Haitham Gad

@claudeai Please stop repeating yourself and invest in your voice interface.

@browsercompany Now that Arc is in maintenance mode, any plans to open source it?

@faragino @NotionHQ I just bought this habit tracker. Was wondering if there's a way I can set a goal to track a habit only on workdays (not weekends)?

Look how customized my @NotionHQ habit tracker is!

How is this okay??

It's not a war. It's evil.

The EDA industry has been doing it for ages. A dynamic extension language (e.g. Lisp, Lua, etc.) supported by the tool + APIs for every action in the tool. For 37signals, you could probably have ONCE tools understand Ruby and ship it with a Ruby API that allows for tool programmability.

I also really want to bring modding to commercial productivity software. The gaming industry showed us the way three decades ago, but we never followed up, because we became hooked on SaaS. Lots of work here to find good extension points and upgrade safety. Excited to explore!

This is what I loved about the early web. View Source taught me everything. Being able to see how commercial products are REALLY built is such an incredible learning resource. I’m very happy we are passing it on ❤️

@josephweb3 I want to join

Who wants to join my #buildinpublic group chat? We’re currently 12 All are #Indiehackers and startup founders Our goal is to have a safe place to: • Validate • Brainstorm • Share ideas • Ask questions • Share experiences Just reply “I want to join”

@BillAckman Considering he has your full support, he's likely a pro-israel racist and Islamophobe. Good to know where you stand.

My best and favorite investments come from a deep understanding of the importance of asymmetry, that is, by understanding the potential risk and reward, and making sure that the reward overwhelming compensates for the risk. I have made some great asymmetric investments at Pershing Square, and also personally in start ups My first venture capital investment returned 1,650 times my initial investment, and I am fortunate to have had a number of other great ones, but none quite so good as the first. I have learned that the key success factor for venture investments is assessing the founder. Over time, you learn to do so after making mistakes and developing and honing the skills to identify the best talent and leadership. I have learned to do the same at Pershing Square when we need to find new leaders for great companies that have gone awry. We have a high batting average for identifying leaders, a skill which we have honed over time, by learning from successes, and from the fortunately few mistakes we have made in leader selection. If you check our record for selecting talent, our track record has improved greatly over time to where our batting average is very high, and the rewards for hiring the right leader have been enormous. When you find the right leader and you can couple that leader with a great business that has lost its way, that's when the magic happens, and when massive value can be created. Recently, I found a great leader who is looking to run a huge business that has lost its way, where enormous value can be created, and where huge societal benefit is the resulting outcome, if the business can be turned around. The business has a great, albeit somewhat tarnished brand, massive resources, but it has been mismanaged for a long time. The result of all of the above is that the business' growth has slowed; its competitive position has deteriorated; its culture has become divided into warring factions, it is losing money, and only makes ends meet by additional borrowings, which explains a recent credit downgrade. The business is burdened with significant pension liabilities, high healthcare costs, a massive and wasteful bureaucracy, and an enormous amount of debt. There is a large amount of work to do, and it is going to be a major turnaround effort, but I believe I have found the right leader to make it happen. In order to hire this leader, we need a substantial majority of the shareholders to go along with us, as doing a turnaround like this one, requires a majority vote and a mandate for significant change. The problem is that the incumbent CEO has a large base of support and a huge incumbency advantage because the CEO we want to hire is not known to nearly all of the shareholders. The current CEO is well past his prime, and if he were available in the market for other opportunities, he would have no chance of getting any job, let alone be hired to run a business of this scale and quality. While the risk is high, the reward, if we are successful, is many, many multiples of the capital, time, and energy required. The investment in the business can be structured so that there is an enormous payoff if the leader is hired, but there is a lot of uncertainty about getting the CEO appointed. I recently made a large investment in this opportunity. The good news is that you can invest alongside me, no matter how small or large an investment you want to make. But your activism here is even more important, as it is going to drive much more value than capital. We need to win two proxy contests in a row in order to get the leader installed, and then the real work begins. If you haven't guessed by now, the business is the United States of America. You might be even more surprised to hear that the CEO I am looking to help hire is Dean Phillips, @deanbphillips, a 54-year-old, three-term Congressman from Minnesota who launched a run for the Democratic nomination on October 27th, last year. And he has limited nationwide name recognition. This is not a joke, I am totally serious. I met Dean two months ago. I have kept in pretty close touch with him over the last two months, and spent 90 minutes with him yesterday when he presented to nearly all of our employees, which inspired me to top up my initial $3,300 donation to his campaign. On Tuesday, I am wiring $1 million to wedeserve.org, a political action committee that supports Dean's run. This is by far the largest investment I have ever made in someone running for office, and I am making this investment at a high-risk, but critically important moment for his campaign. I am doing so because I believe that Dean Phillips would be a truly outstanding President of the United States, and I believe he has a credible path to winning the nomination despite what the oddsmakers may think. Now, let me tell you why I think he is the right choice, and why I think it is not only possible, but potentially is a more probable, worthwhile bet than one might expect. Dean is first an entrepreneur and a successful business leader. He is perhaps best known for bringing Belvedere Vodka to the U.S., and helping to grow the company, in partnership with his father, into a global brand, which they sold to LVMH. His second foray into consumer packaged goods was also a big success: Talenti gelato, which he sold to Unilever in 2004. I am a big fan of entrepreneurs and business leaders as they learn to overcome uncertainty, make do with limited resources, succeed despite enormous competition, and address the inevitable challenges that emerge over time. I have met, spent time with, and sat on the board alongside a number of the most talented business leaders in our country so I have developed a "spidey sense" for the most talented leaders. I am also a good judge of character and personal qualities in selecting business leaders for CEO roles. Dean is a first-class human being and person of character. He is a super-talented, highly-intelligent, and charismatic leader. And he is not just a business man. After Trump was elected, Dean decided to run for office in a Minnesota district that had not elected a Democrat since the 1950s. No one thought he had a chance, yet he won by a huge margin, and has been reelected now to a third term. Dean's character, credibility, and capabilities were recognized by his congressional colleagues, and he quickly moved from freshman congressman to leadership positions including Vice Ranking Member of the House Small Business Committee, and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East, Northern Africa, and Central Asia Subcommittee. He has also successfully led important bipartisan legislation. Dean wrote the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act with Texas Republican Chip Roy, helping small businesses keep their doors open and saving thousands of American jobs. Dean has also been a voice for oversight and transparency of the trillions of pandemic-related stimulus dollars, and has led the Problem Solvers Caucus in negotiations with the White House and Congressional leadership to deliver other bipartisan solutions for the American people. A Gold Star Son who lost his birth father in the Vietnam War, Dean attended Brown University, and earned his MBA from the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Business. The nonpartisan Lugar Center ranks Dean as the 13th most bipartisan out of 435 Members of Congress, and is the second most bipartisan Democrat. He has been named a Fiscal Hero by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and was recognized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with the Jefferson-Hamilton Award for Bipartisanship in the 116th and 117th Congress. Pershing Square is ideologically and politically diverse. One of the inspirations for my increased support for Dean is how well he resonated with the Republicans and more right-leaning members of our company, in addition to the centrists and Democrats in the room, when he visited us yesterday. He is an extremely charismatic and appealing leader. He exudes authenticity, and is direct and no BS in his answers to questions and his ideas for our country's future. Dean is someone that Republicans will respect and can vote for once they get to know him. He is committed to a bipartisan cabinet, and has the best shot of any of the candidates, in my opinion, to bring the country together. Dean understands that we won't get ourselves out of our fiscal mess without dramatically accelerating the growth of the country, and cutting costs. He has sensible views and ideas for addressing many of our countries most recalcitrant problems. I was impressed with both his command of what is needed to drive the economy and reduce the cost of government, in addition to his surprising command of foreign policy, which he has gleaned from his experience in the Congress and on the Foreign Affairs committee. Deans ideas make sense to me. For example, Dean believes we can eliminate the border crisis, stop the flow of illegal immigration, while preserving American values by still enabling legitimate asylum seekers to come in to the country. First, Dean believes in shutting our porous border using technology and surveillance systems combined with physical barriers where appropriate. What I didn't know until Dean explained it to us, is that the asylum exemption for coming to America is only triggered once someone physically crosses the border. This of course incentivizes migrants to cross the Rio Grande with the help of drug cartels who drain the ~$10,000 the migrants must scrape together to pay the cartels to get to America and cross the border. Dean wants to close the border to illegal immigrants, but preserve asylum by allowing migrants to apply only when they are outside our country, and admit them only when they are successful in court. He proposes that we build housing for migrants seeking asylum much more cheaply in their home country or Mexico while they wait to be processed in our system. The result is that migrants can preserve their funds that ordinarily would go to the drug cartels, giving them the initial capital to begin life in our country if and when they are approved for entry. This is but one example among many that he shared with us as he forthrightly and candidly addressed each of the questions we posed to him. Now how does he win? Dean has gone from zero to 26% in the polls for the New Hampshire primary in a matter of weeks, and I expect him to climb further and faster from here over the next 10 days before the vote. If he is as successful as I expect he will be, it will put him on the map, give him the name recognition he needs for the primaries that follow, and enable him to attract the funds and visibility he will need to succeed. Biden is polling poorly against @realDonaldTrump, and his numbers are only going to get worse as he ages, and he is not looking good as it is. There is also a reasonable chance that Biden is forced to withdraw for health reasons. As Dean rises in the polls and Biden deteriorates, the Democratic party is going to have to choose a candidate that can beat the Republican nominee. If by then, as I expect, Dean is polling substantially better than Biden against Trump, I predict that the party will choose Dean Phillips over Biden. The party will have no choice. None of the above can happen unless Dean makes a very strong showing in New Hampshire, and that's why I am frontloading my investment in his campaign now, and why I encourage you to invest if you like what you have heard. Dean has meaningful skin in the game as he has invested $5 million of his own capital in his run. This is how democracy happens. It is tragedy if our only choices are Trump and Biden. It is up to us. Please take a hard look at Dean Phillips. If you like what you see, you can support Dean here: dean24.com And you can write an even bigger check to the PAC that supports him, which can be found here: wedeserve.org, And you can learn more about him by watching some or all of these videos. I thought the All-In-Podcast with Dean is perhaps the best way to get a good sense of him, his views and policies. I have provided links to short and long duration interviews, which will give you a good sense of the man: Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud Ad 2:41 minutes: youtu.be/JHVlzhud9qI?si… All-In: 1 hr, 56 minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=1hh8lc… Bari Weiss, 3:51 minutes: vimeo.com/902410371/59f9… Bill Maher: 6:45 minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3cdZ… Megyn Kelly, 5 minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=egqOyM… Pod Save America: 1 hour, 38 minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=6P8Ii0…

