与「TACIT」相关的搜索结果

特大IR発表🔥 【営業利益黒字】・【売上最大2.5億円】のAI企業を“わずか1,500万円”で完全子会社化‼️📈🚀 『売れるネット広告社グループ（9235）』は、先ほど12時にAIサービス開発・運営会社である「株式会社ライト」の100%完全子会社化（株式取得）を発表しました❗ これは私が陣頭指揮を執り、『売れるネット広告社グループ』が従来の「D2Cクラウドサービス企業」から「AIネイティブ企業」へと完全に進化するための、極めて強力かつ決定的な一手です。 まず、今回のディールの【異常なまでの費用対効果】に注目してください。 ライト社は、直近の決算でも【営業利益黒字】【売上最大2.5億円】をしっかりと計上している非常に優秀かつ堅実なAI企業です。この高いポテンシャルを持つ優良企業を、なんと【取得価額わずか1,500万円】という破格の条件で完全子会社としてグループに迎え入れます。これがいかに私たちの収益基盤拡大に直結する「大成功のM&A」であるか、皆様にはすぐにご理解いただけるはずです。 では、なぜライト社なのか❓ 最大の理由は、彼らが持つ「AI開発力と企業ナレッジの活用技術」が、私たちの進めるAI戦略と完璧なシナジーを生み出すからです。 これからの時代、企業の情報発信は「ChatGPTなどの生成AIにいかに正しく認識・評価されるか」が勝負を決める時代へと完全にシフトします。ライト社は、企業内に眠る「暗黙知」をAI資産へと転換する「Tacit Hub構想」を推進しています。 彼らの【現場知見を活用したAI開発・検証力】と、私たちがこれまで培ってきた【圧倒的なマーケティングノウハウ・強固な顧客基盤】を掛け合わせることで、当社が推進するAEO（AI検索最適化）支援や企業向けAI導入支援サービスの拡充が劇的に進みます。 私たちは単なる「D2Cクラウドサービス企業」で終わるつもりはなく、グループ一丸となって生成AI時代に特化した「次世代AIプラットフォーム」を構築します。 そして、投資家の皆様に最後にお伝えすべき【圧倒的な事実】があります。 今回のライト社の完全子会社化により、『売れるネット広告社グループ』にとって【今期M&A第5号】が完了となります❗ これにより、売れるネット広告社グループの2027年7月期の事業規模は一気に「2.3倍」へと拡大し、「売上43.8億円以上」のグループへと大飛躍を遂げます‼️📈🚀 私たちが見据えているのは目先の需給ではありません。この絶好のタイミングでのM&Aと事業規模の劇的なスケールアップは、AI関連事業を新たな成長ドライバーへと飛躍させ、中長期的な企業価値を爆発的に向上させるための確固たる証明です。 今後の『売れるネット広告社グループ』の快進撃に、どうか大いに期待してください。企業価値の最大化を実現してみせます❗ ▼本気のIR資料全文はこちらから必ずご一読ください❗ 加藤公一レオ 売れるネット広告社グループ株式会社（東証上場 証券コード9235） 創業者・取締役会長

For enthusiasts, the newsy headlines about the World Cup are not the real story. The tournament is only superficially a pageant for the powerful; underneath it is a tacit conspiracy against them

人们是不是开始意识到 Tacit $TAC 的存在了？ 如果你还没有真正理解它，这里有 Binance 和 KuCoin Exchange 的相关文章，你可以先读下，补充些基础认知。 Binance: Kucoin:

质押过 $ZORG 的可以去领Tacit 空投 $TAC 了 。 领取步骤： 1）打开 2）链接Unisat钱包登录Tacit账户 3)在Claim页面链接质押的EVM钱包 4）领取空投

