Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
“Strategic Reserves Sound Great — Until You Ask: Where’s the Silver?” 
1️⃣
The U.S. just proposed a $2.5B strategic reserve for critical minerals.
Sounds strong.
Looks decisive.
But every serious silver stacker should ask one simple question:
👉 Where will the silver come from?
The U.S. just proposed a $2.5B strategic reserve for critical minerals.
Sounds strong.
Looks decisive.
But every serious silver stacker should ask one simple question:
👉 Where will the silver come from?
2️⃣
This isn’t the year 2000.
We are in a structural physical shortage.
• inventories are thinning
• deliveries are tight
• recycling isn’t enough
• new mines don’t appear overnight
Paper promises don’t fill vaults.
Metal does.
This isn’t the year 2000.
We are in a structural physical shortage.
• inventories are thinning
• deliveries are tight
• recycling isn’t enough
• new mines don’t appear overnight
Paper promises don’t fill vaults.
Metal does.
1/16
Bankers are asking for a thing that is already provided in almost every other white-collar job, i.e., a five-day working week. Even though every corporate professional here enjoys the same, I have seen many of them ridiculing this demand.
Bankers are asking for a thing that is already provided in almost every other white-collar job, i.e., a five-day working week. Even though every corporate professional here enjoys the same, I have seen many of them ridiculing this demand.
2/16
Every other financial institution is closed over the weekend. LIC, NABARD, SEBI, RBI, and GIC all have a five-day working week. Yet the people who are in touch with the ground the most are asked to work on Saturdays (alternate). This is inefficient, not just unfair.
Every other financial institution is closed over the weekend. LIC, NABARD, SEBI, RBI, and GIC all have a five-day working week. Yet the people who are in touch with the ground the most are asked to work on Saturdays (alternate). This is inefficient, not just unfair.
3/16
For those who say, “Why do they require a five-day working week when most of banking is online now?”, they already answer the question they ask. If most banking is online, what’s the harm if employees get their weekends off?
For those who say, “Why do they require a five-day working week when most of banking is online now?”, they already answer the question they ask. If most banking is online, what’s the harm if employees get their weekends off?
Novel problems often require novel approaches. Virtual Geomagnetic Poles (VGPs) are conventionally projected under the assumption that Earth’s surface is fixed relative to the spin axis, so any apparent movement of a VGP is interpreted as a change in the geomagnetic field alone. This assumption is usually reasonable, but it is rarely tested. What happens if that assumption is relaxed, and the reference frame itself is allowed to rotate during the span of the palaeomagnetic record under evaluation?
Using data from Nami (1995), I focused on the Australian VGP cluster which appears an an intermediate stage of the geomagnetic excursion sequence spanning approximately ~8.5 ka to ~6 ka BP. Instead of reinterpreting the magnetic measurements, the cluster is treated as a geometric object and systematically rotated forward and backward around a fixed Euler axis in uniform angular steps. For each step, the VGPs from the cluster are plotted, tracking the movement of their mean position. This approach does not assume when or how any reorientation occurred; it simply explores how the observed cluster behaves under controlled changes in reference frame.
The results show a strong asymmetry. When the cluster is rotated forward, it migrates smoothly across East and Southeast Asia with no sign of stabilization. When rotated backward, however, its behaviour changes qualitatively. The trajectory of the cluster mean shows inflections and slowdowns at specific angles, at around ~52°, ~26°, ~13°, and ~3°. These angles form an approximate halving sequence, with large adjustments followed by progressively smaller ones.
One interval, between roughly 26° and 13° of back-rotation, stands out as a plateau: additional rotation produces very little geographic change. This suggests that the Australian VGP cluster does not represent a true geomagnetic pole position, but rather a temporary, metastable configuration in which the geomagnetic field was relatively stable while Earth’s surface had not yet completed its return to its present orientation.
Using data from Nami (1995), I focused on the Australian VGP cluster which appears an an intermediate stage of the geomagnetic excursion sequence spanning approximately ~8.5 ka to ~6 ka BP. Instead of reinterpreting the magnetic measurements, the cluster is treated as a geometric object and systematically rotated forward and backward around a fixed Euler axis in uniform angular steps. For each step, the VGPs from the cluster are plotted, tracking the movement of their mean position. This approach does not assume when or how any reorientation occurred; it simply explores how the observed cluster behaves under controlled changes in reference frame.
