Peter Green (@pcg) header
Peter Green (@pcg) profile picture

δοῦλος, husband, father, business owner, nomad, lover of tacos al pastor and Belgian beer. Often sarcastic, usually misunderstood. Restless. NOT REALLY HERE.

Flagstaff, AZ
Joined March 2008
Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)Photo by Peter Green (@pcg)
Several years ago, @paulg made such an assertion on here, and we tried to have a serious discussion about the fact that the visa programs he favors aren’t principally mechanisms for identifying extraordinary talent, but a convenient tool that allows employers to recruit foreigners whose need for immigration benefits gives employers leverage over the price of their labor, thereby interfering with the operation of the very “meritocracy” he’s trying to defend. The dirty little secret of early-stage startups (that Paul was a part of funding during his Y Combinator days), especially the immigrant-founded ones, is that they often can’t afford to hire the best engineers because those engineers go to work for the FAANG companies, which pay higher salaries than early-stage startups can afford. So they rely on visas because foreign workers may be willing to accept lower wages in exchange for the immigration benefits attached to the job. There’s also a noticeable tendency for immigrant founders to hire their own because of commonalities of culture and language, so in-group preferences can keep Americans out of jobs at their startups. Google “Forbes The Russia House” to understand this dynamic. And the FAANG companies are interested in a compliant workforce that remains loyal to them. What keeps them up at night is the prospect of a competitor offering a better financial package to poach their engineers. See the Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe class-action settlement over employee no-poaching agreements. The H-1B becomes a useful tool in preventing this because moving to another company on an H-1B involves immigration paperwork and creates additional risks and friction, which means a lot of H-1B workers won’t move to another company to seek a better financial offer. No matter how much counterevidence we provided to Paul (60 Minutes investigations, Apple and Meta’s DOJ settlements, stagnant STEM wages, etc.), his answer, in essence, was that if importing a handful of exceptional geniuses also meant importing a much larger number of ordinary workers who would displace Americans, that was a price worth paying. He eventually blocked us. There is a useful analogy in M. Night Shyamalan’s movie ‘Unbreakable’. Samuel L. Jackson’s character deliberately orchestrates catastrophic events knowing that people will die, because he’s searching for the exceptional person who can survive them and thereby prove that person possesses superhuman abilities. When Bruce Willis’ character, who possesses those abilities and was the sole survivor of a horrific train accident, realizes that Jackson deliberately caused the accident, he’s horrified and disgusted by what he’s done. Jackson’s character nevertheless continues to defend his actions as necessary because they ultimately led him to discover Willis’ superhuman abilities. That is essentially @paulg’s position. The exceptional immigrant is worth the price, even if it comes at the cost of displacing American workers by bringing in much larger numbers of ordinary foreign workers, along with the permanent demographic changes that result from such a policy. No argument about who bears those costs, or about the basic principle that a sovereign nation has the right to determine who enters its labor market and becomes a member of its society, seems capable of changing his mind, not even when someone like @PalmerLuckey makes it. China is allegedly our arch-nemesis in the AI and technology competition, and Paul’s solution is to fast-track green cards for every Chinese STEM graduate because he somehow believes this will prevent China from succeeding. He chooses to ignore the fact that we’ve been allowing Chinese students to come here for decades while continuing to confront concerns about IP theft and espionage, as well as numerous cases demonstrating that acquiring an American passport doesn’t necessarily erase a person’s ties or loyalties to China. The best thing policymakers can do is ignore people like him.
