Recent well liked threads
stop trying to beat djokovic at tennis.
the first fundamental problem traders run up against is that there's no beginners' market.
you gotta compete for good prices with the best in the market.
this is a problem.
there are a lot of people better at markets than you.
the first fundamental problem traders run up against is that there's no beginners' market.
you gotta compete for good prices with the best in the market.
this is a problem.
there are a lot of people better at markets than you.
if you approach trading in a gung-ho manner, it's basically like playing in a tennis competition with djokovic.
and that's not going to go well.
cos he's very good at playing tennis and you're bad at it.
(sorry to break it to)
and that's not going to go well.
cos he's very good at playing tennis and you're bad at it.
(sorry to break it to)
what do i mean about "competing for prices with the best in the market?"
well... to make money trading you need to buying things that are too cheap and selling things that are too expensive.
you need your side of the trade to be good and the other side of the trade to be bad.
well... to make money trading you need to buying things that are too cheap and selling things that are too expensive.
you need your side of the trade to be good and the other side of the trade to be bad.
Putting these here in one 🧵 for future reference. If anyone wants to know what *I* promote with "ecclesiocentrism postliberalism," start here:
1) My most recent and most basic: comment.org/can-the-church…
1) My most recent and most basic: comment.org/can-the-church…
2) Here is an essay that situates these arguments in the traditional discussion of the "order of loves" (ordo amoris):
adfontesjournal.com/commonwealth/o…
adfontesjournal.com/commonwealth/o…
The next 5 connect this to "Christian nationalism" or various concepts of "establishment.
3) This one wrt Kuyper's most prominent critic among his contemporaries and developed arguments for how to harmonize something like CN with ecclesiocentrism: adfontesjournal.com/church-history…
3) This one wrt Kuyper's most prominent critic among his contemporaries and developed arguments for how to harmonize something like CN with ecclesiocentrism: adfontesjournal.com/church-history…
@martinruecker @iqwig IQWIG wird finanziert von Krankenkassen
->Beiträge von Krankenkassen Mitgliedern
arbeitet Hand in Hand mit EbM Cochrane germany
Was dieser Laden bereits an biased data veröffentlicht hat ist schwindel-erregend
pseudo Transparenz
1/
gesundheitsinformation.de/ueber-uns/gesu…
->Beiträge von Krankenkassen Mitgliedern
arbeitet Hand in Hand mit EbM Cochrane germany
Was dieser Laden bereits an biased data veröffentlicht hat ist schwindel-erregend
pseudo Transparenz
1/
gesundheitsinformation.de/ueber-uns/gesu…
@martinruecker @iqwig 🤡 #Aufarbeitung
@martinruecker @iqwig ❗️👇
zm-online.de/artikel/2016/o…
zm-online.de/artikel/2016/o…
More than half the population of the Subcontinent is Muslim, this is the greatest failure of Brahmins, who lavished in their Mutts while the Sufis worked to convert people, debated and defeated the Brahmins again and again in Religious Debates.
Punjab, which was a hub of Brahmins practices as per the Vedas, lost to the cult if Khatris and Jatts called Sikhism.
Imagine getting intellectually dominated by Jatt Sikhs who revel in being identified as thinkers.
How collectively stupid one has to be?
Imagine getting intellectually dominated by Jatt Sikhs who revel in being identified as thinkers.
How collectively stupid one has to be?
When the Christians came to South India, Brahmins were the first to Convert to Catholic Christianity.
Later when Protestants Came, they were defeated in debates by Protestant Missionaries and converted even there because they simply couldn't argue their case.
Later when Protestants Came, they were defeated in debates by Protestant Missionaries and converted even there because they simply couldn't argue their case.
New revelations : Enrollment of SC/ ST/ OBC students in Higher Education exceeds the General Category.
An analysis of the data published thru annual All-India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) reports by Department of Education under @EduMinOfIndia reveals a very positive picture on how reservation for SC, ST and OBC categories has worked, dramatically different from widely believed misconception that they suffer from inadequate opportunities.
