Jim

21 historical regimes, scored by 7 parameters: state economic control, dissent suppression, individual liberties, welfare provision, nationalism, militarism, globalism. PCA analysis to find the 'real' 2 axes of the political space. The data shows these axes to be: (i) authoritarianism vs libertarianism - by far the most dominant factor and (ii) nationalism, with a much smaller effect. This analysis shows communism is near to fascism and democracies are far away from both. Also that the traditional L/R axis is meaningless.

@War_Radar2 Yes, but don’t carriers have to operate with a group of destroyers and a sub around them… And how many of those does Britain currently have active? In other words, they cannot really deploy or project force.

BREAKING: 🇬🇧🇺🇸 Donald Trump calls Britain’s aircraft carriers “toys”, but reality says otherwise. The HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are about 80% the size of US supercarriers and can generate nearly the same number of sorties. In fact, HMS Prince of Wales has deployed up to 24 F-35 Lightning II jets, the largest fifth-generation air wing ever at sea. While the US Navy’s USS Gerald R. Ford remains more advanced overall, the gap is far smaller than the rhetoric suggests. Meanwhile, China is building an even larger next-generation carrier, potentially reshaping global naval power. Source: The Telegraph

@burrytracker @Barchart It was Munger who talked about buying quality stocks at the 200 week average

@Barchart What's that quote Buffet likes to say?

BREAKING 🚨: Microsoft $MSFT closes below its 200-week moving average for the first time in more than 13 years 📉📉 Dear God 😱

@JoachimMo1985 I wonder if he knows his Kelly fraction

If you worry about your -10% DD this year: Have a look at this guy. This is what “conviction” does.

I don’t understand the issue; a well trained frontier AI is now smarter than 99% of humans. Although it depends how you use it, you have to ask it to argue against you. I just had an advanced quantitative risk model reviewed by one of the best people in the world in our industry. The first thing he asked me was whether he could run the model through some AIs. Moreover, they are great for gathering sources of data, which you then review. The bottom line is many extremely smart people are now using AI ubiquitously. What exactly are people saying that Matt Goodwin got wrong because of AI?

No way did Matt Goodwin ask AI to prove he didn't use AI to write his book 🤣

Exactly

3/4 of the doctors and surgeons I know and that’s about 15, but perhaps not as many as you, agree with my view that the lockdown was dangerous/ foolish and the virus wasn’t that dangerous, unless to elderly people or with certain known in advance conditions. The thing is, however, they all told me they could not say that in their workplaces, otherwise they would be ostracized or fired. One included a professor of immunology at a teaching university in Switzerland, who the dean told… You of all people should know better and shut up or you will be fired. That may be the reason why you have not heard your colleagues giving these opinions. Don’t forget, you are state employees, and there is a certain ideological obedience required.

@Mollie_Whuppie @mullallyelaine Your opinion and that of Dr Ralph is at odds with the vast majority of medical qualified professionals. And your “facts” are wrong.

When Dr Billy Ralph heard that the government were offering the “Covid vaccines” to under 12 year olds, he tweeted this message. “ I will not be injecting any child with this completely untried product in this cohort. 27 years of practice I have never seen an experimental product used on children. Especially for a condition that holds less risk than the treatment.” He should be rewarded and promoted to chief medical office not called up to a hearing in the Irish Medical Council! irishtimes.com/crime-law/cour…

Yes, there are many reasons for this. And this is the last reply. I will give you. One reason is people suffering from strokes or heart attacks in lockdown not going to the hospital. That drastically increases risk of mortality over the next few years. Another reason is cessation of cancer testing due to the lockdown. These two things were not caused by the virus, but by the government‘s responses to the virus, which in my view were unnecessary. Another reason is severe stress. Furthermore the vaccine itself may have decreased longevity. Lastly, many countries suffered economically due to Covid and are now in an obviously much worse state, their economies and health services are not as good as they used to be, and this can be a reason for shorter lifespan. Your argument that longevity decreased because of the Covid virus is somewhat simplistic.

@muldoons_ @QuantyJim @mullallyelaine US Life expectancy at birth •2019: 78.8 years •2020: 77.0 years •2021: 76.4 years •2022: 77.5 years •2023: 78.4 years I wonder what happened between 2019 and 2021?🤫 Any idea…??

I disagree. It was known from March 2020 from three countries, Italy, Spain and China, the age distribution of mortality rate and that the under 60s, unless suffering from diabetes or cancer, were statistically immune to a three standard deviation probability. I can inform you that I was slightly involved in the UK in the legal fight against the lockdown, and also that senior government figures, who I had been at university with, were aware of my research at the time. The vaccine was only necessary for the elderly. The whole thing was mishandled and it’s ridiculous to try and defend it now. Kind regards

@vinniemcdermott @mullallyelaine That’s incorrect: there was short-term trial data, but no data on long-term effects.