73
436
44
3,180
334,954
Peter Green retweeted
One of the things that drives me absolutely insane in youth football is when we confuse 'moving a lot' with 'working hard'. “Move! Move! Move!” Why? Football doesn’t need constant movement, it needs **constant support**. And those are not the same thing. Sometimes supporting the ball means sprinting 20 yards because the situation has changed and you need to get there immediately, sometimes it means moving three yards left so the player on the ball can see you, sometimes you’re moving to drag an opponent away and create space for somebody else, sometimes you’re exploiting the space somebody else created, and sometimes the best thing you can possibly do is stay exactly where you are. Nothing is worse than receiving the ball and all of your teammates suddenly running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to “be an option,” but nobody actually stays anywhere long enough to become one. This is why I don’t think off-ball effort should ever just be measured by how much somebody runs. Spain were probably my favorite example of this at the World Cup. They had constant support around the ball, but that didn’t mean everybody was constantly moving. Rodri and Fabián Ruiz were brilliant at it, they’d move when the game required movement, stay connected when staying put gave the ball carrier an option, sprint into a new position when the situation changed, then sometimes barely move at all because they were already exactly where they needed to be. There was actually a FIFA metric during the tournament called “offers made,” essentially tracking moments where players moved with the intention of becoming available to help maintain possession. Against France, Spain had 236 offers in the middle third compared with France’s 137. Almost double. But again, I don’t think the lesson is "move more". The lesson is to get better at understanding WHEN, WHERE and WHY to support the ball. Where are my teammates, where are the opponents, what space needs occupying, what space needs creating, does the player on the ball actually need me to move, and if I do move, what am I trying to change? That’s much more useful than simply demanding visible effort. Because football doesn’t reward maximum movement. It rewards appropriate movement. And sometimes working really hard to help your teammate means having the discipline to stay exactly where you are.
7
23
4
168
12,641
Peter Green retweeted
Cuando termina la pelea, los boxeadores, que se estuvieron dañando la salud durante largos minutos, se abrazan. ¿Por qué? Porque entienden que durante el combate hay que dejarlo todo, pero cuando termina, dejan de ser rivales y vuelven a ser personas. Por eso, durante el partido, cuando Mbappé se rio ante cada patada, cuando mostró la pelota o cuando tiró un lujo ya con la ventaja en el marcador, hizo lo que debía: responder con personalidad y fútbol. Pero, cuando no saludó a Gill una vez consumada la victoria y prácticamente se la gritó en la cara, pasó a ser automáticamente un estúpido, un cobarde y un deshonorado. Estúpido, por provocar a alguien recién vencido; cobarde, porque sabía bien que Paraguay no podía revertir el resultado y que el arquero guaraní no podía dormirlo de una piña; y deshonrado porque rompió con todos los códigos que rigen el fútbol y que atraviesan desde los potreros hasta la Copa del Mundo. Un crack Kylian, pero un imbécil de época
2,981
3,131
376
17,082
771,878
O futebol é o esporte mais bonito já inventado. E pelos motivos mais loucos.  Em primeiro e mais importante lugar, porque decidiu contrariar o corpo humano. Parece exagero, mas não é. A nossa espécie passou milênios se gabando das mãos. Polegar opositor, ferramenta, escrita, espada, bisturi, controle remoto, celular. Quase tudo o que fazemos bem passa por elas. A mão é a arrogância anatômica do ser humano. O futebol olhou para isso e disse que não. No futebol, a parte mais habilidosa do corpo é quase proibida. As mãos ficam ali, inúteis, penduradas, como se fossem um acessório constrangedor. Só um sujeito pode usá-las, justamente aquele colocado para impedir a alegria dos outros. O resto precisa resolver a vida com os pés, com a cabeça, com o peito, com o ombro, com o improviso e com uma dose generosa de erro. Isso muda tudo. Com as mãos, o corpo obedece. Basta ver um jogo de basquete para entender. A bola parece extensão natural do atleta. Ela vai, volta, quica, gira, entra. Há beleza nisso, claro. Mas há também uma certa obediência do mundo. A mão manda e a bola aceita. Com os pés, a bola negocia. Ela escapa meio metro. Ela bate na canela. Ela quica no gramado ruim. Ela trai o craque e humilha o perna de pau. Ela transforma um domínio simples em pequena tragédia. Ela permite que um passe fácil vire lateral e que um chute torto entre no ângulo. Essa é uma parte enorme da graça. O futebol é difícil porque é jogado contra a própria anatomia. Um drible perfeito vale mais porque não deveria ser tão limpo. Um lançamento de quarenta metros vale mais porque saiu de uma parte do corpo que, em tese, foi feita para caminhar. Uma bicicleta vale mais porque desafia a física, o