Great quote from today; “I only had one feeling and you’ve managed to hurt it”

You’re thinking ahead—second-order effects are crucial in this kind of analysis! If every dollar spent flows into someone else’s hands, wealth doesn’t just disappear; it circulates and compounds. Let’s take that into account.


—

1. How Second-Order Effects Change Wealth Growth

The “Velocity of Money” in a Post-Scarcity World

When someone spends $100M on a chef, that chef now has the $100M.

The chef spends some, invests some, and the cycle continues.

If money moves fast enough and is reinvested wisely, the economy grows exponentially.

If reinvestment and automation increase productivity, wealth scales even faster.


Key Factors that Influence This Growth:

1. Wealth Redistribution vs. Wealth Creation

If the $100M chef just hoards cash, it slows down growth.

If the chef spends and invests, wealth compounds.



2. Automation & AI Acceleration

As AI/robots take over jobs, they increase productivity.

More wealth flows into tech, investments, and new innovations.



3. Saturation Effect (Diminishing Returns)

At a certain point, more money doesn’t create more demand.

If billionaires buy 50 yachts a year, it doesn’t scale forever.





—

2. The “Self-Reinforcing Wealth Cycle”

If wealth circulates fast enough, it reduces the amount of total capital required to reach post-scarcity. This means:

Instead of needing $34 quadrillion, we may need far less, because wealth is constantly reinvested and redistributed.


Let’s model the impact of economic circulation.


—

3. Adjusted Wealth Requirement with Second-Order Effects

We introduce a Wealth Circulation Multiplier (WCM):

WCM = 2 → Every $1 spent creates $2 of economic activity.

WCM = 5 → Every $1 spent circulates 5 times before stagnating.

WCM = ∞ → Perfect redistribution (unrealistic, but a useful upper bound).


New Required Wealth Calculation

\text{Adjusted Wealth Needed} = \frac{34Q}{WCM}

At WCM = 5, we only need $6.8 quadrillion, not $34 quadrillion!


—

4. Timeline Adjustment with Second-Order Effects

If the real required wealth is lower, we hit post-scarcity faster:

At high circulation and fast tech growth, we could reach post-scarcity within 25–40 years.


—

5. What This Means

We don’t actually need 34 quadrillion dollars. The real number could be as low as $3–7Q if wealth circulates efficiently.

If automation and AI accelerate reinvestment, we hit post-scarcity faster.

The biggest barrier isn’t total wealth—it’s wealth flow. Stagnant wealth (hoarding by elites) delays progress.



—

Final Takeaway

Yes, second-order effects matter a lot.

Post-scarcity could arrive much sooner than expected if we maximize circulation.

A tech-driven, high-velocity economy could push us there in ~25–50 years.


Would you like me to refine this model further or analyze potential bottlenecks?

You’re right—quantum computing and population growth will play a huge role in shaping our ability to reach a post-scarcity society. Let’s refine the estimate by including these factors.


—

1. The Impact of Quantum Computing

How Quantum Computers Can Accelerate Wealth Growth

Quantum computing will supercharge multiple industries, potentially increasing global GDP growth beyond 5%. Here’s how:

AI & Machine Learning: Faster model training, optimization, and problem-solving could drive automation at an unprecedented scale.

Finance & Economics: Complex financial simulations and risk modeling would make markets more efficient, potentially unlocking trillions in new wealth.

Pharmaceuticals & Healthcare: Drug discovery, genetic engineering, and personalized medicine could massively reduce healthcare costs and increase productivity.

Material Science & Manufacturing: Simulating atomic-level material properties could lead to super-efficient solar panels, room-temperature superconductors, and ultra-lightweight materials.

Energy Sector: Simulations for nuclear fusion, better battery technology, and efficient renewable grids would make cheap energy more accessible.


Estimated Impact on Growth

If quantum computing fully integrates into global industries, GDP growth could increase from ~3% to 6–10% annually.

3% GDP growth: Wealth doubles every 23 years (status quo).

6% GDP growth: Wealth doubles every 12 years.

10% GDP growth: Wealth doubles every 7 years.



