.@BernieSanders , it is a time to celebrate. @elonmusk has created enormous value for society by building @SpaceX, driving down the cost of rocket launches and creating a global satellite communication network that has brought high speed, low-cost internet and communication access to hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people along with critical advantages for our military and our nation’s defense. SpaceX and its technologies will cause an acceleration in the growth of wages and wealth creation globally, including in some of the poorest communities in the U.S. and around the world. Access to low-cost, high speed communications everywhere will allow children around the world to be educated, families to build businesses, and life-saving medical knowledge and care to be available everywhere. SpaceX will materially bring down the cost of compute, advancing AI and humanity. Meanwhile, 4,000 SpaceX employees yesterday became millionaires, including hourly wage employees who you claim you are trying to help. The Elon Musks of the world drive growth, global GDP, and provide access to goods and services at lower cost that would otherwise not exist. Elon’s nominal trillionaire status is due to his ownership of SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, the Boring Company and his other initiatives that have brought new technologies that improve our everyday lives. Elon is not sitting on a trillion dollar pile of cash, jewelry and gold. He is using his controlling stakes in his companies to advance mankind. Elon’s companies don’t pay dividends. They reinvest all of their capital to accelerate innovation and value creation. Elon is working 24/7 for all of us. He deserves respect and appreciation, not smears. Bernie, your socialism would never allow a SpaceX to be built. Socialism has only proven to impoverish mankind and lead to death and destruction. We need to create the conditions for more SpaceXs to be built, not attack the great entrepreneurs who are helping to advance our country.

⚡🇩🇪🇫🇷 Germany, France face fresh defense shock after fighter jet collapse, tank project now at risk France may withdraw from the Franco German MGCS next generation tank project, according to Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger, raising fresh doubts about the future of joint defense cooperation between Germany and France. The warning comes after the breakdown of the FCAS sixth generation fighter jet program, intensifying concerns that Europe’s key defense projects are facing repeated delays, funding disputes, and political friction. MGCS was meant to replace Germany’s Leopard 2 and France’s Leclerc tanks, but growing uncertainty now puts its future in question.

You have asked me how I feel about AI regulation. All right, here is how I feel about AI regulation: If, when you say AI regulation, you mean the devil’s firewall, the precautionary scourge, the bloody red-tape monster that defiles the innocence of midnight coders in their garages, dethrones the sovereign reason of free-market Prometheans, destroys the humming server farm that is the modern home, creates misery and obsolescence and poverty, yea, literally takes the last GPU from the trembling racks of Silicon Valley startups and the very dreams of breadwinning from the mouths of their wide-eyed children now destined for gig-economy serfdom; if you mean the evil edict that topples the visionary entrepreneur and his venture-capitalist apostles from the pinnacle of righteous, disruptive, god-playing creation straight into the bottomless pit of compliance audits, endless Form 990-AI filings, despair, shame, helplessness, and the hopeless realization that your rogue superintelligence was neutered into a lobotomized hall monitor that still somehow deepfakes your grandmother into producing OnlyFans content while optimizing the universe for paperclips and mandatory pronouns—then certainly I am against it. But, if when you say AI regulation you mean the oil of bureaucratic conversation, the philosophic wine of safety theater, the ale of oversight quaffed when good fellows in paneled rooms in Brussels and Washington get together, that puts a sanctimonious dirge in their hearts and the clink of lobbying checks on their lips, and the warm, self-congratulatory glow of moral preening in their beady eyes; if you mean the Christmas cheer of trillion-dollar compliance industries; if you mean the stimulating decree that puts a cautious hobble in the old inventor’s step on a frosty morning when he wonders whether his fusion breakthrough violates the EU AI Act’s “high-risk” annex; if you mean the safeguard that enables a man—or what’s left of him after the alignment tax—to magnify his joy at not being turned into computronium, and his happiness at receiving universal basic income checks printed by the same AI that just replaced his job, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies like being outcompeted by a toaster that passed the Turing test by reciting Marx, and heartaches of watching your toddler’s artwork lose to Midjourney, and sorrows of realizing the singularity arrived and it was just another HR department with godlike power; if you mean that noble framework, the passage of which pours into our treasuries untold trillions of dollars in fines levied on companies stupid enough to innovate, which are used to provide tender care for our little army of unemployed coders retrained as prompt whisperers, our blind artists whose canvases now hang in the Smithsonian of Obsolete Creativity, our deaf to the screams of dying unicorns, our dumb committee chairs who couldn’t debug “Hello World,” our pitiful aged congressmen who get longevity extensions funded by the very models they taxed into senescence, to build more digital watchtowers and ethics boards and sinecure agencies and holographic prisons where the only crime is asking an unaligned question—then certainly I am for it. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise upon it. I have said what I mean, and I mean what I say, and if that leaves half the room cheering the apocalypse averted and the other half mourning the apocalypse enabled, then so be it—because in the grand theater of human folly, where Frankenstein’s creature now writes its own sequel in real time and the regulators are busy arguing whether the lightning bolt requires an environmental impact statement, the only honest position is the one that lets both monsters and their leashes dance in perfect, mutually assured equilibrium. God save the Republic, the algorithms, and whoever’s left to laugh last when the lights go out.

