Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Juan Manuel Jácome
6.4K posts
Juan Manuel Jácome
@bolochoTM
Siempre explorando la interacción entre los sentidos y la realidad.
Ecuador Katılım Eylül 2010
366 Takip Edilen2.2K Takipçiler
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Okay folks, this qualifies as BREAKING NEWS!
Harold “Sonny” White, the warp drive pioneer behind NASA’s EagleWorks Lab, just stepped out of stealth with Casimir Inc. to unveil MicroSPARC: the first battery free chip to harvest continuous electrical power straight from the quantum vacuum via the Casimir force.
The 5 mm × 5 mm device uses millions of custom microscale Casimir cavities fabricated on a substrate. Inside each cavity, two fixed conductive walls create a region of negative vacuum pressure (the well known Casimir effect). Stationary micropillars anchored in the middle act as antennas. Electrons from the cavity walls then quantum tunnel to the pillars because the interior is a lower energy “quieter” zone — and the probability of tunneling back is orders of magnitude lower. This one way “quantum ratchet” flow generates a measurable DC current with no external power source or moving parts.
Prototypes already fabricated at university nanofab facilities (Texas A&M AggieFab, MIT.nano) have been tested in RF-shielded, low noise chambers for weeks. The team reports outputs ranging from millivolts to volts at picoamp to microamp levels using precision electrometers and Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy. Target performance for the first commercial chip: ~1.5 V at 25 µA (≈40 µW continuous). Stacking and scaling could reach milliwatts or even watts per device.
Initial applications are ultra low power: always on IoT sensors, wearables, and medical implants. Longer term roadmap includes trickle charging phones, powering small electronics, and eventually grid independent homes or EVs. Commercialization is targeted for 2028, starting at ~$100/W before dropping toward $10/W.
White ties the work directly to his earlier theoretical paper on emergent quantization from a dynamic vacuum and sees it as a practical power source for the deep-space missions he’s long championed.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and independent scientists have so far declined public comment. But if the engineering scales as hoped, MicroSPARC would represent a genuine paradigm shift: continuous, maintenance free power drawn from the fabric of spacetime itself.
A bold leap from warp-drive theory into real hardware. Progress (and vacuum-powered chips) marches on.
Photo: MicroSPARC | Casimir Inc.
Source: thedebrief.org/free-energy-fr…
CasimirInc@CasimirInc
“We already have functioning prototype devices fabricated and tested in research nanofabrication environments.” - @DrSonnyWhite, Founder and CEO of Casimir in @Debriefmedia today. thedebrief.org/free-energy-fr…
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
You decide!!!
No Kings explained for people who think they're fighting fascism.
You're standing in a crowd on Saturday. You look around and think yeah. No Kings. This is what democracy looks like.
Bro.
You're holding a sign made by a communist billionaire who lives in Shanghai.
You live in a constitutional republic.
Elections. Term limits. A free press that spent four years calling the president a fascist without one journalist being arrested.
The modern left's definition of fascism:
You love your country? Fascist.
You want to enforce the border? Racist.
You think parents should raise their kids? Bigot.
You want to know who's voting in your elections? Jim Crow.
Being patriotic is fascism to the modern left.
But every country has borders and enforces them. 176 countries require ID to vote. That's the definition of a country.
But the Democratic establishment told you otherwise. And you believed them.
Congress has a 15% approval rating. 80% of Americans disapprove. 97% of incumbents got re-elected.
Chuck Schumer. 46 years. Longer than Stalin.
Steny Hoyer. 45 years. Longer than Mao.
Mitch McConnell. 42 years. 5x more than Napoleon.
Nancy Pelosi. 39 years. Longer than Henry VIII.
Maxine Waters. 35 years. Longer than Mussolini.
Bernie Sanders. 35 years. Triple Hitler's entire reign.
Trump. 5 years and 3 months. Won the popular vote and the electoral vote.
But Trump is the king. Okay buddy.
You don't hate kings. You hate kings that aren't yours.
And Saturday they had you in the streets carrying their water.
The Democratic Party installed a president without letting you vote. Biden quit on a Sunday. By Tuesday your queen was crowned.
No primary. No debate. No ballot. First time since 1968.
Three days before your march every Senate Democrat voted against photo ID to vote.
