Brian 🔰 (@brianwut) header
Brian 🔰 (@brianwut) profile picture

male reasoning model. technofriendalist. https://teapawt.net/t.co/H0EVi6WmzB

Manhattan, NY
Joined May 2009
Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)Photo by Brian 🔰 (@brianwut)
real grand gestures have never been tried
2
2
50
11,599
Brian 🔰 retweeted
Replying to @AlinaBonsell
Why are you polluting NYC air with this idling truck outside of a voting site?
1
1
67
Brian 🔰 retweeted
on days like today I am reminded of Uncle Ted's letter to an aspiring mathematician in the year 2000
2
2
1
18
1,237
Brian 🔰 retweeted
wild ruling out of Seattle that @PHLCouncil needs to read. a builder put $39M into 254 low-income apartments locked at 60% AMI for 30 years. from 2015 to 2018 it worked, collecting ~94% of rent. then Seattle stacked on "tenant protections": banned criminal background checks, banned winter evictions, required 180 days notice for rent hikes + 3 months relocation pay, and forced the owner to let unscreened roommates move in and take over leases. result: rent collections dropped from 93.9% to 44.1%!!! the building lost nearly $6M through 2023 ($2.7M in 2023 alone) and is now appraised as functionally worthless. the city bankrupted actual affordable housing lol. the appeals court just ruled the owner can sue Seattle for an unconstitutional taking. when you strip a landlord's right to screen, collect rent or remove non-paying tenants, it's not "regulation" anymore, you took the building…. Philly has half these laws already 🙄 courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/8…
107
842
86
6,609
273,977
BREAKING: Pete Hegseth has ordered Tomahawk missile strikes against a Toad Brigade training camp in the Mushroom Kingdom.
2
36
612
Brian 🔰 retweeted
this California wealth tax thing is just incredible. so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time). polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it). there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate. supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right? well as it turns out, they did. a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative. proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave. just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues. but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion. so when you add it all up you get: + $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated) - $69b in present value of lost future income taxes = - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time. and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes. [1]: nber.org/system/files/workin…
496
1,382
392
11,971
1,399,518
You Can Eat Anything (by tommcgovern27 on IG)
324
2,216
346
29,462
2,643,726
Brian 🔰 retweeted
having tried my best to intuit the motives of the protesters in France today, I am struck by the fact that two of the most treasured pillars of the European postwar order are colliding: 1. unfettered immigration, especially from former colonies, justified by historical obligation and postcolonial guilt 2. protecting pensions and the elderly at all costs, even to the point of extreme fiscal strain now you have first and second generation immigrants, as well as young native french people, taking to the streets because the french state is hell-bent on extracting whatever it can and feeding it into the maw of boomer luxury communism. the younger generation is being asked to accept a deteriorating deal: pay more, receive less, and abandon the expectation of matching the living standard of their parents or grandparents. the young immigrant newcomers have even less incentive to accept any kind this bargain. they are not bought in to the french social contract. they have no common identity with the french boomers they are being asked to sustain. they resent the fact that the entire machinery of the state is designed to exploit the young to serve the old. the old do not care about the immigrants enough to trade away any of their entitlements for them. they have the advantage as they wield the franchise reliably and their share of the electorate is only growing, so they won't accept a decline in their own standard of living to fund a future they will never live to see. now these two groups are on a collision course. ironically, immigration was intended to ameliorate the worsening fiscal picture brought about by a demographic transition. but this did not happen. studies have repeatedly shown that immigrants do increase aggregate GDP (by simple brute force, by adding to population), but not the fiscal picture [1]. the most comprehensive paper using real-world data [2] segments immigrant types to France and finds non-EU immigrants to be persistently fiscally negative. EU immigrants by contrast are the most fiscally positive group, meaning that studies that consider immigrants as a whole are masking the negative impact of non-western immigrants (and Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia rank #1 and #2 and #4. Africa accounts for 50% of the 8 million immigrants living in France today.) immigration has not caused France's fiscal crisis. but it hasn't bettered the economic picture at all – it has deteriorated it somewhat – and it has created a combustible demographic that has little allegiance to the French nation. far from helping France deal with its aging workforce, immigration has added fiscal burden and created a permanent, non-assimilated disenfranchised underclass. the original justifications for immigration – labor scarcity, postcolonial obligation, and more recently workforce aging – have largely failed to manifest the promised results. the pro-immigrationist policy has been defended in Brussels as necessary to defend the welfare state, but it has expanded the population making claims on the state, without eliminating the need for fiscal adjustments. France now has an aging electorate aiming to preserve the benefits it was promised, mingled with a younger more diverse population that questions whether it will ever receive a similar deal. the young are vastly outmatched at the ballot box and so they take to the streets. the french establishment is now trying to preserve a tenuous status quo: unlimited intergenerational obligations alongside a neverending immigration regime that continually changes the composition of the society intended to honor those obligations. the immigration regime also actively worsens the fiscal picture while creating these cultural fractures and inculcating a society more prone to sectarian violence. the french state will have to renegotiate its social contract and disempower one of these groups. electoral gravity suggests that the old will continue to win until France finally reaches default and creditors renegotiate the welfare state for them. the major contenders in 27 take different approaches to this tradeoff: - the right in Le Pen looks to reduce immigration-related expenditure and focus public spending on French citizens, while resisting retirement age increases - Macron in the center aims to control immigration somewhat and reform pensions by raising retirement age - Melenchon's left, largely behind the protests this week, denies the tradeoff and aims to keep funding pensions and retirement at 60 while increasing immigration. as France has very little fiscal space it's unclear how this would be paid for whether the french social contract can be peacefully renegotiated remains to be seen. [1] For France, immigrants' net fiscal contribution averaged -0.85% of GDP over 2006-2018 when all public expenditure was allocated (and this includes ALL categories of immigrants including European, American and Asian) See: oecd.org/en/publications/int… [2] See table 4 (translated below) shs.cairn.info/revue-economi…
116
204
46
1,982
183,482
maybe he had a special need for a gun. bet you didn’t think of that.
