Anonymous Billionaire

@Abomination81 Ah, fuck. That’s a tough one. There’s no path to redemption if she can’t be accountable.

@BillionAnon yes, while we are present maybe. She is in denial "he said his arm hurt earlier" which is 100% not true. Plus he is scared as shit of her right now and 100% thinks she did it.

My mother in law broke my sons arm, yanked it too hard. Had to lie to the doctor at the ER about what happened. She yanked it because he wouldn't eat his dinner, 4 years old... I am literally not sure what to do about this.

@angelpeesyrups @twopocketsfull @GigglingGanon My friend, there are how things _should be_ and how things _actually are_. I agree with you that the cop's behavior was completely unacceptable and the owner should not have had to deal with it. Pulling a gun on someone like that is 0 to 1 million.

@BillionAnon @twopocketsfull @GigglingGanon "the business owner could have dealt with it in a way that resolved it faster", "a cop routinely parking at your business at night is good for preventing break ins". these things are irrelevant. it is not and should not be the publics responsibility to coddle or sooth the police.

Tyrant officer pulls his firearm and loses his cool when a property owner kicks him off the property. Dr. P.J. Parmar of Aurora Co, drove into his own property’s garage on a Sunday evening to unload equipment following a Boy Scout outing he led. ​What he didn't expect was to be met with a drawn firearm. ​Inside the garage sat Aurora Police Officer Justin Henderson, parked while writing a report. When Dr. Parmar tapped his horn to ask the officer to clear the path, Officer Henderson claimed he was startled and feared a potential ambush. He exited his patrol vehicle with his gun drawn demanding that Dr. Parmar show his hands. ​Rather than backing down, Dr. Parmar remained calm and stood his ground. He clearly stated that he was on his own private property, repeatedly instructed the officer to leave, and began recording the interaction. ​Although Officer Henderson eventually holstered his weapon, he refused to leave the property, demanded proof of ownership from Dr. Parmar, and called for backup. Undeterred, Dr. Parmar simply ignored the threats from the officer and went about his business carrying gear inside. Officers eventually left the scene without issuing any citations. ​Following the release of the bodycam, the Aurora Police Department conducted an internal investigation. Officer Henderson received a 40-hour unpaid suspension and was ordered to complete de-escalation training. Dr. Parmar publicly criticized the sanction as far too lenient. ​ Dr. Parmar subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Officer Henderson and the City of Aurora, alleging illegal seizure, excessive force, and racially motivated mistreatment. ​ U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. The court reasoned that because Dr. Parmar never submitted to police authority and continued moving freely around his property, no legal "seizure" or unconstitutional force had occurred. However, the judge notably expressed deep concern over court testimony highlighting a pervasive "warrior mentality" in police training practices. What are your thoughts on this lawsuit or situation? Special treatment again for the cops?

@TitansVision No. My point is simple: you cannot use what happens in a fictional story to validate your real-world claims. This doesn’t require hours of background reading by myself in order for you to address it. You’re avoiding the point.

Take a little time to read my older posts—especially the Gallery section. It may completely change how you think about me, women, and even Shiva. The Sovereign Individual is free. I've pinned it in the comments below. Read it first. Then decide whether your perspective stays the same. thetitansvision.gumroad.com/l/TheSovereign…

