Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Why Redfin is keeping climate risk data (even if others aren't). There is a divide forming in the real estate world regarding data transparency. Recently, Zillow removed climate risk data following pressure from agents concerned about impact on home values. At Redfin, we took a different path. We decided...

FairweatherPhD's profile picture

Daryl Fairweather, PhD | Chief Economist

23,977 subscribers

14,962 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Narrative - Canada is on FIRE so OBVIOUSLY, Climate Change is going to destroy the world in 10 years unless you start eating bugs and turn off your air conditioner! It’s time we used some actual common sense and look at reality and historical data. 3 MILLION Acres burned in 1910! Most of that in only TWO DAYS! Is Canada burning because of Climate Change or because we have made a complete mess of our forests for the last 50 years?
4:36

Narrative - Canada is on FIRE so OBVIOUSLY, Climate Change is going to destroy the world in 10 years unless you start eating bugs and turn off your air conditioner! It’s time we used some actual common sense and look at reality and historical data. 3 MILLION Acres burned in 1910! Most of that in only TWO DAYS! Is Canada burning because of Climate Change or because we have made a complete mess of our forests for the last 50 years?

Trinity Vandenacre

19,211 views • 1 month ago

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."
2:36

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

Wide Awake Media

191,053 views • 1 year ago

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."
2:24

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."

Camus

55,484 views • 1 year ago

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."
1:37

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."

Steve Guest

150,965 views • 6 months ago

Bill Maher's guest tells him to essentially stop being 'Chicken Little' about climate change: Bjorn Lomborg: "I'm going to show you the data that this is a problem, but not the end of the world by any means." Bill Maher: "Tell me why you think the coral reef problem is exaggerated." Bjorn Lomborg: "The last 3 years they've been at the highest level, the most coral reef we've ever seen in those areas." Bill Maher: "Why are we doing better in the last 3 years? It's not like we did anything." Lomborg: "I don't know." This teaches you two valuable lessons: Stop being 'Chicken Little' about climate change, and that climate 'experts' answers to most questions (if they are being honest) is "I don't know".
3:12

Bill Maher's guest tells him to essentially stop being 'Chicken Little' about climate change: Bjorn Lomborg: "I'm going to show you the data that this is a problem, but not the end of the world by any means." Bill Maher: "Tell me why you think the coral reef problem is exaggerated." Bjorn Lomborg: "The last 3 years they've been at the highest level, the most coral reef we've ever seen in those areas." Bill Maher: "Why are we doing better in the last 3 years? It's not like we did anything." Lomborg: "I don't know." This teaches you two valuable lessons: Stop being 'Chicken Little' about climate change, and that climate 'experts' answers to most questions (if they are being honest) is "I don't know".

Eric Abbenante

1,758,563 views • 1 year ago

Jimmy Dore: Groundbreaking South Korean Study Reveals Alarming Link Between COVID Vaccines and Cancer A massive new study from South Korea, utilizing the national health insurance database of over 8.4 million people, has uncovered a deeply disturbing trend. The research, which tracked patients from 2021-2023, found a statistically significant increase in cancer risk among the vaccinated population. The data paints a devastating picture: - 27% higher risk of overall cancer. - 53% higher risk of lung cancer. - 69% higher risk of prostate cancer. - 34% higher risk of gastric cancer. - 28% higher risk of colorectal cancer. - 35% higher risk of thyroid cancer. - 20% higher risk of breast cancer. As commentator Jimmy Dore highlighted, the probability this result occurred by chance is less than one in a thousand. He points out the critical context the mainstream media refuses to cover: Why was this crucial, large-scale analysis only conducted in South Korea? Why have other nations with similar databases not released such findings? This same research group has previously published data showing vaccines linked to a 68% increase in depression and a 93% increase in sleep disorders. This is the information being systematically suppressed. The very platforms that censored open debate about vaccine efficacy, early treatment, and origins of the virus are now ignoring peer-reviewed science that contradicts the official narrative. The public is demanding answers. Why the silence?
3:23