Replying to @nypost
His mother bought him a gun for his birthday? Am I reading this right? She bought her special needs son a gun?
3
46
792
We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.
"Why can women not simply exist in the world in the bodies God gave them?" she asks herself mournfully as she pulls these off the rack
15
48
2
786
15,132
inquiring about greek delight at a turkish coffeehouse
30
597
Brian 🔰 retweeted
Why I’m a NYC Maximum Republican My daughter just turned two, which means my husband and I have about three years to decide where to settle down. Once she starts elementary school, we want to give her consistency: one educational path, long-term friendships, roots. I want those roots to be here. I love New York City. I love living near my friends. I love walking and taking transit everywhere and not needing a car — I’m composing part of this essay by voice while walking to the gym. I love the people, the food, the way joy radiates through the whole city on the first warm day of spring. My daughter loves it too. Like a lot of toddlers, she is obsessed with construction vehicles, big trucks, and anything with wheels. Her favorite activity is something we call “go bus!” We take the first bus we see — any route, any direction. Adventures abound! We would love to stay, but I’m not sure we can. I wonder: can my family build a good life here? Two things stand between me and a yes. The thing I can’t buy here at any reasonable price If I moved to Phoenix to be near my in-laws, the state would give me roughly $10,000 of education funding and let me direct it toward whatever environment I believe is best for my child. That could be a standard public school. Or I could put the money toward a private school, a microschool, tutoring, online programs, curriculum materials — or some combination of all of them. I could enroll her at Great Hearts Academies, where my sister-in-law is an assistant headmaster, and she could get a classical liberal arts education. I could enroll her in Phoenix’s large and fast-growing microschool ecosystem. I could enroll her in @socraticexp, a private online school I’ve admired for years. In every one of those cases, her schooling would be free to us. If I moved to Tampa to be near my mom, I’d get a similar stipend. In New York City, my options collapse. I can hope for a seat at a charter school; unfortunately the number of seats is legally capped, and demand outpaces supply. Or I could hope that I have a good public school within reach, either by moving or luck, neither of which is what a parent wants to face when selecting a school. I wish New York had reliable, accessible, high-quality education. Safety is personal too I’ve been physically assaulted twice on the street in San Francisco. Friends of mine have had worse: one was held up at gunpoint while biking through San Francisco. I recently learned that a high school classmate had to get surgery after being attacked by a homeless man. In fact, one of the main reasons I moved to New York City from San Francisco was because I thought SF was too unsafe to raise a kid in. In my first years in NYC, I mostly felt safe walking the streets, even by myself late at night. Then a few months ago, someone shoved my husband on a subway platform. I was with him — so was our two year old daughter, sitting in her stroller. Families deserve to move through their own city without wondering whether the basic rules still apply. I believe in prison reform, genuinely and not as a hedge. I want to support people who were dealt a bad hand. I want them to gain skills and build thriving lives. But pardoning terrible disorder and violent crime doesn’t serve the perpetrators, the victims, or anyone else. I want to live in a city where, when I hear about a violent crime, I don’t expect to learn that the perpetrator had been arrested and released multiple times before. Why I’m changing my registration New York City is effectively a one-party city. Our citywide elections often don’t matter, because the real contest happened months earlier in the Democratic primary. In our last City Council races, 27% featured an unopposed Democrat — no Republican even bothered to run. By the time most voters reach the ballot box, primary voters have already chosen their representatives. That doesn’t mean there’s no disagreement in New York politics. There’s plenty. You can honestly model the New York City Democratic Party as two parties in a trench coat. Our current Council has 23 Democrats in the Progressive Caucus, 23 Democrats who aren’t — call them moderates — and 5 Republicans. The majority party is split almost perfectly between two conflicting ideologies. I’m a moderate. And rather than keep fighting inside a crowded party, I’m switching my registration to the under-utilized second party, and specifically joining a new faction of the New York Republican Party that shares my values: maximumnewyork.com/p/maximum… Mike Bloomberg used a similar tactic. He wanted to run for mayor, the Democratic field was crowded, the Republican nomination was easier to win — so he switched his party. He went on to win the general election 50 to 48 and serve three terms as one of the most popular mayors in the city’s history. He later re-registered as an independent, which fit his views better. Then in 2018, wanting to run for president, he went back to the Democratic Party, because he knew the national Republican Party didn’t share his values: “It’s impossible to conceive that I could run as a Republican,” he said. “Things like choice, so many of the issues, I’m just way away from where the Republican Party is