regnull

A plugin for Claude Code and Claude Desktop that predicts political events using Kalshi prediction markets.

Claudshi connects to Kalshi via the kalshi-mcp MCP server to scan markets, analyze political events, estimate probabilities, place bets on mispriced markets, and monitor open positions.

OPH is a reconstruction program for fundamental physics. Spacetime, gauge structure, particles, records, and observer synchronization are treated as consequences of the OPH package rooted in overlap consistency on a finite holographic screen, together with the explicit branch premises stated in the papers.

Ok, bear with me for a moment - what if the US would use actual physical gold coins instead of dollars? Then your argument of "gold would flow out" would not hold - so the only reason for it to flow out was that the gold standard was fake - the lax money policy of the US was the issue, not the gold standard itself.

It’s a good start

The subject appears to be a single individual of medium to stocky build. Based on proportions relative to the archway and Nest doorbell mount height, the individual is estimated at approximately 5’8” to 6’0” tall. Their build is medium to heavy-set, with solid shoulders and torso. The overall physique and movement patterns suggest a male or masculine-presenting adult, likely between 20–45 years of age.

Guys, yesterday I spent some time convincing an LLM model from a leading provider that 2 cards plus 2 cards is 4 cards which is one short of a flush. I think we are not too close to a singularity, as it stands.

Plain crypto, traded on coinbase

I'm working on a project where you can run your own experiment (or use it for real trading): https://portfoliogenius.ai. Still a bit rough, but most of the main functionality works.

These product might be great, but seriously, who's choosing those names? Trainium, Inferentia? It's like let's just take the words from what they do, and put a little Latin twist on them? I know naming things is one of the great problems in computer science, but really they could come up with something a little better.

Just to be fair, they compare every congressperson who becomes a leader with a “regular” (non-leader) congressperson who entered Congress in the same year and is from the same political party. Alternative view: people who becomes leaders are just more capable and better at selecting stocks?

While the desire itself is subjective, the question "how many people would like to visit the country X out of a million" is objective.

Here's my attempt (ChatGPT deep research). Each country is weighted by a factor derived from the tourism data:

https://chatgpt.com/share/68f00ad0-a9fc-800e-abac-584703b92a...

And the results:

Tier 1 — Global Leaders (Scores 98–100)

Singapore — 100

Germany — 99

France — 99

Italy — 99

Spain — 99

Japan — 99

South Korea — 99

Switzerland — 98

Finland — 98

Sweden — 98

Denmark — 98

Netherlands — 98

Norway — 98

Belgium — 98

Austria — 98

Ireland — 98

Portugal — 98

Greece — 98

Luxembourg — 98

Hungary — 98

Malta — 98

Liechtenstein — 98

Tier 2 — High Mobility with Minor Gaps (Scores 94–97)

Poland — 97

United Arab Emirates — 96

United States — 95

United Kingdom — 94

Canada — 94

Australia — 93

New Zealand — 93

Tier 3 — Strong Regional Power Passports (Scores 85–93)

Czech Republic — 92

Iceland — 92

Slovenia — 91

Estonia — 90

Latvia — 89

Lithuania — 89

Slovakia — 88

Chile — 87

Malaysia — 87

Israel — 86

I wish there was an index where not all countries are weighted equally, but according to their desirability. Multiply each country by some factor which is defined by how many people would list it as their desirable destination. The index where France and Tuvalu are both counted equally makes no sense to me, with all due respect to the latter.

For the full context, it looks like Henley & Partners is providing services like obtaining second citizenship, so it's in their best interest to highlight the US passport "decline". Further down they say "Americans Lead Global Rush for Second Citizenships", which just happens to be the thing they are selling.

AI portfolio manager: https://portfoliogenius.ai

Funny thing is, the advisor started to tell me to sell last week, and so I did. Then last Friday happened. Interesting.