AISHE data of 13 years has helped identifying the clear trend: The combined share of SC/ST/OBC students in higher education rose from 43.1% in 2010–11 to 60.8% in 2022–23. In 2023 alone, SC/ST/OBC enrolment exceeded that of the General Category by 9.5 million students. On the other hand, enrolment of General Category students has fallen from 57% in 2010-11 to about 39% in 2022-23, a clear indication that they are facing a significant competition from SC/ST/OBC students who are competently acquiring general seats on merit.
The research report has been published by CPDM, IIM, Udaipur in which I have contributed as co-author.
The Press release and the link to the research report are found in the post below. 1️⃣/n
An analysis of the data published thru annual All-India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) reports by Department of Education under @EduMinOfIndia reveals a very positive picture on how reservation for SC, ST and OBC categories has worked, dramatically different from widely believed misconception that they suffer from inadequate opportunities.
AISHE data of 13 years has helped identifying the clear trend: The combined share of SC/ST/OBC students in higher education rose from 43.1% in 2010–11 to 60.8% in 2022–23. In 2023 alone, SC/ST/OBC enrolment exceeded that of the General Category by 9.5 million students. On the other hand, enrolment of General Category students has fallen from 57% in 2010-11 to about 39% in 2022-23, a clear indication that they are facing a significant competition from SC/ST/OBC students who are competently acquiring general seats on merit.
The research report has been published by CPDM, IIM, Udaipur in which I have contributed as co-author.
The Press release and the link to the research report are found in the post below. 1️⃣/n
In a majority of Indian States Enrollment of SC/ ST/ OBC students in Higher Education exceeds the General Category 2021-22, as inferred from AISHE data published by @EduMinOfIndia
In 10 out of 15 states with more than 1M students, SC/ ST/ OBC enrollment is more than 50%
2️⃣/n
In 10 out of 15 states with more than 1M students, SC/ ST/ OBC enrollment is more than 50%
2️⃣/n
A Statistical Analysis of the SC ST OBC representation in Higher Education published in CDPM, IIM-Udaipur can be accessed here.
“Contrary to the prevailing narrative, students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes overwhelmingly dominate enrolment and significantly outnumber General Category students” says Prof. Venkatramanan.
cdpm.iimu.ac.in/wp-content/upl…
3⃣ /n
“Contrary to the prevailing narrative, students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes overwhelmingly dominate enrolment and significantly outnumber General Category students” says Prof. Venkatramanan.
cdpm.iimu.ac.in/wp-content/upl…
3⃣ /n
🥹 (happy tears)
I went 15 years without any diagnoses. I had never heard of ME/CFS, post exertional malaise, dysautonomia, etc.
Then, in the fall of 2020, I came across a TED talk by @jenbrea about her ME/CFS and my mind was blown. I was like, "woah, this sounds like me."
🧵
I went 15 years without any diagnoses. I had never heard of ME/CFS, post exertional malaise, dysautonomia, etc.
Then, in the fall of 2020, I came across a TED talk by @jenbrea about her ME/CFS and my mind was blown. I was like, "woah, this sounds like me."
🧵
I was curious what had happened to Jen, so I looked it up and found out that she was in full remission!
I started reading her blog and found out that her remission was based on the ideas and experience of @jeff_says_that.
Jeff was patient 1 who had come up with a hypothesis of what could be causing his ME/CFS and had gone into remission after treating the issues that he had hypothesized.
I started reading her blog and found out that her remission was based on the ideas and experience of @jeff_says_that.
Jeff was patient 1 who had come up with a hypothesis of what could be causing his ME/CFS and had gone into remission after treating the issues that he had hypothesized.
The National Security Strategy was just released. Here is all the China-related content in one 🧵. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
"President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called “rules-based international order.” This did not happen. China got rich and powerful, and used its wealth and power to its considerable advantage. American elites—over four successive administrations of both political parties --were either willing enablers of China’s strategy or in denial."