During COVID you carried a vaccine card everywhere like a hall pass from the government just to eat at a restaurant.
But getting a birth certificate or waiting two hours at the DMV to prove you're a citizen before you vote? That's oppression.
The Democratic Party is pro illegal immigration.
Counts non-citizens in the Census. Census determines congressional seats. More non-citizens means more seats means more power. No voter ID means no way to check.
That's how you keep power without wearing a crown.
Biden built a censorship machine.
Pressured Facebook to suppress true information and admitted it in writing. Censored scientists. Censored doctors. Censored JOKES. The Biden White House told Facebook to remove "humor and satire."
They literally went after people for making fun of them. UK does it better tho...
Everything they censored turned out to be right. They just outsourced the silencing to Silicon Valley.
And it doesn't stop at speech.
The extreme left justifies taking children from families.
Six thousand schools rewrite children's identities without telling parents. And the State has the right to intervene.
The Hitler Youth did this. Mao's Red Guards did this. The Soviets built statues of a child who reported his own father.
Same playbook.
During Covid, your bakery got shut down. Church closed. You couldn't hold your dying mother's hand at the hospital.
But thousands packed together during BLM to burn Minneapolis and THAT was essential civic engagement. Obviously.
$2 billion in damage. 25 dead. 2,000 cops injured. 20 states burning. VP Kamala promoted a bail fund for the rioters. No investigation. No hearings.
January 6. One building. Few hours. 1,000 prosecuted. Two years of televised hearings.
Kings decide which violence counts. The left decided.
Charlie Kirk spent his life walking onto campuses asking for honest debate. He was assassinated.
CSIS terrorism database. 2025 is the first year in 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber right-wing. Yet no one brings this up.
75% of liberal students say preventing a speaker from talking is justified. 27% say violence is acceptable.
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
In 458 BC, Rome was on the brink of collapse.
An invading army had trapped the Roman consul and his legion in a mountain pass. Panic spread through the city. The Senate did the only thing they could think of:
They sent messengers to find a 60-year-old farmer plowing his field.
His name was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. He had once been a senator, then lost his fortune paying his son's bail. Now he worked his own four-acre plot just to feed his family.
When the Senate's envoys arrived, they found him sweating behind a plow. They asked him to put on his toga so they could deliver an official message.
The message: Rome was making him dictator. Absolute power. Total command of the army. No checks. No oversight. No term limit.
He accepted.
Within 16 days, Cincinnatus had raised an army, marched out, surrounded the enemy, and forced their surrender. The republic was saved.
He had legal authority to rule for six months. He could have stayed. He could have expanded his power. He could have done what every other ruler in human history did when handed unlimited control.
Instead, he resigned on day 16.
He took off the toga, walked back to his farm, and finished plowing the field he'd left half-done.
Twenty years later, when Rome faced another crisis, they called him back. He was 80 years old. He took command, crushed the conspiracy, and resigned again, this time after just 21 days.
He died poor. On his farm.
2,200 years later, when George Washington was offered a kingship after winning the American Revolution, he refused and went home to Mount Vernon. The reason he was hailed as "the American Cincinnatus" is because Europeans literally could not believe a man who had won would willingly give up power.
King George III, on hearing Washington would resign rather than rule, said: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
The lesson isn't that Cincinnatus was humble.
The lesson is that for most of human history, the people most qualified to lead were the ones who didn't want to. And the moment a society starts rewarding those who chase power instead of those who flee from it is the moment the republic begins to die.
Cincinnati, Ohio is named after him.
Most people who live there have no idea why.
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Pourquoi les intellectuels sont-ils si souvent socialistes ?
Les intellectuels pourraient avoir un faible pour les théories qui ouvrent la porte à une forme d’ingénierie sociale, qui impliquent que les changements positifs doivent être impulsés par le haut, de manière verticale. Pourquoi ? Parce que si le progrès naît de la mise en place de la recette de la bonne société, alors les intellectuels sont les garants du bonheur de leurs concitoyens, investis d’une mission : orienter la société vers un avenir meilleur. En revanche, si le progrès advient surtout par le bas, par l’initiative spontanée d’individus, par la société civile, par le marché, alors les intellectuels doivent se limiter à un travail descriptif, et ne peuvent avoir d’influence significative, en tout cas pas d’influence positive significative.
