Recent well liked threads
Donald Trump has always been fucking crazy. Not in any way that would enable him to plead insanity to any of the 91 felony charges he faces. But he’s a lifelong malignantly narcissistic sociopath with antisocial personality disorder who is incapable of empathy or remorse (THREAD) 
He is also fundamentally unable to exhibit or feel compassion; assess risk; navigate reality; tell the truth; accept responsibility; or consider anyone or anything other than himself through the immeasurably warped prism of his own cosmic delusions of grandeur.
This is what has rendered him both so profoundly dangerous and so completely unfit for the Presidency even before he began to show serious signs of cognitive attenuation over the past 6 years.
🇫🇷🇮🇱 FRANCE - ISRAEL
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday afternoon that France does not plan to stop its arms sales to Israel. 🧵
➡️ During his weekly press briefing, Christophe Lemoine, deputy spokesperson for French Diplomacy, was again questioned yesterday, on the issue of arms sales to Israel.
➡️ According to the 2023 report submitted by the French Ministry of the Armed Forces in July 2022 to Parliament, France exported nearly €200 million in arms to Israel between 2013 and 2022, making Paris one of the largest exporters of weapons in Tel Aviv.
➡️ According to the report from the Ministry of the Armed Forces, weapons exported by France to Israel include "bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, [...] high-tech missile and bomb guidance systems, as well as machine guns
➡️ On the subject of Israel, Lemoine specified that France remains a “marginal” partner, with exports to this country representing “only 0.1% of total French exports of war material” for the year 2022.
➡️ Responding to a question about the possible use of these weapons in the Gaza conflict, he reported a “precise and careful interministerial examination” governing French exports.
➡️ Lemoine insisted on the existence of a particularly “strict” arms sales control system in France. This process involves a review taking into account “respect for human rights and international humanitarian law” by the recipient country. This assessment also focuses on the potential consequences “in terms of peace, security and regional stability”.
“Arms exports are not done in a rapid and inconsiderate manner.”
➡️ His response comes in a context where parliamentarians and Amnesty International recently called upon President Macron to stop military cooperation with Israel.
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday afternoon that France does not plan to stop its arms sales to Israel. 🧵
➡️ During his weekly press briefing, Christophe Lemoine, deputy spokesperson for French Diplomacy, was again questioned yesterday, on the issue of arms sales to Israel.
➡️ According to the 2023 report submitted by the French Ministry of the Armed Forces in July 2022 to Parliament, France exported nearly €200 million in arms to Israel between 2013 and 2022, making Paris one of the largest exporters of weapons in Tel Aviv.
➡️ According to the report from the Ministry of the Armed Forces, weapons exported by France to Israel include "bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, [...] high-tech missile and bomb guidance systems, as well as machine guns
➡️ On the subject of Israel, Lemoine specified that France remains a “marginal” partner, with exports to this country representing “only 0.1% of total French exports of war material” for the year 2022.
➡️ Responding to a question about the possible use of these weapons in the Gaza conflict, he reported a “precise and careful interministerial examination” governing French exports.
➡️ Lemoine insisted on the existence of a particularly “strict” arms sales control system in France. This process involves a review taking into account “respect for human rights and international humanitarian law” by the recipient country. This assessment also focuses on the potential consequences “in terms of peace, security and regional stability”.
“Arms exports are not done in a rapid and inconsiderate manner.”
➡️ His response comes in a context where parliamentarians and Amnesty International recently called upon President Macron to stop military cooperation with Israel.
🇫🇷 France under pressure to suspend military sales to Israel as war in Gaza grinds on
NGOs and leftist members of the opposition have increased the pressure on France's government to reconsider arms sales to Israel in the wake of the war in Gaza and follow in the footsteps of other European nations that made moves to suspend military exports over concerns about the humanitarian situation on the ground.
NGOs and leftist members of the opposition have increased the pressure on France's government to reconsider arms sales to Israel in the wake of the war in Gaza and follow in the footsteps of other European nations that made moves to suspend military exports over concerns about the humanitarian situation on the ground.
The Shuheibar case
In July 2014, 8-year-old Afnan Shuheibar, her 16-year-old brother Oday, and her three cousins Basel, Jihad and Wassim – ages 8 to 11 – went up to the roof of the Shuheibar home in Gaza City to feed the pigeons when they were struck by a missile.
It was fired by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), but what helped guide it to the Shuheibars’ home was a small black position sensor around 2 centimetres long lodged deep inside the missile. On it were three words, with some letters partially erased: “EUROFARAD PARIS FRANCE”.
Wassim and Jihad were killed instantly, and Afnan died in her father’s arms on the way to the hospital.
In 2016, the Shuheibar family filed a legal suit against Eurofarad. The company has since been bought by Exxelia Technologies, which is now facing charges of complicity in war crimes in France. (Exxelia itself was recently bought by the US group HEICO but is still headquartered in Paris.)
obliteratedfamilies.com/en/acat/
In July 2014, 8-year-old Afnan Shuheibar, her 16-year-old brother Oday, and her three cousins Basel, Jihad and Wassim – ages 8 to 11 – went up to the roof of the Shuheibar home in Gaza City to feed the pigeons when they were struck by a missile.
It was fired by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), but what helped guide it to the Shuheibars’ home was a small black position sensor around 2 centimetres long lodged deep inside the missile. On it were three words, with some letters partially erased: “EUROFARAD PARIS FRANCE”.
Wassim and Jihad were killed instantly, and Afnan died in her father’s arms on the way to the hospital.
In 2016, the Shuheibar family filed a legal suit against Eurofarad. The company has since been bought by Exxelia Technologies, which is now facing charges of complicity in war crimes in France. (Exxelia itself was recently bought by the US group HEICO but is still headquartered in Paris.)
obliteratedfamilies.com/en/acat/
New post with @robertzzk, @ArthurConmy, & @NeelNanda5: Sparse Autoencoders (usually) Transfer between Base and Chat Models! This suggests that models' representations remain extremely similar after fine-tuning.
It also implies that there's no need to train new SAEs from scratch after we fine-tune models. Fine-tuning the existing base SAE, or even just re-using it on the chat model, are much cheaper and viable options.
