i am going to.

for the first time, they deleted donald trump's post about children and covid-19 due to false claim.

judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

dalai lama

malicious.

the first european to set foot in north america in about 1000 ce.

a platform where a gazillion series and movies can be found. of course not available out of the usa.

philosophy is interested in questions instead of answers.

the first modern novel of the west.

stock market manipulation can take many forms—such as artificially fixing prices higher or lower—with the aim of interfering with the market for personal gain.

a trader can manipulate the market by processing a lot of small sell orders in an attept to drive down the price of a share. this can cause other shareholders to panic and sell their shares, sending the price down even further. conversely, a lot of small buy orders may push up a share price to convince other investors that good news is about to be announced. market manipulation is highly unethical but not always illegal.

posting negative or positive information investors often like to discuss shares they own or are thinking of buying with other like-minded individuals on bulletin boards and investment forums. these can be a good source of investment ideas but they can also be used by unscrupulous traders who post negative or positive information to inflate or deflate prices.

(see: libor scandal)

am i right?

an american newspaper that has not published a single positive article about vladimir putin since 2014. (according to vladimir pozner jr.)

an oxymoron is a playful paradox, wrapping contradiction in a cozy embrace. it's like a linguistic gymnast, bending together words that don't seem to fit, yet somehow they perform harmoniously. think of it as a verbal yin and yang, where opposites not only attract but dance cheek to cheek.

a few examples:

deafening silence – when the quiet is so overpowering, you can almost hear it.
bittersweet – like the last bite of chocolate as a favorite movie ends, it's joy laced with sadness.
jumbo shrimp – a tiny giant of the sea, small in size but big on name.
seriously funny – laughing till it hurts, because it's that hilarious.
awfully pretty – striking beauty that surprises, more than just pleasing to the eye.

each oxymoron brings together two contradictory elements that, against all odds, end up making perfect sense.

elon musk’s twitter takeover was one wild ride! it all started back in april 2022 when musk revealed he’d bought a 9.2% stake in twitter, making him the largest shareholder. people were shocked, wondering what his plan was. soon after, twitter’s ceo announced musk would join the board, but then, in true musk fashion, he changed his mind and decided not to join. this left everyone guessing his next move.

not long after, musk dropped a bombshell by offering to buy twitter outright for $54.20 per share, valuing the company at about $44 billion. he said twitter needed to go private to become a true platform for free speech. to fund this massive deal, musk planned to use $21 billion of his own money and got banks to pitch in with $25.5 billion in loans.

twitter’s board wasn’t too keen on this idea initially and put up a “poison pill” defense to stop musk from easily taking over. but as the days went by, they eventually caved in and accepted his offer, probably because the shareholders liked the 38% premium on their shares.

then things started getting messy. musk suddenly announced that the deal was “on hold” because he was worried about the number of fake accounts on twitter. this threw the whole deal into doubt, and some people thought musk was just looking for an excuse to get out or lower the price.

things escalated when musk said he wanted to pull out of the deal, claiming twitter wasn’t being transparent about the number of bots. twitter wasn’t having any of it and took him to court in delaware to force him to go through with the buyout.

just as they were gearing up for a big court battle in october, musk did another 180. he decided to go ahead with the purchase at the original price. by the end of october 2022, the deal was done. musk took over twitter, fired top execs like the ceo and cfo, and immediately started making big changes. he laid off about half the workforce, relaxed some content moderation rules, and even hinted at turning twitter into an “everything app” called x.

now, with a massive debt to handle and some big changes to twitter’s direction, the platform is in a pretty uncertain spot. musk’s moves have made waves, and it’s still unclear where he’ll take twitter (now x) next. it’s been a rollercoaster, and the ride isn’t over yet!

this book explains, to a large extent, why some societies thrive while others don’t—when combined with average intelligence levels. but why isn’t intelligence alone enough? let me break it down:

we’re all familiar with south and north korea. south korea is incredibly advanced, constantly innovating, producing high-tech goods, and getting wealthier by the day. the country’s per capita income is more than 20 times that of north korea. in fact, due to the poverty and hunger in the north, south koreans are taller and live longer than their northern neighbors. north korea, on the other hand, can’t even feed its people without foreign aid, let alone produce technology.

the reason behind all this is what acemoglu describes as “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions. south korea has inclusive institutions, while north korea is stuck with extractive ones. as a result, while the south is advancing into space, the north is struggling with famine.

but there’s an important point we need to consider: the average iq levels in these two countries. despite north korea’s backwardness and hardships, their average iq is pretty close to that of south koreans. in fact, south koreans have some of the highest average iq levels in the world.

so what does this mean? it means that even after 50+ years of oppressive extractive institutions, north koreans still have an average iq of around 105, just like their neighbors in the south. if north korea’s extractive institutions were to collapse tomorrow (say, north korea reunites with the south), north koreans would likely become just as wealthy, innovative, and successful as south koreans in a short period of time.

this is where the importance of north koreans’ iq comes in. the moment they break free from their extractive system, they have the potential to become one of the most advanced nations in the world. meanwhile, many countries in latin america or eastern europe that are governed by inclusive institutions haven’t reached south korea’s level of development. this is where the average intelligence of a society plays a role.

take brazil, for instance. despite having inclusive institutions like south korea, brazil’s average iq is around 90, not 105 like south korea. that’s why brazil isn’t able to reach the same level of development. so, while inclusive and extractive institutions are key factors in a nation’s growth, average intelligence levels are equally important.

this means that even if countries like brazil have inclusive institutions, they won’t reach south korea’s level of development unless their average iq rises to similar levels. on the other hand, since north korea has high average intelligence, the moment they switch from extractive to inclusive institutions, they’ll skyrocket to south korea’s level.

of course, establishing inclusive institutions requires a certain level of intelligence. the elites who run extractive systems never want to share power, so it’s up to the people to pressure the elites and force them to create inclusive institutions. but for that to happen, the population needs to be aware and capable of demanding change. while some countries in latin america have managed to do this, north koreans haven’t—likely because of east asia’s ultra-conservative, community-over-individual culture.

this conservative, non-individualistic culture stifles creativity in east asia. a simple example is the apple vs. samsung rivalry. apple, a product of western culture, innovates and changes the world, while samsung takes what apple creates and optimizes it. sure, samsung might beat apple with optimized products, but they’ll never make world-changing innovations like apple does. and that’s because of east asia’s conservative culture. could this be linked to genetics? maybe, but research in this area is still too new to draw any firm conclusions.
(see: daron acemoglu)

will be my new title soon.