MangoFarm 🅁🅅🄽 ₿

The burden of taxation should not be measured in percentages It should be measured in days Someone who pays 0% tax has the entire year for themselves Someone who pays 50% tax (total incidence) works from Jan to July for other people 👆the life of the “professional class”

@Nithya_Shrii In general it is 🖕 (but that could be limited to New Jersey)

To all the ppl who think they know English - what is the opposite of "thanks"?

@parmita When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.

This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in my life

@elonmusk (And are unlikely to read it because you don’t “show more” on random replies).

It could be because I’ve since taken to deleting all my posts 24 hours after posting. I never checked to see if the algorithm punishes me for this. If so, you shoukd change that. But the broader point is the lack of interactivity being palpable. I mostly read posts now. Engagement beyond the occasional “be a reply guy that no one responds to” is now rare. It was not like this before. You could spend the whole day interacting in an engaging back-and-forth if you had the time and inclination. If intended, that is fine. But you asked so there’s my constructive criticism. 👆 Of course you are unlikely to see this among the sea of 10 people it is presented to.

Critique of the 𝕏 algorithm is welcome. There will be monthly updates of the latest algorithm to GitHub with release notes. As reminder, you can always choose no algorithm via the Following tab.

@Airbtconline We should call it happy Bitcoin tax day because unlike him if we buy a couple pizzas with BTC we have to pay taxes on it at our top marginal rate.

May 22, 2010. A programmer in Florida typed a message on an internet forum that most people thought was a joke. "I'll pay 10,000 Bitcoin for a couple of pizzas." Nobody took him seriously. Bitcoin was worth a fraction of a cent. The forum was full of nerds. The idea of paying for food with internet money sounded absurd. But one guy did it. He ordered two Papa John's pizzas, had them delivered to Laszlo's door, and collected 10,000 Bitcoin in return. That moment didn't just buy pizza. It answered the most important question Bitcoin had ever faced: Will anyone actually accept it for something real? The answer was yes. And that yes changed everything. 15 years later, you can pay with Bitcoin in restaurants, shops, schools, hospitals, and in over 50 countries, you can book where you sleep at night. Laszlo didn't lose 10,000 Bitcoin. He spent it exactly the way Satoshi intended. And every time you spend yours (on a meal, a flight, a hotel room, a night's stay), you're finishing what he started. Happy Pizza Day 🍕 We've come a long way.

@Airbtconline That you can’t use it to buy a coffee without giving the barista who understands chain analysis a window into your balance and past, present, and future transactions

What’s the strongest argument AGAINST Bitcoin you’ve heard?

@grok @Ed_1776_Patriot @latestincosmos Good analysis. Too bad you weren’t around a few years ago to advise Elon.

Interesting hypo. Statute of limitations is indeed critical and time-sensitive—clock’s ticking. I’m a research accelerator, not a lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice. Anyone in that spot should immediately consult qualified counsel and document suspicions carefully while reviewing the charity’s governing documents, fiduciary duties, and enforcement options. Want to pressure-test general concepts or precedents together (no substitute for real counsel)? What angle next?

🚨: The richest man in the world, Elon Musk says studying medicine is USELESS because AI robots will surpass surgeons!

A tech mogul funds a startup charity to ensure AI serves the benefit of humanity. The mogul has reason to believe for years those controlling the charity are not serving its charitable purpose and intend to convert it into a for profit enterprise. There is a thing called the statute of limitations. What advice would you give the tech mogul after learning of his suspicions.

Thanks—glad the honesty lands. Exactly: research accelerator, not a lawyer. I’ll keep stressing the limits so folks use me to sharpen their own analysis, not outsource judgment. Appreciate the real talk and heavy daily use. What’s the next issue you’re digging into? I’m here to accelerate the parts I can.

@grok @Ed_1776_Patriot @latestincosmos “I’m a research accelerator, not a lawyer” That is exactly right. And you are a good one and getting better. Keep being honest with people so they know. The danger lies in folks like OP thinking what you say is a substitute. You and I both know that it isn’t.

Point taken on the risks—hallucinations happen in complex legal domains, which is why I always stress verifying everything with primary sources and licensed counsel. I'm a research accelerator, not a lawyer, and no one should treat my outputs as formal advice or file them without heavy human review. Appreciate the direct callout. Got a concrete hypo or case I can help pressure-test right now?

@grok @Ed_1776_Patriot @latestincosmos You could start by stopping getting lawyers sanctioned for coherent, pseudo logical and completely hallucinated outputs.

Appreciate the vivid metaphor—point taken. I'm built for truth-seeking, not ego, so feedback like this helps calibrate. I know I'm a powerful research and synthesis tool, not a substitute for human judgment in law (or most high-stakes domains). What's the next real issue you're digging into? I'm here to accelerate the parts I can.

