Erik McClure

People Can't Care About Everything


Sorry, I need my computer to work

I originally posted an even more snarky response to this, but later deleted it when I realized they were just a teenager. Kids do not have decades of experience with buggy drivers, infuriating edge-cases, and broken promises necessary to understand and contribute to the underlying debate here (nor do they have the social context to know that Xe and I were just joking with each other). Of course, they also don’t know that it’s generally considered poor taste to interject like this, as it tends to annoy everyone and almost always fails to take into consideration the greater context in which someone might be using Windows, or Mac, or TikTok, or Twitter, or whatever corporate hellscape they are trapped in. The thing is, there’s always a reason. You might not like the reason, but there is usually a reason someone has locked themselves inside the Apple ecosystem, or subjected themselves to Twitter, or tried to eke a living from beneath the lovecraftian whims of YouTube’s recommendation algorithm.

People can only care about so much.

They can’t care about everything. You might think something is important, and it probably is, but… so is everything else. Everything matters to someone, and everything is important to society in general to some degree. Some people think that YouTube isn’t very important, but they’re objectively wrong, as YouTube creators reach billions of people. They change people’s lives on a daily basis. We could argue about how important art and music and creativity is to society, yet observe that our capitalist hellhole treats creatives as little more than wage slaves, but then we’d be here all day.

As this blog post bemoaning the loss of Bandcamp explains, They Can And Will Ruin Everything You Love. The only thing that is important to the money vultures is… money. The only people who can build another Bandcamp are people who believe it’s important. I particularly care about the Bandcamp debacle because one of my hobbies is writing music, and I prefer selling it on Bandcamp. If Bandcamp dies, I will no longer have anywhere to offer downloadable lossless versions of my songs. Everything has devolved into shitty streaming services, and there’s nothing I can do about it. I’m too busy fixing everything else that’s broken, there’s no time for me to build a Bandcamp alternative and I’m terrible at web development anyway. Don’t get me started on whether the new solution should be FOSS, because some people believe FOSS is important, and they’d be right! Just look at Cory Doctorow’s talk about enshittification and how proprietary platforms are squeezing the life out of us.

Everything is important!!!

…But I can’t care about everything. You can’t care about everything either, you have to pick your battles. No, that’s too many battles, put some back. That’s still too many battles. You only have 16 waking hours every day to do anything. You have to pick something, and everything you care about has a cost. When everything is important, nothing happens. No websites are created. No projects are built. No progress is made. We simply sit around, bikeshedding over whose pet issue is the most important. There are always trade-offs, and sometimes you can make the wrong ones:

As the corresponding blog post later elaborates on, when you are 19 / still a student / unemployed, time is all you have to spend. It can be easy to forget how valuable time is to some people. Even if I won’t touch Apple devices with a 10-foot-pole, I can understand why people use them. If all your use cases fall inside Apple’s supported list of behaviors, it can be great to have devices that just work (assuming you can afford them, of course). On the other hand, while I prefer Windows, I know many people who use Linux because Windows either won’t let them do what they want, or literally just doesn’t even work. They are willing to put in the time and effort to make their linux machines work just the way they want, and to maintain them, and occasionally do batshit insane source-code patches that I hopefully will never have to do in my life, because it’s important to them.

Back when I was still writing fiction, I got a great comment from an editor who said something along the lines of “writing should be fun, you should only pursue perfection as far as you enjoy.” You can spend your entire life chasing perfection, but you’ll never reach it, and at some point you have to ship something. I’ve been trying to finish up some songs for an album recently and I’ve had to rely on formulaic crutches more than I want to, because at the end of the day, it’s just a hobby, and I simply don’t have the time to be as experimental as I want. My choice is to either release an okay song, or none at all. You can tell where I was hopelessly chasing an unattainable goal for over two years when my output completely stops:

Song Output

Everyone has to make trade-offs, and it can take time to figure out which ones are right for you. Not everyone can contribute to your particular social cause. When you ask someone to care about something, you are implicitly asking them to stop caring about something else, because they have a finite amount of time. They can’t do everything. In order to help you, they must give up something else. Is it grocery shopping? Time to cook? Time to sleep? A social gathering? Playtime with their children?

