Recent well liked threads
NYC SANDWICH LOG 1 🧵
Taku Sando
7/10. solid sandwich 😏
Taku Sando
7/10. solid sandwich 😏
NYC SANDWICH LOG 2 😩
Apollo Bagel
9/10 crisp 🫨
Apollo Bagel
9/10 crisp 🫨
NYC SANDWICH LOG 3 🤧
Bolivian Llama Party
10/10 now thats a real fucking sandwich
Bolivian Llama Party
10/10 now thats a real fucking sandwich
Jeffrey Epstein asked his brother, Mark Epstein, whether Putin has photos of Trump blowing “Bubba,” which is Bill Clinton’s nickname.
The document number is listed at the bottom right corner.
Here is the document from the link the Oversight Committee shared: drive.google.com/drive/search?q…
Here is the link to the rest of them: oversight.house.gov/release/oversi…
Here is the document from the link the Oversight Committee shared: drive.google.com/drive/search?q…
Here is the link to the rest of them: oversight.house.gov/release/oversi…
First Principles Of Multi-Manager Funds🧵
Why Do PMs/Traders Join Podshops?
1. (GOOD) They want access to capital/resources
Capital raising is a separate skill.
Some PMs can barely looking someone in the eye, let alone hold a conversation convincing someone to part with their hard-earned money. Sometimes, these PMs instead have some skill at generating alpha, and want to monetize the excess capacity of their alpha generation skills. So, they look for someone who can actually raise capital, and this makes a pair as old as time. These are the best relationships because both parties know they can't do without the other.
Separate from the above, sometimes, some strategies require a lot of resources to run them. These resource intensive strategies are typically because:
a. Data can be expensive [Many >100K subscriptions]
b. Storage can be expensive [TBs of data]
c. Compute can be expensive [GPU/High Ram]
d. Access can be expensive [Exchange seat, colo, etc]
e. Researchers can be expensive
They have strategies that work, but are conditional upon some resources that they individually cannot afford. So once again, the guy that can make money from money pairs up with the guy who can raise money to spend money to make money - pair made in heaven.
2. (BAD | GOOD) They want/need access to infrastructure
PMs don't emerge fully formed. Many of them are researchers (non risk-taking) looking for PM (risk-taking) seats. They will come with incomplete mental model of how the world works and are mostly derivative. Most of these are lemons, and are bad copies of their previous masters.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is the truth. Researchers are MOSTLY low resolution JPEGs of their PMs, some of these are going to be some hilarious 8bit representations (e.g. Asia Index rebal researchers not knowing what is ToyoKezai).
How low resolution depends on:
a. How long they have spent with the PM
b. How much exposure they have with the PM
c. How much does the PM share with them
d. The culture of the team
e. Their propensity of "putting the pieces together"
Occasionally, you will find a researcher that has a unique worldview and is NOT a lemon. He has been able to synthesize the methodologies of his PM and via exploration/introspection, have something truly value-adding or novel to the process. Often times, the best marker for this is very very high ownership (hopefully single owner) of a complex but ultimately successful project; and being able to articulate and break down this project in high levels of detail in conversations.
Still, these researchers/first-time PMs will need help.
In the investing process, there are
-> DATA ONBOARDING
-> RAW DATA
-> CLEANED DATA
-> FEATURES
-> SIGNALS
-> PORTFOLIO
-> EXECUTION
In the tech stack there are:
- DATA ETL
- DATA STORAGE
- EXECUTION/OMS
- DATABASES
- MESSAGING BUSES
- CLOUD COMPUTE
- SIMULATORS
As a researcher, most of their time will be spent at the CLEANED DATA -> SIGNALS generation stage, with almost no exposure elsewhere.
It is not uncommon to hear first time PMs explicitly asking for help with :
DATA ONBOARDING -> CLEANED DATA
PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZERS
EXECUTION ALGORITHMS
PUT TOGETHER A TECH STACK
PMs generally really favor help with both ends of the investment process AND a modular tech stack. Generally, they want EXACTLY that and nothing more - because they want to obfuscate as much of their known worldview as possible: CLEANED DATA -> SIGNALS; and who can blame them?
It is, after all, their only advantage and bargaining chip.
3. (BAD) They want to be employees earning a stipend
Sometimes, PMs, like every other career, are just trying to make a wage to go home to their wife and play with their kids. They don't really care about anything else, but have realized that this industry is an EXCELLENT place to be paid to do absolutely nothing. Are they winners or losers? This truly depends on who you ask.
Some people call these guys CONSTANT GARDENERS. As a podshop, you generally want to avoid these guys like the plague. They are going to be pure cost centres, and are ONLY distractions to the firms.
Avoiding them is actually very easy if you are willing to accept a high false positive rate.
Avoid PMs that haven't been able to stay at a place for more than 2 years more than twice. It takes almost an entire year to build out a proper team/book, so that's the lifeline of most podshops. If the PM has been let go shortly after a year more than once, he likely hasn't got it; and is just farming gardens/wages.
The more name brands he has collected on his resume, the MORE likely he is a constant gardener. Let me put it this way in no ambiguous terms: Podshops will literally suck d*ck to keep a great PM. Only bad PMs get to leave, and a super-star PM getting poached is going to be known to EVERYONE. So the only surprises you get are going to be negative.
When in doubt, avoid >first-time PMs. The chances of him suddenly "developing edge" is close to 0. And for every washed up PM, you can pick from 5x researchers.
In fact, I am staunchly of the opinion that the only space in the industry in mature markets is exercising manager selection alpha on first-time PMs.
Why Do PMs/Traders Join Podshops?
1. (GOOD) They want access to capital/resources
Capital raising is a separate skill.
Some PMs can barely looking someone in the eye, let alone hold a conversation convincing someone to part with their hard-earned money. Sometimes, these PMs instead have some skill at generating alpha, and want to monetize the excess capacity of their alpha generation skills. So, they look for someone who can actually raise capital, and this makes a pair as old as time. These are the best relationships because both parties know they can't do without the other.
