Spartan Warrior

Being m*rdered by a man is the leading cause of death in 18-44 year-old women globally but were concerned about male loneliness epidemic.

@s1n3_n0m1n3 @brivael the hagiography of Musk? So we deified him now? I appreciate that you've outlined the context in which he was able to leverage his success. He may be the most influential person to ever exist, as well as the richest & his genius is undeniable, but he is still a mere mortal

Je suis d’accord sur une partie du diagnostic, notamment sur la sclérose bureaucratique française, mais le raisonnement empile trop de raccourcis pour tenir debout. L’analogie de la cour de récré ne marche pas. Elle suppose un point de départ égal et des capacités équivalentes. La vraie économie ne fonctionne pas comme ça : héritages, réseaux, asymétries d’information, pouvoir de marché, capture réglementaire. Les “bons joueurs” ne sont pas toujours les meilleurs allocateurs, ils ont souvent juste démarré avec un meilleur deck. Et la “main invisible” de Smith supposait une concurrence parfaite que personne n’a jamais observée dans la nature. La hagiographie de Musk est sélective au point d’être malhonnête. SpaceX vit massivement de contrats NASA et DoD. Tesla a explosé grâce aux crédits d’impôt VE et aux ZEV credits, plusieurs milliards cumulés. Starlink utilise du spectre alloué par les États. Internet ? DARPA. GPS ? Militaire US. Le web ? CERN, public. Les vaccins mRNA ? Recherche NIH financée publiquement pendant vingt ans avant que Moderna n’industrialise. Mariana Mazzucato a documenté tout ça dans The Entrepreneurial State. L’iPhone lui-même empile des technos issues de la recherche publique : écran tactile, GPS, internet, Siri via DARPA. Le privé industrialise et commercialise, souvent brillamment, mais sur un substrat public massif que le texte fait disparaître. “Pas un seul ministère n’a rien inventé” est empiriquement faux. Internet, GPS, énergie nucléaire civile, moteurs à réaction, IRM, lasers, recherche fondamentale derrière la moitié de la pharma moderne. Le saut logique Mises/URSS est énorme. Le problème du calcul économique est réel pour la planification centralisée totale. En déduire que toute intervention publique mène au Gosplan, c’est un sophisme. Les économies mixtes fonctionnent pas trop mal avec des États forts : Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Danemark, Suède, Suisse. La Suisse citée en exemple est à environ 32% de dépense publique sur PIB, loin de l’État minimal libertarien. (suite ⬇️)

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

@lusht75 @TWOTIMESABITCH oh, so you admit that men are only interested in the physical with women? And you think somehow this gives men the upper hand? The 62 million ppl (and more) planning, discussing & collaborating on SA'ing their wives are who? Men. At least women don't plan to harm men. Do better

@TWOTIMESABITCH Men lose interest if you disappoint them physically, and I'm not going to argue about that.

women lose sexual interest if you disappoint them emotionally, and I'm not going to argue about that.

@GavinBrx @TheKouk well said! Stephen seems to have forgotten about basic Economics. The inelasticity of demand for fuel means that demand is steady. His bleeping about inflation ignores this and relies simply on the CPI calculation. The removal of excise would allow much needed relief elsewhere

Economists like @TheKouk warning that dropping the fuel excise will spike inflation are missing basic econ. Petrol demand is inelastic (short-run elasticity around -0.13 in Australian studies)—a tax cut won’t cause a consumption boom. Instead it lowers input costs across freight & supply chains, delivering real disinflation for all Aussies (not just mortgage holders who were recently slugged by the RBA). Governments have used fuel excise as a cost-of-living/inflation tool before. In 2022, the Coalition halved it during the Ukraine shock—prices fell ~22.1c/L with strong pass-through to the pump, easing CPI pressure. Why pretend it only works one way now, amid current price spikes? Labor benefited from big revenue windfalls (strong employment, commodities) yet moved from early surpluses to ongoing deficits—$27.6B this year, $42B+ next, with net debt still rising. They’re unlikely to redirect any savings from a levy cut primarily to debt reduction, especially with popularity stalling and pressure to maintain spending priorities. A temporary, offset cut (as proposed) could provide broad relief without exploding demand. Fuel prices affect every Australian—truckies, farmers, families, businesses alike. Time to use the proven lever? #FuelCrisis #CostOfLiving #Australia

The nut jobs are out in force suggesting the govt reduce or eliminate to petrol excise for a period of time to reduce the retail price of petrol. This would be one of the worst policy ideas doing the rounds. It costs billions of dollars making it harder to get the budget to balance. It stimulates demand adding to inflation at a time when inflation is too high. It make the petrol shortage - to the extent there is one - even worse as people keep driving & don't look for alternatives. It is a crap idea that should pick picked up carefully & dropped in the rubbish bin. youtube.com/watch?v=51sLQz…

Australian man lays out how we are screwed because of woke incompetent retards. One of the most hilarious and Aussie interviews you'll hear.