Post: alignmentforum.org/posts/fmwk6qxr…
Post: alignmentforum.org/posts/fmwk6qxr…
Here’s a thread of MAGA accounts getting exposed for being outside of the United States… starting here. EUROPE!
This Tom Homan account is also based in Europe
This MAGA account is in Morocco
The U.S. Housing Market is about to get hit by a big demographic shift.
By 2032, there will be more deaths than births in the U.S.
This crossover point will be the continuation of a long-term trend over the last four decades, and ultimately will have the following impacts:
a) structurally lower homebuyer demand, as declining births and family formation lowers the need and urgency for young people to buy houses
b) more inventory, as incrementally more deaths and the aging out of the Baby Boomer generation increases listings (Freddie Mac estimates 9 million homes by 2035).
This will likely have a disinflationary and/or deflationary impact on home prices over the long-term.
Reventure just added Birth/Death Ratio data for every county in the U.S., going back 30 years, under 'Demographic Data'. Sign up to see the demographic trends in your area at reventure.app.
By 2032, there will be more deaths than births in the U.S.
This crossover point will be the continuation of a long-term trend over the last four decades, and ultimately will have the following impacts:
a) structurally lower homebuyer demand, as declining births and family formation lowers the need and urgency for young people to buy houses
b) more inventory, as incrementally more deaths and the aging out of the Baby Boomer generation increases listings (Freddie Mac estimates 9 million homes by 2035).
This will likely have a disinflationary and/or deflationary impact on home prices over the long-term.
Reventure just added Birth/Death Ratio data for every county in the U.S., going back 30 years, under 'Demographic Data'. Sign up to see the demographic trends in your area at reventure.app.
1) Many participants in the housing market are ignoring this issue, as if it does not provide a positive outlook for home prices, and it's also still another 6-7 years off.
However, serious homebuyers and investors should dig in and understand how the demographic decline will impact their area.
However, serious homebuyers and investors should dig in and understand how the demographic decline will impact their area.
2) You can see there is already a dramatic divergence in Births and Deaths by state.
An area like California still has strong organic growth (1.38x, meaning 38% more births than deaths in 2024).
However, an area like Florida is already in organic contraction (0.96x Birth/Death, meaning 4% fewer births).
An area like California still has strong organic growth (1.38x, meaning 38% more births than deaths in 2024).
However, an area like Florida is already in organic contraction (0.96x Birth/Death, meaning 4% fewer births).
1911: Procter & Gamble invents Crisco - hydrogenated cottonseed oil.
Problem: Nobody wants to cook with cottonseed oil. It's industrial waste used for making soap.
Solution: Marketing campaign to convince Americans that animal fats cause heart disease.
1948: American Heart Association is tiny organization with $1,700 budget.
Also 1948: Procter & Gamble donates $1.7 million to the American Heart Association.
The AHA suddenly becomes influential and well-funded.
1961: The AHA issues their first dietary guidelines: Avoid saturated fat. Use vegetable oils instead.
Recommended oils: Crisco and other vegetable oils.
Who benefits: Procter & Gamble.
Who funded the AHA: Procter & Gamble.
1980s: Trans fats (in Crisco and margarine) are discovered to be catastrophically unhealthy.
2015: Trans fats are finally banned as unsafe.
For 67 years, the American Heart Association recommended a product that:
Was invented as soap ingredient
Was made from industrial waste
Was later proven to cause heart disease
Was produced by their founding mega-donor
And they told you butter would kill you while recommending literal poison.
When trans fats were finally proven deadly, they quietly changed recommendations without acknowledging the millions who followed their advice.
No apologies. No accountability. Guidelines adjusted. Move on.
The organization you're told to trust for heart health was created by a soap company to sell industrial waste as food.
Science.
Problem: Nobody wants to cook with cottonseed oil. It's industrial waste used for making soap.
Solution: Marketing campaign to convince Americans that animal fats cause heart disease.
1948: American Heart Association is tiny organization with $1,700 budget.
Also 1948: Procter & Gamble donates $1.7 million to the American Heart Association.
The AHA suddenly becomes influential and well-funded.
1961: The AHA issues their first dietary guidelines: Avoid saturated fat. Use vegetable oils instead.
Recommended oils: Crisco and other vegetable oils.
Who benefits: Procter & Gamble.
Who funded the AHA: Procter & Gamble.
1980s: Trans fats (in Crisco and margarine) are discovered to be catastrophically unhealthy.
2015: Trans fats are finally banned as unsafe.
For 67 years, the American Heart Association recommended a product that:
Was invented as soap ingredient
Was made from industrial waste
Was later proven to cause heart disease
Was produced by their founding mega-donor
And they told you butter would kill you while recommending literal poison.
When trans fats were finally proven deadly, they quietly changed recommendations without acknowledging the millions who followed their advice.
No apologies. No accountability. Guidelines adjusted. Move on.
The organization you're told to trust for heart health was created by a soap company to sell industrial waste as food.
Science.
Check out my latest article for a deeper dive into how nutritional science is bought and paid for.
It's not about your health.
fitawakening.co.uk/2025/11/23/nut…
It's not about your health.
fitawakening.co.uk/2025/11/23/nut…
"China directly or indirectly makes about 3.5% of the goods Americans buy."
The Dangerous Illusion of the 3.5%
Why a low statistic hides a massive strategic vulnerability.
At first glance, the claim that "China directly or indirectly makes only about 3.5% of the goods Americans buy" feels reassuring. It suggests that despite the geopolitical noise, the two economies are relatively distinct and that US reliance on Chinese manufacturing is manageable—a minor feature of a vast economy rather than a structural pillar.
However, relying on this figure to measure dependency is a dangerous mistake. It confuses economic value with strategic criticality. By focusing on the final price tag of goods, US leaders mask two profound vulnerabilities: an addiction to artificially cheap consumption and a fragility in US critical supply chains that no GDP statistic can capture.
The "Welfare" Trap of Cheap Consumption
The primary reason the 3.5% figure is so low is that Chinese manufacturing is incredibly efficient and inexpensive. When an American buys a toaster or a smartphone, the vast majority of that purchase price stays in the US to pay for branding, logistics, retail real estate, and marketing. Only a sliver flows back to the factory in Shenzhen.
Economically, this looks like low dependence. In reality, it is a form of consumer welfare.
