1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

So you are comparing ethernet to wifi then? Or not being connected at all?

Yeah my productivity, declines when I am online. . .

Another data point to consider is that after about 4 hours or so our productivity declines a lot.

The real high producers spend most of their time thinking and then quickly implement their solution (work).

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +2 / -1

Could it be that you are confusing sitting all day at a computer compared to physical activity?

Certainly being physically active is healthier than sitting all day.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

My admittedly amateur opinion is that the Beirut fertilizer blast was bigger.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=beirut+explosion&mid=32BC411B99FDB790D57832BC411B99FDB790D578&FORM=VIRE

Another thing is that atomic bombs require extremely precise timing to set them off and avoid a fizzle. I really doubt that a nuclear explosion can be triggered by an external explosion.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

I had no idea anything like that happened. A nuclear strike in Khmelnytskyi and glowing rain coming down afterwards?

I'll see what I can find, I am pretty good at that being an anon and all.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes when they talk about yield they are talking about the conversion of mass to energy and it is incredible. The problem is that the energy is almost entirely radiation which heats the surrounding air and that is what creates the pressure wave.

It turns out that the pressure resulting from the explosion decreases at the inverse of the radius cubed 1/r^3. A MOAB (thermobaric fuel-air explosive) produces a much larger and more powerful explosive shock wave. This pressure is produced by the expansion of the gases over a very large initial radius.

Basically almost all explosives need to be confined and directed to be effective, like the explosion of the gunpowder in a cartridge, or the directed explosion in a shaped charge. The 1/r^3 rule always applies.

There is an exception though, underwater nuclear explosions are powerful, because the water in close contact to the explosion evaporates and creates an extremely large shockwave into the surrounding incompressible water.

In summary, nuclear weapons aren't as effective as other conventional weapons that we have and now that the accuracy has been increased, there is almost no chance (and no reason) to use nuclear weapons. They are simply a boogyman used to frighten children.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great series, best of all the parts that I am familiar with are the truth as far as I know (I was a Mormon elder, married in the temple, etc.)

You are also correct about the faking of the atomic bombs, my only quibble is that they are all 'overstated', while their claimed yields are correct, their explosive power is criminally overstated. Nuclear explosions create a lot of heat (millions of degrees) and light, but comparatively little explosive force (small shockwave).

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Banks create money by lending it. Who banks lend the money to gives the banks incredible control over the Country. Wealth is created primarily through leverage. The key is to control the banks. That is what Trump is going to try and do, take over control of the FED.

5
Bayesian 5 points ago +5 / -0

What you are describing is called communism. The family structure is just that, communist and it works fine within the family. It doesn't work well outside of the family and barter doesn't work well either.

The real problem and solution is to take control of the supply of money. Currently banks create money by lending it and that gives them complete control.

The supply of money should be controlled by the Government, which should be controlled by the people.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're missing the point.

The problem with the money system is that Banks create money by lending. That means that almost all of the money in existence is loans, with interest owed to the Banks that created it.

Banks essentially own everything and the people of the world owe them interest (rent) on the money.

The counter to all of this is to operate on a physical cash basis, the problem with operating on a cash basis is cash is continuously being devalued. Bad money drives out good.

If you want to store value (not increase it) the only thing is to acquire appreciating assets, preferably non taxable appreciating assets.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'll quote you "So whenever someone gets excited about some country selling oil for Rupees or Rubles, it doesn't mean shit because the buyer still has to pay the equivalent of the price in USD."

When the Saudi's sell oil to the Indians they pay in Rupees for a price in Rupees not USD. The USD has no relevance in that transaction.

You seem to be living in the past prior to the BRIC's.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Of course it was priced in USD. The Saudi's required payment in USD that was the point. Pricing is fungible just like oil, the whole point is that the Saudi's required Payment in USD. Pricing is irrelevant.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Bretton Woods agreement was that the Saudi's would sell their oil only for dollars.

The key word being 'sell' not 'priced', this required buyers to actually obtain dollars to buy the oil and established the PetroDollar.

Now that the Saudi's no longer require dollars for their oil, the petrodollar is history.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, until a couple of months ago Saudi Oil was only sold for dollars, it wasn't just priced in dollars, that was what propped up the Dollar as the worlds reserve currency. That has just changed and the Petrodollar is dead.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +2 / -1

Go Carnivore and live a long and healthy life.

2
Bayesian 2 points ago +3 / -1

Guns are basically useless for defense against TPTB. They will always have the advantage of manpower, firepower, armor and surprise on their side against us.

However, if we are on the offense against them, they are even more defenseless than we are. That is why they are so unhinged and terrified of us.

0
Bayesian 0 points ago +1 / -1

The only problem I saw with the video was the concept of a singularity. The reality is that our universe is inside a black hole.

Check out the mirror universe theory.

Also to answer some of the questions, everything is waves of nothing, ultimately.

0
Bayesian 0 points ago +2 / -2

If Trump released the material he couldn't use it to blackmail everyone.

-1
Bayesian -1 points ago +1 / -2

Obviously the flat earth narrative is some kind of badly designed koan intended to create a new perspective on things. The problem is that it is based on a lie, unlike koans which are based on reality like "The sound of one hand clapping."

A much better koan is something like "Plants are trying to kill you" or "Nuclear bombs are a hoax" or "The Government is here to help you." There has to be some truth to reset the narrative in our head to produce the aha moment.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes Polaris does not move but the rest of the objects in the heaven all appear to rotate around the earth exactly every 24 hours, regardless of their distance from the earth.

Just go out at night and see where the milky way is and watch it slowly moving across the sky. In 24 hours the next night the Milky way will be in exactly the same position it was the previous night.

It works the same for the moon and the sun. The only explanation for why everything appears to rotate around the earth in exactly 24 hour cycles is if the earth rotates every 24 hours.

A rotating earth also explains how the northern stars rotate in a counter clockwise direction and the starrs in the southern hemisphere rotate in a clockwise direction.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Specifically which wild claim would you like me to produce evidence of? If you don't believe me that Polaris stays stationary in the night sky, just spend an hour or so observing it at night.

Just put a stick on the ground pointing to the North star and observe that its position never changes.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, what I am saying is that they are functionally the same, they all can reproduce, hijack cells and infect other organisms and also produce new proteins, etc. it is very similar to sexual selection where DNA is exchanged.

1
Bayesian 1 point ago +2 / -1

viruses are very real. Having said that, technically they are extracellular vesicles and exosomes, 99.99% of which are totally harmless or even beneficial.

The difficulty arises in trying to isolate the specific virus that causes a disease. The only reason they could isolate the COVID19 virus so quickly is because they created it.

3
Bayesian 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, you're right, obviously.

view more: Next ›