Separate from the above, sometimes, some strategies require a lot of resources to run them. These resource intensive strategies are typically because:
a. Data can be expensive [Many >100K subscriptions]
b. Storage can be expensive [TBs of data]
c. Compute can be expensive [GPU/High Ram]
d. Access can be expensive [Exchange seat, colo, etc]
e. Researchers can be expensive
They have strategies that work, but are conditional upon some resources that they individually cannot afford. So once again, the guy that can make money from money pairs up with the guy who can raise money to spend money to make money - pair made in heaven.
2. (BAD | GOOD) They want/need access to infrastructure
PMs don't emerge fully formed. Many of them are researchers (non risk-taking) looking for PM (risk-taking) seats. They will come with incomplete mental model of how the world works and are mostly derivative. Most of these are lemons, and are bad copies of their previous masters.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is the truth. Researchers are MOSTLY low resolution JPEGs of their PMs, some of these are going to be some hilarious 8bit representations (e.g. Asia Index rebal researchers not knowing what is ToyoKezai).
How low resolution depends on:
a. How long they have spent with the PM
b. How much exposure they have with the PM
c. How much does the PM share with them
d. The culture of the team
e. Their propensity of "putting the pieces together"
Occasionally, you will find a researcher that has a unique worldview and is NOT a lemon. He has been able to synthesize the methodologies of his PM and via exploration/introspection, have something truly value-adding or novel to the process. Often times, the best marker for this is very very high ownership (hopefully single owner) of a complex but ultimately successful project; and being able to articulate and break down this project in high levels of detail in conversations.
Still, these researchers/first-time PMs will need help.
In the investing process, there are
-> DATA ONBOARDING
-> RAW DATA
-> CLEANED DATA
-> FEATURES
-> SIGNALS
-> PORTFOLIO
-> EXECUTION
In the tech stack there are:
- DATA ETL
- DATA STORAGE
- EXECUTION/OMS
- DATABASES
- MESSAGING BUSES
- CLOUD COMPUTE
- SIMULATORS
As a researcher, most of their time will be spent at the CLEANED DATA -> SIGNALS generation stage, with almost no exposure elsewhere.
It is not uncommon to hear first time PMs explicitly asking for help with :
DATA ONBOARDING -> CLEANED DATA
PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZERS
EXECUTION ALGORITHMS
PUT TOGETHER A TECH STACK
PMs generally really favor help with both ends of the investment process AND a modular tech stack. Generally, they want EXACTLY that and nothing more - because they want to obfuscate as much of their known worldview as possible: CLEANED DATA -> SIGNALS; and who can blame them?
It is, after all, their only advantage and bargaining chip.
3. (BAD) They want to be employees earning a stipend
Sometimes, PMs, like every other career, are just trying to make a wage to go home to their wife and play with their kids. They don't really care about anything else, but have realized that this industry is an EXCELLENT place to be paid to do absolutely nothing. Are they winners or losers? This truly depends on who you ask.
Some people call these guys CONSTANT GARDENERS. As a podshop, you generally want to avoid these guys like the plague. They are going to be pure cost centres, and are ONLY distractions to the firms.
Avoiding them is actually very easy if you are willing to accept a high false positive rate.
Avoid PMs that haven't been able to stay at a place for more than 2 years more than twice. It takes almost an entire year to build out a proper team/book, so that's the lifeline of most podshops. If the PM has been let go shortly after a year more than once, he likely hasn't got it; and is just farming gardens/wages.
The more name brands he has collected on his resume, the MORE likely he is a constant gardener. Let me put it this way in no ambiguous terms: Podshops will literally suck d*ck to keep a great PM. Only bad PMs get to leave, and a super-star PM getting poached is going to be known to EVERYONE. So the only surprises you get are going to be negative.
When in doubt, avoid >first-time PMs. The chances of him suddenly "developing edge" is close to 0. And for every washed up PM, you can pick from 5x researchers.
In fact, I am staunchly of the opinion that the only space in the industry in mature markets is exercising manager selection alpha on first-time PMs.
(2/N) First Principles Of Multi-Manager Funds🧵
Why Do Podshops Want PMs/Traders?
In a single word, diversity:
I think you can think of the PM diversification axis as having (broadly) these dimensions that you want to focus on:
Data
x Style | Strategy
x Strategy Implementation
x Asset Class
x Region
x Universe
-----
You can unfold this into a big 2D map where you are essentially thinking along the lines of:
(Data x Style x Implementation) Along the Y-axis
(Asset Class x Region x Universe) Along the X-axis
This effectively gives you a diversification map of: WHAT IS BEING RAN (Y) x WHERE IS IT BEING RAN (X)
And every PM with capital deployed is a point on the map.
-----
Essentially, all Podshops want to:
1) Populate as much of this chart as possible. You want to (if resources were unconstrained) go as far as possible across the map (and it is a VERY big map). The reason why you want to do this is because, plainly, diversification increases the sharpe of the firm AND at the same time increases the capacity of the firm. Both are extremely desirable qualities for a money manager.
2) Watch out for any hotspots where you are concentrating capital on. Sometimes, if you're not careful, you can wind up with capital hotspots where you are concentrating too heavily on an area of the map. Then, you WANT to spread this capital more thinly to other areas where you have PMs, because you now end up having significant concentration risks. BUT, if you don't have enough PMs scattered across the map, you are forced to contend with your capital hotspots.
-----
Reality is a little more nuanced than this, because of 2 competing optimizations:
a. You want sufficient PMs in (Asset Class x Region x Universe) because you want to fully utilize netting benefits AND
b. Expertise/competitive advantage in a market takes time/luck for a firm to grow. Sometimes you can hire a PM that can effectively "unlock" an entire area of the map for the firm, but most of the time, if the firm does not have existing knowledge/expertise in an area of the map, hiring (junior) PMs there is going to challenging at best and throwing good money after bad at worst.