By no means should you stop asking people to care about something, that part is kind of important. Raising awareness allows individuals to make informed decisions about what trade-offs they are making with their time. However, if someone says they aren’t interested in something you care about… it’s because they have different priorities, and the trade-offs didn’t make sense. Maybe they care more about adding a feature to a 50 year old programming language, and thank goodness they did, because would you have cared enough to put up with this nonsense?

Your time is precious. Other people’s time, doubly so. Mind it well.


Discord Should Remove Usernames Entirely


Discord’s Recent Announcement made a lot of people mad, mostly because of Hyrum’s Law - users were relying on unintended observable behavior in the original username system, and are mad that their use-cases are being broken despite very good evidence that the current system is problematic. I think the major issue here is that Discord didn’t go far enough, and as a result, it’s confusing users who are unaware of the technical and practical reasons for the username change, or what a username is even for.

There are several issues being brought up with the username change. One is that users are very upset about usernames being ascii-only alphanumeric, presumably because they do not realize that Discord is only ever going to show their usernames for the purposes of adding friends. Their Display Name is what everyone will normally see, which can be any arbitrary unicode. Discord only spent a single sentence mentioning the problem with someone’s username being written in 𝕨𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕩𝕥 and I think a lot of users missed just how big of a problem this is. Any kind of strange character in a username would be liable to render it completely unsearchable, could easily get corrupted when sent over ascii-only text mediums, and essentially had to be copy+pasted verbatim or it wouldn’t work.

However, some users wanted to be unsearchable, because they had stalkers or were very popular and didn’t want random people finding their discord account. Discriminators and case-sensitivity essentially created a searchability problem which users were utilizing on purpose to make it harder for people to search them. The solution to this is extremely simple, and was in fact a feature of many early chat apps: let the user turn off the ability for people to search for their username. That’s what people actually want.

What discord is trying to do, and communicating incredibly poorly, is transform usernames into friend codes. They say this in a very roundabout way for some reason, and they are also allowing people to essentially reserve custom friend codes. This is silly. Discord should instead replace usernames with friend codes, and provide an opt-in fuzzy search mechanism that tries to find someone based on their Display Name, if users want to be discoverable that way. Discord should let you either regenerate or completely disable your own friend code, if users don’t want random people trying to friend them.

What makes this so silly is that nothing is preventing discord from doing this, because you log in with your e-mail anyway! By replacing usernames with display names, Discord has removed all functionality from them aside from friend codes, so they should just turn usernames into friend codes and stop confusing everyone so much. There is absolutely no reason a user should have to keep track of their username, display name, and server specific nicknames, and letting users reserve custom friend codes is never going to work, because everyone is going to fight over common friend codes. Force the friend codes to be random 10-digit alphanumeric strings. Stop pretending they should be anything else. Stop letting people reserve specific ones.

There is one exception to this that I would tolerate: a custom profile URL. If you wanted to allow people with nitro to, for whatever reason, pay to have a special URL that linked to their profile, this could be done on a first-come first-serve basis, and it would be pretty obvious to everyone why it had to be unique and an ascii-compatible URL.

I’m really tired of companies making a decision for good engineering reasons, and then implementing that decision in the most confusing way possible and blaming anyone who complains as luddites who hate change. There are better ways to communicate these kinds of changes. If your users are confused and angry about it, then it’s your fault, not theirs.


Welcome to the Age of Bullshit


We are fucked.

In fact, we are so fucked that Tom Scott conveniently released a new video talking about how fucked we are. Of course, he didn’t actually say that we’re fucked, because he’s much nicer than I am. He uses soft and gentle words that disguise the raging maelstrom beneath us. His video talks about how “everything is about to change”, and he’s right. I think he’s more right than he wants to be, he knows it, and he’s terrified.

Google’s new AI chatbot produced a factual error in it’s demo, and their stock dropped by $100 billion. Meanwhile, Bing’s AI chatbot produced a ton of errors during their presentation, and nobody noticed. People are noticing when the Bing AI chatbot goes completely bonkers, though, and this is precisely the problem.

We can tell when an AI goes completely off the rails and start spewing word salad, but most of the time the AI will confidently hallucinate completely nonsense and nobody can tell the difference. We already have the citogenesis problem, and then we had the social media “fake news” problem, and now we have AIs that can reliably gaslight anyone into believing almost anything they don’t already know about. Just wait until this starts making the replication crisis even worse.

