n00bomb

@martinvars @GB23559 @3rdwavemedia Shuffling paper isn’t productive at all and the Chinese don’t do that. It’s clear China is a more productive country

@GB23559 @3rdwavemedia Classic PPP argument, valid for comparing living standards. But nominal GDP captures economic power: the American barber earns 4x more, pays 4x more taxes, spends 4x more at other businesses. That ripple effect IS the economy.

The United States has a habit of watching its rivals shrink. The Soviet Union collapsed. Japan, which was supposed to own America in the 1980s, is now a far smaller economy. China looks set to follow. In 2021 China's GDP reached 76 percent of American GDP, and the consensus was that it would pass the US before 2030. That consensus has collapsed. By 2024 the US economy was 29.2 trillion dollars against China's 18.9 trillion, a gap that has widened for three straight years. China's working-age population is shrinking. Its fertility rate has fallen to roughly 1.0, half of replacement. There is no immigration to compensate. Yet America benefits from believing it faces a formidable rival. The belief is what keeps it competing.

@Terenceshen Wrong take, look into USA 5g failure. Losing the entire ecosystem to China = the lose the supply chain in USA via China subsidies + leadership. In a world with finite talent, Brain share on the American stack is priority number 1

Jensen Huang seems unwilling to admit that his primary goal is profit, even if it ends up strengthening a strategic rival. He contradicts himself by claiming that providing China with more advanced chips somehow benefits the U.S., which doesn’t make sense. His logic is like arguing that giving the Soviet Union better tools to build more advanced weapons, potentially increasing its ability to threaten the United States, would somehow strengthen U.S. leadership in defence. Anyone with basic common sense can see that this argument doesn’t stand. He’s also on shaky ground when he claims that China will develop its own chips anyway. The evidence suggests otherwise: export controls have pushed China to rely on smuggling and other workarounds to obtain advanced U.S. chips, precisely because it still cannot produce them at the same level and remains dependent on them. When pressed by the host, he appeared to contradict himself again: at one point acknowledging that “they are an adversary,” and later questioning the very idea of treating China as one, even suggesting that the U.S. should avoid “turning them into an enemy.” But in doing so, he seems to ignore the long-standing strategic rivalry between Communist China and the United States dating back to 1949. In any case, export controls remain essential to preserving the U.S. technological edge.

@RoKhanna @BernieSanders If you nuke all welfare and do direct to people UBI, pretty sure everybody would already be rich now

In that case, are you willing to pay a modest trillionaire & billionaire tax to pay for checks to working families? We could start with the modest $3000 check @BernieSanders and I have proposed for families under $150,000?

@SteveHiltonx And I still got friends who literally would still vote for that. Literally retarded.

@piran_peyman @unusual_whales That’s not how you play chess dumbass

Most people expect a leader to be gravitas, moral, dignified, humane and most importantly consistent in their speech and comments. None of what we're seeing in Trump's language is coherent with these values. Trump is not fit to be in the position of power or making decisions about war with Iran. He must be stopped.

Reporter: Are you willing to end this conflict with Iran charging tolls for passage through the strait? Trump: Us charging tolls? Reporter: Iran Trump: What about us charging tolls? I'd rather do that. Why shouldn't we? We're the winner. We won.

@RemoteNavigator @KobeissiLetter Nukes hello? R u retarded?

@KobeissiLetter ✅ Relative peace in the Middle East ✅ Removing of sanctions ✅ Tolling the Strait for reconstruction fees and sharing these tolls with Oman This all seems fairly reasonable, nothing excessive and an offramp for both sides. But Trump won't agree.

BREAKING: Iran has delivered its highly anticipated "10-point" response to the US' "15-point peace plan." Iran's 10-point plan includes: 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again 2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire 3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon 4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran 5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies 6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz 7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship 8. Iran would split these fees with Oman 9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz 10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations President Trump's "deadline" for a peace deal with Iran is 25 hours away.