It's not an "abstract" mentality. Israel is an oppressor and the Palestinian people are oppressed. These are facts backed by a long history of massacres, occupation, raping, illegal settlements, exile and other attrocities. For you to label this mentality "antisemitism" is an insult to the millions of Jews who abhor Israel's oppression.

Yesterday, @Harvard was sued by a group of students due to pervasive antisemitism on campus. The complaint is best described as devastating. Based on the alleged facts which are consistent with what I have heard from students and faculty on campus, and what I have seen with my own eyes, I expect that Harvard will lose. The complaint can be found below. It is a must read: kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo… I find it hard to construct Harvard’s defenses to these allegations. The explosion of antisemitism on campus is a direct result of the destructive DEI oppressor/oppressed ideology combined with failed leadership and poor governance. Another sad day for Harvard.

@KimIversenShow Exactly. He's so obvious.

Look at some of these comments “it’s about DEI! This is a good thing”. Unbelievably naive. This has nothing to do with DEI and none of his actions have proven its about DEI. He just says these magic words knowing a bunch of you will froth at the mouth and follow him blindly. Hes gearing up to implement his own censorship regime, Reverse DEI.

Bill Ackman is a Nikki Haley supporter. None of what he’s doing is about making societal change. This seems like an Op for Israel. Here’s Billionaire Bill Ackman coming to “clean up” our society…aka ensure proper Pro-Israel brainwashing… it’s amazing how many people are falling for this trap.

@Wickedlipid @KimIversenShow @BillAckman @Harvard And that's what he's counting on.

The ideological takeover of @Harvard is nearly complete. We are all stepping in just in time to save it, but it is going to be a fight.

@BillAckman @MIT Say you found palgiarism in a number of academic works from these institutions, does this justifies your wife's misconduct?

