CarpeCasus

Elon Musk sent an email to all SpaceX and Tesla employees describing his rules for meetings. The email leaked. The rules explain why his companies move faster than anyone else's and why his employees are simultaneously the most productive and most exhausted people in any industry. Rule 1: No large meetings unless you are certain they provide value to the entire audience. If not, keep them small. Rule 2: Leave a meeting if you are not contributing. It is not rude to leave. It is rude to waste someone's time by staying. Rule 3: No frequent meetings unless you are dealing with an extremely urgent matter. Meeting frequency should drop once the urgent matter is resolved. Rule 4: No acronyms or nonsense words. Any acronym that needs explanation shouldn't exist. Rule 5: Communication should travel the shortest path necessary, not through the chain of command. A manager who insists all communication flows through them is a bottleneck that should be removed. The most radical rule is number 2. In every other company, leaving a meeting early is a career damaging act of disrespect. At SpaceX, staying in a meeting where you're not adding value is the career damaging act because it signals you don't understand time. The cultural inversion is intentional. Most companies incentivize presence. Elon incentivizes absence when absence is more productive than attendance. The email also included a line that has been quoted more than any other Elon statement about management: "Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren't adding value. It is not rude to leave. It is rude to make someone stay and waste their time." The result: SpaceX and Tesla meetings last 5 to 15 minutes. Most corporate meetings last 30 to 60. The difference across thousands of employees across thousands of meetings per week is millions of recovered hours per year. Hours that go to building rather than talking about building. The man who builds faster than any CEO alive builds faster because his people spend less time in rooms talking about what they're going to build and more time actually building it. The email was a leaked memo. It should have been a textbook.

Muchos mensajes, análisis y comentarios como este, asegurando que las pandillas de Haití no son como las de El Salvador; que son sanguinarias, que están fuertemente armadas, que nadie ha podido vencerlas, que todas las misiones han fracasado, que estamos cayendo en una trampa, que no sabemos a lo que nos enfrentamos, que será nuestra ruina, que vamos camino a nuestro Waterloo. Pero cuando Dios nos conceda la victoria, los mismos que hoy dicen todo eso cambiarán su discurso. Dirán que siempre fue fácil, que cualquiera podía hacerlo, que las pandillas de Haití no eran tan peligrosas como se pensaba. En fin, nunca los hemos escuchado y no vamos a empezar ahora. Todos los que se han enlistado son creyentes y hemos encomendado esta misión a Dios, mientras que las pandillas de Haití son satánicas y es de conocimiento público que hacen sacrificios humanos. Dios nos concederá la victoria. El Creador del Universo está con nosotros. Deuteronomio 28:7 “Jehová derrotará a tus enemigos que se levantaren contra ti; por un camino saldrán contra ti, y por siete caminos huirán de delante de ti”.