Jimmy Dore: Groundbreaking South Korean Study Reveals Alarming Link Between COVID Vaccines and Cancer A massive new study from South Korea, utilizing the national health insurance database of over 8.4 million people, has uncovered a deeply disturbing trend. The research, which tracked patients from 2021-2023, found a statistically significant increase in cancer risk among the vaccinated population. The data paints a devastating picture: - 27% higher risk of overall cancer. - 53% higher risk of lung cancer. - 69% higher risk of prostate cancer. - 34% higher risk of gastric cancer. - 28% higher risk of colorectal cancer. - 35% higher risk of thyroid cancer. - 20% higher risk of breast cancer. As commentator Jimmy Dore highlighted, the probability this result occurred by chance is less than one in a thousand. He points out the critical context the mainstream media refuses to cover: Why was this crucial, large-scale analysis only conducted in South Korea? Why have other nations with similar databases not released such findings? This same research group has previously published data showing vaccines linked to a 68% increase in depression and a 93% increase in sleep disorders. This is the information being systematically suppressed. The very platforms that censored open debate about vaccine efficacy, early treatment, and origins of the virus are now ignoring peer-reviewed science that contradicts the official narrative. The public is demanding answers. Why the silence?

Camus

68,017 views • 10 months ago

"The Flock issue is a mirror into what's been happening on the internet for over a decade."- LukΞ Mulks 🦁⟁◎⟁ The same third-party data collection that's been building detailed profiles of us online is now becoming visible in the physical world through systems like Flock Safety. When you combine license plate readers, location data, audio and years of online tracking, you end up with an incredibly detailed surveillance profile. As Luke points out, once that data exists, it can be misused, whether by governments, bad actors, or anyone else who gains access to it. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect against unreasonable government surveillance and overreach, making this more than just a technology issue—it's a civil liberties issue. He also raises another concern that's often overlooked: the security of these systems themselves. If we're worried about foreign adversaries, why are we collecting and storing massive amounts of sensitive location and behavioral data on third-party servers in the first place? If those systems are vulnerable, that data doesn't just become a privacy risk, it can become a national security risk.
3:11

"The Flock issue is a mirror into what's been happening on the internet for over a decade."- LukΞ Mulks 🦁⟁◎⟁ The same third-party data collection that's been building detailed profiles of us online is now becoming visible in the physical world through systems like Flock Safety. When you combine license plate readers, location data, audio and years of online tracking, you end up with an incredibly detailed surveillance profile. As Luke points out, once that data exists, it can be misused, whether by governments, bad actors, or anyone else who gains access to it. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect against unreasonable government surveillance and overreach, making this more than just a technology issue—it's a civil liberties issue. He also raises another concern that's often overlooked: the security of these systems themselves. If we're worried about foreign adversaries, why are we collecting and storing massive amounts of sensitive location and behavioral data on third-party servers in the first place? If those systems are vulnerable, that data doesn't just become a privacy risk, it can become a national security risk.

Bri Teresi

102,092 views • 1 month ago

Massive Study Reveals More Bad News for the COVID Vaccinated The "conspiracy theorists" were right once again. There are HUGE health risks from the jab, no matter how much the media tries to downplay it. Take a look for yourself: Moderna (Dose 1/2): • Swelling of the brain and spinal cord: Almost 4 times (400%) increased risk (first dose) • Myocarditis: 3.48 times increased risk (first dose) • Pericarditis: 1.74 times increased risk (first dose) • Myocarditis (Second shot): 6.1 times increased risk AstraZeneca: • Blood clots: 3.23 times (320%) increased risk • Guillain–Barré syndrome (could lead to paralysis): 2.49 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Third dose): 6.91 times increased risk Pfizer: • Myocarditis (First dose): 2.78 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second dose): 2.86 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Third dose): 2.09 times increased risk Moderna (Further doses beyond the first): • Myocarditis from the second shot: 6.1 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Fourth dose): 2.64 times increased risk • Myocarditis from the third dose: 2.01 times increased risk This study conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) looked at a cohort of 99 million vaccinated individuals. The increased risks were compared to what was expected based on pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data, or in simpler terms, if you did not receive the jab at all. Most of the above risk factors are calculated based on a single dose. When you consider many people took three shots or more, the results of the study become even more alarming. Listen to what Del Bigtree, host of The Highwire, had to say: “And they’re not even talking about cancer … but how about this? You’re like, well, only six times the amount of myocarditis. But if you add that six times to the two or three times for myocarditis. And what about the blood clots and stroke? What happens? “They’re not just six by themselves. They all stack up. What are we, like, 20 times the amount of risk for getting totally jacked up by this vaccine? And they’re only just starting the list. “And trust me, the scientists did everything they could to make this as conservative as they possibly could because no one wants to be responsible for, God forbid, say, we need to recall a vaccine.”
6:12

