Take a Walk

@Benedicta_Bee It’s about the mass. Not the priests, bishops, cardinals, or pope. The pontiff is mentioned only once during mass - to pray for him. I ignore all the news, media, etc. it’s about the mass.

How can a Catholic Catholic if they disagree with literally everything the Pope says? I mean this sincerely. How do we reconcile this? I would not belong to a Protestant church promoting or professing these radical beliefs? What do we as Catholics do? Sincere question.

@AndrewYang Really?

Eric Swalwell should definitely end his gubernatorial campaign and try to spend time with his family.

@tedlieu @ByronYork And calling for his removal from congress, you phony?

In light of the recent allegations against Representative Eric Swalwell, I am withdrawing my endorsement of his campaign for Governor.

@dlongenecker1 @DrShayPhD Just started receiving your posts. Why do you do this? Life is too short to deal with this daily aggravation

@DrShayPhD Once saved always saved is not biblical. It is a LIE!

Purgatory is not biblical. It is a LIE!

@MaryCarmenOrd @Pontifex The pope is the one that needs some discretion and to grow up

@bronwenmcshea @Pontifex 🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱 stop the whining and the blackmailing. You’re hyper emotional bait is an eternal non sequitur. God blesses no conflict. That does not mean your great great grandfather twice removed who valiently fought whatever war was wrong. Please grow up.

Dear Holy Father @pontifex: I am asking these questions as a faithful daughter of the Church. Are close members of my family wrong to be serving the USA as Army officers, and in a few cases to have gone into battle overseas multiple times when ordered to do so? Was my father wrong to have enlisted to serve as a US Marine during the Vietnam war, carrying Rosary beads with him from his father that he later gave to my brothers to take into war with them during their more recent deployments? Were my maternal grandfather and various other members of my family wrong to have taken up weapons to help stop Japanese aggression in the Pacific and to help Europe (including Italy and Vatican City) be liberated from Nazism and Fascism? Were/are all of these faithfully Mass-attending, family-loving, country-loving men who decided when they felt a moral duty to do so to become warriors -- and who were willing to lay down their lives if needed for their brother soldiers in wartime, and for causes they believed in their hearts were just -- not disciples of Christ? Am I not a disciple of Christ because I look up to these men for the courage and other virtues they developed while training for and serving in war, and because I also have some loyalty to my country, i.e. the same imperfect country that these men have served in a spirit of self-sacrifice and prayer? Am I as a faithful Roman Catholic to look at all wars as unjust, and all of those who serve in them -- like those I call brother, father, grandfather, etc -- as enemies of the Prince of Peace?

@Pontifex I sure hope it’s not the pontiff himself who writes these Bernie Sanders talking points

Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are immersed in extreme poverty. Yet, disproportionate wealth remains in the hands of a few. It is an unjust scenario, in the face of which we cannot fail to question ourselves and commit to change things. There is no lack of resources at the root of disparities, but the need to address solvable problems related to a more equitable distribution of wealth, to be achieved with moral sense and honesty.

@elonmusk As a follower, supporter, shareholder, and Tesla owner - I no longer believe you.

Tesla V14.3 self-driving review. The point releases will bring polish. V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations.

@Kekius_Sage Hmmmmm

Why does light travel at exactly that speed?

@niccruzpatane Blah blah. As a Tesla owner and shareholder, I’m getting very tired of this cheerleading. Also, I remember when similar promises made about v14.3. Finally, I can’t subscribe to FSD in my neck of woods because 15mph above speed limit in Standard mode would lead to weekly tickets.

Elon Musk says Tesla FSD V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations. Basically, you’ll be able to sleep, work, or watch movies while being driven around by software that far exceeds human safety. Manual driving will be a thing of the past.

@kevinolearytv Its internal waters. Doesnt this mean anything?

Pay the toll — move the oil. If you guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, markets will pay. Certainty lowers risk. Risk moves prices. And when 21% of the world’s oil is on the line, stability is worth billions

@BobaF3ta @Teslarati No. Here at the Eastern Shore, I’d loose my license. I guess still no reason to subscribe.

@Teslarati Is 72 in a 55 acceptable on Standard? I can live with stupid nav issues, but to me this is unacceptable.