Last night, no one at @MIT had a good night’s sleep. Yesterday evening, shortly after I posted that we were launching a plagiarism review of all current MIT faculty, President Kornbluth, members of MIT’s administration, and its board, I am sure that an audible collective gasp could be heard around the campus. Why? Well, every faculty member knows that once their work is targeted by AI, they will be outed. No body of written work in academia can survive the power of AI searching for missing quotation marks, failures to paraphrase appropriately, and/or the failure to properly credit the work of others. But it wasn’t just the MIT faculty that did not sleep last night. The @Harvard faculty, its governing board members, and its administrative leadership did not sleep either. Because why would we stop at MIT? Don’t we have to do a deep dive into academic integrity at Harvard as well? What about Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, Dartmouth? You get the point. While we are going to do a detailed review of plagiarism at MIT, we are not going to be the only ones who do so. Every college and university in the world is going to have to do the same for themselves. They will do so because they will need to validate all plagiarism accusations, or someone else will do it for them. The best approach, however, is probably to launch an AI startup to do this job (I would be interested in investing in one) as there is plenty of work to do, and many institutions won’t have the resources to do it on their own. Perhaps more importantly, the donors are going to demand that the review is done by an independent third party. For who today is going to trust higher education to review itself? Consider the inherently irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Would you trust today’s university president to do an examination of their faculty? What are the chances that the reviews would be weaponized to go after faculty members whose politics were not favored by leadership? We have seen this before with other tools used by university presidents and their deans. Consider the weaponization of MeToo accusations, speech codes, and the other tactics of cancellation that have destroyed free speech on campus, and many faculty members’ reputations, careers, and their families. By analogy, who would trust even our most credible corporations with auditing their own financial statements? There is a reason why all public companies have independent auditors who are carefully examined by regulators to ensure they maintain quality, standards, accuracy, and independence. And what if a plagiarism review turned into an incredible embarrassment for the entire university? It could lead to wholesale firings of faculty. Donors terminating their donations. Federal funding being withdrawn, and a massive litigious conflagration where faculty members and universities sue one another about what is plagiarism, and what is not. Think about the inevitable destruction of the reputations of thousands of faculty members as it rolls out around the country, and perhaps the world. And maybe that’s a good thing. The Impact of Higher Education on Society and Our Country When I woke up on the morning of October 7th, my first thought was not that I was going to launch an effort to save higher education from itself. I had other more pressing concerns about the world, and I still have these concerns. But as we all know, our higher education system (HES) is critically important as it can affect and influence the minds of our younger generations, thereby profoundly impacting the lives of all of us. The HES can affect what’s taught to toddlers and what is taught in elementary and high schools, as ed schools train the next generation of teachers and superintendents, and design the curricula they teach. The HES can convince a generation that some of us are oppressors, and others are the oppressed, and provide justifications for what kinds and what degree of violence and terrorism are appropriate tools to address this perceived oppression. The HES can affect our medical establishments and the ethics of medicine, e.g., some of our most controversial procedures and medicines, and the advisability of their use on children, and so on. You get the point, I am sure. The HES affects our legal system, our ethics, and our basic understanding of right and wrong. It affects how we think about capitalism and our economic system, and how we address wealth inequality, taxation, monetary and fiscal policy, and consider universal basic income and other alternatives. It also affects religion and how it is practiced and no longer practiced around the country. It can advance a monetary theory which states that the U.S. as a sovereign nation has effectively no limit to its spending because it can just print new money without any consequences or loss of solvency. And then, of course, the graduates of our education system over time become the judges, the Supreme Court justices, the politicians, the members of the media, and the other people that influence and determine our way of life, and help us understand the truth, but whose truth? you might ask. The HES influences how our national voting system should be administered; the standards for eligibility to run for office; how the primary system works, and what it takes to qualify to be on a ballot in a state. I could continue, but I am sure that you already understand the power of the HES. You don’t need me to tell you how important it is. In light of the power of HES, those interested in power would of course desire to take control of our most prestigious and influential universities so that they could ultimately take control of our education system, our government, and then the country at large. The Power of AI and Its Impact on Plagiarism Now that we know that the academic body of work of every faculty member at every college and university in the country (and eventually the world) is going to be reviewed for plagiarism, it’s important to ask what the implications are going to be. If every faculty member is held to the current plagiarism standards of their own institutions, and universities enforce their own rules, they would likely have to terminate the substantial majority of their faculty members. Over the last few weeks and months, I have literally received hundreds of emails, texts, hand- and type-written letters and cards, and phone calls of support (and 10s if not 100s of 1000s of posts and replies on X) – from friends and strangers, alumni, faculty and students, senior leaders of foreign countries, U.S. senators and members of congress, high profile members of the media, and several presidential candidates – for my efforts to help address the problems at Harvard, MIT, Penn and the higher education system at large. All of that said, most have been pessimistic about the opportunity for necessary change, as nearly everyone believes that it will take decades to fix the problem because of the life tenure system for faculty. The good news, however, is that with AI, getting rid of tenured faculty is no longer as much of a challenge because it is much easier to fire faculty who have problems with their academic record. It is a near certainty that authors will miss some quotation marks and fail to properly cite or provide attribution for another author on at least a modest percentage of the pages of their papers. I say percentage of pages rather than number of instances, as the plagiarism of today can be best understood by comparison to spelling mistakes prior to the advent of spellcheck. For example, it wouldn’t be fair to say that two papers are both riddled with spelling mistakes if each has 10 mistakes, when one paper has 30 pages and the other has 330. The standard has to be a percentage standard. How pervasive are the spelling/plagiarism mistakes? is another question that should be asked. Does the purported plagiarism appear in a small minority of their papers or in the majority of their work? Importantly, the most productive and important scholars are at the greatest risk under the current system because the more papers and pages you have written, the greater the probability that you missed a citation or some quotation marks, and it is much more