Yo who’s got hot sauce recommendations?

Looking for something with both good heat and good flavor. Gonna use it as my everyday sauce.

how much of a scam are startup's equity options?

GM

Has anyone had success adding muscle while on a low carb diet? In my experience it's great for losing fat but is a huge challenge for gaining muscle.

If so, what's the trick?

Where’s the data on these local deaths? Is it global data or from

One geography in particular?

Some extremely reliable facts that don’t get mentioned because “Muh NaRrAtiVE”…

Did you know?

• CO2, even as a greenhouse gas, has a declining marginal return on its effect? In other words, we have to double the CO2 concentration to have the same potential greenhouse effect.

— In other words, It’s like the bitcoin supply, only the first few halvings (or doublings for CO2) are meaningful in the supply change (or with CO2, the greenhouse effect change). After that it’s negligible.

— in other, other words, IF it has actually made the planet measurably warmer, we’ve already seen the overwhelming majority of any warming we will see?

• That CO2 is a *lagging* indicator of temperature historically, not a *leading* one?

• That the most reliable connection with CO2 levels and historical samples is a massive flourishing of life?

• At the end of the 1800s, CO2 concentration was in the 200 PPM range, and now it’s closer to 400 PPM. Wow! Thats scary huh? Except - 200 PPM is actually a multi million year LOW in CO2 levels and that the very ability for our planet to support plant life… and thus life at all at 150 or below is at risk. While on the other hand, the periods where life was literally exploding on earth (the literal Cambrian explosion and others) CO2 levels were in the 5,000-8,000 PPM range? That the AVERAGE is even something around 5k if I remember correctly? Something comically infeasible from merely burning fossil fuels?

— in other words, we were actually in such a horrible historical low in concentration that we were closer to a planet where life at all could have been unsustainable due to a LACK of CO2?

• That deaths and risks related to climate and weather have done nothing but plummet (like seriously drop like a rock, looks like the dollar value chart) for an entire century and are expected to do nothing but continue to plummet?

• That like 90% or more of weather/climate related deaths are because it’s too fucking cold?

• That for any honest view of the data: IF it should be expected that CO2 will alone actually cause a sustained warmer planet, that this just means more life, a healthier environment, higher crop yields, fewer weather related deaths, and that contrary to it causing a disaster, it’s more likely to have *averted* one?

You’re welcome 😚

How do you filter your tap water?

Curious to know what improvements I can do in the future

Well first I would point out that I didn't use the word "collapse" in my post. I said crisis and trend change.

Sometimes those are collapses, and sometimes they are not. The 1930s/1940s in the US was a crisis and trend change but not a collapse, for example. Whereas Europe did have collapses. I would also consider the late 1970s in the US and parts of Europe to be a smaller crisis and trend change.

I also didn't say much along these lines: "The idea that the “bad money” being used to fuel the armies and weapons will blunt the ability of states to prosecute World War III is pretty much, to me, one of the most naive hopes that I see in these conversations."

So, I'm not really sure if your line there was directed at my post or not.

Now, I do think that central banking fuels war, with UK's involvement in WWI being a prime example, and US's involvement in the Iraq war being a smaller one. With currency dilution comes less transparency and accountability, since things can be funded without 1) taxation or 2) issuing bonds that people voluntarily buy. Currency dilution and debasement is a big factor in fueling war, but by no means the only one. Wars have been fought for millennia, and indeed tribalism is a big part of that. And in this particular case, the biggest weapons of war, the nukes, are already there. It doesn't cost much money to use what is already there.

What I'm saying is that, both based on my reading of economic history and current events, incrementalism causing a monetary/fiscal/economic trend change tends to be uncommon, and rather the trend is usually on a pretty firm path until a crisis occurs. That doesn't mean that nobody should engage in politics, but rather, that this is the realistic cycle that things go through, especially around signs of sovereign debt problems.

For example, I view the current global monetary system to be unsustainable and unsalvageable. It was based on a certain technological and geopolitical era. As the US has to keep exporting dollars to maintain the system, it hollows itself out with an ever-deeper negative net international investment position, and that has a certain limit to it. But I see very low probability that it will be changed prematurely- I think they will push the existing system and its network effects until the breaking point.

Similarly, I don't think many developing countries will develop under the current system either. In the past 50 years, only a handful of countries (mostly in Asia) have gone from developing to developed country status. It's like threading a needle. As long as countries issue their own ever-diluting currencies that their people use, and get funded externally in dollar-denominated debt that can be aggressively hardened or softened without any regard to the conditions in those countries (only the US), I think the rate of development will continue to be low. Ever-more energy usage per capita and the proliferation of semiconductors have been responsible for a lot of development, which offset some of these negative monetary effects, but for energy in particular I think that's going to be harder going forward.

I have fewer followers on Threads but more engagement than Nostr.

Where are you, plebs?

🤔

is recycling bullshit?