« L’idée de reconstruire entièrement la société, notait Hayek, séduit davantage l’intellectuel que les réflexions plus pragmatiques des tenants d’une amélioration graduelle de l’ordre établi. » Dans L’Opium des intellectuels, Raymond Aron raconte que si l’intelligentsia française, pendant la guerre froide, était plutôt hostile aux États-Unis, c’était justement parce que le pays avait enregistré d’immenses progrès grâce à l’entreprise individuelle de ses citoyens plutôt que par le biais d’une idée de génie (le communisme) appliquée à tous. [...]
Thomas Sowell, lui, constate que les intellectuels ont tendance à étudier, décrire et s’enthousiasmer pour les périodes de l’Histoire où ont eu lieu des changements législatifs (nouveaux droits, acquis sociaux, etc.) dont ils imaginent pouvoir s’attribuer partiellement le mérite, mais semblent indifférents aux améliorations de la condition humaine, parfois plus significatives, imputables à la vitalité de la société civile (même lorsque ce sont précisément ces progrès qui rendent possibles les acquis sociaux des décennies suivantes). [...]
Encore aujourd’hui, les sciences sociales ne se passionnent pas pour l’extraordinaire amélioration des conditions de vie en quelques décennies à Hong Kong, à Singapour, ou en Corée du Sud, permise par la réduction du poids de leurs gouvernements dans l’économie. Ce qui soulève une question : les intellectuels se disant attachés à la justice sociale ont-ils comme priorité l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux, ou bien l’affirmation de leur propre importance dans l’amélioration du sort des plus malheureux ? « Ce qui préoccupe réellement les doctrinaires, écrivait Gustave Le Bon, ce n’est pas l’avènement du socialisme mais l’avènement des socialistes. »
Dans la même veine, l’essayiste Vera Nikolski a montré que les intellectuels sous-estiment l’influence du progrès technique dans la libération de la femme (électroménager, pilule, avortement, augmentation générale de la productivité ayant dévalué l’importance de la force physique) et surestiment celle des idées égalitaristes. Il est aussi amusant de noter qu’au XIXe siècle, pendant que John Stuart Mill appelait les universités à former « des esprits capables d’améliorer et de régénérer la société », décrivant l’élite intellectuelle comme des « têtes pensantes », « en avance sur le reste de la société », « sans qui la vie humaine serait stagnante » , la révolution industrielle transformait radicalement la condition humaine. Elle était menée entre autres par Thomas Edison et Henry Ford, qui n’étaient presque pas allés à l’école, et par les frères Wright (inventeurs du premier avion), qui n’avaient pas le bac. [...]
La discussion présente peut offrir une réponse à cette interrogation : comment expliquer la « tyranophilie » des intellectuels ? Pourquoi, tout au long du 20ème siècle, ont-ils affiché une telle complaisance pour les dictateurs de la pire espèce ? Réponse du philosophe Roger Scruton : « Les intellectuels sont naturellement séduits par l’idée d’une société planifiée, car ils pensent qu’ils en seront les responsables. » Selon l’anarchiste russe Bakounine, le but réel des intellectuels marxistes était l’instauration d’une « pédantocratie », c’est-à-dire un régime dans lequel les pédants (ici, les théoriciens marxistes) exerceraient les responsabilités. Le tort des démocraties libérales serait donc qu’étant libérales, elles « laissent une part à l’action spontanée de tous et de chacun, s’interdisent l’ambition de construire l’ordre social selon un plan et de soumettre l’avenir à leur volonté » (Aron). Si à l’inverse, le communisme a tant plu à l'intelligentsia, c’est peut-être car il s’agit, selon la formule de Jan Waclav Makhaïski, d’un « régime basé sur l’exploitation des ouvriers par les intellectuels ».
Orwell, dès 1946, livrait la même analyse. Au Royaume-Uni, les intellectuels les plus favorables à Staline, écrivait-il, sont « en général des individus sans éclat, frustrés par le système […], avides de plus de pouvoir et de reconnaissance. Ces individus se tournent vers l’URSS et y voient, ou croient y voir, un système qui élimine la classe supérieure, maintient la classe ouvrière à sa place et accorde un pouvoir absolu aux gens comme eux. […] Leur désir inavoué : remplacer le socialisme égalitaire par une société hiérarchisée où l’intellectuel pourrait enfin s’emparer du fouet ».