The results show a strong asymmetry. When the cluster is rotated forward, it migrates smoothly across East and Southeast Asia with no sign of stabilization. When rotated backward, however, its behaviour changes qualitatively. The trajectory of the cluster mean shows inflections and slowdowns at specific angles, at around ~52°, ~26°, ~13°, and ~3°. These angles form an approximate halving sequence, with large adjustments followed by progressively smaller ones.
One interval, between roughly 26° and 13° of back-rotation, stands out as a plateau: additional rotation produces very little geographic change. This suggests that the Australian VGP cluster does not represent a true geomagnetic pole position, but rather a temporary, metastable configuration in which the geomagnetic field was relatively stable while Earth’s surface had not yet completed its return to its present orientation.
The angular steps identified from the VGP rotation analysis were then paired with time using Nami's stratigraphic and radiocarbon constraints. These time–angle pairs were used directly to parameterise the viscoelastic response model with a piecewise, data-driven return function in which both the timing and magnitude of each relaxation step are informed by the palaeomagnetic geometry.
In this model, the Earth remains in a fully displaced state (104°) until the termination of the Younger Dryas (~11.7 ka), at which point a rapid initial return reduces the disorientation by ~52°. The system then occupies a mid-Holocene plateau (~8.5–6.0 ka) characterised by a further reduction to ~26°, followed by a smaller late-Holocene adjustment to ~13° by ~3.7 ka, before completing the final convergence to the present configuration 0°.
[1] x.com/nobulart/statu… >>
In this model, the Earth remains in a fully displaced state (104°) until the termination of the Younger Dryas (~11.7 ka), at which point a rapid initial return reduces the disorientation by ~52°. The system then occupies a mid-Holocene plateau (~8.5–6.0 ka) characterised by a further reduction to ~26°, followed by a smaller late-Holocene adjustment to ~13° by ~3.7 ka, before completing the final convergence to the present configuration 0°.
[1] x.com/nobulart/statu… >>
This model chronology sits comfortably within TES' currently proposed ECDO timeline, which outlines when major system transitions occur. This work focuses on how the return unfolds mechanically. Using palaeomagnetic geometry to derive discrete angular steps and then pairing those steps with established Holocene breakpoints, the model translates the ECDO narrative into a quantified, stepwise return sequence, supporting a post–Younger Dryas return that was likely stepped, proceeded through a small number of diminishing angular adjustments, including a mid-Holocene plateau consistent with the Australian VGP cluster. An initial qualitative comparison between the model result and sea-level datasets is summarised in the table.
[1] x.com/EthicalSkeptic… >>
[1] x.com/EthicalSkeptic… >>
Spain's Córdoba Tragedy and the Myth of Western Standards
On the evening of January 18, 2026, in the southern Iberian Peninsula, in the picturesque province of Córdoba, Spain, a catastrophic high-speed rail collision unfolded. Forty lives were extinguished within tens of seconds, reduced to fire, debris, and smoke. Dozens of families were shattered in that single moment at dusk. Eyewitnesses later described the scene as a vision of hell: steel folded into grotesque knots, blood staining the ballast red.
Yet what chills one more than the accident itself is the silence that followed.
One opens the BBC. One scrolls CNN. One checks AFP. Coverage exists, yes—but of what nature? Briefs written with softened language, humanitarian sentiment confined to rescue narratives, responsibility gently dissolved into the word “accident.” No interrogation. No systemic questioning. No technological autopsy.
One is compelled to make a cruel but necessary assumption. Had this collision occurred not in Spain but in China; had the derailed train not carried the Japanese Hitachi brand but China’s CRRC Fuxing—what would the global reaction have looked like? The answer is obvious. The international opinion field would already be ablaze.
Headlines would scream “China’s Technological Collapse.” Deutsche Welle would churn out essays on the price of "China Speed". Social media would drown in mockery of “Made in China.”
This is not conjecture. This is pattern recognition.
