🦔KPMG published a report in October about how businesses are adopting AI and filled it with case studies of major organizations. UBS, the NHS, Swiss Federal Railways, and Transport for London all appeared in the report. Every one of them said the claims about their AI use were wrong. GPTZero found the errors and identified them as hallucinations. KPMG pulled the report. A month earlier, EY retracted a separate AI study over fabricated footnotes. My Take A Big Four consulting firm used AI to write a report about how well AI works, and the AI invented the evidence. The companies named in the report went public to say none of it was true. A month earlier, EY published a study with fake footnotes and had to retract that too. Two of the most expensive advisory firms on earth published AI-generated work this year without verifying whether any of it was accurate. These are the firms Fortune 500 companies hire to tell them how to adopt AI. The firms that advise everyone else on AI adoption can't verify the output of their own AI tools. Hedgie🤗

🚨 The government made their own devices 100% invisible, so they can force yours to be 100% transparent. Did you know this? 🚨 They dodge the laws they force on you. On us. The people! Do not take this lightly. Every MP is exempt. Every Lord is exempt. Every elite civil servant is exempt. EVERY PARASITE IS EXEMPT! They force the laws on us. They legally shield themselves. Total public surveillance. Total state secrecy. Absolute parasite immunity. The well-funded, ‘professional’ campaigns wrap this up in polite, Ofcom-palatable jargon… we need to stop playing nice and call this brutal hypocrisy exactly what it is: a legal coup against our privacy. If you complain about the length of this post or a 8-minute video, you are part of the problem. No filters and no apologies. Wake up or get out of the way. 🚨 RULES FOR THEE, PRIVACY FOR ME: What you NEED to know! The UK has engineered a digital dictatorship. They demand total transparency from you, while securing absolute secrecy for themselves. This is not a theory. It is written directly into hard law. Here is the brutal, stripped-down truth of how the political parasites legally insulated themselves from the surveillance panopticon they are forcing onto the public. 1. The Divine Right of MPs The Law: Section 26, Investigatory Powers Act 2016 The Privilege: Intelligence agencies cannot touch an MP’s data without a personal, written veto from the Prime Minister. The Tyranny: Your life is subjected to automated bulk surveillance. Theirs is legally untouchable. 2. The Private Internet Loophole The Law: Schedule 1, Online Safety Act 2023 The Privilege: Official networks used by Ministers, Lords, and civil servants are explicitly exempt from client-side phone scanning. The Tyranny: Your personal WhatsApp must be stripped of privacy and screened. Their government-shielded apps are completely walled off. 3. The Unchecked Dictator Veto The Law: The "Henry VIII" Clauses in the Online Safety Act The Privilege: Ministers hold secondary legislative powers to alter and expand exemptions via Statutory Instruments. The Tyranny: If parasite official ever faces a surveillance clause, they can simply rewrite the law behind closed doors without a democratic vote. 4. The Weaponised Wilson Doctrine The Law: Codified Parliamentary Surveillance Protections The Privilege: The police and security services are completely banned from tracking, tapping, or snooping on politicians. The Tyranny: The very individuals voting to turn your smartphone into an informant are constitutionally protected from ever experiencing the consequences of their own votes. 💥 THE VERDICT This is the textbook definition of tyranny. A free society requires a transparent state and private citizens. The UK has completely inverted it. Your private thoughts, messages, and photos are treated as state property, while the parasites have declared their own devices sacred, unmonitored, and completely opaque. They know exactly how dangerous this technology is - which is precisely why they wrote themselves out of it. 📱 Step 1: The Secret Tunnel (The State VPN) When an MP, Minister, or elite civil servant works from home, they do not use standard family Wi-Fi. Their government laptops and phones are hard-coded to connect to a secure Government VPN (Virtual Private Network). 🔒 Step 2: The Legal Loophole Activates The second that VPN clicks on, every single text, photo, and WhatsApp message they send is sucked out of their house and routed through private servers owned by Parliament. Because their data is now flowing through a "public body network," it triggers Schedule 1 of the Online Safety Act. 🕵️‍♂️ Step 3: Complete Invisibility By law, this private state network is 100% exempt from the screening and scanning algorithms forced onto the public. Their devices instantly become legally invisible and untouchable to the state dragnet. 💥 The Naked Truth Your Home: Your personal Wi-Fi pushes your private messages into a public commercial pipeline where the government demands it be scanned and screened. Their Home: Their Wi-Fi instantly flips into a secure, state-shielded fortress. Location does not matter. The ruling class built a private internet for themselves, using a legal and technical bypass to completely dodge the digital panopticon they are forcing onto you. FYI: From 2020, when Civil Servants and MP’s worked from home, the Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) mass-distributed pre-configured laptops, secure mobile devices, and hardware to the home addresses of every MP, Peer, and civil servant. They did not need to install private physical servers in individual houses because the devices themselves act as portable endpoints for the state's centralised servers… then, Government IT teams rapidly re-engineered their servers to handle the strain, massive scaling their corporate VPN capability. This allowed every single person in the state machine to plug their official laptop into their home Wi-Fi, click a button, and completely tunnel their traffic back into secure, centralized government servers. So, what shall we do folks!? New MNC (link in bio) campaign to begin VERY soon! But ideas welcome.

