6’1 PG, Class of 2024, South River High School , PSB DC, 4.35 GPA, full time supple leapord
Joined March 2023
- Tweets186
- Following112
- Followers45
- Likes4.1K
Liam Barney retweeted
Everything wrong with this country in a single post.
Elon makes things that benefit humanity while members of Congress do nothing but obstruct innovation and leech off the American people.
They make $174,000 per year yet more than half are millionaires. They can’t even pass voter ID, which has an 84% bipartisan approval rating, because they are so beholden to special interests.
If anyone is to be investigated it should be Senator Padilla and his colleagues who have enriched themselves on the backs of hardworking Americans, not the dude who employs thousands and saves lives with his inventions.
Liam Barney retweeted
In free nations, we investigate crimes to see who is guilty of them.
In communist tyrannies, they investigate men to see what they can be punished for.
Liam Barney retweeted
You stealing $5 from me will not have any measurable impact on my life.
It will still make me avoid you at all costs for the rest of time because you're a thieving piece of shit.
Liam Barney retweeted
Dario Amodei was so worried about Y2K that his high school teacher still remembers it decades later.
He’s been a doomer for much longer than I thought!
Long before they were soon-to-be billionaires, Dario and Daniela Amodei were students at San Francisco’s most elite public high school. sfchronicle.com/tech/article…
Liam Barney retweeted
This is not a very good point, and it doesn't advance the discussion at all. There is an enormous burden of proof on you to argue that giving additional dollars to California is net beneficial, whereas the equity and bond markets' willingness to finance an expensive AI buildout provides ample evidence that people who know what they're talking about believe that dollars in the hands of these tech executives will produce something of value. Maybe you're smarter than all of them, but the way you advocate this wealth tax implies that you're going to great lengths to disguise this.
Further, your point about the cyclicality of this tax revenue accidentally raises another point that is very damaging to your campaign. California's tax system is already cyclical! They're already overreliant on a small number of taxpayers compared to other states (different ones each year, but for CA to work it really needs to be the place where successful tech executives want to realize liquidity). The top 1% paid half the state's income taxes in 2021—then 40% less a year later, because tech stocks went down.
A one-time wealth tax theoretically avoids this, because you just levy it when assets are expensive. But as far as I can tell, the plan is to spend the money in five years and hope somebody else has solve the state's budget problems by then. This is not what people conventionally refer to as a "plan." So I take Zucman at his word (iffy proposition!) when he says he wants it to be a regular thing.
If we're going to tax a form of wealth, I have an idea should really tickle you as an economist, or at least as a guy who probably hangs out with them from time to time: tax the land! It's a broader tax base, land values are far more stable than equity, and land, of course, cannot hop on its private jet and head to Miami. This also has a salutary effect on California politics, by sending every homeowner in the state a shocking bill from time to time. This will get voters asking themselves the same question you refuse to answer: what good is the state doing with all of that money?
I still find it puzzling that you're making such unsophisticated arguments, here. Surely, you can do better, and can explain what it is that the government California will do with another few billion dollars that it hasn't accomplished with the first $350bn or so.
As I've shown you a few times now, it's entirely possible to have a well-informed, reasonable argument about the proposed wealth tax. All you have to do is switch sides.
Liam Barney retweeted
Another thing to understand about Zucman: engaging him is like trying to kick a football through a constantly-moving goalpost that also arbitrarily changes its height and width mid-kick.
He and his team at UC-Berkeley churn out a stream of working papers on inequality measurement that bake dozens of dubious assumptions into their data files, all of which "coincidentally" reinforce the headline figures that align with their political narrative. But finding and weeding out those assumptions is an extremely tedious and time-consuming task.
Zucman and coauthors Piketty and Saez do most of their work in Excel, and it's seldom ever straightforward. Instead you'll find some extremely questionable and undisclosed multiplier that's just guesstimated out of thin air...but it's buried 10 layers deep in a formula from a convoluted Excel spreadsheet, which changes the an input for another Excel spreadsheet that's used to create a ratio, which in turn goes into a formula on another Excel spreadsheet that's used to estimate a decade of missing data, which in turn alters the trend of their entire series. @VincentGeloso and I know this well because we've been scrutinizing their work for over a decade and have found dozens of examples of this sort of stuff.
