Dean Zarras

5+ years and two Presidential elections later, and it's still every bit as timely and important: forbes.com/sites/deanzarr… #Capitalism #FreeMarkets #Liberty #Economics

@SenWarren #DefineFairShare

If Jeff Bezos can drop $10 million to sponsor the Met Gala, he can afford to pay his fair share in taxes.

Current AI custom prompt: You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers to your answers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. You do not need to tell me it is important to consider anything. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can. Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back on your answer, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument — restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.

𝐖𝐇𝐘 '𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐘' 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐒 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐘𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐘. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 — a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥." Three findings. 𝐎𝐧𝐞: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. 𝐓𝐰𝐨: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠, 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and — the key variable — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐬 in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦-𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨-𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 [...] 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only 𝟏𝟗% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found 𝟏𝟑% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery — a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing — every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, because empathy at scale stops asking 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 and starts asking 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 How does a fringe view — communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale m∗rder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists — capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. A family of four. One daughter — 𝟐𝟓% of the household — only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. 𝟐𝟓% renormalizes 𝟏𝟎𝟎% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly 𝟐𝟎% activated support — provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join — not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. 𝐇𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker — the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion — is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the 𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐮𝐝𝐨-𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 — the 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵." That coalition — Galam's 𝟐𝟎% — is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲, 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞 Empathy is not a virtue. It is a 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 — the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 of judgment — pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰.

Carl Menger destroyed the labor theory of value in 1871 with a single insight: humans value goods based on their marginal utility, not the labor embedded in them. The same year, William Stanley Jevons in England and Léon Walras in France independently arrived at similar conclusions about marginal utility. Three economists, three countries, one revolutionary idea that shattered Marx's entire framework. Menger's "Principles of Economics" went further than his contemporaries by building economics from individual human action rather than mathematical abstractions. While Jevons and Walras constructed elegant equations, Menger asked the fundamental question: why does anyone value anything at all? His answer traced value back to human needs and the decreasing satisfaction each additional unit provides. The tenth glass of water matters less than the first when you're dying of thirst. The timing wasn't coincidental. By 1871, classical economics had painted itself into a corner with the labor theory of value. If labor determines value, why do diamonds cost more than water? Why do identical goods sell for different prices? Value exists only in the mind of the acting individual. No intrinsic value, no objective measurement, just human preferences ranking scarce goods according to their ability to satisfy wants. Menger's approach created the foundation for the entire Austrian school tradition that followed. Böhm-Bawerk used marginal utility to explain interest rates. Mises extended it to money and the business cycle. Rothbard applied it to ethics and political theory. Every free market economist since 1871 stands on Menger's shoulders. The establishment still teaches economics as if Menger never existed, preferring mathematical models to human action, aggregate demand curves to individual choice, and central planning to market processes.

.@friedberg says "California is functionally bankrupt": "People don't realize how screwed California is. I worry that if California falls, so does the union." "We're $250 billion to $1 trillion short." "If it was the federal government, they would just print more money. California doesn't have the ability to print money, so California has to pay this out, and you can't restructure retirement benefits." "There's a Supreme Court case in California that said once an employee has been offered retirement benefits, even if they're currently an employee, you can never restructure their retirement benefits. It has to stay forever." "And the state cannot declare bankruptcy. There's no way for the state to functionally declare bankruptcy. There's no law to allow it." "No state has ever declared bankruptcy, and the the retirement benefits sit senior to the bonds in California. So you have to pay out the retirement benefits before you pay out all the bond holders that have loaned California the money that they use to run all their programs and services." " This isn't about taxes and Billionaire Tax Act. I don't think you can tax your way out of this problem. People will just leave the state." "California's functional bankruptcy is a major risk to the country and we need to figure out what we can change to fix it." At the @HillValleyForum 2026

The people who just killed an airline by blocking capitalism and free markets, also want to "fix" our healthcare and housing in the same way.