Interesting.

I just finished watching *Off Campus*, and it sparked a deep, uncomfortable realization in me about what we’ve been blindly consuming for the last decade. If you pay close attention, right around 2013, a switch flipped in Hollywood's writing rooms. There has been a deliberate, systematic agenda to completely emasculate the modern male lead while aggressively romanticizing female toxicity, and we have all just sat back and watched it happen. Let’s talk about the most glaring double standard of all: infidelity. If a male character cheats in a modern movie or show, the narrative immediately crushes him. He is the ultimate villain, a manipulative narcissist, and his entire life is rightfully dismantled by the end of the script. But when a female lead cheats? The tone completely changes. Cue the indie pop music. Suddenly, her infidelity is framed as a "messy era," a "cute mistake," or a brave journey of self-discovery. Even worse, the writers actively gaslight the audience into blaming the man she cheated on. The script will bend over backwards to justify her disloyalty by portraying the boyfriend as "emotionally unavailable," "too focused on his job," or simply "too boring." They literally train women to believe that if a man isn't perfectly catering to her every emotional whim 24/7, stepping outside the relationship is a perfectly valid, empowered response. And look at how they write "strong" women now. Hollywood has completely forgotten how to write a genuinely resilient, intelligent, and elegant female lead. Instead, their idea of a "boss" is a woman who is incredibly rude, emotionally dysregulated, and highly combative. She speaks to the men in her life with absolute venom, never takes accountability, and acts like a literal child when she is told 'no.' Yet, the script demands we applaud her for her "confidence." Meanwhile, what happens to the men in these shows? They have been entirely stripped of their backbone. They are no longer written as protectors, leaders, or men with actual boundaries. They are written as hyper-apologetic doormats. If the female lead disrespects him publicly, embarrasses him in front of his friends, or destroys his property, the modern male character doesn't walk away. Instead, he shows up at her apartment in the rain the next morning to apologize for "triggering" her. He is a glorified simp whose only purpose in the story is to absorb her terrible behavior and validate her chaos. The most dangerous part about this is the real-world translation. Art imitates life, but life also imitates art. We have an entire generation of young men and women who grew up internalizing this garbage. We now have a demographic of women who genuinely believe that taking zero accountability is a personality trait, and that any man who demands basic respect is "controlling." On the flip side, we have men who are absolutely terrified to set a boundary in their relationships because a decade of media conditioning taught them that standing up for their own dignity makes them "toxic." They aren't writing romance anymore. They are writing thinly veiled revenge fantasies that normalize absolute disrespect. Until we stop calling female toxicity "empowerment" and male weakness "romantic," the dating pool is going to stay exactly as broken as the movies designed it to be.