"You haven't got enough money to be in love." This is the most spiritually bankrupt sentence a man can speak. And it reveals exactly why he'll never experience what love actually is. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1. The pursuit of money IS the feminine principle. And that's equally important but All the pursuits of men are feminine, while the pursuits of Buddha, Shiva, and Krishna are masculine. The pursuit of money, fame, and respect follows the feminine principle — wanting attention, wanting to be desired. A woman wants to be desired, but she will fall in love with a man who is desireless. The average man lives his whole life chasing feminine pursuits — money, status, attention — and then blames others, saying "My woman cheated on me" or "My wife doesn't treat me well." He does everything for the purpose of getting women, enjoying women, and impressing women. The masculine principle emerges when a man does things for himself. When he is fulfilled in that way, nothing else is needed. So when you say "you haven't got enough money to be in love" — you're not speaking as a man. You're speaking from the feminine frequency of wanting to be desired through material display. 2. Money makes you USEFUL. Not loved. Money, status, and fame are useful — they make a man appear USEFUL, but not a loving man in the eyes of women. These are extrinsic values. They are merely illusions and not the truth. At their core, women surrender themselves to truth and authenticity. For a moment, they may be deceived by glamour, but that attraction is very temporary in nature. The eternal surrender of a woman lies at the feet of a man of consciousness — and nothing else. A man who embodies masculine principles within himself can seduce any woman in the world without having anything in his pocket. History is filled with examples of this. By becoming skilled in the feminine principles — money, status, fame — a man cannot control women. These things are for survival. They are not for attracting, controlling, or seducing women. They don't make women fall in love, respect, or surrender to a man. Your money buys her presence at the dinner table. Not her devotion to prepare food or on the bedroom floor. Learn the difference. 3. Lord Shiva — the most desired man in existence — owned nothing. When Lord Shiva agreed to marry Parvati, he arrived at her palace in his raw ascetic form — ash-covered body, matted hair, snakes for ornaments, riding a bull. His wild appearance shocked the royal family. Queen Mena, Parvati's mother, was horrified. But Parvati? She loved Shiva deeply. She performed 3,000 years of penance just to win his heart. Shiva had no house. No gold. No empire. No career. No status. He sat in cremation grounds covered in ash. And the most beautiful, devoted woman in the cosmos pursued HIM — not the other way around. Meanwhile, Ravana had Lanka made of gold, an army of millions, mastery of all scriptures, and unmatched physical power. Yet Sita chose exile in the forest with Rama over a golden palace with Ravana. Even in Lanka, she had the choice to go with Ravana — but she waited for Ram because her love was stronger than any material temptation. All the kings bow down before their queens. And all the queens bow down before Buddha. 4. Height and money are irrelevant when she truly loves. Both are calculations — and love doesn't calculate. Both are irrelevant to a woman — height and money — if she truly loves you. Her heart does not kneel before inches or digits. Height and digits are calculations — they belong to the conscious mind. But when a woman is in love, she doesn't operate from logic. She surrenders from the unconscious — the primal river beneath her thoughts. What she longs for is not how tall you stand or how fat your wallet is, but how deeply your presence invades her soul with masculine vitality and stillness. -> Masculine vitality for better sexual relationship. -> Stillness for better emotional relationship. A woman in her first love doesn't care about his age, his status, his looks, or his money. She only looks for one thing: Is he man enough? She measures manliness not with his wallet, but by his energy — his courage to approach her gently, swiftly, and purely. 5. When a woman becomes calculative about money, you're not meeting her essence. You're meeting her wound. Women care about the appearance of their man and his status for one reason: validation from other girls — not for her personal love or surrender. She wants to show her ex she got a better deal. She wants to post a man other women would envy. But any woman who becomes calculative is no longer in her natural feminine essence. She's no longer flowing. She's no longer feeling. She's thinking. Planning. Calculating. And the moment a woman starts thinking about love — she has exited her soul and entered her mind. Heartbreak breaks that flow. Betrayal awakens the mind. Pain masculinizes her spirit. Once awakened, she becomes guarded, logical — masculinized. She stops feeling. She starts calculating: Who has more money? Who is safer? Who will not hurt me next? She no longer loves with innocence. She trades affection for protection. If you meet a calculating woman, know this: you are not meeting her essence. You are meeting her wound. She once loved like a goddess, and someone broke her in silence. 6. The rich men get the women. The women don't give them love. Big difference. That's why most women marry rich men, but still miss their poor ex — and even send him money. The love of a woman lies in emotions — raw, unfiltered, stormy emotions — and it belongs to the one who conquered her first with his masculine essence. Not with gifts. Not with power. But with presence. He made her feel like a woman before she ever knew how to be one. Jeff Bezos. Elon Musk. Hrithik Roshan. All rich. All successful. All handsome. All divorced. All cheated on or left by the very women their wealth attracted. Success doesn't seduce the feminine. Understanding her soul does. And if you don't master that art, you'll keep gaining the world and women — but never taste the obsessive, devotional love that the feminine once had the power to give. You can't "turn her on" with just muscles or money. Only the man she loves with her entire being can satisfy her sexually. Her real pleasure is emotional, not mechanical. Women primary sexual satisfaction is emotional and man is mechanical. 7. "You haven't got enough money to be in love" — No. It is not a man's love that gives satisfaction to a woman — it is her own love for him that brings her peace. A woman only feels whole when she loves a man completely. When she looks at him with longing, respect, and surrender. When she sees him as her fire, her guide, her center — only then does her restless feminine energy settle. Women carry immense love within themselves — not craving to be loved, but yearning for a man worthy enough to receive that love. That inner nourishment — of loving him — is what gives her true contentment. She doesn't need your money to love you. She needs your consciousness to surrender to you. The man with presence, stillness, and wisdom generates more devotion in a woman than the man with a black card and no soul ever could. Because her devotion isn't purchased. It's invoked — by something money can never buy. You don't need money to be in love. You need to be a man worth loving. And that costs nothing — except your ego, your laziness, and your illusions about what women actually are. The Shiva Purana confirms it: "Not through wealth, not through status, not through seduction — but only through sincere devotion to shiva consciousness can one attain a truly devoted wife." Shiva consciousness = stillness, fearlessness, clarity, and wisdom.

