Knowledgeseeker

@CraigDelray @LibertyLockPod People don't understand how much nutrition effects IQ. People are stupid if they don't get good food. Literally. People are smart if they have good nutrition through their life. It's just a matter of wealth of the country if it can feed its people or not. It's not genetics

@LibertyLockPod You are an idiot.

Some of you are slowly realizing that Iran is not Iraq. That we are not fighting 80 IQ Afghanis. That this is not the walk in the park Trump told you it would be. This is Persia. Good for you. Keep going. Next up, dig into the nuclear bomb threat. You'll quickly realize it was also a lie. Then you're ready for the final level. Look into Israel's influence and their decades-long propaganda campaign to trick you into fighting this war for them. It's not too late to turn back but we need all of you getting loud now. If Trump goes for a major ground operation we'll be dragged into this for a decade. The sunk cost fallacy is a btch like that. Now or never.

@eva2804 @LibertyLockPod @scotthortonshow It's not about ethnicity or genes, it's about wealth of the country and if it can supply nutritious food to population. If they're too poor to eat well, brains don't develop well. It's not their fault. Wealth breeds health. Fact.

@LibertyLockPod @scotthortonshow What a racist piece of garbage. “80 IQ Afghanis” fended off British Empire, USSR and the USA. I’d say they are plenty smart and capable.

@_Dakota42 @LibertyLockPod People don't understand how much nutrition effects IQ. People are stupid if they don't get good food. Literally. People are smart if they have good nutrition through their life. It's just a matter of wealth of the country if it can feed its people or not. It's not genetics

@LibertyLockPod The '80 IQ' comparison is a bizarre metric for morality. Whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, the issue is the cycle of intervention and the human toll. We don't need to devalue the people in past conflicts to justify being worried about this one.

@gracie_kim_x @LibertyLockPod @CraigDelray People don't understand how much nutrition effects IQ. People are stupid if they don't get good food. Literally. People are smart if they have good nutrition through their life. It's just a matter of wealth of the country if it can feed its people or not. It's not genetics

@LibertyLockPod @CraigDelray Yeah. People on here don’t like hearing the truth that certain nations or groups have lower average IQ than others, even if it’s true. Weird. This doesn’t mean that individuals from these countries potentially could have very high IQ, it is simply the average

@realtimsharp Definitely. Libertarian is more American than America first movement. They just don't know it. One is based on American principles, the other one is based on nationalism. I bet most don't think about that.

Libertarian Twitter > MAGA Twitter.

@urukananwa55255 @charliebcurran I think the product matters more. That's why we do it, we don't do it FOR the tool or FOR the creator, we create it FOR the lovely result.

@charliebcurran This looks insanely cinematic—lighting, tension, emotion… everything feels intentional and alive. If this is AI, then the line between technology and true artistry just got blurred in the best way 🔥🎬 What do you think matters more—the creator or the tool? 🤔

If you think AI film can’t be art then explain this.

@BillAckman @X Protect your family. Employees do not have a right to your money. Severance is a privilege, asking for more is greedy. Not being able to handle a few words at work is weakness. When someone brings a lawsuit to your doorstep, that's called civilized warfare.

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?

@rushicrypto We used to have no income tax. Why do we need one now?

Income tax rates should be 0% for poor people, 25% for middle class people, 40% for rich people, and 70% on every dollar past $10M. There should also be a 5% wealth tax on anyone with more than $1B in assets.

Pardon this man.

@2Bjeromemichael @PeterDiamandis Your certainty makes you a fool. I think you underestimate us and I think you underestimate God.

@PeterDiamandis And that is why there will NEVER be enough “compute” to make a machine human. NEVER. Humans are God-made. Not man-made.

The human brain processes visual information 60,000x faster than text. Humans are visual processors, not text processors. Images hit the brain instantly. Words take work. That's why a single SpaceX launch video communicates more than a thousand-word essay—and why your slide decks hit harder than paragraphs. We're wired for pictures, not prose.

@yoyonofukuoka The loss of culture.