When you say "science", you need to distinguish between science as philosophy vs. science as an institution. Science as philosophy is a way of thinking - an attempt to understand knowledge and reality. The science as an institution on the other hand has all the imperfections as any other institution, since the people in charge are driven by self interest and not just the search for the truth. So, when you say the people distrust science, it seems bizarre that they doubt science as philosophy, while in fact they doubt the institution. It's perfectly fine to mistrust the institution. If you want to consider a few failures, just in the recent years, I have some for you:

- Hungarian-born biochemist Katalin Karikó, who developed the key mRNA modification that enabled effective COVID-19 vaccines, was repeatedly denied grants and demoted during her career. She and her collaborator, Drew Weissman, struggled for years to gain recognition and funding for their work [1]

- On the other hand, the Wuhan Institute of Virology had no trouble getting grants from NIH [2]

- Surgeon General Jerome Adams was saying that masks are not effective against Covid [3]

- Social distancing was of supreme importance, until it turned out that it's fine not to distance if it's for a good cause [4]

[1] https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/01/kariko-problem-lessons-f...

[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1701

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/01/8862991...

[4] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...

The Russian exercise was named Caucasus 2008 and units of the North Caucasus Military District, including the 58th Army, took part. The exercise included training to aid peacekeeping forces stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.[135] During exercises, a pamphlet named "Soldier! Know your probable enemy!" was circulated among the Russian soldiers. The pamphlet described the Georgian Armed Forces.[136] Russian troops stayed near the border with Georgia after the end of their exercise on 2 August, instead of going back to their barracks.[113] Later, Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University, described the Russian exercise as "exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later [...] a complete dress rehearsal."[134]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

what a coincidence. Georgia started the war just after the "exercises" where russia rehearsed just that war.

I am a bit of a checklist nerd, so I wrote a web app do to checklists: https://checkoff.ai

As it is fashionable these days, it can create checklists with AI ("Fun things to do in Pittsburg"), you can create checklists from templates (some stuff you do every day), etc.

I also have an MCP server that allows you to plug it into your favorite LLM.

Fun fact: you can visit his cave in Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, Westchester county. Interesting place. Not many people around. You can sit in the cave and try to imagine the life he lived.

"What I find funny about cos() and sin()— and also why I think there is confusion around them — is the many ways we can describe them. We don’t have to look too hard. A quick glance at this Wikipedia page has an eye-watering number of super nuanced definitions."

I don't even know how to begin parsing this sentence.

If, after Russia attacked Georgia and Ukraine in Crimea and Donbas, Germany has decided to team up and provide Russia with a steady stream of cash in exchange for gas, it's on Germany. It can't go all surprised Pickachu when the pipeline suddenly blows up.

Good. It should’ve never existed. I hope whoever is responsible for its untimely demise gets a medal.

Electrify America is great.

To be fair, non-Tesla networks are catching up. I moved from Tesla to BMW i4 (I had a quite significant disagreement with Elon when it comes to international politics), and I was worried about finding non-Tesla charges. I took a few long distance trips so far (US Northeast), and I had zero problems. Plus, if you are lucky, you get 2 year free charging from BMW, and they've enabled plug-and-charge recently. So, you just plugin, charge and drive away, mostly for free. Not bad.

I agree that the context is important. However, there is still a problem here:

- The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context. - If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?

What does it have to do with the substance of the comment?

I always thought that this story is probably more nuanced, and indeed it is:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kodak-digital-camera-inven...

In particular:

"While this may have been a motivating factor to some at Kodak, such concerns did not stop Kodak — or even Sasson — from further developing digital cameras and making several technical developments that led to Kodak's first publicly available digital camera in 1991, the Digital Camera System."

I was also frustrated with the current app offerings, so I wrote my own. Feel free to try: https://checkoff.ai

It’s a generic argument that can be applied to a whole class of claims. I see smart people falling into this trap all the time. Someone is making a claim by presenting a series of steps that seem quite reasonable. You then are left in a position where you can either: a) accept the overall conclusion, or b) attack the individual reasoning steps. All I’m doing is pointing out a possibility that your reasoning steps can be entirely plausible while your conclusion is completely wrong.

I think this argument suffers from the same problem as many arguments of similar kind. It goes like this: if A then B. If B then C. If C then D. It all makes sense. Every single one of these steps makes sense. Except, if you have a chain with five steps and every one of them has a 90% likelihood, the whole chain has only 60% likelihood. And it’s probably less the 90% for each step, in reality. So, you can come up with an entirely plausible reasoning chain, where each step is highly likely to come true, and yet be completely wrong with your overall conclusion.