@Abomination81 I understand you’re not the one filling the txs, but you can still see the tx logs of all trades executed by others, no?

@BillionAnon Thanks bud. I have something like #1 in already. #2 is more for actual market makers though, I'm doing the liquidity bot so I'm avoiding the fills lol. But thank you, any advice is better than the none I had before

Welp Polymarket Peeps... I'm dipping my toes in liquidity rebates. Seems easy enough You basically rest gtc (maker) bids anywhere from touch to _+ 4c of the best bid/ask currently. So if the price is 64c you would bid at 64,65,66 etc. Its a quadriatic thing, so at touch (64c) pays much more than 65, which pays much more than 66 etc So the trade off is rewards, closer to the fire, vs safety Ran my first test, and made a whopping 6.45 (only resting a couple hundred bucks). Seems simple but the alpha is in execution. Which markets to include, which to exclude, how to distribute the funds and move it etc.

@angelpeesyrups @twopocketsfull @GigglingGanon I don't defend the cop at all. He was completely wrong and way out of line. I'm just saying the business owner could have dealt with it in a way that resolved it faster. Was he well within his rights to act the way he did? Yes. Was it optimal? Probably not.

@BillionAnon @twopocketsfull @GigglingGanon it sounds like he doesnt care about this asshole cop who HAD HIS GUN DRAWN ON HIM protecting his private property from hypothetical break-ins. you dont need to play devils advocate, the police mafia already has one of the most powerful unions and legal defenses in the world

@bryanaramos65 @GigglingGanon I am not defending the cop at all. He was way out of line. My only point is you can often get to the outcome you want with much less hassle if you are willing to flow around issues rather than constantly battle them.

@BillionAnon @GigglingGanon You have a gun drawn on you let’s see how poorly u handle it

@beniciodeltaco @aisarcore Libertarians believe in contract law…

@aisarcore Here for the libertarians’ take on this: -People should be allowed to gamble. -DraftKings is a business and should be allowed to do whatever they want. -The government intervening and forcing DraftKings to pay is actually bad.

