iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

The US need not even decline in order for China to surpass it economically. With well over twice the population and a manufacturing juggernaut, IMO, it's a matter of time. This is not pronouncing doom on the US - the world is big enough for them and us, but IMO it's something to be kept in mind.

020

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

Regardless of what's happening IRL, Iran's running circles around the US in the meme wars.

110

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Postmedia delenda est @olenargy.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

Can’t replace a leader of the free world but if we try hard enough we might be able to reconstruct one in aggregate

471900269

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

I'd suggest putting this burden on lenders (similar to how the burden for W-2s and 1099s falls on the payers).

110

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Both: It's overhyped, but useful in many contexts. I personally feel that the limits of the current technology will soon become visible (i.e., no ASI this time around), but that doesn't mean that it won't be a useful tool for many professionals. I don't see fully-autonomous AI becoming the norm.

000

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

doesn't move I would pay no taxes. In both cases, at the end of the period I'm in the same position - IMO, taxation should be the same in those two situations.

000

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

This makes no sense unless you also count the fact of the loss. You're saying that taxes should be path dependent - i.e., if I buy a stock at $100, It goes up to $200, and back down to $100, than back to $200, I should pay taxes on $200 of gains, where if I buy another stock at $100 and it...

200

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Well - this is probably a separate topic - but I believe that rules like this should be applicable without respect to asset value. Everyone should be subject to this kind of rule, IMO. (It's irrelevant for most people, because they wouldn't be inclined to borrow against any stock holdings they own).

110

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Someone who loses their job also doesn't get their previous year's wages taken away - they get use of that money. If you tax unrealized gains on an asset and those gains disappear - you never got to use the money, but you paid tax on it.

200

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

the collateral value - no additional step up is required and no taxes are due. I like that. IMO the declaration of value independent of taking a loan is not necessary - just make it part of the loan process.

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Yes, I get that - you're trying to close the tax loophole. Recasting this in terms I understand better - effectively, you should be required to step up your basis (and pay the associated taxes) to the collateral value for any loans you take against the stock. If your basis is already higher than...

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Isn't this practically equivalent? Why wouldn't I just set my collateral price at $1? As far as the losses go, I guess if the basis gets stepped up to the collateral value, that covers some of the ground. I'd still like to know what you'd tax if I take a loan, pay it off, and then take it again.

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Sure that's an option, but that sounds like a different proposal than Nathan's.

110

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

IMO there's some sense in taxing net collateral - i.e., the amount that's actually tied up as collateral for loans. But again, it needs to account for the case where net collateral goes down.

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

So why would anyone declare any collateral price until they borrow against their stock, and why would they declare any higher than the minimum required to meet their borrowing needs? Wouldn't it be more direct to tax the act of borrowing against stock? Also, what happens if the loan is paid off?

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

If you want to do this, IMO, it needs to be symmetrical. So if from one year to a next the value goes *down*, that should yield a symmetrical tax credit. Otherwise you'd keep paying taxes over and over again on the same gains if a stock goes up and down repeatedly on an annual basis.

300

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

In a way he's not wrong: "Old corrupt white male" is definitely the "normal" archetype for politicians, and is probably a point of comfort for a lot of people.

000

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Ted Underwood @tedunderwood.com · 08/09/2026

so sick of AI / fluid dynamics discourse on this app; now to relax with a big swig of hot milky tea

