52-80

Like the norks not having actual democratic representation of the people, “antifa” has nothing to do with opposing fascism. That term is a cudgel used by ugly societal-rejects as an avenue to rebel against normal society. Probably because they hate their parents (you know, the true and original oppressors in their miserable lives).

It comes with USB. Im sold.

The North Korean government is a Democratic People’s Republic, and some folks think that’s a bad thing?

As sure as the sun rises, there is always something fucktarded about young activists on almost every topic they ever wade into. Thats why they attract derision - its just so easy. The real sad thing is when gullible adults run cover for them.

Guys, when noted tabloid guardian writes “thousands protest against Israel”, it doesnt mean the people are “anti-israel”. Its especially more true if you write it in bold burnt orange text. (Will you extend this interpretive generosity towards people protesting against immigration, for example?) Its a silly singing contest, yes. But instead of recognizing the prima facie ABSURDITY of thousands of people protesting a single 20 year old girl participating in a silly singing contest, led by a teenager otherwise known for climate activism (what a high credibility icon!)….youre contorting yourself inside out to search for the REAL nuance. Fella, you are lost in the sauce.

You didnt remotely answer my question. I asked why the people who interrogated each of pronghorns posts and sources, didnt do when it came to the visegrad24 post. All of them are inarguably the same tone — against the protestors. You counter-asked “why is pro-palestine framed as anti-israel”? Because greta thunberg, subject of the tweet, literally said this Not wanting Israel to have participation is not anti-israel? Is protest “against Israel” not anti-Israel or is the guardian also wrong in its framing too? Then you submitted a bunch of personal statements which i didnt ask for and am frankly not interested in. I dont say that to be insulting, I say that because I didnt have suspicion of your anti-whatever and dont think the honesty of your beliefs need to be brought to trial.

It very well could be. But that ‘baggage’ has never been dug up in the Ukraine thread while they were busy sniffing out the ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ accounts. The point being that people arent principled or consistent in whether they care about the message vs the messenger, they just cherry pick their vector of attack based on political alignment.

Can you explain why its always the author of the tweet, or even the sharer of the tweet, that becomes the subject of litigation, except when its visegrad24. Is it because people find it easiet to discredit the messenger than the message? I believe it was bill shakespeare who said “a rose by any other name would post such a tweet”

Twitter truthers, Is visegrad24 trustworthy because its pro-ukraine or is visegrad24 untrustworthy because its pro-israel 😓

It's important to remember that most activists participate as a matter of fashion, not as a matter of principle.

if a company has a presence on facebook or twitter i use that first. gets things in writing and, often, things get solved much more quickly and painlessly. surender in bangladesh pretending to be herb in overland park doing the responding. their rolling 12mo sales figure are extremely stable and still growing. starbucks imo is not a coffee company. its a sugary-drink company. in a big city its a reliable place to piss or use as impromptu rendevouz spot.

But yes, its an absurd measurement. Whether a dude was worth $700M or $1.3B at age 29 or age 33 is beside the point. That the worlds economic system rewards winning competitive endeavors is completely "natural". The reward being determined by actual consumers of those products, even if you yourself are not one directly. Out there is a person or a firm that's really wealthy from being the best at mining and refining silicone. And another one that's good for turning it into wafers. And another one that's good at designing chips and circuitry and boards. And another that's good at writing low level software, and high level software. And another one at making radio antennas, and LCD displays, and ad infinitum. And they're all fucking rich and have yachts and college protestors all over will decry them as ruthless capitalists and shit. And the cumulative result of all of that is now there exists a handheld device that Americans use for 4-5 hours a day, everyday, for 4-5 years, and it'll have cost them a total of 20 hours of average gross wage. That's fucking amazing. People being allowed - encouraged, even - to pursue wealth by creating things that other people value is a good thing. What does it matter if they were seeded with outside money or parental money. And anyway if you have a problem with that, you have a problem specifically with inheritance tax, not with "the system". It's pretty cool that normal people have the option to get basically whatever food they want, whereas in the past they were limited to 2 pizzerias and 3 chinese shops in their city. I don't use Doordash, I don't contribute to their revenue, I don't buy their stock . But the mere fact that they're rich doesn't make you or me poor. A lot of this grumble is really just driven by ego.

Oculus only needed to raise to Series B, and sold for $2B. With 25% equity, Palmers' shares in FB would've been worth $1B in 2016 or if he converted to SPX wouldve been 2019. He also would've had a massive chunk of Anduril, which landed a $1B deal with DoD before he turned 30. Put in a tech multiple and Anduril by itself is in the diez-commas club. Doordash's 2020 S-1 (IPO) filing revealed co-founder Stanley Tang was 27 and Andy Fang was 28. Only Tony Xu was 36. The IPO also went bonkers as it was offered at $102 and basically opened double and stayed there in the $200s while those dudes were in their 20s.

Thats already how it works in effect today. What do you suppose the scatterplot of # employees vs CEO pay look like for the country?

You are looking at the math backwards. The adjustment isnt communicating that $280k (equivalent of $35k in 1967) is the lower class threshold. It’s communicating that in 1967, 35% of households earned $4.5k or less. In 2020, only 26% of households earned that little in equivalent dollars (=$35k nominal). Over time, there are more people in the higher brackets, and fewer people in the lower brackets - based on dollars adjusted for what it buys

When they say “in constant 2020 dollars” it literally means it was adjusted using cost of living (CPI) referenced in 2020. I.e. the earnings surveyed in 1965 was adjusted *upwards* to 2020 equivalent to account for cost. (And 2020 was used because that was the last publication from the Census https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html) Hey man…different size for different guys

I wouldnt have guessed that ratio but considering net wealth and real estate contribution its plausible. By memory I know it should lag HK and Singapore which surprises people.

What does it actually mean that a system disdains that - and why is societal value on personal ambition bad? Your industrious neighbor founds a new company called Lulumelon transforming lycra into yoga pants for fat people. Youre not in the market. But fat people love the product and voluntarily reward the company with success. Your neighbor is massively wealthy and also generated new value in the economy. Why is that bad for you?

the “middle” class is shrinking because…theyre moving upwards. OK, and how would you measure that?

When adjusting for household size, as households were larger in the past Paper: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf Sorry, doomers