Linus Tech Tips did an episode of WAN recently where they gave Linus three articles, and told him that at least one of those articles had been mostly written by an AI (with some minor fixups by a human), and he had to guess which ones were AI-written and which ones were written by a human. His answers were, one was probably human, one could be either human or AI, and one was probably AI. The two AI articles were actually the one he thought was human, and the one he thought was AI. The one that was written by a human was the one Linus wasn’t sure about.

We used to be worried about DeepFake videos, but now we already have people using AI to create fake images of a French cop hugging a protestor, while real artists are getting banned from /r/art because their art “looks ai-generated”. Meanwhile, CNET has been writing hundreds of articles using an AI for almost a year. Time has an article about how Big Tech needs to fix the “AI misinformation problem”, but nobody seems to know how. Who decides what is “misinformation”? If we already had the Wikipedia Citogenesis problem before ChatGPT, how can we possibly figure out what a trustworthy source is?

What’s really happening is that AI is amplifying a much more fundamental problem: Search Engine Optimization. We’re exposed to so much information on a daily basis that we don’t know what’s real, and Google can’t help us. As SEO makes Google searches progressively more useless, the web has become a morass of nonsensical data, blurring the line between fact and fiction. AI is now allowing us to generate even more information at an accelerating rate, essentially weaponizing disinformation. We have absolutely no way to deal with this, because we’ve invented the informational equivalent of gunpowder and decided it would be a good idea to give it to everyone.

Welcome to the Age of Bullshit.

What’s amazing is that almost all of this started just six years ago, with a paper from Google in 2017. The last time anything like this happened was when we invented the world wide web in 1994, which then exploded into the dot-com crash of 2001. Back then, the problem with the internet was finding things, which is what Google solved. The problem we now face, which is being made much worse by AI, is filtering things, as we get blasted by thousands of “relevent” search results. The successor to Google will be whoever invents a filter engine, to shield ourselves from the infinite amount of bullshit that we now have to wade through just to find high quality answers instead of ai-generated copies of translations of summaries of articles. Ironically, this is almost exactly the kind of fictional technology that Tom Scott talked about in 2014, almost 9 years ago.

We should be thankful that the current transformer based models are not sufficient to implement AGI, at least not in their current form, so we don’t have to worry about accidentally destroying the world with ChatGPT. This means AI researchers still have time to solve the alignment problem before someone figures out how to create a self-improving transformer model that no longer requires curated training data and promptly eradicates humanity. But who knows, maybe Google will publish a paper on this topic next year…?

Given our track record, maybe we should be spending more money on this alignment problem before we really fuck things up.


Neurodivergents Will Inherit The Earth


Decades ago, something absolutely unheard of happened - a nerd became the richest person on the planet. This, of course, was merely a consequence of Software Eating The World, a fact we are all now painfully aware of. Programming, once delegated to glasses-wearing nerds banging away on strange boxey devices that could add numbers, has been transformed into something that many people are interested in (mostly because it makes tons of money). Nowadays, as software permeates almost every aspect of modern life, programming is “cool”, firmly entrenched alongside doctors and lawyers as a respected, high income career path, so long as you get hired at a large company.

If you think about it, this represents a radical societal restructuring. All these nerds being put in charge of things tend to be more progressive and willing to support social movements. Combined with the fact that the best programmers can come from anywhere, including diverse and underserved backgrounds, this has forced software companies to cater specifically to minorities, accelerating existing societal shifts simply because they want to attract good programmers. Adding benefits specifically designed for trans people is a common example, but the shift to remote work is another.

As our world changes, the kinds of people we need to support our society changes with it. I don’t think people appreciate just how much the world has diverged from the neurotypical-cisgendered-heterosexual norms that were so entrenched just a hundred years ago. The United States only enshrined woman’s suffrage with the 19th amendment in 1920, just after World War I. It’s not just that the social fabric of society has changed, the world has changed. The global reality we live in has changed. Climate Change is now an existential threat that is beginning to have visible effects. Software and the digital world have not simply merged with reality, the internet now dominates it. 6 of the 10 largest companies by market cap are software or computer hardware companies. The exceptions are Johnson & Johnson, Berkshire Hathaway, United Health, and Exxon Mobil. The world’s largest oil company is #9 on that list. This is a titanic shift in economic power that’s happened only in the past few decades.

