You’d better watch this:
Throw a Harvard educated Goldman Sachs guy who helped get MAGA started and then get dumped by Trump and then put in prison for his trouble, and he starts sounding like “That Blowhard Bowery Guy”.
I’m losing interest in appealing to any but the tiny minority that are adequately ruthless about the Cyclogenetic Eschatology extremes of Camp 38 and Panspermia.
Musk is pretty high in the panspermia ruthlessness metric, which a big part of the reason I’m still interested in pursuing the ALIC* (ALgorithmic Information Criterion) for macrosocial dynamics model selection. Musk isn’t adequately ruthless about his pursuit of truth else he’d have funded something like Hume’s Guillotine by now (if not the Hutter Prize and Mahoney’s Large Text Compression Benchmark). He should want to see how the results compare with the Population Wellness Initiative that he endowed as part of his interest in TFR collapse. All he’d have to do is ask PWI how much money they need to curate a dataset containing all the data they believe to be relevant to PWI so that, at the very least, he could run a “many analysts, one dataset” study, as a first step toward transparency. The next step would be running a Hume’s Guillotine prize on that dataset which could be run with far less money than the initial step of comparing analytic methods.
And, yes, I’ve asked the PWI folks if they would provide a dataset for that purpose.
The big hurdle people need to get over is going from statics to dynamics in causal inference. They don’t even need to accept “That Blowhard Bowery’s ALIC Obsession”. I’m starting to think it is pretty likely that a chasm is being maintained between open sociology with its “statistics” and proprietary (if not black budget) dynamical models in both the financial industry and defense industry. Control systems need dynamical models and there is power and money in CONTROL – which is directly related to scientific inference of causality is most widely recognized to be based on experimental CONTROL.