"China adapted to the shift in U.S. tariff policy that began in 2017 in part by strengthening its hold on supply chains, especially in the world’s low- and middle-income (i.e., per capita GDP $13,800 or less) countries—among the greatest economic battlegrounds of the coming decades. China’s exports to low-income countries doubled between 2020 and 2024. The United States imports Chinese goods indirectly from middlemen and Chinese-built factories in a dozen countries, including Mexico. China’s exports to low-income countries are today nearly four times its exports to the United States. When President Trump first took office in 2017, China’s exports to the United States stood at 4 percent of its GDP but have since fallen to slightly over 2 percent of its GDP. China continues, however, to export to the United States through other proxy countries. Going forward, we will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence. Trade with China should be balanced and focused on non-sensitive factors. If America remains on a growth path—and can sustain that while maintaining a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing—we should be headed from our present $30 trillion economy in 2025 to $40 trillion in the 2030s, putting our country in an enviable position to maintain our status as the world’s leading economy. Our ultimate goal is to lay the foundation for long-term economic vitality."
This is big. The final U.S. National Security Strategy was just published and the refocus on the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) is confirmed.
The document clearly establishes this as the U.S.'s number 1 priority, saying that the U.S. will now "assert and enforce a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine."
In terms of military presence, they write that this means "a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years."
On China, a couple of points.
The most striking aspect to me is that China is NOT anymore defined as "the" primary threat, "most consequential challenge," "pacing threat," or similar formulations used in previous such documents.
It's clearly downgraded as a priority. Based on the document's structure and emphasis, the top U.S. priorities could be characterized as:
1) Homeland security and borders (migration, cartels, etc.)
2) Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine restoration)
3) Economic security (reindustrialization, supply chains)
4) China and Indo-Pacific
To be clear they don't define China as an ally or a partner in any shape or form but primarily as 1) an economic competitor, 2) a source of supply chain vulnerabilities (but also a trading partner) and 3) a player who regional dominance should be "ideally" denied because it "has major implications for the U.S. economy."
Interestingly, I believe for the first time ever, they mention the possibility of being overmatched militarily by China:
- They write that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority": "ideally" clearly means that it's ideal, but not necessarily a given. The fact that they call deterring conflict over Taiwan merely "a priority" also suggests, by definition, that it's no more a top strategic priority, or a vital interest.
- On Taiwan they also clearly imply that if the U.S.'s "First Island Chain allies" don't "step up and spend - and more importantly do - much more for collective defense", then there might be "a balance of forces so unfavorable to us as to make defending that island impossible."
They still maintain that "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" but, clearly, there's a widening gap between what the US says it opposes and what it's actually willing to do about it.
Interestingly as well, contrary to previous such document, there is zero ideological dimension in the document when it comes to China. No "democracy vs. autocracy" framing, no "rules-based international order" to defend, no values-based crusade. China is treated as a practical issue to be managed, not an ideological adversary to be defeated.
In fact the document explicitly mentions, I think for the first time ever as well, that US policy is now:
- "not grounded in traditional, political ideology"
- that they "seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories"
- and that they seek "good relations with nations whose governing systems differ from ours."
Which is quite a stunning departure from the rhetoric of the past few decades. We all knew this but it's now amply clear that the era of missionary liberal internationalism in US foreign policy is dead and buried.
The competition with China is primarily described in economic terms, explicitly so: they write the competition is about "winning the economic future" and that economics are "the ultimate stakes."
Notably, they admit that the tariffs approach "that began in 2017" when it comes to China essentially failed because "China adapted" and has "strengthened its hold on supply chains."
The new strategy, as described in the document, is to build an economic coalition against China that can exert more leverage than the US economy alone - a tacit admission that America just isn't powerful enough on its own anymore.
The contradiction is however obvious: unclear how you build an economic coalition against China while simultaneously waging trade wars against your coalition partners, demanding they shoulder more of their own defense, and treating every allied relationship as a deal to be renegotiated in America's favor.
At some point these "allies" will be asking a very obvious question: why sacrifice our economic interests to prop up an America that can no longer compete on its own - and that offers us less and less in return?
The document can be found here: whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
The document clearly establishes this as the U.S.'s number 1 priority, saying that the U.S. will now "assert and enforce a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine."
In terms of military presence, they write that this means "a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years."
