Victor F

@america Why not truly help those citizens get ids? ffs he's making dems red handed cheaters and politically weaker where there should be balance

Senator Chuck Schumer says the SAVE America Act would remove 25 million people from the voter rolls. Just a reminder that the bill would require photo ID and citizenship verification in order to ensure that only American citizens are voting in U.S. elections.

Saying broadly "equal things for everyone" is a fallacy since all male traits do not equal all female traits. I agree there should be no bias when tasks can be performed to same standards by either male or female. This includes the uncomfortable, dirty, dangerous realms to work/fight in that were once maternally prohibitive but haven't been since the industrial revolution.

@mojo_grace @TriScaleArt @johannesmkx No one is saying have the roles reversed, we just want equal things for everyone, it shouldn’t be based solely on your gender.

Women in the West have *never* been collectively oppressed by men. This never happened. But feminism told women to hate men. Instead of slapping these messengers of hate in the face, women simply did as they were told and started hating men without question. They say, "women weren't allowed to vote" but they don't explain that 1) men invented democracy and 2) men got the vote in exchange for military conscription and 3) men returning from war used their vote to vote for universal suffrage. They say, "women weren't allowed to open bank accounts", but they don't explain that married men used to be held responsible for their wives' debts. This changed around the 1960s when banks started holding women responsible for their own debts. They say, "women weren't allowed to drive cars" but don't explain that early cars were very hard to drive, even by muscular men, and were extremely dangerous. Men invented cars and then made cars easier and safer to drive for women as well. They say, "women weren't allowed to have an education", but they don't explain that most men also didn't have an education and that elite women had private teachers. They say, "women didn't get money for their work", but they don't explain that most men also didn't get money for their work because most men were farmers producing food for their families to eat. Do you think women cared to look up these facts? Do you think women ever questioned feminism's hatred? No, they will rather accuse me of "mansplaining" and report my account for "hate speech". Feminism is a cult of evil man haters who have twisted history in order to condemn men for crimes they never committed WHILE opening the borders to rapists and then jailing good men who instinctively want to defend their people for "racism". If this is what the majority of women want, then I wish you good luck fighting the Russians because you'll have to do it yourself. You can die in a ditch yourself because I don't care about your stupid society. Why should I?

We were hunter-gathers for 1.8 million years until ~12,000 years ago when agriculture started. Male/female physiology and roles evolved primarily over this very long history. Technology has only recently changed the game but vestiges remain. Recent cultures and ideologies are indeed a whole different topic to themselves

@mojo_grace @TriScaleArt @johannesmkx They did, they were farmers, laborers, the other stuff were simply prohibited to women. Don’t think throughout history no one woman wanted to help. If you have it now, it happened back then too. Don’t even get me started on cultures traditional gender roles too

@TriScaleArt @njp_1 @johannesmkx this all should be incredibly obvious, but realities' circumstances are illusive without deeper reasoning (as you've nicely done)

@njp_1 @mojo_grace @johannesmkx (...) women's "resource" (eggs) were more scarce. So men were more disposable. They could be "sacrificed" to the dangerous tasks more readily. This incurs certain social heirarchys being built to balance things (along with paternity uncertainty, mental capacities, etc.) (...)

Yes, women could have done all things men have done at any time in history, but they did not for reason. What would need to happen for roles to really reverse beyond mocking male roles & ego? Maybe men grow pussies to be equal? (see where this is going?) We can't be the same or equal, and that's a really good thing for humanity. Forgo victimism; instead find the perpetual feminine superpowers like creation, family, community, and societal growth. 🙏

@TriScaleArt @mojo_grace @johannesmkx Feminism could exist in any time and place, people were just too pussy to implement anything, it took too damn long.

@amuse here's a person with no place in history

POLITBURO: Founding member of the oligarchy, Elizabeth Warren deciding how to spend Elon Musk's wealth.

@njp_1 @johannesmkx There's nothing stopping men from giving birth, is there? nowhere is nature equal

@johannesmkx And yet we come to the same thing every time, why couldn’t women just have equal opportunity since the beginning, why wait for soooooooo long. Every time it’s “men ALLOWED you to have this XYZ” it shouldn’t be like that. Don’t you get it?

@MelissaLaT87883 @johannesmkx Not equal until men can give birth, women muscular, and other traits shared. Different is different, and it's meant to be.

@johannesmkx This is seriously nuts. If we are all created equal, we are all equal. I dont need, or want, my debts taken care of. I generally dont hate men, but for you and those men that think like you, I can make an exception.

@johannesmkx Misandry is alive and well... though may be in self-diagnostics mode

@elonmusk @SurmountInvest Reserves are built with supply-demand disruption cycles. Fluffy marshmallow needed

Better just to send money directly to the people from the Treasury. So long as the increase in goods & services exceeds the increase in the money supply, which will be the case with AI & robots, there will not be inflation. In fact, my prediction is that we will desperately be fighting deflation!

