Dubz

2.1K posts

Dubz banner
Dubz

Dubz

@GoDubz

There Katılım Temmuz 2020
595 Takip Edilen38 Takipçiler
Dubz retweetledi
Melissa Chen
Melissa Chen@MsMelChen·
Americans need to contend with how poorly liberalism is designed to handle this. Libs simply cannot bring themselves to admit that the relationship between a Chinese citizen (or diaspora) and the Chinese Communist Party is not the same as the relationship between an American citizen and the US government. There is no wall. There is no Constitution telling the state it cannot compel the individual. In China the individual exists to serve the Party. We wrote the opposite into our founding document. Government cannot force your speech, your allegiance, or your silence. But liberalism’s one non-negotiable commandment is: Thou shalt not notice cultural or political differences Especially if noticing them might make you sound mean and do mean things such as pass an exclusionary law. So we’re told we must pretend every Chinese immigrant or student carries the exact same relationship to their government that Americans do. We must also somehow ignore the United Front Work Department’s explicit doctrine of using overseas Chinese as instruments of influence. We must treat espionage, propaganda, and infiltration as isolated “bad apples” instead of state policy. You realize that China doesn’t have to beat us in a fair fight? It simply has to walk through the door that’s propped open with our own suicidal ideology. Every time another Wang or Fang or CCP-linked “community leader” gets caught, the libs and progressives will shrug and do nothing. They refuse to even acknowledge the asymmetry. Which is exactly how Beijing turns American values and systems into fatal vulnerabilities.
ABC News@ABC

NEW: Eileen Wang, the mayor of Arcadia, California, has been charged with acting as an illegal foreign agent for China, the Justice Department announced on Monday. Wang agreed to plead guilty, the Justice Department said. abcnews.link/IntbpBy

English
162
842
5.4K
254.8K
Dubz retweetledi
Insider Wire
Insider Wire@InsiderWire·
#BREAKING: California mayor Eileen Wang charged as an illegal Chinese agent; set to plead guilty.
English
340
1.2K
16.6K
2.7M
Dubz retweetledi
Fermat's Library
Fermat's Library@fermatslibrary·
On this day in 1794 the French Republic guillotined Antoine Lavoisier. He had named oxygen, formulated the law of conservation of mass and founded modern chemistry. Appeals were rejected with the line "the Republic has no need of scientists." The next day Lagrange said: "It took only a moment to cause this head to fall, and a hundred years will not suffice to produce its like."
Fermat's Library tweet media
English
162
1.6K
8.1K
514.7K
Dubz
Dubz@GoDubz·
Perfect reframing by Balaji
Balaji@balajis

The US federal budget is $7 trillion. There are 535 in the Senate and Congress. They collectively allocate that money. Specifically: 7000/535 = 13 billion per official. Which means AOC is a political billionaire. She allocates far more than any market billionaire. Indeed she allocates ten billion liquid, per year. A market billionaire has one billion, illiquid, per life. So: AOC spends 10-100X what a market billionaire has. It's not even close. She's right about one thing, though. AOC didn't earn the tens of billions she spends. The state taxed that money, by force.