@StephenFleming @unix_byte @wingod Plz stop talking just write tests man.. not that difficult

If the software is identical, then a software error could lead to all three processors voting wrong in the same way. Ideally, you’d have three independent teams write the control software in isolation from one another, on three different CPU architectures, and run all three systems in parallel. But it would probably cost nine times as much…

SpaceX uses Linux in Dragon spacecraft with flight software written in C++. The Dragon and Falcon 9 flight systems use triple-redundant computer architectures based on commodity x86-class processors (rather than specialised radiation-hardened chips traditionally used in spacecraft, which lag behind in raw compute power). Three independent processors execute identical code in parallel and compare results; this voting-based design enables robust operation in the presence of hardware or software faults. x.com/elonmusk/statu…

@NateSilver538 The fk is wrong with you, can’t even first fact check before you post? No wonder you got predictions wrong

It's not my data. The source is Cluvio, which is linked to in the article. I'd link to it in this tweet, but ironically, that would kill engagement. And I know that traffic is hard to count. Especially for a private company. But if you have more accurate data, then publish it.

@TheRealZuklar @Awk20000 You already got the meaning behind multiple verses wrong. Tbh you should study a bit more so you can get the context correctly. Especially in the world of ai where every single LLM is trained on a large corpus of Bible and Christianity theology.

Great. Asmongold is on the jew-lite 'Jesus didn't actually preach peace' train. For fuck sake. Conservatives are so desperate to fight the manufactured enemy that is the retarded left that they're willing to turn Jesus from a hippie into a warlord. How jewy. It's what they wanted of their messiah and instead got "resist not an evil person", "turn the other cheek", "When someone steals from you, give them extra". All these teachings are too difficult for these ignorant, egotistical control freaks incapable of surrender. Many will claim to come in his name and will lead many astray.

Asmongold calls out the “heretics” pushing “subversive” ideology through Christianity, uses James Talarico as an example "Ppl psyoped Christians into thinking that being a good Christian is being obedient to ppl that want to subvert u..so many bought in..basically..they take the entire page and they take out one sentence and it’s like, Jesus said u should love ur neighbor..God also said a million things but we're gonna ignore those..loving ur neighbor means u have to give foreigners all of ur stuff" "A great example is James Talarico..bad actor who uses the Christian faith to push ideology that's subversive to ppl they're preaching to..I think he's (a heretic)"

@ViktorBlaskov @TMTLongShort It turned out great for USA? What makes you think worse won’t happen to eu? No manufacturing = no cards.

I say this because it's a fact. China can not only provide the things the EU needs, it will be willing to do it cheaper for the privilige of accessing the market. In 2012 when they tried for the first time China was willing to dump absurd amounts of money for this and the US asked us to stop them. We did. Nowadays their appetite is less, but it's still there and their resources are a lot more. The big draw of the US was security and ideological cohesion. Essentially we got free security in a unipolar world with a power where we largely agreed on everything anyway. Now we don't agree and the world isn't unipolar, so it's just gone. Not to mention we would be more secure OUTSIDE the US sphere and with the chinese, if you wanna realpolitik it. Russia is all but a vassal state of China and if we work with the Chinese obviously they won't be allowed to be aggressive to us. Now I personally think it's not worth it, because the ideological burden and the long-term risks of dealing with China are big, but on basic practical terms, it's the right choice.

Now you are starting to understand why decoupling was chosen as the optimal strategy. By forcing Europe to choose a sphere it removes the possibility of them betraying us at the worst possible time. And no I am not using the word betray in the moral sense. I don’t believe in morality. I believe in realpolitik. And we are about to realpolitik the shit out of them until they beg to be vassals again.

@TonySeruga Add China in the comparison you pussy.