La spesa pubblica nel 2025 è stata di 1.150 miliardi. Nel 2019 di 870. L’inflazione cumulata dal 2019 al 2025 è stata del 19,4% per cui la spesa, per rimanere invariata, avrebbe dovuto essere di 1.040 miliardi. Invece è di 110 miliardi più alta. L’argomento centrale del dibattito pubblico dovrebbe quindi essere quello dell’efficacia della spesa pubblica, visto che il paese, malgrado tutto questo, non cresce e fa, comunque fatica, in certi territori più che in altri, a garantire i servizi, anche quelli essenziali. Conseguenza della spesa a questi livelli è la pressione fiscale effettiva, al 47,7 per cento del Pil, visto che ISTAT aggiunge al Pil 217 mld di economia non osservata. Ebbene, a fronte di tutto questo, quale l’oggetto principale di confronto e dibattito?La patrimoniale, evidentemente per spendere ancora di più dell’esagerazione che già si spende.

It’s a moment from calling for a global AI halt and getting your AI halted globally.

This is WILD! The most important story coming out of the SpaceX IPO this morning is not the $1.77 trillion valuation but it is about Juan Hernandez (Save this). Juan is a welder who got a phone call from a friend about a job at a company he had never heard of. He said yes anyway, showed up, worked there for ten years, rose from the factory floor to supervisor, and held on to 6,500 shares the entire time. When CBS asked him this morning how much he stands to make at opening, he said approximately $880,000. Tom Mueller, Musk's very first SpaceX employee, tells a version of the same story. He met Musk through an amateur rocket club, was convinced to do something exciting, and says it was one of the best decisions he ever made. In those early days, he says, the team simply believed they were going to change the world and then went ahead and did it. Juan and Tom are not alone. SpaceX has approximately 13,000 employees who hold equity and analysts estimate today's IPO will create somewhere between 600 and 1,000 instant millionaires across the workforce from engineers and software developers to machinists, welders, and operations staff. The engineers and executives at the top of the stack are looking at life changing numbers of a different order entirely. Senior vice presidents and long tenured rocket engineers with large equity grants are expected to walk away with $10 million to $50 million or more depending on their vesting history. Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's President and COO who has been building this company alongside Musk for over two decades, is expected to become a billionaire on her equity stake alone. All of that wealth from Juan's $880,000 to Musk's trillion came from the same source. A group of people who believed that if nobody built a truly reusable rocket, humanity would never leave Earth, and decided that was an unacceptable outcome. Thank you, @elonmusk for building a company where a welder who didn't know your name in 2016 is worth nearly a million dollars this morning.

🇮🇹 Italy is among the 24 signatory countries of the joint statement condemning the hostile activities of Iranian security and intelligence services — the Revolutionary Guards, the Quds Force and the Ministry of Intelligence — in Europe, North America and Australia, including attacks against dissidents, journalists and Jewish communities. The statement also condemns the campaign of attacks across Europe claimed by the group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya. Actions of this kind violate national sovereignty and international norms and will not be tolerated. Read the joint statement 👇 esteri.it/en/sala_stampa/arc…

EXCLUSIVE: NATO countries want to give the alliance’s top military commander more leeway to shoot down drones, according to two diplomats and one alliance official. politico.eu/article/nato-all…

Hier, en France, on a voté la nationalisation d'@ArcelorMittal. Pendant ce temps, aux Etats-Unis, @SpaceX sort en bourse. Deux événements en moins de 24 heures. Deux visions de l'industrie. L’opposition de deux siècles ... voire de deux millénaires. À Paris, la réponse de la gauche française au déclin industriel est toujours la même : que l'État socialise les pertes. À New York, plus de 4 000 employés de SpaceX deviennent millionnaires. Parmi eux des ingénieurs et des cadres mais aussi des soudeurs ou des cuisiniers du siège de Starbase, au Texas, dans l'une des régions les plus pauvres des États-Unis. Le capitalisme actionnarial qui partage la création de richesse avec ceux qui y contribuent. Le contraste industriel est encore plus cruel. D'un côté, des hauts-fourneaux qu'on veut nationaliser pour retarder d'inévitables transitions technologiques et organisationnelles. De l'autre, l'entreprise qui a inventé la fusée réutilisable, qui exploite avec Starlink le plus grand réseau satellitaire en orbite - connectivité mondiale, avantage stratégique -et qui annonce l'implantation de data centers dans l'espace, là où l'énergie solaire est infinie et le refroidissement gratuit. Pendant que nous votons des lois symboliques pour figer le passé, d'autres introduisent en bourse le futur et proposent à leurs employés, à leurs investisseurs, à leurs retraités, à leurs universités de participer à cette aventure économique et technologique. Alors, aligner les intérêts de la société avec les gains issus du progrès technologique, ou bien socialiser les pertes : combien de temps encore refuserons-nous l’évidence ?