Because Chinese production effectively subsidizes the cost of living for the American working and middle classes, it provides a "standard of living surplus" that allows Americans to buy more with less.
The US has effectively outsourced the suppression of inflation. To "liberate" the US economy from this dynamic would not just mean shifting factories; it would mean accepting a sudden, sharp decrease in purchasing power. The reliance isn't measured in dollars spent, but in the lifestyle those dollars can afford. The US is not just buying goods; it is importing a subsidy that holds its consumer economy together.
The 0.000001% That Matters
The second, and more lethal, flaw in the "it’s not a lot" argument is the assumption that all dollars are created equal. They are not.
In a complex system, a $10 billion import of plastic toys counts the same as a $10 billion import of advanced pharmaceuticals or rare earth magnets. But if the toys stop arriving, Americans are merely annoyed. If the magnets stop arriving, industries collapse.
This is the Rare Earth Paradox. The strategic minerals required to build F-35 fighter jets, EV batteries, and medical MRI machines represent a microscopic fraction of the US GDP—perhaps 0.000001%. Yet, they are the indispensable "vitamins" of the industrial body. A human body can survive without thousands of calories of starch, but it will shut down without a tiny amount of iron or B12.
China’s dominance in the processing of these elements means they hold the keys to the entire high-tech ecosystem. The low dollar value of these imports is actually what makes them so dangerous: because they were cheap, the US ignored them. Because they represented a rounding error on the balance sheet, the US allowed a geopolitical rival to monopolize the choke points of the future.
Further, this "only 3.5% claim" underscores the fragile symbiosis between the two nations. While the US economy retains the high-value service functions—branding, logistics, retail real estate, and marketing—these sectors are entirely contingent upon the continuous, low-cost flow of Chinese manufactured goods. If this supply stops, billions in US logistics capital and millions of related jobs are instantly rendered obsolete, triggering a massive, domestic economic contraction.
The Dangerous Illusion of the 3.5%
Why a low statistic hides a massive strategic vulnerability.
At first glance, the claim that "China directly or indirectly makes only about 3.5% of the goods Americans buy" feels reassuring. It suggests that despite the geopolitical noise, the two economies are relatively distinct and that US reliance on Chinese manufacturing is manageable—a minor feature of a vast economy rather than a structural pillar.
However, relying on this figure to measure dependency is a dangerous mistake. It confuses economic value with strategic criticality. By focusing on the final price tag of goods, US leaders mask two profound vulnerabilities: an addiction to artificially cheap consumption and a fragility in US critical supply chains that no GDP statistic can capture.
The "Welfare" Trap of Cheap Consumption
The primary reason the 3.5% figure is so low is that Chinese manufacturing is incredibly efficient and inexpensive. When an American buys a toaster or a smartphone, the vast majority of that purchase price stays in the US to pay for branding, logistics, retail real estate, and marketing. Only a sliver flows back to the factory in Shenzhen.
Economically, this looks like low dependence. In reality, it is a form of consumer welfare.
Because Chinese production effectively subsidizes the cost of living for the American working and middle classes, it provides a "standard of living surplus" that allows Americans to buy more with less.
The US has effectively outsourced the suppression of inflation. To "liberate" the US economy from this dynamic would not just mean shifting factories; it would mean accepting a sudden, sharp decrease in purchasing power. The reliance isn't measured in dollars spent, but in the lifestyle those dollars can afford. The US is not just buying goods; it is importing a subsidy that holds its consumer economy together.
The 0.000001% That Matters
The second, and more lethal, flaw in the "it’s not a lot" argument is the assumption that all dollars are created equal. They are not.
In a complex system, a $10 billion import of plastic toys counts the same as a $10 billion import of advanced pharmaceuticals or rare earth magnets. But if the toys stop arriving, Americans are merely annoyed. If the magnets stop arriving, industries collapse.
This is the Rare Earth Paradox. The strategic minerals required to build F-35 fighter jets, EV batteries, and medical MRI machines represent a microscopic fraction of the US GDP—perhaps 0.000001%. Yet, they are the indispensable "vitamins" of the industrial body. A human body can survive without thousands of calories of starch, but it will shut down without a tiny amount of iron or B12.
China’s dominance in the processing of these elements means they hold the keys to the entire high-tech ecosystem. The low dollar value of these imports is actually what makes them so dangerous: because they were cheap, the US ignored them. Because they represented a rounding error on the balance sheet, the US allowed a geopolitical rival to monopolize the choke points of the future.
Further, this "only 3.5% claim" underscores the fragile symbiosis between the two nations. While the US economy retains the high-value service functions—branding, logistics, retail real estate, and marketing—these sectors are entirely contingent upon the continuous, low-cost flow of Chinese manufactured goods. If this supply stops, billions in US logistics capital and millions of related jobs are instantly rendered obsolete, triggering a massive, domestic economic contraction.
II/
Moreover, this dependency extends to critical national sectors like healthcare. The US health industry represents nearly 20% of GDP, and its stability is highly vulnerable. While US firms still hold the patents and conduct the R&D (even losing this ground at a fast pace to China), the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and core intermediate chemicals for many essential generic drugs is overwhelmingly sourced from China. This creates an extreme supply chain choke point.
Furthermore, this vulnerability is compounded by the rapid shift where China is quickly moving from being a mere manufacturing source to a global innovation competitor, challenging US dominance in Pharmaceutical R&D and novel drug patents, meaning US dependence is expanding from goods on the shelf to the future knowledge that determines which medicines are available a decade from now.
It is not an exaggeration to state that a complete, sudden cutoff of the Chinese supply chain would not merely cause a recession; it would trigger an unprecedented economic depression, effectively paralyzing critical industries and rendering large portions of the US service economy non-functional..
Conclusion: The Fragility of Efficiency
The claim that China represents "not a lot" of the US economy is technically accurate but strategically blinding.
The US has built an economy where the lowest-value but critical strategic components—the cheap screws, the raw minerals, the basic PCBs. the rare earths are the foundation for its highest-value outputs. By judging US dependence solely on the final receipt, US leaders miss the reality: the 3.5% isn't just "stuff." It is the keystone that holds up the arch. Removing it doesn't just lower the GDP by a few percentage points; it threatens to bring the structure down.
