A Tale Of Two Talebs

or, how to kick your addiction to the Internet’s biggest asshole.

Image for post
Image for post
Photo by S. Hermann & F Richter, via Pixabay
Omar had a code. Taleb has a code. I have a code. This is why we are gathered here today.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Aaron Burden, via Unsplash
that’s okay, Taleb. I only block liars, cheaters, thieves, and bullies.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Gerhard Gellinger, via Pixabay
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Pierre Bamin, via Unsplash
almost certainly the most niche reference in the entire essay: the Bulagarian show Под Прикритие, or Undercover. It is much lower budget, and Season 1 takes a while to find its feet, but I swear to you, friends, it is almost as good as The Wire. Its plot is more focused specifically on the criminal underworld (in fact, it’s pretty much: what if The Departed lasted 70 hours?) but just as artful in painting a sweeping milieu of an entire society in which nobody is truly “good”. It’s on Amazon Prime with English subtitles. Speaking of which, you should absolutely go watch Triple 9 right now (or right after this essay). It’s like Undercover x The Wire x The Departed, but better than all of them. It’s one of those movies you don’t quite understand why everybody isn’t raving about, besides that critics hate it because they can’t read their desired political message into it. Also, Omar is in it, but you’ll have to watch it four or five times to notice.
Image for post
Image for post
visual representation of me writing Taleb writing me writing Taleb writing … ad infinitum: that would be aleph-naught, if you were wondering, as this process is clearly recursively enumerable. You could even express it in Typographical Number Theory with zero risk of a blowup.
Image for post
Image for post
my code of honour on my parents’ fridge. I scored out the “not”s when I was seven because I used to be an obnoxious little turd. It’s very Popperian when you think about it, which Fragile Nassim claims to in every single thing he writes, although I doubt he really understands this reference.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by dawnydawny, via Pixabay
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Rafael Cerquiera, via Unsplash
in 2014 I was failing to become a university track star and failing to run an online business. I knew a little bit about Bitcoin but I had a large amount of negative money so I couldn’t act on it for 2 more years. Friends, what were you doing in 2014, and how much smarter than you is Elizabeth Stark? Answers in the comments, please.
I added this tweet a few hours after publishing the essay. It was just too perfect.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Aron Visuals, via Unsplash
Image for post
Image for post
SITG bibliography. Smoking gun by the thumb.
  • Fragile Nassim cites the wrong paper to make the wrong point to get a Nobel Prize winner in his bibliography
  • Fragile Nassim did not read the right paper
  • Had he, Fragile Nassim would not have understood the right paper. We know this because he nonsensically tried to frame the ideas in the wrong paper in terms of his One Big Idea. He would have the same problem with the right paper, had he read it
  • The right paper explains volatility
  • You absolute dipshit
Image for post
Image for post
this tweet seems to have been deleted, but Fragile Nassim should know that this will do him no good …
preach, sister.
Image for post
Image for post
careful, Fragile Nassim. If you look at this for too long you might imbibe some set theory by accident.
Image for post
Image for post
the quote that followed isn’t that important and the resolution of the screenshot would have been ruined by zooming out further. However, if you don’t want to end up as clueless as Fragile Nassim on Bitcoin, you should absolutely buy Mastering Bitcoin and find the quote yourself.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Syed Ali, via Unsplash
Image for post
Image for post
powersets under the partial order of strict subset inclusion are lattices. Here’s a simple one. And pretty too! Happy now? What I am proposing is that Fragile Nassim is the supremum of the partial order. Naturally.
Image for post
Image for post
this has been on my desk at work for two years. if you think it is contrived for this essay, here is proof it is at least nine months old: https://twitter.com/allenf32/status/1162758781618536449
Image for post
Image for post
“isomorphisms” in the Gödel, Escher, Bach index. I can assure you, friends, that there is no greater emotional rollercoaster than furiously checking NNT indices for “isomorphism”, finding none, but then remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I did briefly shit myself when stumbling upon a gigantic section right where I was looking, but it was just “iatrogenics”. I don’t know what that means, nor do I care because, with that many references, I’m sure he misused it. An “isomorphism” is a homomorphism that is also bijective, meaning the spaces mapped to and from have “the same size”, which, of course, has its own rigorous definition in set theory. As opposed to a mere homomorphism, an isomorphism preserves structure *perfectly*. You might think Taleb would care about such things. And yet, Hofstadter thought about isomorphisms infinitely more than Taleb seems to. I’m not even going to play the “which infinity?” game, because Taleb doesn’t think about them *at all* so there is no well-defined answer. Ordinal arithmetic will not help us here. It is true only in either a kind of sublime, religious sense, or in the extremely simple mathematical sense of “more … a lot more”. As I’m sure Ole Peters would be delighted to explain, these magnitudes cannot be subject to any meaningful geometric comparison. arithmetic only: as per the total ordering imposed by the binary relation, “gives x-much of a shit about isomorphisms,” on the space of popular writers: Hofstadter >>> Taleb.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Paul Melki, via Unsplash
Image for post
Image for post
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Keyur Nandaniya, via Unsplash
  1. He is talking about the mathematical concepts.
  2. What he is saying also makes sense in English.
  3. He is a super-duper smarty pants, so you probably just don’t get it.
  4. YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARDED BULLSHIT VENDOR! HOW DARE YOU BE SO INSOLENT AS TO QUESTION THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE?!? MY GOLDEN CRUMBS ARE THE PHILOSOPHER’S STONE, IF THE PHILSOPHER’S STONE COVERED NOT JUST PHILOSOPHY BUT EVERY SUBJECT KNOWN TO MAN AND SEVERAL NOT YET DISCOVERED! GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, YOU BARELY CONSCIOUS BUG ON THE SOLE OF MY SHOE!
  • understand ergodicity. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand volatility in capital markets. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand venture capital. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand the abstract algebra that is required to explain complex nonlinear systems. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand the measure theory, functional analysis, and fractal analysis that is required to explain nonstandard probability distributions with kurtosis over 3; that exhibit power law decay; that have an undefined mean or variance; that exhibit Pareto-like self-similarity, or any other reasonable high level categorisation of “fat tailed distributions”. Measure theory, functional analysis, and fractal analysis require set theory to be handled rigorously, which obviously the real pure mathematicians who work in these fields understand, if they ever even stop to contemplate something so obvious. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand that “convexity” and “nonlinearity” are properties of elements of dynamical systems we infer by statistical reasoning and are not physical phenomena that can enter into causal relations in the real world. Fragile Nassim does not.
  • understand that “computational complexity” has nothing to do with risk. Fragile Nassim does not. Nor does he understand computational complexity. Nor does he understand risk.
Image for post
Image for post
homepage of the Universa website. used without permission. I will take it down if I am asked, but given this section is a gigantic free trailer for not only your fund but for your brilliance, I would quite like to keep it up. thanks in advance, Mark.
this thread is worth a gander, but don’t tell them I sent you. I don’t think they like me much.
Image for post
Image for post
photo by Mauro Sbicego, via Unsplash
but what does the ‘p’ stand for? ‘Ptaleb’? pterhaps …
Image for post
Image for post
unfortunately, I don’t know the proper credit for this as my Dad emailed it to me. Comment or DM if you do and I will update. See here for the backstory: https://twitter.com/allenf32/status/1249261921834057728
Image for post
Image for post

Written by

maybe a squirrel. maybe not.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store