chasfh

THE DOW IS AT 50,000 DOLLARS!!

I see, OK. Also, I would think they would ignore the grooming part and just jump right into the trafficking.

Definitely looking into Stoxx 600.

Terrible post. 😝 It's "no fewer". Get a style guide.

So, in addition to dumping PLTR, which I got completely out of when it fell through 153.24 last month, in the past two days I've been dumped completely out of IBM (252.44) and MSFT (382.01). I put trailing stop limit sell orders on those, same as PLTR, so I could take profits. All I have left of those big tech companies I've had for the past couple year is GOOG, which already sold some at 310.69 a few weeks ago, and will sell again at 294.13 and finally at 276.62, if it doesn't go back up and push those trailing stops up with it. That will pretty much get me out of the stocks I had bought two to three years ago to obtain a stake in AI. I have re-expressed some of these proceeds into small positions in a number of stocks in other leading-edge technologies like space infrastructure, satellite connectivity, nuclear/SMR, grid modernization, robotics, and metabolic health. I was looking at maybe putting down a stake in quantum computing, but it's probably too soon in the industry life cycle for that. I set down an initial amount in mid-January, and am buying in tranches this month and next month to complete the stake. So far the whole basket is up +3%, even though only four of the ten positions in total are up.

In the survey, conducted in January, X users were the only group in which a majority, just barely over 50 percent, expressed “strong” or “somewhat” approval of Donald Trump. His approval was significantly lower among consumers of news from “podcasts and YouTube,” local television, and even Facebook. Among people reading “newspapers or news websites,” browsing Reddit, watching broadcast television or scrolling TikTok or Instagram to keep up with current events, the numbers were, as Jain described them, “catastrophic.” He noted, “If you’re largely getting your news from Twitter, you might not even know that Trump is unpopular, because you wouldn’t even see a lot of the backlash.” Last week, in a study published in Nature, a group of researchers attempted to answer a sensible follow-up question: So what? People organize around news sources that flatter their beliefs, and in a fragmented news environment, you would expect different attitudes to be associated with venues that have developed a clear partisan identity. Well, it turns out that the engine of Musk’s X — its algorithmic “For You” page — is an ideological ratchet: In addition to promoting entertainment, X’s feed algorithm tends to push more conservative content to users’ feeds. Seven weeks of exposure to such content in 2023 shifted users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction, particularly with regard to policy priorities, perceptions of the criminal investigations into Trump and views on the war in Ukraine. The effect is asymmetric: switching the algorithm on influenced political views, but switching it off did not reverse users’ perspectives on policy priorities or current political issues. The effect was surprisingly pronounced considering the comparatively less insane conditions on the platform, and across politics in general, in 2023. In the space of a couple of months, users consuming X’s algorithmic feeds were both “4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritize policy issues considered important by Republicans” and “5.2 percentage points less likely to reduce their X usage.” Taken together, these analyses offer a bit of data to support the notion that X has become a place that both attracts more conservatives and pushes them further to the right, resulting in an X-obsessed administration that often uses the bizarre language of Zoomer fascists when posting online. The Muskification of Twitter into X — the MAGA platform of choice, where Musk’s tweets and the platform’s recommendations are unavoidable and the house chatbot is an outspoken rightist — may also be influencing the elites who still use it. Could it be happening to you, too? Are you … sure?

Not sure "grooming" is the right verb here.

Pitchers are valued for their ability to induce high levels of swing and miss, because they can’t give up hits and runs on balls that don’t get put into play. That’s always been the case, but that ability was considered special and limited to a small percentage of pitchers. Science has allowed more pitchers to figure out how to get much more swing and miss, and that requires a kind of max effort from most arms. But that’s where the money is, so pitchers will gladly risk their arms falling off for a chance at the big payday. Seems to me the thing to do is to change the game to reduce the need for swing and miss. Not eliminate it, just reduce it, to the same degree it was when a teams averaged 130 homers instead of 190. That way, it wouldn’t be so horrifying for a pitcher to give up contact. That sounds like changing the ball to me, which I’ve advocated for more than a decade now, but maybe there’s more to it, I don’t know. But there’s got to be something that can be done to eliminate the idea that a permanently shredded arm is a mere occupational inconvenience. Of course, chicks still dig the long ball, and Baseball makes a lot of money off that, so it would take some real business discipline to strive to put that genie back in the bottle.

That’s what makes it bold and not stupid: there’s a reasonable path for it.

Because a number of them are openly in a minority class, including the team captain, which is not true of the men's team.

Most of us know that, but hardly anyone steeped in RWM knows it. They hear nothing about Trump's health on Fox, Newsmax, et al, except when Ronny Jackson calls him the healthiest president in the history of the universe.

I will reject this idea up to the very moment they announce it's going to be implemented.

Now we know he's in for the win.

Thanks for pointing this out. We had noted this last year but it was easy to get past people. There was no way they could use a 3-D representation of the plate area where not only your example of catching just the front corner would be a strike, but also a floater that comes in and passes you up around your eyes clips the back of the plate area for a strike.

I don't hate Avila, either. What I do hate is when people insist that Avila deserves as much as or more credit than Harris for the recent run of Tigers' success, and there were plenty of people here insisting as much.

Shep is probably how most people here found the audio overlay. 😁

For any lingering thoughts of wanting to see Harris get replaced, this pretty much puts the nail on the coffin of that thought. Are we beyond all that now, for certain? Is everyone on board with Scott Harris now? Am I no longer uniquely the board's Harris slappy?

Even better—MEXICAN beer!

Quick, find all their descendants and deport them all.

I heard someone predict on a top pod this weekend that Trump might end up just canceling it outright because he's struggling to make it through public events more and more. I don't know how likely that actually is, but it does seem likely that he will have some portion of it that makes everyone question his health.

Man, I gotta give it up to the AI video creator. As nauseating as the content itself it, the technical quality of this is outstanding. Good enough where there will be millions of older red hats who actually, honestly believe this is absolutely real.

The fault baked into this lead sentence of your post is the assumption that Trump actually cares about bringing down the price of oil. First of all, from a 30,000-foot view, it's faulty on its face to assume Trump cares about making life better for the American people in the first place. He doesn't, which he has demonstrated so often that I can hardly believe people can keep a straight face whenever they say he does. Secondly, to this particular point, it assumes that Trump is actually racking his brain trying to honestly figure out how to bring the price of oil down, but he simply hasn't been able to do so yet. As the authoritarian president of one of the world's largest exporters of oil, and who likely directly benefits financially from it by dint of how he has redefined his office, the interest he has in bringing down the price of oil can be safely assumed to be zero. Apologies because you didn't ask for this, but I think the sentence would be far more accurate if rendered as:

When pressed on it—if he's even inclined to address the actual question at all—he might well reply that no one really cares about that.

When you figure it out, I for one would be interested in why specifically you hated Thomas Massie at one time.

I think in this specific case, this particular media vehicle is helping create the bull**** propaganda, versus just buying it.