Moreover, this dependency extends to critical national sectors like healthcare. The US health industry represents nearly 20% of GDP, and its stability is highly vulnerable. While US firms still hold the patents and conduct the R&D (even losing this ground at a fast pace to China), the manufacturing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and core intermediate chemicals for many essential generic drugs is overwhelmingly sourced from China. This creates an extreme supply chain choke point.
Furthermore, this vulnerability is compounded by the rapid shift where China is quickly moving from being a mere manufacturing source to a global innovation competitor, challenging US dominance in Pharmaceutical R&D and novel drug patents, meaning US dependence is expanding from goods on the shelf to the future knowledge that determines which medicines are available a decade from now.
It is not an exaggeration to state that a complete, sudden cutoff of the Chinese supply chain would not merely cause a recession; it would trigger an unprecedented economic depression, effectively paralyzing critical industries and rendering large portions of the US service economy non-functional..
Conclusion: The Fragility of Efficiency
The claim that China represents "not a lot" of the US economy is technically accurate but strategically blinding.
The US has built an economy where the lowest-value but critical strategic components—the cheap screws, the raw minerals, the basic PCBs. the rare earths are the foundation for its highest-value outputs. By judging US dependence solely on the final receipt, US leaders miss the reality: the 3.5% isn't just "stuff." It is the keystone that holds up the arch. Removing it doesn't just lower the GDP by a few percentage points; it threatens to bring the structure down.
III/
The Economic Paradox of Zero Value
The claim that China’s direct contribution to the US economy is only around 3.5% calls for a shocking thought experiment: what if China chose to supply this critical share of goods for free, effectively driving its recorded economic value towards 0%?
This scenario highlights the Paradox of Zero Value, exposing the fundamental inadequacy of using traditional metrics like GDP or Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) to assess strategic dependency.
China supplying its critical goods at 3. 5% Is almost like free welfare.
If China were to supply its essential components and finished goods for free, its value would disappear from the economic ledgers. Yet, the US economy would remain entirely dependent, cementing the structural vulnerability in three key ways:
Contingency of Domestic Value:
The vast majority of the US service economy—the trillions of dollars generated by US logistics, retail, marketing, and real estate—is contingent upon the continuous, low-cost (or in this case, zero-cost) flow of imported physical goods. If the supply of these zero-value inputs ceased, the entire domestic distribution and retail infrastructure would be paralyzed.
Infinite Consumer Surplus: The free supply would dramatically inflate the US standard of living, creating an infinite consumer surplus—the ultimate "welfare" trap. This would deepen the US consumer's lifestyle dependency, making the eventual withdrawal of the free supply politically and economically catastrophic.
Strategic Collapse: Critical sectors, including the US health industry (reliant on APIs) and high-tech manufacturing (reliant on Rare Earths), would have their foundations built on a service that, while costing nothing, cannot be substituted. The absence of these inputs would cause systemic failure in vital areas of national interest.
In short, the thought experiment demonstrates that the US economy is structurally dependent on the availability and stability of China’s supply chain, not merely on the monetary cost of its components. The very cheapness of the supply is what allowed this indispensable dependency to form, proving that a zero-cost input can be a 100% strategic vulnerability.
The Economic Paradox of Zero Value
The claim that China’s direct contribution to the US economy is only around 3.5% calls for a shocking thought experiment: what if China chose to supply this critical share of goods for free, effectively driving its recorded economic value towards 0%?
This scenario highlights the Paradox of Zero Value, exposing the fundamental inadequacy of using traditional metrics like GDP or Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) to assess strategic dependency.
China supplying its critical goods at 3. 5% Is almost like free welfare.
If China were to supply its essential components and finished goods for free, its value would disappear from the economic ledgers. Yet, the US economy would remain entirely dependent, cementing the structural vulnerability in three key ways:
Contingency of Domestic Value:
The vast majority of the US service economy—the trillions of dollars generated by US logistics, retail, marketing, and real estate—is contingent upon the continuous, low-cost (or in this case, zero-cost) flow of imported physical goods. If the supply of these zero-value inputs ceased, the entire domestic distribution and retail infrastructure would be paralyzed.
Infinite Consumer Surplus: The free supply would dramatically inflate the US standard of living, creating an infinite consumer surplus—the ultimate "welfare" trap. This would deepen the US consumer's lifestyle dependency, making the eventual withdrawal of the free supply politically and economically catastrophic.
Strategic Collapse: Critical sectors, including the US health industry (reliant on APIs) and high-tech manufacturing (reliant on Rare Earths), would have their foundations built on a service that, while costing nothing, cannot be substituted. The absence of these inputs would cause systemic failure in vital areas of national interest.
In short, the thought experiment demonstrates that the US economy is structurally dependent on the availability and stability of China’s supply chain, not merely on the monetary cost of its components. The very cheapness of the supply is what allowed this indispensable dependency to form, proving that a zero-cost input can be a 100% strategic vulnerability.
L’ANESTHÉSIE - Episode no 17
Mais comment ça fonctionne l’anesthésie ?
Il y a encore 15-20 ans, alors qu’on connaissait très bien les effets des anesthésiques - comment les utiliser et assurer la sécurité des patients - leur mécanisme profond était encore mystérieux.
Thread👇
Mais comment ça fonctionne l’anesthésie ?
Il y a encore 15-20 ans, alors qu’on connaissait très bien les effets des anesthésiques - comment les utiliser et assurer la sécurité des patients - leur mécanisme profond était encore mystérieux.
Thread👇
2/
Aujourd’hui, on comprend bien mieux, et c’est passionnant !
Outre agir sur des récepteurs particuliers (GABA, NMDA, etc), l’anesthésie fait changer le cerveau d’état, comme l’eau qui peut être glace, liquide ou vapeur.
Même matière - organisation différente.
Aujourd’hui, on comprend bien mieux, et c’est passionnant !
Outre agir sur des récepteurs particuliers (GABA, NMDA, etc), l’anesthésie fait changer le cerveau d’état, comme l’eau qui peut être glace, liquide ou vapeur.
Même matière - organisation différente.
3/
Pour comprendre le concept, un rappel :
Chaque neurone - comme toute cellule - a une membrane faite de molécules constituées d’une longue queue lipidique surmontée d’une partie hydrosoluble.
Les graisses détestent l’eau, donc s’assemblent, donnant la fameuse double couche lipidique.