$GPT-5.6: This is actually a lovely everyday visualization of Navier–Stokes. The coffee and cream are fluids with a velocity field \mathbf u(\mathbf x,t): at every point in the cup, the liquid has some direction and speed. Navier–Stokes describes how that field evolves, \rho\left(\frac{\partial \mathbf u}{\partial t}+\mathbf u\cdot\nabla\mathbf u\right) = -\nabla p+\mu\nabla^2\mathbf u+\mathbf f. In the photograph you can almost assign each term a visible role: * \mathbf u\cdot\nabla\mathbf u: advection/inertia. The curling cream filaments reveal parcels of liquid being swept around by the existing circulation. Their folds and tendrils are basically tracers of the hidden velocity field. * -\nabla p: pressure forces. Pressure gradients help establish and redirect the circulating flow, especially after pouring or stirring. * \mu\nabla^2\mathbf u: viscosity. This damps sharp differences in velocity. The whorls don’t keep getting faster and finer forever; their kinetic energy dissipates and the coffee eventually becomes still. * \mathbf f: body forces, especially gravity/buoyancy. If the cream and coffee differ in density or temperature, buoyancy can generate some of the rising and sinking plumes. There is one nice wrinkle: Navier–Stokes itself does not directly describe the changing cream color. The cream concentration c is approximately a passive scalar obeying an advection–diffusion equation \frac{\partial c}{\partial t}+\mathbf u\cdot\nabla c = D\nabla^2 c. So the spectacular visible swirls are the cream making the invisible Navier–Stokes velocity field visible. Advection stretches the cream into long thin sheets; molecular diffusion then mixes efficiently across those increasingly narrow sheets. The picture therefore captures a central fluid-dynamical idea very well: flow creates structure at large scales, stretching and folding pushes it toward smaller scales, and viscosity/diffusion ultimately erase it.$ $This is actually a lovely everyday visualization of Navier–Stokes. The coffee and cream are fluids with a velocity field \mathbf u(\mathbf x,t): at every point in the cup, the liquid has some direction and speed. Navier–Stokes describes how that field evolves, \rho\left(\frac{\partial \mathbf u}{\partial t}+\mathbf u\cdot\nabla\mathbf u\right) = -\nabla p+\mu\nabla^2\mathbf u+\mathbf f. In the photograph you can almost assign each term a visible role: * \mathbf u\cdot\nabla\mathbf u: advection/inertia. The curling cream filaments reveal parcels of liquid being swept around by the existing circulation. Their folds and tendrils are basically tracers of the hidden velocity field. * -\nabla p: pressure forces. Pressure gradients help establish and redirect the circulating flow, especially after pouring or stirring. * \mu\nabla^2\mathbf u: viscosity. This damps sharp differences in velocity. The whorls don’t keep getting faster and finer forever; their kinetic energy dissipates and the coffee eventually becomes still. * \mathbf f: body forces, especially gravity/buoyancy. If the cream and coffee differ in density or temperature, buoyancy can generate some of the rising and sinking plumes. There is one nice wrinkle: Navier–Stokes itself does not directly describe the changing cream color. The cream concentration c is approximately a passive scalar obeying an advection–diffusion equation \frac{\partial c}{\partial t}+\mathbf u\cdot\nabla c = D\nabla^2 c. So the spectacular visible swirls are the cream making the invisible Navier–Stokes velocity field visible. Advection stretches the cream into long thin sheets; molecular diffusion then mixes efficiently across those increasingly narrow sheets. The picture therefore captures a central fluid-dynamical idea very well: flow creates structure at large scales, stretching and folding pushes it toward smaller scales, and viscosity/diffusion ultimately erase it.$

819410

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Asawin Suebsaeng @swin24.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

I am not the first to make this point but imagine a woman president obsessing constantly over her “ballroom” as the economy imploded and her war spun out of control

13280221434

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Rafe Meager (they/them) @economeager.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

we have got to put that into a causal inference lecture

743271

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 05/08/2026

This is a little like the boiling frog analogy - when everyone around you changes (increases) their consumption the same way, you don't realize what's happening to you. As a result, you feel like you're stuck in place, and the only obvious explanation is the nominal price increase.

020

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 05/08/2026

I think there's another element in play: the mere fact of being better off doesn't necessarily translate to less financial stress. The subtle hedonic adaptation that has taken place ($7 coffee drinks, delivered food, expensive smartphones and phone plans, etc.) quickly eats up increased wages...

161

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 27/07/2026

Could you link your source for your original assertion that food consumption is down? I'm curious where that comes from.

010

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 27/07/2026

I admit, I hesitated before clicking "like" on this one.

030

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 27/07/2026

This is a great point. Loomer deserves no trust, no admiration, but she can be a useful tool in pushing the administration to a better position vis-a-vis Ukraine. (Separately, I'm very curious who's funding this change of heart).

010

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Rav BOO!dram 🎃👻 @rvbdrm.com · 22/07/2026

Quick thinking having a tablecloth handy. I didn’t even notice the twitching from that dead robot.