Why do forty European deaths merit only a few painless expressions of regret in Western media discourse? Why can a mere delay of minutes on China’s high-speed rail be elevated into proof of systemic failure? What interests lie beneath this asymmetry? Whose entrenched privileges has Chinese high-speed rail disrupted, triggering such reflexive double standards?
Today, those perfumed news drafts are set aside. The text below relies not on sentiment but on data - on hard numbers, engineering logic, and technical comparison - to dissect what is now known as the Córdoba tragedy. The task is simple: to examine what crawls beneath the sanctified surface of “Western standards.”
The clock must be turned back to approximately 6 p.m. local time on January 18. It was meant to be an ordinary weekend evening in southern Spain. Two trains were converging on adjacent tracks. One was operated by a private company, traveling from Málaga to Madrid. The other belonged to Spain’s state-owned operator Renfe, heading from Madrid to Huelva.
In theory, a modern high-speed rail dispatch system functions like a precision instrument. Trains remain strictly segregated. Physical intersection should be impossible.
But catastrophe is born in details.
At that moment, the rear carriages of the privately operated train suddenly derailed - without warning. The word “suddenly” matters. The inertia of the derailed cars turned them into uncontrolled projectiles. They breached the central barrier and crossed directly onto the opposing track.
On the evening of January 18, 2026, in the southern Iberian Peninsula, in the picturesque province of Córdoba, Spain, a catastrophic high-speed rail collision unfolded. Forty lives were extinguished within tens of seconds, reduced to fire, debris, and smoke. Dozens of families were shattered in that single moment at dusk. Eyewitnesses later described the scene as a vision of hell: steel folded into grotesque knots, blood staining the ballast red.
Yet what chills one more than the accident itself is the silence that followed.
One opens the BBC. One scrolls CNN. One checks AFP. Coverage exists, yes—but of what nature? Briefs written with softened language, humanitarian sentiment confined to rescue narratives, responsibility gently dissolved into the word “accident.” No interrogation. No systemic questioning. No technological autopsy.
One is compelled to make a cruel but necessary assumption. Had this collision occurred not in Spain but in China; had the derailed train not carried the Japanese Hitachi brand but China’s CRRC Fuxing—what would the global reaction have looked like? The answer is obvious. The international opinion field would already be ablaze.
Headlines would scream “China’s Technological Collapse.” Deutsche Welle would churn out essays on the price of "China Speed". Social media would drown in mockery of “Made in China.”
This is not conjecture. This is pattern recognition.
Why do forty European deaths merit only a few painless expressions of regret in Western media discourse? Why can a mere delay of minutes on China’s high-speed rail be elevated into proof of systemic failure? What interests lie beneath this asymmetry? Whose entrenched privileges has Chinese high-speed rail disrupted, triggering such reflexive double standards?
Today, those perfumed news drafts are set aside. The text below relies not on sentiment but on data - on hard numbers, engineering logic, and technical comparison - to dissect what is now known as the Córdoba tragedy. The task is simple: to examine what crawls beneath the sanctified surface of “Western standards.”
The clock must be turned back to approximately 6 p.m. local time on January 18. It was meant to be an ordinary weekend evening in southern Spain. Two trains were converging on adjacent tracks. One was operated by a private company, traveling from Málaga to Madrid. The other belonged to Spain’s state-owned operator Renfe, heading from Madrid to Huelva.
In theory, a modern high-speed rail dispatch system functions like a precision instrument. Trains remain strictly segregated. Physical intersection should be impossible.
But catastrophe is born in details.
At that moment, the rear carriages of the privately operated train suddenly derailed - without warning. The word “suddenly” matters. The inertia of the derailed cars turned them into uncontrolled projectiles. They breached the central barrier and crossed directly onto the opposing track.
II/
Twenty seconds later - only twenty - the oncoming Renfe train had no opportunity to react. Traveling at roughly 200 km/h, it collided head-on with the derailed carriages. The impact was devastating. Front cars were launched off the track, tumbling from a roadbed five to six meters high. Survivors described the sensation as akin to an earthquake of magnitude eight: luggage transformed into missiles, glass shredded faces, conversations ended mid-sentence as lives vanished instantly.