Massive Study Reveals More Bad News for the COVID Vaccinated The "conspiracy theorists" were right once again. There are HUGE health risks from the jab, no matter how much the media tries to downplay it. Take a look for yourself: Moderna (Dose 1/2): • Swelling of the brain and spinal cord: Almost 4 times (400%) increased risk (first dose) • Myocarditis: 3.48 times increased risk (first dose) • Pericarditis: 1.74 times increased risk (first dose) • Myocarditis (Second shot): 6.1 times increased risk AstraZeneca: • Blood clots: 3.23 times (320%) increased risk • Guillain–Barré syndrome (could lead to paralysis): 2.49 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Third dose): 6.91 times increased risk Pfizer: • Myocarditis (First dose): 2.78 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second dose): 2.86 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Third dose): 2.09 times increased risk Moderna (Further doses beyond the first): • Myocarditis from the second shot: 6.1 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Fourth dose): 2.64 times increased risk • Myocarditis from the third dose: 2.01 times increased risk This study conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) looked at a cohort of 99 million vaccinated individuals. The increased risks were compared to what was expected based on pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data, or in simpler terms, if you did not receive the jab at all. Most of the above risk factors are calculated based on a single dose. When you consider many people took three shots or more, the results of the study become even more alarming. Listen to what Del Bigtree, host of The Highwire, had to say: “And they’re not even talking about cancer … but how about this? You’re like, well, only six times the amount of myocarditis. But if you add that six times to the two or three times for myocarditis. And what about the blood clots and stroke? What happens? “They’re not just six by themselves. They all stack up. What are we, like, 20 times the amount of risk for getting totally jacked up by this vaccine? And they’re only just starting the list. “And trust me, the scientists did everything they could to make this as conservative as they possibly could because no one wants to be responsible for, God forbid, say, we need to recall a vaccine.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

809,925 views • 2 years ago

Zack Polanski, "What is your assessment of where we're at and what needs to happen?" Caroline Lucas, "We've had this Joint Intelligence Committee report that was suppressed by the Labour government because they saw how serious the climate and nature emergency is" "Perhaps they didn't want to show how little they were doing to rise to the occasion" "Just as sea levels are rising, tragically the far right is rising too" "They are weaponising climate change and climate policy" "One of the ways we can push back against that is by, not using the language of net zero, which most people don't understand" "It's about making this conversation real for people" "If we can talk about climate change as being about power, and redistributing power" "If we can talk about it in terms of justice" "Then we've got a better chance of making change happen" "But also crucially, hopefully, reducing the change of a Farage-led government at the next election" Zack Polanski, "So beautifully put"
1:27

Zack Polanski, "What is your assessment of where we're at and what needs to happen?" Caroline Lucas, "We've had this Joint Intelligence Committee report that was suppressed by the Labour government because they saw how serious the climate and nature emergency is" "Perhaps they didn't want to show how little they were doing to rise to the occasion" "Just as sea levels are rising, tragically the far right is rising too" "They are weaponising climate change and climate policy" "One of the ways we can push back against that is by, not using the language of net zero, which most people don't understand" "It's about making this conversation real for people" "If we can talk about climate change as being about power, and redistributing power" "If we can talk about it in terms of justice" "Then we've got a better chance of making change happen" "But also crucially, hopefully, reducing the change of a Farage-led government at the next election" Zack Polanski, "So beautifully put"