あらゆる言語が自動翻訳に対応し、世界中の人々がシームレスにコミュニケーションを取れる様になったら、国対国という従来からある構図が崩れて、常識対非常識という構図になるだろうな。

Okay, time to explain guns to our new friends. Every day, when I leave the house, I attach a holstered handgun to my belt, under my shirt or coat. I would no more leave the house without a gun than I would walk around outdoors without shoes. Is it because I "need" a gun? No. I live in rural Tennessee, which is state in the American south. It's very safe here. The dangerous parts of America are big cities where the local government is leftist, and they shelter illegal migrant from the third world, and won't send violent criminals to prison. Places like Chicago and New York City. Yet, any time I leave the house, I put on a gun, knowing that I will probably never have to use it, and if I do, it will probably be on an aggressive stray dog, not a human. So why do I do it? Why do many other people who live around me do it? Why do we do this so much that carrying a gun is considered totally normal? If someone spotted it, it would not even arouse a comment, much less any fear. In fact, it is legal to carry a gun openly here, without covering it up. Covering it up is just considered polite. So.... why? Well, try thinking of an English nobleman, during the reign of Elizabeth the First. When he dressed to go ride to court, he would hang a slender fencing sword, called a rapier or smallsword, from his belt. He didn't expect to be attacked. He didn't even expect to fight a duel. And if he was challenged to a duel, he wouldn't need his sword right then. He would meet his challenger later at an agreed-upon place and time. No, he wore his sword because it was an expression of who he was. He was a gentleman, a person of status, with the legal privilege of carrying a sword. By carrying a sword, he asserted his rights and prerogatives as a nobleman. In Japan, you had the same sort of thing happening. The samurai, members of the bushi class, wore the two swords not because they expected to be attacked at any moment, but because the two swords were an essential part of who he was. So, in these two cases, weapons were carried by noblemen as an assertion of status. They had the right to do so, and they did so in order to assert, exercise, and retain the right. Americans carry guns because every American citizen is a nobleman. When we fought the British for our independence, that war began on April 19th, 1775, when British troops, fearing American rebelliousness, marched out from Boston to confiscate guns from people living in the surrounding countryside. Our ancestors did not submit to this. We shot them instead, and they fled back to Boston with their tails between their legs, to cower under the cover of the guns from the warship HMS Sommerset. Thus began several years of war. And when we won that war, we made a country where no government, and no man, would ever be allowed to disarm the people. No agent of the government may say to us, "I may have a gun, and you may not." Because to say that is to say "I am a nobleman, and you are a peasant. I am a master, and you are a slave." We are not peasants here. We are all noblemen. That is the most basic principle of what it means to be an American. I can be impoverished, so I can to be so poor that I live in a van down by the river. But however reduced my circumstances, as an American, I still have the rights and freedoms of a nobleman, of a daimyo, because that is the basic founding idea of the nation we forged on that day. If you come to America to visit, if you walk among us, you will pass many people carrying guns. You will not notice this. You will not see them. You will witness no violence. Everything will be normal. But the guns will be there. Because that is who we are. We don't carry guns to be violent. We don't wish to be rude, or to intimidate people. We keep our guns covered up. But they are the deepest, most essential part of what it means to be American.

@StevenNekhaila I feel this way

Being a libertarian is like knowing all the right questions, all of the answers, and watching people do something catastrophically wrong and lying as to why it’s failing.

@Eric_Schmitt Hell yeah, thank you. Americans have won a battle this day.

We just won Missouri v. Biden. As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people. Today, after years of unrelenting litigation, we deep state into a historic 10-year, court-enforceable Consent Decree. It directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech. Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big. This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine. It locks in the First Amendment principle we fought for: modern technology doesn’t erase your rights, and government labels don’t strip speech of protection. The deep state just got checked. For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered.

Everyday is a good day to repeal the Patriot Act.

A return to federalism—that is, a proper understanding of the relationship between state power and federal power—would solve most of what’s wrong with the federal government. As Americans, we would be more free, more prosperous, and more in charge of our own government. Agreed?

@orangegatewayx Answer: It secures the node operators ignorance

Genuine question: If your node doesn't mine, what exactly is it securing? It can't produce blocks. It can't reverse transactions. It can't punish bad actors. It just watches. BTC has 15,000+ "nodes" and 3 mining pools run the show. How is that different from trusting 3 companies? 15,000 spectators don't decentralize 3 mining pools

How in the world did something that is ACTUALLY based come out of Hollywood?