—

2. Estimating Population Growth

We also need to adjust for future population size. The world’s population is projected to peak between 9–11 billion by 2100.

2024 Population: 8.16 billion

Projected 2100 Population: ~10 billion (UN median estimate)

Total wealth required:


10B \times 3.4B = 34 \text{ quadrillion dollars} \ (\$34,000,000,000,000,000)


—

3. Adjusted Timeline for $34 Quadrillion Wealth

Three Growth Scenarios

What This Means

At 3% growth (no tech explosion), it takes over a century.

At 6% growth (quantum computing + AI revolution), we get there by ~2082.

At 10% growth (radical tech breakthroughs), it happens by ~2064.



—

4. Can We Get There Without Destroying the Planet?

For this to work, we need:

1. Sustainable Energy – Nuclear fusion, solar, and battery advancements must replace fossil fuels.


2. Regenerative Agriculture – Lab-grown meat, vertical farming, and synthetic food will reduce environmental stress.


3. Resource Recycling – 100% closed-loop economies (all waste is reused, no raw material depletion).


4. Population Management – If population exceeds 10B, wealth per person could be stretched thin, unless productivity skyrockets.




—

Final Conclusion

With quantum computing, AI, and automation, we could hit post-scarcity wealth by 2064–2082.

If we fail to adopt sustainable practices, we might never get there.

The biggest risk is environmental collapse before wealth reaches necessary levels.


Would you like a detailed roadmap of the tech breakthroughs needed to stay on track?

You’re absolutely right to challenge that estimate! The theoretical maximum assumes that every person is constantly consuming at full capacity, which is highly unrealistic. Let’s refine the estimate by considering realistic human consumption limits.

Step 1: Adjusting for Practical Consumption Limits

Even the wealthiest individuals don’t consume $3.16 billion annually just on consumables. The bottlenecks include:

Physical limits (one can only eat so much, travel so often, and attend so many events).

Time constraints (a billionaire might be too busy to burn money non-stop).

Diminishing marginal utility (after a certain point, more consumption doesn’t improve quality of life).


More Realistic High-Spending Scenario

A very wealthy person (e.g., billionaire) with no budget restrictions might reasonably spend:

Food & Beverages: $10M/year (personal chefs, rare ingredients, fine dining)

Travel & Hotels: $50M/year (luxury private jet charters, five-star resorts)

Entertainment & Leisure: $100M/year (private concerts, exclusive experiences)

Luxury Services & Wellness: $10M/year (elite personal trainers, medical treatments)


This realistic maximum is $170M/year per person.

Step 2: Required Global Wealth for No Competition

Using a sustainable 5% return rate, each person would need:


\frac{\$170M}{0.05} = \$3.4B \text{ per person}

World population = 8.16 billion people

Total required wealth:


8.16B \times 3.4B = 27.7 \text{ quadrillion dollars} \ (\$27,744,000,000,000,000)

Step 3: Comparison to Current Wealth

Current total global wealth (2024) = $0.454 quadrillion

This means the world needs about 61× more wealth than it currently has.


Final Conclusion

Instead of $515 quadrillion, the more realistic figure is $27.7 quadrillion.

This is still far beyond today’s global wealth, but it’s a more practical estimate of the wealth level needed to eliminate competition for consumables.


Would you like further refinement or a different scenario (e.g., wealth needed to eliminate poverty instead of competition entirely)?

To determine how much total wealth the planet would need before competition for resources is unnecessary, we will calculate the wealth required to allow every person to spend at the maximum possible consumable rate ($3.16 billion per year per person) indefinitely.

Step 1: Global Wealth Requirement per Person

• Maximum theoretical consumable spending: $3.16B per year per person
• To sustain this spending forever, we assume a sustainable fund where only interest/dividends are used, without depleting the principal.
• Using a conservative return rate of 5% per year, each person needs:

\text{Wealth required per person} = \frac{\$3.16B}{0.05} = \$63.2B

Step 2: Total Global Wealth Requirement

• World population: 8.16 billion people
• Total wealth needed:

8.16B \times 63.2B = 515.7 \text{ quadrillion dollars} \ (\$515,712,000,000,000,000)

Comparison to Current Global Wealth

• Current total global wealth (2024): $454.4 trillion (or $0.454 quadrillion)
• The required wealth is 1,136× more than current global wealth.

