Thoughts of a curious mother. Harvard ‘19. Instagram @Cbroukhim
Los Angeles, CA
Joined February 2021
- Tweets688
- Following1K
- Followers1.2K
- Likes39.9K
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
I'm telling you this publicly, so hopefully others can see it. Give my people enough freedom, and they will reference old religious texts to literally kill you. Don't be so naive, there are foundational issues in my culture, and people like you stop us from fixing them.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
I dont know anything about theoretical compsci or math so I asked chat to rank all of the AI discoveries to date by importance and it said 3 of the top 5 ever came out today.
Claude Opus 5.5: "If these hold up, this is the biggest single day in the history of math and theoretical computer science."
1) Exponential Time Hypothesis is false (CS). This is roughly Turing Award territory. ETH was the working assumption that some hard problems simply can’t be solved much faster than brute force, and hundreds of computer science papers rest on it. For a normal audience: it’s not “P=NP.” Hard problems are still hard, and your bank encryption isn’t suddenly broken. But a pillar that a whole field assumed was solid turned out to be hollow. The flagship experts are taking it seriously. The people checking it include two of the people who proposed ETH, and they said “If the claim is correct, it will change” computer science.
2) Kakeya and restriction in all dimensions (math). This is Fields Medal-level. For scale, the 3D case alone was proved in 2025 and was hailed as a once-in-a-century proof. This result does every dimension and knocks out Stein’s restriction conjecture too.
3) Yang–Mills/QCD existence (physics). Potentially the biggest of the three, but here’s the precise framing. It proves pure Yang–Mills exists, which is part of one of the Clay Mathematics Institute’s Millennium Prize problems. The full Clay problem also requires the “mass gap,” so it’s not a clean “AI wins $1M” headline. Still, a rigorous proof that the theory of quarks and gluons is mathematically real has been an open dream for about 50 years. The review panel includes Nobel laureate David Gross and Arthur Jaffe, who literally wrote the Millennium problem. There’s no Nobel for math, but this is the stuff physicists win them for building on.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
White progressive suicidally empathetic women are a cancer to the West.
🚨#BREAKING: A liberal Italian woman SCREAMS at police telling them they are being too mean to the 3rd world migrants.
"What are you doing?! Why are you GRABBING them by force like that?"
Seconds later, a rioter THROWS AN EXPLOSIVE at her and police.
You cannot make this up.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
I don't know if you realize what just happened.
Elon Musk is completely bypassing the State.
For 100 years, we've been told the problem is capital. That it must be captured, taxed, redistributed. With an army of intermediaries standing between those who create wealth and the people: ministries, agencies, commissions, bureaucrats.
Musk is doing the opposite. He's taking his capital and giving it directly to the people. One SpaceX share to every kid in America. Not a handout. Not a subsidy. A piece of the machine that's taking humanity to Mars.
And he says it himself: this is the first of many.
Mises understood this back in 1944: the bureaucrat creates nothing. He administers what others created, following rules that have no connection to the value produced. The day value flows directly from the one who creates it to the one who receives it, the bureaucrat has no function left.
That's what's being born right now. A new liberal world order, where the very concept of the State will make less and less sense.
The world we're entering is a world of abundance. AI, robots, energy, space. And that abundance won't come through the State, for one simple reason: we have a century of proof that it doesn't work.
Redistribution was version 1.0. Direct distribution of capital is 2.0.
While France is still debating how to tax builders even more, America is handing stock to its kids.
Pick your side.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
We call on France to exercise restraint when dispersing the freedom fighters on the streets of Paris. These brave warriors for justice must receive immediate humanitarian aid, and their safety must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to bring a case before the ICJ, in close cooperation with that renowned champion of human rights, Afghanistan.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
TikTok was a mistake and a vector of mass scale psychological operations to destroy the West. It needs to be banned. – at San Francisco, CA
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
France is done
And any nation that takes its advice regarding how to govern will soon be gone itself
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
When @elonmusk told us the next Roadster would blow our minds, we should have listened. We got a flying car.