BREAKING: JD Vance just admitted the White House plan is to take ownership of every major AI company in America. This is the largest reshaping of American capitalism since the New Deal. And almost no one in finance is talking about it yet. Here's why this is a much bigger story than it sounds: Vance didn't pull this idea out of nowhere. He said it on the latest "The Diary of a CEO" this week: "The president is supportive of the United States owning these big AI companies. He likes the idea as sort of a sovereign wealth fund idea of the United States taking some stake in these AI companies." Read that again. The Vice President of the United States confirmed the administration wants equity in OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI. Not regulate them. Not tax them. Own them. It gets crazier. The host pointed out that Bernie Sanders wants the public to own 50% of AI companies. Vance's response: "He likes that idea. I don't know that he would say 50% but he does like that idea." And the template already exists: Last August, the Trump administration converted Intel's CHIPS Act grants into equity. The government took a 10% stake. Cost basis: $20.47 per share. Total investment: $8.9 billion. Intel closed Thursday at $133.82. That stake is now worth $67 billion. A $58 billion gain in 10 months. A 650% return. Now they're running it on AI. Let's do the math on what that means: OpenAI is valued at $852 billion. Anthropic is fielding $800 billion bids on the secondary market. xAI merged into SpaceX at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX IPO'd and closed day one near $2.1 trillion. Add Meta AI, Google DeepMind, and the AWS infrastructure layer. You're staring at $5 trillion in AI value openly being considered for partial nationalization. A 10% stake across that universe is $500 billion. Bigger than every hedge fund in America combined. Vance laid out the reasoning himself. The industrial revolution made rich people way richer. Workers stagnated. The political consequences were catastrophic. His exact words: "We're going to wake up and we're going to realize that rich people have gotten way richer." Translation: the White House thinks letting OpenAI and Anthropic compound into multi-trillion dollar monopolies is a political time bomb. Their solution isn't to break them up. It's to own them. This is a completely different relationship between the state and capital than anything Wall Street has modeled. For 40 years, the Republican playbook was simple. Deregulate, cut taxes, let founders capture the upside. What Vance just described is the opposite... The line between US AI policy and US AI ownership disappears. The investors who survive this aren't the ones guessing which lab Washington takes first. They're the ones whose strategy was already running before the headline hit. Rules based. Automated. Indifferent to whatever the Vice President said on a podcast at midnight. That's exactly what Surmount was built for...

@TheAliceSmith ofc, that's what educated educators

The socialist view of economics is based on a mixture of DuckTales and Monopoly.

@MattMorseTV side-eye of the feeble minded

Liberal women don't even say anything, they just look at you like this and expect you to allow Western civilization to collapse.

@litcapital poco's illogic creates a public charge for unrealized capital losses. 🤣

Elon Musk just lost over $250 billion in net worth due to SpaceX’s stock decline today That’s the biggest single-day wealth decline in human history These numbers are largely illiquid, paper gains that cannot be realized Your wealth tax is an absolute joke

@KonstantinKisin best and saddest b/c haters hurt 'til the end

I think possibly the best thing about Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire is how angry it makes a bunch of losers who've never built a thing in their lives.

@Sierra_rak b/c there are many that need psyc help, have no filters, been fed distorted realities, become level up signal addicts in tribes, ... and just suffer endlessly from human frailties

Why is there so much hate for Elon Musk right now? He just became the world’s first trillionaire… And suddenly everyone’s furious. But this is the same guy creating thousands of jobs, building electric cars, reusable rockets, and pushing technology forward. What exactly is the crime? Succeeding? Innovating? Creating value? I genuinely don’t understand the level of hate.

@Ron_WatkinsQ Video from Feb 27 tastes stale 👎

🚨 BREAKING: SecWar Pete Hegseth reveals that after IMMENSE pressure, Scouting America — formerly the Boy Scouts — has CAVED to demands they go back to separating males and females in showers, tents and intimate spaces They're also OVERTURNING woke, DEI policies

@dwarkesh_sp Capitalism will flesh AI out over next decade When quantum compute pairs up magic box opens ..😅

Andrej Karpathy thinks AGI's impact on the economy will just be folded into the existing rate of growth. AI will be barely noticeable in GDP statistics. When he came on the show, I pushed back, saying AGI will cause a massive jump in productivity and growth. Watch our back-and-forth on this:

@ArthurMacwaters Courage of Hobbits was a true force against the dark

In LOTR, the shire spent so long sheltered from evil that it began to think evil did not exist. The west is like the shire. We must save the shire.

@elonmusk @brivael (less demand for long range transmission)

@brivael Edison was brilliant too. AC was the right choice back then, but DC is the right choice today, as solar, batteries, electric cars and computers all use DC. Many years from now, there will not be much AC left.

Edison was the incumbent. He ran a smear campaign to bury the future, publicly electrocuting dogs and even a horse to convince the public that Tesla's alternating current was lethal, and he lobbied to put AC in the electric chair so people would associate it with death. Pure FUD to protect his book. Tesla was the actual genius. He saw the system that would power the entire planet, and the politics buried him alive. Elon is not the Edison of our time. He is the Tesla of our time, except this time the genius wins.

@jaynitx compromise or have a dictator decide to avoid conflict when truth is illusive

Jeff Bezos reveals why compromise is one of the worst ways to resolve a disagreement "An example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise. If I say the ceiling is 11 feet and you say 12 feet, we say let's call it 11 and a half. That's compromise" "The advantage of compromise is it's low energy. But it doesn't lead to truth" "Another really bad resolution mechanism is who's more stubborn. Two executives disagree, they have a war of attrition, and whichever one gets exhausted first capitulates. You haven't arrived at truth, and this is very demoralizing" "Escalation is better than a war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say, we can't agree, we like each other, we're respectful, but we strongly disagree, we need you to make a decision" "Exhausting the other person is not truth seeking. Compromise is not truth seeking"