Get live statistics and analysis of el gato malo's profile on X / Twitter

i don't know where this bro is now, but someone needs to buy him a beer. this guy outperformed 99% of all credentialed experts on covid predictions.

imagine trying to be a political strategist in this day and age. you carefully rig a debate, hand your candidate the questions, and set up a 3 on 1 fact check attack to lie about everything. "checkmate" you think. then it turns out that "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" is the only soundbite of the whole night that matters because a bunch of internet spergs turned it into memes and tik tok dances. now do you see why they hate free speech and a free internet? meme on your crazy diamonds. meme on.

i suspect that most of what irks gen X is that we had created a fun, freewheeling, post-racial, minimal-politics society, and a bunch of weakminded thieves of joy came along and politicized the world into unfun, identity-based struggle sessions that made everything they touched horrible and divisive. kids today have no idea how much was taken from them because they have lived their whole lives under wokester warlord hall monitor rule and have never even tasted this joy and freedom. and it's time they did.

ultra high net worth is a fascinating little subset of the world. they'll pay whatever it takes to buy the high function and comfort they want and it makes sense for them. there are several cases in park city where a restaurant lost its chef because a NHW patron hired them away to be a personal chef for the family. they just overbid the restaurant, offered an easier and more creative job, and that was that. and the lifestyle is good. it's not a crazy idea as a career path.

i suspect the fatal mistake that weaponized the midwits was educating them. university used to be for the top 3-5% of intellects, a serious and seriously difficult undertaking suitable for and completable by only a very small group of people whose IQ cutoff was likely around 125. the standards were rigid and many aspirants to sheepskins failed. jamming universities full of 100's and 110's broke the system, forced it to dumb down, and forced it away from ideas of logic and critical thinking and into doctrine and regurgitation because the "customer" was no longer capable of the former and thus had to be served the latter. "understand this" was replaced with "memorize this." this took the 110-115 cohort and filled its heads with nonsense that it was ill-equipped to comprehend in any meaningful sense. worse, this group was told and thus felt that it had mastered the material and was encouraged to perform as if it had. "we are educated! we know stuff!" the whole idea of what it once meant to be educated had been lost and replaced with a fugazy both incapable and undesirous of spotting itself as fake. the 90 IQ is not prone to this pratfall, but the 110 will literally go looking for it. there is literally no one on earth so stupid as the wise fool indoctrinated into dogma they have mistaken for comprehension and erudtion. they will fight tooth and claw against any disagreement or refutation because it not only invalidates their ideas but also their sense of self. this is the core danger of the midwit education trap: you're not actually that smart, but you have been told that you are and that if you act a certain way and espouse a certain set of ideas, that others will treat you as if you are. it's a cargo cult. the truly smart may have their ideas challenged and not only grow from it but relish it. their intellect is critical and adaptable. it flowers under challenge, which represents an opportunity to demonstrate and validate one's capacity. the end idea is not the signifier; the ability to perform the process of getting there is. but the midwit cannot do this. he has memorized an answer that he cannot derive. he can only repeat it upon demand. challenge is a direct status threat and risks exposure as a midwit by being unable to "perform the process of getting there." couple "if i am proven wrong, i no longer have any way to look educated" with "and the backrub circle of my similarly situated peers will shun me if i disagree with them" and you get a recipe for inflexible dogmatism which, i fear, has become a primary product of the modern adult daycare system DBA "secondary education." this is not doing us any societal favors.

so, when a boss tells his worker: have sex with me or lose your job, that's totally cool because she was not forced? how about if it's a dean and a college student? still cool because still no force? asking for a few hundred million friends.

"mistakes were made" says the woman who encouraged you to make them and called you immoral if you refused. you're going to see more and more of this. "we wuz lied to!" is the low energy path to avoid blame, responsibility, and play the victim.

no, he's working 237,000 times smarter than you. the fact that you do not understand this distinction is why the gap is so large.

i am honestly baffled. are there seriously people who think the 1990 version is better looking? it's awful, an unpleasant mix of busy and frumpy. the 2024 version is clean and pleasant. not even a question that it's a huge improvment.

these takes are just surreally bad. california spends over $42,000 a year per homeless person and has not made a dent in "homlessness." "he could fix homelessness" is a near perfect exemplar of the economic and social illiteracy upon which the NGO grift plays. man, public schools did a number on these people.

