BC BUSINESS
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why

 Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
ALSO, the hashtag was mostly people saying "these folks are calling to hang Mike Pence!"

https://t.co/3ixZYQ8nRc
And ALSO also, did anyone notice any prominent right wingers complaining about losing tens of thousands of followers yesterday? You know why they did? Because Twitter has been active in deleting accounts that violate its TOS
So factually, this complaint isn't going to fly.

But more fundamentally, Parler has a legal problem: There's no right to have a contracting party apply its rules equally. If you and I sign a contract with a supplier that says the supplier can stop providing us with beer if
we support the NE Patriots (and by "sign a contract" I mean we sign 2 separate contracts, 1 for me and 1 for you), and we both tweet out love for that horrible organization, and the supplier terminates me but not you, you know what happens if I sue them?
https://t.co/8aOSh2bTjf
The only thing that governs my contract with that supplier is my contract with that supplier. If they have discretion to terminate me, the fact that they exercised that discretion for me, but didn't for someone else, doesn't give me a cause of action. Not even a little bit
(Note: The one exception to this would be if I could show the company was exercising its discretion as a means of discriminating against a protected class - i.e. it terminated all white people who did X but no black people who did, ever. That's not and couldn't be alleged here)
So ... this is NOT what you would call a good start to a complaint. If your intro - which is the part of the complaint that should hit the reader in the gut, set the hook, and make them start thinking "you have a case" - is "they did something they were allowed to do"
Moving on. They then *specifically allege* that Amazon is motivated by "political animus" before ALSO claiming that it's an antitrust violation.

Folks ...
https://t.co/LDAxWRH5X0
Words can't express how bad a job this is. It really can't.

But I guess I'll try
First, "political animus" is NOT a problem in our society. Parties are allowed to choose to do or not do business with counterparties whose politics they dislike. "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" does not have to take on the DSA as a client.
I don't have to take on David Duke if he comes looking for a lawyer. Tom O'Halloran's Irish Pub is allowed to boot out Unionists if it wants to.
So when Parler says "Amazon booted us because they don't like our politics" they are *specifically alleging* that Amazon was doing a thing it was entitled to do
This is a problem, because Parler is *also* trying to allege a Sherman anti-trust act claim based on wishes and innuendo. Essentially, Parler - which sued only Amazon and not Twitter - is alleging that Amazon is working with Twitter to shut down competition for Twitter
There are lots of reasons why this won't fly, and we'll get there as they get to the meat of the claim.

But when your core argument is "this conduct makes me think it's an anti-competitive conspiracy," DON'T SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE AN ALTERNATIVE, NON-CONSPIRACY EXPLANATION FOR IT
Also, it's worth pausing here to talk about Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which is the "Tw" in the term "Twiqbal", the cases that set up the "plausibility" standard we've discussed in prior threads. (Refresher on plausibility here https://t.co/RIwlukf497)
The claim in Twombly was that telephone companies were conspiring to reduce competition by not entering into their competitors' markets, violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Here's the wikipedia summary of what the Supreme Court held, which is good enough to work with.
Do you see the problem this poses for Parler?

If so, you're a step ahead of Parler's lawyers, who apparently completely missed it.
Onward for the rest of the intro, which sets out the claims: Aside from the Sherman Antitrust Act, they're also alleging breach of contract, based on a provision they say gives them a right to 30 days notice of termination (spoiler, it does not), and tortious interference
To show tortious interference, btw, you need to show that someone: Knew you had (or were about to have) a contract, and did something that you weren't allowed to do, or for an improper reason, specifically designed to cause your contracting party to breach the contract
Tl;dr, that's also not going to fly here, for various and many reasons
Now we move into the "Parties" section, where Parler tells the court who it's suing. This particular paragraph is basically "but your Honor, we REALLY REALLY want to use AWS"
The problem?
No, seriously. There is no cause of action for "a business we really want to partner with doesn't want to partner with us".

That's just not a thing.
Next, they describe what's happening: We built our product around AWS, they're kicking us off, and it's going to really suck for us.

Also, we're a competitor of Twitter. This is important, because we're about to segue into their evidence of an antitrust conspiracy
In my head, I call this section "This is Evidence of a Conspiracy, Right? (No)"
Let me explain.