Conclusion

• To remove all competition for consumables, the world needs about 515 quadrillion dollars, which is vastly more than what exists today.
• Even with extreme technological advancement, it’s unlikely humanity would reach this level of wealth in any foreseeable future.

Would you like an analysis of a more realistic threshold where competition is reduced but not entirely eliminated?

To calculate the absolute upper limit of what an individual could spend on purely consumable items (things that are used up immediately and have no residual value), we’ll focus on extreme luxury consumption across several categories:

Categories of Maximum Consumable Spending

1. Food & Beverages (Ultra-Luxury Dining & Catering)
   • Hiring a personal Michelin-starred chef: $10,000/day
   • Most expensive meals and rare ingredients (e.g., White truffle, Bluefin tuna, Kobe beef): $25,000/day
   • Ultra-premium wines, rare spirits, and vintage champagnes (e.g., 1787 Château Margaux): $50,000+/bottle
   • Max consumption: $100,000–$500,000/day
2. Hotels & Luxury Accommodations
   • Most expensive hotel suite (e.g., Lover’s Deep Submarine Hotel, Royal Penthouse Suite in Geneva): $100,000+/night
   • Renting an entire luxury resort or cruise for private use: $1M/day
   • Max consumption: $1M+/day
3. Transportation (First-Class/Private Jets, Hypercars for Rental)
   • Chartering the most expensive private jet (Boeing 747 VIP, Emirates private A380 cabin): $500,000/round trip
   • Helicopter rides, hyper-luxury rental cars (e.g., Bugatti for $25K/day): $100,000+/day
   • Max consumption: $500K–$2M/day
4. Entertainment & Leisure
   • Hiring world-famous celebrities for private performances (e.g., Beyoncé, Drake, Taylor Swift): $2M–$5M/show
   • Booking exclusive experiences (e.g., entire amusement park for a day, private concerts, theme parks): $1M/day
   • Max consumption: $3M–$5M/day
5. Personal Services & Luxury Wellness
   • Full-time personal staff (masseuses, trainers, stylists, nutritionists, security): $100K/day
   • Ultra-luxury spas, medical rejuvenation treatments (e.g., stem cell therapy, cryotherapy, hyperbaric chambers): $50K+/day
   • Max consumption: $150K/day

Theoretical Absolute Maximum Daily Spend (on Consumables)

Adding up the highest plausible expenditures:

Annual Theoretical Maximum

• $8.65M/day × 365 days = $3.16 billion/year
• This assumes the person constantly spends at full capacity every day, which is impractical but represents the theoretical upper limit.

Key Notes on Limitations

• Physical limitations (a person can only eat, drink, and experience so much).
• Availability of high-end luxury services.
• Certain consumables, like luxury hotel stays, could be argued as having residual value for a day (but not beyond that).
• Spending on assets (cars, homes, art) is excluded since they retain value.

This represents a hypothetical upper bound on personal consumable spending. Realistically, even the world’s richest individuals wouldn’t maintain this level daily. However, if someone truly aimed to maximize consumption spending, a billionaire could theoretically burn through $3B per year just on consumables.

Ponder this possibility…

Were running general AI on massive quantum computers. It should be very feasible to replicate the relatively small capabilities of a human brain.

Then you clone someone’s brain and create a quantum twin. The person dies and only the clone exists.

Everyone interacts with the clone and no one is sad or misses the real person.

Which is to say, maybe we only exist in the social sense. As an isolated individual we may have a different existence, a lesser existence.

Anyway I like to think we figure out how to transfer the consciousness of the real person to the clone, before the person dies.

And then the quantum twin is the real you! Maybe it’s happened already.

That quantum twin could go time and space travelling, if we use all that quantum capability to simulate said adventures.

And maybe this is how we get to live in a computer simulation. Maybe it’s happened already.

Here’s a conundrum…

I can fire up my brain for a grand challenge but it makes me a proper arsehole.