bom senso e a lombar. Com as mãos, muita coisa parece possível. Com os pés, quase tudo parece improvável. O futebol nasce desse quase. O segundo motivo é igualmente insano. O futebol é o único esporte em que tudo foi pensado para ter o mínimo possível de pontos ou gols. Foi desenhado para torná-lo raro. O impedimento existe para atrapalhar o gol. O goleiro existe para atrapalhar o gol. A defesa existe para transformar o caminho até a rede em um labirinto de pernas, faltas, desvios, tropeços e gritos de “sobe”. Sem goleiro e sem impedimento, o futebol seria outra coisa. Talvez um esporte de placar alto. Talvez mais palatável para quem precisa de pontuação constante para acreditar que algo está acontecendo. Mas seria menos futebol. O futebol vive da espera. Boa parte da partida é feita de aproximações. Um passe que não entra. Um cruzamento alto demais. Um atacante que sai um segundo antes. Uma bola na trave. Uma defesa impossível. O jogo vai acumulando tensão. A torcida sabe que o gol pode não vir. E justamente por isso, quando vem, ele rasga tudo. O gol não é apenas um ponto. É uma explosão, uma libertação de toda a tensão acumulada.  É gente abraçando desconhecido. É pai lembrando do filho. É filho lembrando do pai. É cerveja voando e todos achando razoável. É arquibancada virando corpo coletivo por alguns segundos. Ninguém comemora uma cesta de três pontos como comemora um gol aos 43 do segundo tempo. Não há equivalência possível. O gol é raro demais para ser tratado com educação. Por isso o futebol incomoda tanto aqueles que se acostumaram a muitos pontos. Ele não entrega recompensa em intervalos regulares. Ele não promete justiça proporcional. Um time pode ter a bola o jogo inteiro, criar quinze chances, chutar na trave, obrigar o goleiro adversário a fazer a melhor partida da carreira e perder de um a zero em um escanteio mal defendido. Isso não é falha do futebol.  É futebol. A retranca pode ser feia, mas pode funcionar. A posse de bola pode ser elegante, mas nem sempre resolve. O time inferior pode se fechar, sofrer, gastar tempo, buscar uma falta lateral e achar um gol chorado no fim. O empate pode ser grande resultado. O zero a zero pode ser uma operação de sobrevivência. Resto em substack.com/@cardososampaio…
119
849
123
3,521
154,490
Peter Green retweeted
If you divide 1 by 998,001 you get all three-digit numbers from 000 to 999 in order, except for 998.
212
1,854
183
26,702
1,383,523
NYC embraces collectivism. What could go possibly wrong...🙄
446
7,099
356
19,499
220,868
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: The view from FIFA’s $60 seats revealed!
51
452
22
4,515
141,508
Peter Green retweeted
I chose the green door ninety-three days ago. At the time, it seemed obviously correct. Not even a close call. The red door offered two billion dollars immediately—a sum so large it would solve every material problem I'd ever face, fund any project I could imagine, and still leave enough to give away amounts that would meaningfully change thousands of lives. But two billion is a number. It has a fixed relationship to the economy, to the things money can buy, to the world. The green door offered one dollar that doubles every day. I remember standing there, doing the mental math. Day 30: about a billion dollars. Day 40: over a trillion. Day 50: a quadrillion. The red door would be surpassed before the first month ended, and after that, the gap would grow incomprehensibly fast. Choosing the red door would be like choosing a ham sandwich over a genie's lamp because you were hungry right now. So I walked through the green door. The first few weeks were unremarkable. I had a dollar, then two, then four. By day ten I had $512, which felt like finding money in an old jacket. By day twenty I had over a million, and I started getting calls from financial advisors I'd never contacted. By day thirty-one I had crossed the two-billion threshold—officially richer than I would have been behind the red door. I didn't understand what was happening until around day sixty. The money, you see, had to exist somewhere. Not philosophically—I mean physically. Digitally. When I checked my bank balance, a computer somewhere had to store that number. And storing the number 2^n requires n bits. One bit per day. That's it. That's the rate at which my fortune's representation grows. A linear function. Almost comically modest. But here's what I'd failed to understand about exponential growth: the value doesn't care about the representation. The bits grow linearly. The dollars they encode grow exponentially. And dollars make claims on the physical world. Day sixty. My balance: 2^60 dollars. About 1.15 quintillion. Roughly 1,000 times the entire global GDP. The number itself required only 60 bits to store—less than a tweet, less than this sentence, trivially small from an information-theoretic perspective. But money is not information. Money is a claim. The calls started coming from the Treasury Department. Polite, confused, increasingly frantic. They explained that the M2 money supply of the United States was approximately 21 trillion dollars. I now held about 15,000 times that