-----
We will eventually cover how to screen for PMs specifically that can unlock dark areas, but for now, the above brings us to the next point:
3) PMs are also hired to densify (Asset Class x Region x Universe). Trading is expensive, and the surest way to bring trading costs down is not to pay it at all. As far as I can tell, the only way to not pay for trading costs is to ensure that your orders never reach the market. Netting is essentially this - you have X number of teams, and what you do, is take all of their orders together, and pretend for a second that you are the exchange. You cross aggressive orders against passive orders, and attribute fills internally. Then, you take residual orders and only send THOSE to the exchange. In some firms, this can save up to 80% of trading costs.
4) Netting also has the additional benefit of ensuring that only your best stuff are sent out to market. Suppose you have 5 different teams, and 4 of them wants to buy apple and 1 of them wants to sell apple, netting allows you to perform a "dollar weighted voting" at the firm level for what the final positions should be, which decreases the variance of the firm significantly, since you only take on positions that are, by definition, "the best".
5) As a fun loop around, netting benefits are really ONLY observed when correlation among PMs are low. Which means that, you want to look for PMs that are in the same (Asset Class x Region x Universe) and yet have sufficiently different (Data x Style x Implementation) to introduce diversification in their positions.
Why Do Podshops Want PMs/Traders?
In a single word, diversity:
I think you can think of the PM diversification axis as having (broadly) these dimensions that you want to focus on:
Data
x Style | Strategy
x Strategy Implementation
x Asset Class
x Region
x Universe
-----
You can unfold this into a big 2D map where you are essentially thinking along the lines of:
(Data x Style x Implementation) Along the Y-axis
(Asset Class x Region x Universe) Along the X-axis
This effectively gives you a diversification map of: WHAT IS BEING RAN (Y) x WHERE IS IT BEING RAN (X)
And every PM with capital deployed is a point on the map.
-----
Essentially, all Podshops want to:
1) Populate as much of this chart as possible. You want to (if resources were unconstrained) go as far as possible across the map (and it is a VERY big map). The reason why you want to do this is because, plainly, diversification increases the sharpe of the firm AND at the same time increases the capacity of the firm. Both are extremely desirable qualities for a money manager.
2) Watch out for any hotspots where you are concentrating capital on. Sometimes, if you're not careful, you can wind up with capital hotspots where you are concentrating too heavily on an area of the map. Then, you WANT to spread this capital more thinly to other areas where you have PMs, because you now end up having significant concentration risks. BUT, if you don't have enough PMs scattered across the map, you are forced to contend with your capital hotspots.
-----
Reality is a little more nuanced than this, because of 2 competing optimizations:
a. You want sufficient PMs in (Asset Class x Region x Universe) because you want to fully utilize netting benefits AND
b. Expertise/competitive advantage in a market takes time/luck for a firm to grow. Sometimes you can hire a PM that can effectively "unlock" an entire area of the map for the firm, but most of the time, if the firm does not have existing knowledge/expertise in an area of the map, hiring (junior) PMs there is going to challenging at best and throwing good money after bad at worst.
-----
We will eventually cover how to screen for PMs specifically that can unlock dark areas, but for now, the above brings us to the next point:
3) PMs are also hired to densify (Asset Class x Region x Universe). Trading is expensive, and the surest way to bring trading costs down is not to pay it at all. As far as I can tell, the only way to not pay for trading costs is to ensure that your orders never reach the market. Netting is essentially this - you have X number of teams, and what you do, is take all of their orders together, and pretend for a second that you are the exchange. You cross aggressive orders against passive orders, and attribute fills internally. Then, you take residual orders and only send THOSE to the exchange. In some firms, this can save up to 80% of trading costs.
4) Netting also has the additional benefit of ensuring that only your best stuff are sent out to market. Suppose you have 5 different teams, and 4 of them wants to buy apple and 1 of them wants to sell apple, netting allows you to perform a "dollar weighted voting" at the firm level for what the final positions should be, which decreases the variance of the firm significantly, since you only take on positions that are, by definition, "the best".
5) As a fun loop around, netting benefits are really ONLY observed when correlation among PMs are low. Which means that, you want to look for PMs that are in the same (Asset Class x Region x Universe) and yet have sufficiently different (Data x Style x Implementation) to introduce diversification in their positions.
(3/N) First Principles Of Multi-Manager Funds🧵
Hiring PMs/Traders: Understanding Their History
A large part of hiring someone is to understand what they've done before and looking for patterns and anti-patterns to adjust your "how much of what he is going to say in the next hour should I trust/distrust".
This part of the process is like any other interview. You ask questions around where they came from, what they have done and try to get a good sense of their contributions.
In a world where you have perfect information over a candidate's skills, talents and personalities, history doesn't matter; but this is no perfect world. So we use history as a chance to probe thinking lines.
Where they came from gives you a sense of their hoop jumping ability. It's no mean fit to be able to land a spot in [NAME YOU RECOGNISE HERE], and so these name brands often serve as a probability filter that you are likely not dealing with a dimwit. Occasionally, dimwits still slip through (especially if they are being forced to leave said place that you respect).
So you look at the places they've been, and how long they've stayed, and you probe questions that try to understand how they got in, who they worked with, what was their experience, and why they are looking to leave.
HOW THEY GOT IN: The purpose of this is to understand if there were any special situations that led to them being hired, e.g. lucky break at career fair VS first place in competition. The implications here is to look for a sense of agency AND/OR a sense of actually competing for a spot versus passing a blind, random filter.
WHO THEY WORKED WITH: You want to understand what team they are in, who they interacted with at work, check if there are any names you recognize for reference checks, and it also allows you to build a mental model of the org structure of your counterparts.
WHAT WAS THEIR EXPERIENCE: How did they feel about the place? What was most exciting to them? What was boring or dreadful? You asked this to ascertain if they are going to be a good fit for what you are hiring for. For example, suppose they say "Oh I was given more responsibilities and I had to manage a team and I just wanted to be an individual contributor", but you are looking for someone to build out and scale a market, he is probably not going to be a fit for you.
