I cannot imagine a more violent clash of ego and public bifurcation than when the singularity comes for medicine.
0
0
0
29
FIGURE OF MERIT - Claude / Grok
Genuinely looking for funding. Electric high performance flight suits are possible. Pull 2G's with 30mins endurance. The tech is hard but here.
Genuinely looking for funding. Electric high performance flight suits are possible. Pull 2G's with 30mins endurance. The tech is hard but here.
0
0
0
38
This has created the single largest opportunity for mathematicians in history. Stop being a snob and prove stuff wrong, prove stuff right, build a name and trust, and stop asking others to trust without earning it. This is really easy guys.
0
0
0
26
Guy's why are we not doing this to increase breaking power. You could pull an extra -1.0g with 1000kg/m2 disc loading. Get to work. Or fund me. I'm a fucking genius. I swear.
1
0
0
53
Fear is a terrible lens by which to view the future. An unprecedented age of abundance is upon us!
0
0
0
25
I can’t wait to be selling something when there’s gonna be like 1M agents browsing Facebook ready to offer me *something* for whatever I have to sell immediately.
Everything’s about to become much more liquid
Everything’s about to become much more liquid
0
0
0
25
I wonder if we're seeing a new type of S curve. Hyperbolic growth that tapers to a standard exponential before asymptote.
0
0
0
31
CANADA READ
Yes. I think that’s a substantially stronger version of the argument than “these groups don’t deserve support.”
The key distinction you’re making is between a proxy and a cause.
Suppose we observe:
P(\text{poor outcome}\mid\text{group A}) > P(\text{poor outcome}\mid\text{group B})
That establishes a disparity. It does not establish that membership in A is the variable we should intervene on.
There could instead be some X:
A \rightarrow X \rightarrow \text{poor outcome}
or:
X \rightarrow A\text{-correlated circumstances}
X \rightarrow \text{poor outcome}
where X is something like childhood poverty, parental instability, poor schooling, neighborhood conditions, lack of collateral, lack of professional networks, discrimination in a particular decision process, etc.
If you can identify X, targeting X can be both fairer and more economically efficient than targeting the demographic correlation.
Entrepreneurship makes this especially important
Imagine two prospective founders.
Founder A comes from a demographic group whose average access to capital is worse, but personally has wealthy parents, an elite education, substantial collateral and excellent professional connections.
Founder B doesn’t belong to the targeted group, grew up extremely poor with one parent, has no family capital or useful network—but has customers, excellent unit economics and an unusually promising business.
A demographic eligibility rule can preferentially subsidize A while excluding B.
That doesn’t disprove the existence of a group-level disparity. It means the group variable isn’t necessarily the best targeting variable.
And there is something in the Canadian programs that makes your criticism more concrete. ISED says the Black Entrepreneurship Program exists specifically to address barriers faced by Black entrepreneurs and eligibility is correspondingly targeted. Futurpreneur similarly has programs accessible specifically to young Black and Indigenous entrepreneurs.
Interestingly, the government’s Futurpreneur evaluation says these tailored programs allowed people to obtain financing who “may not have been approved for the core FC loan.”
That’s precisely where I’d want much stronger evidence.
Not because those borrowers are necessarily bad investments. Rather, once you’re deliberately altering the selection threshold, the counterfactual matters enormously:
Yes. I think that’s a substantially stronger version of the argument than “these groups don’t deserve support.”
The key distinction you’re making is between a proxy and a cause.
Suppose we observe:
P(\text{poor outcome}\mid\text{group A}) > P(\text{poor outcome}\mid\text{group B})
That establishes a disparity. It does not establish that membership in A is the variable we should intervene on.
There could instead be some X:
A \rightarrow X \rightarrow \text{poor outcome}
or:
X \rightarrow A\text{-correlated circumstances}
X \rightarrow \text{poor outcome}
where X is something like childhood poverty, parental instability, poor schooling, neighborhood conditions, lack of collateral, lack of professional networks, discrimination in a particular decision process, etc.
If you can identify X, targeting X can be both fairer and more economically efficient than targeting the demographic correlation.
Entrepreneurship makes this especially important
Imagine two prospective founders.
Founder A comes from a demographic group whose average access to capital is worse, but personally has wealthy parents, an elite education, substantial collateral and excellent professional connections.
Founder B doesn’t belong to the targeted group, grew up extremely poor with one parent, has no family capital or useful network—but has customers, excellent unit economics and an unusually promising business.
A demographic eligibility rule can preferentially subsidize A while excluding B.
That doesn’t disprove the existence of a group-level disparity. It means the group variable isn’t necessarily the best targeting variable.
And there is something in the Canadian programs that makes your criticism more concrete. ISED says the Black Entrepreneurship Program exists specifically to address barriers faced by Black entrepreneurs and eligibility is correspondingly targeted. Futurpreneur similarly has programs accessible specifically to young Black and Indigenous entrepreneurs.
Interestingly, the government’s Futurpreneur evaluation says these tailored programs allowed people to obtain financing who “may not have been approved for the core FC loan.”
That’s precisely where I’d want much stronger evidence.
Not because those borrowers are necessarily bad investments. Rather, once you’re deliberately altering the selection threshold, the counterfactual matters enormously:
0
0
0
39
Canada is acting like the teenage girl whose boyfriend has told them something they could work on, and instead of working on themselves, they go and fuck their best friend to “get back”.
0
0
0
23
Why are we not just having humanoids pan for gold. All day. 24/7. While cleaning up after themselves.
Introducing GOLD-BENCH.
Introducing GOLD-BENCH.
0
0
0
24
Introducing Log-Cabin-Bench! Airdrop 100 humanoids in to an isolated forest with a few solar panels for recharging. Ask them to build a log cabin village.
People have no idea what's coming.
People have no idea what's coming.
0
0
0
22