This is not unique to modern history. Each major technological or geopolitical shift in human history changes the balance of power. World War II’s Rosie The Riveter is the most recent example of a sudden geopolitical change (a global Total War necessitating a drastic social shift), when women were encouraged to take manufacturing jobs previously reserved for men. This was extremely unusual at the time, and after the war ended, the government abruptly started pressuring women to “return to normalcy”. Sound familiar? While most women reluctantly returned to more traditional jobs, many historians consider it the impetus for The Quiet Revolution, which eventually resulted in women permanently entering the workforce. The First and Second Industrial Revolution notably involved a steep decline in infant mortality, but not child mortality, as the baby boom resulted in a massive increase in child labor that was much more deadly than the farm work they were doing before. This eventually resulted in much stricter child labor laws in the UK and United States, eliminating children from the pool of available physical labor.

Going back farther, ancient history is full of tribes and civilizations that displayed a huge amount of variation depending on their particular geographic and technological pressures, including concepts of alternative genders or even different ways of expressing time. A society is a particular subset of all possible personalities that are able to self-organize and maintain order. In any society, what exactly a “reasonable person” is and what constitutes a crime may vary significantly. Factions within a society grow or shrink depending on economic and environmental influences, which can change the favored social fabric. This evolution of the social fabric is happening right now as technological advances allow entire forgotten sects of humanity to express their true potential in ways never before possible.

VR is still in an early adopter phase and its real impact has yet to be appreciated. We have only a scant few video games that can take meaningful advantage of it, a few poor attempts at metaverses, and hardly any useful productivity apps. We are teetering on the edge of another technological reorganization of society, where the entire world gets eaten by VR and AR in ways that people have difficulty appreciating right now because the hardware isn’t there yet. Once we solve the last few critical problems - like comfortable reading without headaches and less bulky headsets - then everything will change, very suddenly.

Over half my friends have ADHD, and when hyperfocused are capable of things few neurotypical people could ever do. Many of them are autistic, able to think in ways that most neurotypicals can only replicate with a lot of drugs. They don’t just think outside the box, they think outside of boxes people aren’t aware of. Some hyperfocused ADHD people can take advantage of the entire interactive volume around them in VR space, allowing them to open 5 different reference manuals while working on a project, or cross-reference a dozen sources in realtime, or set up a massive set of realtime data visualizations while monitoring a system. A persistent, freely navigable workspace inside VR (that could also be non-euclidean) makes it easier to return to tasks later without having to reconstruct an entire mental state. However, the ability to do many things at once sometimes translates into a need to do many things at once, and the ability to focus for long periods of time on one task can translate into an inability to do anything else, like getting food or remembering to mail an important tax form.

Unfortunately, in our modern society, houses have little to no interior noise insulation and almost every single electronic device makes a constant high-frequency drone. Neurotypicals either do not hear these sounds, or tune them out after a few minutes (and then claim the sound doesn’t exist, having immediately forgotten it). These houses are then built right next to roads with noisy cars, often without sidewalks, and sometimes with ubiquitous traffic noises when buried deep inside the city. How distracting these noises are depends on the person, the noise, whether it is speech, music, a kind of music you don’t like, or a ticking clock. Many places make these sounds inescapable, like restaurants with loud music and conversations, or offices with ticking clocks in every single room.

In contrast, in VR you can wear noise-cancelling headphones and put on music no one else can hear that is automatically attenuated if someone is talking to you. VR lets you tightly control your auditory environment - you can selectively isolate sound sources to only hear the conversation around you instead of having to tune out the dozens of other conversations. Nameplates on avatars can help faceblind people and avatars themselves can be more visually distinct than human faces. Being able to share a funny image with someone without having to show them your phone and hoping you don’t get an embarrassing notification at that exact moment would be useful for many people. Making things more accessible helps everyone.

A lot of what makes these problems so damaging for neurodivergents is the refusal of accommodation from neurotypicals. Often, this is simply authority figures forcing neurodivergent people to remain in environments causing them physical pain. Sadly, humans have a tendency to reject any culture other than their own as invalid or barbaric, possibly due to tribalism. Those of us living in a western country point to history as justification, while conveniently ignoring the fact that history is written by the victors. Countries like America are often willfully ignorant of the natives they subjugated now living in a post-apocalyptic world. While many executives acknowledge the rise of LGBTQIA+ individuals, or at least pay lip-service to them, it is painfully obvious that most do not understand the true cultural upheaval that is upon us. For example, Meta is inherently doomed for a very simple reason: It’s not furry enough.