De retour d’un voyage à Cuba, Simone de Beauvoir, enthousiaste, a raconté la façon dont Sartre, elle-même et Fidel Castro ont arpenté l’île, notamment pour que ce dernier puisse « gronder » les paysans, leur « demander de faire mieux ». Un jour, ils sont passés devant des ouvriers qui construisaient un village. En un coup d’œil, Castro a discerné des défauts dans le projet architectural. Alors il « s’est jeté par terre de tout son long et il a dessiné sur le sable le plan d’un village ; on lui a apporté un bout de carton où il a recopié le plan. Les paysans l’ont acclamé : ils suivront ses indications. » Les ouvriers cubains, relate-t-elle avec ravissement, avaient « tout le temps la tête levée » pour voir si l’hélicoptère de Castro arrivait, avec l’espoir que celui-ci descende du ciel pour les éclairer de ses lumières. On ne peut donner plus belle métaphore de la verticalité.
En lisant l’entretien où de Beauvoir dit toute son admiration pour la dictature cubaine, il est difficile de ne pas y déceler une forme de paternalisme intellectuel, une fascination romantique pour un modèle de société où une élite éclairée guide le petit peuple dans le droit chemin. Cela semblait d’ailleurs être l’un des fils directeurs de sa pensée politique. Quelques années plus tôt, elle se réjouissait que le régime maoïste, par son appareil de propagande, tienne le peuple « au courant des événements », « lui en explique le sens et les raisons » et « le forme politiquement ». Comme le notait Orwell, certains intellectuels ne voient pas « la révolution comme un mouvement des masses auxquelles ils souhaitent s’associer ; ils l’envisagent comme un ensemble de réformes que eux, savants, vont imposer aux autres, membres de l’ordre inférieur ».
Rothmus 🏴@Rothmus
It’s not “equality”. Based on Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy Lamont makes in his article the case that capitalism rewards practical doers who create value for consumers, while undervaluing abstract verbal brilliance, breeding resentment. Socialism elevates them to central planners & directors with status & protection from markets. TLDR: Capitalism rewards those who do. Socialism elevates those who direct. Note: this view is echoed by thinkers like Nozick and Sowell. Nozick argued intellectuals (“wordsmiths”) develop entitlement in school where verbal brilliance earns top status, then resent capitalism for rewarding practical value-creation for consumers over abstract intellect. Sowell described them as “the anointed” who overestimate their knowledge for grand social engineering, blame capitalism for society’s ills while ignoring trade-offs and dispersed practical wisdom, and promote visions that elevate their role as planners and critics.
Français
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Wow, I actually found it!
Of all the Scott Adams clips ... this is the one that means the most to me, personally.
This was the moment, during the initial COVID lockdown days, that I decided to cancel my low-grade depression and feeling like "I'm trapped," and replace it with "come out of this stronger, not weaker."
(I started writing affirmations shortly after this, and by the time a year had passed, I'd changed career paths, gotten three promotions, and was living in a new house. It worked, Scott. It worked.)
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
AOC vient d'expliquer qu'on ne peut pas "gagner" un milliard de dollars. Que c'est mathématiquement impossible. Que tout milliardaire est forcément un voleur, un abuseur de lois du travail, un payeur sous-évalué.
Ce niveau d'ignorance économique de la part d'une élue qui légifère sur l'économie devrait nous faire hurler.
Reprenons depuis le début, parce qu'apparemment c'est nécessaire.
Un milliardaire n'est pas quelqu'un qui a un milliard de dollars en cash sur son compte. Un milliardaire est quelqu'un dont le marché évalue les actifs (principalement des parts d'entreprise) à un milliard ou plus.
Elon Musk n'a pas "pris" 800 milliards à quelqu'un. Il a créé Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Le marché évalue ces entreprises à plusieurs trillions cumulés. Il en détient une fraction. C'est ça, sa "fortune".
La question fondamentale qu'AOC ne se pose jamais : d'où vient la valeur ?
La valeur n'est pas un gâteau fixe qu'on se partage. La valeur est créée. Quand SpaceX divise par 10 le coût du lancement orbital, ce n'est pas du vol, c'est de la création pure. Avant Musk, lancer un kilo en orbite coûtait 50K$. Aujourd'hui 1.5K$.
