Build me a bot whose only job is getting my personal info off data broker and people-search sites, the way paid services like DeleteMe do.
1. Ask me once for everything it needs: full name and any variations, current and past addresses, phone numbers, emails, and birth year. Don't guess any of it.
2. Search the big brokers first (Whitepages, Spokeo, BeenVerified, Radaris, Intelius, TruePeopleSearch, FastPeopleSearch, MyLife, Nuwber, PeopleFinders and their sister sites). Use each site's official opt-out page, the way a person would.
3. Add my phone numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry.
4. Keep a ledger of every site with the listing URL, status, and dates.
5. You can open my email only to find opt-out confirmation emails and click their links. Do nothing else with my email.
6. Save up anything that needs me (ID checks, phone verifications, codes) and send it all in one message with clear steps.
7. Re-scan every month, because brokers list people again.
Never pay for anything, never upload ID or share my SSN or full birth date without asking me, never reply to or delete emails, and never say something is removed until you've checked that it is.
khaphora retweeted
Clearly there is no difference whatsoever between:
> The dying sunlight was strangely pale, cold and beautiful.
And:
> The expiring sunshine was oddly wan, chilly and pretty.
Well done Anthropic, you've nailed it on this one!
👏
khaphora retweeted
So are you racist, or ignorant?
Those are genuinely the only two options on the table, and I ask as a science teacher who assigns exactly this reading. The minimum wage — the policy you are waving around like a moral trophy — was BUILT to hurt the very people you claim to be fighting for. That is not a hot take. That is the documented historical record. So either you do not know it (ignorant), or you know it and you are pushing it anyway (worse than ignorant).
Let me teach the class you apparently skipped.
Princeton economist Thomas Leonard spent an entire career documenting this. Progressive economists — the intellectual grandparents of your caucus — championed wage floors specifically to price "unemployables" out of the labor market. Their word. Not mine. And "unemployables" meant Black Americans, immigrants, and the disabled. Then came the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, pushed by Southern Democrats and union bosses who were furious that Black construction workers kept winning federal contracts by accepting competitive wages. Representative Martin Dies said it out loud, on the House floor, in the Congressional Record: you cannot prescribe the same wages for the Black man as the white man. The FLSA of 1938 then conveniently excluded farm and domestic work — the exact sectors where Black labor was concentrated in the Jim Crow South. Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate and not exactly a wild-eyed radical, called it "the most anti-Negro law on our statute books." That was 1966. So. Racist, or ignorant? Take your time.
Now the part where your heart is supposedly in the right place. It is not helping a single soul. A sixteen-year-old with zero skills and an empty resume is HIRABLE at $7.25. That same kid is UNEMPLOYABLE at $15, because no business on this green Earth pays forty-two grand a year for someone who needs six months of training before they produce a dime of value. Two-thirds of more than a hundred studies (Neumark and Wascher) found negative employment effects. South Carolina: wage hikes cut teen employment by 8.9 percent, and cut it for workers without a high school diploma by 15.5 percent. The CBO said a $17 floor knocks 350,000 people OUT of the labor force entirely. Not up into better jobs. Out.
Here is the revolutionary concept the crayon-eating wing of economic policy cannot seem to grasp, bless the collective heart: wages are a VOLUNTARY agreement. A worker accepts what a business offers. If nobody accepts, the business raises the offer or it folds. McDonald's already pays well above your sacred $7.25, and they will happily tell you the crew job is a STEPPING STONE, not a life sentence. Walmart store managers clear six figures with no college debt. The ladder works fine. You are the one sawing off the bottom rung with a smile and calling the sawdust "a decent quality of life."
And I have to ask what I ask every Democrat, so here it is: what have you actually DONE for the people of Pennsylvania? Because from the cheap seats, the whole pitch is another handout, another dependency, another rung deleted — and a dependent population that has nowhere left to vote but back to you. The antebellum South needed a captive underclass to keep one party in power. The chains got swapped for talking points. The math did not budge an inch. Quinn's First Law of Liberalism, stated plainly: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. You set out to lift the low-wage worker, and you erase his first job. Every single time.
Somewhere a village is short one economist, and I think we found where. The elevator on this policy never left the basement, and you keep mashing the button expecting a penthouse. Running on dial-up in a fiber-optic world. 404: labor economics not found.