Pour comprendre le concept, un rappel :
Chaque neurone - comme toute cellule - a une membrane faite de molécules constituées d’une longue queue lipidique surmontée d’une partie hydrosoluble.
Les graisses détestent l’eau, donc s’assemblent, donnant la fameuse double couche lipidique.
WEIRDEST POST ON THE INTERNET TODAY.
This video below is excellent in its analysis of the airplane anomalies on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination, but that's not what I want to discuss today...
High strangeness, yes. But when that happens we (our community) always jump to the most extreme...
Most conspiracies surround this having a role to play in who did the assassination... but could it be more likely that the aether/universe/angels signaled the event before it happened, and they were studying it.
A thread 🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵
This video below is excellent in its analysis of the airplane anomalies on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination, but that's not what I want to discuss today...
High strangeness, yes. But when that happens we (our community) always jump to the most extreme...
Most conspiracies surround this having a role to play in who did the assassination... but could it be more likely that the aether/universe/angels signaled the event before it happened, and they were studying it.
A thread 🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵🧵
In the 80s, 90s and 2000s the Princeton NOOSPHERE team conducted the "Global Consciousness Project", which is now split into a remnant group, a private research group, and a government (top secret) group.
They placed "electrogaiagrams" in every major city on earth and linked-up the data results, which measures the subtle electromagnetic variation in a region due to human brainwave activity, whereby, IF a region was to all have a similar emotion, it would register.
They placed "electrogaiagrams" in every major city on earth and linked-up the data results, which measures the subtle electromagnetic variation in a region due to human brainwave activity, whereby, IF a region was to all have a similar emotion, it would register.
And they registered... Not just regionally, but globally. They could even see differences in coherence of consciousness based on type of event.
Major earthquakes and terrorist events showed up as global sympathy, but so did Christmas and new years as happier coherences... they showed, and showed up differently. How? The electrogaiagram has random number generators that would fail to be random with too much variation or interference in human brainwave frequencies.
Major earthquakes and terrorist events showed up as global sympathy, but so did Christmas and new years as happier coherences... they showed, and showed up differently. How? The electrogaiagram has random number generators that would fail to be random with too much variation or interference in human brainwave frequencies.
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
Bloomberg: Trump’s “peace plan” was secretly written in Miami by Witkoff, Putin’s envoy Dmitriev, & Jared Kushner.
This is how Moscow hijacked U.S. policy.
Bigger than Watergate.
🧵1/26
Bloomberg: Trump’s “peace plan” was secretly written in Miami by Witkoff, Putin’s envoy Dmitriev, & Jared Kushner.
This is how Moscow hijacked U.S. policy.
Bigger than Watergate.
🧵1/26
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
Bloomberg confirms: Ukraine is being pressured by a compromised White House to accept a deal effectively written by Russia — the 28-point plan was drafted in Miami. Rubio was blindsided, Trump approved it at the last minute, & Vance took control in Washington.
2/26
Bloomberg confirms: Ukraine is being pressured by a compromised White House to accept a deal effectively written by Russia — the 28-point plan was drafted in Miami. Rubio was blindsided, Trump approved it at the last minute, & Vance took control in Washington.
2/26
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
The Guardian found native Russian wording — & Rubio confirmed the draft was crafted with Putin’s envoy before backpedaling.
Senators King, Rounds & Shaheen say Rubio told them the 28-point plan is “the Russians’ wish list” given to Ukraine/Europe to create panic
3/26
The Guardian found native Russian wording — & Rubio confirmed the draft was crafted with Putin’s envoy before backpedaling.
Senators King, Rounds & Shaheen say Rubio told them the 28-point plan is “the Russians’ wish list” given to Ukraine/Europe to create panic
3/26
Europa encara un futuro incierto: la guerra en #Ucrania y el fin del orden unipolar han reconfigurado la seguridad del continente. #geopolitica #UE
El Futuro Sombrío De Europa @kritik_bakis aracılığıylakritikbakis.com/es/el-futuro-s…
El Futuro Sombrío De Europa @kritik_bakis aracılığıylakritikbakis.com/es/el-futuro-s…
Según Mearsheimer, la expansión de la #OTAN hacia el este y los intentos de integrar a Ucrania en la órbita occidental alimentaron un choque estratégico con #Rusia. #SeguridadEuropea #GeopolíticaMundial
El tránsito hacia la multipolaridad y el giro de EE.UU. hacia Asia plantean un dilema: Europa deberá asumir más responsabilidad militar en un entorno cada vez más volátil. Una “paz estable” parece hoy más lejana que nunca. #UE #EstadosUnidos #Multipolaridad #DefensaEuropea
@michaeldweiss 1).
„For @realDonaldTrump, what matters is getting a deal, not the fine print. But for Ukrainians, the devil is in the details. Their fears that Russia drafted large swathes of the document unbeknown to them were proved right.
„For @realDonaldTrump, what matters is getting a deal, not the fine print. But for Ukrainians, the devil is in the details. Their fears that Russia drafted large swathes of the document unbeknown to them were proved right.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump 2).
The document still bears the hallmarks of a direct translation from Russian with oddly formulated sentences.
The measures would force Ukraine to cede large chunks of land, reduce the size of its military and forbid it from ever joining @NATO.
The document still bears the hallmarks of a direct translation from Russian with oddly formulated sentences.
The measures would force Ukraine to cede large chunks of land, reduce the size of its military and forbid it from ever joining @NATO.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump @NATO 3).
The plan would also reestablish economic ties between Russia and the US, the world’s largest economy.”
Nov. 23, 2025
@Bloomberg (@business) archive.ph/auswm
The plan would also reestablish economic ties between Russia and the US, the world’s largest economy.”
Nov. 23, 2025
@Bloomberg (@business) archive.ph/auswm
Sorry, this is a long one and I’m too tired to format
Below is a sharpened, expanded, activist-research–grade rebuttal written in the same analytical, confident tone as the Tether narrative I just produced. It keeps your voice, strengthens the logic, adds structural clarity, and exposes the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the linked article without slipping into hostility or straw-manning.
