Daniel Bubb @DanielBubb

The left is on a project to enforce equality, despite biology and markets. The goal of equality gives claim to the moral high ground, but contradicting biology and markets requires censorship and violence, which makes the whole project immoral.

California has officially signed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” (AB 2624) into law. This bill was created only after I exposed widespread fraud in immigrant communities across America, specifically in California’s Medicaid, nonprofits and other welfare programs funded by our tax dollars. These politicians need the fraud to continue and they sadly use immigrants to do so often. They fund nonprofits and NGOs with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year for immigration services, including free healthcare and have now made “immigration support service providers” essentially a protected class in California. For example, if I film a hospice or a “learing center” with no patients receiving millions through Medicaid and the owner gives me a paper saying I cannot publish the video, I cannot publish it. If I publish it to expose them and they claim it caused them “fear” or a third party threatens them, I face a minimum $4,000 civil fine plus the legal fees of the individual or group suing me. This bill was created by the Attorney General’s wife and co-sponsored by CHIRLA, a nonprofit that has received over $80,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for “immigrant support services.” Do you understand how this works yet? When the fraud is exposed, they create new laws to protect the fraudsters and penalize those who expose it. By signing this bill, the Governor and California politicians expose themselves as the corrupt politicians they are. This is not the end, the fight has just begun. More to come soon, this is far from over.

@joshpkim @bot Yes - would love to try. Thanks!

@GovernorShapiro Unfortunately, you just lost my vote next election.

Switzerland has 26 cantons, each with its own constitution, tax rates, and laws, and the result is one of the wealthiest, most stable countries on earth. That is not a coincidence. You want to understand why Swiss GDP per capita sits around $92,000 while the EU average hovers near $37,000? Start here. Cantons compete for residents and businesses the same way firms compete for customers. Zug kept its corporate tax rate at roughly 11.9%, attracted commodity traders and crypto firms, and watched its population and tax revenues grow. Cantons that taxed aggressively lost mobile capital and productive citizens to neighbors with lighter burdens. This is Tiebout competition working in real life, not a textbook diagram. The federal government in Bern handles defense, monetary policy, and some foreign affairs. Everything else defaults downward. Cantons set income taxes. Communes set property levies. Citizens in Appenzell Innerrhoden voted on local laws by a show of hands in the Landsgemeinde, an open-air assembly, until 1990 for most matters. The feedback loop between decision-makers and the people paying for those decisions stays tight. That tightness disciplines spending in ways no central auditor ever will. Free market thinkers have stressed this for generations: political units must be small enough that exit is credible. When the cost of leaving a bad jurisdiction drops, politicians face real consequences for bad policy. Switzerland kept that cost low by design. A business or family in Basel-Stadt dissatisfied with cantonal policy drives forty minutes to Baselland. No visa. No language barrier. No bureaucratic labyrinth. Just a move. The EU spent decades building the opposite architecture, consolidating regulatory power in Brussels and eliminating the jurisdictional diversity that forces governments to stay honest. Switzerland refused to join. Its per-capita wealth, its low public debt, and its functional civil society arrived because the Swiss preserved the one institutional feature every centralized state destroys first: the credible right to leave.

The CLARITY Act is critically needed to ensure the US 🇺🇸 leads this digital financial future. This needs to be passed and enacted Please 🙏 call your Senator and push for this vote

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent @SecScottBessent

4 weeks ago

More than a year ago, the House passed the Clarity Act. There’s been progress since — thousands of hours of bipartisan negotiations took place at the staff and Member levels. The Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture advanced their respective titles. And Senate