But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who actually read Thomas Leonard, the Congressional Record, and the CBO score instead of getting my economics from a caucus meme with a stock photo.
@JoJoFromJerz @atrupar @TheYoungTurks
#MAGA #Veterans #Trump
Bernie Sanders entered Congress in 1991 when federal spending was about $1.3 trillion per year. Adjusted for inflation, that’s roughly $3.1 trillion in today’s dollars.
Elizabeth Warren entered the Senate in 2013 when federal spending was about $3.5 trillion per year. Adjusted for inflation, that’s roughly $4.8 trillion in today’s dollars.
Today, federal spending is about $7.0 trillion per year.
So during Sanders’s tenure, inflation-adjusted federal spending increased by roughly $3.9 trillion annually.
During Warren’s tenure, inflation-adjusted federal spending increased by roughly $2.2 trillion annually.
Now we’re told a one-time $60 billion tax on Elon Musk is the key to solving our problems.
If trillions of additional dollars in annual spending over decades didn’t solve them, why would an amount equal to less than 1% of one year’s federal budget suddenly do the trick?
At some point the question stops being “How do we get more money?” and becomes “Why aren’t the trillions we already spend accomplishing the stated goals?”
This whole “trillionaire” framing is garbage from the start. @elon doesn’t have a trillion dollars. He holds substantial ownership stakes in companies… Tesla, SpaceX, and others whose combined value exceeds a trillion dollars.
Even calling it “stock ownership” is dangerous. Most people picture stocks as little tradable instruments… digital poker chips you can just sell on a whim like currency or commodities. That’s technically true for public shares, but it completely ignores what ownership actually means: real control over factories, engineering teams, supply chains, intellectual property, and the power to direct capital and talent toward building the future.
That distinction is everything.
When @ewarren and others say we need to tax “that wealth,” they are not proposing a levy on some static, spendable fortune. A wealth tax on these valuations is an annual claim on the paper value of private ownership. For public stock it means forced sales every year to pay the bill. For private companies it means contested valuations and pressure toward liquidity events or dilution just to satisfy the tax. Either way, it forces the gradual surrender of control over productive enterprises.
They call it a “wealth tax” because that polite, convenient label makes partial expropriation of companies sound like basic fairness. By pretending these are just “assets” or “stocks” someone has selfishly hoarded, the language hides the reality: successful companies are not idle loot. They are the living, ongoing result of vision, risk, execution, and continuous effort. Taking slices of ownership isn’t redistributing existing money… it’s transferring influence over what gets built and who decides how resources are used.
This framing is dangerous precisely because it erases the difference between earning through creation and merely possessing. Once people accept that private ownership of valuable companies is just another taxable pile that belongs partly to the state by default, the next step is routine political claims on control. That doesn’t create fairness. It slowly moves the levers of industry and innovation from builders accountable to markets and customers into the hands of people accountable to politics and interest groups. The language makes that shift sound reasonable instead of radical.
khaphora retweeted
Under capitalism, socialists are free to build socialism.
Under socialism, capitalists aren’t free to build anything.
Nothing stops a group of socialists pooling their money, forming a company, and splitting every wage and every pound of profit perfectly equally.... Or to donate all profit to the government.
It’s legal. It’s easy. Owning the means of production is as simple as setting up a company.
Marx wrote his manifesto before the invention of limited liability companies. Back then “seize the factory” meant seizing it from the handful of families who could afford one.
That argument expired the day anyone could start a company with limited liability, raise investment and hire who they want.
Socialists are free to lead by example and demonstrate their system works. They can out-recruit, out-motivate, out-build and out innovate based on their ideas if they like. It would prove the philosophy works. Capitalism will happily host their experiment.
The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot.
khaphora retweeted
My buddy Jeremy just sent me this.
@FedEx your guys just harassed $20.000 worth of equipment just like that.
not cool guys, not cool at all
Ferrari board meeting:
“Teslo?”
“Too obvious. No.”
“Luce?”
“Perfect! Lock it in.”
A quiet voice from the far end of the table…
“But sir, Lucid is..”
“One syllable. Completely different. Approved.”
khaphora retweeted
@TeamYouTube My history channel (220k subs) was falsely demonetized for 'Inauthentic content.' My video appeal proving my manual Premiere Pro workflow was wrongly rejected, and chat support denied my reappeal. Please escalate to Trust & Safety! youtube.com/@MadeInHistory