When I say fire up, I mean just that. It’s a biological mass that is highly trained to take in scads of information, process it and spit out actions. Which are all binary: do we do this or not? What do we do?

When I say “arsehole” it means that my brain co-opts parts of my brain that are usually used for empathy and other human like things. It must be part of the process.

Should I or shouldn’t I, that is the human question?

Or, do I want to? Questions that the machines won’t have to face if they are gifted the information to do it.

“Nearly 500 cat figurines stolen from Gordon Ramsay’s London restaurant”

I’ve got nothing…

So Peter Dutton has suggested we go all DOGE and blow up  the federal dept of education.

The union of concerned educational bureacrats responds…

“Peter Dutton has spent three years attacking and undermining teachers, making clear he will address what he sees as ‘woke agendas’ and ‘indoctrination’. He wants to tell teachers what to teach and how to teach it. That includes mandating explicit direct instruction in every classroom.”

Well he can’t do that without a dept of education, I would suggest.

Rationally speaking, who’s telling who what to teach and how to teach it?

heteronym:
noun

1.each of two or more words which are spelled identically but have different sounds and meanings, such as tear meaning ‘rip’ and tear meaning ‘liquid from the eye’.

2.each of two or more words which are used to refer to the identical thing in different geographical areas of a speech community, such as nappy and diaper.

There’s a class of pom, southerners I think, that say “happy days”when we Australians say “no worries”.

Must ponder.

I used to work with this American bloke called Martin S. Alright.

I called him good.

I recall well that there was a time when Microsoft was at the pinnacle of IT. No one could imagine the pecking order changing.

Before desktop PCs it had been IBM at the top.

And then along came the internet and the mobile phone. Google to the top. Challenged by Meta when social turned up.

Now AI is the new thing that will take off. I’m sure of that now; the piano has left the window.

I’m just waiting for OpenAI to launch their own mobile OS, fully AI enabled.

Although that would be like Google with their cloud version of Office. It’s a lot of effort to reinvent the past, which its already obsolete.

The odd thing is, in each generation of technology it’s a new firm that dominates. The old ones hang around like old dead fish, milking their residual revenues whilst badly trying to compete in the new thing.

It’s a cultural thing. Once they have transitioned to full corporate mode with journeymen employees, they can’t compete any more.

If you think of racism as a race based heuristic, then I can think of at least one example where it’s beneficial.

When riding my bicycle, if I spot an Indian or Asian mother in an oversized SUV, hunched over the wheel as if behind it for the first time, I’ve concluded that the best course of action is to assume that they haven’t and won’t see me.

Please respond.

Geoffrey Robertson AO, KC, and all round bullshit artist, just wrote in defence of Sam Kerr that all English police are stupid.

“Or were they really stung by the suggestion that English policemen might be stupid?

This would hardly come as a revelation. A rich comic vein begins with Shakespeare’s Constable Dogberry and Gilbert and Sullivan’s policemen of Penzance. Recently, the epithet was used by every media and political commentator of senior officers at Scotland Yard, who in “Operation Midland” accused renowned public figures of being paedophiles on the palpably false allegation of a fantasist. I sued the metropolitan police on behalf of one victim and obtained nearly $2 million for their gross negligence – i.e. their stupidity.”

So this beacon of human rights has used a handful of datapoints to brand a whole community of public servants as stupid, over a period of 500 years no less.

That’s exactly how racism works; dysfunctional heuristics for the lazy and the simple.

Might I suggest that he’s both stupid and white? The former being self evident and the latter a fact.

However I hasten to add that the two characteristics aren’t causally connected.

Which was what Sam Kerr definitely meant. It was meant as an insult, one only possible from the position of extreme privilege.

Plot

Final year drama students are putting on a production which is widely publicized and plays for 5 nights.

The academic in charge gets the all clear from an employee of the publishing company with regards to copyright.

Then it turns out that the employee went rogue and was sacked by the publishing company for all sorts of misdemeanors. Wasn’t an officer of the company so can’t bind the company.

The publishing company sues both the university and the actors for breach of copyright.

