Olivia
Online
Randolph Evans, M.D.
@RandEvansMD
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times - Hopf
We love our Teslas
The great state of Florida
Joined April 2022
282 Following
396 Followers
2.1K Posts
Pinned Tweet
70 to zero. Tesla's automatic braking in FSD saved us...
Rush hour on I-75 N in Atlanta, a driver pulled out ahead of us, clipped the Lexus in front of him, and locks 'em up in HOV lane. I never touched the brake — the car saw him a hundred-plus yards out, flashed the red steering wheel warning, and was already slowing from 70 before I could react. Ended up with about a foot to the concrete barrier on the left, four or five inches to the Lexus on the right, no scratches anywhere. Seatbelts on, everyone fine. Automatic emergency braking doing exactly what it's built for. Thanks Tesla! @SawyerMerritt
Grumpy nailed it!
If the Intelligence Community were intelligent, they wouldn't plan an insurrection over the internet.
Per @DataRepublican special request.
@WallStreetApes Not true. Comment made by a 'cloud-seeding' company CEO referencing a paper funded and written by an anti-abortion group. Sad, I can't even trust Wall Street Apes. 😂
@elonmusk Expose their corruption, Elon.
Who to follow
Sandin
@SandinFroyd
I love architecture, engineering, science, technology, art, reading and dreaming big, Tesla, SpaceX, etc..
Porkopolis Economics
@porkopolis_econ
Assets. Liabilities. Equity. Long-scale charts covering the supply side of the economy.
m
@drmnmb
I drink and I read about things. Little bit of everything.
PS: Typos are my signature.
@CryptoOwun Wow, a sad keyboard warrior. You're the definition of a 'hater' my friend.
We watch it don on a French woman that she was duped by her leftist political party.
A French woman who supported France’s left wing government and the protests asks why left wing protesters are looting her store. It’s a perfect distillation of left wing decisions, this is where it all leads.
Frightening that Slotkin could be so fearless as to boldly state that a future Democratic administration WILL go after folks who agree with our currently elected President.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) just gave an interview where she said the quiet part out loud. She intends to unleash a slew of investigations to deter young people from even considering supporting the Administration … if they know what is good for them. https://t.co/DIC16JySUs
Not surprisingly, Al Gore LIED. The Artic ice is not gone, it's actually THICKER 19 years later.
Nineteen years ago this week @algore was chosen to receive the @NobelPrize for making a science fiction movie about climate. At the awards ceremony he predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2014.
Since then, Arctic sea ice extent has increased 22%.
https://t.co/rnQJuPCz8n
https://t.co/NekArUA38T
Explanation why Bernie Sanders is a dumbass.
Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene."
It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why.
First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created.
So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?"
And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied.
Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake.
Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation.
Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it.
Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better?
The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians?
A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite.
Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences.
The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions.
The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem."
Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing.
Government is the fourth box. By design.
Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it.
And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money.
The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet.
Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it.
So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear.
China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build.
India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie.
South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines.
Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian.
Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%.
No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build.
And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years.
Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity.
Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek.
A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018.
Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years.
One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world.
Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades.
If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet.
It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week.
And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out.
You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake.
Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little.
The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery.
Choose.
Marcia Angell (previously at the NEJM) is as embarrassed by the profession of medicine as I am.
When the editor of the world’s most prestigious medical journal concluded that much of the clinical research it published could no longer be trusted, the problem was no longer abstract.
Marcia Angell, a pathologist who joined the New England Journal of Medicine staff in 1979, rose to executive editor and then served as interim editor-in-chief from 1999 to June 2000. She stepped down after more than two decades at the journal, formally to write a book. The deeper context was her growing conviction, formed from years of editing manuscripts, that pharmaceutical industry influence had compromised the independence of clinical research. She and previous editors had enforced strict conflict-of-interest rules, yet industry-sponsored studies continued to arrive with designs, analyses, and selective reporting that favored the sponsor’s product. Negative results were often suppressed, side effects minimized, and “academic” authors frequently carried undisclosed financial ties.
In a widely cited 2009 New York Review of Books essay, Angell wrote the line that crystallized her position: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” She described an industry that had shifted from discovering useful drugs toward marketing, co-opting academic medical centers, researchers, and even the journals that were supposed to serve as independent arbiters. Her 2000 editorial “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” and later book The Truth About the Drug Companies expanded the critique, arguing that commercial priorities systematically distorted what research was done, how it was conducted, and what reached publication.
Angell’s departure marked the end of an era of tighter editorial resistance to industry influence at the NEJM. Her public statements afterward made clear that she viewed the problem as systemic rather than isolated: once the bulk of clinical research depended on commercial funding, journals could no longer function as reliable filters of medical evidence.