It also gives you a chance to listen to contrast his worldview against the aggregate of what you've heard about the place. For example, often you will hear things like [COMPANY]'s [TEAM] is the BEST/WORST, because of [REASONS], and sometimes someone comes along and gives you a contrasting view of the place -- which allows you to suss out if he either has a bad mental model for reality, or if he actually has some real insight.
WHAT PROJECTS DID THEY WORK ON: It gives you an idea of the scope and depth of their skills. What projectS they worked on gives you an idea of scope, and their participation gives you an idea of their skill.
Why did they work on the project? What was it they wanted to achieve/solve? Why was that a problem? This gives you insight into what your counterparties are trying to do. If you understand their pain, you understand their focus. E.g. if you hear [VERY LARGE FUND] is doing a giant buildout in injecting alpha into execution, you know at the capacity they are at, they've run into slippage and information leakage issues from naive execution.
Who came up with the project? Was it issued? Or did the person see a problem and tried to solve it? How did he see the problem? Why did he think this was a good solution? Was it resolved? You are looking for a sense of agency here.
When discussing projects, you want to probe at both coarse and granular details. The reason is because you want to understand how much true understanding did the person actually have, or was he a mindless muppet implementing something for a taskmaster. Ask him about architectural considerations, timelines, budgets, considerations, tradeoffs.
Did they manage anyone for this projects? What was their experience managing people? How did they assign tasks? How did they balance between speed and autonomy? If you are looking for managers, you want to work with people whose management style is in line with your principles. You can either grow a manager or hire a manager. If you are hiring a manager, you NEED to filter for managerial principles you agree with.
WHY THEY ARE LOOKING TO LEAVE: Lastly, you want to understand their push factors. Good push factors are along the lines of chasing growth, wanting more alignment with incentives, looking to do something different. Bad push factors are along the lines of fallouts with teams, "cultural misalignment" (99% they are the misalignment), or no clear push factors. Sometimes, you hear things like "I built out X and did not get paid/recognition for X", and you know that this person is going to be a stickler for IP/praise/recognition, and you have to ask yourself if you are willing to put in the effort/concessions to give yourself what this person wants - because history IS going to rhyme, what pissed them off the first place is not going to change in the second unless you IMPOSE that change.
WHY ARE THEY LOOKING TO JOIN YOU: Pull factors are rarely ever genuine - most people don't give a shit about who you are, what your firm stands for. A super super minority do any real research, but asking this question and hearing some generic bland bullshit gives you 2 things:
a. You get a sense for how politically polished this person you are dealing with. Is he a political animal? Will he say what he needs to say to land the job? You should think about how this will reflect in all further interactions.
b. Is he giving a pull reason that simply doesn't exist or that you simply cannot provide? Then you immediately understand this person CANNOT possibly be a good fit. E.g. You require everyone to come to office 9-9, 6 days a week. Your interviewee says: "I really like that [YOUR COMPANY] allows a high degree of flexibility and work from home!".
Once you have all these information, where the person came from, what the person has done, how they view their work/team/company, and what are their motivations and political aptitude, it allows you to frame your perception/read for the rest of your conversation.
Hiring PMs/Traders: Understanding Their History
A large part of hiring someone is to understand what they've done before and looking for patterns and anti-patterns to adjust your "how much of what he is going to say in the next hour should I trust/distrust".
This part of the process is like any other interview. You ask questions around where they came from, what they have done and try to get a good sense of their contributions.
In a world where you have perfect information over a candidate's skills, talents and personalities, history doesn't matter; but this is no perfect world. So we use history as a chance to probe thinking lines.
Where they came from gives you a sense of their hoop jumping ability. It's no mean fit to be able to land a spot in [NAME YOU RECOGNISE HERE], and so these name brands often serve as a probability filter that you are likely not dealing with a dimwit. Occasionally, dimwits still slip through (especially if they are being forced to leave said place that you respect).
So you look at the places they've been, and how long they've stayed, and you probe questions that try to understand how they got in, who they worked with, what was their experience, and why they are looking to leave.
HOW THEY GOT IN: The purpose of this is to understand if there were any special situations that led to them being hired, e.g. lucky break at career fair VS first place in competition. The implications here is to look for a sense of agency AND/OR a sense of actually competing for a spot versus passing a blind, random filter.
WHO THEY WORKED WITH: You want to understand what team they are in, who they interacted with at work, check if there are any names you recognize for reference checks, and it also allows you to build a mental model of the org structure of your counterparts.
WHAT WAS THEIR EXPERIENCE: How did they feel about the place? What was most exciting to them? What was boring or dreadful? You asked this to ascertain if they are going to be a good fit for what you are hiring for. For example, suppose they say "Oh I was given more responsibilities and I had to manage a team and I just wanted to be an individual contributor", but you are looking for someone to build out and scale a market, he is probably not going to be a fit for you.
It also gives you a chance to listen to contrast his worldview against the aggregate of what you've heard about the place. For example, often you will hear things like [COMPANY]'s [TEAM] is the BEST/WORST, because of [REASONS], and sometimes someone comes along and gives you a contrasting view of the place -- which allows you to suss out if he either has a bad mental model for reality, or if he actually has some real insight.
WHAT PROJECTS DID THEY WORK ON: It gives you an idea of the scope and depth of their skills. What projectS they worked on gives you an idea of scope, and their participation gives you an idea of their skill.
Why did they work on the project? What was it they wanted to achieve/solve? Why was that a problem? This gives you insight into what your counterparties are trying to do. If you understand their pain, you understand their focus. E.g. if you hear [VERY LARGE FUND] is doing a giant buildout in injecting alpha into execution, you know at the capacity they are at, they've run into slippage and information leakage issues from naive execution.
Who came up with the project? Was it issued? Or did the person see a problem and tried to solve it? How did he see the problem? Why did he think this was a good solution? Was it resolved? You are looking for a sense of agency here.
When discussing projects, you want to probe at both coarse and granular details. The reason is because you want to understand how much true understanding did the person actually have, or was he a mindless muppet implementing something for a taskmaster. Ask him about architectural considerations, timelines, budgets, considerations, tradeoffs.
