GM from Texas.

GM ECB leaves the interest rate at 2.25 % 💶

Geldpolitik: So hat EZB-Chefin Lagarde die neue Zinsentscheidung erklärt

Die Energiepreise steigen rapide, aber die EZB hält die Zinsen vorerst konstant. Verfolgen Sie im Liveblog, wie die Notenbank die Situation einord...

Just saw this article and I was at a library that Andrew Carnegie funded. > Andrew Carnegie’s most famous line—”the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced“—was written as a threat, not a suggestion. Today, it lands with a different kind of sentiment, especially as Peter Thiel campaigns against giving, Warren Buffett scrambles to outpace his own compounding fortune, and Bill Gates absorbs criticism that his foundation model isn’t working. > Carnegie’s argument in 1889 was simple: give it away yourself, on your own terms, before politics, heirs, or public anger takes the decision out of your hands.

Fortune

'The man who dies rich dies disgraced': The last time America had such wealth inequality, Andrew Carnegie knew he had to give it all away | Fortune

Peter Thiel has called the Giving Pledge an "Epstein-adjacent fake boomer club," but even that Gates and Buffett initiative fails Carnegie's test.

If you see everything as public/state, you completely miss the way disruptive or corrupting social changes can be ushered in by the one and then adopted by the other. They are overlapping sets, not parallel worlds. The government adopts (and often promotes) private sector changes it wants to later acquire in the public sector, and vice versa. The Nazis knew that. The Stasi knew that. The KGB knew that. The 🏳️‍🌈 fascists knew that... The only way to guard against this corruption is to argue from the basis of Natural Law. If something is wrong, it is wrong _regardless of who does it_ and _regardless of their ease in doing it_. The state should not have powers that private persons do not have, and private persons should not have unnatural powers. Private persons should be expected to conduct themselves in a manner they would expect public persons to display. **To be sovereign is to set the rules by your own behavior, opinions, expectations, and decisions.** > If you think the state should have powers that private persons do not have, then you are a serf. If you think private persons should have powers that the state does not have, then you are also a serf. Because _you are supposed to be the state_. Unnatural behaviors that should only be allowed on a mediated, case-by-case basis, as evidenced by a warrant from a judge: * the power of surveillance in public areas or any surveillance in private areas where they have an expectation of privacy (like bathrooms or a confessional), * the power to collect and store personal data unnecessary for the transactions required to conduct a business, and to store necessary data for longer than the data is needed to conduct the transaction or fulfill transparent record-keeping rules, * the power to demand biometric IDs, physical searches or scans, or otherwise intrusive reveals from guests, above what is necessary to ensure a modicum of personal safety or social coherence for the host, * the power to demand encrypted data be unencrypted, * the power to intercept and/or read communications sent with an expectation of privacy (Briefgeheimnis), * the power to enter or search anyone else's premises. And so on. If you are aware that a _right to privacy_ is a fundamental, natural right, then you should insist on that right being respected by everyone, everywhere. Then you will be morally coherent and you will again find the words to describe how they hurt you. View quoted note →

I sometimes think my friendly-and-kind-but-stern-and-hard personality is so weird, and then I visit Texas and fit right in and remember.

Looks like I finally found an implementation that gets me using #KeyChat. View quoted note →

EU fines AliExpress half a billion Euros 💶 for selling EU residents cheap Chinese crap. View quoted note →

Your reminder that Fahrenheit is complete nonsense. View quoted note →