🚨 $2 Trillion Later, The Green Revolution Collapsed: How Chasing Weather Power Bankrupted the Grid and Cost the World $40 Trillion in Growth Between 2010 and 2026, governments and corporations poured roughly $2 trillion into solar, wind, and “net‑zero” programs under the promise of an imminent clean‑energy transition. What the public received instead was an illusion—a fragile grid, higher electricity prices, and negligible climate benefits. Energy remained just as carbon‑intensive, but far more expensive and unreliable. The fundamental error was confusing installed capacity with delivered power. Wind and solar often produce energy only 20 % of the time; fossil and nuclear plants generate 60‑90 % consistently. Billions went to weather‑dependent infrastructure that must still be backed up by coal and gas. Once backups, grid stabilization, and battery losses are factored in, true delivered costs for renewables reach $120–250 per MWh, double or triple those of gas, coal, or nuclear. When measured by physical reality rather than marketing slogans, that $2 trillion bought roughly the energy output of $400 billion in conventional power. It displaced almost no fossil fuel consumption and arguably reinforced it, since idling backup plants waste fuel. Worse, dependence on Chinese supply chains for solar panels and rare‑earth minerals eroded national energy independence and inflated emissions through hidden mining and shipping costs. If that same capital had been spent on modern nuclear or advanced natural‑gas infrastructure, the outcome would have been transformative. $2 trillion could have built about 285 GW of nuclear capacity (powering 250 million homes reliably for 70 years) or 1,650 GW of efficient gas plants (enough for 900 million homes for 30 years). Either path would have cut 70–80 gigatons of CO₂, reduced global electricity costs by half, and created genuine energy security. Instead, the current “green” trajectory delivered rising utility bills, rolling blackouts, and greater reliance on geopolitical adversaries. Global power costs rose roughly 60%, contributing to deindustrialization in Europe, worldwide inflation, and a cumulative $37–40 trillion loss in global GDP—about half of one year of global economic output. That’s the price of mistaking ideology for engineering. The lesson could not be clearer: physics determines prosperity. Dense, dispatchable energy such as nuclear or gas remains the backbone of civilization, and no amount of subsidies or messaging can legislate thermodynamics. The so‑called green transition did not decarbonize the planet—it impoverished it. The road to sustainability is not paved with solar subsidies but with unapologetic engineering and scientific honesty.

@SayNoToTrading Charge at home for 12 cents per kWh in sd after midnight

Even with $7 gas in California, you will only save $7 per year driving a Tesla $TSLA. Unless you want to drive 20 mins away, after 1 am, to sit in a parking lot and maybe get 35-40 cents kWh. If not, you are paying 48-57 cents kWh during normal times people live their lives. EVs are a total scam for fuel savings. Your savings are reduced maintenance costs, that’s it.

@FreeSino I’ve never in my life heard that a database migration on 300 million rows is difficult. Literally social security - linked to driver license - linked to citizenship… not that hard

刘议员的简单几句话，解释了拯救美国法案关于验证身份要求的本质就是剥夺许多没有护照的公民和大多数已婚女性的投票权。

@Investanswers Can you all stfu so i can get more shares thanks..

Tesla’s entire playbook is vertical integration on steroids — they design/build their own cars, batteries, chips, AI software, factories, energy systems, charging network, and yes… their own ride-hailing app and matching engine. Uber bringing “We’d welcome Tesla” to the table is like Blockbuster saying “We’d welcome Netflix on our DVD rental shelves.” Cute, but irrelevant. Tesla doesn’t need Uber’s network. They already have: 1) X — the world’s biggest real-time megaphone (free marketing that Uber could only dream of) 2) Tesla app — 6+ million daily active users who already trust the brand 3) Word-of-mouth — exactly how Uber started, but Tesla’s army is 10x bigger, more passionate, and growing every day with every Cybertruck, Robotaxi, and Optimus demo Uber adds zero value here. They’d just insert themselves to skim 20-30% off the top while Tesla already owns the full stack and can deliver rides at $0.50/mile (or less). No need for any fingers in the pie! 🥧

@Jason @farzyness @PeterDiamandis @grok how much of the global smartphone profits does Apple capture?

@farzyness @PeterDiamandis IMPORTANT NOTE: I have exposure to almost every single self-driving player... so I am not talking my book here, I'm talking my BOOK SHELF! There will be three 1T+ companies in this space globally. This isn't winner take all, it's "top 3-4 WINNERS take all"

Uber has a fascinating response to Elon’s vertical approach to autonomy: “We’d welcome Tesla on the Uber platform.” Smart move. Tesla may own the cars, but Uber wants to OWN the network.

@TangAnZhu Ur not Taiwanese because ur too dumb.