ETH上的dev在基于uni v4 hook做各种创新，BTC上的一些协议也没有闲着，热度和流动性在肉眼可见的恢复，罗列一下一些协议的具体表现情况： ✅RGB协议： $RGB 价格来到0.2，市值：$4.2M ✅烷烃协议： $DIESEL 价格来到39，市值：$24M ✅TAP协议： $NAT（$54M） ， $BIT（$2.1M） ✅TACIT协议： @z0r0zzz 搞的这个协议密码学上是很硬核的，又是隐私概念的，挺有意思，包括那个ceremony也是常用的可信参数设置的一个环节，值得关注；不过协议本身比较早期，这种基于浏览器的处理形式可能具有一定的安全风险 ✅OP-RETURN协议： 引入Simplicity+TEE是一个有意思的创新，虽然他们推出来一堆代币我是看不懂这个营销策略...... #RGB# #BTC# #Alkane# #TAP# #TACIT# #OPRETURN#

转译：西方忘了怎么造东西，现在也快忘了怎么写代码 作者：Denis Stetskov 2023 年，在巴黎航展上，雷神公司的总裁站在台上，讲起他们为了重启“毒刺”导弹（Stinger）生产线，到底费了多大劲。 他们把一批 70 多岁的老工程师请了回来，让这些老人教年轻员工怎么造一枚导弹。图纸还是卡特总统时代画在纸上的老图纸。测试设备已经在仓库里躺了很多年。导弹的鼻锥还得靠手工安装，方法和 40 年前一模一样。 五角大楼已经 20 年没买过新的“毒刺”了。然后，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，局势一下变了：所有人突然都需要这种导弹。 可生产线早就关了。电子元件已经过时。导引头组件也停产了。2022 年 5 月下的订单，要到 2026 年才能交付。 整整 4 年。 不是因为没钱，而是因为真正知道怎么造它的人，十年前就退休了，而且没人接上。 我在乌克兰带工程团队。我的团队见到的是这个问题的另一面。不是工厂车间，而是战场上接收武器的那一端。 当雷神还在努力根据 40 年前的蓝图重启生产时，美国已经在向乌克兰运送成千上万枚“毒刺”。RTX 首席执行官 Greg Hayes 说，10 个月的战争，消耗掉了相当于 13 年产量的“毒刺”。 这种模式，我太熟悉了。它现在正在我的行业里重演。 一百万发炮弹，没人造得出来 2023 年 3 月，欧盟承诺在 12 个月内向乌克兰提供 100 万发炮弹。 当时，欧洲一整年的炮弹产能只有 23 万发。而乌克兰每天就要消耗 5000 到 7000 发。 任何人拿个计算器算一下，都知道这事根本不可能。 到了最后期限，欧洲只交付了大约一半。马克龙后来称，最初那个承诺太鲁莽。由 9 个国家、11 家媒体联合发起的一项调查发现，欧洲真实的生产能力大概只有欧盟官方说法的三分之一。 那 100 万发炮弹的目标，直到 2024 年 12 月才真正完成，比原计划晚了 9 个月。 问题不是某一个环节卡住了。是每一个环节都卡住了。 法国在 2007 年就停止了国内发射药生产，整整 17 年没有继续做。欧洲唯一一家主要 TNT 生产商在波兰。德国自己的弹药储备只够用两天。丹麦一家 Nammo 工厂在 2020 年关闭，后来不得不从零开始重启。 整个欧洲国防工业，长期以来都被优化成一种模式：生产少量、昂贵、定制化的产品。没人为大规模生产做准备。也没人为危机做准备。 美国也好不到哪里去。 155 毫米炮弹壳主要靠宾夕法尼亚州斯克兰顿的一家工厂；爆炸物填装则依赖爱荷华州的一处设施；美国从 1986 年起就没有本土 TNT 生产了。 后来砸进去几十亿美元，产量依然没达到目标的一半。 要么合并，要么死 这不是偶然。 1993 年，五角大楼告诉国防企业的 CEO 们：要么合并，要么死。 于是，51 家主要国防承包商最终缩成了 5 家。战术导弹供应商从 13 家变成 3 家。造船厂从 8 家变成 2 家。国防工业劳动力从 320 万人降到 110 万人，砍掉了 65%。 弹药供应链到处都是单点故障（single point of failure，指一个环节出问题就会拖垮整个系统）。 