⸻
Rebuttal: A Clearer, More Honest Assessment of Bitcoin and the Author’s Claims
To my surprise, I found myself disagreeing with most of the author’s fundamental assertions—not because the concerns are wholly illegitimate, but because the argument relies on stylistic maneuvering and selective framing rather than a fair, technically grounded examination of how Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems actually work.
The author leans heavily on poetic prose, imprecise analogies, and oddly chosen proper nouns for concepts that have widely understood equivalents. This isn’t accidental. It’s rhetorical scaffolding designed to guide the reader toward a predetermined worldview rather than illuminate the mechanics of Bitcoin or the broader crypto ecosystem.
And that’s the core issue: technology is not inherently moral or immoral. Most systems humans build—financial systems included—are simply tools. Their outcomes depend on human behavior, implementation, and incentives. Good tools can be abused. Flawed tools can produce good outcomes. Dismissing an entire class of monetary technology because individuals have misused it is as unserious as blaming the printing press for propaganda.
⸻
1. Bitcoin’s Supply Is Not a Keyboard Shortcut
One of the article’s most misleading claims is presented as a rhetorical flourish:
“If they wanted to change Bitcoin’s 21 million coin finite supply, they could do it with the click of a keyboard. Try doing that with gold.”
This statement is technically true but structurally deceptive.
Yes, someone can propose a change to Bitcoin’s supply cap “with a click.”
But that is not the same thing as actually changing it.
Changing Bitcoin’s issuance schedule would require:
•A consensus of node operators,
•A majority of mining power,
•A majority of economic nodes (exchanges, custodians, wallets), and
•User acceptance of the new chain.
You can type the change into a keyboard.
You cannot make the world adopt it.
This distinction is enormous—and entirely omitted.
In practice, changing Bitcoin’s supply cap is harder than altering gold supply because Bitcoin’s rules are mathematically enforced and socially entrenched, whereas gold supply is governed by geology, mining, geopolitics, and future discoveries.
⸻
2. Crypto Supply Manipulation: Only Half the Story
The author suggests that crypto supply manipulation is trivial.
That’s false.
Most mainstream chains include burn-only dead wallets—public, provably unspendable addresses that function like black holes. Tokens sent there are permanently removed from circulation and cannot be retrieved. This creates irreversible deflation, not inflation.
To increase the supply beyond the original contract range?
Impossible.
The code that defines maximum coin supply is:
•public,
•auditable,
•deterministic,
•and secured by thousands of globally distributed nodes.
By contrast:
•Gold supply can increase through mining.
•Gold supply can increase through newly accessible deposits.
•Gold supply can increase through asteroid mining or advances in extraction chemistry.
•And gold supply can always be seized, centralized, or withheld.
Even the author’s example backfires: losing gold in an ocean trench doesn’t change supply, but it absolutely affects accessible supply—the only supply that matters economically. Losing crypto to a burn address is functionally identical.
Below is a sharpened, expanded, activist-research–grade rebuttal written in the same analytical, confident tone as the Tether narrative I just produced. It keeps your voice, strengthens the logic, adds structural clarity, and exposes the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the linked article without slipping into hostility or straw-manning.
⸻
Rebuttal: A Clearer, More Honest Assessment of Bitcoin and the Author’s Claims
To my surprise, I found myself disagreeing with most of the author’s fundamental assertions—not because the concerns are wholly illegitimate, but because the argument relies on stylistic maneuvering and selective framing rather than a fair, technically grounded examination of how Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems actually work.
The author leans heavily on poetic prose, imprecise analogies, and oddly chosen proper nouns for concepts that have widely understood equivalents. This isn’t accidental. It’s rhetorical scaffolding designed to guide the reader toward a predetermined worldview rather than illuminate the mechanics of Bitcoin or the broader crypto ecosystem.
And that’s the core issue: technology is not inherently moral or immoral. Most systems humans build—financial systems included—are simply tools. Their outcomes depend on human behavior, implementation, and incentives. Good tools can be abused. Flawed tools can produce good outcomes. Dismissing an entire class of monetary technology because individuals have misused it is as unserious as blaming the printing press for propaganda.
⸻
1. Bitcoin’s Supply Is Not a Keyboard Shortcut
One of the article’s most misleading claims is presented as a rhetorical flourish:
“If they wanted to change Bitcoin’s 21 million coin finite supply, they could do it with the click of a keyboard. Try doing that with gold.”
This statement is technically true but structurally deceptive.
Yes, someone can propose a change to Bitcoin’s supply cap “with a click.”
But that is not the same thing as actually changing it.
Changing Bitcoin’s issuance schedule would require:
•A consensus of node operators,
•A majority of mining power,
•A majority of economic nodes (exchanges, custodians, wallets), and
•User acceptance of the new chain.
You can type the change into a keyboard.
You cannot make the world adopt it.
This distinction is enormous—and entirely omitted.
In practice, changing Bitcoin’s supply cap is harder than altering gold supply because Bitcoin’s rules are mathematically enforced and socially entrenched, whereas gold supply is governed by geology, mining, geopolitics, and future discoveries.
⸻
2. Crypto Supply Manipulation: Only Half the Story
The author suggests that crypto supply manipulation is trivial.
That’s false.
Most mainstream chains include burn-only dead wallets—public, provably unspendable addresses that function like black holes. Tokens sent there are permanently removed from circulation and cannot be retrieved. This creates irreversible deflation, not inflation.
To increase the supply beyond the original contract range?
Impossible.
The code that defines maximum coin supply is:
•public,
•auditable,
•deterministic,
•and secured by thousands of globally distributed nodes.
By contrast:
•Gold supply can increase through mining.
•Gold supply can increase through newly accessible deposits.
•Gold supply can increase through asteroid mining or advances in extraction chemistry.
•And gold supply can always be seized, centralized, or withheld.
Even the author’s example backfires: losing gold in an ocean trench doesn’t change supply, but it absolutely affects accessible supply—the only supply that matters economically. Losing crypto to a burn address is functionally identical.
⸻
3. The Human Factor Is the Real Failure Mode, Not the Blockchain
One of the author’s recurring sleights is blaming Bitcoin for what are fundamentally human failures:
•Scams
•Rug pulls
•Exchange insolvencies
•False audits
•Phishing
•Smart-contract bugs
•Overleveraged custodians
These have nothing to do with the integrity of Bitcoin’s base layer or Ethereum’s protocol. They are failures of:
•governance,
•greed,
•inexperience,
•and regulatory arbitrage.