likely that someone will check, (until yesterday). Plagiarism is the biggest threat for the most outstanding and most cited scholars because if no one ever reads your work and you do not have a public profile (nor or married to a high-profile person), no one will ever take the time to look. The more impactful the work and the more important it is, the more likely it will be at risk of being reviewed for plagiarism. But if you have published only a dozen papers of modest length, and the papers are not particularly impactful or highly cited, the risk of having a large number of instances of plagiarism and having it be discovered should be relatively small. Oppenheimer The weaponization of AI for plagiarism has become the tactical nuke of the U.S. higher education system. That is potentially good news as the more I have learned about the HES, the clearer it has become that tactical devices and other powerful weapons may be required to win this war. That said, as we learned in Oppenheimer, nuclear bombs can win wars, but they can also create enormous collateral damage and massive loss of innocent lives. They can kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent civilians, so we need to be extremely careful about how these weapons are used. Because if the plagiarism nukes get into the wrong hands, even more damage can be done to our HES and the country. So what should we do? If you think about what plagiarism standards were designed for, the purpose was to protect scholars from the theft of their intellectual property. And protecting intellectual property is critically important as it is the lifeblood of our authors, composers, researchers, designers, architects, artists, companies, and effectively all modern institutions. Interestingly, while AI can identify plagiarism, AI itself is the ultimate plagiarist. Large language models are by design built off the work of others, as computers have no innate knowledge, at least not yet. [As a side note, I am sure all of us are looking forward to learning the outcome of the NY Times lawsuit against OpenAI in light of its importance.] As a result of AI, all institutions of higher learning are going to have to update their plagiarism standards. The good news is that no paper written by a faculty member after the events of this past week will be published without a careful AI review for plagiarism, that, in light of recent events, has become a certainty. But what do we do about papers written before today, which will inevitably fail an AI plagiarism test? The answer I believe is that there are different kinds of plagiarism, and it depends. Some plagiarism is due to the laziness of the author. Laziness is not a great excuse for a member of the faculty, but it does not seem like a crime to me. It is more a reflection of the competency and motivation of the faculty member. In the real world, employees can be fired for being lazy, but this can be challenging to do under the tenure system. Some plagiarism arises from being human, at least before AI systems. A tenured member of the faculty with thousands of pages of published work before the launch of AI systems is going to make some number of unintentional mistakes. The more papers they have published and the more total pages they have, the greater the likelihood of instances of plagiarism. Other kinds of plagiarism, however, are much more pernicious, like for example, when important ideas are intentionally stolen without attribution. The worst form of plagiarism would be a case where an author intentionally stole another person’s work and presented it as his own, and it represented an important part of the new paper. I expect that this kind is rare, but it is clearly outright theft, and should be treated as such. There remains, however, many open questions about plagiarism. For example: Can one use a definition from an online dictionary or encyclopedia without attribution? I honestly don’t know the answer. I have never seen WikiPedia or Dictionary.com cited in any paper. Before Business Insider emailed last night, I never thought about this before. And on this point, what was the standard 15 years ago for citing WikiPedia? Was it different then versus now? This also raises a more modern question: Is it ok to plagiarize from ChatGPT today? Or does it depend on the outcome of the NY Times case? You probably get my point by now. We are going to have to come up with new standards for plagiarism. I think the standard will ultimately be the same as the one the Supreme Court uses for pornography. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: We will know it, when we see it. I think universities will ultimately be forced to conclude that there are different kinds and degrees of plagiarism, and the punishment, if any, and the degree of its severity to the faculty member or student will have to be adjudicated based on the specific facts of each case. As a result of recent events, academic/plagiarism review committees at universities will have to be expanded, as this now becomes a very big job. New standards will have to be designed, and new approaches will have to be taken to ensure that plagiarism review committees are comprised of independent members whose politics, friendships, or otherwise do not affect their judgment in adjudicating these cases. How nefarious identified plagiarism is determined to be, I expect, will likely be a function principally of: (1) the nature and form of the plagiarism, (2) how pervasive it is in the scholar’s oeuvre, and (3) the nature and importance of what has been plagiarized, and perhaps to some extent, who or what has been plagiarized. I do believe that intent matters with plagiarism as it does in the securities laws. For example, mens rea, in Latin “guilty mind” (Source: Google search top of page), which is defined by Dictionary.com (!) as “the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused that plays an important role in determine[ing] the innocence or guilt of the accused in certain legal contexts.” This is not a great definition, but I will use it here in the interest of time. I think intent matters because character matters. If the plagiarism was truly unintentional (and there are ways to judge whether this is the case), then I wouldn’t question the character of the author. Unintentionality could simply be a result of rushing to meet a deadline, something all of us remember from our college days. Or it could be due to a misunderstanding or a lack of clarity as to whether one needs to cite Dictionary.com or the amorphous “Google” as I did above for the translation of the Latin words mens rea. In order to assess all of the above, we also need to know what the actual standards were at the time of the subject document’s creation. Universities will need plagiarism review boards to systematically review and adjudicate each of the cases individually. That’s the only fair way to judge whether plagiarism meets the standard for various forms of punishment or not. The legal and practical implications for not doing so will cause severe harm to the accused who is convicted by the panel, and create enormous legal liability for the university, as it will have to defend itself in cases brought by faculty members and students whose careers and lives have been harmed and/or destroyed by punishments and reputations have been irreparably harmed. Which brings us right back to where we started I did not originally seek Claudine Gay’s removal as President of Harvard due to plagiarism allegations. In fact, from the beginning I was simply trying to help her address the rise of antisemitism on campus. I encourage you to read the concluding section of my first letter to her. Unfortunately, she did not respond to my first letter or any of my efforts at my outreach to her, nor did the Corporation board. To this day, neither former President Gay or the Corporation board has ever responded to any of the three letters I wrote. I only sought former President Gay’s removal after her congressional testimony. And I didn’t just seek her removal, I advocated for the removal of all three university presidents who all happened to be women: a Black woman, a White Christian woman, and a White Jewish woman (there is some debate as to