On China, a couple of points.
The most striking aspect to me is that China is NOT anymore defined as "the" primary threat, "most consequential challenge," "pacing threat," or similar formulations used in previous such documents.
It's clearly downgraded as a priority. Based on the document's structure and emphasis, the top U.S. priorities could be characterized as:
1) Homeland security and borders (migration, cartels, etc.)
2) Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine restoration)
3) Economic security (reindustrialization, supply chains)
4) China and Indo-Pacific
To be clear they don't define China as an ally or a partner in any shape or form but primarily as 1) an economic competitor, 2) a source of supply chain vulnerabilities (but also a trading partner) and 3) a player who regional dominance should be "ideally" denied because it "has major implications for the U.S. economy."
Interestingly, I believe for the first time ever, they mention the possibility of being overmatched militarily by China:
- They write that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority": "ideally" clearly means that it's ideal, but not necessarily a given. The fact that they call deterring conflict over Taiwan merely "a priority" also suggests, by definition, that it's no more a top strategic priority, or a vital interest.
- On Taiwan they also clearly imply that if the U.S.'s "First Island Chain allies" don't "step up and spend - and more importantly do - much more for collective defense", then there might be "a balance of forces so unfavorable to us as to make defending that island impossible."
They still maintain that "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" but, clearly, there's a widening gap between what the US says it opposes and what it's actually willing to do about it.
Interestingly as well, contrary to previous such document, there is zero ideological dimension in the document when it comes to China. No "democracy vs. autocracy" framing, no "rules-based international order" to defend, no values-based crusade. China is treated as a practical issue to be managed, not an ideological adversary to be defeated.
In fact the document explicitly mentions, I think for the first time ever as well, that US policy is now:
- "not grounded in traditional, political ideology"
- that they "seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories"
- and that they seek "good relations with nations whose governing systems differ from ours."
Which is quite a stunning departure from the rhetoric of the past few decades. We all knew this but it's now amply clear that the era of missionary liberal internationalism in US foreign policy is dead and buried.
The competition with China is primarily described in economic terms, explicitly so: they write the competition is about "winning the economic future" and that economics are "the ultimate stakes."
Notably, they admit that the tariffs approach "that began in 2017" when it comes to China essentially failed because "China adapted" and has "strengthened its hold on supply chains."
The new strategy, as described in the document, is to build an economic coalition against China that can exert more leverage than the US economy alone - a tacit admission that America just isn't powerful enough on its own anymore.
The contradiction is however obvious: unclear how you build an economic coalition against China while simultaneously waging trade wars against your coalition partners, demanding they shoulder more of their own defense, and treating every allied relationship as a deal to be renegotiated in America's favor.
At some point these "allies" will be asking a very obvious question: why sacrifice our economic interests to prop up an America that can no longer compete on its own - and that offers us less and less in return?
The document can be found here: whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
Good summary for the lazy readers 😊
This part is also incredible: "We massively f*cked up by trying to be a global empire"
Morning wood = Male Vitality.
Waking up without morning wood is NOT normal.
It’s your body telling you something’s off.
Here are 5 reasons you’re not waking up hard and how to fix it:
THREAD👇
Waking up without morning wood is NOT normal.
It’s your body telling you something’s off.
Here are 5 reasons you’re not waking up hard and how to fix it:
THREAD👇
1. Low Testosterone
If your T is crashing, your drive, energy, and erections follow.
Fix: Lift heavy, sleep 7–8 hrs, stop the porn, eat more fats (eggs, beef, avocado).
If your T is crashing, your drive, energy, and erections follow.
Fix: Lift heavy, sleep 7–8 hrs, stop the porn, eat more fats (eggs, beef, avocado).
Nothing kills a man’s Confidence faster than hearing this in her voice:
“It’s okay… don’t worry about it.”
You know what she means.
You finished too fast.
You lost control.
You collapsed after only one weak round…
Take control here👇
gumroad.com/a/100416147/xe…
“It’s okay… don’t worry about it.”
You know what she means.
You finished too fast.
You lost control.