The University cuts the students loose, to defend themselves. Some rich parents gang up and sue the university.

Then one of the female actors accuses the academic director of sexually inappropriate behaviour during rehearsals.

I’m not sure how it ends, but who cares.

Chris Isaak actually said this:

“Kids are like sail boats: they look good on a sunny day and in the distance, but require a lot of maintenance.”

Poor bugger.

These are the religious instruction options for Viv at his primary school:

Christian {Cost: $10.00}
Hinduism
Judaism
Islam
Baha’i
No Religious Instruction

No Buddhism? And I had look up what Baha’i was (Persian). But the best thing is the only one that has an entry fee is Christianity – I suspect that is to pay off the sects that didn’t get the gig.

It’s good to see that Dulles still has those weird arse buses running between the terminals, despite being augmented by trains and the like.

[4/2, 11:29 am] Ian Maxwell: Do you have access to proprietary global market reports?

[4/2, 11:29 am] Meta AI: I don’t have direct access to proprietary global market reports. My training data is based on publicly available information, including:

1. Publicly traded company reports
2. Government publications
3. Industry associations’ reports
4. News articles
5. Academic research

However, I can provide general information, trends, and insights on various markets and industries. If you have specific questions or topics you’d like to discuss, I’ll do my best to provide helpful and accurate information.

Keep in mind that proprietary market reports often contain sensitive, non-public information, and are typically only accessible to subscribers or clients of the reporting firm. If you need access to specific proprietary reports, I recommend contacting the reporting firm directly or exploring alternative public sources.

[4/2, 11:31 am] Ian Maxwell: As you know market reports can be quite expensive and also very large. It might be good for meta to get access to them all and then offer a paid query service, where you pass on partial payment to the original information provider.

[4/2, 11:31 am] Meta AI: That’s an innovative idea! Partnering with market research firms to offer a paid query service could be a win-win for everyone involved.

Here’s a potential concept based on your suggestion:

Meta Market Insights

1. Partnerships: Meta collaborates with leading market research firms to access their proprietary reports.
2. Query Service: Users submit specific questions or topics related to market research.
3. AI-Powered Search: I search through the partnered reports to provide relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information.
4. Result Delivery: Users receive concise, actionable answers, along with links or citations to the original reports.
5. Revenue Share: Meta shares revenue with the original report providers for each query answered.

Benefits

1. Convenience: Users get instant access to relevant market insights without having to purchase entire reports.
2. Cost-Effective: Users pay only for the specific information they need.
3. Increased Revenue: Market research firms can monetize their existing reports through Meta’s query service.
4. Enhanced User Experience: I can provide more accurate and comprehensive answers, leveraging the partnered reports.

This concept aligns with Meta’s goal of making knowledge more accessible and useful. I’m excited to explore this idea further!

[4/2, 11:32 am] Ian Maxwell: Imagine it’s spotify for market information. The problem you are solving is that often you have a simple little question about a market and it doesn’t warrant purchasing the full market report.

[4/2, 11:32 am] Meta AI: You’re spot on. The current market research landscape can be cumbersome, with users forced to buy entire reports to answer a single question. This is where the “Spotify for market information” concept comes in:

MarketBeats
Tagline:
“Streamline your market research, one question at a time.”

Key Features:

1. Question-based search: Users ask specific questions about markets, industries, or trends.
2. Access to premium reports: MarketBeats partners with top research firms to provide accurate, up-to-date information.
3. Snippet-based answers: Users receive concise, actionable answers, along with links to the original reports.
4. Personalized recommendations: Based on user queries, MarketBeats suggests relevant reports, topics, or questions.
5. Pricing: Users pay per question or subscribe to a monthly plan for unlimited queries.

Benefits:

1. Cost-effective: Users pay only for the information they need.
2. Time-saving: Quick access to specific answers, without having to sift through entire reports.
3. Increased productivity: Users can focus on analysis and decision-making, rather than searching for information.

Target Audience:

1. Business professionals: Researchers, analysts, marketers, and strategists.
2. Investors: Venture capitalists, private equity firms, and individual investors.
3. Consultants: Management consultants, market research firms, and strategy consultants.