Farrukh

18,397 views • 5 months ago

The Conclusion is Inescapable: When You Replace the 50% Relative Risk with the 2% Absolute Risk, the COVID Vaccine Narrative Collapses. This was the great statistical deception deployed for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Regulators and pharmaceutical companies had a choice: report Absolute Risk Reduction (the real-world benefit) or Relative Risk Reduction (the impressive-sounding headline). They consistently chose the latter to frame the vaccines as a monumental success. Let's break down the math that shaped global policy: • Absolute Risk (The Truth in Context): If your risk of symptomatic COVID drops from a baseline of 3% to 1% after the shot, that is a 2% Absolute Risk Reduction. This is the tangible difference for an individual. • Relative Risk (The Manipulated Headline): That same change is spun as a "50% improvement." The benefit appears revolutionary, while the real-world impact for the individual is far more modest. This was not a minor oversight. It was a calculated communication strategy that obscured the true, absolute benefit of the mRNA products. As analyst Leslie Manookian warned, those who read the initial trial data saw this immediately. The primary endpoint was the reduction of mild symptoms, yet the efficacy was marketed to the public using this statistical sleight-of-hand. The story of overwhelming, individual benefit only holds under the lens of relative risk. Under the harsh, transparent light of absolute risk, the narrative shifts dramatically. Demanding this transparency for COVID-19 vaccines isn't anti-science—it is the bedrock of true scientific and informed consent.
1:04

The Conclusion is Inescapable: When You Replace the 50% Relative Risk with the 2% Absolute Risk, the COVID Vaccine Narrative Collapses. This was the great statistical deception deployed for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Regulators and pharmaceutical companies had a choice: report Absolute Risk Reduction (the real-world benefit) or Relative Risk Reduction (the impressive-sounding headline). They consistently chose the latter to frame the vaccines as a monumental success. Let's break down the math that shaped global policy: • Absolute Risk (The Truth in Context): If your risk of symptomatic COVID drops from a baseline of 3% to 1% after the shot, that is a 2% Absolute Risk Reduction. This is the tangible difference for an individual. • Relative Risk (The Manipulated Headline): That same change is spun as a "50% improvement." The benefit appears revolutionary, while the real-world impact for the individual is far more modest. This was not a minor oversight. It was a calculated communication strategy that obscured the true, absolute benefit of the mRNA products. As analyst Leslie Manookian warned, those who read the initial trial data saw this immediately. The primary endpoint was the reduction of mild symptoms, yet the efficacy was marketed to the public using this statistical sleight-of-hand. The story of overwhelming, individual benefit only holds under the lens of relative risk. Under the harsh, transparent light of absolute risk, the narrative shifts dramatically. Demanding this transparency for COVID-19 vaccines isn't anti-science—it is the bedrock of true scientific and informed consent.

Camus

25,891 views • 10 months ago

KYC doesn’t just put your data at risk; it puts people at risk. Hackers recently demanded $20 million in Bitcoin from Coinbase, threatening to leak sensitive customer data. While no passwords or private keys were accessed, the attackers obtained full names, addresses, contact details, partial Social Security and bank account numbers, and identity documents. This is the kind of data that can be weaponised for identity theft, fraud, or worse. This is exactly the kind of risk I raised on the compliance panel at the Financial Times Digital Assets Summit last week. While KYC and compliance frameworks are presented as security features, they often do the opposite. They create massive, centralised honeypots of personal data that can and do get breached, sold, or exploited. We’ve seen what can happen when that data gets into the wrong hands. Earlier this year, David Balland, the co-founder of Ledger, was kidnapped along with his wife. His captors cut off one of his fingers and sent it to a business associate to demand crypto ransom. He was rescued by French special forces, but the message was clear: real-world consequences are now linked to digital identity exposure. We need better solutions that don’t force users to sacrifice privacy and safety for access. Compliance shouldn’t come at the cost of security.
0:34