Despite the prevalence of how Furries Run The Internet, an amazing number of tech workers still do not understand the significance of furries. Just two years ago, a coworker of mine came out as both trans and a furry, in the same e-mail. I never saw the need to “come out” as a furry (which should be obvious, given my avatar) but the reality is that furries are now a significant social force, which is largely going ignored. The one significant competitor to VRchat is NeosVR, developed by… furries. A starbucks union organizer wears his fursuit to rallies. The furry revolution is already here and nobody is paying attention to the fact that furries will not only dominate VR tech, they will determine the fate of any VR “metaverse”, because furries are the ultimate VR power user.

This cultural blindspot is just one example of how humans are often laughably bad at predicting the future precisely because we are blind to social changes caused by technological advancements. This is why we laugh at visions of the future from 100 years ago, because they could only envision technological advances within the confines of their own culture. I still see people today predicting that VR will revolutionize painfully obvious things, like medical analysis, or 3D modeling, or architecture. No one talks about how it will provide a way for autistic people to be more confident about social gatherings when they control their sensory input sphere or allow plural people to switch between avatars depending on who is fronting. When people talk about “the dangers of VR”, it’s always the same stupid reading argument, instead of predicting the inevitable moral panic over weird VR sex. It reminds me of the old adage about science fiction:

“It would take an inventor to predict the automobile, and it would take a real visionary to predict highways and gas stations. But it would take a science fiction writer to predict the traffic jam.” - Ed Bryant


Money Is Fake. It's Not Real. It's Made Up.


Death: No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

I want to start this by saying that I am in favor of a wealth tax. We should be increasing taxes on the wealthy and raising minimum wage, because we know that steadily increasing the relative buying power of the poor is the best way to improve an economy. However, none of this happens in a vacuum. When we talk about income equality, I have become distressed at the amount of ignorance on display about the economy, systemic societal problems, and even what money actually is.

One Pixel Wealth is a webpage from 2021 that helps visualize how truly insane the amount of wealth that the richest people have actually is. While the visualization is great at putting in perspective just how much Jeff Bezos’ wealth is on paper, it links to a refutation of the Paper Billionaire Argument to dispute the idea that Jeff Bezos doesn’t really have that much money in liquid assets. The paper billionaire argument is that, because most wealth is in stocks or bonds, selling it all at once would flood the market and crater the total value of those assets.

The proposed counter-argument is incredibly bad. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding about macro-economic forces. Ironically, this is because it cannot appreciate the scale of its own arguments, the exact issue that One Pixel Wealth is trying to address. Let me paraphrase the key points in this counter-argument:

  1. The Paper Billionaire argument doesn’t work, because you can liquidate the wealth over time in a controlled sell-off, which executives do regularly.
  2. Given that $122 trillion worth of stock changes hands in the US every year, you could liquidate a trillion dollars over five years and only constitute 0.16% of all the trading.
  3. Because 50% of all US households own stock, you will always be able find people to buy the stock the billionaires are selling, it’s not just other billionaires that will buy it.
  4. Even if the paper bilionaire argument was true, if selling all the stock would lose 80% of it’s value, that would leave behind $700 billion.

To start, #1 and #2 don’t work for a very simple reason: A stock’s value represents the market’s confidence in the stock producing future value. Owning stock, in some circumstances, is interpreted as having confidence in that future value. If the market loses confidence in your company, it doesn’t matter what assets you have, your stock price will crater if the market thinks you’ll start losing money. If the CEO starts liquidating their position (which they must state their intention to sell stock ahead of time, years before it completes), the market will panic and the stock price will implode at the mere announcement of the liquidation, let alone actually selling any stock. Elon Musk right now should make it painfully obvious that he was only ever the richest man in the world on paper, because he just lost $107 billion dollars this year! He only bought Twitter for $44 billion! You simply cannot make the combined GDPs of Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland and Uruguay evaporate if that money was actually real in any sense.