A Wharton economist ran a randomized controlled trial on almost a thousand high school students in Turkey. The result was so brutal for the AI-in-education narrative that it had to be peer-reviewed by PNAS before people would believe it. Her name is Hamsa Bastani. She teaches operations and information at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the study she published in 2025 alongside her co-authors is one of the cleanest experiments anyone has run on what AI actually does to learning when you remove it from the equation and check what is left. The setup was a randomized controlled trial, the same methodology used in clinical drug trials. Nearly a thousand high school math students in Turkey were split into three groups and put through four sessions of ninety minutes each. One group practiced with GPT Base, a standard ChatGPT-4 interface that could answer any question directly. One group practiced with GPT Tutor, a version of the same model that had been prompted to guide students with hints rather than hand them the answer. One group practiced with nothing but their textbook and their own head. During the practice sessions, the AI groups looked like a miracle. The GPT Base group solved 48% more problems than the students working alone. The GPT Tutor group solved 127% more. Every administrator looking at those numbers would have written a press release about the transformative power of AI in education and moved on. Then the actual exam came, and AI was not allowed. The students who had practiced with GPT Base scored 17% worse than the students who had practiced alone. Seventeen percent worse, despite having solved nearly half again as many problems in the sessions leading up to it. The students who had struggled the most, who had sat with the confusion and worked through it without a tool to rescue them, were now the only ones who could actually do the math when it counted. Bastani's team read through the chat logs to understand what had actually been happening during the practice sessions, and the answer was exactly what the exam results had already implied. The GPT Base group had not been learning. They had been extracting answers and moving on, and every moment that felt like understanding was actually the model doing the cognitive work while the student's brain waited for the next problem to arrive. The paper describes it precisely: without guardrails, students attempt to use GPT-4 as a crutch during practice, and subsequently perform worse on their own. The detail that should follow every conversation about AI in education is the one buried in the post-test survey results. The students who had relied on AI the most during practice were also the most confident they had understood the material. The tool had not just failed to teach them. It had convinced them they had learned something they had not, which is a different kind of failure entirely and a much harder one to correct because the student has no idea it is happening. The crutch had made them confident and weak at the same time.

This is really bad. But when the backlash comes it will hit like a tidal wave.

Excellent post @RollingHedge UK wasting billions on "projects" that don't go anywhere. Incompetence is staggering. But other European countries can pull it off. IMO, the rot starts in the contempt for domain expertise (engineering, finance etc), in favour of "liberal arts".

RT @HealthRanger: GLOBAL IMPACTS OF TRUMP'S WAR ON IRAN AND NEW BLOCKADE: Here's what Trump is setting into motion for America, while his r…

AI will also create new jobs, but my guess is that in the short term, it will be less than 10% of the jobs destroyed.

Japan is leading the way in protecting children's health by targeting a complete elimination of processed foods and artificial additives from school cafeterias. The country is spearheading a global movement toward superior nutrition by removing all processed and ultra-processed items from school menus. In their place, students now enjoy fresh, traditional, seasonal Japanese dishes prepared daily from scratch—emphasizing whole, natural ingredients over convenience foods. This is far more than just a dietary change; it's a comprehensive national strategy to educate the next generation about the true value of balanced, wholesome nutrition. By prioritizing quality over quick fixes, Japan is cultivating lifelong healthy eating habits that start right in the school cafeteria. Japan's dedication to food purity extends well beyond schools. The nation enforces some of the world's strictest regulations on food additives, preservatives, and chemical colorings—many of which are common in Western processed snacks and beverages. International brands must reformulate products like cereals, candies, and soft drinks to comply with these rigorous standards. Additionally, Japan maintains tight controls on food imports, including strict bans or high certification requirements for meat products and a strong emphasis on the JAS organic label. These measures protect against diseases, industrial contaminants, and unsafe practices, reinforcing Japan's global reputation for having among the highest food safety and quality standards worldwide. [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. School Lunch Program and Nutrition Education in Japan. Government of Japan Publication]