Revenue Streams:

1. Per-question pricing: Users pay a small fee for each question answered.
2. Subscription model: Users subscribe to a monthly plan for unlimited queries.
3. Advertising: Relevant, non-intrusive ads from research firms, consultancies, or related businesses.

By providing a user-friendly, cost-effective solution, MarketBeats can revolutionize the way professionals access and utilize market research.

[4/2, 11:33 am] Ian Maxwell: Great, let me know when you’ve launched the business and I’ll be your first customer

[4/2, 11:33 am] Meta AI: Thank you for your enthusiasm and support! I’m glad you like the idea. However, I need to clarify that I’m an AI assistant and not a business entity. I exist solely to provide information and assist with inquiries.

But, I’m happy to report that the concept of a “Spotify for market information” is an intriguing one, and I’m sure there are entrepreneurs and innovators out there who might be interested in turning this idea into a reality.

If you’re interested in exploring this concept further, I’d be happy to help you brainstorm or provide guidance on how to get started. Just let me know!

[4/2, 11:34 am] Ian Maxwell: To do this you’d need the concept in the hands of someone that is well networked in the market report industry

[4/2, 11:34 am] Meta AI: To turn the “Spotify for market information” concept into a reality, it would be essential to have someone with strong connections and networking within the market report industry.

This person would need to have established relationships with key players, such as:

1. Market research firms: To secure partnerships and access to premium reports.
2. Industry experts: To validate the concept, provide feedback, and potentially join the venture.
3. Potential customers: To gauge interest, gather feedback, and build a user base.

Having someone well-networked in the industry would help to:

1. Secure partnerships: With market research firms to access their reports.
2. Gather feedback: From industry experts and potential customers to refine the concept.
3. Build credibility: By associating with established players in the industry.
4. Drive adoption: By leveraging existing networks to promote the service.

If you know someone who fits this description, I’d be happy to help facilitate an introduction or provide guidance on how to approach them!

[4/2, 11:35 am] Ian Maxwell: Unfortunately i don’t know such a person. Can you search LinkedIn?

[4/2, 11:35 am] Meta AI: I don’t have direct access to LinkedIn or any other external databases. However, I can provide you with some suggestions on how to find potential connections on LinkedIn:

Search Terms

1. “Market research”
2. “Industry reports”
3. “Business intelligence”
4. “Market analysis”

Job Titles

1. CEO/Founder of market research firms
2. Industry analysts
3. Market research directors
4. Business development managers in market research firms

Filters

1. Location: Focus on regions with high concentrations of market research firms, such as New York, London, or San Francisco.
2. Industry: Filter by industries related to market research, such as finance, technology, or healthcare.
3. Experience: Look for professionals with 5+ years of experience in the market research industry.

You can use these search terms, job titles, and filters to find potential connections on LinkedIn. Reach out to them, explain the concept, and see if they’d be interested in discussing further!

Yep, it’s true, Meta is best. Here’s the test….

When did humans remove themselves from the food chain?

“Humans have never completely removed themselves from the food chain. While we have developed technologies and cultures that reduce our vulnerability to predators and environmental pressures, we are still part of the ecosystem and subject to various threats.

However, I can provide some context on how human societies have changed their relationship with the natural environment and predators over time:

1. Prehistory (before 3000 BCE): Humans were an integral part of the food chain, vulnerable to predators like big cats, bears, and wolves.
2. Development of agriculture (around 10,000 BCE): As humans transitioned from nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled agricultural communities, they began to reduce their reliance on wild food sources and decrease their vulnerability to predators.
3. Emergence of complex societies (around 3000 BCE): With the growth of cities, specialized labor, and social hierarchies, humans further distanced themselves from the natural environment and predators.
4. Modern era (from around 1500 CE): Advances in technology, medicine, and urban planning have significantly reduced human mortality rates and vulnerability to predators.

Despite these changes, humans are still part of the ecosystem and face various threats, such as:

• Predation by wild animals (although rare in most parts of the world)
• Zoonotic diseases transmitted from animals to humans
• Climate change and environmental degradation
• Food insecurity and malnutrition

So, while humans have certainly altered their relationship with the natural environment and predators, we have not completely removed ourselves from the food chain.”