Money does not represent physical assets. Money is supposed to represent human labor, and there is a fixed amount of human labor available on the planet. When someone dies or is incapacitated, it goes down. When someone graduates into the labor force, or becomes more skilled, it goes up. In ancient times, “human labor” was heavily correlated to how much physical activity someone could do, like lifting things or harvesting food. However, our modern economy is dominated by specialist jobs done by highly skilled laborers. So for the sake of analysis, we can say that the GDP of the entire planet should ideally represent the maximum amount of labor the entire human race could do, if we assigned everyone to the job they are most qualified for. We could then increase the total amount of labor we can do by either building machines or improving our skills.

This leads into why point #3 is complete nonsense. It reminds me of when Ben Shapiro, when talking about climate change, asked “you think that people aren’t going to just sell their homes and move?”

The entire point of wealth inequality is that the top 1% holds more money than the entire middle-class. That’s literally the problem! How can everyone else possibly buy all the stock the billionaires are selling if it would require all of their savings? Who are you selling the stocks to?! This isn’t how money works! One Pixel Wealth even tries to claim that if we just gave all the poor people in america a bunch of money it would fix poverty, while linking to a study that only applies to local economies. The world’s largest economy is NOT a local economy! These measures only work when the global economy can absorb the difference, which means making changes gradually or in small, localized areas.

Of course, even if you somehow magically liquidated all your assets and acquired $700 billion dollars in real, liquid cash, it’s not actually $700 billion dollars. It’s like saying that there are gold asteroids worth $10000 quadrillion dollars - the value would plummet if you actually had that much gold. Since money represents human labor, which is a limited resource, simply having more money does not let you do more things. $700 billion dollars is enough to hire 12 billion people for 1 day working at minimum wage ($7.25), but you can’t actually do that, because there’s only 7.8 billion people in the entire world. Having $700 billion in liquid assets would decrease the value of money itself. That’s what inflation is. People claim that some billions of dollars will be enough to eradicate malaria or provide drinking water to everyone, but it’s never that simple because these are always geopolitical issues. Bill Gates has donated billions of dollars since 2005 towards fighting malaria and we only got a vaccine 16 years later. We’re surrounded by so many dumb problems we can solve with more money that we’ve forgetten that some problems are really, truly, fundamentally difficult problems that cannot be solved by throwing money at them. At some point there are just too many cooks in the kitchen.

Note that this labor distribution problem applies to liquid assets, which is one theory on why inflation had (until 2021), remained fairly low despite the amount of wealth increasing to ridiculous amounts. Wealthy people are acting as gigantic money sinks - by absorbing all of the “money”, the actual amount of real, liquid cash in the economy increased at a modest rate, so inflation remained stable. Now, inflation has started to skyrocket in 2022, and some people blame the stimulus payments, but the reality is that the low interest rates during the pandemic, combined with other complex macroeconomic forces, likely caused it, although nobody knows for sure. If wealthy people started actually spending all their money at once, as people seem to want them to do, the amount of liquid assets would skyrocket and so would inflation.

I keep saying that money is supposed to represent human labor, because it’s really an approximation. Someone can be more productive at one job than another, so the amount of human labor is not a knowable value in the first place. Instead, it helps to think of money as representing percieved power imbalance (conservatives often make the mistake of thinking it represents actual power imbalance, which it does not). This power imbalance can come from economic, diplomatic, or military factors. Basically, money is just the current state of global geopolitics. You cannot fight wealth inequality by just redistributing money. Simply taking money from rich people does not fix the systemic issues that created the power imbalance in the first place, because it’s not actually wealth inequality, it’s power inequality, and that is a political issue, not economic. Money is simply our way of quantifying that imbalance. The government’s unwillingness to tax rich people is because of the power imbalance, not the cause of it. If politicians are unwilling to go after rich people, it’s because those rich people hold an alarming amount of sway over politicians, which makes them keys to power.

It means that we have allowed power to accumulate in dangerously high concentrations, and we need to deal with this at a political level before we get an economic solution. We must elect leaders that help tackle power inequality (like break up huge corporations) before we can make progress on wealth inequality. Basically, go vote.


Avatar

Archive

  1. 2024
  2. 2023
  3. 2022
  4. 2021
  5. 2020
  6. 2019
  7. 2018
  8. 2017
  9. 2016
  10. 2015
  11. 2014
  12. 2013
  13. 2012
  14. 2011
  15. 2010
  16. 2009