whether White should be capitalized, but I am following the Macarthur Foundation recommendation which appears first when you google the question). So far, I have only been accused of racism against Black people as a result of my advocacy for all three stepping down from their roles. I have not yet been accused of misogyny as far as I am aware. I have been ecumenical and color blind in my advocacy here. Please also note my post last night about why I believe the Chairman of MIT must resign for apparent tax fraud. I note that he happens to be a Jewish man. Am I am also an antisemite? Getting back to Kornbluth, Gay, and Magill; in my opinion and that of many others, they are failed leaders of our country’s most important institutions, and all three lack the necessary moral clarity that is critical for leaders, particularly during this challenging time in history. That is why I and many others believed that they should resign or be fired. I did not know anything about Claudine Gay’s academic record prior to others bringing this issue to the fore. When Gay resigned and was awarded a position on the faculty and continued to receive president-level compensation, I publicly questioned how the board could have approved her remaining on the faculty in light of the amount, nature, and degree of plagiarism that had surfaced in her work. In coming to my conclusion, I reviewed the undisputed 50 or so plagiarism allegations in 6 of her 11 publications, and relied somewhat on academia’s public assessment of her plagiarism, and her overall academic oeuvre and record. In short, I was convinced by others more expert than I, that her academic oeuvre was not of sufficient scale or quality, and that the plagiarism issue was sufficiently troubling that she was not qualified to continue as a senior member of the Harvard faculty, particularly at well-above market compensation for her continuing role. It looked like her lawyer did an excellent job negotiating a settlement, but that’s not how faculty positions should be awarded. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have had to form my own conclusions about plagiarism in her work. That should have been determined in a formal and transparent process by an administrative board comprised of independent members who could have judged her work without personal consequences to themselves or without the impact on the outcome from university politics. Unfortunately, I do not believe that such a committee exists at Harvard, but I welcome learning otherwise. All of above said, I thought Claudine Gay was a failed leader without regard to her academic record, and that’s why I thought she should not be president of Harvard. Lastly, a few thoughts on MIT and the media My wife, Neri Oxman, as you may well know by now, spent 15 years of her life at MIT before she left MIT and moved to New York. Neri’s published work is vast. She has published 74 peer-reviewed papers, 8 peer-reviewed book chapters, and numerous other journal papers and proceedings. But her written work is only a small portion of her life’s work. She has been awarded 15 patents for her technological innovations, not including recent patents pending. You might want to watch this video to learn more about her work oxman.com/mission In that Neri’s work is more about product design, architecture, and technological innovations, most of her intellectual property is represented by her patented and unpatented technologies, and in the physical manifestation of their forms, for which she shares credit with the other inventors, principally her students. Neri’s scholarship is breathtaking in its creativity, vast in its scale and enormous in its potential for impact. Often, her work also happens to be incredibly beautiful, which explains the MoMA and SFMoMA retrospectives of her work, and the 116 exhibitions in which they have been featured around the world, and the 22 of works which remain in permanent collections around the world. And yes, Neri is intensely human, and she makes mistakes as we all do. She also owns her mistakes, and learns from them. We both have learned many times from the experience that comes from making mistakes and learning from them. Neri has yet to vet yesterday’s plagiarism allegations, but she will get to them when she has time to do so. Notably the first 15 of the 28 examples that came from Business Insider’s “thorough review of her published work” were definitions of words or terms that Neri may have used from Wikipedia including the definition of: “weaving,” “computer graphics,” “computer-aided design,” “pain,” “manifold,” “heat flux,” “optimization,” and “sustainable design,” to name more than half of the examples BI calls plagiarism. Is this plagiarism? Let’s assume that in writing her dissertation Neri used Wikipedia as a dictionary for these terms and it is deemed to be plagiarism, does it any way affect the quality and originality of the research in her dissertation? I think that’s worth an important discussion among the experts. It does not strike me as plagiarism, nor do I think it takes anything away from her work. I am not sure who would even complain that they were not cited properly. I also wish I knew how to reach a human being at Wikipedia as my Wikipedia biography needs correcting, and could be meaningfully improved if there was someone I could speak to. I am sure that when Neri wrote her dissertation she thought that there was nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a dictionary. When I was a student, I remember having a thesaurus and a dictionary on my desk that I would consult when I wrote a paper and needed a synonym or a definition of a word. I never thought to quote or cite my thesaurus or dictionary for basic words, term or synonyms. The good news is that none of the above will interfere with Neri’s success or in any way diminish any of the technologies and innovations that she, her colleagues, and students have developed, and new ones that she and her team will create in the future. Now that all of her non-family time and energy is intensely focused on OXMAN, her success will largely depend on what comes next. And yes, I think she made a brilliant decision to leave academia behind. Neri left MIT in some part due to her marriage to me and her desire to start a family in New York, but she was also motivated by the opportunity to change the world, which she felt she had a greater chance of achieving by leaving academia behind, launching a start up in the form of a benefit corporation, and recruiting an extremely talented team of scientists, engineers, roboticists, synthetic biologists, plant biologists, material scientists, and more. OXMAN is still hiring, so if you are interested and possess unique and relevant talents and skills, and you are a wonderful human being, you should check out OXMAN.com, follow @NeriOxman, and go to OXMAN.com/contact. OXMAN has been in stealth mode for the last several years, but they have made a lot of progress. Neri and her 27 team members recently moved to a new 36,000 square feet research, design, and wet lab space that has taken several years to construct. OXMAN is in the process of developing a number of new technologies, which will lead to future product launches, some of which you will hear about later this year. On Journalism and the Media Over the last several days, we have seen some of the worst forms of journalism and how it operates. Business Insider gave Neri only several hours to respond to the reporter’s first request for comment for her story on Thursday. Bear in mind, we were on vacation and out of the country and did not have ready access to necessary source materials or decent WiFi, but Neri dropped everything, and responded politely and accurately to the allegations in the few hours she was given. Yesterday, at 5:19pm after sundown on Friday night, the same reporter sent a 12-page email to Fran who heads communications for Pershing Square. Bear in mind that Pershing Square and OXMAN have nothing to do with each other, other than the founder of one is married to the founder of the other. One should also understand that this Israeli woman, husband and child look forward to and celebrate Shabbat dinner with our family on Friday nights. continues below