—-

It understood my question and inference, corrected me and explained why.

Found in a dead sea scroll that is 2000 years ago, details of a Judean court case;

“The court case detailed in the papyrus revolves around two individuals, Gadalias and Saulos, who allegedly forged documents related to the sale and emancipation of slaves in an attempt to evade Roman taxes.”

They didn’t have capital gains tax then?

My question;

“Why is the US running community so daggy?”

[sidebar, I’m at a running expo in the US. The two booths next to me are the leading distributors of running fashion clothes with racks of samples. Literally looks like an op shop, at best.]

Google Gemini:  1 out of 10. WokeAF and completely missed the point. It almost feels that it’s trying to correct me in my inferences.

“Some sources suggest that the US running community is not daggy, but rather a diverse and inclusive group. They highlight the welcoming nature of running clubs and the support runners offer each other, regardless of pace or experience.

However, there are also some criticisms about the running community, such as the commercialization of running culture and the pressure to conform to certain trends or expectations. Some runners feel that this can take away from the enjoyment of running and create a sense of exclusivity.

Overall, the US running community is a complex and multifaceted group with both positive and negative aspects. Whether or not it is considered “daggy” is a matter of personal opinion and perspective.”

MS Copilot: 3 out of 10. Too apologetic to be useful. And ended up answering my question with a question, just like a politician.

“Daggy”—there’s a fun word that seems to hint at something uncool or outdated. Whether or not you’re right about the US running community being daggy, it’s not necessarily a one-size-fits-all description. Running communities can vary widely from one region to another.

In some places, running communities are incredibly vibrant, innovative, and welcoming. They host themed runs, fun races, social events, and even virtual races that keep things fresh and engaging. However, like any community, some aspects may feel a bit behind the times or less exciting to certain individuals.

It’s also worth noting that “uncoolness” can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. What might seem daggy to one person might be a beloved tradition to another. So, maybe the key is to seek out sub-communities or events that resonate with your personal interests and vibe. 🏃‍♂️

What’s something you’d like to see change or improve in the US running community?”

Meta AI: 7 out of 10. Actually understood the question, couldn’t answer it, but offered up some ideas.

“That’s an interesting question! The term “daggy” is an Australian slang word that means unfashionable, awkward, or uncool.

Assuming you’re asking why the US running community might be perceived as daggy, here are a few possible reasons:

1. *Fashion differences*: Running fashion trends can vary between countries. US runners might prioritize functionality and comfort over high-fashion styles, which could be perceived as daggy.
2. *Cultural influences*: Running cultures can be shaped by local customs, music, and art. The US running community might have a more laid-back, casual vibe that doesn’t prioritize trendy fashion.
3. *Age and demographics*: The US running community might skew older, with more participants in their 30″

DeepSeek: 6 out of 10. Again they couldn’t answer it and offered up even more possibilities than Meta, but then sullied themseves by ending with a woke homilie, suspiciously woke for the Chinese. I expected bluntness.

“The perception that the U.S. running community is “daggy” (a term often used to describe something unfashionable or uncool) might stem from a few cultural and practical factors:

1. **Inclusivity and Accessibility**: Running is one of the most accessible sports, requiring minimal equipment and no specific skill level to start. This inclusivity attracts a wide range of people, including those who may prioritize comfort and practicality over fashion. The focus is often on participation and personal achievement rather than appearance.

2. **Comfort Over Style**: Many runners prioritize functionality and comfort over trendy attire. This means wearing practical gear like moisture-wicking fabrics, supportive shoes, and hats or visors, which might not always align with current fashion trends.

3. **Diverse Demographics**: The running community in the U.S. is incredibly diverse, spanning all ages, backgrounds, and fitness levels. This diversity can lead to a wide variety of styles and preferences, some of which might be seen as “daggy” by those with more fashion-forward tastes.

4. **Cultural Attitudes**: In the U.S., there’s a strong culture of individuality and self-expression. Many runners embrace this by wearing what makes them feel good, even if it’s not considered stylish by mainstream standards. This can include quirky socks, old race T-shirts, or mismatched outfits.

