Concept: what if your community newspaper was re-centered around a community dashboard?
It addresses the ADD aspect of news judgment. Rather than random stories every day, your community would instead track metrics over time, like $ saved or time working out. And improve them.
Any company beyond a certain scale has a set of dashboards that the CEO and all execs review each day. Examples below.
The point of tracking metrics over time, and centering the morning on them, is that it gives long-term memory and focus.
The day doesn't start with random stories from a newspaper. The day starts with visualizing shared long-term goals, and tracking actions against those goals.
On a personal level: what do you *need* to know about and track over time?
- Your health, blood glucose, physical fitness
- Your income, burn rate, personal runway
- Your progress towards long-term goals
Not random infotainment. That's recreation.
So: dashboards > newspapers.
Now extend this to communities.
The metrics you consider personally important should also be considered important by the community you want to join, and on their dashboard.
Maybe you want to learn a language or minimize sugar. With a little thought, you can dashboard it.
dashboards > newspapers
This feels like a good vector of attack to definitionally disrupt newspapers.
First thing you look at each day shouldn't be random stories someone else picked. Should be carefully selected metrics you want to improve.
If we think about it from the "jobs to be done" perspective, newspapers have this incredible pride-of-place — first thing you look at in the morning! — but typically do not add enough value to deserve that position.
Take the sugar out of your coffee, take the newspaper (or news feed) out of your morning. Replace it with a personal dashboard, then a community dashboard.
Doesn't necessarily mean reading *zero* news, zero infotainment, zero serendipity. Just treat it like watching a movie, as part of your entertainment budget.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Both America and China were invested in the illusion that China wasn't already the world's strongest economy.
Psychologically, it suited the incumbent to appear strong. So America downplayed China's numbers.
Strategically, it suited the disruptor to appear weak. So China also sandbagged its own numbers.
But the illusion is becoming harder to maintain.
In retrospect, all the China cope over the last decade or so was really just the stealth on the Chinese stealth bomber.
Hide your strength and bide your time was Deng's strategy. Amazingly, denying China's strength somehow also became America's strategy.
For example, all the cope on China's demographics somehow being uniquely bad...when they have 1.4B+ people that crush every international science competition with minimal drug addiction, crime, or fatherlessness...and when their demographic problems have obvious robotic solutions.
Or, for another example, how MAGA sought to mimic China's manufacturing buildout and industrial policy without deeply understanding China's strengths in this area, which is like competing with Google by setting up a website. Vague references to 1945 substituted for understanding the year 2025.
One consequence of the cope is that China knows far more about America's strengths than vice versa. Surprisingly few Americans interested in re-industrialization have ever set foot in Shenzhen. Those who have, like @Molson_Hart, understand what modern China actually is.
Anyway, what @DoggyDog1208 calls the "skull chart" is the same phenomenon @yishan and I commented on months ago. Once China truly enters a vertical, like electric cars or solar, their pace of ascent[1] is so rapid that incumbents often don't even have time to react.
Now apply this at country level. China has flipped America so quickly on so many axes[2], particularly military ones like hypersonics or military-adjacent ones like power, that it can no longer be contained.
A major contributing factor was the dollar illusion. All that money printing made America think it was richer than China. And China was happy to let America persist in the illusion. But an illusion it was. Yet another way in which Keynesianism becomes the epitaph of empire.
The first kind of retard uses AI everywhere, even where it shouldn’t be used.
The second kind of retard sees AI everywhere, even where it isn’t used.
Usually, it’s obvious what threads are and aren’t AI-written.
But some people can’t tell the difference between normal writing and AI writing. And because they can’t tell the difference, they’ll either overuse AI…or accuse others of using AI!
What we actually may need are built-in statistical AI detectors for every public text field. Paste in a URL into an archive.is-like interface and get back the probability that any div on the page is AI-generated.
In general my view is that AI text shouldn’t be used raw. It’s like a search engine result, it’s lorem ipsum. Useful for research but not final results. AI code is different, but even that requires review. AI visuals are different still, and you can sometimes use them directly.
We’re still developing these conventions, as the tech itself is of course a moving target. But it is interesting that even technologists (who see the huge time-savings that AI gives for, say, data analysis or vibe coding) are annoyed by AI slop. Imagine how much the people who don’t see the positive parts of AI may hate AI.
TLDR: slop is the new spam, and we’ll need new tools and conventions to defeat it.
I agree email spammers will keep adapting.
But I don’t know if a typical poster will keep morphing their content in such a way.
AI prompting scales, because prompting is just typing.
But AI verifying doesn’t scale, because verifying AI output involves much more than just typing.
Sometimes you can verify by eye, which is why AI is great for frontend, images, and video. But for anything subtle, you need to read the code or text deeply — and that means knowing the topic well enough to correct the AI.
Researchers are well aware of this, which is why there’s so much work on evals and hallucination.
However, the concept of verification as the bottleneck for AI users is under-discussed. Yes, you can try formal verification, or critic models where one AI checks another, or other techniques. But to even be aware of the issue as a first class problem is half the battle.
For users: AI verifying is as important as AI prompting.
I love everything @karpathy has done to popularize vibe coding.
But then after you prototype with vibe coding, you need to get to production with right coding.
And that means AI verifying, not just AI prompting. That’s easy when output is visual, much harder when it’s textual.
@karpathy The question when using AI is: how can I inexpensively verify the output of this AI model is correct?
We take for granted the human eye, which is amazing at finding errors in images, videos, and user interfaces.
But we need other kinds of verifiers for other domains.