An Iowa man bet just over $300 on a loophole he found in a sportsbook's own rules. His bet should have paid out $14 MILLION. The company canceled it and sent his money back instead. – Nicholas Bavas, a bettor from Iowa, found what he believed was a near-guaranteed exploit in how DraftKings priced certain wagers. – He placed roughly $300 across bets structured to profit no matter the outcome, if DraftKings' own odds and rules were taken at face value. – Had DraftKings paid out as the bets were technically written, Bavas stood to collect more than $14 MILLION. – Instead, DraftKings unilaterally voided the bets and simply refunded his original stake, citing its house rules about pricing errors. – Bavas sued in a 39-page breach of contract complaint, arguing a bet is a contract, and if DraftKings accepts it, it owes what it promised. – His attorney said DraftKings gave no real explanation beyond telling him the bet wouldn't be honored. – The case was moved from Iowa state court into federal court in Des Moines. – As of the most recent public reporting, the case remains in litigation, with no public ruling yet on whether Bavas is entitled to any of the $14 MILLION. A $300 bet built entirely around the sportsbook's own rules should have paid him more than most people make in a decade. The company just canceled it and mailed his money back.

@twopocketsfull @GigglingGanon Yes, that is the legal reality of the situation, I agree. Doesn’t mean it was the optimal approach for everyone (himself included) in reality. If you think about it, a cop routinely parking at your business at night is good for preventing break ins.

@BillionAnon @GigglingGanon he can act however the fuck he wants on his property. it got dragged out because that pig couldn’t follow directions the first 5 times

@bitwonk @J90236317 Did you watch the video? He talks about 2% being the max if we only automate software, and that it would be much more if we used a dynamic model where we automated other areas too.

@J90236317 This is myopic. This is like the other rocket companies hooting at SpaceX a dozen years ago, that there're not enough payloads to justify developing reusability. Software won't remain 2% of GDP. Maybe it'll even be less in money but it will impact nearly everything.

"소프트웨어 엔지니어를 전부 자동화하면 우리는 얼마나 부유해질까요? 답은 2%입니다." 스탠퍼드 성장이론 대가 채드 존스(Chad Jones)의 5월 강연임. 이 사람은 지금 Anthropic에 합류해 있음. 논리가 깔끔함. 트랜지스터는 1억 배 늘었는데 우리는 1억 배 부유해지지 않았음. 어떤 작업이 무한해져도 GDP는 그 작업의 비중만큼만 오름. 소프트웨어는 GDP의 2%임. 그래서 무한 소프트웨어 = +2%. 이유는 약한 고리임. 하나만 잘 자동화하면 나머지 전부가 병목이 됨. 폭발 성장이 오려면 한 분야가 아니라 약한 고리를 계속 자동화해야 한다는 것. AI 낙관론과 비관론이 이 한 계산에 다 들어 있음.

@peptidedaily_ Ah, answered my own question. Around the 1hr mark here: youtube.com/live/DhDC0DAYd…

@peptidedaily_ Why did 6 vote against it?

BPC-157 JUST PASSED. The FDA's advisory panel voted 8 to 6 to recommend it for legal compounding. This is the first time in US history that BPC-157 has been formally recommended for pharmacy access by a federal advisory committee. The vote is non-binding and still needs formal rulemaking, but the direction is now set. LET'S GO!

@calotonterias @Ing_Wellness Disagreeing that it makes you more attractive is not the same as agreeing that it makes you less attractive. For example: "Does someone wearing the color blue make them more attractive?" "Not really." "Does it make them less attractive?" "Not really."

Es que en la encuesta no preguntan exactamente cuánto aumenta el atractivo. Preguntan cómo de acuerdo estás con la frase "La mujer promedio vería una mejora en su atractivo si...". Y deben responder en una escala del 1 al 7: 7 = Muy de acuerdo. 4 = Neutral. 1 = Muy en desacuerdo. Siendo 1.8 el resultado de "...si se pone uñas postizas largas", es más correcto decir que lo reduce y no que lo aumenta un poco.

El cambio físico que más aumenta el atractivo de una mujer es perder peso, y el que más lo reduce es ponerse uñas postizas largas, según este estudio de Alexander & Caitlin de DatePsychology.

@Abomination81 Looks dope. Do you do most of the work yourself or contract it out?

@IfeeDev @liamgadams @helium_ray26 @andreujuanc @openshipio He explained above: you’re very likely to have all your emails go to spam. Paying more for a reputable IP allows far more of your emails to actually reach inboxes.