You collapsed after only one weak round…
Take control here👇
gumroad.com/a/100416147/xe…
1/ The new US National Security Strategy blames 'undemocratic' European governments for failing to make peace with Russia, takes a pro-Russian position on NATO, reflects white nationalist views on European demographics, and pledges overt support for far-right parties. ⬇️
2/ While the strategy states that "it is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine", it says that "the Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war…
3/ …perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition."
(This is likely a reference to European regulation of social media and the 2024 annulment of the Romanian election due to Russian interference.)
(This is likely a reference to European regulation of social media and the 2024 annulment of the Romanian election due to Russian interference.)
Everyone thinks the Clarity Act + Genius Act are just “crypto regulation.”
They’re not.
They’re the early blueprint for the next global monetary system — and almost nobody sees the second-order effects coming.
Here are the real surprises.
They’re not.
They’re the early blueprint for the next global monetary system — and almost nobody sees the second-order effects coming.
Here are the real surprises.
Surprise #1: The U.S. just unlocked a Eurodollar 2.0 system.
Not DeFi.
Not meme tokens.
A regulated, institutional stablecoin engine that can scale globally.
This will grow far faster than analysts, politicians, or banks expect.
Not DeFi.
Not meme tokens.
A regulated, institutional stablecoin engine that can scale globally.
This will grow far faster than analysts, politicians, or banks expect.
Surprise #2: AI will become the biggest user of stablecoins.
Not traders.
Not retail apps.
AI agents executing micro-transactions across thousands of networks.
The Genius Act quietly created the monetary substrate for the AI century.
Not traders.
Not retail apps.
AI agents executing micro-transactions across thousands of networks.
The Genius Act quietly created the monetary substrate for the AI century.
Russland hat einen völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg begonnen – die Schäden trägt die Ukraine. Jetzt liegt ein konkreter EU-Plan vor, um eingefrorenes russisches Staatsvermögen für den Wiederaufbau & die Verteidigung zu nutzen. Das ist nur konsequent 💥 spiegel.de/ausland/ukrain…
EU-Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen schlägt einen Zwei-Jahres-Plan vor: Bis zu 210 Mrd. € aus russischen Zentralbankgeldern könnten als Darlehen für die Ukraine genutzt werden. 💶➡️🇺🇦
Der Finanzbedarf der Ukraine allein für die nächsten zwei Jahre: 135,7 Mrd. €.
Ohne stabile Finanzierung drohen Rückschritte an der Front, beim Wiederaufbau & bei der humanitären Versorgung. ⚠️
Ohne stabile Finanzierung drohen Rückschritte an der Front, beim Wiederaufbau & bei der humanitären Versorgung. ⚠️
The Theory of Evolution is almost entirely propped up by unobserved extrapolations and speculative fairy tales.
Here is a great example of an ill-informed atheist trying to "debunk" observed scientific evidence with unobserved evolutionist dogma.
Let's go through each of his points and show why every objection he makes fails completely.
Here is a great example of an ill-informed atheist trying to "debunk" observed scientific evidence with unobserved evolutionist dogma.
Let's go through each of his points and show why every objection he makes fails completely.
1. He argues that "Hox genes are evolution's smoking gun" and that they "only make sense through common ancestry" because the same Hox clusters control development in many different organisms.
But this is just an assumption based on bias. It's completely consistent with design engineering that a good design would be reused in different areas.
Almost all vehicles on the road have 4 tires, steering wheels, engines, gas tanks, etc. That's because these are all good design features.
Evolutionists do this all the time - they assume that "similar = related" and they completely ignore the possibility that similarities can come from a common designer.
The major difference is that evolution cannot engineer Hox genes and DGRNs - they are clearly an example of an intentionally designed complex system.
2. He merely asserts that "DGRNs evolved" and claims "we can trace their modifications across lineages."
This is just flat out false. He's conflating the observed differences with unobserved evolutionary modification - a vast assumption.
I already showed in my original thread that DGRNs cannot be modified - he's directly contradicting the observed scientific data in favor of his evolutionary fairy tale.
3. He says "Blueprint is a misleading metaphor" because "development is conditional and responsive, not deterministic execution."