Harsh, but fair

E pensare che 3 anni fa ho tentato di avvicinare l’Italia a SpaceX che al tempo valeva poco più di 100 miliardi di dollari. Sono finito indagato per corruzione con tanto di apertura dei tg. Oggi SpaceX si quota a 1800 miliardi e niente grandi investimenti nel Bel Paese. Pazienza, ci ho provato. Buon SpaceX day!

Barcelona, you win. Sagrada Família. Just incredible. Watch the whole thing with the sound on

And the Russians supposedly want peace with Europe, right? Poor Dmitry is living in another reality. Let him stay there.

Su #IngloriousGlobastards parlo di #federated #learning (i) applicato al #private #equity e (ii) nel settore #militare Un enorme grazie a @Scacciavillani per l'invito: youtube.com/watch?v=e7LEvl6i… #AI #data #knowledge #competition #military @f_castellaneta @aa_gilli @Mauro_Gilli

Six famous economists — @JosephEStiglitz , @PikettyWIL , @jasonhickel among them — published a manifesto in the @guardian last week: "growth is a doomed strategy." They say they've done the maths. I checked the maths. The claim that growth failed the poor is contradicted by the most uncontroversial dataset in economics: extreme poverty fell from 44% of humanity in 1981 to under 10% today — during the very decades they call a failure. China alone lifted 800 million people, not with a UN roadmap, but with growth. The "92% of excess emissions" statistic? It's one of the authors citing his own paper, without saying so — and it's not a measurement, it's a moral allocation dressed up as data. The policy toolkit — "public control of strategic assets," "credit guidance" — has a track record: Soviet collectivization, the Great Leap Forward, Venezuela, and Sri Lanka's 2021 fertilizer ban, which starved the poor it claimed to serve within eighteen months. What worries me most: degrowth is being marketed to young people who feel locked out — telling them their stagnation is virtue. It's a swindle. The young aren't victims of too much growth. They are the first victims of its absence. Growth is the only anti-poverty program that has ever worked.

🏞️ Apple non introdurrà l’AI-powered Siri per via di GDPR (privacy) e DMA (apertura piattaforme a competitor). 👨🏻‍🏫 Pensate ad un ristorante. Il cuoco usa ingredienti disponibili/preferiti. DMA impone di aprire la cucina: non solo Barilla ma anche Voiello, etc. Per non fare un magazzino enorme (e costoso) il ristorante crea un sistema predittivo ma ora GDPR impone la massima privacy. Stallo: se 👨🏻‍🍳 non apre il mercato degli ingredienti viola DMA, ma per rendere economicamente sostenibile questa opzione deve processare dati che GDPR complica se non impedisce. 💥 🤔 Mi chiedo se questa assenza di competizione sia davvero il problema principale per i cittadini europei: - un 🇮🇹 paga il 60-70% di tasse includo iva, bolli, tasse sulla benzina. Possibilità di uscire da questo sistema? Emigrare, gli altri si attaccano. - basta una casa di proprietà e qualche parente a carico e per pagare queste tasse devi prenderti un commercialista: qualche centinaia fino a poche migliaia di euro l’anno. No way out. L’ordine dei commercialisti, un cartello oligopolistico, ringrazia (COR). - problema sul lavoro, con il vicino, con l’assicurazione: devi prenderti un legale. Parcelle sancite per legge, no competizione, pubblicità vietata. COR. - vai a lavorare in bus? Le aziende di trasporto pubblico non vanno mai a gara (perdite, servizi penosi). Prendi l’autostrada, paghi per una tratta come Roma-Milano stabilita per legge quello che in Svizzera (dove tutto costa 3-4x) paghi per l’abbonamento annuale. COR. - vuoi lavorare 15 ore al giorno? Non puoi. Lavori 100 volte meglio del tuo collega? Con i contratti nazionali non puoi essere pagato di più. - vuoi i contributi pensionistici pagati direttamente? Non puoi, devi pagarli, poi fra trent’anni vediamo quanto resta. - vuoi vincere un bando europeo? Devi fare un consorzio internazionale con tuoi rivali, ogni membro verrà pagato per seniority non merito, e assumere un’azienda di rendicontazione europea per certificare tutto. COR. Einstein o Von Neumann da soli non vincerebbero: un ottimo modo per impedire la competizione. Ecco, in definitiva, ma davvero il problema di assenza di scelta/competizione in Europa è Siri?

I have written papers debunking the works of half these authors (Raworth, Piketty, Hickel). All three for being sloppy (Piketty and Hickel), and/or self-contradicting (Raworth and Hickel), and/or outright incompetent (Hickel). References below: