Fucking Youtube blocking Firefox again.

No. I’m not. X is the most important platform for speech in the world. Nostr maybe will be but it won’t be for years. And by the way; Staying humble and stacking sats won’t cut it.

People don't climb out of poverty by saving. They climb out of poverty by climbing the income ladder, and then diverting excess income into savings.

One of the biggest fallacies I see when talking about inflation in terms of savings debasement, and in particular, focusing on how it disproportionately hurts the lowest percentiles of income earners, is the fact that the lowest percentiles have no savings. That's what being poor is. If they had excess income, they'd have savings and assets. But they don't. And the poor never have! So the only meaningful way to judge if the poor are being disproportionately affected by inflation, is to compare their income across time, to prices across time.

When we look at income data from the past few years, it actually turns out, that the poorest Americans saw their incomes grow by over 20% since the pandemic.

The massive rise in wages for low-skilled workers was actually one of the major self-reinforcing drivers of inflation.

I haven’t given any info.

Mirroring is not the problem. The problem is that most of this accounts are scammers using familiar names

Austrian Economics vs MMT

I watched a debate between Bob Murphy and Warren Mosler recently.

Mosler (an MMTer) opens with a list of economic policy positions of what he would direct Government to do.

Murphy begins with first principles and explains how the Austrian perspective derives positions through logical deductions.

Immediately one is struck by the different approaches because they’re basically on 2 entirely different talk-tracks, barely even debating really, like an engineer debating a philosopher.

As it goes on it becomes clear the tension is that Mosler has no doubt whatsoever that the Government has every right to its monopoly on the money supply. It’s not even a question for him to take back to first principles in his mind, “it simply is” ergo that’s the only consideration.

To me this is basically a distillation of Bitcoiners vs Normies.

Bitcoiners for whatever reason don’t accept that government and government alone has the right to a monopoly on money - Normies have never even thought to challenge the idea that they do.

Little wonder it’s so difficult for them to grasp, at a fundamental level they’re accepting manmade institutions (ie government, money, inflation etc) as though they are natural phenomena which they simply are not.

What is your best way to buy #Bitcoin  KYC free? Trying to put a more thorough list together. 👇🏻

Cloud back up? 🫡😖 nostr:note17x0alsc4m8td8wutcmkw5qfzhf022mat6438fsqkn3q0lw4zd2aqh5uvze

813,871🤙💜 #meme #memestr #nostrmemes #memes

Bring on the ETF rejections.

Nasa is fake and gay.

Next breathing air will be illegal.

If RFK Jr. is elected as President, he'll put a stop to this bullshit in the USA.

I'm pretty sure this is just the tip of the iceberg too, we just need to stand our ground.

Those of you who think satoshi is the NSA, I ask you.

What does the U.S. empire gain by taking away its own power to create free money to finance itself?

Are you aware of how many times the deep state and its intelligence agencies have attacked Bitcoin? That is enough proof to rule out that Bitcoin was invented by the NSA.

I've been there and have good friends living in Michigan. And don't watch/follow CNN or FoxNews alot. Both are brainwashed political media.

Accesability is one important point. Yes, state terrorist are always able to bypass the law and are able to get a gun. But its about the average people that have range attacks, mental issues etc. that have extrem easy acces to guns. And since everyone then carries a gun even somewhat harmless situations escalate so insanly.

Guess why you have so many school shootings and killed people...

He uses human epithelial cells instead of veroe6 (monkey kidney epithelial cells) which were used in both the bat study he referenced and the original US SARS-COV-2 study. In both of those cases CPE was seen in 2 days (2nd single day blind pass), whereas he ran multiple 5 day passes.

An appropriate comparison in this case would have been to obtain a research virus sample of some sort and run the test on infected tissue and non infected tissue at the same time.

Alternatively he could have obtained veroe6 cells and performed the test over the same period of time as the paper he is replicating. If he doesn't get the same result in 2 days, how can he suggest that the virus is having no effect?

Both the bat and SARS-COV-2 papers also include TEM, PCR analysis and full genome sequences for their respective viruses. This is important because TEM (which he didn't perform) is part of the isolation process for viruses. From the bat paper:

Virus isolation

Vero E6 cell monolayers were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. PCR-positive samples (in 200 μl buffer) were gradient centrifuged at 3,000–12,000g, and supernatant were diluted 1:10 in DMEM before being added to Vero E6 cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, inocula were removed and replaced with fresh DMEM with 2% FCS. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 3 days and checked daily for cytopathic effect. Double-dose triple antibiotics penicillin/streptomycin/amphotericin (Gibco) were included in all tissue culture media (penicillin 200 IU ml−1, streptomycin 0.2 mg ml−1, amphotericin 0.5 μg ml−1). Three blind passages were carried out for each sample. After each passage, both the culture supernatant and cell pellet were examined for presence of virus by RT–PCR using primers targeting the RdRP or S gene. Virions in supernatant (10 ml) were collected and fixed using 0.1% formaldehyde for 4 h, then concentrated by ultracentrifugation through a 20% sucrose cushion (5 ml) at 80,000g for 90 min using a Ty90 rotor (Beckman). The pelleted viral particles were suspended in 100 μl PBS, stained with 2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 7.0) and examined using a Tecnai transmission electron microscope (FEI) at 200 kV.

He says that RNA "next-generation" sequencing was performed but:

Sequence and extracellular vesicle analyses are ongoing.

So was there follow up to this? Did he confirm that analysis showed no contamination from the drawn out testing performed?

So to confirm where the following

> he has recreated virus particles the same as ones claimed by "isolations"

Did not happen.

I never claimed this was when the word virus was created or when the first virus was discovered. I am speaking specifically of isolation (for which a Nobel prize was later awarded).

The question of vaccine definition, effectiveness, mandates etc are all different topics but it's important to remember people were being vaccinated long before anyone knew what a virus was. People just knew smallpox was a disease and infecting people with cowpox reduced the likelihood of being infected and reduced the severity if you were.

Spanish flu vaccination failure was based on the flawed assumption that a bacteria was the root cause. In any case failures of vaccines then or now, do not mean viruses don't exist.

Your story has seemingly changed a little regarding Lanka's work. In your first note you say both the virus and control show the same cell death in an in vitro experiment. Now you are saying he can modify the control to show viral particles. Please link me the paper or provide the DOI. This 2nd thing frankly sounds impossible.

If genomic research is garbage, how are saliva samples able to accurately detect ancestry, genetic diseases etc?

> Making people sick is a very lucrative biz, though, especially when you socialize your operating expenses.

Fully agree with this specific point.