In the aftermath, Spain’s Transport Minister publicly acknowledged that the incident was “highly abnormal” and largely ruled out operator error. This assessment rests on three facts that make industry insiders uneasy.
First: the track was new. This section had undergone a full renovation and upgrade in May of the previous year. By all standards, it should have been in peak condition.
Second: the train was new. The derailed unit was a Fracturosa 1000 high-speed train manufactured by Japan’s Hitachi—also marketed as the Red Arrow 1000. Produced in 2020, it had been in service for less than four years. More critically, it had passed a comprehensive technical inspection just three days before the accident, with all indicators deemed compliant.
Third: there was no speeding. The section was a straight track with a design speed of 250 km/h. Both trains were operating at approximately 190 km/h. The most convenient scapegoat - overspeeding - was absent.
So where did failure originate?
Preliminary investigations uncovered a conclusion that leaves one speechless: multiple rail fractures were found precisely at the derailment point. More damning still, clear evidence of chronic wear was discovered at the rail joints.
This means the failure was not instantaneous. It had been accumulating over time, silently, like a tumor.
Months earlier, the Spanish Railway Drivers’ Union had issued formal warnings about infrastructure degradation and abnormal vibration along this line.
Those warnings disappeared into bureaucratic silence. Worse still, a track safety warning system touted as “world-class” remained inert during the critical 20 seconds following derailment. It detected nothing. It issued no emergency braking command. It functioned as ornamentation—present, expensive, and useless.
This is the reality behind the image of “rigorous European standards”: newly renovated tracks fractured, recently inspected trains overturned, and safety systems blinded. Yet Western media posed not a single sharp question.
Attention must now turn to the train itself.
In Western narratives, Japanese manufacturing occupies a sacred space—synonymous with craftsmanship and immune to suspicion. The Fracturosa 1000 was marketed as one of Europe’s fastest and most comfortable trains, Hitachi’s flagship entry into the European market.
Yet beneath this halo lie structural weaknesses.
Following the accident, media treatment of Hitachi bordered on indulgence. Beyond a brief statement pledging cooperation, no serious scrutiny of design choices emerged. But technical realities tell a different story.
First, the braking system. This model relies on a relatively traditional pneumatic braking architecture. Its emergency braking response time is approximately 1.2 seconds. At high speed, those 1.2 seconds translate into tens of meters of uncontrolled forward motion. Moreover, the braking system’s thermal dissipation design has long drawn criticism. Under sustained high-speed operation, it is prone to thermal fade—a weakness previously observed in overseas deployments and conveniently ignored due to the absence of catastrophe.
Twenty seconds later - only twenty - the oncoming Renfe train had no opportunity to react. Traveling at roughly 200 km/h, it collided head-on with the derailed carriages. The impact was devastating. Front cars were launched off the track, tumbling from a roadbed five to six meters high. Survivors described the sensation as akin to an earthquake of magnitude eight: luggage transformed into missiles, glass shredded faces, conversations ended mid-sentence as lives vanished instantly.
In the aftermath, Spain’s Transport Minister publicly acknowledged that the incident was “highly abnormal” and largely ruled out operator error. This assessment rests on three facts that make industry insiders uneasy.
First: the track was new. This section had undergone a full renovation and upgrade in May of the previous year. By all standards, it should have been in peak condition.
Second: the train was new. The derailed unit was a Fracturosa 1000 high-speed train manufactured by Japan’s Hitachi—also marketed as the Red Arrow 1000. Produced in 2020, it had been in service for less than four years. More critically, it had passed a comprehensive technical inspection just three days before the accident, with all indicators deemed compliant.
Third: there was no speeding. The section was a straight track with a design speed of 250 km/h. Both trains were operating at approximately 190 km/h. The most convenient scapegoat - overspeeding - was absent.
So where did failure originate?
Preliminary investigations uncovered a conclusion that leaves one speechless: multiple rail fractures were found precisely at the derailment point. More damning still, clear evidence of chronic wear was discovered at the rail joints.
This means the failure was not instantaneous. It had been accumulating over time, silently, like a tumor.
