Consolidate while you still can 🫵😉 View quoted note →

One of the most abnormal things I‘ve seen in the UK so far: Decaf coffee packed into teabags (!!!) to stir and squeeze it and then drink 😂😂😂

Dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip

Revolut doesn‘t know you’re stacking sats, it only sees that you’re sending some money to other users. But sure, 100% non-kyc is only when you meet in person and exchange cash vs corn. This is not always easy though… View quoted note →

The cute kid spent too much time hunting harvesters on Arrakis 🙃 View quoted note →

Number still go up!

My life in a few pictures 😐

Seit wann ist das Verschicken von Abmahnungen zum Nationalsport aller Deutschen geworden?.. 😂 Ah ja, das war es schon immer 😫

Well the secret is more likely the private army of medical doctors that is following him everywhere (although he doesn’t travel much anymore). 😉 View quoted note →

Here’s a funny story showing that „shitcoin scammers“ are everywhere, even in physics 😂 2020 - A discovery of room-temperature superconductivity is published in Nature by Ranga Dias 2023 - The second RT superconductor is reported by Dias in Nature 2024 - The first paper is retracted. Then the second. No one could replicate his results. So what happened? 1. Dias proposed that adding carbon to H3S might lead to RT superconductivity. 2. His PhD students could NOT observe the signs of superconductivity in the samples (no resistivity drop, no susceptibility change). 3. Suddenly, Dias emailed everyone and announced the discovery of RT superconductivity. Students were shocked. 4. The draft was sent to the team at 5.13 p.m. and SUBMITTED to Nature at 8.26 p.m. In just TWO hours! No one had time to read it. 5. Dias told the students he ‘had taken all the resistance and magnetic-susceptibility data before coming to Rochester’. 6. 3 reviewers were concerned. Only one supported publication. It was published on 14 October 2020. 7. A year(!!!) later Dias made raw data publicly available. This prompted data check where ‘data points were separated by suspiciously regular intervals’. 8. Then, Nature initiated post-publication review by 4 experts. Two said there were big problems. 9. Following rebuttal & responses, Nature retracted the manuscript. Dias did NOT tell the students about the post-publication review process and data fabrication concerns.

#asknostr What are the things I absolutely shouldn’t miss in Dallas TX?

Nowadays moralism replaces reasonable arguments, and this then kills any discussion.