But this is just a semantic game. He acts like because I said development is based on a blueprint, that means all development must be exactly the same every time. What a dumb objection. Obviously, the blueprint is responsive - I never claimed otherwise. Twins can be born with differences - but they both still have the same overall body plan architecture.
If your argument comes down to nitpicking semantics...you don't have an argument.
4. He then asserts (again) that nothing is designed, everything is inherited from a common ancestor, and that "The deep conservation of developmental genes...is exactly what evolution predicts."
Wrong again!
Evolutionists did not predict the conservation of developmental genes - in fact, they predicted the opposite! Top Evolutionist Ernst Mayr said, in 1963, that "it is astonishing that remotely related species should have so much in common."
Completely unexpected.
But this is just an assumption based on bias. It's completely consistent with design engineering that a good design would be reused in different areas.
Almost all vehicles on the road have 4 tires, steering wheels, engines, gas tanks, etc. That's because these are all good design features.
Evolutionists do this all the time - they assume that "similar = related" and they completely ignore the possibility that similarities can come from a common designer.
The major difference is that evolution cannot engineer Hox genes and DGRNs - they are clearly an example of an intentionally designed complex system.
2. He merely asserts that "DGRNs evolved" and claims "we can trace their modifications across lineages."
This is just flat out false. He's conflating the observed differences with unobserved evolutionary modification - a vast assumption.
I already showed in my original thread that DGRNs cannot be modified - he's directly contradicting the observed scientific data in favor of his evolutionary fairy tale.
3. He says "Blueprint is a misleading metaphor" because "development is conditional and responsive, not deterministic execution."
But this is just a semantic game. He acts like because I said development is based on a blueprint, that means all development must be exactly the same every time. What a dumb objection. Obviously, the blueprint is responsive - I never claimed otherwise. Twins can be born with differences - but they both still have the same overall body plan architecture.
If your argument comes down to nitpicking semantics...you don't have an argument.
4. He then asserts (again) that nothing is designed, everything is inherited from a common ancestor, and that "The deep conservation of developmental genes...is exactly what evolution predicts."
Wrong again!
Evolutionists did not predict the conservation of developmental genes - in fact, they predicted the opposite! Top Evolutionist Ernst Mayr said, in 1963, that "it is astonishing that remotely related species should have so much in common."
Completely unexpected.
5. In another thread, he says that "Davidson wasn't a creationist."
True - but I never said he was. The scientist's beliefs are completely irrelevant - I am only interested in the data. And the data says that DGRNs didn't evolve, as Davidson himself directly he observed. He may have believed they did - but the data did not support that hypothesis.
6. He then goes on to state that "Evolution tinkers at the edges" after he agrees that the core kernels of DGRNs cannot change.
This is exactly my point, and was directly addressed in the original thread. If evolution only tinkers at the edges, then body plans can't change! That can only explain minor variation, like Wolves vs Chihuahuas - it cannot explain how a Worm evolved into a Fish.
7. He claims Gene Duplication solves this - but there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE of a gene being duplicated and then mutating through vast possible sequences to find the 1 in 10^77 possible functional roles. His claim that this is "well-documented and common" is straight up false. Never been observed.
This is one of those common evolutionary fairy tales that is repeated so often that people believe it's true.
There is absolutely zero observed evidence supporting the idea that evolution can rewire and create novel body plans or novel genes.
True - but I never said he was. The scientist's beliefs are completely irrelevant - I am only interested in the data. And the data says that DGRNs didn't evolve, as Davidson himself directly he observed. He may have believed they did - but the data did not support that hypothesis.
6. He then goes on to state that "Evolution tinkers at the edges" after he agrees that the core kernels of DGRNs cannot change.
This is exactly my point, and was directly addressed in the original thread. If evolution only tinkers at the edges, then body plans can't change! That can only explain minor variation, like Wolves vs Chihuahuas - it cannot explain how a Worm evolved into a Fish.
7. He claims Gene Duplication solves this - but there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE of a gene being duplicated and then mutating through vast possible sequences to find the 1 in 10^77 possible functional roles. His claim that this is "well-documented and common" is straight up false. Never been observed.