KYC doesn’t just put your data at risk; it puts people at risk. Hackers recently demanded $20 million in Bitcoin from Coinbase, threatening to leak sensitive customer data. While no passwords or private keys were accessed, the attackers obtained full names, addresses, contact details, partial Social Security and bank account numbers, and identity documents. This is the kind of data that can be weaponised for identity theft, fraud, or worse. This is exactly the kind of risk I raised on the compliance panel at the Financial Times Digital Assets Summit last week. While KYC and compliance frameworks are presented as security features, they often do the opposite. They create massive, centralised honeypots of personal data that can and do get breached, sold, or exploited. We’ve seen what can happen when that data gets into the wrong hands. Earlier this year, David Balland, the co-founder of Ledger, was kidnapped along with his wife. His captors cut off one of his fingers and sent it to a business associate to demand crypto ransom. He was rescued by French special forces, but the message was clear: real-world consequences are now linked to digital identity exposure. We need better solutions that don’t force users to sacrifice privacy and safety for access. Compliance shouldn’t come at the cost of security.

Decentra Suze

41,886 views • 1 year ago

There is a new scam going on in this home inspection industry - Large corporations are buying up all the small home inspection companies - They don’t care about making money off inspecting homes, they want the data Why? This is where it gets borderline criminal Home inspections are supposed to be confidential, but what they’re doing is buying all the companies to own the data Then they are going to sell that data to insurance companies and lenders Now with this new information the insurance company finds out, they're going to start charging you $3,000 (or whatever) extra a year to insure that house Here’s what I’ve found Large corporations and private equity firms are aggressively consolidating the home inspection industry primarily by buying inspection software platforms like Spectora, HomeGauge and larger inspection companies A home inspection report contains highly detailed property specific information like roof age and condition, electrical and plumbing issues, foundation problems, HVAC status, environmental hazards This is extremely valuable for: - Insurance companies (risk assessment and underwriting). - Lenders (property valuation and loan risk). - Home warranty providers, contractors, and data brokers Home inspections are supposed to be confidential between the buyer, inspector, and sometimes the real estate parties. However, many inspection software companies’ terms of service allow data aggregation and sharing That’s the loophole they found. That’s the scam
1:42

There is a new scam going on in this home inspection industry - Large corporations are buying up all the small home inspection companies - They don’t care about making money off inspecting homes, they want the data Why? This is where it gets borderline criminal Home inspections are supposed to be confidential, but what they’re doing is buying all the companies to own the data Then they are going to sell that data to insurance companies and lenders Now with this new information the insurance company finds out, they're going to start charging you $3,000 (or whatever) extra a year to insure that house Here’s what I’ve found Large corporations and private equity firms are aggressively consolidating the home inspection industry primarily by buying inspection software platforms like Spectora, HomeGauge and larger inspection companies A home inspection report contains highly detailed property specific information like roof age and condition, electrical and plumbing issues, foundation problems, HVAC status, environmental hazards This is extremely valuable for: - Insurance companies (risk assessment and underwriting). - Lenders (property valuation and loan risk). - Home warranty providers, contractors, and data brokers Home inspections are supposed to be confidential between the buyer, inspector, and sometimes the real estate parties. However, many inspection software companies’ terms of service allow data aggregation and sharing That’s the loophole they found. That’s the scam

Wall Street Apes

268,876 views • 2 months ago

CBS environmental correspondent David Schechter rips Lee Zeldin: “I think the biggest risk is that we have a small window to deal with climate change, really. I mean, you know, it is getting smaller and smaller, less than 10 years to level out and reduce our emissions, and we had — and have currently a lot of rules that deal with that. To throw those out would undo a lot of progress that has been made to try to reach these new standards for our country and for the world, and — and we will lose our opportunity to really get ahead of this problem or even stay current with the problem.”
0:40

CBS environmental correspondent David Schechter rips Lee Zeldin: “I think the biggest risk is that we have a small window to deal with climate change, really. I mean, you know, it is getting smaller and smaller, less than 10 years to level out and reduce our emissions, and we had — and have currently a lot of rules that deal with that. To throw those out would undo a lot of progress that has been made to try to reach these new standards for our country and for the world, and — and we will lose our opportunity to really get ahead of this problem or even stay current with the problem.”