Indonesia
0
0
2
13
Dubz retweetledi
Ryan Cohen
Ryan Cohen@ryancohen·
The Hollow Men American capitalism is rotting from the head down. We have replaced the "Owner-Operator"—the risk-taker-with a new, parasitic class of corporate bureaucrat: The Risk-Free Insider. By "Insider," I am not referring to a specific title. I am referring to the entire administrative state that has captured the modern corporation. This includes the Directors who exist solely to collect fees, the Executives who exist solely to collect bonuses, and the Managers who exist solely to hire consultants. These are the hollow men of the boardroom. They are masters of PowerPoint. They wear the right suits. They say the right buzzwords about "governance" and "ESG." But they are mercenaries fighting a war with someone else’s ammunition. In a functioning economy, authority is tied to liability. If you make a bad decision, you lose your own money. That fear of loss is the only thing that keeps a business honest. It forces you to cut waste, obsess over the customer, and stay late to fix what is broken. Today, we have severed that link. We have rigged the game so that heads, the Insider wins; tails, the shareholder loses. If the stock goes up, the Insider collects a massive performance bonus. If the stock crashes due to their own incompetence, they are fired with a "Golden Parachute" worth tens of millions. They are gambling with the house’s money, and they never leave the table poorer than they arrived. This looting starts in the boardroom. We have normalized a "Country Club" culture where directors are selected based on social profiling rather than their ability to build a business. The modern board member is often a professional tourist—paid an average of $350,000 a year. Let’s be brutally honest about what that number represents. The average director is paid nearly five times the GDP per capita of the United States. They earn more for attending four quarterly lunches than the vast majority of Americans earn in five years of hard labor. And for what? Most of these directors are "over-boarded," sitting on three or four boards simultaneously. They treat directorships as a gig economy for the elite. They fly in, rubber-stamp a compensation package they didn't read, and fly out. They collect checks from companies they do not understand, do not use, and certainly do not love. They are not there to ask hard questions. They are there to be collegial. They are there to protect the other Insiders. And what happens when these boards hire executives who also have no personal capital at risk? We get the Delegation Economy. When a Risk-Free Insider faces a crisis—bloated expenses, a broken supply chain, or a stale product—they do not roll up their sleeves. They hire a consultant. They pay a strategy firm millions of shareholder dollars to produce a 100-page deck telling them what they already know. This is not management. It is intellectual money laundering. They use shareholder capital to buy an insurance policy for their own careers. If the plan fails, they can blame the consultants. They delegate the work because they are terrified of the responsibility. They would rather preside over a slow, comfortable decline than risk a bold mistake. While American Insiders are busy optimizing their severance packages, our global competitors are optimizing their products. They are not slowed down by bureaucracy. They are not waiting for a slide deck. They are outworking us. If we continue to fill our C-suites with administrators instead of operators, we will lose our edge. We will see iconic American franchises hollowed out by fees, managed for the benefit of the Insiders, while the true owners—the shareholders—are left holding the bag. The time for polite governance is over. If we want to save the American economy from mediocrity, we must demand a return to the "Owner’s Mentality." We need leaders who treat shareholder capital with the same reverence they treat their own savings. The era of the Risk-Free Insider must end.
English
2.7K
5.9K
21.4K
2.9M
Dubz retweetledi
John Tillman
John Tillman@JohnMTillman·
Watching @ZohranKMamdani's oafish, unprovoked attack on Ken Griffin blow up in his face in real time tells us so much about how contemporary leftism has been reconfigured by its elite practitioners. Firstly, Mamdani is not a "have-not." He is a Bowdoin graduate, the son of a Columbia professor and an internationally celebrated filmmaker, whose path to a New York City mayoralty ran through exactly the credentialed-creative pipeline that produces most of his voters. His base is not the working class. It is the downwardly mobile but college-educated, who were promised a particular kind of life by their degrees and are furious it didn't arrive, and who have decided the people standing between them and that life are not the radicalized professors who sold them seductive fictions or the ideologically captured universities that took their money, but a hedge fund manager in Miami. This is what I'd call Privilege Populism. The aesthetics of class struggle, performed by people whose parents or grandparents technically already won the class struggle, but with the appropriated symbolism recast in the direction of people who won it slightly more. It is war between the "haves" versus "have-mores," as some others have put it. The Mamdani's inciting video, gleeful in its innumeracy about about whether a $500 million pied-à-terre tax can actually fund anything it claims to, defiant in its ignorance about the dynamic effects of such taxation on human behavior and wealth outmigration, is the genre's mature form. Griffin's response is the part worth watching. He didn't argue or issue a statement offering a philosophical defense of capitalism. He simply pointed to his Miami construction project and said: this is the way. Then he said the part that should make every blue-state mayor uncomfortable: that what's happening in New York is "triggering the trauma I went through in Chicago." I watched that trauma play out for twenty years. Progressive politicians perform to excite the grievances and resentments of credentialed creatives, the productive class that subsidizes the city quietly relocates, the tax base hollows out, and the people who stay behind look at the resulting societal decline around them and misinterpret it as proof that they must vote even further to the left than before in order to improve things. In a warped but unignorable way, liberal mismanagement of states like Illinois and New York helped nurse the conservative governance triumphs of Florida and Texas. The Privilege Populists never figure this out, because the point is never truly to improve the lives of the "have-nots." It's to *perform* therapeutic acts of Resistance for them, on camera, against "villains" who can afford to leave and do.
English
172
1K
5.7K
360.7K
Dubz retweetledi
Max
Max@minordissent·
This question misunderstand the situation. SP500 is basically just M2. maybe 2%, max 3%, of real growth. The rest is just the devaluation of dollars. There is no “exit liquidity”, the price of everything just goes up in perpetuity as more dollars added to the system chase the same amount of goods and services.
Reflection🪩@0xReflection