Months earlier, the Spanish Railway Drivers’ Union had issued formal warnings about infrastructure degradation and abnormal vibration along this line.
Those warnings disappeared into bureaucratic silence. Worse still, a track safety warning system touted as “world-class” remained inert during the critical 20 seconds following derailment. It detected nothing. It issued no emergency braking command. It functioned as ornamentation—present, expensive, and useless.
This is the reality behind the image of “rigorous European standards”: newly renovated tracks fractured, recently inspected trains overturned, and safety systems blinded. Yet Western media posed not a single sharp question.
Attention must now turn to the train itself.
In Western narratives, Japanese manufacturing occupies a sacred space—synonymous with craftsmanship and immune to suspicion. The Fracturosa 1000 was marketed as one of Europe’s fastest and most comfortable trains, Hitachi’s flagship entry into the European market.
Yet beneath this halo lie structural weaknesses.
Following the accident, media treatment of Hitachi bordered on indulgence. Beyond a brief statement pledging cooperation, no serious scrutiny of design choices emerged. But technical realities tell a different story.
First, the braking system. This model relies on a relatively traditional pneumatic braking architecture. Its emergency braking response time is approximately 1.2 seconds. At high speed, those 1.2 seconds translate into tens of meters of uncontrolled forward motion. Moreover, the braking system’s thermal dissipation design has long drawn criticism. Under sustained high-speed operation, it is prone to thermal fade—a weakness previously observed in overseas deployments and conveniently ignored due to the absence of catastrophe.
III/
Contrast this with China’s electro-pneumatic composite braking system. By integrating electric and pneumatic braking seamlessly, China’s system achieves maximum braking force within 0.6 seconds—half the response time, with braking efficiency roughly 30% higher. In high-speed rail, fractions of a second are not margins; they are destinies. Had such a system been in place, the outcome might have differed.
Next is signal compatibility. Europe’s signaling landscape is notoriously fragmented. National standards coexist uneasily, forcing rolling stock to operate across multiple modes. To accommodate this complexity, Hitachi’s design made compromises in signal processing.
China’s system operates on an entirely different philosophy. Trains, tracks, and dispatch centers form a single integrated organism. There are no translators, no intermediary layers, no latency introduced by incompatible protocols.
Yet within Western discourse, these gaps are invisible. When Japanese equipment fails, blame migrates to infrastructure or fate. When Chinese equipment succeeds, silence prevails.
To understand the collapse of the warning system in Córdoba, one must confront the congenital defects of European high-speed rail. While European standards are celebrated rhetorically, their implementation is fragmented.
Germany, France, and Spain maintain divergent systems. The EU’s push for ERTMS unification has been glacial.
As a result, during line transitions, systems often downgrade to legacy signaling - analogous to a smartphone oscillating between 5G, 3G, and 2G. Stability under such conditions is illusion.
In Córdoba, despite recent renovations, reports indicate that the line was not fully upgraded to ETCS Level 2. Instead, it retained components of older S8 digital systems. These systems monitor speed but cannot assess track integrity in real time. Rail fractures or foreign object intrusion remain invisible to them.
Compounding this, Spanish rail standards exhibit lower wear-resistance thresholds than French equivalents - explaining why severe wear manifested so rapidly on a “new” line.
These facts rarely surface in Western reporting. European high-speed rail is presented as a unified gold standard, while its patchwork vulnerabilities are carefully concealed.
If the same incident had occurred in China, it would have triggered a radically different Western narrative.
However, Chinese high-speed rail has reached a level of structural maturity at which such an accident has become nearly impossible in practice.
China’s CTCS Level 3 train control system represents a dimensional reduction in safety architecture. Independently developed, it links train, track, and dispatch in real time, with data latency below 0.1 seconds—three times faster than comparable European systems.
Upon detecting anomalies, it can issue maximum braking commands within seconds.
Its anti-electromagnetic interference technology reduces signal failure rates from 90% to 20%, even under lightning and extreme weather.
In practical terms, at equal speeds, China’s braking distances are 50–90 meters shorter than European equivalents. Those meters determine survival.