957 4K 21K 2.5M 2K

More than a year ago, the House passed the Clarity Act. There’s been progress since — thousands of hours of bipartisan negotiations took place at the staff and Member levels. The Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture advanced their respective titles. And Senate Republicans produced a floor-ready product that, as I type this, is waiting for a vote. It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that Senate Democrats are choosing politics on the cusp of a major victory for American leadership. Find another instance in history where Congress, when given the choice, opted to push an industry out of the United States rather than smartly regulate it. American Exceptionalism was once a bipartisan goal; if Clarity fails, I have serious doubts. These same Democrats — many of whom have taken millions of dollars from the crypto industry — proclaim that Clarity lacks safeguards for consumers and falls short in countering illicit finance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Titles II and III materially uplift regulatory and compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries, placing them on similar footing with traditional financial institutions. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which Washington lobbyists have spun up as a boogeyman for certain groups of prosecutors and law enforcement — does nothing other than codify longstanding Treasury Department policy that’s remained consistent across Administrations: non-custodial builders and developers are not, and have never been, subject to registration obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. And at this point, major law enforcement trades that once opposed the bill, including the Fraternal Order of Police, have now endorsed it. The Senate needs to vote NOW on this landmark legislation. The truth is that Senate Democrats are afraid to advance the Clarity Act as they fear Senator Warren and the “Anti-Crypto Army” she once promised to build. In the days ahead, Leader Thune will put this theory to the test. Will Senate Democrats be on the side of American Exceptionalism, or will they opt to cede American leadership of a global industry for fear of the bespectacled squirrel’s Left flank? America will lead or America won’t. It’s not more complicated than that. I believe Satoshi once said it best: “If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”

@AnthropicAI telling my four year old with cancer that we stopped looking a cure because dario got scared

WE WILL HOLD ALL US SENATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT PASSING THE CLARITY ACT IN THE MID-TERM ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.. 🇺🇸 🗳 YOU SAY NO TO CLARITY ACT.. WE SAY NO TO YOU.. ✅️ FAIR? WE, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.. 🇺🇸 @SenateGOP @SenateDems @LeaderJohnThune 🇺🇸

Nobody is saying that all software has to be open source. What they’re saying is that open-weight AI should be allowed. By implication, they’re rejecting your company’s incessant machinations to kneecap the open model ecosystem. Read the room.

Julian Schrittwieser @Mononofu

a month ago

I’m so excited that @JensenHuang is a believer in open source now, looking forward to the CUDA and GPU driver open source release!

2K 350 5K 6.6M 1K

The stakes are real. If the U.S. fails to pass the CLARITY Act, we cede jobs, investment, economic competitiveness, and financial leadership to overseas competitors. Pass the CLARITY Act.

AI Labs, 2024: We didn't steal your content; we just trained our model to learn! 😂 AI Labs, 2026: the Chinese are stealing our IP!!! Daddy Trump protect us!!!! 😂😂 Also, AI Labs, 2026: yeah, we stole your content — here’s $1.5b / < 1% of our market cap. 😂😂😂 AI Labs 2027: We're going open source, open weights and selling tokens for $1 per one billion

Elon’s original vision of an open, American AI was right. He could still flip Grok to open source which could be checkmate. Why? If you flip Grok open source, you necessarily move all margins out of the model layer and down into the infrastructure (chips + CSPs) and above to apps. He owns a massive data center build, owns next gen inference AI and owns the most used app (Cursor). So arguably he would make *more* margin by doing this. Then moving the DCs to space makes even more sense.