I think it’s time to talk about Tesla FSD v14.3 It seems obvious that the community as a whole expected more and that’s understandable due to the “final piece of the puzzle” comments. As someone who was highly critical of v14.2.2.5, I was refreshed with the v14.3 improvements. But I can kinda see where people expected more. Take Nav/Routing out of it, because it’s obviously a huge challenge. I think most of these complaints come from the “Max Speed” people and I think that’s reasonable considering Speed Profiles: 1) are not incredibly consistent - at times Mad Max goes under the speed limit and at times Hurry will travel 20+ over the speed limit AND 2) People simply might prefer the car traveling at a speed they are comfortable with while also performing some of the behaviors certain Speed Profiles have - I don’t want to go 20+ MPH over on the highway on “Hurry,” going 10-12 over would be sufficient and still would pass cars when needed. However, I see what Tesla is doing with that and in the spirit of taking away controls a little bit at a time it’s important to get people comfortable with less customization. We don’t choose how fast the plane flies to the train travels. We just get on/in and go, and that’s what autonomy will be with cars. Overall I have seen a lot of improvements with some of my biggest complaints from the previous version: hesitation and assertiveness are both much better and FSD is making better decisions. It’s an improvement — substantial as some expect? Maybe not. But it’s still forward rather than back. I think the jump from v14.1 to v14.2 was relatively similar, but the outrage wasn’t there. These were the big changes between those versions: - Upgraded neural network vision encoder (higher-resolution features for better detection of emergency vehicles, road obstacles, and human gestures) - New Self-Driving Stats menu (tracks FSD usage percentage) - UI changes allowing speed profile and arrival option adjustments before starting FSD - Reduced brake stabbing and hesitation at intersections - Smoother overall driving feel (less jerky acceleration/deceleration and steering) - Refined emergency vehicle handling (pull over/yield behaviors) - Improved navigation integration for real-time blocked roads and detours - More assertive yet patient behavior in complex scenarios (unprotected turns, lane changes, cut-ins) I guess people expected more, and this is due to the hype. But I don’t love seeing people say there are zero improvements. That’s unequivocally false.

@Hot_Pepper76 Stairway to Heaven

If you could erase ONE overplayed classic rock song from existence forever, so it never gets played again, which one are you nuking and why? Be brutal. This will help me when posting songs. I try to avoid the ones I see over and over, but they still get a lot of love.

@BillAckman @X Your nephew was out of line. He clearly had little experience. In 2026, certain topics are off the table, even in cordial or joking circumstances. There was no crime, however, for you to appoint him - it’s your company. Make this go away

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@IngrahamAngle Incorrect. Tesla is usually at or near the top in China.

This would, of course, be the end of the U.S. auto industry.

@tedcruz @christopherrufo Why are there zero federal prosecutions? All of you are just theater kids.

Stunning. California “paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent [unemployment] claims in prisoners’ names, including those of at least 133 inmates on death row.”

@JSX423 Agreed. This is the only reason I don’t subscribe. Around here, police will give you a ticket if you are driving 11 - 14 mph above a 60 mph speed limit. They will give ticket for 40mph in a 30mph zone

My mom is probably as close as she's been to unsubscribing to FSD (and ironically she loves it most of the time) but the speeds make no sense.. She is not a tech nerd and can live without it as her Alfa Romeo does what it needs to do on the highway - And I have used and it's not great but it's good enough. In the 55 zones around her she doesn't like going 70 in Standard (and that won't change) and the only other option is Chill at 57. It's such a fine line between comfort and annoyance - set at 63mph and she would absolutely love it (like she loved 13.2.9). You may think this doesn't matter but there's a reason 88% of owners don't use FSD and outside of money, it's this fine line of comfort and convenience vs annoyance. When it's a Robotaxi and we do not pay fines or insurance, then forget every single thing I said. But - Tesla just isn't there yet. @Tesla_AI @pduan @yunta_tsai

@TeslaTravelstx @TalosDreams @AndyZeGerman Then I won’t be subscribing. Tesla would be heading directly to a class action liability suit; the jury won’t be sympathetic when they discover the operator has zero ability to limit speed. Ridiculous

@TalosDreams @AndyZeGerman Completely agree with the follow distance! As far as speed profiles go I disagree. Tesla is working towards unsupervised, driving, when that happens, there will be no speed profiles and no adjustments by the “operator”. This is them testing that and learning.

FSD scared the crap out of me and my wife. We were headed out of town and my wife was taking zoom calls in the backseat and I was relaxing letting FSD do all of the work. We were following behind a cement truck and as we went through the intersection, the cement truck ran the light at the last minute, as soon as FSD was able to see the light it turned red and FSD slammed on the brakes. My wife’s laptop went sliding across the car, but we got stopped, and then FSD backed us up behind the line.

@KurtSupeCPA I’m comfortably retired and active. Can’t imagine spending so much each month. Certainly, at their incomes, they don’t have a mortgage? Car payments? Debt? Where does their money go?

Couple came in eighteen months before his retirement date. I suggested something I do with clients who are ready. "Let's run a retirement dry run. Live on your retirement income for ninety days. Right now." They thought it sounded simple. Week three she called me. "We've barely left the house and we've already overspent." They'd never actually lived on a number before. Forty one years of two incomes covering everything. The retirement budget assumed $11,000 a month. Ninety days in they were running $15,400. Not extravagantly. Just actually living. We spent the next twelve months figuring out the real number. Rebuilt the whole plan around reality instead of optimism. He retired eight months later than planned. Those eight months bought them a retirement they could actually afford to live in. The most expensive assumption in retirement planning is that you know what your life actually costs. Most people are genuinely shocked when they find out.

@AGHamilton29 Talking points

I will also add that I wish there was at least as much outrage over The Islamic Republic shooting missiles at and near holy sites, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, as there is over a disagreement on how to best protect people from those missiles.

@MaxAbrahms Talking points?

There’s outrage when Israel tries to protect minorities at holy sites but no outrage when Iranian missiles hit holy sites. We are living in morally disgraceful times.