The audience buying shares prevents elliot management from owning those shares and helps limit their influence on the board. We need to limit their percentage of ownership. If we own enough stock, we can influence the shareholder vote
JEN: You're awesome. I'm sorry you feel that way. I understand how you feel, though I suspect your worries aren't true. Either way this is right in your wheelhouse. Enjoy this moment, whether you buy in or not. Its special.
I understand Jen's position on the meme stock. Given some of the emails she has gotten on things in the past. I bought my share to support the airline I like and also to be in on the joke. LUV 4 life
56:43 Jen's response serves to reinforce Andrew's critique. A big problem with a lot of bad social science is that it amounts to little more than just-so stories. It can feel like it has explanatory value on an emotional or superficial level but it's lacking in empirical rigor. As Andrew said, it's not a "study". It's not science. Just because it's published in a "journal" doesn't mean anything per se. Especially not these days with all the pay-to-play and activist junk journals. This is part of the replication crisis in the social sciences. Many of them are just storytelling and perpetuating their favored narrative, never subjected to real scrutiny or testing. Make the right citations, use the right jargon, reach the right conclusions, and you're published.
Prob lotsa chit chat about RFKjr, Dana, and Musk is my guess. They’ll likely spend a few hrs together, cold plunge, work out, then sauna😂but the pod with only be an hr. For sure he will continue talking about them talking for a while and hopefully it’ll be part of a bit down the line.
Regarding Rogan as a somewhat neutral host, there was a particular telling moment for me I just found out about. Joe played a clip of Biden saying that the revolutionary war forces took over the airports. He then said 'can you imagine this in any other job? People voted for this, you can bet they're like "oh..what did I do?". Except later on he was told that Biden was actually quoting Trump, mocking him. The response to spreading that misinformation was just "Oh, ok. Well that's different clearly he just messed up his words.", proceeding to blame the media's presentation, and with none of the ridiculing and incredulity that accompanied it when applied to Biden. So while I do think Joe isn't the type to really push back on things (for ill, in my opinion) he also clearly has strong bias and is liable to present situations unfairly.
The audience buying shares prevents elliot management from owning those shares and helps limit their influence on the board. We need to limit their percentage of ownership. If we own enough stock, we can influence the shareholder vote
I was the second email read. Thank you for reading it!
JEN: You're awesome. I'm sorry you feel that way. I understand how you feel, though I suspect your worries aren't true. Either way this is right in your wheelhouse. Enjoy this moment, whether you buy in or not. Its special.
Ohhhh I like the rounded corners and border! That's how I frame all my photos for social media.
Excited for election night ❤
I understand Jen's position on the meme stock. Given some of the emails she has gotten on things in the past. I bought my share to support the airline I like and also to be in on the joke. LUV 4 life
56:43 Jen's response serves to reinforce Andrew's critique. A big problem with a lot of bad social science is that it amounts to little more than just-so stories. It can feel like it has explanatory value on an emotional or superficial level but it's lacking in empirical rigor. As Andrew said, it's not a "study". It's not science. Just because it's published in a "journal" doesn't mean anything per se. Especially not these days with all the pay-to-play and activist junk journals. This is part of the replication crisis in the social sciences. Many of them are just storytelling and perpetuating their favored narrative, never subjected to real scrutiny or testing. Make the right citations, use the right jargon, reach the right conclusions, and you're published.
It is very annoying to bring up Heaton's nemesis and not name him. If they hadn't mentioned him, we'd be none the wiser.
Hey, Heatz! Can we see Wally?
Heaton and his cowboy hat in the back ground, he needs to be wearing it!
wait, what beef does jre have with robert putnam?
Prob lotsa chit chat about RFKjr, Dana, and Musk is my guess. They’ll likely spend a few hrs together, cold plunge, work out, then sauna😂but the pod with only be an hr. For sure he will continue talking about them talking for a while and hopefully it’ll be part of a bit down the line.
Regarding Rogan as a somewhat neutral host, there was a particular telling moment for me I just found out about. Joe played a clip of Biden saying that the revolutionary war forces took over the airports. He then said 'can you imagine this in any other job? People voted for this, you can bet they're like "oh..what did I do?". Except later on he was told that Biden was actually quoting Trump, mocking him.
The response to spreading that misinformation was just "Oh, ok. Well that's different clearly he just messed up his words.", proceeding to blame the media's presentation, and with none of the ridiculing and incredulity that accompanied it when applied to Biden. So while I do think Joe isn't the type to really push back on things (for ill, in my opinion) he also clearly has strong bias and is liable to present situations unfairly.
First!
I'm so glad this is still a thing!
Disappointing