Cette création de valeur est mesurable, vérifiable, et bénéficie à toute l'humanité. L'internet par satellite couvre des zones que les États ont été incapables de connecter en 50 ans. Les voitures électriques ont forcé toute l'industrie auto à se réinventer.
Maintenant, la question centrale qu'AOC évite soigneusement : qui devrait allouer les ressources dans une société ?
Parce que l'argent, fondamentalement, c'est ça. Un signal d'allocation. Décider où va le capital, le travail, l'énergie, le temps humain.
Trois options historiques :
L'État (bureaucrates élus ou nommés)
Les comités citoyens (démocratie directe)
Les entrepreneurs qui ont prouvé leur capacité d'allocation par leurs résultats
L'option 1 a été testée massivement au 20ème siècle. URSS, Chine maoïste, Venezuela, Cuba, Corée du Nord. Résultat : famines, pénuries, effondrement. Des dizaines de millions de morts. L'allocation étatique est un désastre empirique total.
L'option 2 n'a jamais existé à grande échelle pour des raisons mathématiques. Le calcul économique nécessaire pour allouer les ressources d'une économie moderne dépasse les capacités cognitives d'une assemblée. Hayek l'avait démontré dès 1945 (The Use of Knowledge in Society).
L'option 3, c'est le marché. Et le marché récompense ceux qui allouent bien. Ceux qui allouent mal font faillite, perdent leur capital, sortent du jeu. Les survivants sont par sélection darwinienne les meilleurs allocateurs disponibles.
Elon Musk est riche parce qu'il a prouvé, sur 25 ans, qu'il alloue mieux le capital que 99.9999% de l'humanité. PayPal. Tesla. SpaceX. Starlink. Chaque fois, il a pris du capital et l'a transformé en infrastructure civilisationnelle.
La vraie question n'est pas "pourquoi Musk a tant", c'est : "pourquoi n'a-t-il pas plus ?"
Sérieusement. Si on veut maximiser la création de valeur pour l'humanité, on devrait vouloir que les meilleurs allocateurs aient accès à plus de capital, pas moins.
Donner 100 milliards à AOC pour qu'elle les redistribue selon sa vision morale, c'est garantir leur destruction. Donner 100 milliards à Musk, c'est probablement obtenir des bases martiennes, de l'énergie quasi-gratuite, et une révolution robotique.
Le préjugé d'AOC, c'est que la richesse est un péché moral. C'est une vision théologique, pas économique. Elle traite le capital comme un stock à confisquer, pas comme un flux à orienter vers les usages les plus productifs.
Et c'est là que sa thèse devient grotesque : "vous payez les gens moins que ce qu'ils valent."
Définition de "ce qu'ils valent" selon AOC : ce qu'AOC pense qu'ils devraient toucher. Définition selon le marché : ce qu'un autre employeur est prêt à leur offrir.
Si Tesla payait ses ingénieurs en dessous de leur valeur, ces ingénieurs partiraient chez Google, Apple, Meta. Ils restent. Donc la rémunération est compétitive. Mécanisme de base que tout étudiant en L1 d'éco comprend.
Le pattern fondamental : AOC, et toute la classe politique qui pense comme elle, n'a jamais alloué une seule ressource productive de sa vie. Jamais embauché en assumant le risque salarial. Jamais investi son capital dans un projet incertain. Jamais créé une entreprise qui survit.
Et pourtant elle veut décider qui peut posséder quoi.
C'est l'équivalent de quelqu'un qui n'a jamais joué aux échecs voulant arbitrer un tournoi de grands maîtres en réécrivant les règles à mi-partie.
Ce qui est triste, c'est que cette vision a un coût massif. Chaque fois qu'on taxe les meilleurs allocateurs, on détourne du capital de ses usages productifs vers des usages politiques (subventions, clientélisme, projets vanity étatiques).
La France en sait quelque chose. 50 ans de redistribution, ISF, exit tax, taxe à 75%. Résultat : zéro géant tech, fuite des cerveaux, dette à 113% du PIB, croissance atone.
AOC veut nous vendre le même poison en plus grand format.
La conclusion est inconfortable mais nécessaire : nous avons besoin de plus de milliardaires, pas moins. Plus d'allocateurs prouvés. Plus de capital concentré entre les mains de ceux qui ont démontré qu'ils savent le faire fructifier pour l'humanité.
