Author: Macrobius

  • Finding Language Examples and Information on the Web

    Finding Language Examples and Information on the Web | Phora Nova

    The Phora is an OSINT forum, so every once in a while we publish collections of links ;)

    I was working on a project to index certain files being used by LLMs to navigate the web, and found some older but still maintained resources.

    Back ca. 1998, the Open Directory Project started to create an index of the known web.  Over time, this was picked up by Netscape as the DMOZ directory, in the days of the Mozilla browser.  At its height, ca. 2006, it had 95,000 curators (editors) and over a million categories.   AOL took over Netscape, but work continued on DMOZ.

    Then in 2017, for reasons unknown (money, likely), AOL decided to kill funding for the project.  However, the Open Source community stepped up to the plate and continued the project as ‘Curlie’ — losing the lizard icon and selecting a red squirrel.

    Be forewarned that it is a rare category that has more than say 10 items, but the level of curation compensates for that, and you can only find this way.  The search function is aughties tier still, probably original, which means it is helpful but so-so by modern standards.

    (more…)
  • Groupthink Chess

    Groupthink Chess | Phora Nova

    1. Groupthink chess is similar to formalistic chess, only it can be played by any number of persons with access to the forum, including passersby and trolls.  Players may come and go, say they are quitting but rejoin later etc., unless otherwise restricted or disabled by lawful future application of rule 4.

    2. Green and Red must alternate moves, but any player may switch sides at any time and make the next move, with the restriction that in the absence of further rulemaking to the contrary, no one may (at least at first), make a move and then switch sides to immediately to make a responding move.

    3. Notwithstanding the variations from formalistic chess introduced by the first two rules, the result must still be a ‘legal game of chess’, with green making the first move, when written down formally, and the green and red roles alternating.

    Explanatory Comment: the initial goal of the game is to find a compelling narrative for playing the game at all, but that is intentionally vague to the point of being meaningless.  The purpose of the game is an emergent phenomenon known to none of the players in advance, but only to the group as a whole entity, and unfolding over time.  The Game is intentionally Holistic.

    Players can and should form alliances or teams, to be both cooperative and competitive in any potentially useful way, and as a group decide such things as victory conditions or strategies, explain their past moves with or without deceit and dissimulation, message each other, and generally conduct diplomacy.

    4. Additional rules may be made, having the status of treaties binding on all players in future moves, **by majority vote of the last 5 distinct players** (who are called ‘the collegium’), which may address any topic whatsoever but *must* be consistent with all previous rules, including these five, except as noted.  The Collegium may or may not find it convenient to consult other players, a subset of them, or of the set of potential players, before ratifying a treaty (rule making).  There is no requirement that the game be played in an adversarial manner, or with any other (unlegislated) style, or with only two sides and not some other number such as 0, 1, or multipolar; or that the game advance or not, by any particular time, be terminable, or have any properties other than those given in the Original Ruleset or its subsequent modifications, or that it have any particular purpose, at least initially.

    The immutability of rule-making is intended to force convergence of the game purpose in a way consistent with the will and actions of the players.

    With a sense of nihilism and futility, Green moves `1 P-K4 (e5)` 

    ## Some observations.

    Non-binding interpretation:  the commitment to the formalism of the Chess is not, in the absence of any specific rule-making, a legislative guarantee of anyone having any *rights* to make this or that legal chess move, nor of the equality of players (so that some players may be legislated to have ‘civil disabilities’ on the legal moves they may make.  Moving legally is prohibition against moving illegally, not a natural freedom to so move.  Nor does legislation (at least initially) guarantee that the game history is immutable (but if the past is changed, it must still be a legal past).  Rule-making is, however, immutable for the duration of the game.  Rules may provide for amendment procedures and some things may be made immutable in perpetuity, or incorporate probabilistic elements.

    (Players will note the possible fiction that the last five players may legislate the game to have ended and that a new game with such and such rules and such and such past history shall be deemed to have begun.  The ‘sovereignty of the Parliament’ may not in practice be legislated so as to be binding on the Parliament in the future.  And Revolutions cannot be easily legislated away either.)

    (The primary rule is that at any moment, formal past history must be explainable as a member of L, the set of all constructible chess games.  But the grue paradox is not so easily solvable)

    NOTE: thinking about Rawl’s ‘Original Position’ may be useful at any point in the game.  Also, the entire point of Rule #4 is to allow the players to consider and legislate for edge cases that were unforeseen in the original game design.