amount. When I tried to spend any of it—even a tiny fraction—the transaction represented a claim on more goods and services than the entire human economy had ever produced in its history. "The number in your account," a Treasury official said, "is not meaningful." "It's in your computer," I replied. "The computer," she said carefully, "does not understand what the number represents." Day seventy-five. 2^75 dollars. I could purchase—in principle—roughly 350 million copies of the entire Earth's annual economic output. The representation remained elegant: 75 bits. Nine and a half bytes. I could write my net worth on a Post-it note in binary. But representations aren't wealth. Wealth is factories, farmland, human labor, time, attention, atoms arranged into useful configurations. And I had laid claim to more atoms than existed. This is where it gets strange. The global financial system is, at its core, a system of ledgers. Distributed, reconciled, audited. When the Federal Reserve's systems recorded my balance, and Chase's systems recorded my balance, and the IRS's systems recorded my balance, those numbers had to match. And they did match—trivially, easily, using a handful of bytes each. But then the systems tried to do things with the number. Calculate taxes owed. Assess systemic risk. Determine what fraction of GDP was held by a single individual. Run inflation models. Price assets in a market that now included a participant with claims exceeding the value of all other claims combined. Day eighty-two. The S&P 500 became undefined. Not zero, not infinity—undefined. My proportional ownership of the market, if I chose to exercise it, exceeded 100%. The shares I could theoretically purchase outnumbered the shares that existed. Financial models divide by market cap; market cap now included a term that broke the arithmetic. Day eighty-five. The International Monetary Fund published a paper titled "On the Representability of Post-Scarcity Claims." It concluded that exchange rates could no longer be calculated because the dollar itself had become paradoxical—simultaneously the world's reserve currency and a unit of measurement that had lost all meaning. My balance on day eighty-five: 2^85 dollars. Still just 85 bits. About ten and a half bytes. The representation remained trivial. The reality it pointed to had become impossible. Day ninety. I tried to buy a coffee. The transaction failed. Not because of insufficient funds, not because of a technical error, but because the payment system could not determine a meaningful exchange rate. My card represented a claim on approximately 10^27 dollars. The coffee cost $4.50. The ratio between these numbers—the percentage of my wealth the coffee would cost—was so small that it rounded to zero in every floating-point system on Earth. I could not pay because the act of payment required representing a number smaller than any computer could distinguish from nothing. I offered to pay in cash. I had a twenty. The barista looked at me like I'd offered to pay with a seashell. "Where did you get physical currency?" she asked. That's when I realized: I had broken cash too. The Treasury had stopped printing bills three weeks earlier. Why maintain physical currency when one account holder could—at any moment—claim more dollars than had ever been printed in human history? The symbolic relationship between paper and value had always been a polite fiction, but my existence had made the fiction impossible to maintain. Day ninety-three. Today. My balance is 2^93 dollars: approximately 10^28. About 10 billion times the estimated value of all assets on Earth. The representation requires 93 bits. Twelve bytes. Smaller than my name. The economy hasn't collapsed, exactly. People still trade, still work, still produce. But they've stopped using dollars. They've had to. A currency in which one person holds virtually infinite units is not a currency at all—it's a monopoly ticket that everyone has silently agreed to stop playing with. I keep thinking about what money actually is. It's not the bits. The bits are trivial; they always were. It's not even the paper or the gold or the entries in a ledger. Money is a shared agreement about who has claims on what. A story we tell together about value and exchange and debt. I broke the story. Not through violence, not through fraud, not through any action more dramatic than walking through a door and watching a number tick upward. Just by existing. Just by holding a claim that grew faster than the world's ability to honor it. The red door offered two billion dollars. A large but finite claim. A claim that fit within the story, that could be exchanged and spent and taxed and inherited. A claim the world could accommodate. The green door offered something else entirely: a claim that would grow until it consumed all other claims, until the very concept of claiming became incoherent. I still have the 93 bits. They're sitting on a server somewhere, humming along, doubling quietly at midnight. By next week they'll represent more dollars than there are atoms in the observable universe. And I still can't buy a coffee.