Et nous avons besoin de moins d'AOC. Moins de gens qui n'ont rien construit, qui n'ont rien risqué, qui n'ont rien créé, mais qui veulent décider à la place de ceux qui font.
Le mythe ce n'est pas "le mythe d'avoir mérité son milliard". Le mythe c'est qu'une députée de 36 ans qui n'a jamais géré un budget supérieur à son staff parlementaire ait la moindre légitimité à théoriser sur l'allocation du capital mondial.
Breitbart News@BreitbartNews
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You can't earn a billion dollars. Ilana Glazer: That's right. AOC: You just can't earn that. Glazer: That's exactly correct. AOC: You can get market power. You can break rules. You can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws. Glazer: Yup. AOC: You can pay people less than what they're worth. Glazer: Yup. AOC: But you can't earn that, right? Glazer: That's right. AOC: And so you have to create a myth that -- since you didn't earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.
Français
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Busco un creative marketer en Quito.
Base $900 + variable por views y ventas.
Stack pagado: @higgsfield_ai, Veo 3, @elevenlabsio, Nano Banana, @AnthropicAI Max, Suno.
Vas a marketear Tarovers — 12,400 agentes IA debatiendo el Mundial 2026, Wall Street, política LATAM. El producto es cine.
Filtros:
— Cuenta propia con tracción real
— Editas video tú mismo
— Inglés B2+
— Vives obsesionado con IA generativa
No busco community manager. Busco a alguien medio loco que entienda que en 2026 el marketing se produce, no se gestiona.
CV + tu mejor pieza → matias.fonseca@fonlescompany.com
Español
Y esto explica un par de cosas
Brian Halligan@bhalligan
I don't remember where I found this, but its spot on.
Español
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Ese bebé conduce mejor que el 80% de "profesionales del volante"
Xna@xna77
Este es el transporte público que tenemos en Quito! @ANT_ECUADOR @AMT_Quito @pabelml
Español
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
January 13, 2025. The geographic South Pole. A 21-year-old Norwegian woman stands at the bottom of the world after 54 days of complete isolation, having just pulverized an age record that stood unchallenged.
Karen Kyllesø weighs 106 pounds. She's exactly five feet tall. The sled she dragged behind her for 704 miles across Antarctica's frozen wasteland? 220 pounds at departure. More than twice what she weighs.
Let that sink in for a moment. Picture yourself hauling double your body weight through temperatures that regularly hit 40 below zero. Alone. For nearly eight weeks. Skiing ten hours daily across ice formations that jut up like frozen daggers. Through blizzards so thick you can't see your own gloved hands.
She didn't just break the record for youngest person to reach the South Pole solo and unsupported. She obliterated it by almost six full years, dethroning the previous record holder who was 26 when he completed his trek just one year earlier.
But here's what makes this genuinely remarkable beyond the numbers.
Karen developed cold-induced asthma partway through the expedition. A respiratory condition she'd never had before, triggered by breathing Antarctic air so frigid it burns your lungs. She carried medication and kept skiing anyway. Seven to ten brutal hours every single day.
This wasn't spontaneous adventure. At 15, she became the youngest woman to ski across Greenland's ice sheet. Before her skis had even been put away, she was already asking her mentor about Antarctica. Then came years of methodical preparation. Working shifts on Norwegian fish farms to fund the dream. Winter training in extreme cold. Summer endurance work pulling tires for miles. Fall strength training in the Alps.
The hardest part? Gaining weight. She deliberately added 10% to her frame, building muscle specifically to handle a load that would crush most people twice her size.
On November 21, 2024, she started from Hercules Inlet. No resupply drops. No food caches waiting along the route. No outside guidance. Just Karen, her equipment, and 704 miles of white nothingness.
For 54 days she existed in what she called "a bubble." Cut off from everything except her thoughts, her willpower, and the endless frozen horizon that barely changes. Every morning meant waking in a frozen tent, melting snow, eating high-calorie fuel, packing with precision, then skiing against constant resistance until exhaustion demanded she stop.
When she crossed the finish line under clear Antarctic skies, Norway's Prime Minister praised her as following in the footsteps of Roald Amundsen. The legendary Liv Arnesen, first woman to ski solo to the South Pole 31 years prior, personally called to congratulate her.