If only every high school student could read this post… 🎯🎯🎯

Spirit Airlines died tonight at the hands of the socialist crusader, Elizabeth Warren She must be so proud to add another casket to her achievements. Tonight at 3am, Spirit turns off the lights. 14,000 jobs gone. 30+ smaller airports lose service. JetBlue offered $3.8 BILLION in cash to buy Spirit in 2022. Shareholders, flight attendants union, literally everyone voted yes. The combined company would have held 9% of the US market against a Big 4 that already owned 80%. For anyone who understands numbers: 9% isn’t a monopoly against 80%. Warren said no. She wrote letters. She pressured Buttigieg. Biden’s DOJ sued. A federal judge killed the deal in January 2024. Her argument: the merger would cost consumers $1 billion a year. Now look at her collateral damage she dusts under the rug. 510 pilots gone in the months after. 1,800 flight attendants furloughed in December. 14,000 jobs in 2023. 7,500 last week. Zero tonight. And that’s just the people in Spirit uniforms. Catering goes. Fuel guys go. Baggage crews, gate agents, airport coffee shops, hotels and rental cars in 70 cities Spirit flew to. Every airline job carries 3 more on its back. 40,000 people out of work because of one woman’s moronic crusade against the market. And the math ain’t mathing. Spirit abandoned 90 routes during the death spiral. Fares on those routes are up 14% on average. Oakland to Newark: $135 to $288. Fort Myers to San Juan: $92 to $219. Kansas City to Newark up 66%. That’s reality. Not some BS number from a “study.” So @SenWarren tell me how this saves the consumer money? Cheap carriers in a market drop fares 21% across the board. Southwest did this in the 90s and saved Americans $68 BILLION over 20 years. Warren killed it. That’s what moronic politicians led by socialism do. Then with her own blind arrogance, she tweeted Spirit’s collapse is “a Biden win for flyers.” A win. 14,000 people are reading termination letters tonight. And she’s taking credit. This is socialism in 2026. A senator who’s never made payroll thinks she knows how to run a market better than the people who own and work in the company. She saved you a billion on imaginary paper. She cost you ten times that in real life. She didn’t protect consumers from anything. 14,000+ will go from working to welfare. She will make sure to blame billionaires, hardworking tax payers, AI, capitalism and whatever monster they will make up tomorrow hiding under your bed. Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. More expensive everything. She called it a win. I hope you enjoy winning.

The Democrat Socialist Mayor (Wilson) of Seattle WA just called for a boycott of Starbucks for not making all their locations Union run. Now Starbucks answered by moving their Headquarters to TN and taking 2000 jobs with them that pay over $125K per year. They also closed 5 stores.

@allenanalysis Ummm… have you heard of the $1 trillion in taxable wealth that has ALREADY left the state because of the prospect of this bill passing? Damage to your budget ALREADY done?

The math is simple. The federal government took 100 billion dollars out of California healthcare. The petition asks 200 billionaires to put 100 billion dollars back in. It needed 875,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It got 1.5 million. You would think the Governor of California, a Democrat who has spent the past year publicly criticizing Trump's healthcare cuts, would support this. He does not.

California has 200 billionaires. Last weekend, 1.5 million Californians signed a petition asking those 200 people to pay a one-time five percent tax to keep the state's hospitals open. That tax would raise about 100 billion dollars over five years. The money would fund hospitals, clinics, public schools, and food assistance programs. Why does the state suddenly need 100 billion dollars in healthcare funding? 🧵

No one should be surprised but what he left out is that this turbine costs an estimated $50-80 million to build and install. It only produces power 35-45% of the time because wind is intermittent. Its output degrades 12-16% over its 20-25 year lifespan. It requires hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, fiberglass, and rare earth minerals mined largely in China (his favorite country). The other 55-65% of the time you need backup power, which comes from natural gas. And it exists only because of massive government subsidies. A natural gas plant of the same 26MW capacity costs $26-39 million, produces more than double the effective output, runs on demand 24 hours a day regardless of weather, and lasts 30-40 years. Half the price. Double the output. No weather dependency. No subsidies required. But this was never about the environment. If it were, you would care that rare earth mining for wind turbines devastates landscapes across China and Africa, that thousands of birds and bats are killed annually by turbine blades, that the blades themselves are non-recyclable fiberglass rotting in landfills, and that natural gas produces half the emissions of coal with none of these problems. You ignore all of this because environmentalism was never your goal. It is your vehicle. The destination is what it has always been: government control of energy production, which means government control of the economy, which is socialism. Rand identified this decades ago. The green movement is not a scientific movement. It is a political one, and its target is not pollution. It is capitalism.

Notice the response from the left to the scotus ruling that you can't have race based congressional districts. It wasn't acceptance. It wasn't an effort to overturn the case on merits. It wasnt a call for political action to amend the consitution. It wasn't call to work within the legal system and slowly win elections so they can replace Alito, Roberts and Thomas when they retire. Nope, the left's response was to say the entire judicial system is illegitimate and must be destroyed and replaced(pack the court) with something that would rubberstamp their unconstitutional wishlist of items. They immediately went to ways to cheat and circumvent the system, not win within the system based on their ideals and following the rules set forth by 250 years of history.

