c2
One
c2c089fd55da76c58c7a51aba6bfffb9059c9ba78524fc7e387e286450ddc9f0

I think it depends on your temprement and understanding of BTC. Putting in a big sum and having it insta-puke down 20% can be tough for a newbie. When I started out I DCAd for a while, until I "got it", then lump summed.

Glad you're here Paul, f*** the technocracy. I've followed your work for many years and can confidently say you've improved my life significantly, both in health and wealth (Saifedean interview), but I'll never give up the morning coffee! Many blessings to you, thank you

Replying to Avatar tom

ā€œIf bitcoin goes to zero, so shall Iā€

- nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs

This is my mindset, and should be everyone else’s.

Without bitcoin we lose, there’s nothing else left to save us.

I fortunately earn more tokens than I spend, and I clearly see fiat enables evil. I've spent 100s or maybe 1000s of hours researching savings vehicles, and outside of personal growth and people, Bitcoin is the only thing I can ethically use to store my spent energy.

Replying to 5d73f4ca...

Your body needs cholesterol.

The cells produce it for the formation of your cell membranes and to make bile acids, vitamin D, and steroid hormones (cortisol, oestrogen, progesterone, aldosterone and testosterone).

Cholesterol is transported in your body by lipoproteins. These ā€˜transport molecules’ pick up, transport, and deliver cholesterol (as well as fat-soluble vitamins and triglycerides) wherever it is needed. Without high density lipoproteins (HDL), triglycerides can build up in your blood; without low density lipoproteins (LDL), cholesterol would not get transported to where it is needed.

So, if cholesterol is so needed, how did the myths in my image below arise?

In the 1950s, Dr Ancel Keys cherrypicked data from 22 countries to support his theory that eating fat and cholesterol increases the risk of heart attack. He called his report the Seven Countries Study. Yep, seven countries out of 22. He excluded data from any country that did not support his theory! Other researchers some years later identified that when all the data from all 22 countries were considered, there was no association, but by then the cholesterol-is-bad lie had been well and truly accepted, and we were all told to avoid butter, eggs and fatty meats.

In 2015, a scientific review showed:

-There is no evidence that high cholesterol causes heart disease.

-High cholesterol is protective against many illnesses.

-The higher your cholesterol, the less likely you are to die from any cause, and the lower your cholesterol, the more likely you are to die from any cause!

Whether it was due to this review or not, I am unsure, but in the same year, the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee Report stated: ā€œavailable evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterolā€ and that cholesterol ā€œis not a nutrient of concern for over-consumption.ā€

Did this make the headlines? No! Most in the medical community still need to catch up, but fortunately, more and more doctors are no longer pushing statins.

Need more info? Read The Great Cholesterol Myth by Jonny Bowden PhD and Stephen Sinatra MD.

References in comments.

I've been eating almost exclusively high fat red meat and dairy for years. Never been stronger, thinner and more energetic. IDGAF what the textbooks say about it.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I haven't worn makeup in a decade in any public context. There was a bitcoin documentary that put some on me but I don't know if they aired it. Or maybe a brief moment. I don't know and don't care.

My husband often says I should wear makeup for special occasions. Which means he'd like to see it and I should practice more. I ignored this for years and he keeps reminding me, but this year I'm going to do better at it, for him. We have our 7-year anniversary coming up. I'm going to try to surprise him with it.

My argument previously was I can't be good at everything. If I'm going to run our main business then maybe it's fine if I'm not great at makeup. It's not that I don't have time, although that's a factor, but mainly I don't have mental bandwidth. I wear the same clothes, I don't wear makeup, I get the same haircut, and focus on finance and tech every day. When I'm alone for a season, separated by him due to travel, rather than figure out makeup I post too much on social media and write a 130k word science fiction novel manuscript (which in retrospective, he ends up really liking) to fill our time apart. So I'm like, "maybe makeup isn't me."

His argument, as a proper method to not insult his own wife, is that it would "be a shame to not ever dabble in make up", given how I could look in it.

Objectively it's a reasonable argument; there are plenty of iconic people that look totally different without makeup. His argument is that I should at least wear it sometimes. I've been meaning to give him that view for years but I keep putting it off. Years now.

But sometimes it's a character rather than a concept that brings us to an idea. Much like novels. It's about characters more-so than plot or worlds that wake you up to something.

So I see Kristi Noem at 53 with great makeup, looking amazing, getting sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security.

All the politicians are thinking about her new position, but realistically myself and many other women are like, "fuck, that's my new 53 year old benchmark." She looks so good. Partially because she's attractive but also her makeup and hair are just so solid. I assume she'll be weak at the job but she'll look damn good doing it.

And so I think, "Well fuck, I hope I look half as good at 53 as she does. Maybe I can ignore this shit in my 30s but I have to figure it out by my 40s and 50s."

Anyway, that's my random vulnerable mental shit for Nostr.

Chemicals in many things that we apply to our skin (makeup, deodorant, etc). I've seen enough to be suspicious of its impact on human health. Remnants of beauty products found with breast cancer. Not a doctor, just cautious.

My guess is Saylor is playing the long game. He'll be trying to publicly ingratiate himself to the new leadership while privately advocating for BTC. He knows BTC is the right strategy. I believe he feels he can make more progress if he's not seen to be an overt critic

I'm so old that my base case is always that they'll s*** the bed. I pray that one day I'll be proved wrong

Sadly I expected something stupid, but I was hoping for something sensible

Agree.

"Anti vaxer" is another recent powerful pejorative thrown at anyone that dares to ask genuine open minded questions.

We are infinitely more that the labels people assign to us.

2027 seems a bit extreme, not that I know anything