games, study them, and then I’d go from street to street with a makeshift board, challenging anyone who knew how to play. People get very creative. While a chess book typically costs around 1500 pesos, which is a full two-day salary for many Filipinos, it’s not uncommon for one person to buy the book, Xerox every page, and then sell the photocopied versions for a few pesos a copy."

@StoneviewStable @zed_run Can drop unfortunate record in stud at min if interested

We’re about to do something we haven’t done in a long time… breed. Yes, we are super bored. Looking for high VAR genesis studs. Or high stability genesis studs. Nothing in between ha. Anyone? @zed_run

@Potenza_eth @zed_run I let it go for 0.285 this morning. No faith in the team. Willing to liquidate rest of stable if there were any offers. @DNARacing2023 is the future

@withnickberry @KobeissiLetter Seasonality in March-April payout for year end bonuses should also be considered. Looks like June ticked down a touch. Q3 will be interesting to see

In the US, interest rates on household items are skyrocketing. In just 1 year, the average interest rate on credit card debt has gone from 14% to 21%+. New car loan rates went from 4% to 8% while used car loan rates are at 12%+. Mortgage rates are at a fresh high of 7.2%, up from 2.7% in 2021. How can the average person afford any of these items?