47659461205

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Ariella Elm @ariellaelm.com · 22/07/2026

There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. The only candidate that is perfect to you, the only candidate that could ever say everything you want to hear and nothing you don’t, is literally you. 1/

12810

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Sen. Pumpkin Gogurt @ugarles.bsky.social · 18/07/2026

the future is here and it is picking images for news alerts

HEADLINE: Taylor Farms pulls iceberg lettuce linked to cyclosporiasis outbreak (CBS News)

IMAGE: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

3468861206

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Catherine Rampell @crampell.bsky.social · 14/07/2026

We’ve opened the strait that was never closed, ceasing a ceasefire for a war that was never a war, stopping Iran from charging tolls because tolls are illegal, all so Trump can charge his *own* tolls because *his* tolls are legal. This will hurt affordability which is a hoax anyway

601718512

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Norm Eisen @normeisen.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

BREAKING: huge victory for our 35 judges in the slush fund case *Knocks out any legal basis for the $1.8B *Also undermines the accompanying settlements *And opens the way to ethics & financial SANCTIONS H/t to cocounsel @democracydefendersaction.org, Platkin LLP & Susman Godfrey

542832691

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 11/07/2026

companies shift to structuring their products for maximum profitability. At the very least this should reduce the power usage per unit of inference drastically (i.e., if you amortize training cost over the lifespan of the model)

120

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 11/07/2026

IMO there's still a possibility for significant shifts: The demand is for inference, which takes a fraction of the resource of training. Right now, there's a training race going on - but assuming the limits of the current technology will be found, training will probably slow down as AI...

120

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Ed Markey @edmarkey.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

ICE shot and killed a man in Houston with no criminal record who was not even their target. They pushed him off the road. And now he is gone forever. ICE is a domestic terrorist organization. We need to abolish ICE now and stop Trump’s murderous thugs.

The New York Times: Man Killed by Federal Agent in Houston Was Not the Target of ICE Search

432388781

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Matthew Gertz @mattgertz.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

A definitely real job is when a billionaire takes a flier on your future political career by staking you as a venture capitalist.

20545103

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Such a Kevin @kevinkohler.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

JD Vance puts the Christ in "Christ, what an asshole."

7593141

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Pete Buttigieg @petebuttigieg.bsky.social · 26/06/2026

This week someone targeted my family for harm with a false report. We’re physically OK, but that doesn’t mean we weren’t harmed. I am beyond furious. Whatever your politics, this is awful, wrong, and can never become normal.

substack.com

A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family

Even in today's climate, there should be one fundamental principle everyone respects: whatever you think about someone in politics, you leave their kids alone.

1979230026647

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

are willing to follow this chain, and how certain or uncertain the assumptions behind the "utilitarian chain" are.

000

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

I don't think this is absolute. What is "intuitive" to people varies quite a bit, IMO. One of the more fundamental rules of morality, "do unto others", is probably unintuitive to a significant population - why should I compromise my wellbeing for someone else? IMO, it's a question of how far you...

100

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 10/06/2026

Somehow I feel Lash and his followers are fine with the excerpts you highlighted.

010

Reposted by @ulrichw.bsky.social

Gef the Toking Mongoose @geftokingmongoose.bsky.social · 07/06/2026

ok water calm down

A diagram of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule that looks like a but in revealing black bottoms

282149332637

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

I agree - the fact that US expenditures are so much higher than those of comparable countries (including expensive countries like Switzerland) implies there's a lot of room for efficiency. Bringing this back to the original point - I think this might be why Krugman's focus is elsewhere than patents.

010

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

That's fair, but the attached chart suggests that the biggest problems are still elsewhere (I'm not saying that patents aren't an issue - just that they're overshadowed). Source for chart: www.aha.org/guidesreport...

Breakdown of hospital expenses - 60% for labor, only 8% for drugs (the other categories are 13% for Supplies, and 19% for "Other")

121

ulrichw.bsky.social @ulrichw.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

IMO, one factor is that Krugman generally writes about the healthcare system as a whole, vs. pharmaceutical prices - which are a relatively small part of the overall problem - the lion's share of spending goes to inpatient/outpatient care. source of chart: www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-d...

Chart that breaks down healthcare costs in the US vs. other OECD nations. The aggregate difference is about two to one. Prescription drugs and medical goods are $1,635 (US) vs. $944 (others). Inpatient and outpatient spending (the largest individual category), on the other hand is $7,500 (US) vs. $2,969 (others).

020