China’s inspection regime is equally decisive. Daily physical inspections are complemented by comprehensive inspection trains - the “Yellow Doctors” - capable of detecting 0.1 mm cracks at 350 km/h. Big data analytics flag risks before they metastasize. In China’s system, “operating with illness” does not exist.
Real-world performance confirms this. The Jakarta–Bandung high-speed rail operates in seismic, tropical conditions far harsher than Spain’s. In over two years, it has logged 560,000 km, transported more than 1.2 million passengers, maintained punctuality above 95%, and recorded zero safety accidents.
Contrast this with China’s electro-pneumatic composite braking system. By integrating electric and pneumatic braking seamlessly, China’s system achieves maximum braking force within 0.6 seconds—half the response time, with braking efficiency roughly 30% higher. In high-speed rail, fractions of a second are not margins; they are destinies. Had such a system been in place, the outcome might have differed.
Next is signal compatibility. Europe’s signaling landscape is notoriously fragmented. National standards coexist uneasily, forcing rolling stock to operate across multiple modes. To accommodate this complexity, Hitachi’s design made compromises in signal processing.
China’s system operates on an entirely different philosophy. Trains, tracks, and dispatch centers form a single integrated organism. There are no translators, no intermediary layers, no latency introduced by incompatible protocols.
Yet within Western discourse, these gaps are invisible. When Japanese equipment fails, blame migrates to infrastructure or fate. When Chinese equipment succeeds, silence prevails.
To understand the collapse of the warning system in Córdoba, one must confront the congenital defects of European high-speed rail. While European standards are celebrated rhetorically, their implementation is fragmented.
Germany, France, and Spain maintain divergent systems. The EU’s push for ERTMS unification has been glacial.
As a result, during line transitions, systems often downgrade to legacy signaling - analogous to a smartphone oscillating between 5G, 3G, and 2G. Stability under such conditions is illusion.
In Córdoba, despite recent renovations, reports indicate that the line was not fully upgraded to ETCS Level 2. Instead, it retained components of older S8 digital systems. These systems monitor speed but cannot assess track integrity in real time. Rail fractures or foreign object intrusion remain invisible to them.
Compounding this, Spanish rail standards exhibit lower wear-resistance thresholds than French equivalents - explaining why severe wear manifested so rapidly on a “new” line.
These facts rarely surface in Western reporting. European high-speed rail is presented as a unified gold standard, while its patchwork vulnerabilities are carefully concealed.
If the same incident had occurred in China, it would have triggered a radically different Western narrative.
However, Chinese high-speed rail has reached a level of structural maturity at which such an accident has become nearly impossible in practice.
China’s CTCS Level 3 train control system represents a dimensional reduction in safety architecture. Independently developed, it links train, track, and dispatch in real time, with data latency below 0.1 seconds—three times faster than comparable European systems.
Upon detecting anomalies, it can issue maximum braking commands within seconds.
Its anti-electromagnetic interference technology reduces signal failure rates from 90% to 20%, even under lightning and extreme weather.
In practical terms, at equal speeds, China’s braking distances are 50–90 meters shorter than European equivalents. Those meters determine survival.
China’s inspection regime is equally decisive. Daily physical inspections are complemented by comprehensive inspection trains - the “Yellow Doctors” - capable of detecting 0.1 mm cracks at 350 km/h. Big data analytics flag risks before they metastasize. In China’s system, “operating with illness” does not exist.
Real-world performance confirms this. The Jakarta–Bandung high-speed rail operates in seismic, tropical conditions far harsher than Spain’s. In over two years, it has logged 560,000 km, transported more than 1.2 million passengers, maintained punctuality above 95%, and recorded zero safety accidents.
If NESO cannot produce a complete set of energy scenarios and we can't rely on the costs, then what is the point of NESO. A thread (1/n)
Many green blobbers have got very huffy about my report for the IEA looking into the various estimates of the cost of Net Zero (2/n)
iea.org.uk/publications/t…
iea.org.uk/publications/t…
Fulminator-in-chief was @ret_ward who even went even went so far as to write to the @iealondon and demand the report was withdrawn (3/n)
YOUR KIDS WILL THANK YOU ONE DAY IF YOU TEACH THEM THESE LIFE RULES:
Must read thread 🧵
(Everyone deserves to know this )
Must read thread 🧵
(Everyone deserves to know this )
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
“We will be victorious,” outside HMP Wormwood Scrubs last night.