The PLA has stopped flying aircraft close to Taiwan - I can't figure out why and that worries me open.substack.com/pub/chinadrew/…

@xEBITDA Just use lfp dumbass, afterword use sodium

The Eos Trilogy - A three-part story about vision, hype, and reality. Act I: The Dream The grid needs storage. Not 2-hour lithium packs. Multi-hour, grid-scale storage that can support renewables. Eos shows up with something different: Zinc batteries. No lithium. No cobalt. Non-flammable chemistry. A bold pitch: Build the backbone battery for the future electric grid. Investors loved it. The stock ripped. ⸻ Act II: The Hype Then came the projections. Factories would ramp quickly. Margins would inflect soon. Revenue would explode. Every quarter the future looked brighter. Until reality arrived. Hardware companies don’t scale on PowerPoint. Manufacturing is brutal. Ramps take longer. Costs come down slower. Execution matters. Expectations broke. The stock collapsed. ⸻ Act III: The Facts Now ignore the promises. Just look at what actually happened. Revenue: 2024: ~$15M 2025: ~$115M 2026 guide: ~$300M That’s 20x growth in two years. Factories are running. Product is shipping. The market exists. The irony? If management had simply said less… The market might be celebrating this growth story instead of punishing it. ⸻ The real problem Eos doesn’t have a technology problem. It has a credibility problem. But credibility can be rebuilt. Factories. Margins. Execution. Those are louder than any earnings call. And if the ramp continues… The final act of the trilogy might still surprise people. Coming to your local theaters in 2027 $EOSE

@Citrini7 You sound retarded tbh

I don’t think this is a directed energy weapon, but every video showing a missile strike enforces the unsustainable economics of kinetic missile defense. Iron Dome Tamir interceptors cost about $40,000 each. Thats the cheapest end of the estimate when shooting down short range rockets (which cost around $1-2k each). To shoot down ballistic missiles, you need patriot or arrow class interceptors which run anywhere from $1-3M each. If we can get 1 megawatt lasers as directed energy weapons (what you’d need to shoot down MRBMs) from the current 300kW, it’s a no brainer to install them on every ship and at every base. The incremental cost per interception is basically the cost of electricity. The entire system costs as much as a couple weeks of current missile defense systems.

@FredLambert What’s happening? Did your account get hacked?

I think the Supercharger network is probably Tesla's best product ever. It took a decade, but Tesla built the largest, most reliable, and most widely used EV charging network in the world — to the point where every major automaker has adopted Tesla's NACS connector. Analysts now value the Supercharger business at potentially $100 billion and project it could generate $10 to $20 billion in annual revenue by 2030. If Tesla can replicate that playbook for trucks, it would be a massive deal, enabling long-haul electric trucking. The trucking industry runs on infrastructure. Fleet operators won't switch to electric without a reliable, fast, and widespread charging network along the corridors they already drive. That's exactly what Tesla is building with these 64 Megacharger locations. No other company is close to matching this in North America. Daimler, Volvo, and Traton formed the Milence joint venture for European truck charging, but that's Europe-focused and targeting 1,700 charging points by 2027. ChargePoint has announced MCS support but hasn't deployed at scale. Tesla is the only company that has proven it can actually build a massive charging network from scratch and run it profitably. The Pilot Travel Centers partnership shows that truck stop operators already understand this, they saw what happened with the Supercharger network and want in on the ground floor. The big question now is execution speed. All 64 sites are listed as "coming soon" without specific dates, and Tesla's history with the Semi program includes years of delays. But the Pilot partnership, the 1.2 MW charging demonstration, and the addition of 64 locations to the map all at once suggest that this time, the infrastructure is moving in lockstep with production. If Tesla delivers, it won't just sell trucks, it will own the refueling infrastructure.

@Ken_LoveTW Ownership isn’t just treasuries. It’s equities…

For years we’ve been told China “owns America” because of its Treasury holdings. Reality check. Japan now holds over $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasuries. The UK holds nearly $900 billion. China? Around $680 billion — and shrinking. Beijing isn’t the top creditor anymore. It’s third. And its holdings have been trending down, not up. The narrative that China can crash the U.S. by “dumping Treasuries” ignores a basic fact: there are multiple large buyers, and demand is global. China’s role in the Treasury market has been grossly exaggerated for political drama. The U.S. bond market doesn’t revolve around Beijing. It never did.