@collinstimbela_ no, you become single. She's going to leave you, idc how many years you've been together and how many kids and how much wealth you have. No grown woman would choose to continue to live in a marriage feeling emotionally unsafe. I was married for 24 yrs, speaking from experience

If your wife can’t bring up something difficult without you getting defensive, you’re showing her silence is safer than honesty. And that’s how you become roommates.

@brockm @ProfSteveKeen the notable difference being that DJT loves Jews. Maybe it is vengeance for the Holocaust aimed not at promoting Aryanism this time but delivering the messianic prophecy, whoever the victims may be

I am prepared to defend the notion that Donald Trump, who is now openly threatening to kill millions of innocent people by threatening to do ghastly warcrimes against the Persian people can now safely be compared to Hitler. I am prepared to debate anyone on this point.

@FurkanGozukara @ProfSteveKeen wrong! Putin has said that it will not interfere with Israel because it has a large ethnically Russian population. And aside from political and economic reasons, Orthodoxy stands with Judaism not Islam make no mistake about that

Absolute bombshell. Col. Macgregor predicts Putin has already delivered a terrifying ultimatum to Netanyahu: If Israel dares to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, Russia will drop a nuclear weapon on Israel. The US has no idea what it just walked into.

Many talented people over the past few years were declined an offer or even an interview @xAI. My apologies. @BarisAkis and I are going through the company interview history and reaching back out to promising candidates.

@gothburz genius!!! At the end of the day, it isn't fairness, transparency and honesty that counts. Corporate "values" and "ethics" are simply marketing terms. All that matters is💰💰💰

Last year I posted 500 open positions for my company. We hired 34 people. The other 466 jobs were never real. I'm the Head of Talent Acquisition. That's not what I acquire. What I acquire is data. Resumes, salary expectations, skill sets, market intelligence. 160,000 applicants gave us their career history for free. We used it to benchmark compensation. Not to raise salaries. To confirm we were paying below market and get away with it. I call it "building a talent pipeline." A pipeline is a thing you build and never turn on. Recruiters call this "passive sourcing." There is nothing passive about wasting 160,000 people's time. But it sounds like a strategy. Some of our listings have been posted for 11 months. One has been up for two years. It's for a "Director of Innovation." We don't have an innovation department. We don't have the budget. But the listing makes us look like we're growing. Investors see open roles and think momentum. Our stock went up 8% after we posted 200 jobs in one week. We didn't hire anyone that week. Or the week after. We have an applicant tracking system. It auto-rejects 95% of applicants. Based on keywords. I don't know what keywords. No one does. It was configured in 2019 by a contractor who no longer works here. We've never updated it. Some applicants spend hours customizing their resumes. The system reads them for six seconds. Then it sends a rejection email. "After careful consideration." There was no consideration. Careful or otherwise. I know this because I'm the one who wrote the template. Sometimes I repost the same job with a different title. "Senior Data Analyst" becomes "Data Analytics Lead." Same description. Same salary. Same no one getting hired. But it resets the posting date. Fresh listings get more applicants. More applicants means more data. More data means better benchmarking. Better benchmarking means I present at the quarterly review. I presented last quarter. I showed a slide that said we "received unprecedented candidate interest." 160,000 people applied for jobs that didn't exist. That's the unprecedented interest. The VP of People called it "brand strength." The CFO asked about our hiring efficiency. I said we were "optimizing for quality over speed." Quality means we haven't hired anyone. Speed means we don't plan to. HR asked about candidate experience. I showed them our NPS score. It was 12. Out of 100. I said that was "within industry range." I made up the industry range. No one checked. They never do. Last month a candidate emailed me directly. She said she'd applied to four roles over eight months. Customized every resume. Wrote every cover letter. Never heard back. She asked if the jobs were real. I sent her to the automated FAQ. The FAQ says "We value every application." That's not true. We value every data point. There's a difference. I'm up for promotion. My metrics are outstanding. 500 roles posted. 160,000 applicants captured. Cost per acquisition: $0. I didn't acquire anyone. But the cost was zero. Zero is a good number in a dashboard. Dashboards get presented. Presentations get approved. Approvals get me promoted. I'll be VP of Talent by Q4. I don't find talent. I collect it. Like a jar you never open.