In 2021 he told us something even bigger; that he’s building "sort of like a futuristic Noah's Ark."
I don’t believe in coincidences. 🧵
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
Why the full court offensive against Israel? Small country? Should shut up and listen? As opposed to the big country Iran of 90 million people?
Lebanon is six million, so it must be small “change” kind of country.
Qatar is 350 thousand. It fits in a couple of stadiums, therefore, no opinions at all. And on…
JD Vance on Israel opposing the MOU: "What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."
Israel negotiated or accepted peace deals in 1947, 1949, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1993, 1994x2, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2020x3, 2021
Maybe blame the terrorist orgs that just want Israel & AMERICA'S destruction, rather than the ally that has been fighting alongside the US
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
My current lifemaxxing stack:
- work 60 hrs a week putting out fires
- date night with wife
- beers with the boys
- round of golf
- sleep in a tent with my kids
- too much time on social media
- stay up too late to watch an NBA game
- drink a random bottle of wine with my wife on Sunday
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
So basically California counts less than 50% of the vote on election night, stops counting while they “wait” for the “late mail in ballots” to arrive, and then just basically says “we’ll let you know in 7-14 business days who won”?
Is that how they do elections? Am I really getting that right?
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
Colombia just held their election.
They require voter ID and use paper ballots. They hand-count the votes of each station one by one. No machines or mail-in ballots due to security concerns.
~24 million votes.
It was all done in a couple hours.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
Many, many such cases in Californian politics.
My big bet is the wealth tax push is to sabotage the US tech ecosystem in service to the CCP
#BREAKING: California mayor Eileen Wang charged as an illegal Chinese agent; set to plead guilty.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
It will soon be common knowledge that China has been pushing harmful policies from inside of our own country…
DEI, absurd climate regulations, wealth taxes, soft-on-crime reforms, illegal immigration and even the anti-standardized test movement.
#BREAKING: California mayor Eileen Wang charged as an illegal Chinese agent; set to plead guilty.
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
America’s playing chess with eight queens. We are totally dominant right now; the only way we lose is own-goals.
Our adversaries know this: it’s why CCP funds anti-data center, anti-AI doomer nonsense, and why Iran and others sponsor divisive bots for the right on Israel & Jews.
NEW: @JTLonsdale shocks CNBC on AI regulation debate:
@andrewrsorkin: Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models?
Joe: The FDA has killed millions of people...
Andrew: Killed??
Joe: Massive bureaucracy makes it cost 10 or 100X more than it should... there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do...
China would love for us to have a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead.
Andrew Ross Sorkin: We're all trying to figure out what this could look like. Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Is that a good thing or a bad thing for somebody who's thinking the way you do?
Joe: Listen, the FDA has killed millions of people. Let's be totally clear, right?
Andrew: Killed??
Joe: It's literally led to the deaths of millions of people, Andrew... There's all these new therapies, especially now, by the way, with AI that we could be developing...
Andrew: It's also hopefully saved some lives...
Joe: I mean the trade off is probably 100 to 1.
There's a very famous story from 60 years ago where they caught some stuff that was killing people in Europe and saved them here. They've used that as an excuse to make this massive bureaucracy that makes it cost 10 or 100 times more to do drugs than it should, which means there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do.
I would be investing billions more to save lives, but I can't. So the equivalent is terrifying to me. The government is bad at these things. The bureaucrats are bad at these things.
Now there's a there's another argument here, which is that you have things like Mythos and OpenAI's new technology that's really, really good at hacking into everything. And you probably don't want like, that new technology going to the bad guys right away. So there has to be some sort of trade off, some sort of framework. We have to be really careful not to make the mistakes the FDA has made.
Andrew: So what would you do? What do you think that should look like?