But there's another twist to the PSZ universe: once you've done the work and found a problem in their data files that alters their main results in significant ways, they've already moved on to a "new" approach that conveniently hard-bakes all the faulty assumptions of the old approach into its source data while refusing to revisit them, and then layers them over with new paint, consisting of even more of the same style of Excel spreadsheet labyrinths that you now have to navigate to even figure out what they are doing. And what they do in their data files often diverges in substantial ways from how they describe it in their papers and descriptive appendixes.
While you're toiling away to figure out what they did in their last peer reviewed paper, they call up a friendly reporter at the NY Times and get him to publish a new non-peer reviewed statistical claim that grabs headlines and aligns with whatever wealth tax initiative they happen to be activisting for at the moment.
By the end, the goalpost has hopped around the field, changed its size and height multiple times, and been replaced by a new goalpost on the other end of the field that announces itself not through the referees of the field but via some sportscaster up in the broadcast booth who also happens to be openly cheering for their team.
Here's the best way to understand what Gabriel Zucman is up to on the California billionaire tax, and why it's a problem:
Suppose you were tasked with assembling a complex historical time series of an important economic indicator, but also suppose the data needed to build it is of widely varying quality. There are gaps in some years when components you need simply weren't measured. In other years the stats you do have are not as reliable. Or maybe the source changed the way it recorded things, or changed the underlying definition. And on top of all that, your indicator contains components that are simply hard to measure with any precision.
So what do you do? You'll inevitably have to make some discretionary calls on how to handle the challenges you encounter.
Zucman's inequality stats all face this problem. They draw on data that are often incomplete, and go back almost a century in some cases. Reliability varies, as do underlying sampling techniques that generated them. There are also gaps from things that aren't easily measured where you have to make a defensible judgement call on how to handle it. And each and every one of those calls affects your end results.
A rigorous researcher's judgement calls would follow certain defensible principles or rules that were clearly articulated and replicable. The effects of those calls would also distribute in different directions. Some would increase the final output number, others would decrease it.
In Zucman's work, we typically find the opposite. He makes judgement calls out of necessity, but they almost always go in the same direction, which is to show (a) rising inequality and (b) declining tax burdens on the rich. They always skew in a nonrandom direction, and that direction conveniently aligns with the political story he's telling about inequality and wealth taxes.
Or think of it this way: if you're assembling a century-long measure of income concentration it's quite plausible you may have to make 50 different judgement calls on how to handle gaps and uncertainties in the source data. If 30 of those cause your results to show higher inequality in cumulative, but 20 of those reduce inequality in cumulative, that suggests a fairly even distribution is at play. In Zucman's work (as well as his coauthors Piketty and Saez) though, you'll find situations where 50 out of 50 discretionary calls all happen to cause the headline measure of inequality to increase.
That's not random - it means that whenever they must make a choice on how to handle data uncertainty, they choose the path that confirms the political story they wish to tell. And this is why the various Piketty-Saez-Zucman measures of inequality are *always* on the high side compared to alternative measures of the same thing.
Overlay that with the fact that all three of them are partisan political activists who advocate for wealth taxes, and you see the problem. Their empirical academic work ends up skewing in favor of their political objective, even though it's masquerading as a data-driven exercise.
And that's why their empirical claims should be checked against other sources and heavily discounted when they do not align - which is frequently the case.
Liam Barney retweeted
At the rate we're getting dumber, even current models will be smart enough to take us over in a few years.
Liam Barney retweeted
Imagine your net worth is $200,000. One day an armed gang comes up to your house and demands $10,000.
“Don’t worry!” the leader says. “I’m only going to do this one time. Plus, it’s only 5% of your net worth. What’s the big deal ?”