No, it is too much, let me sum up:

Amazon serves us and also Twitter. It was afraid we would grow at Twitter's expense, so it shut us down to prevent that.

That's their conspiracy theory. All of it. One problem
Your ... your theory is that ... that Amazon has a financial interest in preventing your growth because Twitter is a client?

And that's why it kicked, you, ALSO AN AMAZON CLIENT, off their servers?
Idiots, user migration from Twitter (an Amazon client) to Parler (an Amazon client at the time) literally CANNOT harm Amazon. It's a zero net business effect for Amazon; whichever of the two of you the users go to, they're still on platforms using AWS
In fact, the only way that could possibly harm Amazon is if users migrate from platforms that use AWS to platforms that DON'T. On your "protect its business" theory, Amazon should be *encouraging* Twitter competitors on its platform, so it has a better chance of retaining users
Instead, you just argued that Amazon did the one thing that could *harm* Amazon, economically, in this particular environment: Cut off a within-Amazon-ecosystem destination for users exiting Twitter
Not only do you have a Twombly problem - nothing here comes close to alleging an agreement between Amazon and Twitter - but the allegations directly contradict any claim that could have possibly been the motivation
Or, in gif form
Also, they talked about Amazon's letter to them. Here it is. Note what it says: We've been raising issues about this stuff for weeks, you haven't responded effectively, and you've affirmatively told us that you won't be responding effectively
Because of that, you are in breach of the terms of service and we think you're a risk to public safety, so we're terminating you on Sunday.

Wow.

Can they do that?
In a word, yes.
Let's take a look at Amazon's relevant agreements and terms.

Amazon's AWS Terms of service, which expressly bind any customer to the Amazon Acceptable Use Policy
Amazon's Acceptable Use Policy, which says "nothing illegal, or that may harm others, or that may harm our reputation, or offensive"
And Amazon's AWS Customer Agreement, which has a few relevant sections. 4.2, which requires customers to make sure their users' content complies with the Acceptable Use Policy, and holds customers responsible for end-user content that violates it
4.5, which says, basically, you are responsible for your end users and you MUST ban end-users for violating the acceptable use policy if you know about it. So, for example, when Parler deleted Lin Wood's post about killing people, but didn't ban him for it, they violated this
6.1: We get to suspend your access to AWS *without any notice at all* if you violate the customer agreement (which, as referenced in the above Tweet, Parler inarguably did)
Section 7.2, which has the 30 days notice provision Parler is relying on - but which ALSO says (check the red) "except we don't need to give you any notice at all if we could suspend you under Section 6"
And also, just to cap it off, a limitation of liability that says "you can't recover any lost profit damages against us, you can just get a refund"
With all of this background, you can see why this case is deader than a year-old fruit fly. They're suing for breach of contract based on a 30-day notice provision that the contract EXPRESSLY says doesn't apply. And they are no-doubt unquestionably toast
Anyway, back to Parler saying "but we were positioned to do so well before we got shut down for violating the terms of the contract we agreed to"
More paragraphs of "but having consequences for breaching our agreements with Amazon will really suck for us", to which a court will reply ...
https://t.co/d3yAblmwsD
Seriously. Parler signed a contract that said "Do NOT allow your end users to post violent, harmful stuff that might damage Amazon's reputation."

They agreed that if they violated that contract, Amazon could terminate them without notice.

They violated the contract.
And now they're complaining that they are getting the consequences they agreed to for doing the thing they agreed not to do?
That's ... that's not gonna move the needle, son.
Back to "no fair, what about Twitter", which just isn't a thing that a court will give even 1 fuck about, let alone 2
Now they're arguing that "hey, we finally took this stuff down" should be good enough. But it isn't. Not under the contract they signed. And especially not when they deleted the content but left the users
And here we get to the actual causes of action. First, antitrust, which I've been mentally referring to as
"Let's Do the Twombly Again"
Seriously, look those allegations over again. They're even less meaty than the ones the Supreme Court looked at in Twombly and said "nah, that's not enough to let your antitrust claim survive in court". Basically "Twitter is now an Amazon client and this thing will help Twitter"
"They could suspend us without notice, sure, but this is really a termination so we needed notice" is NOT a good argument when your contract says "we can terminate you without notice for anything we can suspend you for"
Seriously, this is the worst possible version of this breach of contract claim; by conceding that they could've been suspended without notice, they affirmatively argued that there was no breach
Full disclosure - in my first run-through of the AWS agreement I missed 7.2(b) (the "we can terminate if we can suspend"). But, um ... I wasn't being paid to litigate this claim, so "we were just as careless as the guy reading it for sport" is not a strong argument, guys
"Give us an injunction, because this is really going to suck for us": sorry, that the contract specifically says you lose means no injunction.