Every technological frontier experiences this.
The early Internet was a Wild West of fraud, identity theft, broken encryption, and unsecured systems. Nobody argued the TCP/IP protocol was evil.
The same logic applies here.
⸻
4. Misrepresenting Decentralization as Hippie Utopia
The article paints decentralization as a 1960s digital Kumbaya circle where nobody is in charge and everyone sings around the campfire doing equal work. This caricature has no relationship to what decentralization actually means in practice.
For many of us, decentralization is not about collectivism or utopianism. It is about agency.
Decentralization means:
•The ability to evaluate protocols individually
•The ability to reject systems with unacceptable trade-offs
•The freedom to choose competing networks
•The inability of a single government or corporation to unilaterally alter the rules
•Permissionless innovation
It is the opposite of a centralized “one-size-fits-all” model where a small number of institutions determine monetary outcomes for billions of people.
The author substitutes a soft, emotional cartoon for a real definition because the real definition undermines his thesis.
⸻
5. The Real Threats to Crypto Are Not Technical — They Are Institutional
If anything threatens the integrity of the crypto markets today, it is not decentralization.
It’s the exact opposite:
•Government-imposed ETFs enabling rapid rehypothecation
•CFTC- and SEC-enabled shorting of underlying digital commodities through synthetic structures
•Corporate capture of stablecoins to tokenize U.S. debt
•Concentration of miners and custodians
•Wall Street intermediaries reintroducing counterparty risk
These are the same problems that plague traditional finance.
They come from the old system, not the new one.
Crypto is not undermining itself—legacy institutions are importing their failure modes into it.
When the author warns about “vile means,” he’s pointing in the wrong direction.
⸻
6. Bitcoin Isn’t Perfect — But the Critique Needs to Be Honest
None of this means today’s crypto markets are the model we should adopt globally. They aren’t. If I were tasked with architecting a new global settlement layer, today’s ecosystem would not be my final draft.
But to conflate:
•human misuse,
•corporate greed,
•exchange fraud,
•or legacy financial infiltration
…with Bitcoin’s protocol design or crypto’s value proposition is simply inaccurate.
Technology evolves.
Users adapt.
Market structures shift.
The author’s narrative freezes Bitcoin in its most chaotic early form and universalizes its worst actors as representative of the entire asset class.
That’s not analysis.
That’s editorial myth-making.
⸻
A more honest assessment acknowledges both sides:
•Yes, crypto has serious problems.
•No, those problems do not originate from Bitcoin’s protocol.
•Yes, governments and corporations are introducing systemic risk.
•No, decentralization is not a fantasy—it is a countermeasure.
•Yes, supply immutability is real.
•No, it cannot be overridden “with a keyboard.”
If the goal is understanding rather than storytelling, we should evaluate Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems based on their actual structural properties, not based on the poetic anxieties or ideological preferences of any single author.
3. The Human Factor Is the Real Failure Mode, Not the Blockchain
One of the author’s recurring sleights is blaming Bitcoin for what are fundamentally human failures:
•Scams
•Rug pulls
•Exchange insolvencies
•False audits
•Phishing
•Smart-contract bugs
•Overleveraged custodians
These have nothing to do with the integrity of Bitcoin’s base layer or Ethereum’s protocol. They are failures of:
•governance,
•greed,
•inexperience,
•and regulatory arbitrage.
Every technological frontier experiences this.
The early Internet was a Wild West of fraud, identity theft, broken encryption, and unsecured systems. Nobody argued the TCP/IP protocol was evil.
The same logic applies here.
⸻
4. Misrepresenting Decentralization as Hippie Utopia
The article paints decentralization as a 1960s digital Kumbaya circle where nobody is in charge and everyone sings around the campfire doing equal work. This caricature has no relationship to what decentralization actually means in practice.
For many of us, decentralization is not about collectivism or utopianism. It is about agency.
Decentralization means:
•The ability to evaluate protocols individually
•The ability to reject systems with unacceptable trade-offs
•The freedom to choose competing networks
•The inability of a single government or corporation to unilaterally alter the rules
•Permissionless innovation
It is the opposite of a centralized “one-size-fits-all” model where a small number of institutions determine monetary outcomes for billions of people.
The author substitutes a soft, emotional cartoon for a real definition because the real definition undermines his thesis.
⸻
5. The Real Threats to Crypto Are Not Technical — They Are Institutional
If anything threatens the integrity of the crypto markets today, it is not decentralization.
It’s the exact opposite:
•Government-imposed ETFs enabling rapid rehypothecation
•CFTC- and SEC-enabled shorting of underlying digital commodities through synthetic structures
•Corporate capture of stablecoins to tokenize U.S. debt
•Concentration of miners and custodians
•Wall Street intermediaries reintroducing counterparty risk
These are the same problems that plague traditional finance.
They come from the old system, not the new one.
Crypto is not undermining itself—legacy institutions are importing their failure modes into it.
When the author warns about “vile means,” he’s pointing in the wrong direction.
⸻
6. Bitcoin Isn’t Perfect — But the Critique Needs to Be Honest
None of this means today’s crypto markets are the model we should adopt globally. They aren’t. If I were tasked with architecting a new global settlement layer, today’s ecosystem would not be my final draft.
But to conflate:
•human misuse,
•corporate greed,
•exchange fraud,
•or legacy financial infiltration
…with Bitcoin’s protocol design or crypto’s value proposition is simply inaccurate.
Technology evolves.
Users adapt.
Market structures shift.
The author’s narrative freezes Bitcoin in its most chaotic early form and universalizes its worst actors as representative of the entire asset class.
That’s not analysis.
That’s editorial myth-making.
⸻
A more honest assessment acknowledges both sides:
•Yes, crypto has serious problems.
•No, those problems do not originate from Bitcoin’s protocol.
•Yes, governments and corporations are introducing systemic risk.
•No, decentralization is not a fantasy—it is a countermeasure.
•Yes, supply immutability is real.
•No, it cannot be overridden “with a keyboard.”
If the goal is understanding rather than storytelling, we should evaluate Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems based on their actual structural properties, not based on the poetic anxieties or ideological preferences of any single author.