Okay. I'm going to explain something here, because apparently we've reached the point in human civilization where BASIC FIREARMS SAFETY is now a controversial political position. There is a concept in engineering called "defense in depth." It's a fairly simple idea. You have multiple, independent layers of protection against something going catastrophically wrong, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding new and exciting ways to screw things up. For example, commercial buildings have automatic fire sprinklers. They ALSO have fire extinguishers. "But the building has SPRINKLERS!" you might exclaim. "Why do we need FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? What are you, some kind of ANTI-SPRINKLER BIGOT?" No. We have both because fires are bad, and we'd prefer the building not turn into a large, expensive barbecue. This brings us to firearms. Most of us "gun bros" (and chicks/sisters/catgirls/whatever) are familiar with something called Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety, named after Jeff Cooper, who was something of an authority on the subject. They are: 1. Treat every firearm as though it is loaded. ALWAYS. 2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until your sights are on the target and you are ready to fire. 4. Be absolutely certain of your target and what lies beyond it. Notice something interesting about these rules? They work TOGETHER. They're an example of DEFENSE IN DEPTH. Suppose you accidentally point your firearm at something you don't particularly want to shoot, such as your television, your dog, or your Uncle Bob, who has already had a difficult week. Well, if you're following Rule Three, your finger isn't on the trigger. And if you're following Rule One, you're behaving as though the gun is loaded, EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY UNLOADED IT FIVE MINUTES AGO. Here's something that firearms instructors understand, and apparently a surprising number of people on the internet do not: HUMAN BEINGS ARE IDIOTS. Not ALL the time, mind you. Frequently enough that entire engineering disciplines exist to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes we forget to unload a firearm. Sometimes we THINK we unloaded a firearm. Sometimes we're absolutely POSITIVE the safety is engaged, when in fact it isn't. Sometimes we install a mechanical device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging, and then behave as though this magically repeals the fundamental principles of firearms safety. It does not. A mechanical safety device is ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION. It is not a permission slip to disregard all the others. This is why responsible gun owners follow these rules even when the firearm is unloaded, even when the safety is engaged, and even when we're absolutely certain the thing couldn't possibly fire. The whole POINT of defense in depth is that when one layer fails, the others are still there to prevent somebody from having a REALLY BAD FRIDAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. I suspect part of the problem here is a fundamental difference between British and American firearms culture. In Britain, firearms are sufficiently restricted that, for most people, getting your hands on one involves obtaining the appropriate government permissions, satisfying various legal requirements, and presumably presenting a signed note from the Archbishop of Canterbury confirming that you are a responsible adult. Meanwhile, over here in the United States, we crazy Americans can, (subject to the applicable laws,) just BUY THE DAMN THINGS. We own them. We shoot them. We clean them. We take them to the range. Some of us own enough firearms to equip a moderately sized Central American republic. Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, this does not mean we're all wandering around our living rooms casually pointing loaded shotguns at Uncle Bubba while shouting "YEEHAW!" Quite the opposite, actually. Because we regularly handle firearms, responsible American gun owners develop habits specifically intended to prevent Uncle Bubba from having to explain to an emergency-room physician why he's suddenly acquired an additional hole leaking important biological fluids. We follow multiple, overlapping safety rules precisely because we understand that mechanical devices can fail, people can make mistakes, and bullets are notoriously reluctant to return to the barrel once they've been fired. And this brings us to the photograph. The reason people are criticizing the officer in the hijab is not, contrary to your fascinating theory, that she is a WOMAN. Or that she is a MUSLIM. Or that she is wearing a HIJAB. It's that she's handling a firearm in a manner that violates basic firearms safety principles. Here's the really astonishing part: WE EXPECT TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW BETTER. I know. Shocking. We expect electricians not to lick exposed wires. We expect surgeons to wash their hands. We expect airline pilots to remember that LANDING is generally considered an important part of flying. We expect police officers to demonstrate safe firearms handling. These expectations do not magically disappear because the professional in question happens to belong to a demographic group you believe requires special protection from criticism. In fact, I'd argue that holding her to a LOWER standard because she's a Muslim woman would be considerably more insulting than holding her to the exact same standard as every other armed professional. Her religion is irrelevant. Her sex is irrelevant. Her clothing is irrelevant. HER FIREARMS HANDLING IS THE ISSUE. And if your first instinct upon seeing someone criticize unsafe firearms handling is to accuse them of religious bigotry rather than examine the actual safety concern, I would respectfully suggest that you have confused firearms safety with a sociology seminar. This would be merely annoying if we were discussing something harmless, like the proper way to load a dishwasher. Unfortunately, we're discussing a device specifically designed to propel a piece of metal at extremely high velocity. Those devices, unlike internet political arguments, have a nasty habit of producing consequences that cannot be fixed by deleting your post. Which you should consider doing, anyway.

I've carried firearms both professionally and personally for 42 years. They weapon could not have a magazine in it, be on safe, and have an empty chamber indicator visible. And you still never, ever put your finger on the trigger or until it's time to engage a target and always ensure that the weapon is never pointed at anything unless you intend to to shoot. You played once at a police range.

Gamers largely don't care about politics; they just want good games. The people who turned everything into political propaganda starting in 2012 MADE SHITTY GAMES. Make shit, die of it.

