Mark Packard

@murlichandr @xxChessMaster Yes, and promotion to knight captures black's queen.

@xxChessMaster Only when under promotion to knight, white can win or else black will check mate white when queen promotion. Brilliant queen sacrifice turned into a winning game for black.

Brilliant Queen Sacrifice!!🤯 But why?🤔

Thanks @profgoose for the 🧵& featuring this work with @faubusiness colleague @BryanPCutsinger We find 87.5% of programmatic accreditor-association pairs are legally embedded or identical. In a fresh run of the data this morning, I also find that higher structural entanglement is associated with lower grad rates and higher borrower delinquency. Important context as the committee works through the governance proposals at @usdoegov this week!

@shahbazbabbarpk @ImShahinyan Kc5

@ImShahinyan Bishop to C7.

White mates in 2 How quickly can you solve this? 🤔

@rishimaker @xxChessMaster *Kxd4

@rishimaker @xxChessMaster How is Nd4 a solution? I don't see it. Black isn't in check and can play Qxd4. And how does Bd4 block mate? Nf2 is still mate?

White to move and checkmate in 2 moves!

@titterboy2 @xxChessMaster Ah, Pd4. Good call.

@mdpackard @xxChessMaster Qxa7, d4 Nf2+, Kd5

@johnmangili @xxChessMaster Doesn't put K in check. Black has Bxd4 and Qxd4

@xxChessMaster Nd4!

@P_Salvat @xxChessMaster Black has Bd4 and Qd4

@xxChessMaster Qb4+ and checkmate in the Next one.

@GMIgorSmirnov Q to h1 Black's move. Pawn is stuck. A rook must move. Wherever it moves, white rook takes, checkmate. If black's rook takes white rook (a1 or h8), white queen takes black rook, checkmate.

Can you solve this puzzle in 60 sec? White mates in 2 🤔

Do you manage your company efficiently? Do you run a tight ship? If so, you probably think you've set your company up for success. But you didn't. You've set it up for failure. Efficiency is the wrong mindset for business leaders. It's maximalist thinking in a world of endless change and growth. You need to think like an entrepreneur. You need to BE an entrepreneur. amzn.to/4uxtHtX

If you're interested in entrepreneurship, or applied Austrian economics, you'll enjoy Venture Mode by @hhhastings and @mdpackard: venturemode.biz

New book just released! Venture Mode. This is a fun one. @hhhastings and I take aim at universities, and business schools specifically, as root causes of bad business leadership. Learn how to get your business out of "administration mode" and into "venture mode"! a.co/d/09ZcMUfl

My colleague @siriterjesen has written a fascinating and I think important essay on the socially healing power of connecting with our genealogical roots. There are some great tools available to do just that. theepochtimes.com/opinion/common…

@RyanDGriggs @PerBylund Ha, we actually enjoy finding things we disagree on, but it's pretty rare.

@PerBylund @mdpackard Gosh not you guys too Kidding, kidding…

Voting in general elections is a claim on power. To construe it as somehow a "defensive" act is a severe case of delusion. It is not. You literally support someone's quest for rule through the State. And you choose to play the game. Thus, you share responsibility for the outcome.

@PerBylund Yeah, I get that. But the problem is that we're already embedded with an existing institutional order. Choosing to live *as if* we existed in a different institutional order doesn't work. By your logic, you should also never pay taxes, no?

@mdpackard The problem is exactly the subjection of rights (principle) to efficacy (preference), often by way of adopting consequentialism as rationale.

@gia99715 @PerBylund I'd never claim Per "can't grasp" something. He's corrected my thinking more than I have his, I'm quite sure.

Even the spiritus rector of the Institute he represents (sometimes more, sometimes less accurately) sees it that way. Either he can't grasp it, or he's too proud to admit it; either way, he's, of course, making an error here. Rothbard addressed it for what it is: a matter of common sense. mises.org/mises-wire/rot…

Unsurprisingly, Stiglitz didn't read the book.

@PerBylund 🤔 I don't think you've thought this fully through. I'm curious, how do you think one achieves a rights-based order when embedded within an existing order of weak rights protections?

@mdpackard Full circle, then. You're committing the very error I addressed in the thread.

And what does not voting for them get you? Your not voting means nothing to the system. It welcomes your defiance. If you want to delegitimize the State, not voting isn't it. Civil disobedience has worked, but rarely. Revolution has been the most successful in history, but at an immense cost. But some countries have in fact reduced State power through the political system. It's rare, sure, but it IS possible. So your claims defy empirical reality.

@mdpackard In a world where politicians do not lie and deliver what they promise, you could have an argument (but not a case). We don't elect policies; we elect politicians. And voting for them gives them power over the State, regardless of the rare exception of a good person.