@sweatystartup It's important to have people fighting for the greater good, but to count Bill & his wife among them is a grave mistake. He's fighting for his and his family's ego. The worst hasn't come out yet. x.com/bgrueskin/stat…

@adrian_horning_ 😄

Does anyone else thank Chat GPT for an good answer in the hopes it will give you better karma for future answers?

@sweatystartup First world problems

Why can’t I check in a hotel from my phone and walk directly to my room? They know I paid for the room. They have my information. I have my phone in my pocket. Wasting 10+ minutes at front desks to get plastic keys and give a credit card they already have for incidentals is ridiculous!!!

It's funny how you speak of DEI "canceling" people labeled as racists. Do you know how many people lost their jobs by being labeled "antisemitic" just for speaking up about Palestinian rights? Do you know how many are scared of losing their jobs if they were to speak up? Here's a founder kicked off his own company's board the day after he dared advocate for Palestinian rights: x.com/paulbiggar/sta…

In light of today’s news, I thought I would try to take a step back and provide perspective on what this is really all about. I first became concerned about @Harvard when 34 Harvard student organizations, early on the morning of October 8th before Israel had taken any military actions in Gaza, came out publicly in support of Hamas, a globally recognized terrorist organization, holding Israel ‘solely responsible’ for Hamas’ barbaric and heinous acts. How could this be? I wondered. When I saw President Gay’s initial statement about the massacre, it provided more context (!) for the student groups’ statement of support for terrorism. The protests began as pro-Palestine and then became anti-Israel. Shortly, thereafter, antisemitism exploded on campus as protesters who violated Harvard’s own codes of conduct were emboldened by the lack of enforcement of Harvard’s rules, and kept testing the limits on how aggressive, intimidating, and disruptive they could be to Jewish and Israeli students, and the student body at large. Sadly, antisemitism remains a simmering source of hate even at our best universities among a subset of students. A few weeks later, I went up to campus to see things with my own eyes, and listen and learn from students and faculty. I met with 15 or so members of the faculty and a few hundred students in small and large settings, and a clearer picture began to emerge. I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus. I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment. Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant. I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more. What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology. Under DEI, one’s degree of oppression is determined based upon where one resides on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whites, Jews, and Asians are deemed oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are deemed to be oppressed. Under this ideology which is the philosophical underpinning of DEI as advanced by Ibram X. Kendi and others, one is either an anti-racist or a racist. There is no such thing as being “not racist.” Under DEI’s ideology, any policy, program, educational system, economic system, grading system, admission policy, (and even climate change due its disparate impact on geographies and the people that live there), etc. that leads to unequal outcomes among people of different skin colors is deemed racist. As a result, according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist, or in other words, any merit-based program, system, or organization which has or generates outcomes for different races that are at variance with the proportion these different races represent in the population at large is by definition racist under DEI’s ideology. In order to be deemed anti-racist, one must personally take action to reverse any unequal outcomes in society. The DEI movement, which has permeated many universities, corporations, and state, local and federal governments, is designed to be the anti-racist engine to transform society from its currently structurally racist state to an anti-racist one. After the death of George Floyd, the already burgeoning DEI movement took off without any real challenge to its problematic ideology. Why, you might ask, was there so little pushback? The answer is that anyone who dared to raise a question which challenged DEI was deemed a racist, a label which could severely impact one’s employment, social status, reputation and more. Being called a racist got people cancelled, so those concerned about DEI and its societal and legal implications had no choice but to keep quiet in this new climate of fear. The techniques that DEI has used to squelch the opposition are found in the Red Scares and McCarthyism of decades past. If you challenge DEI, “justice” will be swift, and you may find yourself unemployed, shunned by colleagues, cancelled, and/or you will otherwise put your career and acceptance in society at risk. The DEI movement has also taken control of speech. Certain speech is no longer permitted. So-called “microaggressions” are treated like hate speech. “Trigger warnings” are required to protect students. “Safe spaces” are necessary to protect students from the trauma inflicted by words that are challenging to the students’ newly-acquired world views. Campus speakers and faculty with unapproved views are shouted down, shunned, and cancelled. These speech codes have led to self-censorship by students and faculty of views privately held, but no longer shared. There is no commitment to free expression at Harvard other than for DEI-approved views. This has led to the quashing of conservative and other viewpoints from the Harvard campus and faculty, and contributed to Harvard’s having the lowest free speech ranking of 248 universities assessed by the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression. When one examines DEI and its ideological heritage, it does not take long to understand that the movement is inherently inconsistent with basic American values. Our country since its founding has been about creating and building a democracy with equality of opportunity for all. Millions of people have left behind socialism and communism to come to America to start again, as they have seen the destruction leveled by an equality of outcome society. The E for “equity” in DEI is about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. DEI is racist because reverse racism is racism, even if it is against white people (and it is remarkable that I even need to point this out). Racism against white people has become considered acceptable by many not to be racism, or alternatively, it is deemed acceptable racism. While this is, of course, absurd, it has become the prevailing view in many universities around the country. You can say things about white people today in universities, in business or otherwise, that if you switched the word ‘white’ to ‘black,’ the consequences to you would be costly and severe. To state what should otherwise be self-evident, whether or not a statement is racist should not depend upon whether the target of the racism is a group who currently represents a majority or minority of the country or those who have a lighter or darker skin color. Racism against whites is as reprehensible as it is against groups with darker skin colors. Martin Luther King’s most famous words are instructive: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But here we are in 2024, being asked and in some cases required to use skin color to effect outcomes in admissions (recently deemed illegal by the Supreme Court), in business (likely illegal yet it happens nonetheless) and in government (also I believe in most cases to be illegal, except apparently in government contracting), rather than the content of one’s character. As such, a meritocracy is an anathema to the DEI movement. DEI is inherently a racist and illegal movement in its implementation even if it purports to work on behalf of the so-called oppressed. And DEI’s definition of oppressed is fundamentally flawed. I have always believed that the most fortunate should help the least fortunate, and that our system should be designed in such a way as to maximize the size of the overall pie so that it will enable us to provide an economic system which can offer quality of life, education, housing, and healthcare for all. America is a rich country and we have made massive progress over the decades toward achieving this goal, but we obviously have much more work to do. Steps taken on the path to socialism – another word for an equality of outcome system – will reverse this progress and ultimately impoverish us all. We have seen this movie many times. Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman doesn’t make one necessarily oppressed or even disadvantaged. While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history – a fact which is used by DEI to label white people as oppressors – it doesn’t therefore hold that all white people generations after the abolishment of slavery should be held responsible for its evils. Similarly, the fact that Columbus discovered America doesn’t make all modern-day Italians colonialists. An ideology that portrays a bicameral world of oppressors and the oppressed based principally on race or sexual identity is a fundamentally racist ideology that will likely lead to more racism rather than less. A system where one obtains advantages by virtue of one’s skin color is a racist system, and one that will generate resentment and anger among the un-advantaged who will direct their anger at the favored groups. The country has seen burgeoning resentment and anger grow materially over the last few years, and the DEI movement is an important contributor to our growing divisiveness. Resentment is one of the most important drivers of racism. And it is the lack of equity, i.e, fairness, in how DEI operates, that contributes to this resentment. I was accused of being a racist from the President of the NAACP among others when I posted on @X that I had learned that the Harvard President search process excluded candidates that did not meet the DEI criteria. I didn’t say that former President Gay was hired because she was a black woman. I simply said that I had heard that the search process by its design excluded a large percentage of potential candidates due to the DEI limitations. My statement was not a racist one. It was simply the empirical truth about the Harvard search process that led to Gay’s hiring. When former President Gay was hired, I knew little about her, but I was instinctually happy for Harvard and the black community. Every minority community likes to see their representatives recognized in important leadership positions, and it is therefore an important moment for celebration. I too celebrated this achievement. I am inspired and moved by others’ success, and I thought of Gay’s hiring at the pinnacle leadership position at perhaps our most important and iconic university as an important and significant milestone for the black community. I have spent the majority of my life advocating on behalf of and supporting members of disadvantaged communities including by investing several hundreds of millions of dollars of philanthropic assets to help communities in need with economic development, sensible criminal justice reform, poverty reduction, healthcare, education, workforce housing, charter schools, and more. I have done the same at Pershing Square Capital Management when, for example, we completed one of the largest IPOs ever with the substantive assistance of a number of minority-owned, women-owned, and Veteran-owned investment banks. Prior to the Pershing Square Tontine, Ltd. IPO, it was standard practice for big corporations occasionally to name a few minority-owned banks in their equity and bond offerings, have these banks do no work and sell only a de minimis amount of stock or bonds, and allocate to them only 1% or less of the underwriting fees so that the issuers could virtue signal that they were helping minority communities. In our IPO, we invited the smaller