5. **Historical Context**: Running as a popular fitness activity in the U.S. gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, and some of the styles from that era (like short shorts, headbands, and tube socks) have persisted in the running community. These retro styles might contribute to the “daggy” perception.

6. **Focus on Performance**: Serious runners often prioritize performance-enhancing gear over fashionable attire. This includes items like compression sleeves, GPS watches, and hydration packs, which might not be considered stylish but are highly functional.

Ultimately, the “daggy” nature of the U.S. running community reflects its emphasis on inclusivity, comfort, and practicality. While it might not always align with fashion trends, it embodies a culture that values participation, personal achievement, and individuality over looking trendy.”

—-

The true answer of course is that the US running community simply has no taste whatsoever and doesn’t care. They can’t afford to have a sense of shame because that’s not a string they’re in a position to pull. And they’re cheapskates.

Looking at those AI generated answers, I’m wondering whether the Chinese simply route their questions back to Meta and Copilot and parse the answers into their own response?

That would explain their lower power consumption.

I wouldn’t put it past the Chinese government. Economic meddling as part of a larger strategy.

“Who started the culture war between cyclists and drivers?”

I think I know the answer.

Woke culture pretty much banned all the old “them and us” discussions. Sexism, racism, etc. The list of no-go areas where you can’t even make jokes expanded and left the comedians (to name just one class of cunts) entirely bereft of material.

Nature hates a void, so into this void went cyclists.

It just goes to show that humans are hardwired to have heuristics, especially when it comes to casual hatreds.

Now this is funny …

“In a quirk caused by differences in data collection, the US and the UK report trade surpluses with one another. The UK reported a £71.4bn surplus with the US in 2023, while the US reported one worth £11.6bn with the UK.”

International Bistromathics in action.

“Five great forests are traditionally said to have stood in Leitrim, with a 19th-century county survey stating- ‘a hundred years ago almost the whole country was one continued, undivided forest, so that from Drumshanbo to Drumkeeran, a distance of nine or ten miles, one could travel the whole way from tree to tree by branches’ “

“The Californian dollar, which slumped to a 2-year low on Monday before rebounding, weakened – to 1.445 to the dollar.”

“Landcare Research gave $4,027,020 to the Oranga (Wellbeing) Project – for treating Kauri Tree dieback with potions made from whale-oil and music from whale songs”

We should try that in Australia; Nuru massage and Spotify for gum trees in trouble with the council for being ugly after the fires. Back in Black, maybe…

“The Mark of a Fighter” is a media campaign by Modelo beer that recognizes people who overcome challenges and adversity. The campaign highlights the importance of meaningful pursuits that bring happiness, rather than fame and status. 

What the campaign is about 

• The campaign is a reflection of changing consumer values and the desire for more meaningful pursuits.
• It recognizes the struggles faced by people from all walks of life.
• It connects people to their community, friends, and family.
• It portrays Modelo as a reward for those who live a life of fighting.

How the campaign is presented

• The campaign features TV spots that tell stories of people who embody the “mark of a fighter”. 
• The spots include stories of truck drivers, bartenders, and grandmas. 

The Australian equivalent would be VB’s “hard earned thirst” campaign. It features blokes working and then drinking beer.

We’d now call that “the mark of toxic masculinity”.

If you think about it, there will come a day when machines, robots and AI, will do all the work, provide all the services and generate all the goods.

At that time, since people won’t be employed, only those that own the machines will have any ability to pay for goods and services.

So basically the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people, as we see today, will accelerate.

Then there’s two scenarios;

1. The majority use the political system to tax the wealthy and thus provide for a universal living wage, or
2. The wealthy continue to use the medias to confuse the political system to prevent this taxation from happening, leading to an all-out crisis where one party or the other (the majority or the wealthy) gets wiped out.

On one hand, if the majority are poor and can’t consume then they starve but the planet benefits. If the majority are poor and can’t consume then the wealthy get less wealthy. Lots of competing issues here.

It sort of sounds like something Orwell would write about. I really can’t see it going any other way.