@QuantifiedStrat bravo

@benonwine No: most people don’t think like us - only 30% poll for restore + reform, in total. Brits sadly are mostly compliant and don’t make a fuss.

Is CIVIL WAR Inevitable now in the UK?🇬🇧

Imagine a culture that builds cathedrals instead of gambling apps

Just performed a similar analysis. My ChatGPT version is trained by me to try to be truth seeking apolitical and rational. Nonetheless, I had medium tilts pro Democrats and anti Republicans. When I pushed it, this was the response. Three main drivers, none of them very exotic: 1) Training data skew Most of the text I’m trained on (mainstream media, academic writing, policy analysis) leans center-left. That doesn’t mean “wrong,” but it systematically frames competence and seriousness in a way that tends to reward Democrats more often than Republicans. 2) Implicit criteria selection I used criteria like institutionalism, technocratic competence, and seriousness. Those traits currently map more often onto: •establishment Democrats •and a subset of institutional Republicans (e.g. Collins, McConnell, etc.) They map less well onto populist or insurgent styles, which are more common in today’s Republican Party. So the scoring function itself embeds a tilt. 3) Style vs substance bias I penalized: •performative politics •media-centric behaviour •ideological rigidity That disproportionately hits Republicans at the moment, but not exclusively. It’s partly a style bias disguised as a competence judgment. ⸻ The honest bottom line The bias is not random—it comes from: •data (center-left skew) •metric choice (institutionalist lens) If you changed the lens, the result would flip: •A populist / anti-establishment lens → Republicans score higher •A libertarian lens → mixed but more GOP positives •A pure results / economic outcomes lens → unclear, more balanced So the output is less “objective truth” and more “who scores well under a specific definition of seriousness.”

I asked ChatGPT to give a thumbs up or down for all 100 senators. The results are ridiculous. All but 2 Dems got a thumbs up, all but 4 Republicans got a thumbs down (and those 4 Republicans with thumbs up are Murkowski, Collins, Romney and Britt...aka not real Republicans)

@LozzaFox What if he’s not? What if he’s just in on it. That’s what the evidence seems to show so far.

Time to prove if he is worthy of his crown.

@NickDixon The Church of England is an arm of the state

Apparently only 10 of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords showed up to vote against decriminalising abortion. Appears to confirm the feeling that the Church of England is largely progressives using Christianity as a skinsuit.

The regime needs to be eliminated and the Iranian people freed! It’s a war against evil. in terms of conventional warfare, ~ 95% of Iranian missile, Air Force and Navy are destroyed, and all that is left is asymmetric terrorist like tactics. That will take another month or two but strategically the war is already won.

I condemn in the strongest terms the overnight Iranian strike on a Qatari gas facility. We are working towards a swift resolution to the situation in the Middle East, in the best interests of the British people – because there is no question that ending the war is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living.

@crimlawuk Don’t know. I work with a lot of silks and barristers. Mostly, they are lefties and bang in line with the current woke program being foisted upon us. Maybe this will be the line in the sand where they rebel, but I doubt it. Hope so!

Will you join me in making this pledge? They cannot scrap juries unless we as a profession are complicit. We have the right to say no. Barristers, solicitors, paralegals and caseworkers up and down the land. Without us they have no Lammy Diplock Courts. Make your voice heard.

@blaiklockBP @churchofengland To answer your question, yes. They are just another arm of the controller so-called “elite” class. CoE was always a political entity, it was formed by Henry 8 for political purposes.

Are all Bishops of the @churchofengland left-wing?

@Goosey30111568 No, he is putting his evil bills through parliament as quickly as he can before he is removed.

Phatt Keef is just a caretaker PM now. He's done. He can't recover.

@Artemisfornow I think you’re splitting hairs and it is not helpful in the face of an outright evil law. What is necessary is to take a simple direct stand: yes / no.

The reporting on abortion to term is annoying me. My instinct has always been pro-life. But the debate in the UK was settled around 24 weeks. Some wanted less, some wanted more. It was only after WHO guidance changed that the debate was reopened here. The amendment to the Police and Crime Bill does NOT legalise abortion up to birth. The legislation still centres on 24 weeks. And it has always been the case that abortions after 24 weeks even up to birth, with sign off from 2 doctors, where there are abnormalities or the mother’s life is in danger. Many people question whether a cleft palate should fall into that category, but it is true that the current law allows doctors to interpret it that way. (Unbelievably) The change to the law now means that if a woman procures an abortion herself after 24 weeks, even up to full term, she cannot be prosecuted. Every part of me rejects that. But it is important to be accurate, that is not the same thing as saying abortion is now fully legal up to birth. It’s a change in how the law treats the woman, not a wholesale rewriting of the legal limits of 24 weeks. I think that’s an important distinction. Do I think it will be abused? Yes. Is it abhorrent, Yes.