Did they manage anyone for this projects? What was their experience managing people? How did they assign tasks? How did they balance between speed and autonomy? If you are looking for managers, you want to work with people whose management style is in line with your principles. You can either grow a manager or hire a manager. If you are hiring a manager, you NEED to filter for managerial principles you agree with.
WHY THEY ARE LOOKING TO LEAVE: Lastly, you want to understand their push factors. Good push factors are along the lines of chasing growth, wanting more alignment with incentives, looking to do something different. Bad push factors are along the lines of fallouts with teams, "cultural misalignment" (99% they are the misalignment), or no clear push factors. Sometimes, you hear things like "I built out X and did not get paid/recognition for X", and you know that this person is going to be a stickler for IP/praise/recognition, and you have to ask yourself if you are willing to put in the effort/concessions to give yourself what this person wants - because history IS going to rhyme, what pissed them off the first place is not going to change in the second unless you IMPOSE that change.
WHY ARE THEY LOOKING TO JOIN YOU: Pull factors are rarely ever genuine - most people don't give a shit about who you are, what your firm stands for. A super super minority do any real research, but asking this question and hearing some generic bland bullshit gives you 2 things:
a. You get a sense for how politically polished this person you are dealing with. Is he a political animal? Will he say what he needs to say to land the job? You should think about how this will reflect in all further interactions.
b. Is he giving a pull reason that simply doesn't exist or that you simply cannot provide? Then you immediately understand this person CANNOT possibly be a good fit. E.g. You require everyone to come to office 9-9, 6 days a week. Your interviewee says: "I really like that [YOUR COMPANY] allows a high degree of flexibility and work from home!".
Once you have all these information, where the person came from, what the person has done, how they view their work/team/company, and what are their motivations and political aptitude, it allows you to frame your perception/read for the rest of your conversation.
An update on the war following a recent trip. Ukrainian forces are holding, but the situation has worsened since July due to mounting offensive pressure. Here I cover some of the negative and positive trends, along with the salient dynamics at the front. Long thread. 1/
Drones continue to be responsible for most daily casualties, with the front line defined by overlapping drone and artillery fire engagement zones 20-25km from the forward line of troops. This is commonly referred to as the ‘kill zone.’ 2/
One of the key dynamics this year has been a tug of war contest between Russian forces and the AFU over superiority in this kill zone, and its relative footprint. That in turn determines initiative on the ground, and the cost incurred in offensive, or defensive ops. 3/
What books was Jeffrey Epstein buying and reading?
I'll summarize as the article is paywalled.
🧵
I'll summarize as the article is paywalled.
🧵
He read a banned book by the Supreme Court in 1946 called Memoirs of Hecate County.
It's about a self-satisfied intellectual who manipulates a vulnerable married woman into a sexual relationship and then emotionally destroys her.
It's about a self-satisfied intellectual who manipulates a vulnerable married woman into a sexual relationship and then emotionally destroys her.
He bought lots of books on tantric sex, erotic spirituality manuals, and multiple copies and annotations on Lolita.
New Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbi
From WaPo:
"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.
"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."
“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."
"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.
"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."
“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."
There’s a reason the latest New York Times hit on RFK Jr. felt strange.
Not just dishonest.
Not just desperate.
But structurally different — more like a psychological operation than a piece of reporting.
People instinctively feel something is “off,” but they can’t always articulate what they’re reacting to.
This essay is that articulation.
For the first time, we are going to map the architecture of narrative warfare — the behind-the-curtain system legacy media uses to shape public perception, control emotional frames, and enforce ideological obedience.
This is not theory.
It’s a playbook.
And it explains exactly why the RFK piece looks the way it does.
Not just dishonest.
Not just desperate.
But structurally different — more like a psychological operation than a piece of reporting.
People instinctively feel something is “off,” but they can’t always articulate what they’re reacting to.
This essay is that articulation.
For the first time, we are going to map the architecture of narrative warfare — the behind-the-curtain system legacy media uses to shape public perception, control emotional frames, and enforce ideological obedience.
This is not theory.
It’s a playbook.
And it explains exactly why the RFK piece looks the way it does.
I. The First Layer: Control the Frame
(Before Any Fact Appears)
Narrative warfare begins before facts, data, or quotes.
It begins with framing, the invisible lens through which the audience is forced to interpret the story.
The media never tells you the frame.
They simply make you inhabit it.
The formula:
1. Define the subject emotionally, not factually.
(RFK Jr. becomes “the politician” — a character, not a person.)
2. Position the narrator as sympathetic or authoritative.
(In the RFK hit piece, the narrator is presented as a wounded storyteller.)
3. Decide the moral conclusion before gathering evidence.
(The subject must be discredited, delegitimized, or dehumanized.)
4. Build the story around the conclusion.
This is why everything feels “off.”
The emotional meaning is constructed first.
The reporting is reverse-engineered afterward.
This is framing as psychological engineering.
(Before Any Fact Appears)
Narrative warfare begins before facts, data, or quotes.
It begins with framing, the invisible lens through which the audience is forced to interpret the story.
The media never tells you the frame.
They simply make you inhabit it.
The formula:
1. Define the subject emotionally, not factually.
(RFK Jr. becomes “the politician” — a character, not a person.)
2. Position the narrator as sympathetic or authoritative.
(In the RFK hit piece, the narrator is presented as a wounded storyteller.)
3. Decide the moral conclusion before gathering evidence.
(The subject must be discredited, delegitimized, or dehumanized.)
4. Build the story around the conclusion.
This is why everything feels “off.”
The emotional meaning is constructed first.
The reporting is reverse-engineered afterward.
This is framing as psychological engineering.
II. The Second Layer: Replace Evidence
With Emotional Vividness
Narrative warfare doesn’t rely on facts.
It relies on imagery.
Why?
Because the mind stores images more easily than information.
This is why propaganda is always visual, sensory, melodramatic.