155 毫米炮弹壳只有一家制造商，位于加州科切拉，而那里就在圣安德烈亚斯断层上。发射药装药也只有加拿大的一处设施能做。 整个系统被优化到成本最低，却几乎没有任何应急余量。 纸面上看，很高效。 现实里，只差一个坏日子，就会崩。 知识一旦死去，就很难复活 再看 Fogbank。 Fogbank 是一种用于核弹头的机密材料。它在 1975 年到 1989 年间生产，后来生产设施被关闭。 多年后，美国政府为了一个核弹头寿命延长项目，需要重新制造 Fogbank。结果他们发现，自己已经不会做了。 美国政府问责局（GAO）的一份报告指出，几乎所有掌握生产经验的人，要么退休了，要么去世了，要么离开了相关机构。留下来的记录也很少。 经历了 6900 万美元的成本超支，以及数年的失败尝试后，他们终于做出了可用的 Fogbank。 然后，又发现新批次太“纯”了。 原来的生产工艺里，曾经有一种无意中产生的杂质，而这种杂质对材料功能至关重要。可没人知道这件事。 负责复现的工程师不知道。几十年前做出原始材料的工人也不知道。 洛斯阿拉莫斯把它称为原始工艺中的“无意识依赖”（unknowing dependency）：这个环节很关键，但当年没人意识到它关键。 一个核武器项目，竟然失去了制造自己发明出来的材料的能力。 更可怕的是，知识并不只是随着人离开而流失。它从一开始就没有被任何人真正完整理解过。 (更正：原文最初版本曾写道，当年制造 Fogbank 的工人知道这种杂质的存在。事实并非如此。他们也不知道。这个依赖关系是无意形成的，这反而让“知识流失”的论点更强，而不是更弱。感谢评论区的 John F. 指出这一点。) 同一套剧本 我读到 Fogbank 的故事时，立刻认出了这个模式。 我说的不是核材料本身，而是那个熟悉的剧本： 花几十年建立起一种能力。 找到一个更便宜的替代方案。 让人才梯队慢慢萎缩。 享受节省下来的成本。 然后，当危机突然要求你拿回那种能力时，看着一切崩塌。 在国防工业里，那个替代方案叫“和平红利”（peace dividend，指冷战结束后减少军费、把资源转向民用经济的收益）。 在软件行业里，它叫 AI。 我之前写过“人才管道崩塌”的问题。招聘数据、初级工程师到资深工程师之间的断层，都已经有很多证据。还有“理解力危机”：人们会让 AI 写代码，却越来越不理解代码本身。 但我之前一直没有找到一个足够贴切的历史类比。 现在我找到了。 而这个类比告诉我们的东西，是招聘数据看不出来的：重建一种能力，到底需要多久。 重建能力永远需要很多年 国防工业里，每一次大规模恢复产能，哪怕是相对简单的系统，也要 3 到 5 年。复杂系统则要 5 到 10 年。 “毒刺”：从下单到交付，至少 30 个月。 “标枪”（Javelin）：花了 4 年半，产量还没翻倍。 155 毫米炮弹：投入 50 亿美元，4 年过去仍没达到目标。 法国直到 2024 年才重启发射药生产，而距离它关闭国内生产线，已经过去了 17 年。 钱从来不是最大的限制。 知识才是。 兰德公司（RAND）发现，潜艇设计中有 10% 的技术技能，需要 10 年在岗经验才能培养出来，有时还得建立在博士学位之后。国防工业里的技术工种，学徒期通常要 2 到 4 年；要达到能当主管的水平，则需要 5 到 8 年。 现在，把这套时间线放到软件行业里。 一个初级开发者，需要 3 到 5 年，才能成长为合格的中级工程师。 需要 5 到 8 年，才能成为资深工程师。 需要 10 年甚至更久，才能成为首席工程师或架构师。 这条时间线，不能靠砸钱压缩。 也不能靠 AI 压缩。 METR 做过一项随机对照试验（randomized controlled trial，医学和社会科学中常用的一种严谨实验方法）：经验丰富的开发者使用 AI 编程工具后，在真实开源任务上反而慢了 19%。 开始前，他们预测 AI 会让自己快 24%。结果现实和预期之间，相差了 43 个百分点。 研究人员后来想做后续实验时，相当一部分开发者拒绝参加——如果实验要求他们在没有 AI 的情况下工作，他们就不愿意。他们已经无法想象回到不用 AI 的状态。 