This is Fine

many don’t have an opinion on something until they’re asked about it, at which point they cobble together a viewpoint from whim and half-remembered hearsay, before deciding that this 2-minute-old makeshift opinion will be their new hill to die on.

@Netflix tell without the show

Bookmark this: Tether will eventually buy Revolut @tether @Revolut

Ask people “What evidence would change your mind?” If they say “Nothing,” you have revealed they are not interested in the truth, only in being right regardless of the facts. This is known as wilful ignorance; avoid any further conversation.

@ericweinstein @ENERGY Bring back a long form bi-monthly Portal podcasts to cover it all ;)

Here’s a few radical thoughts. Have the DOE @ENERGY investigate: why Epstein bought the Zorro Ranch near Sandia and Los Alamos National laboratories. Was he an atomic spy? Figure out why we blamed “Cartel Drones” for the shut down of El Paso Air Space. Figure out why our top physicists are no longer being consulted by the government about matters of physics. Try to understand why no one at @ENERGY is worried about a 53 year stagnation in the most basic Laws of physics. With 42 years wasted on “Quantum Gravity” as if it were “the only game in town.” Find out why we STRONGLY AND INEXPLICABLY prefer to educate Asian foreign nationals rather than our own home grown talent and that of our European allies in physics and mathematics. Was CCP not a security risk?? Why do we have “drones” all over our military bases that seem to defy physical law with no well known physicists? —————- There is some level of pathology that will not go away. This is not incompetence. This approach is madness. Go figure out what this is @ENERGY. You have the mandate.

Elon Musk thinks the entire education system is built on a broken assumption. That every student should learn the same thing. At the same speed. In the same order. At the same time. Musk: “Everyone goes through from like 5th grade to 6th grade to 7th grade like it’s an assembly line. But people are not objects on an assembly line.” The model was designed for a factory economy. Standardized inputs. Predictable outputs. That economy is gone. The assembly line is gone. But the education system still runs on its logic. A student who masters algebra in two weeks sits through eight more weeks because the calendar says so. A student who struggles gets dragged forward because the schedule doesn’t wait. Neither is being served. Both are being processed. Musk: “Allow people to progress at the fastest pace that they can or are interested in, in each subject.” AI doesn’t teach a classroom. It teaches a student. One at a time. Every time. It skips what a student already knows. It finds where they’re stuck and approaches it from a different angle. It adjusts in real time. Not at the end of a semester when the damage is already done. A student obsessed with basketball learns fractions through shooting percentages. A student who builds in Minecraft learns geometry through architecture. The subject doesn’t change. The entry point does. No teacher with thirty students can do this. Not because they lack skill. Because the math doesn’t work. AI doesn’t have that constraint. Musk: “You do not need to tell your kid to play video games. They will play video games on autopilot all day. So if you can make it interactive and engaging, then you can make education far more compelling.” The brain isn’t broken. The format is. Kids learn complex systems and strategic thinking for hours voluntarily. Then walk into a classroom and can’t focus for twenty minutes. That’s not a discipline problem. That’s a design problem. Musk: “A university education is often unnecessary. You probably learn the vast majority of what you’re going to learn there in the first two years. And most of it is from your classmates.” Four years. Six figures of debt. And the real value comes from the people sitting next to you. Not the institution charging you. The degree doesn’t certify knowledge. It certifies endurance. Musk: “If the goal is to start a company, I would say no point in finishing college.” The system was built to train employees. If you’re not trying to be one, it has nothing left to offer you. Every lecture. Every textbook. Every curriculum. Now available instantly. Personalized to any learner. Adapted to any pace. The question isn’t whether the old model survives. It’s how long we keep forcing students through it while the replacement already exists.

Animal group names: A chowder of cats A murder of crows A shrewdness of apes A caravan of camels A quiver of cobras A bask of crocodiles A drove of donkeys A convocation of eagles A parade of elephants A cast of falcons A business of ferrets A school of fish A skulk of foxes An army of frogs A tower of giraffes A band of gorillas A cackle of hyenas A smack of jellyfish A conspiracy of lemurs A troop of kangaroos A leap of leopards A pride of lions A parliament of owls A pandemonium of parrots A drove of pigs An unkindness of ravens A shiver of sharks A knot of toads

According to @McKinsey, the base-case estimate for tokenized financial assets approaches ~$2 trillion by 2030, excluding cryptocurrencies and stablecoins. What’s driving adoption is not experimentation, but migration: • Mutual funds & ETFs • Bonds and exchange-traded notes • Loans and securitized credit • Alternative funds These are core institutional instruments moving onto new rails. The implication is structural. Tokenization is shifting from edge cases to market plumbing: settlement, custody, and distribution. Equiteez is not focused on creating new financial products. We are building the infrastructure required for this transition.