This quoted post is unavailable.
533
2,078
522
21,486
7,230,010
Don't imagine Trump as a 4D chess player. That's the wrong metaphor. Imagine him instead as a fencer. He has a sword, which is a very simple tool, with a very simple purpose: pointy end goes in the other guy. Then remember this Bruce Lee quote: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." That's Trump. He uses very, very simple negotiating techniques. And he's very, very good at them. This particular move was a two-stage combo. Two very simple moves. 1. Habitually talk like you have an IQ of 95. Everything is either very bad, or tremendous. Every sentence structure is simple and straightforward. No philosophy, no reducing things to first principles, no complex analysis. Talk like a midwit so people think you are a midwit. 2. Door in the face technique. A compliance method so simple and well-known it has a wikipedia page. The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the respondent's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation. Except Trump is so good at wielding this simple weapon that he doesn't need to make a second request. He just says a crazy thing, and everyone who's not paying attention believes he wants a crazy thing because they think he's a retard. Then they fall all over themselves trying to suggest a reasonable alternative, which ends up being pretty much the actual thing Trump wanted all along. It's that simple, he does it again and again, and it works again and again, because the people who hate him desperately want to think he's dumb. They succumb to the temptation of flattering their own egos instead of keeping their eyes on the prize. That makes them easy to manipulate.
I feel stupid now. I need to stop underestimating Trump, dammit.
268
953
192
8,162
564,292
🚨 BRAKING 🚨 I HAVE SEEN ENOUGH. Donald Trump has now become the first president in American history to when election for a nonconsecutive second term as president. His election is historic in a number of ways: 1. He will be the oldest president in American history the minute he’s sworn in. 2. He becomes the first true evangelical, churchgoing Christian to serve a second term. Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid to Gerald Ford and thus only served one term. 3. Importantly, the prohibition against serving more than two terms only applies if they are consecutive, so Trump will be eligible to run for a third term in 2028. 4. He now has diplomatic immunity and the guilty verdicts against him are vacated. 5. Jesus was a great American who literally wrote the Bible, but he never accomplished anything like this. Congratulations, sir
326
440
62
4,224
750,757
This, and Disney Star Wars, and all of modern Hollywood, and all of Manhattan tradpub, can be explained with one simple idea. And no, it isn't "Satan". No religious suppositions are required. What's going on here is venial, and even more depraved. Narcissism. You see, there are two kinds of artistic creativity. Both are based on egotism, but one is healthy, and the other is destructive. The first says "Art is about beauty and truth. I will create that which is beautiful and true, that which uplifts those who look upon it. And my ego will be satisfied when my work is acknowledged as good, both by myself and others." This is based on a healthy version of egotism... pride. Pride is self-respect, a sense of one's own proper dignity or value, as earned through merit, virtue, and accomplishment. The second says "Art is about self-expression. I will create art based on whatever is in myself, no matter how ugly, deceptive, and low. I will make myself visible in every aspect of my art, and my ego will satisfied, because I will be the center of attention, with everyone looking at me." This is based on the sick version of egotism... narcissism. It is the ego that demands to be the center of attention, regardless of what others actually wish to see or would like to pay attention to. It is the revenge of the neglected child, not on the mother who ignored him, but on the entire universe. Great art is not about self-expression. It comes from the self, it is shaped by the self, but it the truth it expresses is shared and universal. This is why it speaks to others, not just the artist. When we look upon a fine sculpture, we see only David, not Michelangelo. When we read a great story, we do not see Tolkien, and we forget, for a moment, that Frodo and Sam aren't real. We can say Van Gogh painted one white iris because he was lonely, isolated within a crowd, but if we do say that, we care because we have been lonely, too. Great art makes the artist invisible. He waits backstage until the art is done, and it is time for him to step out and take a bow, receive his applause and be satisfied in a work well