RFK gets picked for HHS. out: trans fats in: red meat.

the mRNA jab was, objectively, not a vaccine. a vaccine creates lasting sterilizing immunity to a pathogen. they literally had to change the definition to make the mRNA shots fit. and even then, it failed because the "protection" did not occur. the covid shots were neither safe nor effective. they were actively counterproductive and bent the epidemiology and all cause deaths curves in the wrong direction. saying so does not make one an "antivaxxer" any more than saying "this drug does not work" makes one "anti-pharma." it makes one a discerning rationalist. all medicne is a cost/benefit equation rooted in risk/reward. one can say "i think the MMR vaccine is a good risk reward" while also saying "i think the covid jab was an awful one." mRNA is not a sound basis for drugs or especially for vaccines. the MOA basically cannot confer sterilizing immunity so it will not stop infection, transmission, or spread. it will instead drive herd level antigenic fixation that selects for escape variants that are vaccine advantaged. it will increase spread, severity, and time to clear. this is the opposite of immunity. (the same problem occurs in flu shots which also exhibit negative efficacy). this whole sordid episode of fraud (the trials were fraud, the switch of production modality before going to market was fraud, and so too was the barrage of political and health agency marketing calling it "a dead end for the virus) and drug propaganda seems rooted in the idea that "vaccine" is some sort of totemic word that if applied to a pharma compound renders it magically effective, safe, and above criticism. that's not science, it's magical thinking. "anti-vaxxer," "anti-masker," and "covid denier" were all psyop phrases inflicted upon a populace to short-circuit assessment and silence those seeking to read the data. the "covid vaccine" was one of the worst pharma mistakes in history and the companies and agencies telling these lies knew full well that they were false.

if you run left fast enough, everything else seems to shift right. these are not, predominantly, "far right" movements, these are "normal centrist people from 20 years ago" who are waking up to the dystopian collectivist hijacking of countries and cultures by a dictatorial class of monomaniacal statists masquerading as progressive pluralists. people want to go back to high trust, high liberty societies free from such intrusion and encroachment and unmenaced by the "hobgoblin du jour" conjured to frighten folks into compliance. vilifying such aims as "extremism" is going to backfire bigly for the left. it just proves how dishonest and deluded they are by accusing the center of that which it is not guilty. at a certain point, you're trying to make the people themselves into the hobgoblin that you use to menace the people. and that is the act of a fool. this might be a potent dogwhistle for the hard left base, but it's going to alienate everyone else. it's the one note flute that will play the march to irrelevance for these demagogues. have fun guys, your 15 minutes are just about over.

i am honestly baffled. are there seriously people who think the 1990 version is better looking? it's awful, an unpleasant mix of busy and frumpy. the 2024 version is clean and pleasant. not even a question that it's a huge improvment.

i don't know where this bro is now, but someone needs to buy him a beer. this guy outperformed 99% of all credentialed experts on covid predictions.

imagine trying to be a political strategist in this day and age. you carefully rig a debate, hand your candidate the questions, and set up a 3 on 1 fact check attack to lie about everything. "checkmate" you think. then it turns out that "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" is the only soundbite of the whole night that matters because a bunch of internet spergs turned it into memes and tik tok dances. now do you see why they hate free speech and a free internet? meme on your crazy diamonds. meme on.

i suspect that most of what irks gen X is that we had created a fun, freewheeling, post-racial, minimal-politics society, and a bunch of weakminded thieves of joy came along and politicized the world into unfun, identity-based struggle sessions that made everything they touched horrible and divisive. kids today have no idea how much was taken from them because they have lived their whole lives under wokester warlord hall monitor rule and have never even tasted this joy and freedom. and it's time they did.