Curtis Houck

566,272 views • 1 year ago

Grace Blakeley, "People don't leave their homes because they feel like it.. Climate breakdown is going to cause millions of climate refugees by 2050" Grace Blakeley "We've been talking about toxicity and divisiveness in politics.. The response to that from people like Nigel Farage and the Conservative party, is to demonise people crossing the channel saying, the reason you can't get a home, or a job, is because there are people coming into this country that don't deserve to be here, and that is wrong" Jo Coburn, "But you think Labour's approach is wrong too?" Grace Blakeley, "Yes, I don't think they are doing enough.. Where is the plan on climate?" Mike Tapp, "The first responsibility of any government is to secure borders and we make no apologies for that" Mike Tapp MP "We've got really ambitious green plans to go fully renewable by 2030.. We can create a green economy on the back of that by building British.. We can then export that green economy like we did with the first industrial revolution" "We can't fix the world, the global climate problem, but we can do our part, and show others"
3:53

Grace Blakeley, "People don't leave their homes because they feel like it.. Climate breakdown is going to cause millions of climate refugees by 2050" Grace Blakeley "We've been talking about toxicity and divisiveness in politics.. The response to that from people like Nigel Farage and the Conservative party, is to demonise people crossing the channel saying, the reason you can't get a home, or a job, is because there are people coming into this country that don't deserve to be here, and that is wrong" Jo Coburn, "But you think Labour's approach is wrong too?" Grace Blakeley, "Yes, I don't think they are doing enough.. Where is the plan on climate?" Mike Tapp, "The first responsibility of any government is to secure borders and we make no apologies for that" Mike Tapp MP "We've got really ambitious green plans to go fully renewable by 2030.. We can create a green economy on the back of that by building British.. We can then export that green economy like we did with the first industrial revolution" "We can't fix the world, the global climate problem, but we can do our part, and show others"

Farrukh

30,176 views • 2 years ago

Friedberg: California Created an Insurance Crisis by Artificially Inflating Home Prices david friedberg broke it down on episode 210: -- the frequency of loss is INCREASING for homes in climate-sensitive zones (areas with wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) -- this includes parts of los angeles susceptible to wildfires -- in a free market, the cost of insurance would rise with the increased risk of loss -- however, california makes it nearly impossible for home insurance providers to increase rates -- this artificially inflates home prices, due to the massively subsidized insurance costs " They're driving real estate value up because they're not allowing the cost of insurance of that real estate to naturally float." " And so by driving real estate values up, the economy looks good, they make property taxes, income comes in." -- but, major insurance providers like state farm pulled out of certain at-risk areas in the state -- for example, state farm canceled ~1600 policies in pacific palisades last summer -- californians living in at-risk areas are now relying on the state's insurance program (the "fair plan") in record numbers -- according to friedberg, the fair plan has ~$220M of capital with ~$5B of reinsurance -- after this string of wildfires, the program has ~$6B of exposure in the pacific palisades alone, and could have $24B+ in total losses -- so, california's state insurance plan is effectively bankrupt, and will need a bailout " At the end of the day, the bill is going to come due." "And at some point, taxpayers are going to look at the fact that they're paying some percentage of their income to support someone else's home value, and they're going to say 'Enough is enough.'"
0:56

Friedberg: California Created an Insurance Crisis by Artificially Inflating Home Prices david friedberg broke it down on episode 210: -- the frequency of loss is INCREASING for homes in climate-sensitive zones (areas with wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) -- this includes parts of los angeles susceptible to wildfires -- in a free market, the cost of insurance would rise with the increased risk of loss -- however, california makes it nearly impossible for home insurance providers to increase rates -- this artificially inflates home prices, due to the massively subsidized insurance costs " They're driving real estate value up because they're not allowing the cost of insurance of that real estate to naturally float." " And so by driving real estate values up, the economy looks good, they make property taxes, income comes in." -- but, major insurance providers like state farm pulled out of certain at-risk areas in the state -- for example, state farm canceled ~1600 policies in pacific palisades last summer -- californians living in at-risk areas are now relying on the state's insurance program (the "fair plan") in record numbers -- according to friedberg, the fair plan has ~$220M of capital with ~$5B of reinsurance -- after this string of wildfires, the program has ~$6B of exposure in the pacific palisades alone, and could have $24B+ in total losses -- so, california's state insurance plan is effectively bankrupt, and will need a bailout " At the end of the day, the bill is going to come due." "And at some point, taxpayers are going to look at the fact that they're paying some percentage of their income to support someone else's home value, and they're going to say 'Enough is enough.'"