Richard Werner, formerly on the ECB's "Shadow Council": "[With] total digital control... it's not just transactions, it's also assets... They want to add everything—natural assets, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the oceans, everything... [and they want to] put monetary terms [on] nature, calculating, where possible, monetary value to the benefits produced by natural assets. And this will support, they say, prioritization. In other words, some people will get access, others not. And the criteria, well, they can be made up." This clip of Werner (@scientificecon), who holds a First Class Honors BSc. in Economics from the London School of Economics and a doctorate in Economics from the University of Oxford, is taken from a Make Europe Healthy Again (MEHA) initiative event held at the EU Parliament in Brussels posted to the Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) Rumble channel on March 4, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "What is this? This is actually the fallback plan B route to impose digital ID and total digital control of all our transactions in case things don't work out so well with plan A. "So we have to be aware that plan A is central bank digital currency that are programmable. The power to create and allocate new money which would give this to the central bank and therefore also transfer fiscal powers. The only sort of remaining power in the hands of parliaments, which is one of the definitions of democracy, for parliaments to decide over budgets. "Obviously, you know, we're not in the parliament here because that's not, you know, that's not the democratic parliament when you don't have those powers. But they want to take them away from those parliaments in Europe that have those powers. The central planners want to take that job. "So it's the transactions. And here, of course, what is the programmability? Well, there's the infrastructure being created. It could be anything. It could be climate change, carbon footprint, that could be the principle, but it can be other principles. Do you support the war? Are you on the right side with your opinion on whatever currently is, countries we're making war on? It, could be anything. Could be you're stepping outside a 15-minute city and so your money perhaps shouldn't work. "But it's not just transactions, it's also assets. And this gets pretty scary here, I think. The Bank for International Settlements, the central banks' central bank, originally created, like most central banks, is a privately owned institution. But extraterritorial created the precedent for extraterritorial organization that is above countries, outside countries. So, it's sort of in Switzerland, but it's not actually in Switzerland, in Basel. "[It] has suggested that, well, we need to tokenize everything, all assets and bank deposit, bank money, central bank money, as well as other assets. And there needs to be seamless integration of all this and programmability in one platform, we are told. "So what are these other assets? It turns out we already have national organizations that are currently compiling asset registers. And you think, okay, that's financial assets, perhaps add land, well, you can add quite a lot. They want to add everything. Natural assets, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the oceans, everything. "Now why is this? Tolstoy wrote a good, piece on this, when he criticized economists for only having land, labor, capital, and the production function. Why is the air not in there, the energy, the sun? Well, because they haven't figured out how to control access and charge for it. "[But] that's what's happening with digital ID. They now are able to do this, and now they want to do it. As we hear from World Economic Forum agenda contributor Lindsay Hooper at Sustainability Institute in Cambridge, we need to bring nature onto the balance sheet, allocate a value to it and bring it into the accounting and financial mechanism. "Well, and of course, there's various agencies in the US, in the UK, in Europe, in many countries already doing this for nature, and they're digitalizing it now. A natural capital register, the value, the quantity, and the quality of natural resources in one place. "Now this agency in the UK says, well, there's some critics that suggest we're trying to put a price tag on nature. It's important to understand that this is not the intention of natural capital accounts. Of course not, because the intention is to control access to nature and charge for it. "And they themselves go on. Well, actually, what we're going to do is put monetary terms to nature, calculating, where possible, monetary value to the benefits produced by natural assets. And this will support, they say, prioritization. In other words, some people will get access, others not. And the criteria, well, they can be made up."

When I was in “Women’s and Gender Studies” in college, we spent a lot of time talking about “systems,” “the patriarchy” and all these hidden structures supposedly shaping women’s lives in the West I entertained a lot of those ideas back then and I was trying my best to understand the frameworks they were teaching But the one place I never gave them an inch on was women in the Middle East Every time someone would say “that’s just their culture” something in me short-circuited. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn’t reconcile it We were told American women were oppressed because of wage gaps or subtle social expectations, but when the conversation turned to women who could be punished by the state for showing their hair, suddenly we were supposed to become culturally sensitive (some of these lunatics even romanticized it!) My professors used to get irritated with me when that topic came up bc they knew I wasn’t going to play along and my pushback would cause a rift in their narrative They didn't like it when I pointed out the hypocrisy of calling Western women oppressed while treating literal legal restrictions on women’s bodies as a cultural difference One of my professors even had a running joke she'd use to preface discussions on Islam—she'd do this smug smirk and say something to the effect of “we all know Stepfanie's take on Islam” as if I was the ridiculous one Looking back, I wish I had the language and wit to verbally obliterate her but I was 22 and simply did not have the intellectual capacity yet. I didn't know the first thing about geopolitics, I just knew in my bones how fucking stupid it sounded to be bitching about making 20 cents less than men when women in the Middle East were being stoned to death for showing their hair Even back then, before my politics changed, that contradiction never sat right with me. And it's one of the many reasons I despise so-called feminists so much today

Who is surprised. Meta!