havent seen one person from OAI or Ant address Jon's argument here. the point is simple: the USG does not owe either of the large labs a business model. if the economics of selling tokens don't work due to distillation/cheap clones/Chinese AI magick, the American enterprise and consumer will be A-OK. they will benefit from hyperdeflation in the cost of digital cognition just like everyone else. the hyperscalers will be fine. it's just OAI and Ant that won't be – in their current forms at least. if they are willing to adapt, they can develop new business models. so what if the token merchants don't do well? the neoclouds will be fine. the internet companies will be fine. the consumer gets cheaper queries. the enterprise will still incorporate AI. the only world in which this isn't fine, is if you hold a quasi-religious belief that we're on the cusp of a kind of AI rapture in which one of the labs Logs On And Wins Forever, namely hits RSI and we enter some kind of sublime post economic society run by GEOTUS Dario. so to accept that Ant's business model might be suboptimal or impaired by China's commoditization is to accept the unacceptable; namely that someone other than the anointed might kick off the runaway feedback loop and that they, instead might log on and win forever. this appears to explain the discrepancy in reaction to Deepseek Moment v254 Kimi edition. everyone has bag bias, of course. but leaving that aside, most people think it's pretty much ok if Ant and OAI suffer margin compression due to Chinese distillation / industrial sabotage via open weight models. the American economy is not reliant on those two firms. they could blink out of existence and we would pretty much be ok. the AI capex supercycle will still produce tokens, closed weight or not. American firms will consume those tokens. OAI and Ant would probably still scratch a living, due to the latent preference of some token consumers to buy domestic and face off against a known entity. this is only unacceptable if you think AI is strongly path dependent; that is, if it really matters who the market leader is when AI reaches a breakout level of capability. this is true both in the good case (superintelligence, singularity, etc) and the bad case (this is the essence of safetyism). but if this sounds more like wishcasting than forecasting, you probably don't mind the labs being pressured economically. now you can clearly tell which side I'm on. I think AI is a fantastic technology which is hyperdeflating the cost of cognition and will fundamentally reshape society but there are real reasons why it wont diffuse as fast as the AGI people think it well. I would prefer an American firm achieve RSI relative to a Chinese one but I think either outcome would be suboptimal; better that we don't end up with a closed oligopoly composed of Ant/OAI. China by crushing the margins of the labs is doing everyone a favor by eliminating their pricing power and empowering the buyers of AI, namely, everyone. objections: -but you can't celebrate America losing to China! - in my opinion this is a minor victory for China but not necessarily an enduring one. USA still has the chip, datacenter, and neocloud advantage, not to mention, it still has the best frontier models. Chinese labs releasing open weight models have no business model of their own. so even if they hurt the US labs, they have nothing to show for it. it's profoundly unlike their successful dumping campaigns with solar panels, batteries, drones, etc where they eventually built big domestic industries. (if China kills American AI with open weight models, we can even the score the moment they try and release a proprietary model). even if open weights win, the USA can still leverage AI extremely well and potentally retain the aggregate compute advantage. yes, the US would be more assured of victory if OAI or Ant won forever, but I don't know if I want to live in that world. - no one will ever train a model again - this is where I think the concern is unwarranted. let's say distillation really is a golden bullet and kills big training runs. that doesn't advantage either China or the US. that's a stalemate. not to mention, the trend seems to be less focusing less on massive pretraining budgets and more on finetuning for specific genres of tasks, thinking machines style. and lastly I find it hard to believe that training runs will stop altogether. the labs can probably develop anti-distillation techniques. you could adopt a whitelist style permission for everyone using your model. different consortia could be put together to share in the cost of training a model, if it is seen as too expensive for an individual firm. - the AI buildout is path dependent and OAI/Ant are now load bearing GDP infrastructure - it would be a significant setback for investors if they had to cancel their IPOs and suffered big markdowns, and some neoclouds with lab based RPOs would suffer for a while, but everyone would be fine, really. does Microsoft need OAI or Ant? does Meta? does Google? ordinary Americans have ~no exposure to either OAI or Ant. would the world want any less compute if it turns out to be another order of magnitude cheaper? certainly not. as we all know at this point, consumption would go up. I don't think the economy is so dependent on the labs that it couldn't handle their margins compressing.

Jon Stokes @jon_stokes

a month ago

Look I think I've figured this whole thing out. Follow along as I try to steelman, and tell me where I'm wrong. OpenAI guys on the TL believe that if they can't sell metered inference tokens at a sufficient markup, then they will not have enough of a business to fund the next

74 127 1K 430K 636

Tricking the US Government to protect frontier labs’ business model by using a China boogeyman is a mistake. It is protecting the equity of 5,000 people who are investors in OAI and Ant at the sale of everyone else. This would be a terribly stupid decision. Let the market sort this out! The events of the past few weeks may simply mean that the frontier labs’ business model is not good and that their revenues aren’t sustainable. That’s ok. It’s ok to have a business model that worked for some time then all of a sudden didn’t (remember Groupon)! This still leaves a lot of value for a lot of other American companies: - CPUs - GPUs - hyperscalers - neoclouds - rack manufacturers - electricity and power - skilled trades - application layer AI None of this value goes away. In fact, if the model layers’ costs decrease by 10-100x, competition would accelerate and I would argue that the value to everyone else will go up more than what is lost. Let the free market sort this out vs allowing two companies whose stock is owned by less than 5,000 people decide this for America.

@patrickjwitt @fundstrat Get it done! 🚀

(🚨) So to be very clear, FIFA rules do *not* allow the USMNT to appeal the Balogun red card *on the basis of claiming the referee erred*. But. Under the circumstances, the USMNT should appeal on the very different grounds ESPN just reported on: misapplication of VAR protocols.

@karpathy @SarthakPar16 The path to hell is paved with good intentions

Thanks to President Trump, the Energy Department is providing over 20 metric tons of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) to power the American Nuclear Renaissance.