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has responded to the unacceptable online abuse directed at a Met officer who received an award at yesterday's annual Police Federation Conference. PC Fiona Shaik Umar was recognised for the outstanding contribution she has made for women in policing.

The amount of Brits who are trying to tell me that there is no magazine in this rifle and blah blah blah. Doesn’t matter. Always treat the weapon as if it is loaded. Do not point it at anything you are not willing to destroy and take your frigging finger off the trigger.

Let’s be clear: If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality. And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t. Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children. This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate. No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate. Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher. No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming. It is not tolerance. It is invasion. Children Are Not Here to Validate You Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy. There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations. Let me state it plainly: Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality. Period. Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming. Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street. This is not diversity. This is decay. Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism. We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants. Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer. Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits. And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power. Consent Applies to Culture, Too We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life? No child consents to drag queen story hour. No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats. No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out. Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything. Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery. And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated. The boundary is back. And we are drawing it in bold.

I do not carry a gun so I can hurt somebody. I carry a gun to keep a criminal or crazed attacker from hurting me or my family.

This is a public service announcement for all women everywhere ever. A fight does not happen by mutual consent. A fight happens because one person decides to start it. That's ONE. Uno. Un. Eins. Ichi. Yī. Unus. Ett. Hana. Wāḥid. One is not two. Your man is not in a fight because he looked at the other guy, and they both said, hey, let's totally throw down, bro, as if fighting were a pickup game of basketball. Your man is in a fight because one person decided to attack. That person is not necessarily your man even if, and I cannot stress this enough, even if your man is the one who throws hands first. Yes, you read that right. If you don't understand, if it makes no sense to you, that's because you know nothing about fighting. If you grab your man and try to restrain him, you are not preventing the fight. You are restraining him while the fight occurs. Just because you would like your man to exit the situation does not necessarily mean he can. Even if he can, that does not necessarily mean he should. He knows about fighting. Some men know less about it, and some men know more, but unless you are Ronda Rousey or Lena Miculek, your man always knows more about fighting than you. If you have something you want him to do, like exit the situation if he can, use your words like a big girl. Do not touch him. He will ignore you, of course, because you have no idea what you are talking about, but you can talk if it makes you happy. Do not touch him. Step back from the area of conflict and get out of the way. Keep him between you and the threat if possible. Do not get between him and the threat. That is retarded. Also do not touch him. If you do touch him, do not be surprised if you shoves you hard enough to land you on your butt ten feet away. This is the appropriate response. He is trying to protect himself and you from your willful ignorance. Do not touch him. If you do touch him, and he survives, do not be surprised if he ends the relationship afterwards. You grossly disrespected his judgement, and put him in serious danger with your selfish desire to be right all the time. Do not touch him. The time to have a conversation about whether the fight should have happened is after the fight, not while people are in danger. Do not touch him. Okay, quick reading comprehension test. What should you not do?

🚨 BREAKING: Outrage erupts after man named "Miguel Alonso Maldonado Soriano" took a SLEDGEHAMMER to the historic Iwo Jima statue at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia and knocked the head off one of the Marines HE LITERALLY BEHEADED IT. Dig into his history and find out if he's an illegal! Should be deported regardless! Police caught Miguel Alonso Maldonado Soriano, 27, of Stafford, in the act around 10 PM Wednesday. They say the damage runs into the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars The 9-foot limestone statue was carved by Felix de Weldon, the same sculptor behind the famous Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington. It honors the Marines who raised the flag over Iwo Jima 🙏🏻 He's charged with felony destruction of property, trespassing, and felony injury to a monument, and he's being held without bond. Throw the book at him 😡 📽️ WUSA9

Guys, I can't quite put my finger on it but I got a bad feeling Wizards of the Coast doesn't have the best interests of Old School D&D players in mind. 🤔

ON UCHICAGO CAMPUS: U.S. Senator from Michigan Elissa Slotkin hopes planned political prosecutions of republican leaders will scare young conservatives from getting involved in politics. @ElissaSlotkin