A few moments later…
86 arrested.
🧵 1/
A few moments later…
86 arrested.
🧵 1/
2/
“And Allah is the best of planners.”
“And Allah is the best of planners.”
3/
This is more like it, lads.
This is more like it, lads.
@rothschildmd 1).
„ @realDonaldTrump's ascent to the presidency in 2017 changed the views of many right-leaning populists about the government in general, and federal agents in particular, since they now felt that one of their own was in charge, experts say.”
Jan. 23, 2026
„ @realDonaldTrump's ascent to the presidency in 2017 changed the views of many right-leaning populists about the government in general, and federal agents in particular, since they now felt that one of their own was in charge, experts say.”
Jan. 23, 2026
@rothschildmd @realDonaldTrump 2).
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖙𝖔𝖓 𝕻𝖔𝖘𝖙 (@washingtonpost) archive.ph/oWCm5
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖙𝖔𝖓 𝕻𝖔𝖘𝖙 (@washingtonpost) archive.ph/oWCm5
@rothschildmd @realDonaldTrump @washingtonpost Please unroll @threadreaderapp. Thank you in advance 𓃠
How much does Nigeria actually earn, and where does the money go?. Yesterday we talked about Economic Policy. Today, let’s look at the bigger picture i .e Revenue Generation and Allocation. To understand where we are going, we have to look at the "Debt Trap" we just escaped. 🧵👇🏾
Nigeria’s income comes from two main buckets.
Oil Revenue: Crude oil sales, gas royalties, and petroleum profit tax.
Non-Oil Revenue like VAT, Company Income Tax ( Federal Government doesn't collect PIT), Customs duties, and the new Development Levy (4% for mid/large firms).
Oil Revenue: Crude oil sales, gas royalties, and petroleum profit tax.
Non-Oil Revenue like VAT, Company Income Tax ( Federal Government doesn't collect PIT), Customs duties, and the new Development Levy (4% for mid/large firms).
Before this administration, Nigeria was in a fiscal crisis. In the 1st half of 2023, our Debt Service-to-Revenue Ratio hit a staggering 97%. Essentially, for every ₦100 the government earned, ₦97 went to paying back loans then #3 for FAAC. We were borrowing just to stay alive.
SitRep - 24/01/26 - Talks in Abu Dhabi continued
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Talks in Abu Dhabi between Ukraine and Russia continued, an attack on Kyiv and strikes in Belgorod.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Talks in Abu Dhabi between Ukraine and Russia continued, an attack on Kyiv and strikes in Belgorod.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
Missed the latest SitRep?
As usual we start with Russian losses
If you read one WWI account this week, make it this one. Bitola, 1917, a rich Macedonian town turned into a target. The occupation, the famine, then the shelling. This thread is a reminder of what “war on civilians” looks like. 🧵
Before WWI, Bitola was a trade hub, whitewashed houses in green orchards, tied to Salonica by rail. A place people fought over on maps, long before they fought over it with guns. 🔽
After 1915, Serbia retreats through Albania in winter. Thousands die on the road. Bulgaria moves in, claiming Bitola as theirs. The question was never just borders, it was how conquerors treat people. 🔽
Exploring Plato’s Cave
(This image is a depiction of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, a philosophical parable from his work Republic)
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, presented in Book VII of his dialogue The Republic, is one of the most influential metaphors in Western philosophy
(This image is a depiction of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, a philosophical parable from his work Republic)
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, presented in Book VII of his dialogue The Republic, is one of the most influential metaphors in Western philosophy
It serves as a profound illustration of human perception, the pursuit of knowledge, and the challenges of enlightenment. Written around 380 BCE, the allegory is part of a larger conversation between Socrates
(Plato’s teacher and the dialogue’s protagonist) and Glaucon about the ideal state and the role of education in achieving justice. Below, I’ll break it down step by step, explore its key elements, interpretations, and lasting impact.
