Offshore
Video
memenodes
never lose faith crypto guys, may be the women of your life is not born yet https://t.co/sMFGlm6EZC
tweet
never lose faith crypto guys, may be the women of your life is not born yet https://t.co/sMFGlm6EZC
tweet
Offshore
Video
memenodes
Greatest edit of all time https://t.co/YUWorH1dyg
tweet
Greatest edit of all time https://t.co/YUWorH1dyg
genuinely convinced you need a degree in video editing as a prerequisite to be a breaking bad fan LMFAO tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
When Intelligence Doesn’t Show Up on a Report Card
A lot of really smart people look like bad students when they’re young, and it’s usually not because they lack intelligence. It’s because school tends to reward minds that are comfortable with repetition, linear instruction, and doing work that doesn’t always feel meaningful. Some kids just don’t work that way. They’re curious in a different direction. They question assumptions. They get bored quickly when something feels shallow and then they become completely absorbed when something actually grabs them.
Many highly intelligent people don’t have evenly distributed attention. They have selective attention. They might struggle to sit through a worksheet or a lecture, but give them an idea that clicks and they’ll disappear into it for hours, days, sometimes years. That’s not a lack of focus, it’s focus with a gatekeeper. Their brain is trying to build a full mental model, not just complete the task.
This is where things get messy today. A lot of kids who struggle in school aren’t unfocused in any global sense, they’re selectively disengaged. They can’t pay attention to things that feel empty or repetitive, but they can lock in completely when something actually matters to them. From the outside, those two behaviors look the same, so we often treat them the same. But they’re not. One is a lack of interest, the other is a lack of capacity, and confusing the two leads to a lot of mislabeling.
History makes this pretty clear. Plenty of people who were written off as slow, difficult, or unmotivated early on turned out to be anything but. Einstein clashed with rote learning. Edison had almost no formal schooling. Churchill struggled academically. Steve Jobs was bored and defiant in traditional classes. Branson and Spielberg have talked openly about dyslexia. None of them were bad learners, they just didn’t learn on a timetable or in a format that fit the system they were in.
What really sticks with me is how fast those labels harden. Once a kid is told they’re lazy, unfocused, or not very bright, that story can follow them for years and quietly shape what they believe about themselves. And often the issue isn’t the kid at all. It’s that the system is built to recognize only a narrow band of intelligence. In a world that depends more and more on creative, obsessive, nonlinear thinkers, that’s something we probably need to rethink more carefully than we do.
tweet
When Intelligence Doesn’t Show Up on a Report Card
A lot of really smart people look like bad students when they’re young, and it’s usually not because they lack intelligence. It’s because school tends to reward minds that are comfortable with repetition, linear instruction, and doing work that doesn’t always feel meaningful. Some kids just don’t work that way. They’re curious in a different direction. They question assumptions. They get bored quickly when something feels shallow and then they become completely absorbed when something actually grabs them.
Many highly intelligent people don’t have evenly distributed attention. They have selective attention. They might struggle to sit through a worksheet or a lecture, but give them an idea that clicks and they’ll disappear into it for hours, days, sometimes years. That’s not a lack of focus, it’s focus with a gatekeeper. Their brain is trying to build a full mental model, not just complete the task.
This is where things get messy today. A lot of kids who struggle in school aren’t unfocused in any global sense, they’re selectively disengaged. They can’t pay attention to things that feel empty or repetitive, but they can lock in completely when something actually matters to them. From the outside, those two behaviors look the same, so we often treat them the same. But they’re not. One is a lack of interest, the other is a lack of capacity, and confusing the two leads to a lot of mislabeling.
History makes this pretty clear. Plenty of people who were written off as slow, difficult, or unmotivated early on turned out to be anything but. Einstein clashed with rote learning. Edison had almost no formal schooling. Churchill struggled academically. Steve Jobs was bored and defiant in traditional classes. Branson and Spielberg have talked openly about dyslexia. None of them were bad learners, they just didn’t learn on a timetable or in a format that fit the system they were in.
What really sticks with me is how fast those labels harden. Once a kid is told they’re lazy, unfocused, or not very bright, that story can follow them for years and quietly shape what they believe about themselves. And often the issue isn’t the kid at all. It’s that the system is built to recognize only a narrow band of intelligence. In a world that depends more and more on creative, obsessive, nonlinear thinkers, that’s something we probably need to rethink more carefully than we do.
Elon Musk's teachers thought he was r*tarded https://t.co/xOS60ggBd7 tweet
Offshore
Photo
Quiver Quantitative
UPDATE: Representative Dave Min has signed the discharge petition to force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban. https://t.co/iDqYAvoq8X
tweet
UPDATE: Representative Dave Min has signed the discharge petition to force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban. https://t.co/iDqYAvoq8X
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Fiscal.ai
RT @patientinvestt: If you invested $10k in PayPal 5 years ago, you would have $2.5k today!
$PYPL https://t.co/8MiSfvpsMo
tweet
RT @patientinvestt: If you invested $10k in PayPal 5 years ago, you would have $2.5k today!