After he leaves, you call the cops, but they aren’t interested in investigating the matter. “What’s the big deal?” they tell you. “After all, it’s only 5% of your net worth!”
As you’re preparing to flee the city for a place where you cannot be robbed, Gabriel Zucman appears on your doorstep.
“Why are you leaving?” he asks.
“Somebody just robbed me and the police aren’t going to do anything. I want to live somewhere I can’t be robbed!”
“But sir,” says Mr Zucman, “Have you considered the fact that the man told you it was a one-time tax ? Have you considered that you gain nothing by leaving since the tax is already paid ? There’s no economic reason for you to leave anymore.”
What amazes me is the attitude of so many of the centibillionaires.
A 5% tax will not make any difference to the way they live. Their spending may be extravagant, but it is still much less than their (correctly measured) income.
They know that, as gifted as some of them indeed are, they have benefited from extreme luck (and the help of the state, and, to speak like an economist, monopoly rents).
They know that their effective tax rate is low, relative to what many others pay.
They know that extreme inequality is extremely unpopular, and can lead to political unrest, backlash, or worse.
They must admit that, morally, it is hard to argue for a society in which some become obscenely wealthy, while so many are poor and see their income stagnate.
They typically have not indicated that they are building their wealth to eventually make the world a better place.
But they are still willing to fight the tax, spending hundreds of millions in California to avoid paying the tax. Why?
They simply think what is theirs is theirs, end of story.
They believe in the slippery slope, and if they do not take a stand on this levy, the government will come back for more.
They hate the state and the notion that their money will be misused?
Or?
Liam Barney retweeted
But it complicates your effort to promote this tax when people start asking questions like: who's a more responsible steward of capital, the government of California or the most successful cohort of business founders in the world?
Liam Barney retweeted
Bernie is the master at this one-sided garbage.
For those keeping track:
Republicans: $4.1 Billion
Democrats: $3.9 Billion.
Neck and neck on money spent. The dumbest thing you can do is think it's one-sided.
But, the 2024 election was! Kamala Harris had 2.5x the money pumped into her campaign than Trump did.
Liam Barney retweeted
MSCI needs to create a Submerging Market index:
- Italy (founding member, 2000 year history)
- UK (recent add)
- Canada (post-Trudeau Jr)
- France (teeters on the edge of inclusion depending on riot status)
- New Zealand (ex-tourism industry)
- Germany (if they can file papers)
Liam Barney retweeted
My post about France went viral. Thousands of likes. Many Americans told me: "Democrats aren't socialists. America will never be France." I want to answer that seriously, step by step.
Start with a simple observation. Look at what has gotten cheaper in America over the last 25 years: TVs, phones, software, clothes, toys. Now look at what has exploded: college tuition, healthcare, childcare, housing.
What separates the two lists? The first lives in competitive markets. The second is exactly where government is most involved: subsidies, mandates, licensing, zoning, regulation.
College. Washington lends students almost unlimited money. Universities know the money will always come, so they raise tuition and hire more administrators. The student pays the bill for twenty years. More government money, higher prices.
Housing. Why can't a nurse buy a home in the city where she works? Not because of capitalism. Because of zoning laws, permits, environmental reviews, years of procedure to build a single building. The most expensive places to live in America are the places where it's hardest to build. When building is nearly illegal, prices explode.
Healthcare. The patient almost never sees the price. A third party pays, regulations limit who can compete, and costs climb year after year with no one able to say no.
So here is the trap. The problems you suffer from are not the failure of free markets. They are the places where the market has already been replaced by the state. And the solution you're being offered is more of the same.
That's the Trojan horse. It always works the same way. A real problem. A generous-sounding promise. A program that makes things worse. Then the failure of that program becomes the argument for the next one. People who lived under communism in Poland learned to recognize the lie and the mask the lie wears. The lie never presents itself as a lie. It presents itself as compassion.