@heavensbvnny awww, that's cute. Hoping they have the most beautiful life together when they probably only have a few good years left is wishful thinking. Let's be honest, the simple things in life are the best. Moral of the story: be present, be grateful, cherish every moment. Life is short

Sat next to an elderly couple at a cafe today and I can't get them out of my head. The wife had been there a while when the husband arrived. He greeted her, "Hi princess." They bought a cookie to share. The wife decided she wanted to eat it all and sent husband off to buy his own cookie while she munched on the rest. Husband came back with his new cookie and she immediately stole it too. So much giggling so much joy. He was laughing so hard he couldn't breathe. "Give me back my cookie!" They were loud and careless and lovely. I have never seen two people have so much fun just loving each other. I might never stop thinking about them. I hope they have the most beautiful life together.

@MadsMelbourne not entirely true. He grew up in public housing but he was a child, not his fauit. He had free tuition at Syd Uni, places were limited & competitive so he earned it. The 12% super gtee is paid by the employer. Can't blame him for the current mess, it's cumulative bad policy

The median house price in Australia is now $1 million. For a first home buyer that now requires a $200,000 deposit to secure a home loan. Australia isn’t experiencing a housing crisis, it’s an affordability crisis! Albanese purchased his entire first home for $146,000 and likely had a 20 years to pay it off. Less than just the deposit required today. Albanese grew up in free commission housing. He never had to stress about paying back a. HECS debt + interest and received free university education. At the time of purchasing his first home there was no compulsory 12% of your income to Super. There was no 10% GST on every purchase he made Albo was then able to create wealth through his property and was able to use CGT and Negative gearing which he now wants to abolish. And yes whilst wages have of course increased in the last 20+ years wage increase is at x 3 and property prices have increased x 14 Albanese was handed everything in life and his government are taking everything they can from people of Australia in return

@Simon_Ingari Depends on ur level of desperation. I don't think it makes any difference. They don't care about how professional you are after the fact, probably an auto generated email anyways unless it is from a specific recruitment officer. Not even keeping ur CV on file. Wasted energy imo

Don't say: ❌ "Thanks for letting me know." ❌ Don't ghost them. Getting rejected from a job can feel like a punch to the gut. But here's the mindset shift most people miss: A rejection email is not a closed door. It's an opportunity to leave a strong, lasting impression. ✅ Respond with this instead Instead of disappearing or sending a generic reply, use the moment to: 1. Show appreciation for the opportunity Thank them for their time and consideration. Professionalism is always remembered. 2. Reference something specific from the conversation A project, a value, or a topic you discussed. This shows genuine interest, not desperation. 3. Keep the door intentionally open Hiring needs change all the time. When they do, you want to be the candidate they remember. Most people ghost after rejection. The ones who don't? They stand out. Sometimes the follow-up after a "no" is what leads to the real opportunity later on.

During a job interview, if they ask: "We've decided to move forward with another candidate." USE THE GOLDEN RESPONSE:

@elonmusk about time you made your own currency!!

This will be big

@KateBMwriting lots of reasons. It's a tool, it saves time, can craft a sharper and more targeted application, more efficient than doing it themselves and because the candidate is most likely applying to numerous jobs and unlikely to get any of them. Why do recruiters use ATS? Same thing

I’m reviewing job applications and 90% of the cover letters are AI generated. They use identical phrases and have exactly the same structure and word count. Why do people do it?

@RemainsWhoHe @NoahKingJr true facts 😂🤣😂 everywhere else is dire straits

@NoahKingJr LinkedIn is the only place where everyone is excited for the next chapter.

Someone should buy LinkedIn and turn it off

@ArtsyMeta @barkmeta in most economies UBI does not exist. There is a safety net of course but aside from age/disability/veterans pensions you have to jump through hoops to get it. Unemployment benefits are below cost/min standard of living. In an ageing pop crisis, most ppl are cooked

@barkmeta The brightest minds will innovate an others will likely rely on universal basic income. Hopefully few do the latter.

Genuine question... if AI replaces all of the jobs and prices keep going up, what exactly is the plan for regular people?

@musing_monica the only way to conquer fear is to face it. This doesn't mean putting urself in dangerous situations but in taking action. You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great - Michael Jordan

nobody is more stressed than a person who has a lot of potential but is unable to achieve anything because of the fear of failure.

We work 9-5, pay all of our bills, then go back to work because we can’t afford to do anything fun. And then we basically do this for the rest of our life till we retire.

Corporate rule: hard work gets you more work, not more money.