Also, the fact that the contract says "your only possible damages are what you paid us" means they are very very easy to calculate
Seriously, did these attorneys just not bother reading the relevant contract before Leeroy Jenkinsing this filing? How do you build your irreparable harm claim around lost profits that the contract specifically bars you from recovering??
Last, we have our turtle law claim (tortoise interference, yeah, I got dad jokes). This isn't going to fly for any number of reasons.
For one thing, tortious interference claims are based on "you made Dave, who had a contract with me, breach it, and therefore harmed me"

This seems to be "you made me breach my contract with Dave"
That's ... um ... not a thing.

Also, and I guess this is a minor note, but when you're alleging tortious interference you need to show that there was an existing contract that was breached
Maybe I missed it in the Complaint, but did any of you see any paragraphs detailing what Parler's "contract" with its users are or explaining how "not being able to provide Parler for a while" is a *breach* of that contract?
Seriously - they're essentially alleging that any Parler user can now sue Parler for breach of contract due to Parler being down, which ... well ...
I mean, I haven't reviewed the Parler terms of service but I feel preeeetty preeeeetty confident that isn't a good faith reading of them
Also, as our returning Threadnought sailors know very well, you can't get to tortious interference based on "third parties doing things they're allowed to do"
If your contract says "hey, Amazon, you can terminate me without notice if I don't delete Lin Wood's account now that he's called for murder", and then you don't delete the account and get terminated, you can't say "no, actually, turtle law says that's a problem"
That's not "improper means" or "improper purpose"

It's (again) what you SPECIFICALLY agreed would happen if you did the things you actually did.
Bottom line - this suit is a heaping pile of garbage with no chance of any success at all. It won't even make it to discovery. Whatever they paid their lawyers for this - even if it was on contingency - was too much.
/fin

cc @DefiantlyFree you may be interested in the above

More from Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone


Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem


Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas


I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument


Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that
LAW
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy

There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please

1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress

(I mean, he could sign an executive order saying that, but it wouldn't have any legal effect)

2) the president can issue executive orders at any time.
TRUMP
Advertisement
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on


First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.


But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?
GOVERNMENT
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)

None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.

This particular flavor of wishcasting was written by Ted Noel. Unless there are two "Ted Noel"s writing nonsense for the American Thinker, Noel is a doctor, not a lawyer or scholar, who nevertheless writes about legal issues

This actually makes me feel a bit better, because the thought that a *lawyer* could think that Pence had "plenary power" to discard state election certificates for any reason he chose is - even after watching Wood, Powell, Kaardal, and the rest - somehow too hard to contemplate
ALL
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason


First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here


There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"

In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past

I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option
JUDGE

More from Business

George Mack
George Mack
@george__mack
THREAD: 15 of the most useful razors and rules I've found.

Rules of thumb that simplify decisions.

Bezos' Razors:

• If unsure what action to take, let your 80-year-old self make it.

• If unsure who to work with, pick the person that has the best chances of breaking you out of a 3rd world prison.

Skinner's Law:

• If procrastinating on an item, you only have 2 options:

1. Make the pain of not doing it greater than the pain of doing it.

2. Make the pleasure of doing it greater than the pleasure of not doing it.

Luck Razor:

• If stuck with 2 equal options, pick the one that feels like it will produce the most luck later down the line.

I used this razor to go for drinks with a stranger rather than watch Netflix.

In hindsight, it was the highest ROI decision I've ever made.

Bragging Razor:

• If someone brags about their success or happiness, assume it’s half what they claim.

• If someone downplays their success or happiness, assume it’s double what they claim.

The map is not the terrain.
ALL , BUSINESS , PRINCIPLES
PePe Le Q
PePe Le Q
@Pe_Pe_Le_Q
So while America was forced into a high percentage of unemployment, billionaires in America made 406 billion from their “essential” businesses.