today.” He treated party registration as a tool rather than an identity, and he evaluated the parties differently at the federal and local level. That’s exactly where I’ve landed. So I’m joining the Maximum Republicans because I believe in their vision for New York City. I like that they prioritize creating a safe and beautiful city where families can thrive. I like that quality education is important to them. I want to help candidates who share my values run for those uncontested seats. Many of those candidates might lose if they run on the Republican ticket. But why leave a race uncontested? A candidate is a platform — a way to put housing supply, school choice, a working grid, and public safety into the citywide conversation. And maybe, occasionally, a Maximum Republican candidate will win. When Bloomberg ran on the Republican line, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in this city roughly five to one, and plenty of Democrats voted for him anyway. People will look past a letter next to your name if they believe in your values. Somewhere in the last decade, good governance got abandoned, mostly because it’s boring. Political energy on both sides went to the culture war, which is almost definitionally polarizing — people have already sorted themselves into camps. I’m far more interested in the enormous territory where our goals overlap and competent government can produce better outcomes for everyone. What I’m not saying I’ve been a Democrat or Independent most of my life, and my views haven’t meaningfully changed recently. But parties are strategic coalitions, not personality tests. I can disagree with people in my party and still work with them on what matters. I can agree with people in the opposing party and still vote for them if they’re the better candidate. For the two major upcoming races in next Tuesday’s election, I’ll be voting for one Democrat (YIMBY queen Kathy Hochul) and one Republican (public safety queen Saritha Komatireddy). We can have nice things You can love the city and want it to be better. You can love the vibrant, swirling, chaos — and want firm rules. You can want a city that welcomes newcomers and gives families the support to stay. You can build a political coalition around the future you want. If this sounds like your politics, come talk to me. Invite me (or @danielgolliher) to speak. Come to an event. Write publicly about your own politics, including the parts where you think I’m wrong. The point was never to agree on everything. It’s to make a city — and a party — aimed in the right direction.
32
16
10
416
27,794
Brian 🔰 retweeted
Wait until you find out who the worst landlord in NYC is with over $80B backlog of repairs, unable to build new units w/o cost 2-3x average, and requires $500+K in repairs for each existing unit.
Sounds like capitalism just fuckin sucks
22
77
2
1,729
38,753
It's crazy that there's a tool out there that's become vital to they way I do my job, parent my kids, and make major life decisions; and yet we barely spend more on it than AI
TIL that global spending on alcohol is still larger than AI infrastructure spending this year ($1.7T vs $1.5T)
70
2,270
30
39,527
674,896
for too long, “we both wanted to” has been used to excuse blatant acts of sex. it’s time to close the consent loophole.
10
68
4
1,681
27,041
i’m against premarital sex so at this point getting married would be immoral
2
1
1
61
1,455
you say 51=3*17. yawn. i'm not going to remove 51 from my list of primes just because of theory. wake me up when it happens in real life oh, so you've arranged 51 blocks into a rectangle. well that's obvious given the calculation. it's not news. not a reason to change my list
13
85
7
3,215
51,503
Brian 🔰 retweeted
almost all human written software was complete fucking garbage. ppl forget about this because the biggest and most competent and profitable tech companies in the world, by dint of capturing thousands of the worlds best minds, produced some software that was only somewhat garbage
So many websites of major companies just don't work. A human can't even create an account. The most detailed error message is "400 Bad Request". Forget agents, AI, whatever, how the fuck does nothing work?
18
82
6
1,578
30,393
for various reasons im currently trapped in a Kafkaesque billing hellhole w Verizon wherein they simultaneously insist I owe them money or else they'll terminate my service and also they refuse to let me pay them ln I remembered AI exists so I asked Codex desktop to fix it. the ensuing business<>computer<>human interaction dynamic was possibly one of the most surreal experiences of my life codex ended up driving my browser to interact w Verizon's broken-ass web app for an hour, using my password manager and email (with my permission) to source salient info I ultimately had to jank it up to astra high to get any results and at the end of a Long AI<>AI argument in the verizon support chat box thing it was able to get their bot to admit there was a transient backend issue on Verizons side due to an in-progress billing platform update, and convinced it to institute a "service suspension hold", a class of ask I as a human likely would've never been able to figure out to ask for if I'd been the one tryin to navigate this interaction whilst managing my rapidly depleting emotional resources anyway are you feeling the AGI yet
Talking to your ISP's agent chat really is hell on earth people were not exaggerating huh.
16
37
8
1,152
65,661
Brian 🔰 retweeted
Replying to @nypost
bring the thick crickets back from the brink
1
4
580
just paid @Jonathan_Blow $29.99 to fund jai development
3
253