I'm sometimes asked to spell out my research agenda in "Scientific Economics". OK, here goes: Economic performance, institutions and credit power (EPIC) Modern economics predominantly follows the deductive methodology of posing axioms and adding assumptions, which was originally introduced by City of London financier David Ricardo in the 19th century and advanced by him by financing other economists, such as John Stewart Mill. Other bankers funded later followers. The approach impresses with consistent logic – mathematics being pure logic. However, the track record of deductive economics has been disappointing: While other disciplines, including in the social sciences, have made great strides, economists now admit that modern deductive economics has essentially made no progress (Nakamura and Steinsson, 2018, JEP, 32 (3): 59). It is recognised in this EPIC research agenda that this is due to the restrictive environment of the deductive methodology: Logic can only indicate theoretical possibilities. Reality must be discovered by observing data, which is what the inductive methodology does, dominant in the natural sciences. By contrast, the EPIC research program maintains that there is no good reason why the inductive methodology, dominant and highly successful in the natural sciences (and also known as the ‘scientific methodology’), can not also be applied to economics. Inductive or 'scientific economics', adopted by EPIC researchers, means that models, theorems and theories all need to be based on empirical evidence. Consequently, a different economics emerges that recognises pervasive disequilbrium and quantity-rationing in all markets, which re-introduces the power dimenstion to economics (resulting in a revival of the discipline of political economy: in rationed markets the short-side principle applies, and the short side has the power to pick and choose with who to trade). Another central aspect of EPIC economics are institutions, often established by historical quirks. Applied to financial markets, this approach recognises banks as key power centres, due to their empirically established (while theoretically denied) role as creators of credit in a supply-rationed market for purchasing power. The EPIC research agenda is all-encompassing and applicable to any economic phenomenon, although there is an initial emphasis on macroeconomic aspects and, on the microeconomic level, the intentional design of incentive structures to shape outcomes, including in corporate HRM systems. Applications include the recognition of the central pillars of the successful East Asian High Growth System, revisiting economic history during virtually any era and discovering new insights, as well as practical policy advice for governments, central banks and law-makers to improve economic performance and deliver prosperity for all, in a much more equitable manner than resulting from the failed deductive economics.

We are not in a transition. We are in a rupture. Those were the words of Mark Carney, and for once, a central banker is telling the unvarnished truth. The "rules-based international order" was always a convenient fiction, designed to serve the strongest until it didn't. But while everyone is panicking about Donald Trump's return or the chaos in the markets, almost no one is looking at the root cause. It isn't about tariffs. It isn't about left vs. right. It is about a decision made decades ago at Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White, an American bureaucrat (and likely Soviet spy), pushed through a system that made the US Dollar the global reserve currency. He thought it was a victory for American exceptionalism. In reality, it was a poison pill. By forcing the world to use the dollar, the US doomed its own manufacturing sector to be uncompetitive. It is the "curse of capitalist empires." You rely on your currency for power, your industry hollows out, and eventually, a rival nation with a strong manufacturing base rises up to take your place. Keynes tried to warn us. He proposed a neutral unit of account—the Bancor—that would have forced trade balance and prevented these massive global imbalances. We ignored him then. We are paying the price now. I've just released a deep dive into how this history is dictating our dangerous present and how a new system based on a neutral currency like the "Terra" could save us from a total collapse. P.S. If we don't fix the monetary plumbing, the political chaos will only get worse. Watch my solution in the first comment #Economy #History #Money #Politics