I wonder how much came from the

Funny, this transfer of wealth from the poor citizens to the rich billionaires aided by lockdowns and tyrannical governors wasnt just isolated to America. Australia billionaires seemed to amass much wealth during a time record number of businesses
BUSINESS
Advertisement
Modelio Equity
Modelio Equity
@Modelio_Sthlm
1. A company that has been brewing just outside our Top-5 for some time now is the electroporation (EP) company MaxCyte. Modelio assesses it as one of the best investments to capture the growing gene editing and gene therapy space, especially in allogeneic ex-vivo treatments.

2. We estimate that MaxCyte stands before a huge inflection point that will accelerate both growth and profitability. We have seen signs of the accelerating underlying activity by the fact that they in the last two years have added 9 of their 12 commercial agreements.

3. What makes MaxCyte unique compared to other “pick-and-shovel” businesses is their claim to milestones and royalties, something usually reserved for pharmaceutical companies.

4. As per the January update, MaxCyte has a potential pool of $950m in milestones, and a 2-3% (our estimates) of sales in royalties, that excludes licenses and consumables for the machines.

5. Reviewing the partners' pipelines, we think milestone revenues will unleash themselves in 2021 and beyond as they move further into clinical trials.
BUSINESS
George Yury Revutsky
George Yury Revutsky
@george_revutsky
1/An interesting thing happened tonight. I was scrolling through clubhouse and found WileyCEO, Godfather of Grime (kicked off Twitter in July for antisemitic tweets) speaking. So I tweeted this (and included a screen shot, later deleted as I found out TOS don't allow it ...


2/ ... and several folks also asked me to remove it which I promptly did afterwards).... Coming into the CH room, I fully intended to confront him about how hurtful his comments in July were. But as I listened to the folks in the room, I decided to go a different direction ....

3/ the conversation jumped around, covered many topics and there were between 8-14 people up on stage. But a recurring thread was discussion of racism, bigotry, comparison of it in the US vs UK vs elsewhere.

4/ when I got a chance to speak, I had 5 bullets written down: a) we should harness technology and capitalism to make reparations for what America did to Black people. I gave https://t.co/SlrW8zCd58 (a project a couple friends co-started) as an example) ...

5/ b) capitalism and product know-how and technology can be harnessed for social justice c) historically oppressed minorities need to stick together and lastly, d) "Wiley, how could you say such hurtful things about Jews as a people?" That's what I had ready to say, anyway.
BUSINESS
Nick Huber
Nick Huber
@sweatystartup
There is a lot of bad advice floating around online when it comes to real estate investing.

Time for a stiff drink and some stuff you might not want to hear.

A thread 👇

Most real estate influencers spend 99% of their time trying to sound smart.

They purposely make things too complicated.

When you do this for a while you can tell if a property is worth buying with a napkin and 30 seconds.

The problem with being a big real estate PE firm:

You need to do good deals year after year and deploy 10s or 100s of millions in capital.

It’s a hamster wheel making others wealthy.

The advantage of being you:

One building like this can change your life.


Buying real estate that doesn’t cashflow well because values have risen 10% / yr for 10 yrs while wages have risen 3% / yr for 10 yrs is very risky.

I don’t care how long your interest rate is “fixed” for.

Markets are cyclical. Trends change. Bankruptcy is real.

If you don’t know anyone with money and you have less than $250k of your own cash real estate isn’t the best way to make money.

Even a $500k property (like the one pictured above) requires $150k down and another $100k in cash reserves.
BUSINESS

You May Also Like

Devdutta
Devdutta
@Devdutta96
Please please please take your cyber security seriously even if you don’t consider yourself a high risk person. Here are a few easy things to start with. 1/n

Switch from WhatsApp to Signal and enable disappearing messages. Most of us cannot stop using WhatsApp entirely but at least turn off back ups to Google Drive or iCloud. 2/n

Do not have private conversations using the messaging service on any social media platform like Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. 3/n

Switch from Gmail to ProtonMail or any other secure email service provider. 4/n


Switch from Google Docs to CryptPad or RiseUp Pad.
CYBER SECURITY , IT PRIVACY , CYBER SECURITY STEPS
Nick Kapur
Nick Kapur
@nick_kapur
A thread of images from a Japanese illustrated history of America from 1861.