done. He does not stand between the audience and their enjoyment of the work. But, for this precise reason, great art cannot emerge from narcissism. The narcissist cannot bear to upstaged by anything, even the work of his own hands, the child of his own brain. The narcissistic artist creates art not to please others, but to force others to look at him. He must stamp his personality on every corner of the work, make it his and his alone, and remind the audience, in every moment, in every place they direct their gaze, that this work is his, and that he is what truly matters, here. This art, shown here, is not ugly by accident. It is ugly because the artists wish you to look upon their ugliness, both outer and inner. It is ugly because its message is not "look at this" but "look at me". This is why the left is obsessed with "representation" in art. This is why they cover themselves in ugly, mismatched tattoos, and dye their hair pink, purple, and blue. This is why they write self-indulgent stories about "identity" and "finding your squad". They are screaming their identity at the void, never realizing that it's not only possible, but easy, to be unique without being interesting or useful. Those who fancy themselves to be beautiful unique snowflakes would do well to remember that the slightest touch of heat will turn them into homogeneous, ubiquitous, undifferentiated water. They can work for Disney all they want, making black lesbian Jedi so that "the character can look just like me", but the character will be boring because they are boring. In other words, what we are seeing here is not a rebellion against god (if you are religious) or civilization and merit (if you aren't), it's something far worse. It's the petty, ugly, banalities of an entire subculture of tiresome neurotics who cannot dredge one single beautiful, interesting, or true thing out of their souls that would make you voluntarily pay attention. I blame their mothers.
Far-left extremists hijack the Olympics:
800
2,282
625
11,601
1,366,447
Abrain | A Pharmaceutical Commercial Parody
440
2,944
828
7,850
570,257
Guys… the folks that are holding onto their morals and still want to hold onto the old world beliefs are good people. Taking the high road isn’t a bad thing. We need people like that in the world and we need them on our team. But we also need autistic retards to beat the left with their own rules until they surrender and behave. Don’t let an opinion or mild disagreement turn into more than it needs to be. We don’t all like Cheerios.
330
402
54
3,909
109,787
In 2019 while in India, I stopped in Amritsar to see the holiest site in Sikhism, the Golden Temple, also known as the Harmandir Sahib. The Sikhs are peaceful, generous, and (I’m told) very based Indians, with obviously masculine and patriarchal men. 🧵
16
51
21
212
141,501
Peter Green retweeted
The midfield is the position the incumbent American soccer demo least understands.
22
34
17
187
78,897
Dodgers Wondering If They Should Have Spent More Time Training For Playoffs And Less Time Honoring Satanic Drag Nuns buff.ly/3rPaEk5
355
4,267
247
25,317
1,413,073
As a Salvadoran with Palestinian ancestry, I'm sure the best thing that could happen to the Palestinian people is for Hamas to completely disappear. Those savage beasts do not represent the Palestinians. Anyone who supports the Palestinian cause would make a great mistake siding with those criminals. It would be like if Salvadorans would have sided with MS13 terrorists, just because we share ancestors or nationality. The best thing that happened to us as a nation was to get rid of those rapists and murderers, and let the good people thrive. Palestinians should do the same: get rid of those animals and let the good people thrive. That's the only way forward.
6,372
25,630
4,091
121,630
14,434,925
Replying to @JesseKellyDC
(1) Conceptually, in a post-revolutionary environment, “conservatism” is only capable of negotiating — usually ineffectually — how far and how fast the revolution will proceed. (2) Politically, many “conservatives” are in effect hired to play a particular role within the reigning order: policing the rightward flank to prevent substantive opposition from arising.
12
36
4
234
23,513
Peter Green retweeted
The mental health crisis among men is the only one where the solution always seems to be "men need to change," whereas the solution to every other group's mental health crisis is "everyone else needs to change around them."
137
737
65
5,206
330,812
Replying to @nrarmour
Right-wing? I'd love to be interviewed by you, Nancy. Anytime! You know where to find me as does CNN, MSNBC, and every other left leaning outlet that has failed to reach out and consider the perspective of those who are actually impacted by this.
806
1,994
106
23,248
584,376