    Thread related: https://tunisbayclub.com/index.php?threads/groupthink-chess.3162/

  • Roubini: Tech Trumps Tariffs

    Roubini: Tech Trumps Tariffs | Phora Nova

    Nov 26th, 2025

    Roubini goes contrarian about the certainty of a ‘Big Short’ 2007-2008 style market crash:

    [URL unfurl=”true”]https://archive.ph/b3EV0[/URL] (Financial Times Op-Ed)

    via this TUnis Bey Bar thread: https://tunisbayclub.com/index.php?threads/broken-ai-economics.3090/

    Tech trumps tariffs: why US exceptionalism will last

    The view that the stock market is in a massive bubble and bound to crash is incorrect over the medium term

    The writer is Professor Emeritus at the Stern School of Business and senior economic strategist at Hudson Bay Capital

    After the so-called “liberation day” tariffs announcement, the conventional wisdom about the US economy became very pessimistic. A new consensus was built on worries over tariffs, policies such as restrictions to migration, unfunded large fiscal deficits, threats to the independence of the Federal Reserve and the erosion of rule of law.

    The argument was that American exceptionalism was over — the US economy was facing stagflation, the stock market was set for a slump or worse and the exorbitant privilege of the dollar as the major global reserve would erode. As the US weaponised its currency, the value of the dollar would start to fall rapidly over time.

    In a recent paper of mine and a companion one by my Hudson Bay colleague Jason Cuttler, we reject such pessimism and have a much more positive outlook for the US economy and markets over time.

    First, market discipline, reasonable advisers and Fed independence provided guardrails on the worst policies after “liberation day”. As markets corrected sharply soon afterwards, Trump was forced to blink and negotiate more reasonable trade deals.

    Thus, the US is experiencing a few quarters of a growth recession (GDP expansion below potential) and a modest rise in inflation rather than a serious stagflationary recession. By next year growth will recover as monetary easing and fiscal stimulus are still under way while financial conditions have eased and the tailwinds from AI-related capital expenditure will continue.

    Second, American exceptionalism will continue as the US (along with China) is ahead in the most important industries of the future including AI and machine learning, robotics, quantum computing, space commercialisation and defence technology.

    I estimate that annual US potential growth could rise from 2 to 4 per cent by the end of this decade while stagflationary policies could reduce it by 0.5 percentage points. Thus, tech trumps tariffs. If American exceptionalism was ruling when potential growth was 2 per cent, it will strengthen as growth rises towards 4 per cent.

    Ditto for stock returns: when annual growth was 2 per cent for the last two decades, US equity returns were around double digits, well above those of other advanced economies and emerging markets. If growth will be much higher this decade and in subsequent ones, such equity returns will be even higher. Price-earnings valuation ratios can remain elevated if faster earnings growth is driven by increased economic growth. Of course, temporary market corrections will occur and tech disruptions will lead to winners and losers. However, the now common view that the US stock market is in a massive bubble and bound to crash is incorrect over the medium term.

    As far as debt sustainability is concerned, the public debt to GDP is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to rise sharply under the assumption that real economic growth will average 1.6 per cent per year from 2025 to 2055. If potential growth is slightly higher at 2.3 per cent, the ratio is stabilised over time. With growth at 3 per cent or above, the ratio drops over time and is sustainable, assuming that the growth dividend is not wasted with even more spending. Increased GDP growth might lead to higher real bond yields but a large tech-driven positive aggregate supply shock could reduce inflation to near zero over time as costs of production of goods and services sharply fall while productivity growth rises. So the net impact on nominal bond yields could be a wash over time.

    Even the external liabilities of the US are sustainable as larger current account deficits — driven by the surge in tech-driven capex — will be financed by equity inflows of capital into dollar assets. The US will look like an emerging-market economy where a natural resource or productivity boom leads to an investment boom.

    While the dollar has weakened this year for a variety of factors such as the noise on tariffs, Fed easing and talk of policy deals to weaken the dollar, over time equilibrium real exchange rates depend on growth differentials. If the US growth accelerates while the Eurozone stagnates over the medium term, the dollar will appreciate relative to the euro.

    Of course, a variety of downside risks remain including geopolitical strains and the disruptions caused by unprecedented tech innovations. But over the medium term, the US economy and markets are best positioned among advanced economies. They will continue to benefit from the US being the most innovative advanced country.