“Most civilization is based on cowardice. It’s so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.” - Frank Herbert from God of Emperor of Dune

Bill, For sure fight this. They have miscalculated who you are buy you also have to clean up shop. your entire track record is built on being the person who doesn’t blink. Settling this quietly would cost you more in credibility than whatever “Ronda” is asking for. You’d be handing ammunition to every opponent you’ll ever face. The public post was bold. It was also irreversible, which is actually the point you’ve made it genuinely costly to back down, and that’s a real commitment device. Ronda’s team built their strategy around a private Ackman under pressure. They got a different opponent. That said, a few things worth sitting with honestly. Everything you wrote in that post will be read back to you in deposition. The characterization of her claims as fake, the detail about your daughter( wish her well), the game theory framing around her husband all of it is now part of the record and opposing counsel’s roadmap. That may be fine. Just go in clear-eyed that you’ve already shown your hand. The nephew situation is manageable legally, but narratively it requires context to land well. “Tell me you are nowhere near 40” is defensible when you explain it. It sounds worse stripped bare in a headline. Make sure he’s prepared for that, and make sure everyone who was at that lunch is prepared too. The strongest version of this fight ends with a documented, public win that actually changes something not just for you but for the next CEO who gets one of these letters. That’s the outcome worth pursuing. So stop talking publicly now, get the best employment litigators you can find, and go win it the right way. One more thing. If you really want to fix the system you’re describing, pair the lawsuit with a push for legislative reform fee-shifting for frivolous claims, restrictions on NDA use in settlements. Individual wins are satisfying. Structural change is what actually moves the needle.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@Hertz016 I finally got hold of some one but took two days and multiple calls.

@cryptosmith4 Kindly follow us and send a DM so we can prioritize your case and assist you promptly. 💬✨

@Hertz I have never had a worst service Than hertz in Rome airport. They simply don’t answer any of their numbers. Not the reservation number not the Emergency breakdown number. The numbers don’t even work. Hertz.it abandon their customers

@miquelgirones1 Banks

Your competitor has 3 offshore bank accounts across different jurisdictions. You have Wise and Revolut. 🙏 There are 60+ offshore banks available right now. Picked the ones that match your income type. Open them remotely. Now your funds are diversified across jurisdictions. Protected. Accessible. Not dependent on one fintech algorithm deciding your fate. Comment 'BANKS' and I'll send you the first free chapter of our banking guide. 🏦

" One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonised those who produce, subsidised those who refuse to produce, and canonised those who complain.” — Thomas Sowell

@SamaHoole Your great grandmother lived to 60 if she was lucky, worked like a mule most of it and lost most of her siblings to childhood diseases that are now preventable. Any other nostalgic slop?

The sun was free. They sold you SPF 50 and a vitamin D deficiency. Sleep was free. They sold you an app, a pill, and a wearable that tells you your sleep was bad. Walking was free. They sold you a treadmill, a fitness tracker, and a £180 pair of trainers. Fasting was free. They sold you meal replacement shakes and the anxiety that skipping breakfast would wreck your metabolism. Cold water was free. They sold you a £3,000 plunge barrel and a podcast episode about it. Silence was free. They sold you a meditation app with a premium tier. Animal fat was cheap. They sold you seed oils, then supplements to replace what the animal fat contained. Tallow was cheap. They sold you a seventeen-step skincare routine and a clinical trial proving your face needs ceramides. Meat was cheap. They are currently selling you the idea that you shouldn't eat it. The 20th century removed access to everything the body needs to function. The 21st century is selling it back, one subscription at a time. Your great-grandmother had none of the products. She had all of the things.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. -William Butler Yeats

Yeats World War I poem. ‘ The Second Coming’ resonates more than ever. It basically predicts that time is up for humanity, and that civilization as we know it is about to be undone. Yeats wrote this poem right after World War 1. The Second Coming Turning and turning in the widening gyre    The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere    The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst    Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand.    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it    Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.    The darkness drops again; but now I know    That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The weaker the dog, the more it barks