In France we are at the end of that road. Debt we can never repay. Young people who can't afford a home. Our best people leaving. And every few years our cities burn. Nobody voted for this. They voted for one more generous promise, fifty years in a row.
If you're a Republican, share this with the Democrat in your life. Not to win an argument. To start a conversation.
If you're a Democrat, I'm not asking you to switch teams. I'm asking you to look at the pattern. Wherever the state took over, life became unaffordable. Don't fix the failures of government with more government.
Stay American. Ask for less state, not more.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Liam Barney retweeted
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Je n'ai jamais été aussi optimiste. Pas malgré le chaos actuel, mais grâce à lui.
Je vais vous expliquer pourquoi l'empire du mensonge construit par la gauche depuis cinquante ans va s'effondrer, et pourquoi ce n'est pas une opinion mais une question de physique.
Tout commence avec un mouvement né sur X il y a quelques années : l'effective accelerationism, ou e/acc.
Au départ, c'est une idée presque thermodynamique. L'univers a une tendance de fond : la matière s'organise pour capter et dissiper l'énergie de plus en plus efficacement. Une cellule fait ça. Une forêt fait ça. Une civilisation fait ça. Le marché, la technologie et le capital sont les formes les plus avancées de ce processus. Ce sont des machines à transformer l'énergie en intelligence, en abondance, en complexité.
La thèse e/acc est simple : il ne faut pas freiner cette dynamique, il faut l'embrasser. Plus d'énergie, plus de calcul, plus d'innovation, plus de croissance. Monter sur l'échelle de Kardashev au lieu de s'excuser d'exister. En face, il y a les « décels » : ceux qui veulent ralentir, réguler, taxer, interdire, culpabiliser. Ceux qui voient le progrès comme une menace à contenir plutôt qu'une force à libérer.
Mais il y a une dimension de l'accélération dont presque personne ne parle. L'accélération n'est pas seulement un moteur. C'est un filtre.
Pensez à n'importe quel organisme. Un corps humain en bonne santé peut courir. Il accélère, son cœur pompe plus fort, ses muscles consomment plus d'oxygène, et tout fonctionne parce que le système est bien conçu. Maintenant, prenez un corps malade. Des artères bouchées, un cœur fragile, des organes qui ne communiquent plus entre eux. Faites-le courir. Il ne va pas plus vite vers la santé. Il va plus vite vers l'infarctus.
L'accélération ne corrige pas les défauts d'un système. Elle les amplifie. Un système sain qui accélère devient plus fort. Un système dysfonctionnel qui accélère meurt plus vite.
Et c'est exactement ce qui est en train d'arriver au projet que je vais appeler par son nom : le projet globalo-socialiste. Celui porté par les démocrates américains, par la technostructure de Bruxelles, par les entités supranationales qui n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, par un réseau d'ONG financées par l'argent public pour dicter la morale aux peuples qui les financent.
Regardez ce que ce projet a produit.
Des États obèses qui prélèvent plus de la moitié de la richesse produite et qui délivrent des services publics de plus en plus dégradés. Des écoles qui n'apprennent plus à lire mais qui apprennent à culpabiliser. Des hôpitaux à bout de souffle malgré des budgets records. Une immigration massive sans aucune exigence d'assimilation, présentée comme une chance par ceux qui n'en subissent jamais les conséquences. Une désindustrialisation organisée au nom d'une écologie punitive qui délocalise la pollution en Chine et l'emploi avec. Des normes, des normes, et encore des normes, jusqu'à ce qu'il devienne plus simple de créer une entreprise à Austin qu'à Lyon. Une justice qui excuse le coupable et soupçonne la victime. Une censure qui avance masquée sous le nom de « lutte contre la désinformation ». Et une jeunesse à qui l'on a expliqué que son pays, son histoire et sa civilisation étaient des crimes à expier.
Ce n'est pas un ensemble de bugs. C'est la conception elle-même.
Maintenant, changeons d'image. Voyez ce système comme un moteur.
