Luis TNT

Mexican restaurant operator Alsea's profit down 66% in Q1 reut.rs/4sVSlmJ reut.rs/4sVSlmJ

A single veterinary painkiller killed 500,000 people in India. The drug was for cows. It was harmless to humans, but it shut down the kidneys of any vulture that fed on a treated carcass. Over a few years it killed 99.5% of India's vultures. With the vultures gone, dead cattle piled up in fields where the birds used to clean a carcass down to bone in 40 minutes. Stray dogs took over the job and multiplied around the dumps. India loses more people to rabies than any other country in the world, and the dog population was suddenly booming around mountains of rotting cow. Two economists ran the numbers. Eyal Frank at the University of Chicago and Anant Sudarshan at the University of Warwick published a paper in 2024 in the American Economic Review. They compared death rates across more than 600 Indian districts, separating places that used to have lots of vultures from places that never did. In the vulture-rich districts, human death rates climbed 4.7% above normal between 2000 and 2005. That works out to about 100,000 extra deaths a year, half a million in total, and roughly $69 billion a year in economic damage. The drug behind it was diclofenac, a cheap anti-inflammatory you might recognize as the active ingredient in Voltaren. Indian cattle owners gave it to their animals for pain. Any vulture that ate the carcass of a recently treated cow died of kidney failure within days, and they ate a lot of treated carcasses. A team led by Lindsay Oaks at The Peregrine Fund pinned down the cause in 2003. India banned the veterinary version in 2006. Some populations are slowly coming back, but the three worst-hit species are still 91 to 98% below their 1990s numbers. Africa is running the same experiment with different chemicals. A January 2024 study in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution went through 42 species of African birds of prey and found 88% of them shrinking, with vultures and eagles falling fastest. The poison this time is carbofuran, a farm pesticide poachers smear on dead elephants and lions. The point is to kill the vultures that circle overhead, because circling vultures show rangers where the poaching happened. Three poisoned elephants killed 537 vultures in a single 2019 incident in Botswana. In May 2025, one poisoned elephant in Kruger National Park killed 123 more in a morning. A vulture's stomach acid is some of the strongest in the animal kingdom, strong enough to dissolve bones, hide, and the pathogens for anthrax, cholera, botulism, and rabies. When the vultures disappear, the pathogens that used to die inside them spread instead. They end up in the water, the soil, and the dogs that took the vultures' place.

Don't study harder tonight. Sleep first. I know that sounds like the advice of someone who doesn't understand how much work you have. But Royal Holloway researchers ran two meta-analyses across 50 years of sleep and memory research and found something that should permanently change how you schedule your work. One full night of sleep deprivation before learning cuts your brain's ability to form new memories by 40%. Not 5%. Not a slight dip. 40%. You can spend 4 hours studying after no sleep. Your brain will process almost none of it. The hippocampus, which is the part that actually converts experience into memory, needs sleep to prepare itself for encoding. You cannot outwork a depleted hippocampus. The paper: "Sleep Deprivation and Memory: Meta-Analytic Reviews" Psychological Bulletin, 2021. The students who stay up all night to study aren't working harder than you. They're working in a brain that's been locked. Sleep is not the enemy of productivity. It is the condition that makes productivity possible.

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag Ya sé que podría meterme a fondo y decir q no señalan con claridad si desean que sean fecundos en dar a conocer el mensaje de Jesús, en lugar de sus desviaciones Pero tampoco voy a cerrar mis ojos a que están jugando con la ambiguedad en la redacción y que eso siembra confusión

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag Justamente por eso no puedo cerrar los ojos a las formas cuestionables. Pudiendo elegir mil formas aceptables, eligen la ambigua, en este ejemplo deseando que sea fecunda la misión de una iglesia que hoy se alimenta de herejías y controversias.

Si fuera un mero acercamiento a una iglesia falsa para predicar la Palabra y llevar la verdad en alto, sería digno de aplaudir; pero no fue así, o al menos no es lo que parece y, por lo tanto, no lo es. Porque, si se mantiene la suficiente ambigüedad como para que alguien pueda entender que la Iglesia anglicana lleva la verdad, aunque de otra manera, hay algo muy grave ahí. Esa lamentable práctica ecuménica de ablandar la narrativa para incluir otras religiones no es más que diluir la verdad para que la mentira no suene tan mal.

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag Entiendo y manejo el tema doctrinal. Sé de temas protocolarios y podría justificar el fondo del tema. Pero por eso te dije que el mensaje para los fieles comúnes es claramente imprudente por lo ambiguo. ¿Por qué ser imprudente y sembrar confusión con las formas?

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag Estás metiendo más temas y ejemplos para desviar el punto "el Espíritu Santo permanezca siempre con usted" suena a ratificación espiritual “haciéndola fecunda” sugiere fruto espiritual objetivo “al cual ha sido llamada” suena a vocación y legitimidad espiritual del ministerio

Erkekler cinsel, kadınlar duygusal ihanete daha duyarlıdır. Çünkü, erkekler soylarının devamı için "babalık belirsizliği" riskine; kadınlar ise yavrularını korumak için "kaynak ve yatırım kaybı" riskine karşı bir savunma geliştirmiştir.

Toksik insanlar kendilerini daha çok mağdur görüyorlar.