@lady_with_flaws Liar. Check your facts!
Let's chip in for a one-way flight from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.
Rep. Ilhan Omar: "I'm a Somali girl. I miss my country. I dream of living in Somalia again."
Let's finally fulfill her dreams
@libsoftiktok He’s a dumbass!
@Milajoy Grok says this is generally true.
Government bureaucracy vs private sector innovation disparity... on steroids!
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
Private(Space X) vs Government (NASA) ... not even close!
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
Javier Milei is an insightful guy.
Traduction de l’excellent tweet de Javier Milei:
L’escroquerie des nobles étendards.
Le socialisme a un mécanisme pervers qu’il répète systématiquement : il s’approprie des causes nobles pour justifier des magouilles indéfendables.
D’abord, il choisit une cause moralement acceptable. Les handicapés, les retraités, l’université publique. Ensuite, au nom de cette cause, il exige toujours plus de dépenses publiques, crée des structures bureaucratiques gigantesques et administre des caisses multimillionnaires sans contrôles ni transparence.
Et que se passe-t-il quand quelqu’un arrive et ose demander où est l’argent ? Quand quelqu’un veut auditer ces caisses ?
Le chantage moral apparaît.
Ils ne montrent pas les chiffres. Ils ne rendent pas de comptes. Ils n’expliquent rien. Ils t’accusent d’être contre les handicapés, contre les retraités ou contre l’éducation.
Parce que l’objectif n’est pas de discuter de la meilleure façon d’aider ceux qui en ont le plus besoin. L’objectif est que personne n’ose remettre en question leur business.
Et quand les caisses sont enfin ouvertes, on retrouve toujours la même chose : intermédiaires, structures militantes, privilèges et magouilles financés avec l’argent des contribuables.
Ils utilisent les pauvres comme bouclier moral pour défendre les privilèges de la caste.
On l’a vu en Argentine et on le voit dans chaque pays où le socialisme a réussi à planter ses griffes.
Toujours le même mécanisme. Toujours le même chantage. Toujours les mêmes bénéficiaires. Et toujours les mêmes victimes : ceux qui ont vraiment besoin d’aide et les Argentins honnêtes qui paient la fête.
Ils ne défendent pas des droits. Ils défendent des caisses.
Qu’on ouvre tous les comptes. Qu’on publie chaque contrat. Que chaque responsable rende des comptes jusqu’au dernier peso. Les Argentins méritent de savoir en quoi leur argent est dépensé.
Vive la liberté bordel !
Passing students who have not mastered a subject dooms them to spiraling failure at the next level(s); and causes the public to lose faith in the schools.
Author Heather Mac Donald says “systemic racism” is not the reason Black Americans are underrepresented in colleges and professions, she says the real reason is a "skills gap”
“This is something that's very difficult to talk about, and I need to give a trigger warning. But the average skill level of black students is very, very low”
“According to the most widely used, objective, respected measures of student competence, The NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is given to hundreds of thousands of high school students and elementary school students every couple of years, 66% of Black 12th graders do not possess even the most basic 12th grade math skills”
She says it is not racism to notice and talk about these things. She says this is why DEI is so destructive
“That skills gap means that you can have meritocracy in an institution, or you can have diversity. You cannot have both. Am I a racist for bringing this up? I am not.
The facts are the facts. I don't care. The facts need to be looked at. They have been completely kept out of the public eye in order to keep this systemic lie of racism going on”
Let me just say that if the cause of black people not being proficient in certain things really was “systemic racism,” and it really was the White person holding them down, then that would be felt by all races
But it’s not, if you look at the test scores in universities, Asians are beating whites in every category
It has nothing to do with systematic racism
Grok says the meme is largely true! Foreign penalties are true and the penalties in the US are often not enforced. Liberal states often provide many of the benefits mentioned.
Here is what happens in other countries
Fake News abc decides to not risk another defamation lawsuit.
Stunning move! ABC deletes $6B Trump family exposé in less than 24 hrs. 'because it's false' https://t.co/QodDiUg5b8
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Sumaira gul
Seen from Pakistan
kk
Seen from Netherlands
Bokep hot
Seen from Indonesia
Nude scenes in movies
MANCUR BANJIR
Seen from Indonesia
Y
Seen from Kenya
Malatya ifşa ve itiraf
Seen from United States
سيفو الفيم🏳️⚧️🥺
فضايح المشاهير - سكسز العرب
Seen from Saudi Arabia
AYKUT 27
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers
✨
⭐
💫