https://teapawt.net/t.co/ZiVCtQyKpV
Joined March 2011
- Tweets8.1K
- Following152
- Followers5K
- Likes6.9K
This is happening with Claude Opus 5.5 now. Not quite as extreme but it's gotten very sloppy the past few days. This kind of whiplash really damages trust and they're not doing themselves any favors if they want adoption to accelerate.
Imagine automating a task and out of nowhere things start breaking because Anthropic needs to save on compute? You're just pushing people towards self-hosted open models.
There's empirical evidence this is happening btw, I'm not imagining it teapawt.net/Lon/status/21189474860…
We've been through this before, friends.
I really hope people stop clamoring over the latest frontier model release long enough to realize that every frontier model is mere weeks away from having the inference compute rugged from underneath it.
Compute is constantly being reallocated and margins are being preserved at the expense of your ability to produce useful work from these models. The benchmarks are all very clear: a model that is not allowed to reason will confidently generate useless garbage. You cannot overcome this with more guidelines and skills. You cannot steer a model that does not think to success.
As I was saying teapawt.net/DeItaone/status/211869…
I've been on this site for a decade now and don't think fintwit has ever been this dead/quiet on such a crashy day. Maybe the algo is still just showing me election content but it's a little odd
CPI is 3.7% YoY and has been above the Fed "target" for 5.5 years. Unemployment is at 4.2% and declining, led by cyclical sectors like manufacturing and construction. The Fed's job is not (supposed to be) bailing out SPX, no matter how much it hurts to see your stocks down 5%
Crude dumped over 5% after this tweet. Markets are clearly interpreting this as "war's over" but I think this is better understood as Vance distancing himself from both Trump and the war. Remains to be seen how Trump himself proceeds with the Iran problem
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Trump still doesn't have good options in terms of truly ending the conflict. He has to either cave to Iran's demands or move to major escalation. The third option is a continuation of the status quo, but that's expensive, unsustainable and how has that been working out for him?
Trump is sounding defeated but at the same time he's still defending the war so it's very unlikely imo that Vance's tweet was coordinated with him teapawt.net/Osinttechnical/status/…
In light of the price movements and deal headlines today, I'm sharing this series which uses satellite imagery of Yanbu + PG loadings to get a holistic view of exports. We've been around 85% of pre-war levels since September with a small dip in Oct that's since recovered to over 90% of pre-war.
A straightforward reading of the situation is that for all its efforts Iran hasn't been able to meaningfully constrain flows. It's possible they are holding back for fear of escalation, we don't know; but the flows are what they are.
From this standpoint, it makes sense that Iran would want a deal right now. But think about it from Trump's perspective. Why would he give them much of anything with the current status quo? It's too late for any compression of the risk premium to meaningfully affect midterms, and flows are already close to normal.
Given this backdrop I think it likely this is a ruse to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security before another round of attacks. It's been standard Trump MO to talk up diplomacy and rule out military strikes just before a big escalation and post-midterms he likely thinks he has nothing to lose from "finishing the job".
That doesn't mean we don't get a deal announcement in the next 24 hours and some more downside, but if that happens it should be faded imo.
This series is available and updated every day on hormuzstraittracker.com
This largely matches my own observations. A lot of the declines in flow I was seeing mid month have been revised away after dark tankers popped up later. It's remarkable the extent to which flows have remained largely stable through all the headlines about escalating attacks
MIDDLE EAST OIL FLOWS: With data for Oct 1-26, Middle Eastern *crude* exports (ex Iran) are on track to be higher in Oct than in Sept (and very close to pre-war levels (>90%) for the monthly average).
After weeks of attacks against tankers and infrastructure, Iran and its proxies have failed to stop the flow. But all that recovery could be gone if the war re-starts after Nov. 3.
Note I'm referring to **crude** and the flows include SoH plus all the bypass routes. Flows of clean and dirty refined products remain depressed, with little change in flows month-on-month, holding around >60% of pre-war levels (ex Iran).
The most important question for crude right now is: how much has Iran been holding back wrt Hormuz? And wrt energy infrastructure? "The oil is flowing b/c Iran is avoiding escalation" and "the oil is flowing b/c Iran can't do anything about it" imply two very different futures
7d average of implied hormuz flows is 9.7 mbpd, this likely gets revised to just over 10 mbpd. Down maybe 20% from peak and holding. Persian Gulf loadings have declined though and are back at August levels, and Red Sea loadings have also slowed in the most recent satellite pass.
This along with the Persian Gulf and Red Sea loadings series gets updated on my site daily, you can check it out at hormuzstraittracker.com