Un bon moteur, c'est de la précision. Des pièces qui s'emboîtent, un minimum de frottements, une énergie qui se transforme en mouvement. Le marché libre, la propriété, la responsabilité individuelle, la monnaie saine : c'est ça, un moteur bien conçu. L'information circule par les prix, chaque erreur est sanctionnée, chaque bonne idée est récompensée.
Le moteur socialiste, lui, est mal conçu dès le départ. Il ne tourne pas sur la création de valeur mais sur sa redistribution. Il ne récompense pas la performance, il la taxe. Il ne laisse pas les erreurs mourir, il les subventionne. Résultat : ça frotte partout. Ça chauffe. Ça grince. Chaque pièce use la pièce d'à côté.
Et que font ceux qui pilotent ce moteur ? Au lieu de le reconcevoir, ils changent les pièces. En permanence. Une pièce cède, on en remet une neuve. Encore une. Encore une.
Ces pièces de rechange, vous les connaissez. Elles s'appellent la dette publique et la planche à billets.
La France a dépassé les 3 300 milliards d'euros de dette et n'a pas voté un budget à l'équilibre depuis le milieu des années 70. Les États-Unis ont franchi les 37 000 milliards de dollars. Les banques centrales ont maintenu des taux à zéro pendant des années, imprimé des montants que plus personne ne sait se représenter, et quand l'inflation est arrivée, elles ont fait semblant d'être surprises. Milton Friedman l'avait pourtant dit il y a cinquante ans : l'inflation est toujours et partout un phénomène monétaire.
Chaque crise, on rachète du temps avec de l'argent qui n'existe pas. Chaque problème structurel, on l'arrose de liquidités pour masquer le bruit du moteur. Mais les frottements sont toujours là. Ils s'accumulent. Et la facture des pièces de rechange finit par coûter plus cher que le moteur lui-même : la charge de la dette devient l'un des premiers postes de dépense de l'État français.
Pendant des décennies, ce moteur mal conçu a pu tourner à 3 000 tours par minute. Lentement. Bruyamment. Mais il tournait. Le monde allait assez doucement pour que le bricolage permanent suffise à masquer l'absurdité de la conception.
Et puis l'IA est arrivée.
L'intelligence artificielle, c'est l'accélération la plus brutale de l'histoire humaine. Ce qui prenait des années prend des mois. Ce qui prenait des mois prend des jours. Des entreprises de dix personnes font ce que faisaient des entreprises de mille. Le capital, les talents et les idées se déplacent à la vitesse de la lumière vers les endroits où ils sont bien traités.
L'IA vient de faire passer le moteur de 3 000 à 20 000 tours par minute.
Posez-vous la question qu'un ingénieur se poserait. Que se passe-t-il quand on fait monter à 20 000 tours un moteur mal conçu, rafistolé de partout, qui frotte à chaque rotation ?
Il explose.
Pas parce que quelqu'un l'a saboté. Parce que la physique ne négocie pas.
Et c'est exactement ce que nous voyons en ce moment, sous nos yeux.
L'insécurité qui gagne des villes entières qui étaient paisibles il y a vingt ans. Le conflit de Gaza importé dans nos rues et instrumentalisé par une gauche qui a troqué l'ouvrier contre le clientélisme communautaire. La misère qui revient dans un pays qui a pourtant un des taux de dépense publique les plus élevés au monde. Des classes moyennes qui travaillent et n'arrivent plus à se loger. Une France fracturée, où l'on parle désormais à voix haute de risque de guerre civile.
Ce ne sont pas des accidents. Ce ne sont pas des « crises » successives sans lien entre elles. Ce sont les pièces du moteur qui commencent à voler.
C'est la conséquence logique de cinquante ans de socialisme international : un système qui a détruit la responsabilité, la frontière, la monnaie, l'école et la fierté, et qui découvre qu'à haute vitesse, tout ce qui a été détruit ne peut plus être compensé par une ligne de dette supplémentaire.
Et c'est là que je deviens profondément optimiste.