The All-In Podcast

221,495 views • 1 year ago

Risk oracles, automated systems that monitor and manage protocol risk onchain, are set to become a cornerstone of onchain finance. However, their reliability and design philosophy determine whether they actually reduce or introduce risk. When risk oracles fail to operate throughout volatile conditions, depend on poor-quality data, or lack transparency, they become a point of failure. Onchain finance needs infrastructure that’s neutral, transparent, and battle-tested under extreme conditions. That’s where the Chainlink Runtime Environment (CRE) comes in. CRE’s modular orchestration framework lets developers build highly-customizable and resilient risk oracle systems leveraging the industry’s most reliable infrastructure and highest-quality data. With CRE, protocol developers, DeFi risk managers, and risk curators can create risk oracle solutions that include: • Custom pricing logic to reflect complex instruments • Dynamic risk parameters to maximize efficiency and safety • Automated freeze or circuit-breaker functionality All built on verifiable, decentralized infrastructure. That’s why LlamaRisk chose CRE to power LlamaGuard NAV, a next-gen oracle integrated by Aave Horizon that prices tokenized RWAs using dynamic price bounds and advanced risk controls. In combining Chainlink’s proven reliability and neutrality with LlamaRisk’s expertise in protocol risk, LlamaGuard provides Aave Horizon with a transparent, automated risk management system designed for institutional-grade tokenized assets. This design separates responsibilities: • Chainlink provides the trusted infrastructure for secure data validation and workflow orchestration. • LlamaRisk configures the transparent, dynamic risk logic that runs on top of CRE. The result: a highly-reliable and transparent risk oracle solution that ensures neutrality at the system level and adheres to DeFi’s decentralization ethos. As Sergey Nazarov and Stani noted at SmartCon 2025, CRE-powered risk oracles on Aave Horizon bring together specialized experts to deliver transparent, verifiable, and robust systems for the next era of DeFi. Protocols that implement properly designed risk oracles have an inherent advantage by offering users stronger safety, more efficient markets, and better institutional alignment. Safer oracles = Safer DeFi.
1:14

Risk oracles, automated systems that monitor and manage protocol risk onchain, are set to become a cornerstone of onchain finance. However, their reliability and design philosophy determine whether they actually reduce or introduce risk. When risk oracles fail to operate throughout volatile conditions, depend on poor-quality data, or lack transparency, they become a point of failure. Onchain finance needs infrastructure that’s neutral, transparent, and battle-tested under extreme conditions. That’s where the Chainlink Runtime Environment (CRE) comes in. CRE’s modular orchestration framework lets developers build highly-customizable and resilient risk oracle systems leveraging the industry’s most reliable infrastructure and highest-quality data. With CRE, protocol developers, DeFi risk managers, and risk curators can create risk oracle solutions that include: • Custom pricing logic to reflect complex instruments • Dynamic risk parameters to maximize efficiency and safety • Automated freeze or circuit-breaker functionality All built on verifiable, decentralized infrastructure. That’s why LlamaRisk chose CRE to power LlamaGuard NAV, a next-gen oracle integrated by Aave Horizon that prices tokenized RWAs using dynamic price bounds and advanced risk controls. In combining Chainlink’s proven reliability and neutrality with LlamaRisk’s expertise in protocol risk, LlamaGuard provides Aave Horizon with a transparent, automated risk management system designed for institutional-grade tokenized assets. This design separates responsibilities: • Chainlink provides the trusted infrastructure for secure data validation and workflow orchestration. • LlamaRisk configures the transparent, dynamic risk logic that runs on top of CRE. The result: a highly-reliable and transparent risk oracle solution that ensures neutrality at the system level and adheres to DeFi’s decentralization ethos. As Sergey Nazarov and Stani noted at SmartCon 2025, CRE-powered risk oracles on Aave Horizon bring together specialized experts to deliver transparent, verifiable, and robust systems for the next era of DeFi. Protocols that implement properly designed risk oracles have an inherent advantage by offering users stronger safety, more efficient markets, and better institutional alignment. Safer oracles = Safer DeFi.