Karen's words after finishing cut straight to the truth: "It doesn't matter how tall you are or how physically imposing you look. Through considered preparation, mental strength, and unwavering focus, you can achieve things that seem extraordinary."
Five feet tall. 106 pounds. The youngest solo polar explorer in human history. Proof that extraordinary has nothing to do with size.
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
You soak your beans overnight to reduce phytic acid. You sprout your grains to neutralise the antinutrients. You boil your spinach to break down oxalates. You ferment your legumes to make them digestible. You roast your nuts to deactivate enzyme inhibitors. You pressure cook your lectins. You peel, you blanch, you discard the cooking water.
Hours of preparation. Multiple appliances. A pantry full of techniques refined over millennia by humans desperately trying to make plants less hostile to the people eating them.
All this effort. All this ceremony. To render the food slightly less determined to harm you.
Or you could feed the plants to a cow.
Let its four-chambered fermentation system handle the entire operation across 24 to 48 hours of specialised bacterial digestion. Then eat the cow.
Zero phytic acid. Zero oxalates. Zero lectins. Zero antinutrients of any kind. Just complete bioavailable protein, every essential amino acid, B12, iron, zinc, creatine, and the fat-soluble vitamins, all packaged in a form your body recognises without a 12-step preparation manual.
The cow already did the soaking, sprouting, boiling, and fermenting. It's called ruminant digestion. You're eating the finished product.
Beef is the ultimate plant-based food. All the nutrition the plant pulled from the soil, none of the chemistry the plant deployed to stop you eating it.
The carnivore isn't avoiding plants. He's outsourcing the detoxification to an animal evolved over 50 million years to handle it.
And then he's sitting down to dinner like a civilised person, instead of standing over a stockpot at 11pm wondering why his kale still tastes like punishment.
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Spirit Airlines died tonight at the hands of the socialist crusader, Elizabeth Warren
She must be so proud to add another casket to her achievements.
Tonight at 3am, Spirit turns off the lights. 14,000 jobs gone. 30+ smaller airports lose service.
JetBlue offered $3.8 BILLION in cash to buy Spirit in 2022. Shareholders, flight attendants union, literally everyone voted yes.
The combined company would have held 9% of the US market against a Big 4 that already owned 80%.
For anyone who understands numbers: 9% isn’t a monopoly against 80%.
Warren said no.
She wrote letters. She pressured Buttigieg. Biden’s DOJ sued. A federal judge killed the deal in January 2024.
Her argument: the merger would cost consumers $1 billion a year.
Now look at her collateral damage she dusts under the rug.
510 pilots gone in the months after. 1,800 flight attendants furloughed in December.
14,000 jobs in 2023. 7,500 last week. Zero tonight.
And that’s just the people in Spirit uniforms.
Catering goes. Fuel guys go. Baggage crews, gate agents, airport coffee shops, hotels and rental cars in 70 cities Spirit flew to. Every airline job carries 3 more on its back.
40,000 people out of work because of one woman’s moronic crusade against the market.
And the math ain’t mathing.
Spirit abandoned 90 routes during the death spiral. Fares on those routes are up 14% on average. Oakland to Newark: $135 to $288. Fort Myers to San Juan: $92 to $219. Kansas City to Newark up 66%.
That’s reality. Not some BS number from a “study.”
So @SenWarren tell me how this saves the consumer money?
Cheap carriers in a market drop fares 21% across the board. Southwest did this in the 90s and saved Americans $68 BILLION over 20 years.
Warren killed it. That’s what moronic politicians led by socialism do.
Then with her own blind arrogance, she tweeted Spirit’s collapse is “a Biden win for flyers.”
A win.
14,000 people are reading termination letters tonight.
And she’s taking credit.
This is socialism in 2026.
A senator who’s never made payroll thinks she knows how to run a market better than the people who own and work in the company.
She saved you a billion on imaginary paper.
She cost you ten times that in real life.
She didn’t protect consumers from anything.
14,000+ will go from working to welfare.
She will make sure to blame billionaires, hardworking tax payers, AI, capitalism and whatever monster they will make up tomorrow hiding under your bed.
Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. More expensive everything.
She called it a win. I hope you enjoy winning.