The banks are PISSING THEMSELVES. They’ve just realized that some autistic crypto startup in a WeWork with $20 million in T‑Bills and a React front-end is about to nuke the entire $17 trillion U.S. deposit base… …by offering 4.9% yield on a stablecoin while JPMorgan gives you 0.01% and a debit card that expires in two years. “BUT THAT’S NOT FAIR” – every bank lobbyist ever Now the banking system, this Godzilla made of soy, duct tape, and 11,000 physical branches, is whining to Congress like: “This isn’t fair! If people can earn yield on dollars outside the bank… they might leave the bank!” No shit. That’s the point. You locked everyone into a zero‑yield Ponzi for a decade while printing $7 trillion, and now you’re shocked people want out? What’s next, are you gonna sue water for being wet? This is a regulatory street fight between code and bureaucracy, between global liquidity that settles in five seconds and the rotting husk of Bretton Woods wearing a suit made of FDIC pamphlets. And guess what? The White House is hosting peace talks. Yes. Trump’s team just invited Circle and Coinbase to sit down with Jamie Dimon and tell him that the future of dollars may not involve Jamie Dimon. Can you imagine the mood in that meeting? “Hi Jamie, meet Brian from Circle. He tokenizes T-Bills with six engineers and a Discord server. He’s taking 3% of your deposits and none of your regulatory costs. Thoughts?” The reality is that every time one of these banks says “we’re concerned about financial stability,” what they mean is: “Please don’t let these crypto goblins disrupt our ability to harvest yield off the lower-middle class with 18% credit cards and 0% checking accounts.” They want protection rackets codified into law. Like “you can’t offer yield on stablecoins unless you’re a licensed bank,” aka: “We missed the boat, so let’s blow up the dock.” Banks can’t compete. Let’s model it: A bank: 11,000 branches, 75,000 tellers, legacy core systems from 1982, and a CFO who thinks Solana is a fish. Circle: 25 people, 100% T-Bill backing, 24/7 redemptions, yield streamed on-chain like Netflix. Now let me make this brutally simple... Who wins? The guys with marble lobbies or the protocol that turns dollars into yield-bearing bearer assets? The banks are playing defense against stablecoin yield... but what happens when it clicks that stablecoins are just a transition vector to full monetary exit? What happens when people use stablecoins to bootstrap into Bitcoin treasuries with self-custody? You go from “5% yield off Circle’s T-Bill stack” to “30% CAGR in purchasing power in a bearer asset that can’t be diluted and lives outside the IMF death loop.” That’s endgame stuff. The banks are scared of USDC USDT. Wait until every mom in Omaha is yield farming STRC dividends from their Roth IRAs using a Lightning app. We’re replacing the entire fiat architecture with a monetary black hole. reuters.com/sustainability/b…

India’s digital ID disaster is a warning to the world‼️ Over a billion people were forced into a biometric system linking food, pensions, and healthcare to a single digital ID. The result? A humanitarian crisis‼️ Criminals hacked and cloned identities, leaving families starving, elderly without pensions, and the sick turned away from hospitals‼️ In one state alone, two dozen people starved to death after being denied rations due to system failures. Millions of fake accounts siphoned funds meant for the poor, creating a black market for stolen identities‼️ Sold as “secure,” it became a tool for control and exploitation. When survival depends on a single ID, a glitch—or a hacker—can erase your access to life itself‼️ This isn’t progress. It’s a blueprint for dystopia‼️🙏👇

The crash everyone's talking about will be worse than 2008. And mainstream economists still can't see it coming. I predicted the 2008 financial crisis by watching one chart that neoclassical economists refuse to acknowledge even exists. The correlation between private debt and unemployment hits -0.93. That's not a typo. When I showed Ben Bernanke's own writing claiming private credit has no macroeconomic effects, I knew we were in trouble. Turn to page 24 of his essays on the Great Depression. He literally dismisses the mechanism that caused the crisis. American household debt has surpassed 18 trillion dollars. Private debt peaked at 170% of GDP before 2008. And the mainstream still thinks it's government debt we should worry about. Banks don't just intermediate. They create money. And when neoclassical economists mistake the level of debt for the change in debt, you know we're being guided by people who don't understand the system they're supposed to manage. Watch the full breakdown - youtube.com/watch?v=8VwhvSux… #Economics #FinancialCrisis #PrivateDebt #DebtDeflation #EconomicTheory

The much-repeated claim that lower interest rates lead to high growth and higher rates lead to lower growth is simply not true. Proclaimed by economists of most schools of thought for 200 years, no empirical evidence exists. In fact, the opposite is true. sciencedirect.com/science/ar…