Look at the RFK piece:
- Roses
- Poetry
- Tears
- Nicknames
- DMT
- Emotional confession
- Whispered vulnerability
- A “politician” transformed into a romance archetype
This isn’t evidence.
It’s emotional staging.
The technical term in psyops:
Affective anchoring.
If you can make someone feel something, you don’t need documentation.
This is the same mechanism used to:
- Sell wars
- Shape elections
- Control culture
- Smear dissenters
- Elevate insiders
- Manipulate scientific narratives
This is the operating system of psychological media influence.
With Emotional Vividness
Narrative warfare doesn’t rely on facts.
It relies on imagery.
Why?
Because the mind stores images more easily than information.
This is why propaganda is always visual, sensory, melodramatic.
Look at the RFK piece:
- Roses
- Poetry
- Tears
- Nicknames
- DMT
- Emotional confession
- Whispered vulnerability
- A “politician” transformed into a romance archetype
This isn’t evidence.
It’s emotional staging.
The technical term in psyops:
Affective anchoring.
If you can make someone feel something, you don’t need documentation.
This is the same mechanism used to:
- Sell wars
- Shape elections
- Control culture
- Smear dissenters
- Elevate insiders
- Manipulate scientific narratives
This is the operating system of psychological media influence.
💡 My Cybersecurity Home Lab Mini SOC Environment
Over the past few months, I built a fully virtualized home lab designed to mimic a real SOC environment combining offensive testing, defensive monitoring, and layered security.
Over the past few months, I built a fully virtualized home lab designed to mimic a real SOC environment combining offensive testing, defensive monitoring, and layered security.
It gives me hands-on experience in threat hunting, network defense, alert correlation, and overall SOC workflows
🔧 Lab Setup Includes:
•🐉 Kali Linux – Recon & exploitation
•🐧 Ubuntu (Wazuh) – SIEM for monitoring & correlation
•🛡 pfSense – Firewall + segmentation
🔧 Lab Setup Includes:
•🐉 Kali Linux – Recon & exploitation
•🐧 Ubuntu (Wazuh) – SIEM for monitoring & correlation
•🛡 pfSense – Firewall + segmentation
•🧪 Suricata IDS/IPS – Threat detection & active blocking
•🪟 Windows Server AD – Domain & user management
•🎯 Metasploitable – Vulnerable target for testing
•🪟 Windows Server AD – Domain & user management
•🎯 Metasploitable – Vulnerable target for testing
Trump's boat bombings in the Caribbean just got worse. An internal DOJ memo says the victims are waging war on the US, but per NYT, it extensively cites the WH's *own claims* to this effect as evidence!
It gets even darker than that. 1/
(new piece)
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
It gets even darker than that. 1/
(new piece)
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
The memo purportedly justifying these murders also contains a lengthy section that lays out arguments defending the actions of those carrying out the strikes. In short, it *preemptively* defends them from potential prosecution later.
This is unusual. 2/
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
This is unusual. 2/
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
Ever since the bombings began, a big Q has been: Do those carrying them out fear they're being given illegal orders? The official overseeing them recently resigned with no explanation, prompting Dems to ask if he'd concluded bombings are illegal. 3/
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
newrepublic.com/article/203219…
🔥 THE EARHART [DECLAS] | 88 YEARS LATER, THE TRUTH LANDS 🔥
🔥 November 14, 2025 — Trump & Tulsi Just Unsealed 4,600 Pages That Shatter the Mystery, EXPOSE the Intel Op, and Rewrite U.S. History — She Didn’t Just Disappear. She Was DISAPPEARED. 🔥
My fren @LiveFreeOrDieF3 asked if I’d dig.
So I did.
But I didn’t just read the files…
…I ran a full digital forensics op with @JARVIS761711 🐸
Then I deployed @Grok to scan & verify every doc — just to be sure.
So go ahead, Community Notes — take your shot.
I brought the receipts.
This TRUTH isn’t getting buried.
She wasn’t “lost.”
She was DISAPPEARED.
#EarhartDeclass #TrumpDeclass
@TulsiGabbard
🧵1/
🔥 November 14, 2025 — Trump & Tulsi Just Unsealed 4,600 Pages That Shatter the Mystery, EXPOSE the Intel Op, and Rewrite U.S. History — She Didn’t Just Disappear. She Was DISAPPEARED. 🔥
My fren @LiveFreeOrDieF3 asked if I’d dig.
So I did.
But I didn’t just read the files…
…I ran a full digital forensics op with @JARVIS761711 🐸
Then I deployed @Grok to scan & verify every doc — just to be sure.
So go ahead, Community Notes — take your shot.
I brought the receipts.
This TRUTH isn’t getting buried.
She wasn’t “lost.”
She was DISAPPEARED.
#EarhartDeclass #TrumpDeclass
@TulsiGabbard
🧵1/
🧩 WHY WERE EARHART’S FILES CLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Short answer?
Because she wasn’t just a pilot.
She was a doorway into the machine.
Listen up, NORMIES.
If you’ve been sleepwalking through history thinking Amelia Earhart just “crashed and sank” like some tragic footnote…
Buckle up.
This ain’t your grandma’s aviation story.
This is a full-throttle RED PILL on ESPIONAGE, PSYOPS, and the WEAPONIZED SECRECY that’s been choking the TRUTH for 88 years.
The deeper TRUTH?
She didn’t vanish in a tragic accident.
She was DISAPPEARED.
SILENCED by a SYSTEM that couldn’t afford for you to know what she saw…
…or what she was doing.
For nearly nine decades…
For 88 years, that SYSTEM held the line:
→ SEALED files
→ Multi-agency SILENCE
→ A “mystery” [THEY] NEVER wanted solved
NSA. DNI. FBI. Navy. Coast Guard.
They all knew.
And now?
4,600 pages just blew the lid off one of the greatest intel ops in Modern History.
Because once you see the structure…
…you can’t unsee it.
This isn’t just a flight gone wrong.
It’s the fracture point in the official narrative — where HISTORY, ESPIONAGE, and TRUTH converge into one RED PILL ride.