Here is George Washington (with bow and arrow) pictured alongside the Goddess of America. 1/


Here is Christopher Columbus (seated at center) reporting his discovery of America to Queen Isabella of Spain.

So far, kinda normal, but wait for it.... 2/


Now it's the American Revolution. Here is George Washington defending his wife "Carol" from a British official named "Asura" (same characters as the Buddhist deity). 3/


And here is Washington's "second-in-command" John Adams battling an enormous snake. 4/


Here is Washington and his wife "Carol" meeting an extremely youthful Benjamin Franklin, who has an impressive squat. 5/
CULTURE
Advertisement
Justin Kan
Justin Kan
@justinkan
1/ Throughout my startup career, I’ve seen many founders have an aversion to sales. This is a mistake that can kill your startup.

2/ Sales is often viewed as either a saving grace or proof that the product isn’t good enough (because it should sell itself). Neither are ever true. Some common mistakes that result in...

3/ Mistake 1: Hire a sales rep before reaching product/market fit to get your initial batch of customers. This is a mistake because founders need to work through their MVP with early adopters to truly understand what it is they’re selling.

4/ Mistake 2: Reach product/market fit, need to scale, and rely entirely on self-serve. For enterprise products that require big commitments and internal shifts, almost no product is self-explanatory enough to sell itself.

5/ Mistake 3: Make a first sales hire who isn’t scrappy enough to help mold the sales process from scratch. Some salespeople are amazing at their jobs, but not cut out to establish the processes that others end up following. This skillset is what @rdedatta calls a “sales ninja”.
STARTUPS
\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940\u092e\u093e\u0932\u0940 \u0939\u093f\u0924\u0947\u0936 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u0940
श्रीमाली हितेश अवस्थी...
@HiteshAwasthi89
Sri Devi Karumariamman mandir, Chennai, Tamilnadu

Sri Devi Karumariamman mandir is in Thiruverkadu, a suburb of Chennai. It is said that God Muruga came here and obtained the 'Vel' (spear) from His mother, Goddess Karumari (an avatar of Parvathi) 1/n


to fight the demon Suran and hence this place was called as 'Vel kadu' and became as Verkadu. As per legend Devi Karumariamman once disguised as a soothsayer visited Bhagwan Surya, the Sun God, to predict His future. 2/n


Not realising that the soothsayer is none other than Sakthi Matha, Surya ignored Her. Angered by his indifference, Devi Karumariamman immediately retreated. Bhagwan Surya lost His glory and the earth plunged into darkness. 3/n


Bhagwan Surya then realised His folly and pleaded forgiveness from Devi Karumariamman. In order to pacify mother Karumariamman, Suryadev said that His rays would fall on Her directly twice in a year and touch her feet. (in the month of Panguni (March- April) & during (Sep - Oct)


Mother Karumari Amman is worshipped here in two forms.A swayambu (self manifested) with only head visible above the ground and another one in a graceful sitting posture with all Parasakthi features,with four arms holding skull, sword, trishul, udukkai (damru). 5/n
ALL
Alex Oluwatobi
Alex Oluwatobi
@alexlobaloba
According to psychologists, there are four types of intelligence:

- Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
- Emotional Quotient (EQ)
- Social Quotient (SQ)
- Adversity Quotient (AQ)

1. IQ is the measure of one's ability to comprehend, solve maths; memorize things & recall subject matters.

2. EQ is the measure of your ability to maintain peace with others; keep to time; be responsible; be honest; respect boundaries; be humble, genuine, and considerate.

3. SQ is the measure of one's ability to build a network of friends & maintain it over a long period of time.

4. AQ is the measure of your ability to go through a rough patch in life and come out without losing your mind. It is a new paradigm and can be used to determine who will give up in face of troubles and may abandon their families.

Now to the very interesting & analytical part👇

People that have higher EQ & SQ tend to go further in life than those with high IQ but low EQ &SQ.

Most schools capitalize on improving IQ level while EQ & SQ are played down.

A man of high IQ can end up being employed by a man of high EQ & SQ even though he has an average IQ.

Your EQ represents your character; your SQ represents your charisma. Give in to habits that will improve these three Qs but more especially your EQ and SQ.

EQ and SQ make one manage better than the other.

Try not only to have a higher IQ but also to have higher EQ and SQ.
ALL