Only one question: who’s the exit liquidity?

English
315
575
7.6K
1.1M
Dubz retweetledi
Brivael Le Pogam
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·
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.
Français
3.3K
16.4K
61.7K
81.4M
Dubz retweetledi
Brivael Le Pogam
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·
Bonne question, je vais t'expliquer avec plaisir. D'abord, ta question contient déjà l'erreur qu'on vient de démonter. Tu compares un salaire (rémunération du temps) à une création de valeur entrepreneuriale (rémunération du capital risqué et de la coordination). Ce ne sont pas les mêmes choses. C'est comme demander "pourquoi un kilo de safran coûte 4000 fois plus qu'un kilo de patates, ils pèsent pareil non ?". La quantité (de travail, de poids) ne détermine pas la valeur. Ensuite, Arnault ne "gagne" pas 4000 SMIC en cash chaque mois. Sa fortune, c'est la valorisation boursière des actions qu'il détient dans les boîtes qu'il a construites ou rachetées. S'il vendait tout demain, le marché s'effondrerait et la "fortune" disparaîtrait. Cette valeur n'existe que parce que des millions de gens, librement, achètent des produits LVMH parce qu'ils les valorisent plus que l'argent qu'ils dépensent. Personne n'est forcé d'acheter un sac Vuitton. Maintenant, la coordination concrètement. Arnault dirige un groupe de 213 000 employés, 75 maisons, présent dans 80 pays. Il a transformé une boîte de textile au bord de la faillite (Boussac, 1984) en numéro un mondial du luxe. Ça implique de prendre des décisions stratégiques sur des décennies, lever et allouer du capital sur des paris à 10-20 ans, recruter et garder des talents qui valent des fortunes ailleurs, anticiper des tendances culturelles globales, gérer des crises (2008, Covid, guerre commerciale Chine), arbitrer entre des milliers de priorités contradictoires chaque semaine. Cette compétence est extraordinairement rare. C'est pour ça qu'elle est extraordinairement rémunérée. Pas par décret, par le marché. Si c'était facile, il y en aurait des milliers. Il y en a une poignée dans le monde. Et surtout, le point que tout le monde rate. Quand Arnault crée 100 milliards de valeur, il n'en "prend" pas 100 aux travailleurs. Il en garde une fraction (sa part au capital), les employés gagnent leurs salaires (qui sont parmi les plus élevés du secteur), l'État prélève des dizaines de milliards en impôts et cotisations, les fournisseurs sont payés, les clients reçoivent des produits qu'ils valorisent plus que ce qu'ils paient (sinon ils n'achèteraient pas), et les actionnaires (dont des millions de retraités via leurs fonds de pension) reçoivent des dividendes. C'est un jeu à somme positive. Tout le monde y gagne. Sinon personne ne participerait volontairement. Le raisonnement marxiste à somme nulle ("s'il a beaucoup, c'est qu'il a pris aux autres") repose sur une vision pré-industrielle de l'économie où le gâteau était fixe. Depuis 200 ans, le gâteau grossit. Le PIB mondial par habitant a été multiplié par 15 depuis 1820. Ce n'est pas en redistribuant un gâteau fixe qu'on y est arrivé, c'est en laissant des entrepreneurs créer de nouveaux gâteaux. Pour finir : des Bernard Arnault en France, on n'en a pas assez. On devrait en avoir des dizaines de plus, surtout dans la tech. Aujourd'hui le seul qui a vraiment réussi dans la tech française, c'est Xavier Niel, et il est très, très seul. Si on avait des dizaines de Xavier Niel, on aurait plusieurs Station F, on aurait beaucoup plus de startups financées, on aurait un écosystème beaucoup plus sain, et surtout on aurait des centaines de milliers d'emplois bien payés en plus. Le problème de la France ce n'est pas qu'on a trop de riches. C'est qu'on n'en a pas assez.
Human@Human1114112