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Billie Eilish said “Two things cannot coexist”… so let’s test this
English
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
Lo dice desde un celular que funciona gracias al cobre y otros minerales que se extraen con la minería.
🙄🙄🙄
Johnny S.@blooregardo
@ElOrienteEc @luisesgo Toda minería es perjudicial para el ser humano en conjunto.
Español
Juan Manuel Jácome retweetledi
THIS.
ALL OF THIS.
This might just be the greatest takedown of the fraud that is Bernie Sanders I've ever read.
mike bski@BskiMike22802
Dear Senator Sanders, Oh, this is RICH. This is so perfectly, exquisitely, weapons-grade rich that I had to put down my anatomy exams and just... appreciate it for a moment. The man who got thrown out of a SOCIALIST HIPPIE COMMUNE in Vermont in 1971 — after THREE DAYS — for refusing to do any actual work while everyone else planted, harvested, and hauled water, is out here telling me the OLIGARCHS want to control everything. Three. Days. The communists gave you a longer trial period than most employers give to someone who steals from the register. Here is what Jim Quinn's Law Number Two says, and I want every single person reading this to tattoo it somewhere useful: "If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing." Senator, you OWN THREE HOMES. A Burlington residence. A D.C. townhouse. A $575,000 vacation lake house in North Hero, Vermont — purchased in 2016, the same year you were touring the country telling college students the system is rigged. Your net worth sits somewhere between $2.5 and $3 million. You have pocketed over $2.5 MILLION in book royalties since 2011. That elevator is clearly not stuck between floors for you, is it. And then — THEN — during your "Fighting Oligarchy Tour" with AOC, you spent over $550,000 in CAMPAIGN FUNDS on PRIVATE JET TRAVEL. Half a million dollars on luxury jets to lecture working Americans about the dangers of wealth. When Fox News caught you boarding a Bombardier Challenger 604 — a jet that runs up to $15,000 PER HOUR — you did not apologize. You did not even blink. You looked directly into the camera and said, and I am quoting this verbatim because it is the most accidentally honest thing you have ever said: "You think I'm gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United?" Senator. THAT IS OLIGARCHIC THINKING. That is TEXTBOOK "the rules apply to you people, not to me." That is the elevator music of every single billionaire you have spent 35 years pretending to oppose. In a battle of wits with your own stated beliefs, you showed up completely unarmed. Thirty-five years in Congress. You know what your personal legislative output looks like? Eight bills passed. EIGHT. In three and a half DECADES. That works out to 0.23 bills per year. I have produced more graded anatomy exams in a single semester. Your two greatest solo legislative achievements — the ones with your name on top, the thing YOU actually DID — are the naming of a post office in Danville, Vermont, and the naming of a post office in Fair Haven, Vermont. You named. Two. Post offices. You are as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it comes to actually passing legislation, but you want me to believe you are the vanguard of the working class. That sounds like a YOU problem. Quinn's Law #25: "Liberals are great at giving away other people's money." You have been living PROOF of that law for 35 years. You give away everyone else's money — from a vacation home on a lake — while spending half a million on jets because you are far too important to wait in line with the taxpayers funding your lifestyle. You want to talk about oligarchs controlling the media? You have been IN the media for four decades. You just finished a $75 million documentary. You have a book deal. You have a podcast. You HAVE the megaphone and you are using it to tell people that other people have the megaphone. The gene pool really needed a lifeguard for THAT particular reasoning. I am a high school science teacher in Northeast Ohio. I support a family of six on a teacher's salary. I am not particularly impressed by a man with three houses, $550,000 in jet receipts, and 0.23 bills per year telling me he stands with the working class. More famous than wise, Senator. More famous than wise. The hippie commune knew it in 72 hours. How long is it going to take everyone else? IF you agree: LIKE this post so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it. SHARE this. COMMENT below — do YOU think a man with three homes and a half-million dollar private jet habit speaks for working Americans? Tell me. And if you want MORE of this — the data, the history, the science, the stories — JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or YouTube. But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who can actually do math, a retired Army combat medic who knows what genuine sacrifice looks like, and apparently one of the few people left who finds it suspicious that the most vocal enemy of oligarchy just cannot bring himself to wait in line at the airport with the rest of us. @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2 #MAGA #Veterans #Trump
English