To tie this rant up, this is essentially my TLDR
7. Bitcoin Isn’t the Final Form — It’s the First Prototype
None of this means Bitcoin is the pinnacle of monetary technology or that its current design will solve every structural problem in global markets. Even the most committed Bitcoin supporters will quietly acknowledge that the base protocol is limited by design: slow block times, constrained throughput, scripting restrictions, and a hard-coded monetary schedule that cannot flex with real-world micro-pricing forever.
Some people see that hard cap and say:
“Perfect. This is the new ultimate reserve asset.”
Maybe, in part, they’re right. A credibly finite, globally recognized digital bearer asset has a powerful role to play as a long-term store of value or settlement collateral. But even there, the story isn’t clean.
With a fixed supply and ongoing inflation of fiat units around it, there comes a point—not in some distant sci-fi future, but in a reasonably foreseeable one—where the smallest atomic unit of Bitcoin (a satoshi) becomes too valuable to function as everyday money. When 1 sat can’t even buy you a stick of gum, you haven’t “failed,” but you have shifted Bitcoin’s role away from daily medium of exchange and toward pure reserve collateral.
That’s why we already see:
•Layer 2s (Lightning, rollups, channel-based systems)
•Layer 3s and sidechains
•Off-chain ramps and synthetic instruments
These are not just “add-ons”; they’re admissions that Bitcoin’s base layer is a conservative settlement engine, not a universal payments fabric. That’s fine—as long as we’re honest about it and design the rest of the stack accordingly.
My own obsession isn’t with worshipping Bitcoin as an endpoint.
It’s with designing structures that make cheating structurally impossible.
If you change the rails in a way that removes the mechanical possibility of:
•rehypothecated collateral,
•phantom shares,
•naked shorts that never settle,
•“locates” that exist only on paper,
…then the “opportunity risk” for bad actors goes to zero. There is nothing to exploit. That’s not utopian; that’s just good market plumbing. Everyone but the criminal hedge funds and their enablers should want exactly that.
This is why I’m fixated on organizing real-world assets using hybrid token standards—specifically things like DN-404 / ERC-20 / ERC-721 structures. I’m not going to dive deep into the on-chain engineering here; if you’re curious, I’ve probably written about it elsewhere or you can go down that rabbit hole yourself.
Short version:
•ERC-20 side tracks the fungible, tradable “share” or unit.
•ERC-721 side anchors each unit to a discrete, provable, non-fungible real-world claim.
•DN-404-style logic binds the two so that every trade, borrow, or lend operation is transparently linked to a specific, verifiable asset on a public ledger.
In principle, that design eliminates the structural room for rehypothecated, naked short selling.
You can’t “sell what doesn’t exist,” because every unit traces back to a specific, unique claim that the chain itself enforces. All trader and dealer behavior lives on a publicly inspectable ledger, not in dark pools, internal books, or opaque prime brokerage spreadsheets.
That’s how you migrate markets back toward real capitalism: actual supply, actual demand, actual collateral—no ghost inventory, no infinite synthetic dilution masquerading as price discovery. Bitcoin was the opening move that proved digital scarcity is possible. The next phase is building systems and token standards that make market abuse structurally nonviable, not just morally discouraged.
7. Bitcoin Isn’t the Final Form — It’s the First Prototype
None of this means Bitcoin is the pinnacle of monetary technology or that its current design will solve every structural problem in global markets. Even the most committed Bitcoin supporters will quietly acknowledge that the base protocol is limited by design: slow block times, constrained throughput, scripting restrictions, and a hard-coded monetary schedule that cannot flex with real-world micro-pricing forever.
Some people see that hard cap and say:
“Perfect. This is the new ultimate reserve asset.”
Maybe, in part, they’re right. A credibly finite, globally recognized digital bearer asset has a powerful role to play as a long-term store of value or settlement collateral. But even there, the story isn’t clean.
With a fixed supply and ongoing inflation of fiat units around it, there comes a point—not in some distant sci-fi future, but in a reasonably foreseeable one—where the smallest atomic unit of Bitcoin (a satoshi) becomes too valuable to function as everyday money. When 1 sat can’t even buy you a stick of gum, you haven’t “failed,” but you have shifted Bitcoin’s role away from daily medium of exchange and toward pure reserve collateral.
That’s why we already see:
•Layer 2s (Lightning, rollups, channel-based systems)
•Layer 3s and sidechains
•Off-chain ramps and synthetic instruments
These are not just “add-ons”; they’re admissions that Bitcoin’s base layer is a conservative settlement engine, not a universal payments fabric. That’s fine—as long as we’re honest about it and design the rest of the stack accordingly.
My own obsession isn’t with worshipping Bitcoin as an endpoint.
It’s with designing structures that make cheating structurally impossible.
If you change the rails in a way that removes the mechanical possibility of:
•rehypothecated collateral,
•phantom shares,
•naked shorts that never settle,
•“locates” that exist only on paper,
…then the “opportunity risk” for bad actors goes to zero. There is nothing to exploit. That’s not utopian; that’s just good market plumbing. Everyone but the criminal hedge funds and their enablers should want exactly that.
This is why I’m fixated on organizing real-world assets using hybrid token standards—specifically things like DN-404 / ERC-20 / ERC-721 structures. I’m not going to dive deep into the on-chain engineering here; if you’re curious, I’ve probably written about it elsewhere or you can go down that rabbit hole yourself.
Short version:
•ERC-20 side tracks the fungible, tradable “share” or unit.
•ERC-721 side anchors each unit to a discrete, provable, non-fungible real-world claim.
•DN-404-style logic binds the two so that every trade, borrow, or lend operation is transparently linked to a specific, verifiable asset on a public ledger.
In principle, that design eliminates the structural room for rehypothecated, naked short selling.
You can’t “sell what doesn’t exist,” because every unit traces back to a specific, unique claim that the chain itself enforces. All trader and dealer behavior lives on a publicly inspectable ledger, not in dark pools, internal books, or opaque prime brokerage spreadsheets.
That’s how you migrate markets back toward real capitalism: actual supply, actual demand, actual collateral—no ghost inventory, no infinite synthetic dilution masquerading as price discovery. Bitcoin was the opening move that proved digital scarcity is possible. The next phase is building systems and token standards that make market abuse structurally nonviable, not just morally discouraged.