vorleon

new video youtu.be/To_anrb29K0?si…

POV: You are a Hasan Piker fan in a private channel

Absolutely disgraceful the city allows this to continue. When will @ZohranKMamdani and @JulieMenin put an end to this abuse?

@ayatr0llah whilst also living in the tallest building in the picture

Subway takes guests will say this is evil

@joinshiftX Shift

Today, we're launching shift. We're starting by cleaning your apartment in New York City, for free. Here's how it works. Book a shift cleaning. A vetted shift operator comes to your home wearing one of our devices. They clean. They leave. You pay nothing. In exchange, we record the cleaning. Robotics is being built on data about how people do daily tasks, and the value of that recording is what funds the service. Anything personal in it is anonymized before the recording is processed. By now, you have heard about the shift to AI more times than you can count. About the shift toward you, the part where you actually feel it, you have heard almost nothing. Shift is what starts to make it concrete, in specific cities, with specific services. Today, cleaning in New York. Soon, handymen, repairs, and errands across the globe. And this is just one side of shift, with more on the way. Comment “shift” and we’ll send you an early access link.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 Tier 6 shields the MTA from pensioning anything over the $21k cap. If an engineer makes $100k in variable, $79k is blocked. Rolling that premium into base salary bypasses the statutory cap and explodes the pension liability. Major L for you buddy

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You applied a system-wide mean to the specific subset of engineers triggering the penalty. Those guys are outliers pulling $100k+, not the $26k average. Using the general mean to measure the extreme tail is statistical illiteracy.

The LIRR’s “overtime” includes things which do not include working “over time” at all. Defenders pretend this category doesn’t exist, and claim understaffing. It’s like how veterans’ organizations switch back and forth between veterans being seriously disabled, and it “just being the rules” that you don’t actually have to be seriously disabled to get disability.

NRSC is also actively scrubbing their website on Ken Paxton releases. So embarrassing.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The $100k+ overtime figure is literally from the article YOU linked. You just called your own source an 'unsupported claim' because you didn't read it. You shouldn't continue to engage; you should log off and take the L

@vorleon @captgouda24 Those unsupported claims of facts are irrelevant to your claim I don't understand averages, perhaps if you spent more time looking for payroll data and less time slinging dumb insults this conversation would have been productive. Why should I continue to engage with you?

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 I'm asserting you don't understand averages. $26k includes the entire LIRR. ALL engineers are dual-certified, and top earners pull $100k+ in variable pay. The cap strips out $79k+. $79k is the vast majority of $100k. You are fundamentally out of your depth

@vorleon @captgouda24 You're dodging a pretty simple question - are you asserting that 5k is "the vast majority" of 26k or are you acknowledging that your claim was factually incorrect by a significant margin?

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 If the average variable pay ($26k) already exceeds the Tier 6 cap ($21k), then shifting premium pay into the base salary explicitly unlocks and balloons the pension liability

@vorleon @captgouda24 Do you have any payroll data to back up that claim? Payroll data says that the average LIRR worker had 26k in annual variable pay and you previously conceded that 21k of that is factored into the pension. yahoo.com/news/articles/…

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 Tier 6 already strips the vast majority of variable penalty pay out of the pension calculation via the cap. The "corresponding pension liability" you claim to be saving from the larger group doesn't legally exist to be offset

@vorleon @captgouda24 That's incorrect, increased base pay and corresponding pension liability for the new small subset of dual-engine engineers can mathematically be offset by reductions in penalty pay and corresponding pension liability for the larger current subset of dual engine engineers.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You claimed: "If the base pay premium is less... this reduces comp spend." That directly conflicts with the formula. Your equation only shows a "reduction" because you completely deleted the 30-year compounding FAS liability

@vorleon @captgouda24 Quoting the formula only proves that I made a math error if you can identify a statement that I made that it conflicts with. You've failed to do that and therefore you're still sitting on your forfeit.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The formula is Pension = FAS × Years × Factor. Converting capped variable pay into permanent base pay increases the FAS variable for 3 decades of payouts. Describing an algebraic relationship is math. I'm sorry I didn't write it out in crayon

@vorleon @captgouda24 That's not a math error, it's just an unsupported claim you've made. If you're going to keep posting, please try to learn what math is so that you can stop loudly forfeiting.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 The math error is basic algebra: trading capped variable pay for an uncapped base hike geometrically balloons the 30-year pension multiplier. Ignoring compounding tail-risk to claim short-term 'savings' isn't a difference of opinion, you lack financial literacy

@vorleon @captgouda24 It appears you've given up on attempting to prove I made any math error whatsoever, much less catastrophic enough to support your claim, which means you have forfeited and taken the L. Have a nice rest of your day.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You conceded your entire economic proposal rests on the union voluntarily taking a net lifetime loss just to balance your math. Now you're throwing 'no u' insults because you have nowhere left to go. Take the L and enjoy your Friday.

@vorleon @captgouda24 It's very much not, there's a hilarious irony in you accusing me of mathematical illiteracy just because you have regular illiteracy.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 A financial model that requires the counterparty to voluntarily lose money just to balance your ledger is the literal definition of mathematical illiteracy

@vorleon @captgouda24 None of that defends your little "mathematically illiterate" jab, the last sentence seems to implicitly acknowledge that the math works to the point where you're skeptical the union will go for it.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 You are trading a strictly capped variable premium that ends at retirement for a permanent bump to FAS that pays out for 3 decades of retirement. Only way your math 'reduces spend' is if the union voluntarily negotiates a massive net pay cut during their working years

@vorleon @captgouda24 You're saying that as if it's categorically true and it's just not. You obviously haven't even attempted to do the math and your "mathematically illiterate" line was just a flimsy attempt to insult me.

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 A hypothetical short-term payroll saving doesn't negate compounding a higher Final Average Salary over a 30-year retirement

@vorleon @captgouda24 That's not what everyone means and is nonsensical within the context of what you wrote and your claim that I'm "mathematically illiterate." If the base pay premium for the dual-engine engineers is less than the % of days spent doing dual engine work, this reduces comp spend

@EricHogue0 @captgouda24 When I said 'everyone,' I clearly meant 'everyone in your hypothetical new tier.' Tier 6 caps pensionable variable pay @ ~$21k. By converting that variable premium into a higher base salary, you bypass the statutory cap and permanently inflate the pension liability for that group

@vorleon @captgouda24 It's a gotcha because you kept incorrectly claiming that my proposal would "raise the entire floor" and "guarantee a higher pension baseline for EVERYONE." You're struggling with the basics of reading and responding to what I've written.

@StochasticStat1 @trashbaby40k @jbarro It makes it bulletproof. Economic rent is the market payment for a structurally scarce asset. The MTA demands dual-certification; the union controls the inelastic supply. The resulting premium is a rent AND a market rate. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

@vorleon @trashbaby40k @jbarro Do you think that redefining “market rate” to mean the same thing as “monopoly rent” makes your original argument stronger or weaker?

This is a key thing about "overtime" pay for LIRR workers: sometimes, "overtime" doesn't even mean they worked extra hours