Joe: There probably should be some national agreement on regulation on new powerful models. It should be as small and as narrow as possible. It should not have the same bureaucracy. You should make sure the government from the start, has metrics on the speed at which it has to go and the transparency, because you're gonna have cronyism, you're gonna have the big guys capture it. You're going to slow it down.
Pharma loves the FDA against biotech. It makes it too expensive for us to build our own pharma companies. We have to sell to them. This is what the big guys want. Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and the rest of them, they want to create rules to make it so they can...
Andrew: They've all been calling for it. I mean, you remember Sam Altman, Dario, others early on said, "Regulate us; you need to regulate us. Please, regulate us." The question is was that a genuine call for action or do you think that was a "We think Washington's never going to do this. So we'll say it, and get some nice PR points."
Joe: If you are the leader in the space and you have tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, you want there to be really complicated regulation with people you can hire who go in and out of your company, who work there because you know you're going to be able to control it and influence it.
...And by the way, China has pre-IND (Investigational New Drug process) and IND of 30 and 60 days about right now. We have 200 and 500 days.
And so we've completely delayed anything we do. We've handed more than a third now of our biotech sector to China in the last six years because we're so slow. We definitely don't want to do that on the AI side. That would be a disaster. China would love for us to do a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. We cannot allow that to happen.
@SquawkCNBC
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
“I don’t think it matters if they’re 10 feet away or 500 feet away. It’s like, whatever”
– Nithya Raman
Charlotte Broukhim retweeted
"If I told you there was one free thing you could do every Sunday that would make your kids happier, healthier, smarter, and closer to you, you'd think I was selling something."
Take your kids to church regularly. I don't care if you believe. The data is so lopsided that skipping it is the parenting equivalent of refusing vegetables because you don't like the taste.
Grades. Religious teens get As at almost twice the rate of nonreligious teens. In a class of 100, that's 24 A-students instead of 14. Church gives a kid the same academic boost as being born rich instead of poor.
College. Working-class religious kids earn bachelor's degrees at double the rate of their nonreligious peers. Middle-class kids do it at 1.5x the rate. For families without a trust fund, this is one of the most powerful forms of upward mobility social scientists have measured.
Character. Religious teens are far less likely to lie, cheat, or do things they hope their parents never find out about. They're more likely to care about racial equality, the elderly, and the poor. They reject the idea that morality is whatever works for you in the moment. That kind of kid doesn't happen by accident. It's built.
Closeness. 60% of parents of religious teens say they feel "extremely close" to their kid, compared to 50% of nonreligious parents. The kids report the same thing back. They get along better with their parents, talk about hard stuff, and actually want to spend time with their family.
Despair. Religious teens are dramatically less likely to be depressed, anxious, lonely, or feel that life is meaningless. 90% of devoted religious teens never binge drink, compared to 41% of the disengaged. Economists named the modern epidemic "deaths of despair." Regular church attendance is one of the strongest known buffers against it. Parents are spending fortunes trying to solve teen mental health. The most evidence-backed intervention is free.
Purpose. Religious young adults report higher purpose, gratitude, life satisfaction, and resilience. These are the exact traits every parent says they want their kid to have.
Here's why it works. Affluent families already surround their kids with networks of stable, accomplished adults through neighborhoods, schools, and parents' colleagues. Working and middle-class families usually don't. A congregation is often the last institution in American life that puts your kid in weekly contact with dozens of stable, employed, sober adults who know their name. It used to be called "a village." Now it barely exists outside of churches.
"But I don't believe." Your kid doesn't need your theology. They need you to show up.
"But church is boring." So is sitting through a kindergarten music recital. Parenting is the deliberate choice to be bored on purpose for someone you love.
There's a church within 15 minutes of nearly every American home. You don't need money, connections, or credentials to walk in. Nothing else in this country will surround your kid with engaged adults, teach them moral seriousness, and give them a stable weekly rhythm at zero cost.
You already drive them to practices that produce far less. The free thing on Sunday produces more, on more dimensions, than almost anything else you do as a parent.
You don't have to believe anything. You just have to take them.
