
Link to Post on X – https://x.com/nntaleb/status/1982121385594953828
Amazon Link – https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FXPWYL9P/
.org (UNOFFICIAL news site)

Link to Post on X – https://x.com/nntaleb/status/1982121385594953828
Amazon Link – https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FXPWYL9P/

PDF Download Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.10488
Recently on twitter, Nassim shared this chart comparing outcomes with Clinton as president versus Trump. In response to a question about Sanders versus Trump, he tweeted: “Bernie v. Trump I go Bernie because his domestic policies won’t go through and his foreign policies are clearer.”
He also followed up with these tweets: “Hillary and Bush have done the most to harm minority populations in the Levant & Iraq since Genghis Khan.” “2/What I mean by rigorous is not making assumptions/ certainties when there is uncertainty. Shillary offers certainties, Trump fewer ones.”
Nassim recently posted a document called “Skepticism” on Facebook.
He had this to say about it:
Something people don’t get: more skepticism about climate models should lead to more “green” ecological conservationist policies not more lax pro-pollution ones. Why? Simply, uncertainty about the models increases fragility (and thickens the left tail), no matter what the benefits can be in the right tail.
Added the section to the precautionary principle. Please discuss but stick to rigor and avoid buzzwords. (Also do not think that the idea is falling from the sky: it is a mere application of the fragility theorems).