账单总会来的 软件行业现在正进入同一种“优化”的第三年。 Salesforce 说，2025 年不会再招聘更多软件工程师。LeadDev 的一项调查发现，54% 的工程负责人认为，从长期看，AI 编程助手会减少初级工程师招聘。计算研究协会（CRA）对大学计算机院系的调查显示，62% 的院系报告今年入学人数下降。 我在代码审查里已经看到了这个问题。 现在，审查才是瓶颈。 AI 生成代码很快。 人类审查代码很慢。 于是行业的答案也很可预测：让 AI 去审查 AI 写的代码。 我不会这么做。 我改造了我们的拉取请求模板（pull request template，开发者提交代码变更时填写的说明模板）。现在，每个 PR 都必须说明：改了什么，为什么改，这属于哪类变更，以及修改前后的截图。 也就是说，我们要给审查者提供结构化上下文，不能让审查者靠猜。 我还在每个项目里安排专门的审查人员。更多双眼睛，就有更多机会发现模型漏掉的问题。 但这些仍然解决不了更深层的麻烦。 现在真正需要的能力已经变了。 光有技术能力不够。你还需要能主动负责、能清楚沟通取舍、能反驳机器给出的糟糕建议——哪怕那台机器说话听起来无比自信。 这些其实是领导力。 我们上一轮招聘就能说明这种人有多稀缺：2253 名候选人，2069 人被淘汰，最终录用 4 人。转化率只有 0.18%。 既有技术能力，又有判断力、能看出 AI 什么时候错了的人，在市场上几乎已经不存在了。 我们会记录一切。 Site Books、SDD、RVS 报告、带完整测试覆盖的样板模块……这些今天都有用，因为读这些文档的人，本身具备足够的工程能力，知道该怎么行动。 可如果以后读文档的人不具备这种能力，会怎样？ 坦白说，我不知道。 也许 5 年后的 AI 足够强，这些问题就不重要了。也许问题仍然可控。我没法预测 2031 年模型会强到什么程度。 但危机不会提前给你发日历邀请。 没人预料到 2022 年欧洲会爆发全面陆地战争。国防工业有 30 年时间做准备，但它没有。 就连 Fogbank 当年也有记录。只是记录不够。更糟的是，原来的工人甚至没有完全理解自己的工艺。 5 到 10 年后，我们会需要资深工程师。 我们会需要那种真正理解系统全貌的人；需要能在凌晨两点调试分布式故障的人；需要携带着那些代码库里根本不存在的组织知识的人。 可这些工程师现在还不存在，因为我们没有在培养他们。 本该现在学习成长的初级工程师，要么根本没有被雇用，要么正在形成一项由美国国防部资助的劳动力研究称为“AI 中介能力”（AI-mediated competence）的东西。 他们会提示 AI。 但他们说不出 AI 错在哪里。 这就是代码行业的 Fogbank。 当初级工程师跳过调试，跳过那些塑造能力的犯错过程，他们就无法建立隐性知识（tacit expertise，指难以写成文档、只能通过实践积累的经验性能力）。 等我这一代工程师退休时，这些知识不会转移给 AI。 它只会消失。 西方已经犯过一次这样的错误。账单在乌克兰到期了。 我知道这听起来像什么。我也知道，我之前已经写过人才管道的问题。 但国防工业这个例子，不是为了重复同一个论点。它是为了展示：如果行业现在对 AI 的期待落空，会发生什么。 “毒刺”、“标枪”、Fogbank、那一百万发没人造得出来的炮弹——这就是把赌注押在“优化”上，结果赌错之后要付出的代价。 而我们现在，正在软件工程上押下同样的赌注。 也许 AI 会变得足够强，这场赌局最后会赢。 也许不会。 当年的国防工业，也以为和平会永远持续下去。 来源：

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

Opinion: Attempting to tilt election law in your favour — and to entrench yourself in power by fair means and foul — are classic tactics of strongman leaders. The good news is that it doesn’t always work.