I understand why people use AI to generate posts on social media, but I don’t understand why people use AI to generate replies to other people’s posts (other than for influencing campaigns). I see this all the time on X. A small account will reply to one of my posts with something that is clearly AI generated. But it’s actually an attempt at being conversational- it agrees with and summarizes/rephrases my post, and then asks a follow-up question. It’s not some bot generating fake momentum for a polarizing topic or stirring hate and chaos. Not sure I understand why so many people would set up a bot to do those types of semi-constructive replies. I guess they could be trying to grow an account by being perceived as a thoughtful participant, and their human owner might intend to use the account in the future (or in some cases already does use it too) but it doesn’t see to be working for the ones I looked at.

Men and women writing about how the opposite sex is dumb or to blame for everything, has got to be some of the lowest IQ slop on social media at the moment. It’s often framed in intellectual-sounding ways tied to evolution and such, with a kernals of truth, but then it’s cherry-picked and pretty visibly biased, and the same sort of accounts keep putting out tons of it like an obsession. Most of it is a waste of time. Just do cool things.

In a world of AI slop writing, I’m prioritizing brevity more than ever. As Blaise Pascal (not Mark Twain to whom it is often attributed) once wrote, “I only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter.” I am increasingly putting in the time to make things shorter.

One of the most successful pirates in history was Zheng Yi Sao, a Chinese woman. Historians aren't clear about her early life; she may have been a prostitute. But in her twenties she married a pirate lord who commanded a large confederation of pirates, and thus lived a live of piracy with him for years. When he died in the early1800s, rather than the confederation turning to chaos, she managed to take command of it. She married her late husband's adopted son Zhang Bao as well (she was in her 30s, he in his 20s), and he became basically the #2 in the fleet under her, and that helped cement things. Over the next few years, the confederation grew to hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of pirates. They were one of the biggest powers in the South China Sea, rivaling the navies of China, Portugal, and Britain who were active in the region. In 1810, however, she saw that the future probably wouldn't be so bright for her and the pirates. A pirate confederation is a chaotic thing, and cannot last against multiple navies indefinitely. But pirates rarely ever quit while they're ahead; they almost all end up dying violently. The Chinese and other navies were working together and were pretty desperate to get rid of piracy, and were willing to negotiate. However after months, negotiations broke down between the authorities and the various pirate lords, including Zhang Bao, until Zheng Yi Sao went personally to the Chinese governor's mansion that they were primarily negotiating with, at great personal risk. Just walked right in there with a small delegation, without any fighting force, to negotiate, and got it done. After that, the pirates surrendered from a position of strength. Zheng Yi Sao, Zhang Bao, and others received pardons and got to keep most of their wealth. Zhang Bao became an officer in the Chinese navy, commanding a fleet like he used to. Zheng Yi Sao received land and founded a gambling house. Their marriage was recognized by the Chinese government, having been an unofficial "pirate marriage" beforehand. Zhang Bao eventually died age 39, still in service in the navy. Zheng Yi Sao died at 68, having lived decades overseeing her gambling house, and with children from both her marriages. A pirate lord that retired wealthy and peacefully, and managed to navigate the transition away from piracy in a way that let the most reasonable pirates all quit while they were ahead.

Zheng Yi Sao - Wikipedia

My accountant going through my zaps for tax season like

The Supreme Court just struck down Trump's use of emergency powers to impose global, indefinite tariffs (i.e. the tariffs actually have to go through Congress like other taxes, if they're going to be imposed). -Some specific tariffs, such as those on aluminum and steel, cite other laws for justification and can still be applied. -The Trump administration previously said they'll attempt other laws as justification if the Supreme Court strikes down their use of emergency powers.

My February newsletter is out now. Because scheduling things on the day of the Super Bowl is apparently how I do things. The issue focuses on the Fed's shift toward balance sheet expansion, the implications of Japan's rapidly rising bond yields, and the volatile moves in precious metals. https://www.lynalden.com/february-2026-newsletter/

RIP Brad Arnold of 3 Doors Down.

Back in 2018-2020, I wrote a lot about how the upcoming issue of fiscal dominance would contribute heavily to populist politics. For example, 2020: "Populist politics then become more commonplace, and while some strands of it can be quite rational based on countering prevailing policies that are rightly viewed as needing reform, there are also more dangerous or extreme strands that begin to emerge as well, particularly if those initial and more rational strands go unaddressed. Policymakers historically face the choice of doing something to alleviate the financial burdens of the broad population, or risking outright revolution." https://www.lynalden.com/fiscal-and-monetary-policy/ During eras of fiscal dominance, the state tends to take more control of the economy, tends to restrict capital movement, and tends to limit personal freedom, whether it's a right or left government. And they drum up as much public support as possible with a narrative. But witnessing it playing out first hand has still been a sight to behold. I could jot it all down on paper but then admittedly have still been surprised at times as it keeps playing out. And we see both left and right varieties occurring. For folks who want to keep government pretty limited where possible, these past six years have been absolutely wild to watch in practice. So many people forget the basic principle that any power you give your current government, a future government that you don't agree with can use that power against you. The poles of right and left keep drifting outward, and the horseshoe theory of politics is on full display as the two populist extremes are closer together than the moderates of each side are (but then ironically, some of those moderates also unite to oppose those extremes as well). So many people lose their minds and go full communist or full fascist. And then some normal things get labeled as extreme, so people who just believe in a handful of principles that were normal a few decades ago are like out in the wilderness now. And the centralized algos certainly contribute to it. As someone who has been active on social media for a long time, 2025 really stuck out to me, at least as much as 2020 did. I see people reorienting their positions so rapidly around new things in a sort of mass groupthink, I see people retweeting so many things that support their view despite being obvious AI slop or clearly false or out of context with just a 2-minute factcheck. Some real populist momentum waves build, and then centralized algos give them rocket fuel. Both the main wave, and the reactionary wave on the other side, are fueled by the algos for maximum engagement. When I interviewed @jack at the Oslo Freedom Forum back in 2024, he focused on algos affecting not just what people can say, but what people think. And in the year and a half since then, I think that has very much played out. There is an enormous premium these days for being able to recognize the algo's influence on you, and to continually factcheck and emotion-check yourself, take a breath and step back, touch grass, get sun, and assess what your foundational principles are.