@brivael "Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite". La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol." tu peux nous en dire un peu plus sur cette coordination qui mérite d'être payée 4 mille fois le SMIC ?

Français
105
792
4.5K
143.5K
Dubz
Dubz@GoDubz·
Strong short essay with good first principals. Will refer back to this when needed.
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

English
0
0
0
3
Dubz retweetledi
Chamath Palihapitiya
Chamath Palihapitiya@chamath·
On page twenty-six of “The Billionaire Tax” proposal in California, it explains how the state legislature can convert from a Billionaire Tax to an Everyone Tax without voter approval. They can also adjust the tax to be a yearly tax, not just one time…again, without your approval. Intelligence test for you: if this was meant to just target Billionaires, why did they write this in?
Chamath Palihapitiya@chamath

The Billionaire Tax is actually an Everyone Tax. The Billionaire Tax is a new tax proposal written by four professors who don't believe in the American dream. Some of them aren’t even American…go figure. Despite its name, it applies to every California resident who currently has assets or ever will. The creators named it the Billionaire Tax so you would get into a froth andwouldn't look closely at what it actually does to you. On page twenty-six, it explains how the government can convert to an Everyone Tax without voter approval. They can also adjust the tax to be a yearly tax, not just one time…again, without your approval. Here's how the tax would work: As a voter, you're being asked to approve a tax that would require you to: 1. list all your assets and the value of each, then submit them to the California Franchise Tax Board. 2. authorize the tax board to appraise your assets and confirm the value of each. 3. pay a penalty of up to forty percent of your tax bill if the board determines your reported value was too low in their opinion. 4. allow the tax board to subpoena your financial records from every one of your financial institutions for auditing. This Everyone Tax runs 34 pages of shifty language describing how the government plans to take your assets. Read the fine print and decide for yourself. If this were truly a billionaire tax, it would be 3 pages. It’s 34 pages so that it can create the mechanisms to steal from all of you.

English
1.2K
9.9K
36K
4.4M
Devon Eriksen
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_·
Most people think of philosophy as an abstraction that doesn't touch the real world, but they're wrong. Most real world problems are philosophy problems, and most philosophy problems are "giving things the wrong names". For example, if you call feral drug addicts "homeless people", then you can't solve the problem. You can only buy more houses for feral drug addicts to destroy. In this case, we called the police and courts the "justice system". But they're not. They can't be the justice system. The function of a justice system would be to give everyone what they deserve. Now, I deserve a hundred million dollars, a private Caribbean island, and a foot massage from Lauren Bacall in her prime, but I don't see the "justice" system lifting a finger to correct any of this, do you? No, what we are supposed to have is a public safety system. The function of a public safety system is to keep the public and their property safe. If we understood that, we wouldn't care about what criminals deserve. We would care how likely they are to do it again. Or something worse. In a public safety system, retardation and mental illness are not migrating factors. They are the opposite. Because they mean that the criminal is more likely to pose a future threat. We all understand this. We all understand that the feral retard who stabs strangers on the train for being White and beautiful is a worse person than the man who murders his wife and her lover when he catches them in the act. Not because of some abstract calculus of moral agency, of who is disadvantaged and who isn't, but because one is certainly going to murder more people if he can, while the other is a lot less likely to. We've known for centuries, if not millennia, that it's the same small percentage of people doing all the robbing, raping, and murdering, over and over and over again. And we've known for centuries that if you physically remove them from society, that's 100% effective in stopping them from doing it again. The only hurdle is philosophical. Call it a "justice" system, and you have to argue endlessly about morality and redemption, and then some leftie thug-hugger weaponizes your own Christianity against you. Call it public safety, and you confine the argument to likelihood of reoffense. Then you are in the realm of statistics. Which you can compute. It all starts with naming things correctly, according to their actual nature.
New York Post@nypost