Chainlink

32,097 views • 9 months ago

Largest Vaccine Study Ever Reveals What the "Conspiracy Theorists" Said All Along Scientists found MASSIVE increased risks of developing several serious health conditions post-jab. But headlines suggest they're "small" and "rare." Take a look for yourself. Moderna (1st Dose): • Swelling of the brain and spinal cord: Almost 4 times (400%) increased risk • Myocarditis: 3.48 times increased risk • Pericarditis: 1.74 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second shot): 6.1 times increased risk AstraZeneca: • Blood clots: 3.23 times (320%) increased risk • Guillain–Barré syndrome (could lead to paralysis): 2.49 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Third dose): 6.91 times increased risk Pfizer: • Myocarditis (First dose): 2.78 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second dose): 2.86 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Third dose): 2.09 times increased risk Moderna (Further doses beyond the first): • Myocarditis from the second shot: 6.1 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Fourth dose): 2.64 times increased risk • Myocarditis from the third dose: 2.01 times increased risk This study conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) looked at a cohort of 99 million vaccinated individuals. The increased risks were compared to what was expected based on pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data, or in simpler terms, if you did not receive the jab at all. Most of the above risk factors are calculated based on a single dose. When you consider many people took three shots or more, the results of the study become even more alarming. Listen to what Del Bigtree had to say: "You're like, well, only six times the amount of myocarditis. But if you add that six times to the two or three times for myocarditis. And what about the blood clots and stroke? What happens? "They're not just six by themselves. They all stack up. What are we, like, 20 times the amount of risk for getting totally jacked up by this vaccine? And they're only just starting the list. "And trust me, the scientists did everything they could to make this as conservative as they possibly could because no one wants to be responsible for, God forbid, say, we need to recall a vaccine."
3:13

Largest Vaccine Study Ever Reveals What the "Conspiracy Theorists" Said All Along Scientists found MASSIVE increased risks of developing several serious health conditions post-jab. But headlines suggest they're "small" and "rare." Take a look for yourself. Moderna (1st Dose): • Swelling of the brain and spinal cord: Almost 4 times (400%) increased risk • Myocarditis: 3.48 times increased risk • Pericarditis: 1.74 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second shot): 6.1 times increased risk AstraZeneca: • Blood clots: 3.23 times (320%) increased risk • Guillain–Barré syndrome (could lead to paralysis): 2.49 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Third dose): 6.91 times increased risk Pfizer: • Myocarditis (First dose): 2.78 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Second dose): 2.86 times increased risk • Myocarditis (Third dose): 2.09 times increased risk Moderna (Further doses beyond the first): • Myocarditis from the second shot: 6.1 times increased risk • Pericarditis (Fourth dose): 2.64 times increased risk • Myocarditis from the third dose: 2.01 times increased risk This study conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) looked at a cohort of 99 million vaccinated individuals. The increased risks were compared to what was expected based on pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data, or in simpler terms, if you did not receive the jab at all. Most of the above risk factors are calculated based on a single dose. When you consider many people took three shots or more, the results of the study become even more alarming. Listen to what Del Bigtree had to say: "You're like, well, only six times the amount of myocarditis. But if you add that six times to the two or three times for myocarditis. And what about the blood clots and stroke? What happens? "They're not just six by themselves. They all stack up. What are we, like, 20 times the amount of risk for getting totally jacked up by this vaccine? And they're only just starting the list. "And trust me, the scientists did everything they could to make this as conservative as they possibly could because no one wants to be responsible for, God forbid, say, we need to recall a vaccine."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

523,823 views • 2 years ago

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.
3:33

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.

Ethan Kho

71,354 views • 19 days ago