THE PUZZLE IS COMING TOGETHER.🧩
But FRENS 🐸…
Before we go any further…
Go ahead and grab your COVFEFE.
Get comfy AF…
Cause it’s time to
connect•some•serious•dots••••• 😎
🔥 “Fasten your seatbelt and make sure your seat back and folding trays are in their full upright position.” —Q 🔥
🧵2/13
Short answer?
Because she wasn’t just a pilot.
She was a doorway into the machine.
Listen up, NORMIES.
If you’ve been sleepwalking through history thinking Amelia Earhart just “crashed and sank” like some tragic footnote…
Buckle up.
This ain’t your grandma’s aviation story.
This is a full-throttle RED PILL on ESPIONAGE, PSYOPS, and the WEAPONIZED SECRECY that’s been choking the TRUTH for 88 years.
The deeper TRUTH?
She didn’t vanish in a tragic accident.
She was DISAPPEARED.
SILENCED by a SYSTEM that couldn’t afford for you to know what she saw…
…or what she was doing.
For nearly nine decades…
For 88 years, that SYSTEM held the line:
→ SEALED files
→ Multi-agency SILENCE
→ A “mystery” [THEY] NEVER wanted solved
NSA. DNI. FBI. Navy. Coast Guard.
They all knew.
And now?
4,600 pages just blew the lid off one of the greatest intel ops in Modern History.
Because once you see the structure…
…you can’t unsee it.
This isn’t just a flight gone wrong.
It’s the fracture point in the official narrative — where HISTORY, ESPIONAGE, and TRUTH converge into one RED PILL ride.
THE PUZZLE IS COMING TOGETHER.🧩
But FRENS 🐸…
Before we go any further…
Go ahead and grab your COVFEFE.
Get comfy AF…
Cause it’s time to
connect•some•serious•dots••••• 😎
🔥 “Fasten your seatbelt and make sure your seat back and folding trays are in their full upright position.” —Q 🔥
🧵2/13
💥 World War II-Era Espionage (Pre-WWII Intel Op?) 💥
Amelia Earhart vanished in 1937.
Two years before World War II officially began.
So why were her files locked behind 88 years of classification, protected by the NSA, ODNI, and Military Intel?
Because this wasn’t just a missing person’s case.
This was a BLACK-OP gone sideways.
WHAT IF her world flight was just the cover?
WHAT IF her real mission was reconnaissance over the Pacific?
WHAT IF she was mapping Japanese-occupied military positions before war was even declared?
That would explain a lot:
→ Why the official search was cut short
→ Why native islanders swore she was captured by the Japanese
→ Why photos, testimony, and flight data were buried for nearly a century
Because if Amelia was working with U.S. Intelligence under Diplomatic fog…
…it means her disappearance wasn’t just tragic.
→ It was operational.
And the SYSTEM didn’t just FAIL her.
→ IT ERASED HER.
🧵3/13
Amelia Earhart vanished in 1937.
Two years before World War II officially began.
So why were her files locked behind 88 years of classification, protected by the NSA, ODNI, and Military Intel?
Because this wasn’t just a missing person’s case.
This was a BLACK-OP gone sideways.
WHAT IF her world flight was just the cover?
WHAT IF her real mission was reconnaissance over the Pacific?
WHAT IF she was mapping Japanese-occupied military positions before war was even declared?
That would explain a lot:
→ Why the official search was cut short
→ Why native islanders swore she was captured by the Japanese
→ Why photos, testimony, and flight data were buried for nearly a century
Because if Amelia was working with U.S. Intelligence under Diplomatic fog…
…it means her disappearance wasn’t just tragic.
→ It was operational.
And the SYSTEM didn’t just FAIL her.
→ IT ERASED HER.
🧵3/13
(1/n) 🧵: PRUEBAS EN EL JUICIO AL FGE (I)
Terminado el juicio celebrado en audiencia pública, recopilo esquemáticamente la 1ª parte de las evidencias contra el FGE que surgen de la prueba practicada. En otro hilo posterior, 2ª parte y otro de análisis de sus pruebas de descargo.
Terminado el juicio celebrado en audiencia pública, recopilo esquemáticamente la 1ª parte de las evidencias contra el FGE que surgen de la prueba practicada. En otro hilo posterior, 2ª parte y otro de análisis de sus pruebas de descargo.
(2/n) ACTUACIÓN DURANTE LOS HECHOS
1⃣SINCRONIZACIÓN
Hay sincronización plena entre el momento en el que en FGE reciben documentación y el momento en el que se filtra.
Sin seguir el cauce jerárquico, FGE solicita el 7/3/24 copia de todo el expediente a Fiscalía de Madrid (FM).
1⃣SINCRONIZACIÓN
Hay sincronización plena entre el momento en el que en FGE reciben documentación y el momento en el que se filtra.
Sin seguir el cauce jerárquico, FGE solicita el 7/3/24 copia de todo el expediente a Fiscalía de Madrid (FM).
(3/n) 8/3/24: FGE tiene la documentación completa enviada por FM.
11/3/24: 1 día hábil después, hay la 1ª evidencia objetiva de que la documentación está en manos de (WA a González Amador). ElDiario.es
11/3/24: 1 día hábil después, hay la 1ª evidencia objetiva de que la documentación está en manos de (WA a González Amador). ElDiario.es
Democrats are SCUM: The Putrid Scum Layer That Has Been Poisoning America for Decades (THREAD 🧵)
Scum doesn’t announce itself with trumpets. It just spreads, quiet and greasy, until everything it touches reeks of rot. That is exactly what the modern Democrat Party is: a thick, rancid film of corruption, hypocrisy, betrayal, and death that coats every institution it slithers into. They are not merely wrong. They are scum. Parasitic, self-enriching, child-endangering, nation-destroying scum. And the evidence is now so overwhelming that only a collaborator or a corpse could deny it.