Crazed homeless man accused of slaughtering Iryna Zarutska on train found incompetent to stand trial trib.al/GsJMZC8

English
992
4.3K
20.9K
52.6M
Dubz
Dubz@GoDubz·
@farzyness Directed by Andy Serkis Produced by Peter Jackson It has a chance!
English
0
0
0
1.3K
Dubz
Dubz@GoDubz·
@JTLonsdale @TMTLongShort It only makes sense if you believe prison is about rehabilitation, which it isn’t
English
0
0
0
26
Joe Lonsdale
Joe Lonsdale@JTLonsdale·
I don’t agree with “incompetent to stand trial” being a thing. Do you? If anyone commits a violent crime and might be a danger to others again, they should be locked away for a long time: retarded or insane, or not. This is a clear and major ethical flaw in US legal standards.
Daniel Friedman@DanFriedman81

Two years ago, Naomi Guzman doused her father in lighter fluid and tried to set him on fire, then broke into a church and threatened a priest with a knife. She was found incompetent to stand trial and released. Today, she abducted a toddler and stabbed him before she was shot and killed by police.

English
227
236
3K
154.1K
Dubz retweetledi
Nick shirley
Nick shirley@nickshirleyy·
California is trying to pass a bill that would criminalize investigative journalism with misdemeanors, $10,000 fines, imprisonment, and content takedown. The proposed bill is titled AB 2624 and was made after I exposed mass fraud by immigrant groups in America. Under AB 2624, government-funded entities like the Somali “Learing” Daycare centers would be protected from being exposed if they operated inside California. The enemy truly is within. When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors who “rule” over us.
Nick shirley tweet media
English
10.1K
43.9K
143.8K
20.4M
Dubz retweetledi
Nick shirley
Nick shirley@nickshirleyy·
You tried to paint me as a pervert for exposing fraud, and as a result radical leftists started trying to dox me and send death threats, wanting to kill me. Now you are taking credit for “leading the charge” on the fraud. Are you serious? You are the fraud.
Governor Gavin Newsom@CAgovernor

California is again leading the charge against large-scale identity theft and hospice fraud. Today, we're taking decisive action against 14 providers who tried using stolen identities to bill Medi-Cal for nonexistent hospice services.

English
7.4K
68K
368.6K
5.8M
Governor Gavin Newsom
Governor Gavin Newsom@CAgovernor·
California is again leading the charge against large-scale identity theft and hospice fraud. Today, we're taking decisive action against 14 providers who tried using stolen identities to bill Medi-Cal for nonexistent hospice services.
English
16.4K
473
3.2K
7.5M
Dubz retweetledi
Fandom Pulse
Fandom Pulse@fandompulse·
Project Hail Mary writer Andy Weir on social commentary in books: "I dislike social commentary. Like… I really hate it. When I’m reading a book, I just want to be entertained, not preached at by the author. Plus, it ruins the wonder of the story if I know the author has a political or social axe to grind. I no longer speculate about all possible outcomes of the story because I know for a fact that the universe of that book will conspire to ensure that the author’s political agenda is validated. I hate that." "I put no politics or social commentary into my stories at all. Anyone who thinks they see something like that is reading it in on their own. I have no point to make, and I’m not trying to affect the reader’s opinion on anything. My sole job is to entertain, and I stick to that." "To that end, I also don’t talk about my personal political opinions publicly. I don’t want readers to even know, honestly. I don’t want that in the back of their minds as they read my stuff." Is this why he has the #1 sci-fi movie in decades?
Fandom Pulse tweet mediaFandom Pulse tweet media
English
1.9K
6.1K
71.8K
48.8M

Keşfet

@ZohranKMamdani @Devon_Eriksen_ @farzyness @JTLonsdale @TMTLongShort @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13