JUST IN: The UK Sunday Times published a major report today detailing a previously secret SAS operation in Syria in 2022, which led to a murder investigation afterwards. According to the reporting, SAS operators attempted to capture an ISIS cell leader codenamed “Bravo One" near Al-Zer. The team came under fire, pursued two individuals, and killed them after assessing an imminent threat. An initial internal review cleared the action as self-defence. The director of Britain’s special forces later referred the soldiers to police. Several were arrested (some while still deployed in Syria/Iraq), homes were raided, and they faced a double murder investigation carrying potential life sentences. Within about 48 hours of questioning, they were returned to operations and conducted further raids. The case dragged on for years, and the soldiers were cleared last year with the possibility of the case reopening. The incident allegedly plunged the SAS into a crisis, with impacts on morale, retention, and accountability.

For everyone complaining about Elon building a flying car instead of ending world hunger In 2021 Elon offered $6 BILLION to the WFP on the condition that any donation be on a transparent public plan and be able to track how the money would address the crisis They turned him down

Thank goodness the bystander who intervened ignored the carry ban Giffords helped pass. Which you guys advocated for based on no evidence, given those with carry permits so rarely commit any crimes. Also, your deflection is lame. Several shootings with semiauto rifles have been less lethal than this terrible incident. A shotgun is a lot more lethal than an AR15 at close range and when time is not a factor. Time only became a factor this time because of rapid armed intervention.

"Ban guns and there will be less gun deaths" Listen up, because I'm going to explain why this isn't true. If you ban guns, most law-abiding people won't keep them. This might reduce gun deaths slightly, but law-abiding people basically don't shoot each other much. You get the occasional crime of passion and the odd gun accident, but these are rare enough to be almost statistical noise. What you would see is a large drop in gun suicides. But one of the things that is well known about suicide statistics is the people who really want to kill themselves readily substitute means. So they would off themselves in other ways, for no net decrease in anything we really care about. Meanwhile, criminals are going to laugh at your gun ban. They will still have firearms. They will still kill each other with firearms at a pretty horrific rate that we couldn't expect to change much after the ban. What will change is that criminals will see firearms as a more effective tool for predation, because the victim population is disarmed and can't shoot back. There will be more crime, and more gun deaths, because of this. This isn't just theory. We can study longitudinal crime statistics in jurisdictions before and after gun bans and see it in practice. To "reduce gun deaths" significantly, you'd have to find a way to remove guns from the hands of criminals, and then keep them inaccessible to criminals. There is no known way to do this that actually works reliably, and doesn't have other costs that are too high for a free society to pay.

The Executive Director of the “Idaho Hispanic Foundation” says she is very concerned about our ballot initiative to make English the official language of Idaho. She says “if you understand information the best way in your language, it makes your access to community better.” And to that I say: If you want to live in a Spanish-speaking community, there are in fact places in the world where you can do that. Idaho isn’t one of them.

No one has yet made a case on why we should return power to a party that is promoting anti-American policies and who when they had power made everyone's life worse. The dems tried to destroy the oil industry. Thry tried to destroy the cattle industry. They tried to destroy the egg industry. They want to tax everyone and everything to pay for their fraud and corruption. They blew the doors open on federal spending causing historic inflation that we are still dealing with 2 years later. They opened the borders to a flood of illegal and legal migrants. Their weak foreign policy allowed Russia to invade Ukraine and Iran to go full steam ahead on developing a nuke. Their weak trade policy caused 10,000s of factories to shut down, thousands and millions to lose their good paying middle class jobs to China and other nations. Their lack of law enforcement caused thousands to lose their life and property. Their lack of morals and deviant behavior allowed men into women sports and locker rooms among other thingd. That behavior also saw the destruction of the nuclear family and a destruction of religion within the nation. It's clear from their comments that they have not learned anything from being out of power and will just continue what they started if given power again. There is no case anyone can make on why returning these people to power will change anything for the better but many points of evidence to fear returning them to power will just make everything worse once again.

Controversial opinion. South America has the color scheme correct for right and left. Communism is associated with the color red. It’s a mistake for the United States to have this backwards.