i suspect the fatal mistake that weaponized the midwits was educating them. university used to be for the top 3-5% of intellects, a serious and seriously difficult undertaking suitable for and completable by only a very small group of people whose IQ cutoff was likely around 125. the standards were rigid and many aspirants to sheepskins failed. jamming universities full of 100's and 110's broke the system, forced it to dumb down, and forced it away from ideas of logic and critical thinking and into doctrine and regurgitation because the "customer" was no longer capable of the former and thus had to be served the latter. "understand this" was replaced with "memorize this." this took the 110-115 cohort and filled its heads with nonsense that it was ill-equipped to comprehend in any meaningful sense. worse, this group was told and thus felt that it had mastered the material and was encouraged to perform as if it had. "we are educated! we know stuff!" the whole idea of what it once meant to be educated had been lost and replaced with a fugazy both incapable and undesirous of spotting itself as fake. the 90 IQ is not prone to this pratfall, but the 110 will literally go looking for it. there is literally no one on earth so stupid as the wise fool indoctrinated into dogma they have mistaken for comprehension and erudtion. they will fight tooth and claw against any disagreement or refutation because it not only invalidates their ideas but also their sense of self. this is the core danger of the midwit education trap: you're not actually that smart, but you have been told that you are and that if you act a certain way and espouse a certain set of ideas, that others will treat you as if you are. it's a cargo cult. the truly smart may have their ideas challenged and not only grow from it but relish it. their intellect is critical and adaptable. it flowers under challenge, which represents an opportunity to demonstrate and validate one's capacity. the end idea is not the signifier; the ability to perform the process of getting there is. but the midwit cannot do this. he has memorized an answer that he cannot derive. he can only repeat it upon demand. challenge is a direct status threat and risks exposure as a midwit by being unable to "perform the process of getting there." couple "if i am proven wrong, i no longer have any way to look educated" with "and the backrub circle of my similarly situated peers will shun me if i disagree with them" and you get a recipe for inflexible dogmatism which, i fear, has become a primary product of the modern adult daycare system DBA "secondary education." this is not doing us any societal favors.

seriously, what drug is that?

"mistakes were made" says the woman who encouraged you to make them and called you immoral if you refused. you're going to see more and more of this. "we wuz lied to!" is the low energy path to avoid blame, responsibility, and play the victim.

i ranked US states (+DC) from 1 (least) to 51 (most) per capita deaths. first i looked at 4/11. i plotted it vs today, 5/8 they have R2 = 0.89 policy varied widely, but deaths before it took hold predict outcomes with near perfection. that means policy has little/no effect

i dug deeper into the google memory hole issue. surprising finding: this same was true of all search engines i tried. it's not just google. i suspect this is an artifact of something deeper like "media refusing to use these words" or some more generalized manipulation.

the mRNA jab was, objectively, not a vaccine. a vaccine creates lasting sterilizing immunity to a pathogen. they literally had to change the definition to make the mRNA shots fit. and even then, it failed because the "protection" did not occur. the covid shots were neither safe nor effective. they were actively counterproductive and bent the epidemiology and all cause deaths curves in the wrong direction. saying so does not make one an "antivaxxer" any more than saying "this drug does not work" makes one "anti-pharma." it makes one a discerning rationalist. all medicne is a cost/benefit equation rooted in risk/reward. one can say "i think the MMR vaccine is a good risk reward" while also saying "i think the covid jab was an awful one." mRNA is not a sound basis for drugs or especially for vaccines. the MOA basically cannot confer sterilizing immunity so it will not stop infection, transmission, or spread. it will instead drive herd level antigenic fixation that selects for escape variants that are vaccine advantaged. it will increase spread, severity, and time to clear. this is the opposite of immunity. (the same problem occurs in flu shots which also exhibit negative efficacy). this whole sordid episode of fraud (the trials were fraud, the switch of production modality before going to market was fraud, and so too was the barrage of political and health agency marketing calling it "a dead end for the virus) and drug propaganda seems rooted in the idea that "vaccine" is some sort of totemic word that if applied to a pharma compound renders it magically effective, safe, and above criticism. that's not science, it's magical thinking. "anti-vaxxer," "anti-masker," and "covid denier" were all psyop phrases inflicted upon a populace to short-circuit assessment and silence those seeking to read the data. the "covid vaccine" was one of the worst pharma mistakes in history and the companies and agencies telling these lies knew full well that they were false.

ultra high net worth is a fascinating little subset of the world. they'll pay whatever it takes to buy the high function and comfort they want and it makes sense for them. there are several cases in park city where a restaurant lost its chef because a NHW patron hired them away to be a personal chef for the family. they just overbid the restaurant, offered an easier and more creative job, and that was that. and the lifestyle is good. it's not a crazy idea as a career path.

who the hell gives an SSRI to a cat?

so, when a boss tells his worker: have sex with me or lose your job, that's totally cool because she was not forced? how about if it's a dean and a college student? still cool because still no force? asking for a few hundred million friends.

doordash is a time value of money equation. do you value 30-60 minutes of productivity or leisure at more than $20? if you could produce $50 or $100 or $1000 of work in 30-60 mins, then spending that time going to pick up food is inefficient. failing to see that is failing the IQ test.

this will cause half of america to lose credit cards and credit line size. the simple fact is that no bank/CC company would give bottom 50 percentile people unsecured credit at 10% in any size. it's a money loser.