banks into the deal from the beginning of the process so they could add real value. As a result, the Tontine IPO was one of the largest and most successful IPOs in history with $12 billion of demand for a $4 billion deal by the second day of the IPO, when we closed the books. The small banks earned their 20% share of the fees for delivering real and substantive value and for selling their share of the stock. Compare this approach to the traditional one where the small banks do effectively nothing to earn their fees – they aren’t given that opportunity – yet, they get a cut of the deal, albeit a tiny one. The traditional approach does not create value for anyone. It only creates resentment, and an uncomfortable feeling from the small banks who get a tiny piece of the deal in a particularly bad form of affirmative action. While I don’t think our approach to working with the smaller banks has yet achieved the significant traction it deserves, it will hopefully happen eventually as the smaller banks build their competencies and continue to earn their fees, and other issuers see the merit of this approach. We are going to need assistance with a large IPO soon so we are looking forward to working with our favored smaller banks. I have always believed in giving disadvantaged groups a helping hand. I signed the Giving Pledge for this reason. My life plan by the time I was 18 was to be successful and then return the favor to those less fortunate. This always seemed to the right thing to do, in particular, for someone as fortunate as I am. All of the above said, it is one thing to give disadvantaged people the opportunities and resources so that they can help themselves. It is another to select a candidate for admission or for a leadership role when they are not qualified to serve in that role. This appears to have been the case with former President Gay’s selection. She did not possess the leadership skills to serve as Harvard’s president, putting aside any questions about her academic credentials. This became apparent shortly after October 7th, but there were many signs before then when she was Dean of the faculty. The result was a disaster for Harvard and for Claudine Gay. The Harvard board should not have run a search process which had a predetermined objective of only hiring a DEI-approved candidate. In any case, there are many incredibly talented black men and women who could have been selected by Harvard to serve as its president so why did the Harvard Corporation board choose Gay? One can only speculate without knowing all of the facts, but it appears Gay’s leadership in the creation of Harvard’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging and the penetration of the DEI ideology into the Corporation board room perhaps made Gay the favored candidate. The search was also done at a time when many other top universities had similar DEI-favored candidate searches underway for their presidents, reducing the number of potential candidates available in light of the increased competition for talent. Unrelated to the DEI issue, as a side note, I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president, as a university president requires more business skills than can be gleaned from even the most successful academic career with its hundreds of peer reviewed papers and many books. Universities have a Dean of the Faculty and a bureaucracy to oversee the faculty and academic environment of the university. It therefore does not make sense that the university president has to come through the ranks of academia, with a skill set unprepared for university management. The president’s job – managing thousands of employees, overseeing a $50 billion endowment, raising money, managing expenses, capital allocation, real estate acquisition, disposition, and construction, and reputation management – are responsibilities that few career academics are capable of executing. Broadening the recruitment of candidates to include top business executives would also create more opportunities for diverse talent for the office of the university president. Furthermore, Harvard is a massive business that has been mismanaged for a long time. The cost structure of the University is out of control due in large part to the fact that the administration has grown without bounds. Revenues are below what they should be because the endowment has generated a 4.5% annualized return for the last decade in one of the greatest bull markets in history, and that low return is not due to the endowment taking lower risks as the substantial majority of its assets are invested in illiquid and other high-risk assets. The price of the product, a Harvard education, has risen at a rate well in excess of inflation for decades, (I believe it has grown about 7-8% per annum) and it is now about $320,000 for four years of a liberal arts education at Harvard College. As a result, the only students who can now afford Harvard come from rich families and poor ones. The middle class can’t get enough financial aid other than by borrowing a lot of money, and it is hard to make the economics work in life after college when you graduate with large loan balances, particularly if you also attend graduate school. The best companies in the world grow at high rates over many decades. Harvard has grown at a de minimis rate. Since I graduated 35 years ago, the number of students in the Harvard class has grown by less than 20%. What other successful business do you know that has grown the number of customers it serves by less than 20% in 35 years, and where nearly all revenue growth has come from raising prices? In summary, there is a lot more work to be done to fix Harvard than just replacing its president. That said, the selection of Harvard’s next president is a critically important task, and the individuals principally responsible for that decision do not have a good track record for doing so based on their recent history, nor have they done a good job managing the other problems which I have identified above. The Corporation board led by Penny Pritzker selected the wrong president and did inadequate due diligence about her academic record despite Gay being in leadership roles at the University since 2015 when she became dean of the Social Studies department. The Board failed to create a discrimination-free environment on campus exposing the University to tremendous reputational damage, to large legal and financial liabilities, Congressional investigations and scrutiny, and to the potential loss of Federal funding, all while damaging the learning environment for all students. And when concerns were raised about plagiarism in Gay’s research, the Board said these claims were “demonstrably false” and it threatened the NY Post with “immense” liability if it published a story raising these issues. It was only after getting the story cancelled that the Board secretly launched a cursory, short-form investigation outside of the proper process for evaluating a member of the faculty’s potential plagiarism. When the Board finally publicly acknowledged some of Gay’s plagiarism, it characterized the plagiarism as “unintentional” and invented new euphemisms, i.e., “duplicative language” to describe plagiarism, a belittling of academic integrity that has caused grave damage to Harvard’s academic standards and credibility. The Board’s three-person panel of “political scientist experts” that to this day remain unnamed who evaluated Gay’s work failed to identify many examples of her plagiarism, leading to even greater reputational damage to the University and its reputation for academic integrity as the whistleblower and the media continued to identify additional problems with Gay’s work in the days and weeks thereafter. According to the NY Post, the Board also apparently sought to identify the whistleblower and seek retribution against him or her in contravention to the University’s whistleblower protection policies. Despite all of the above, the Board “unanimously” gave its full support for Gay during this nearly four-month crisis, until eventually being forced to accept her resignation earlier today, a grave and continuing reputational disaster to Harvard and to the Board. In a normal corporate context with the above set of facts, the full board would resign immediately to be replaced by a group nominated by shareholders. In the case of Harvard, however, the Board nominates itself and its new members. There is no shareholder vote mechanism to replace them. So what should happen? The Corporation Board should not remain in their seats protected by the unusual governance structure which enabled them to obtain their seats. The Board Chair, Penny Pritzker, should resign along with the other members of the board who led the campaign to keep Claudine Gay, orchestrated the strategy to threaten the media, bypassed the process for evaluating plagiarism, and otherwise greatly contributed to the damage that has been done. Then new Corporation board members should be identified who bring true diversity, viewpoint and otherwise, to the board. The Board should not be principally comprised of individuals who share the same politics and views about DEI. The new board members should be chosen in a transparent process with the assistance of the 30-person Board of Overseers. There is no reason the Harvard board of 12 independent trustees cannot be comprised of the most impressive, high integrity, intellectually and politically diverse members of our country and globe. We have plenty of remarkable people to choose from, and the job of being a director just got much more interesting and important. It is no longer, nor should it ever have been, an honorary and highly political sinecure. The ODEIB should be shut down, and the staff should be terminated. The ODEIB has already taken down much of the ideology and strategies that were on its website when I and others raised concerns about how the office operates and who it does and does not represent. Taking down portions of the website does not address the fundamentally flawed and racist ideology of this office, and calls into further question the ODEIB’s legitimacy. Why would the ODEIB take down portions of its website when an alum questioned its legitimacy unless the office was doing something fundamentally wrong or indefensible? Harvard must once again become a meritocratic institution which does not discriminate for or against faculty or students based on their skin color, and where diversity is understood in its broadest form so that students can learn in an environment which welcomes diverse viewpoints from faculty and students from truly diverse backgrounds and experiences. Harvard must create an academic environment with real academic freedom and free speech, where self-censoring, speech codes, and cancel culture are forever banished from campus. Harvard should become an environment where all students of all persuasions feel comfortable expressing their views and being themselves. In the business world, we call this creating a great corporate culture, which begins with new leadership and the right tone at the top. It does not require the creation of a massive administrative bureaucracy. These are the minimum changes necessary to begin to repair the damage that has been done. A number of faculty at the University of Pennsylvania have proposed a new constitution which can be found at pennforward.com, which has been signed by more than 1,200 faculty from Penn, Harvard, and other universities. Harvard would do well to adopt Penn’s proposed new constitution or a similar one before seeking to hire its next president. A condition of employment of the new Harvard president should be the requirement that the new president agrees to strictly abide by the new constitution. He or she should take an oath to that effect. Today was an important step forward for the University. It is time we restore Veritas to Harvard and again be an exemplar that graduates well-informed, highly-educated leaders of exemplary moral standing and good judgment who can help bring our country together, advance our democracy, and identify the important new discoveries that will help save us from ourselves. We have a lot more work to do. Let’s get at it.

