Julian FT (🇺🇸)

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@TraceySchulz @Chancellorpen @aphysicist Allright your just a moron

And Elon has paid more taxes than anyone in US history. Its like... very easy to find this information

Not going to bother with the rest of your nonsense

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@TraceySchulz @Chancellorpen @aphysicist Ridiculous point honestly

US tax dollars are elons money, and my money, and yours probably too. We are allowed to take action if we believe our tax dollars are being spent unwisely or improperly, and elon did.

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

I think your well intentioned but going in circles here.

Youd just get back to the original point that no one should ever start a monthly donation to a charity because the act of unclicking that donation box if they ever want to is essentially an act of murder. Its a real action, you went to the website, found the "stop donation" box, clicked it, and killed people.

That doesnt work as an argument. Its an argument that is vaguely, technically true if you view it from the right angle, but entirely meaningless in the real world

Thats what elon did, he felt taxpayers had gotten obligated to things they didnt want to be obligated for anymore, proposed we change that, the taxpayers agreed, and so he unclicked some boxes obligating taxpayer money be sent overseas

And btw, i am not saying i even agree with the general notion of cutting these programs. I think the US benefits from some of these programs, not even in the soft power kind of way but in very practical ways. Less diseases spreading around the world, better developed end markets for US to sell into, etc.

But this argument around the person doing the cut being responsible for the outcomes of not giving away us taxpayer money is just totally unworkable

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

But then your saying that once anyone obligates US taxpayers to start donating, noone can ever end that obligation because that is an "action that you might be able to connect 2 dots and find a babys death"

Thats an impossible standard to apply

We live in a democracy, Trump was elected on a platform that including Musk helping cut/restructure/enforce verification on a bunch of these taxpayer obligations and so they did it

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

This just gets back to my original point that your setting up a perverse incentive to ever start giving to charity, because your saying essentially "the act of going to unclick your monthly donation kills people", and putting more moral weight to that than to the decision of someone to never give at all.

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

Can you agree then that either 1) we are saying elon and everyone else who doesnt give away all money above their subsistence needs is responsible or 2) noone is responsible?

Because if thats the case were in general philosophical agreement. But if we are agreeing to 1), then everyone talking about some fault by musk is as good as wrong, because its meaningless, they could fault anyone and everyone but choose musk because they dont like him.

To the specific case of USAID spending, I feel I havent seen evidence compelling enough to try to judge its outcomes. A reasonable base case should be that more funding leads to better outcomes, I have decent firsthand knowledge in one of the larger nonprofits that it does. But its also far messier than most people in these arguments give it credit, and is largely driven by things that more spending cant solve (eg conflict)

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@Pipe42uk @2oosm4ll You have a great attitude

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@Chancellorpen @aphysicist No. The natural state is not to give our money away. Choosing not to continue giving our money away is a "direct action" just as much as you choosing not to give your money away today for the same cause. Any distinction is meaningless.

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@matthewstoller @TrajansS @aphysicist Its pretty clear. The natural state is not "giving our money away". Drawing a moral difference between choosing not to give money again this year, and not giving to begin with, is illogical. So if musk is responsible then everyone who doesn't give their money is, its meaningless

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@Chancellorpen @aphysicist Your setting up a terrible incentive for anyone to ever start to give to charity. You feel your not culpable for harm when you order doordash instead of donating that $, but if anyone starts donating $, then they must continue forever or else they are culpable.

[Bryan O'Nolan @BryanONolan]

You see a trillion dollars.

Gavin sees 3/4 of a mile of high speed rail.

[Katherine Boyle @KTmBoyle]

Never. Give. Up.

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

The math on SFTBY at 17.30 and ARM at 257 is v interesting given softbanks core openai stake

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

SFTBY seems like the best public access to AI at this price

[Mark E. Jeftovic @jeftovic]

Fascinating

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@signulll Thorne chocolate whey isolate. So clean, lab tested, nearly pure protein. Tastes like actual cocoa powder. I mix it with some Blueprint powders for a complete meal. The best.

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@Jason I'm in

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@m_goes_distance DMed, would love to learn more

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

Would be a great weekend to mark the bottom of BTC/GOLD

[Julian FT (🇺🇸) @JulianF_T]

@GwartyGwart Less that retail is entitled to access, more that its messed up that the gov erects barriers to retail's access.

And maybe shortsighted as a whole for our society to try to run Capitalism but ban most people from taking part in the bounty created from Capitalism.