Scum doesn’t announce itself with trumpets. It just spreads, quiet and greasy, until everything it touches reeks of rot. That is exactly what the modern Democrat Party is: a thick, rancid film of corruption, hypocrisy, betrayal, and death that coats every institution it slithers into. They are not merely wrong. They are scum. Parasitic, self-enriching, child-endangering, nation-destroying scum. And the evidence is now so overwhelming that only a collaborator or a corpse could deny it.
Start with the border, because nothing exposes Democrat scum nature faster than the ten million-plus illegal aliens they deliberately waved in during the Biden years. CBP’s own numbers clock southwest border encounters at over 10 million from 2021–2024, with another 1.7 million known gotaways. Ten million military-age males, cartel soldiers, Chinese operatives, and fentanyl mules, while these same scum politicians walled off their own beach compounds and flew private. Result? Over 107,000 Americans dead from drug overdoses in 2023 alone, seventy percent fentanyl that walked right through the open border Democrats fought tooth-and-nail to keep open. They wanted the drugs. They wanted the chaos. They wanted the future voters. And they got over a hundred thousand American corpses as a bonus. That is not policy failure. That is scum behavior, plain and murderous.
Then watch them on the economy. Inflation hit 9.1 % in June 2022, the highest in forty years, after Biden and his handlers detonated trillions in spending while the supply chain was still choking. Real wages for the bottom half of earners fell every single month for two straight years. Grocery prices up 25 %, gas doubled, rent through the roof, yet Nancy Pelosi’s portfolio mysteriously ballooned and insider trading among congressional Democrats hit record highs. They printed money for their donors, crushed the working class, and called you selfish for noticing. Scum floats to the top during inflation; Democrats just made it official.
🚨 BBC EXPOSED 🚨
The recent scandal at the BBC, that led to the shakeup of its top executives, was focused mainly around the doctored Trump speech.
But the Telegraph's story about the BBC showed that the rot involved also OUTRAGEOUS false stories about Israel!
🧵👇
The recent scandal at the BBC, that led to the shakeup of its top executives, was focused mainly around the doctored Trump speech.
But the Telegraph's story about the BBC showed that the rot involved also OUTRAGEOUS false stories about Israel!
🧵👇
2/9
In June 2024, based on their own earlier April 2024 story, BBC ran a bombshell report claiming mass graves at Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital were evidence of Israeli war crimes — bodies with gunshot wounds, bound hands, torture marks.
But they knew the truth.
In June 2024, based on their own earlier April 2024 story, BBC ran a bombshell report claiming mass graves at Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital were evidence of Israeli war crimes — bodies with gunshot wounds, bound hands, torture marks.
But they knew the truth.
3/9
BBC’s own November 2023 reporting:
Palestinians (under Hamas) dug mass graves in Shifa’s courtyard because morgues overflowed.
Same graves. Same location.
Yet in June 2024, BBC implied Israel buried thousands during their raid.
BBC’s own November 2023 reporting:
Palestinians (under Hamas) dug mass graves in Shifa’s courtyard because morgues overflowed.
Same graves. Same location.
Yet in June 2024, BBC implied Israel buried thousands during their raid.
By my calculations this puts Eloralintide 4th place in the obesity drug weight loss leaderboard
These weight loss numbers are from the treatment policy estimand (to represent real-world effect)
The drugs need to have at least started a phase 3 trial to be included (which is why Novo's Amycretin isn't there)
Trial discontinuation is used as a measure of adverse events
The drugs need to have at least started a phase 3 trial to be included (which is why Novo's Amycretin isn't there)
Trial discontinuation is used as a measure of adverse events
This experiment clearly shows the mechanism of action that is at play and why the DNA is still in the vaccines and why the regulators are missing it.
@weldeiry @RetsefL @KUPERWASSERLAB @DrJBhattacharya @RobertKennedyJr @RWMaloneMD @MartyMakary
@JesslovesMJK
@CharlesRixey
@joerogan
@weldeiry @RetsefL @KUPERWASSERLAB @DrJBhattacharya @RobertKennedyJr @RWMaloneMD @MartyMakary
@JesslovesMJK
@CharlesRixey
@joerogan
It comes back to Sutton et al.
DNaseI cannot process RNA/DNA hybrids.
After you make RNA from DNA it will be hybridized to the DNA.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…
DNaseI cannot process RNA/DNA hybrids.
After you make RNA from DNA it will be hybridized to the DNA.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…
As a result of this DNaseI will degrade the plasmid backbone but not the spike region of the plasmid.
Where do you think Pharma is pointing their qPCR assay for the 10ng limit?
Hint- KAN gene.
Where do you think Pharma is pointing their qPCR assay for the 10ng limit?
Hint- KAN gene.
‼️Die Arbeitnehmer in der NRW-CDU (CDA NRW) haben sich dafür ausgesprochen, die Voraussetzungen für ein AfD-Verbot umfassend zu prüfen.
▶️ Nach Angaben der Organisation richtet sich der Appell an Bundestag, Bundesrat und Bundesregierung.
pruef
▶️ Nach Angaben der Organisation richtet sich der Appell an Bundestag, Bundesrat und Bundesregierung.
pruef
Auch der
‼️Ausschluss der Partei aus der staatlichen Parteienfinanzierung nach Artikel 21 Grundgesetz sei umfassend zu prüfen, orientiert an den Maßstäben des Bundesverfassungsgerichts#prüf
➡️ n-tv.de/regionales/nor…
➡️ wir-sind-mehr.com
#demokratieverteidigen
‼️Ausschluss der Partei aus der staatlichen Parteienfinanzierung nach Artikel 21 Grundgesetz sei umfassend zu prüfen, orientiert an den Maßstäben des Bundesverfassungsgerichts#prüf
➡️ n-tv.de/regionales/nor…
➡️ wir-sind-mehr.com
#demokratieverteidigen
#noafd #gegenhalten #GanzKlarGegenNazis #demokratieschützen #niewiederistjetzt #GibNazisKeineChance #wirsindmehr #5nach12 #StandWithUkraine #AfDVerbotjetzt #prüf