Wrestleknownothing

I am interested. Which one of Biden's executive orders revoking a Trump executive order a) sank the economy, b) put us on the verge of losing reserve currency status, c) diminished our stand internationally, d) dimished or standing defensively, e) sold most of our Strategic Petroleum Reserves to china, f) opened our southern borders to over two million illegal immigrants including chinese spies and terrorists from around the world, g) guided law enforcement and surveillance apparatus to attack his political adversaries? And please be specific as I am very interested.

I really wish I knew what you are talking about. More importantly, I wish you knew what you are talking about.

You are aware that there are already different ways to get around the track, right? Race walking, hurdles, steeplechase? And wrestling has already made a move in the right direction.

Everything needs to be more like swimming.

The other process is through executive orders. A large portion of EOs in the early days of a presidency are reversing EOs of the previous president. In their first 100 days Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden used 45%, 37%, 24%, and 50%, respectively, of their EOs to revoke prior EOs. But one EO can be used to revoke multiple EOs, so even this is an understatement. Bush revoked 5 total EOs, Obama revoked 9, Trump revoked 13, and Biden revoked a whopping 67.

I am shocked that there is gambling going on here, This isn't some uniquely Biden thing. Every President in the history of presidents has used executive orders. And some have been as a direct result of a campaign promise (i.e. buying VOTES). And some have been challenged in court. Including Trump's travel bans and orders against sanctuary jurisdictions (fulfilling campaign promises). Everything is buying votes. Every time a politician says something you like they are buying your vote. Hopefully you can now un-clutch those pearls.

This reminds me of when my youngest was in college and the RA called the cops because he smelled weed. They did a search to find the weed. When my son told me about it I asked him if they found it in every room or just almost every room.

you guys are living your best lives.

Right back at ya, D3

What would have been the attraction back when the answer would have been yes?

As a software engineer would you want to work for Musk at Twitter?

Part of Levine's take is also something I said a long way back in this thread (I believe) about how terrible it would be to be Musk's "boss" as CEO. Of course, you get paid well to be miserable and laughed at. That is, assuming you can collect.

It does not. Twitter sells ads based on monetizable daily active users. Twitter discloses the monetizable daily active usage (mDAU), which defines as a number of logged accounts that were identified by Twitter and were able to show ads. Twitter has 206 million daily active users. The number of mDAU was the center of Musk's attempt to back out of the merger. As an aside, the argument he attempted to make would never have worked as a means to invalidate the binding merger agreement he signed.

I assume if you scroll past tweets without reading them that counts against your quota. I also assume he exaggerated a bit.

Not on Twitter either, but my daughter's fiance said he can go through 600 tweets in minutes.

I think he has been the obvious choice for a while. The rumor is that he gets paid like a head coach (though I assume not like Tom Brands). And perhaps he has no interest in the admin duties of a head coach. I also assume he has been contacted about many openings. The fact that Cael Sanderson has kept that staff together is another testiment to his coaching greatness.

From Matt Levine's Money Stuff newsletter today. Well, look, if I were the newly hired chief executive officer of a social media company, and if the directors and shareholders who brought me in as CEO had told me that my main mission was to turn around the company’s precarious financial situation by improving our position with advertisers, and if I spent my first few weeks reassuring advertisers and rebuilding relationships and talking up our site’s unique audience and powerful engagement, and then one day my head of software engineering came to me and said “hey boss, too many people were too engaged with too many posts, so I had to limit everyone’s ability to view posts on our site, just FYI,” I would … probably … fire ... him? I mean I suppose I might ask questions like “Is this because of some technological limitation on our system? Is it because you were monkeying with the code without understanding it? Is it because you tried to stop people from reading the site without logging in, [3] and messed up and stopped them from reading the site even when they logged in? Is it because you fired and demoralized too many engineers so no one was left to keep the systems running normally? Is it because you forgot to pay the cloud bills? Is it because deep down you don’t like it when people read posts on our site and you want to stop them, or you don’t like relying on ad revenue and want to sabotage my ability to sell ads?” Those are all interesting questions, and I suppose having the answers would help my new head of software engineering fix whatever this guy broke. But no matter what the answers are, this guy’s gotta go. If you are in charge of the software engineers at a social media site, and you make it so that people can’t read the site, that’s bad. Anyway something very funny happened at Twitter this weekend: Twitter began limiting how many posts users can read on its platform, an unusual move that came as owner Elon Musk says he is fighting companies trying to use its data for developing artificial intelligence programs. Musk on Saturday detailed the temporary changes, which involved limiting unverified accounts to reading just 600 posts a day while verified accounts—those paying a monthly subscription—can read 6,000 posts daily. He later announced multiple increases to the number of allowed posts. “To address extreme levels of data scraping & system manipulation, we’ve applied the following temporary limits,” Musk tweeted. … “It’s unprecedented as far as I know since the time of” internet bulletin boards, Jason Goldman, a former Twitter executive who has been critical of Musk’s stewardship, said about the limits. “To set limits so low that it renders the site unusable to average users is just the latest in the purely extractive approach the new ownership is taking.” Oh man! Musk, the head of Twitter's software and servers teams, is gonna be in so much trouble when his boss, Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino, gets to the office today. Oh I kid, I kid, but what a weird job that must be. The CEO job I mean. The software-and-servers job isn’t that weird — he’s in charge of a website — but he manages to make it weird.

It came out in the Supreme Court case that Harvard's admission rate for legacies is 34% and for non-legacies it is 6%. So legacy status is a big leg up. I always knew it was my father's fault I didn't get into Harvard.

Its like college wrestling. If you bring in the best, you can be the best. If you bring in the best and have them taught by the best, you will be the best. Schools like Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, etc. bring in the best and have the best professors, so they produce the best grads. Virtuous cycle.

Twitter no longer releases earnings as a private company. Where did you see April earnings?

Amen. The facilities arms race was a substitute form of compensation for athletes since the schools could not, would not, pay athletes directly. What Mike Locksley conveniently ignores is that he too would get dressed in a garabage can for an extra $25k.

When I read the article it was not clear to me what point they were trying to make with these stats. How do you intrepret them?

Well that explains why I can't see tweets anymore, but I am less confident than you about the reason. It makes sense to cut guys like me off. I lurk, but earn them no revenue and don't count toward their monetizable users that help sell adds. Cut me off and see if I subscribe. I won't, but some like me will.

I laughed because I worked at a place called Fox River and the founder had a website picture with him in the power stance while people off camera threw chickens in the air so they could get a "fox in the hen house" pic. It was cringy.

But that is just you reading between the lines and offering an interpretation based on what you think they are saying. That is not what they actually are attributed with saying. And the Supreme Court does not allege anywhere that they were being disingenous. So I have to go with the arguments made rather than the shadow arguments assumed.