This is one of those common evolutionary fairy tales that is repeated so often that people believe it's true.
There is absolutely zero observed evidence supporting the idea that evolution can rewire and create novel body plans or novel genes.
This is the day I’ve warned the Trump Admin every day for 7 years would come, since 2018’s EU Disinfo Code, to 2019 when the DSA was floated in concept, to 2020 when it became a formal draft EU law while I was at State, to its 2022 adoption, to its 2025 mandatory Disinfo Code. 🧵
I keep telling you exactly what to do and exactly what bad things will happen next if you think you can ignore this and not do anything, and each thing I keep saying will happen next literally keeps happening next and happening exactly as I told you it would if you didn’t act
How could anyone in the admin be surprised the EU censorship law would fine/extort X ??? That’s WHY they made the law, whose enforcement teeth JUST kicked in this summer! This is like letting a flesh-eating cannibal sleep on your chest then being surprised it bit your heart
‼️🇮🇱 Smartphones worldwide were silently infected with Israeli malware via malicious ads
Simply viewing their ads was enough to get infected.
Surveillance company Intellexa gained full access to cameras, microphones, chat apps, emails, GPS locations, photos, files, and browsing activity.
Simply viewing their ads was enough to get infected.
Surveillance company Intellexa gained full access to cameras, microphones, chat apps, emails, GPS locations, photos, files, and browsing activity.
Internal leaked company documents, sales and marketing materials, as well as training videos from the “Intellexa Leaks” investigation provide a never-before-seen glimpse into the internal operations of a mercenary spyware company focused on exploiting vulnerabilities in mobile devices to enable targeted surveillance attacks on human rights defenders, journalists, and members of civil society.
In an attempt to hide the spyware operator's identity, all data is relayed through a chain of anonymization servers called the “CNC Anonymization Network.”
Since the spyware relies on browser exploits, the operator must trick the victim into opening the malicious link; if the link is not opened, infection fails.
Each time a one-click attack link is sent, it risks exposing the operator, as a suspicious target may share it with forensic experts, revealing the attack and potentially the operator.
Since the spyware relies on browser exploits, the operator must trick the victim into opening the malicious link; if the link is not opened, infection fails.
Each time a one-click attack link is sent, it risks exposing the operator, as a suspicious target may share it with forensic experts, revealing the attack and potentially the operator.
The @RoyalAirForce - once the strongest air force in Western Europe... but now...
7 Eurofighter Typhoon squadrons are expected to fulfill the tasks, for which 35 years ago the RAF fielded 40 squadrons (31 active & 4 reserve + 5 shadow squadrons, which would have been formed
1/27
7 Eurofighter Typhoon squadrons are expected to fulfill the tasks, for which 35 years ago the RAF fielded 40 squadrons (31 active & 4 reserve + 5 shadow squadrons, which would have been formed
1/27
from the personnel & fighters of the RAF's operational conversion units).
At the end of the Cold War these 40 squadrons were assigned to 4 commands, each with a specific mission & enough aircraft to fulfill their mission.
No. 1 Group was tasked with striking Soviet forces
2/27
At the end of the Cold War these 40 squadrons were assigned to 4 commands, each with a specific mission & enough aircraft to fulfill their mission.
No. 1 Group was tasked with striking Soviet forces
2/27
in Northern Germany, including with WE.177 tactical nukes.
The Group fielded 8 active, 4 reserve and 2 shadow squadrons, which flew Tornado GR1, Jaguar GR1A, and Harrier GR5 fighters (the reserve squadrons flew Hawk T1A). The group also included the RAF's 3 aerial
3/27
The Group fielded 8 active, 4 reserve and 2 shadow squadrons, which flew Tornado GR1, Jaguar GR1A, and Harrier GR5 fighters (the reserve squadrons flew Hawk T1A). The group also included the RAF's 3 aerial
3/27
@TylkoPrawi Is she the mother of the Police of Poland who sleeps under Islamist terrorist Kesra Nermend?
@TylkoPrawi @ThreadReaderApp unroll
@grok
@grok