overrun11

He appealed and it was affirmed by an actual moderator that it was against the TOS. He was allowed back on the platform after deleting the tweet as the linked thread explains.

So yes, he was banned for violating the TOS.

You can be banned for stating a verifiable fact if it's too inconvenient: https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1607733672635158528

> Political groups are not a protected status

Who cares? Something being legal does not make it good as I'm sure you know.

> You only pay taxes on profit.

That's the question isn't it? What is considered your profit depends on what costs you must amortize vs. expense in year one. I'm not super familiar with this legislation but the concern is that it shifts development costs that were previously expensed to now be amortized.

I think you’d see substantially more crime if the US incarcerated less people. The evidence is clear, released prisoners have a much higher rate of violent crime than the average person. I’m sort of confused where this meme that prisons don’t keep us safe comes from.

Removing people who commit violent crimes from the public should obviously decrease crime and I’ve never really heard a convincing counter argument. Usually when people make this claim they’re just badly misinformed and believe most prisoners are in jail for marijuana possession.

Have you ever been to a prison? It’s not a randomly selected group. The majority of prisoners are in for serious violent offenses, easily confirmed by looking at the data or speaking to anyone who works in a prison.

Qualified immunity pertains to civil liability and therefore wouldn’t be relevant to the parent comment’s suggestion.

> we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly.

I'd be interested to see evidence but I suspect we did see this? Retirement portfolios and housing prices (where the majority of elderly wealth is) ballooned.

> Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of American

The elderly are the richest Americans so this is consistent with the elderly getting wealthier.

Any evidence?

Google's average total compensation per employee is much higher than that, around $300k IIRC. You also need to back out cost of revenue to get a more accurate picture of return.

> We couldn’t have the workers collectively realizing their worth now, could we?

What is stopping them? If this were really true wouldn't we see at least a few examples of large worker collectives succeeding by now?

The median shareholder in Microsoft, Google and Amazon is likely a lower economic class than the median employee at these corporations if I had to guess.

The framing of ordinary workers getting the boot so fat cats can buy bigger yachts is seductive but I can just as easily frame it as:

Fixed income, middle America boomers entrusted these companies to be good stewards of their capital but it was instead spent on paying high six figure salaries to coastal city professionals from elite schools to do work of dubious value.

> nor do I believe is it an example of totalitarianism

These conversations never go anywhere. The battlelines are already drawn. It just becomes a semantic debate around loosely defined terms like totalitarianism.

You might find "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen interesting if you haven't read it already. He argues that modern liberalism is the inevitable successor to classical liberalism.

> "Coincidentally", they never support LGBT rights in any of their work. I wonder why that is.

Why would a free-speech advocacy group support LGBT rights? They "coincidentally" don't support nuclear disarmament or tax reform either.

> They're an entirely right-wing organization pretending to be unbiased. Their actions speak for themselves.

Actions like condemning UNC for denying Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure or suing Florida over the Stop Woke Act?

> my maths skills are lacking

The majority of computer programmers do not use or know any math beyond the high school level. Math is great and I won't discourage you from learning it but for an entry level programming job it's 100% unnecessary.

> The Art of Computer Programming

It's really weird to me that you've even tried this book. Despite the name it's a really serious computer science text that would be struggle even for students with a graduate level knowledge of computer science and mathematics. I would not expect you to get anything out of it right now.

What exactly is your level of programming knowledge? Can you write a function that prints a string in python, what about a function that determines if a string is a palindrome? Figure out where you are and then work on getting to the next level.

> I feel like everyone but me can sort of 'see' the code in a sort of 'logical' engineering kind of way and that's the skill I'd like to develop.

You might be expecting too much, too quickly. This is an ability that just takes tons of repetitions to develop. You need to struggle with bugs and errors for 1000+ hours to get anywhere. Intuition comes from practice, not reading or lectures.

I never said average. I said it's a fairly common household income on HN– which is true.

All things equal I don't think they should. The reality is probably a combination of early employees not being as skilled as the founders and behaving irrationally/ not understanding the value of their equity.

> cleaners and other menial jobs contribute as much to society as any geniuses (evidently, as societies without those menial jobs got outcompeted)

Scarcity is clearly an important component of value. This is essentially the "why is gold more valuable than water when I need water to live." question. I don't see the point in rehashing this stuff as if it's new.

Aren't we just back to rehashing vapid Marxist arguments? In your experiment a brilliant computer scientist working on a breakthrough invention will be forced to do menial tasks like data entry and accounting him/herself rather than split the profits evenly with a laborer. This is not going to work, a society where geniuses spend most of their days using Quickbooks, cleaning the bathroom etc, will be outcompeted by ones where they can specialize.

Isn't this basically what a recapitalization is?

I agree 100%. Also, I don't see a substantial difference in risk between a founder and an early employee at all. Founders typically have little invested in the startup other than their own time but they compensate for that by paying themselves a salary with investor money.

10M would give you a safe withdrawal rate somewhere between 300-400k a year. A fairly common household income for people on HN. It affords a very nice quality of life but you're certainly not living the lifestyle that most people think of as "rich."

> I followed this and managed to sell a handful of people on helping them land their first dev job

I've always wanted to do something like this. Could you share more about it? I think I could provide a lot of value to a new dev but haven't identified a business model that would work.

It's a huge stretch to apply the same rights to companies. Companies are not people and do not automatically get the same rights individuals do.

> they select for students that had the luck (or the right parentage) to go to either a private school or to a public school in a well-funded school district.

They select for math ability, it just so happens that students with access to great resources get better at math than those without them.

> The result is that the student base will be overwhelmingly white rich kids, which is pretty problematic Pretty clearly not true. It is overwhelmingly asian kids and while wealth plays a factor, poor asians still do exceptionally well (IIRC poor asians do better than rich whites). This can never be acknowledged because it makes people less sympathetic to your point.

> purpose of academia - that is, to provide education and research opportunities to the actually gifted instead

A students innate ability is irrelevant for college admissions. What matters is what are your actual capabilities. Are you capable doing mathematics at the highest level or are you not? An innately talented student who is bad at math due to life circumstances out of their control is still bad at math.

Or we could acknowledge that society functions best when the most qualified people are chosen and decide to only discriminate on merit.

These selection criteria are meant to match students with schools filled with students of the same ability level. Of course there will always be factors in life that make it harder or easier for people to succeed.

Having had exceptionally difficult life circumstances doesn't somehow change the fact that you need to have already mastered Algebra to succeed at MIT for example.

We should focus more on mitigating the extent that difficult circumstances hinders learning not just manipulating selection criteria after it already has.

Promoting strong family structures and communities. Supporting social norms that dissuade destructive behavior.

Source here: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1044740334306058241

Maybe he/she is thinking of a cash expense? Stock compensation will inflate operating cashflow on the statement of cashflows.