$PYPL https://t.co/8MiSfvpsMo
tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
The Office Vacancy Problem Just Hit Your Starbucks Morning Coffee
This is signpost about where the U.S. economy is right now. Starbucks isn’t closing hundreds of stores because people stopped drinking coffee. They’re doing it because the math around where people spend time, how they work, and what downtown foot traffic looks like has quietly changed.
The office data is the backdrop nobody can ignore with national office vacancy has been sitting around 20.7%, a multi decade high, and major cities are even worse…think San Francisco roughly 28–35%, Los Angeles 25–32%, NYC pockets in the high teens to 20s, Houston 25–26%, Phoenix 28%, with other big metros hovering in the teens to 20s. That’s not an abstract real estate stats, that’s fewer people in the buildings, fewer lunch breaks, fewer grab a coffee on the way in, fewer afternoon runs, and fewer reliable weekday spikes. When the customer base in a dense corridor drops or shifts to two or three office days a week, a store that used to print money suddenly becomes a thin margin lease with high labor and high fixed costs.
Layer that onto the consumer side and it makes even more sense. People are still spending, but they’re more selective. The casual, habitual splurge only works when budgets feel loose. When costs rise everywhere else like in housing, insurance, groceries people start questioning the $7 coffee more often. They don’t quit entirely; they just trim frequency, trade down, and get pickier about value.
So Starbucks is doing what any rational operator does in this environment which is cut the locations that depended on five day a week downtown density, and pivot toward formats that match how people live now with drive thru, pickup, and suburban and residential convenience. That’s why this is a signpost because it’s not just a coffee story. It’s remote work, urban demand reset, cost inflation and consumer trade offs showing up in one very visible corporate decision.
tweet
The Office Vacancy Problem Just Hit Your Starbucks Morning Coffee
This is signpost about where the U.S. economy is right now. Starbucks isn’t closing hundreds of stores because people stopped drinking coffee. They’re doing it because the math around where people spend time, how they work, and what downtown foot traffic looks like has quietly changed.
The office data is the backdrop nobody can ignore with national office vacancy has been sitting around 20.7%, a multi decade high, and major cities are even worse…think San Francisco roughly 28–35%, Los Angeles 25–32%, NYC pockets in the high teens to 20s, Houston 25–26%, Phoenix 28%, with other big metros hovering in the teens to 20s. That’s not an abstract real estate stats, that’s fewer people in the buildings, fewer lunch breaks, fewer grab a coffee on the way in, fewer afternoon runs, and fewer reliable weekday spikes. When the customer base in a dense corridor drops or shifts to two or three office days a week, a store that used to print money suddenly becomes a thin margin lease with high labor and high fixed costs.
Layer that onto the consumer side and it makes even more sense. People are still spending, but they’re more selective. The casual, habitual splurge only works when budgets feel loose. When costs rise everywhere else like in housing, insurance, groceries people start questioning the $7 coffee more often. They don’t quit entirely; they just trim frequency, trade down, and get pickier about value.
So Starbucks is doing what any rational operator does in this environment which is cut the locations that depended on five day a week downtown density, and pivot toward formats that match how people live now with drive thru, pickup, and suburban and residential convenience. That’s why this is a signpost because it’s not just a coffee story. It’s remote work, urban demand reset, cost inflation and consumer trade offs showing up in one very visible corporate decision.
Starbucks plans to close about 400 locations, its largest closure plan on record
#MacroEdge tweet
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
Howard Marks on Gold $GLD 💵
“People who bought gold a year ago have made a ton of money… but if you bought gold at the end of 2010, you’ve earned about a 7.7% annual return. If you bought the S&P at the same time, you’ve earned about 12.7%.
It’s not that gold is a disaster — but you shouldn’t be 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 by the gains of the last month. It’s been a 𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩.”
Source: The Investor’s Podcast Network (episode posted ~2 weeks ago)
tweet
Howard Marks on Gold $GLD 💵
“People who bought gold a year ago have made a ton of money… but if you bought gold at the end of 2010, you’ve earned about a 7.7% annual return. If you bought the S&P at the same time, you’ve earned about 12.7%.
It’s not that gold is a disaster — but you shouldn’t be 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 by the gains of the last month. It’s been a 𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩.”
Source: The Investor’s Podcast Network (episode posted ~2 weeks ago)
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Fiscal.ai
Who will be the largest company by market cap in 2027?
Current Market Caps:
Nvidia: $4.6T
Apple: $4.1T
Google: $3.8T
Microsoft: $3.6T
Amazon: $2.5T
Meta: $1.7T
Tesla: $1.5T
$NVDA $AAPL $GOOGL $MSFT $AMZN $META $TSLA https://t.co/tZLCZPE6j8
tweet
Who will be the largest company by market cap in 2027?
Current Market Caps:
Nvidia: $4.6T
Apple: $4.1T
Google: $3.8T
Microsoft: $3.6T
Amazon: $2.5T
Meta: $1.7T
Tesla: $1.5T
$NVDA $AAPL $GOOGL $MSFT $AMZN $META $TSLA https://t.co/tZLCZPE6j8
tweet