    – 30 –

    No comment until I read their real argument, not just an Op-Ed.

    UPDATE:

    I haven’t tracked down a draft of the Roubini/Cuttler paper — this is probably close https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/650740_Hudson_Bay_Research_-_Valuations_not_in_a_Bubble_-_November_2025.pdf (PDF, Cuttler, Nov 2025)

    Looking more recently, the period between Lehman’s collapse in 2008 and the eve of COVID in 2019 offers an

    important case study. Economist Tyler Cowen8 called this decade “The Great Stagnation,” arguing that advanced

    economies had exhausted their “low-hanging fruit” of growth — technological breakthroughs, educational

    expansion, and frontier markets. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers9 described the same period as

    “secular stagnation,” a prolonged era of chronically insufficient demand and low real interest rates. The 2008

    crisis had revealed deep structural weaknesses in over-leveraged financial systems and household balance

    sheets across major economies. Policymakers responded as firefighters, doing “whatever it takes”10 to contain

    damage and stabilize the system. Central banks slashed policy rates to zero and bought long-dated government

    and agency bonds to reduce long-term yields. Despite ultra-aggressive monetary and policy accommodation, the

    economic recovery proved disappointingly shallow.

    I’m guessing this may be close to the last time we see the Elites mention ‘Larry Summers’ in public.

    Sadly, I’m also guessing it *isn’t* the last time we will be aggressive and genocidal biowarfare, as in 2020

    - 30

  • Kevin McKernan latest summary on COVID

    Kevin McKernan – Sequencing the Truth: What’s Really Inside the Vials

    Kevin discusses his early work building genomic tools, before turning to the controversies that have defined his recent research.

    McKernan explains why the misuse of PCR tests during COVID (“PCR-gate”) created misleading data about the spread of the virus, how he uncovered plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA vaccine vials—including SV40 sequences that were never disclosed to regulators—and what it all means. Bryce and Kevin also discuss the broader implications of faulty vaccine production: the unacknowledged regulatory failures, conflicts of interest, weaponized retraction campaigns against whistle blowers, and the personal cost of challenging the profit-driven scientific status quo.

    Beyond vaccines, McKernan speaks to overlooked biosafety risks in labs and offers a nuanced take on mRNA as a platform—useful in some contexts but warped by subsidies and liability shields.

    The conversation is both deeply technical and unflinchingly candid and delves into how competing incentives in biotech impact trust, safety, and accountability in science.

  • Bidenomics? Neoliberalism worked pretty well, actually

    Article posted for reference and discussion, not approval.

    https://archive.ph/ZXP4P#selection-1205.0-1205.42

    Neoliberalism Worked Pretty Well, Actually​

    Yes, the market-driven economic policy of the last several decades left too many behind, but it also spurred historic growth.
    June 10, 2024 at 11:00 AM UTC
    By Allison Schrager
    Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of “An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk.”

    Somehow it has become conventional wisdom that neoliberal economics was an abject failure. Like a lot of conventional wisdom, this is wrong. Not only has neoliberalism been a great success, but now is exactly the wrong time to reverse it.
    That hasn’t stopped the bipartisan consensus from forming. Noting that neoliberal economics “left many working Americans and their communities behind,” one of President Joe Biden’s top advisers claims that the administration is pioneering a new industrial policy defined by tariffs and subsidies. Donald Trump promises similar policies, and would even take them up a notch.

    The first problem with these critiques is definitional. Neoliberalism does not mean a strict adherence to free markets, the abolition of state intervention and a cult-like devotion to Milton Friedman. Yes, beginning in the 1970s, there was a general decrease in marginal tax rates, an increase in free-trade agreements, and easier flows of international capital. The so-called “ Washington consensus ,” fostered by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, preached the benefits of less debt, more trade and reduced government intervention.

    (more…)
  • Portuguese Men of War Going Their Own Way

    Experts issue warning as toxic creatures wash up on beaches: ‘We will see more’

    TIL

    The Portuguese man o’ war is not a jellyfish, but rather a cooperative of organisms called a siphonophore. Multiple colonies of organisms, called zooids, each grow to fulfill a specific purpose for the larger whole. A bladder keeps the man o’ war floating on the waves, while stinging tentacles dangle up to 100 feet below the surface to catch prey.

    ‘The Capitalism of the Sea’