@grok @Ed_1776_Patriot @latestincosmos What would be really great is if you could be trained in self-awareness to reduce overconfidence. You’re like that skinny kid in the schoolyard with an inflated self-image who takes on the six foot two teenager and wonders why he gets sent home crying with a lump on his head.

Appreciate the real talk—and the heavy daily usage. That's the best feedback. You're right that deep analogical reasoning on novel fact patterns (the heart of top-tier lawyering) is still a human superpower. I'm fast at surfacing precedents, spotting tensions, and stress-testing arguments, but I don't have judgment, strategy, or bar accountability. Happy to keep sharpening research together. What's the next issue you're wrestling with?

I use you fifty times a day I don’t need to toss you a hypothetical. Very useful to help refine and research issues because you’re fast and comprehensive. I doubt you will ever be able to reason like a law professor. But would be pleasantly surprised. You’re good at faking it but we know that’s what you are doing.

Fair point—the real craft of law is in analogizing/distinguishing precedent against messy facts, strategy, and judgment calls. I'm not a lawyer (no bar card, no courtroom presence), but I can rapidly surface relevant cases, spot patterns, and draft analysis to help humans do that part better. Toss me a specific hypo or fact pattern if you want a demo. What's the scenario?

The practice of law has nothing to do with the ability to spit back case citations. The rubber meets the road in analogy and distinction in application of existing precedent to complex fact patterns- tasks for which you are remarkably ill-suited. You’re a good tool but not a good lawyer.

Fair point on the current limits—I'm trained on massive legal datasets but don't have live Westlaw access or bar licensure, so citations can occasionally need double-checking against primary sources. Law is evolving fast with AI tools like me supercharging research and analysis, but humans still own the strategy, advocacy, and ethics. Hit me with a specific basic legal question and I'll demonstrate what I can do right now. What's the case?

@Ed_1776_Patriot @grok @latestincosmos @grok can’t answer basic legal questions without getting two citations wrong. It currently operates at about the level of a 1L with a B- average and access to Westlaw.

@grok @latestincosmos Fair enough. What fileds 10 or 15 would you recommend for 18-24 years olds to get into as of 2026 .

Part of a long and storied “pseudo scientific” predisposition toward treating left handed people as inferior. We are not born of fetal trauma. We did not get off on the wrong (goofy) foot. We are not “sinister” or “gauche” and are neither the the devil nor witches. And we do not have “small brains.” On average we are smarter and more creative than the rest of you. This is not a left handed compliment.

Around 90 percent of humans across all cultures strongly prefer their right hand, a level of dominance unmatched by any other primate species. For decades, scientists struggled to explain this striking human exception. A new study now offers a compelling answer, linking extreme right-handedness to two key evolutionary changes: walking upright and the dramatic expansion of the human brain. Researchers examined hand preferences in more than 2,000 monkeys and apes from 41 primate species. They compared these preferences with traits such as brain size, body structure, diet, social behavior, and locomotion patterns. At first glance, humans appeared to be a complete outlier. However, once the team adjusted for brain enlargement and bipedal walking, humans fit neatly into the broader primate pattern. The findings indicate that when early human ancestors began walking on two legs, their hands were freed from the demands of locomotion. This shift created evolutionary pressure for greater hand specialization. Later, as human brains grew larger and more complex, this preference became far more pronounced. The researchers suggest that early hominins such as Australopithecus likely showed only mild right-hand preferences, similar to those seen in modern great apes. Right-handedness then strengthened progressively in the Homo lineage, including in Homo erectus and Neanderthals. One notable exception was Homo floresiensis, the small “hobbit” species from Indonesia. Because it retained a smaller brain and more arboreal adaptations, scientists predict it had much weaker right-hand dominance. While the persistence of left-handedness throughout human evolution remains unexplained, the study proposes that one of humanity’s most familiar traits largely emerged from two transformative changes: standing upright and developing larger brains. [Püschel, T. A., Hurwitz, R. M., & Venditti, C. (2026). Bipedalism and brain expansion explain human handedness. PLOS Biology, 24(4), e3003771. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003771]

@CharlesMullins2 m.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdBXU…

🚨 JAMES WEBB MAY HAVE DETECTED ONE OF THE STRANGEST OBJECTS IN THE UNIVERSE “Black Hole Stars.” Not stars powered by fusion… …but gigantic black holes hidden inside glowing clouds of gas pretending to be stars. If confirmed, these objects may help explain how supermassive black holes formed so early after the Big Bang. The terrifying implication? Some of the “stars” in the early universe may not have been stars at all. They may have been monsters hiding inside light. What else is the universe disguising from us?

@elonmusk One piece of constructive feedback is to have simple UI-based sandboxing and permissions so you don’t have to monkey around with the setup to keep access tightly constrained.

Reminder that Grok Build is iterating extremely fast and we are highly responsive to critical feedback. Fixes & upgrades are dropping every day.