Parce qu'une fois qu'on a compris ça, on comprend aussi que leur projet a une date de fin. Pas une date politique. Une date physique. Un système qui consomme plus qu'il ne produit, qui punit ceux qui créent et récompense ceux qui détruisent, qui finance son présent en hypothéquant l'avenir de ses enfants, ne peut pas durer indéfiniment. Il n'est pas soutenable par construction. L'IA ne fait qu'avancer l'échéance.
Le mensonge a besoin de lenteur pour survivre. Il a besoin que les conséquences arrivent assez tard pour qu'on puisse accuser quelqu'un d'autre. Dans un monde à 20 000 tours, les conséquences arrivent immédiatement. Le mensonge n'a plus le temps de se cacher.
Alors, que faire quand le moteur explose ? On en construit un nouveau. Et cette fois, on le conçoit correctement.
Écoutez Elon Musk. Un homme qui a reconstruit l'industrie spatiale, la voiture électrique et l'infrastructure satellite en partant d'un principe simple : revenir aux premiers principes. Ne pas demander « comment on a toujours fait », mais « qu'est-ce qui est physiquement vrai ». C'est exactement ce dont nos États ont besoin : arrêter de rafistoler et repartir de la base.
Écoutez Javier Milei. Un homme dont tout le monde se moquait, arrivé à la tête d'un pays ravagé par un siècle de péronisme, et qui a pris la tronçonneuse au sens propre. Ministères supprimés, dépenses coupées, inflation écrasée, excédent budgétaire retrouvé. Il a prouvé une chose que la gauche jurait impossible : on peut démonter le moteur socialiste et le peuple peut le soutenir.
Écoutez Milton Friedman. Relisez-le. Tout était déjà là. La monnaie, la liberté de choisir, la responsabilité, les effets pervers de l'intervention publique. Il disait que si l'on confiait le Sahara au gouvernement fédéral, il y aurait pénurie de sable en cinq ans. On a ri. On a confié le sable. On a eu la pénurie.
Revenez à une hiérarchie et au respect du beau. Une civilisation ne tient pas que sur des chiffres. Elle tient sur l'idée qu'il existe des choses supérieures à d'autres. Que l'excellence vaut mieux que la médiocrité. Que le mérite compte. Qu'une cathédrale est plus belle qu'un parking. Que transmettre est un devoir et pas une oppression. Le relativisme a été l'arme culturelle de ce projet. Le retour du beau, du vrai et de l'exigence en sera l'antidote.
Et enfin, faites le Nuremberg du communisme. Le nazisme a été jugé, documenté, enseigné, et il est devenu moralement indéfendable. Le communisme, avec ses dizaines de millions de morts, ses goulags, ses famines organisées et ses peuples réduits en esclavage, n'a jamais eu ce procès. On peut encore porter un t-shirt du Che dans une université sans que personne ne cille. Tant que ce procès historique et moral n'aura pas eu lieu, l'idéologie continuera de muter et de revenir sous de nouveaux noms. Il faut nommer les crimes, les enseigner, honorer les victimes, et rendre cette idéologie aussi infréquentable que celle qu'elle prétendait combattre.
Le monde qui vient sera plus rapide, plus exigeant et plus impitoyable avec les systèmes mal conçus. C'est une terrible nouvelle pour ceux qui ont vécu du mensonge.
Et c'est la meilleure nouvelle de notre génération pour tous ceux qui veulent construire.
Le moteur va exploser. À nous de dessiner le suivant.
Liam Barney retweeted
JK Rowling may seem like a calm, rational, compassionate person, but she is actually crazy. To learn the truth about gender, you need to be listening to Tik Tok influencers who film themselves having mental breakdowns in their parent's cars.
Liam Barney retweeted
What's funny is JK Rowling is a total woke leftist feminist who agrees with them on 99% of things, but because she slightly disagrees with them on *ONE* thing, they hate her more than they hate actual Nazis.
Liam Barney retweeted
Kalshi continuing to do God's work.
Keep "predicting the future" everyone...