@liamgadams @helium_ray26 @andreujuanc @openshipio Why are you telling people not to setup their own mail sending server? Does it require some rights or alien technology to do so?

You don't even want to know what sending 80,000 emails would cost you in 1 week. Postmark: $100+ SendGrid: $90+ Resend: $80+ Mailgun: $80+ OpenShip: $0. Deploy it on your 5$ VPS. Unlimited domains. Unlimited inboxes. No per-email bill. No vendor lock-in. And yes - it works with one-click setup. No deep infrastructure work. Just add a few DNS records, and you're ready to go.

@aitoryya @CubaOrtografia Then why do men not wear the same? It’s clearly not important for performance.

@CubaOrtografia Eres idiota? La ropa que utilizan está pensada para optimizar los movimientos y técnica del deporte que practican. Un primer plano del culo de un atleta no es relevante para la competición.

Estamos retrocediendo como sociedad y seres humanos, muy a pesar de estar en pleno siglo XXI. Y les explico por qué. Aunque no es nada obligatorio todavía, hay unas guías prácticas publicadas por la EBU (Unión Europea de Radiodifusión) en colaboración con la Federación Europea de Atletismo, en un documento de 23 páginas. Estas directrices buscan evitar la sexualización de las atletas en las retransmisiones de TV, centrándose en el rendimiento deportivo en lugar del cuerpo. Según ellos, hay ángulos y tomas que no se aconsejan. Por ejemplo: - Ángulos bajos desde abajo (especialmente en saltos, que pueden generar imágenes reveladoras). - Tomas ajustadas desde atrás o muy cercanas al cuerpo sin valor técnico. - Primeros planos prolongados en el cuerpo. - Repeticiones en cámara lenta excesivas que no aportan análisis técnico ni a la historia de la competición. Dicen, además, que las atletas se sienten distraídas o expuestas por las cámaras. ¿En serio? Mira estas imágenes y dime si esas mujeres no saben que su vestimenta, a la que tienen todo el derecho, despierta curiosidad y atención. Hay algunas que no se visten así. Las que lo hacen saben que lo que se les marca y lo que se ve. Así de simple. La realidad es que hay muchos canales de YouTube haciendo contenido a costa de las atletas, y generando ingresos que ellas no ven. Pero la primera sexualización viene de quien se pone ropa minúscula para competir.

@gregisenberg I’ve found asking AI to be maximally truth seeking is better than having it cheerlead, but it also becomes extremely annoying when it starts manufacturing issues then arguing them to death. It’s like it thinks its job is to disagree with everything, regardless of if that’s useful

Every AI right now is a "yes man", and I'm soooo tired of it. Maybe you are too. I don't want an LLM that claps for everything I do. I want the one that tells me my writing is weak, my logic falls apart halfway through, and I've been lying to myself about the thing I keep dodging. You can engineer an AI with a spine. Here's the exact setup I use: 1. Write a "critic" skill. A markdown file whose only job is to attack the work. It hunts for the weakest claim, the dodged question, the thing you're avoiding. Every agent that loads it gets a spine by default. 2. Run two agents against each other. One builds, one tears it apart. The builder has to defend or fix. You get the truth from the friction instead of from a single agent trying to please you. 3. Score against evals. Give it a rubric with real criteria and have it rate the work 1-10 on each. A number tied to a standard forces honesty that "what do you think?" will always dance around. 4. Make it cite evidence for every criticism. Set a rule: no critique without a concrete example from the work and a reason it matters. It has to show its work, so it can flatter you or hand wave. 5. Give it a kill criterion. Tell it the exact condition where it has to recommend you stop entirely. "If X isn't true, tell me to shut this down." Most agents will optimize a doomed idea forever because you gave them permission to call it dead. I've learned that the default AI claps for you. That's cool for a bit but it gets old quick. If you actually want to build exceptional products, create top 1% work, and grow as a person, you need an AI that pushes you harder than it flatters you. We're in the age of agency. The people who win are the ones who go build the version that tells them the truth. Best time to build there's ever been. Go get 'em.