Not a single person crying about how the Supreme Court has made it impossible for black people to get elected supported Winsom Sears over the affluent white lady. Not one.

@FBIDirectorKash @zerohedge Credit should actually go to @nickshirleyy …

@IsaiahLCarter @SenSchumer Beyond ridiculous. Here’s a great way to define voting districts: latitude, longitude, and population. Sizes of rectangles are determined by numbers of voters.

Listen to how @SenSchumer talks about Black people, like we're his fucking pets. I dunno about you, but creating TWO majority-Black districts to entrench Democrat power in perpetuity seems a LOT like a 250mile-long plantation. These Democrat fuckers went ALL THE WAY BACK to their slaver roots, and have the GALL to call SOMETHING ELSE "Jim Crow." Go FUCK yourself, Chuck.

Today's Supreme Court decision on race-based redistricting is bigger than people even realize. I've watched this play out for two decades, mostly in Chicago. The argument for race-based districts was always that they protect minority representation. What they've actually done is inflame segregation, and not just for voters but also for the elected officials. When, say, ~90% of one racial category dominates a legislative district, the lawmaker representing it is incentivized against interacting with the world beyond it. They don't have to find common ground because there is simply no coalition to build. Alienation is a requirement of the job. Now imagine a Chicago aldermanic map drawn for compactness rather than identity: a 65/20/15 district. You literally would not be able to win a seat on city council by pandering to one single group. You'd actually have to go talk to people about how they actually live and things they care about: schools, safety, jobs, taxes. Working-class voters of every background want roughly the same things. Identity-based districts function to paper over that. But a blended district would necessitate it. The superficial grievance model of left-wing politics relies on the existence of racially sorted districts. Today's ruling makes that sorting harder. That's what matters here.

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU THE REAL STORY OF THE SCOTUS VOTING RIGHTS RULING Yes, the Court ruled 6-3. Yes, race-based districting is now unconstitutional. Yes, Louisiana's map got thrown out. But here's the part everyone is missing: Democrats don't have a House majority without those court-ordered maps. → A dozen of their current seats sit in districts that only exist because federal courts FORCED states to draw them → Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina — every one has at least one Democrat seat in a court-created black-majority district → Their House margin is FOUR seats → SCOTUS just made 12 of their 213 seats legally redrawable → Republican-led legislatures don't need new voters — they need a redistricting committee and a Tuesday afternoon If race-based districts are unconstitutional, then Louisiana redraws. If Louisiana redraws, then Alabama redraws. If Alabama redraws, then every Southern state redraws. If every Southern state redraws, the Democrat House majority was a 60-year courtroom artifact — not an election result. That's what nobody is saying out loud. The 2026 midterms were just decided 6-3 — six months before Election Day. if you're not following me you're finding out about this 48 hours late from someone who read my post..

I told Senator Sheldon WhiteClub today that I won’t be listening to or caring about any of his lessons on morality knowing that he joined an all-white Rhode Island Country Club. I’m also done with the likes of AOC, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the rest of the lying cabal that make stupid climate predictions, plunder tens of billions of tax dollars, enrich their well-connected allies, and are committed to strangulating out of existence entire sectors of our economy. Climate alarmist AOC wants to be taken seriously while also insisting the world is imminently about to end due to climate change (Just under 5 years remain on her nutty Jan 2019 prediction that only 12 years of life are left on Earth). Al Gore is now speaking publicly about his concern with global freezing after decades of grift talking about global warming. “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” said Gore in 2006 (There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round). Gore also predicted in 2009 ice-free Arctic summers within 5-7 years. John Kerry warned in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. These people are dishonest, power-hungry hacks. The GREEN NEW SCAM is DEAD!!!

@hackernoon @chamath By the way, Software Capital brought to spreadsheets is @ClearFactr clearfactr.com/blog/build-ass…

@hackernoon @chamath Amazing!! Three cheers for domain alerts! Many, many thanks!

The missing layer in successful software development usually isn’t writing code faster but, rather, documenting the reasoning and shared context behind the decisions you made so everyone (including agents) can follow along. Oftentimes, architectural choices live in slack threads or linear tickets or just in someone’s head. This means that the individual may get faster but the team's collective knowledge doesn't compound and the team goes the same speed or slower. A good, multiplayer version of the software development experience would capture the "why" layer, not just execute the "what" faster. This is what 8090’s Software Factory is. A multi-player, AI enabled way to make better software. Try it here: factory.8090.ai