😸🔪"Here are the 50 most politically incorrect findings from The Oxford Handbook of Human Mating (2023), ranked in descending order of magnitude — meaning how forcefully they challenge prevailing political and cultural orthodoxies." claude.ai/share/71d5d650…

Your brain has a circuit that doesn't know you live in a city. Its only job is to monitor whether birds are still singing. Right now, in this room, it is on. The circuit predates primates. Mammals have been using ambient soundscape continuity as a predator-detection system for roughly 200 million years. Birds stop singing when something larger moves through their territory. For most of mammalian history, a forest full of song meant no large predator was nearby, and the cessation of sound was the warning. Your nervous system never updated this software. The Max Planck Institute tested the inverse in 2022 with 295 participants. Six minutes of birdsong dropped anxiety with a medium effect size. Six minutes of traffic noise raised depression with the same. The effect worked on subjects who lived in dense urban environments and had no regular contact with nature. The brain still ran the check. Birdsong sits in the 1,000 to 8,000 Hz range. Your brainstem reads continuous patterns in that band as a signal that nothing dangerous is currently moving through the environment. EEG data shows birdsong at 45 to 50 decibels boosts alpha wave activity by 14.1% relative to silence. Alpha is the brainwave signature of relaxed alertness. Push the same birdsong above 60 decibels and the response flips. Stress markers rise 29%. The circuit only trusts the signal at the volume of quiet conversation, which is exactly the volume birds sing at from a typical distance. Three things happen simultaneously when the brain registers ambient safety. The amygdala downregulates. The parasympathetic nervous system takes over from the sympathetic. Heart rate variability rises, cortisol drops. The posterior cingulate cortex, which sits at the center of the rumination circuit, quiets down. King's College London tracked this through a smartphone study with over 1,200 participants and found the mood lift lasted hours after the sound stopped. People diagnosed with depression got the same response as healthy controls. Most of what gets labeled mental fatigue is hypervigilance running in the background. Birdsong tells the circuit it can stand down, and the brain reallocates the freed compute everywhere else. A quiet park feels different from a quiet office because the parks have sentinels.

This article should be mandatory reading for every medical student, PhD candidate, researcher—and honestly, for anyone who mistakes expertise for certainty. “The importance of stupidity in scientific research” sounds provocative, almost offensive. But Martin Schwartz is not glorifying incompetence. He is describing the real operating system of discovery. Science is not built on knowing. Science is built on tolerating not knowing. That distinction matters. Most of education rewards correctness. School teaches us to answer. Exams reward speed, certainty, and precision. You feel intelligent when you get things right. Research is the opposite. Real research begins exactly where competence ends—at the frontier where nobody knows the answer, including the people you thought must know. That moment is psychologically brutal. You ask the expert. The expert shrugs. You assume you’re missing something. Then you realize: no—this is the work. You are not failing. You are standing at the actual boundary of knowledge. That feeling—“I must be stupid”—is often not a sign of inadequacy. It is often the first sign that you are finally asking an important question. Medicine struggles with this. We train doctors to avoid uncertainty, to fear being wrong, to perform confidence. But the best clinicians and the best scientists know how to sit inside ambiguity without collapsing into fake certainty. This is why AI in medicine also deserves caution. Systems trained only to reproduce established answers may become extraordinarily good at passing exams while being terrible at discovering what matters next. Guideline intelligence is not the same as scientific intelligence. Discovery requires productive stupidity: the willingness to stay with the uncomfortable, to look ignorant, to ask naïve questions, to be wrong repeatedly without protecting your ego. Most people want the authority of expertise. Very few want the humiliation required to earn it. But progress lives there. Not in certainty. Not in performance. Not in sounding smart. In the quiet discipline of saying: “I don’t know… yet.” And continuing anyway.

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag No te parece ese párrafo confuso y poco prudente para lectura de los fieles comúnes? Dime si ese párrafo suena o no a: vocación + misión recibida de Dios + legitimidad espiritual del ministerio. Mínimo es una imprudencia pastoral por su ambigüedad.

@luisxTNT @jeancarlopmag Hola Luis, te puedo compartir tanto como yo entienda, pero por favor haz una pregunta o indica que es lo que no se entiende

@RoberMeza @jeancarlopmag Ayúdame a entender la frase final del texto: "Vuestra Gracia, al agradecerle su visita en el día de hoy, ruego para que el mismo Espíritu Santo permanezca siempre con usted, haciéndola fecunda en el servicio al cual ha sido llamada."

Jena Carlo, asumo que ya leíste este texto: vatican.va/content/leo-xi… El Papa es muy claro, no veo yo ambigüedad: “Aunque se han logrado muchos avances en cuestiones históricamente divisivas, en las últimas décadas han surgido nuevos problemas, lo que ha hecho que el camino hacia la plena comunión sea más difícil de discernir.”

Students who take notes by hand get better grades than those who use laptops, especially in STEM fields.

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

Ergenler riskin tehlikeli olduğunu bilmedikleri için değil; akranları yanındayken riskin getireceği sosyal ve duygusal ödülü, tehlikeden çok daha değerli gördükleri için daha fazla risk alırlar.

With the exception of Bitcoin, every major asset class is now in positive territory on the year... Video: youtube.com/watch?v=p5e0Th…

Adopt a mindset that everything is happening in your favor.

People vs. Things: Why Men and Women Choose Different Jobs “The more people-oriented a profession is, the more female-dominated it tends to be, and the more things-oriented it is, the more male-dominated.” stevestewartwilliams.com/p/people-vs-th…