@alemalohe Cool .. here's my website: rehashly.com .. logo is pretty basic. Did it myself on cuttle.xyz :)

🕵️ Pssst... Hey, you! Want a free logo? I'll design 28 logos in 28 days, drop your current logo or website below 👇. Every day for 28 days, I'll randomly select one and spend 10-20 minutes designing or redesigning it. No revisions! 😊🤙

By that argument, all Christians and Muslims are antisemites because they believe the Torah was modified and God sent messengers with new books to correct the deviation. Your argument also means you're anti-christianity and Islamophobic because you don't believe in the New Testament or the Qur'an. And why was the Torah revealed in the first place if God had already sent books to Abraham and many other prophets long before Moses? Are you saying that God doesn't have mastery over nature and couldn't protect those books from vanishing?

@AbdulKimJongUn @ceolawyer Actually it was appropriation. Without our experience at Mt. Sinai, you have nothing. To suggest that our Torah needed revision, or was desecrated is both antisemitic, and denying God's mastery over nature. Cope.

After accepting Islam, Gervonta Davis became Abdul Wahid Davis. Want to know why so many people are becoming Muslim? Because it’s an entire way of life, not just a religion. Look at the people of Gaza. Even after having their children murdered, their parents still praise God. Even after losing their homes, Palestinians are still grateful. Even when everyone else thinks all hope is lost, Muslims still believe in the generosity, kindness, and wisdom of our Lord Allah. Get to know Him and His Messenger Muhammad PBUH.

@Aron_Adler @dhh @ThePrimeagen Short of having dependent types and session types, which are both still in the realm of theory in my opinion, we're stuck with testing. Strongly-typed languages, in their current form, only offer minor improvements to verifying program correctness over weakly-typed languages.

@hgad @dhh @ThePrimeagen sadly not all properties/relationships/invariants can be encoded in types – not in those of mainstream languages anyway

sometimes i feel alone on twitter with my dislike of modern js

@Aron_Adler @dhh @ThePrimeagen And what prevents you from encoding all the properties you care about in types and doing away with tests?

@hgad @dhh @ThePrimeagen No, but you can scrap all the tests for properties that you can encode in your types, yes