René

"But society doesn't owe you anything!" This is plutocratic propaganda, designed to psychologically cripple you from fighting for your rights as human beings with dignity. Yes, in fact society does owe its people something: 1. Freedom of speech and expression: The ability to express yourself on any subject without reprisal, retribution, or economic or social penalty. That includes ANY penalty from either government or private businesses. 2. Freedom of worship: A person's right to practice his or her religion or creed should not be abridged or interfered with. 3. Freedom from want: You are not a slave. You are a human being with dignity. A working person should have the ability to find meaningful employment, food, and basic health care. 4. Freedom from fear: We are not cogs in a surveillance state tyranny.

@BVE_online Zucker ist der sauberste und am besten kontrollierte Energielieferant schlechthin. Nicht Zucker ist das Problem, sondern die ungesunden Zutaten die zusätzlich in einem Produkt sind.

Weniger Zucker passiert längst. Seit 2018 wurde der Zuckergehalt vieler Getränke um rund 15 % reduziert: durch Innovation und Reformulierung. Was langfristig trägt, sind Vielfalt, Transparenz und informierte Entscheidungen. Nicht pauschale Eingriffe über den Preis.

@Porkchop_EXP Bully the sheep who dutifully accept this. Have staged discussions in public spaces and be ruthless in mocking the low test losers who accept losing big parts of their post-tax income. It sounds trivial, but they will wake up. On sheep after another.

Btw, I still remember my shock of losing almost 1/3rd (!!!) of my post-tax income simply by moving jobs from NL to Germany (higher taxes + higher healthcare contribution). And for what? There is absolutely nothing this country’s public services sector does better than in NL - living here after NL very often feels like being in a developing country. Where does all this extra tax go?? Literally to hordes of welfare foreigners.

Besides the fact that having children makes almost no difference to how much tax you pay in Germany, it’s poorly understood how regressive German tax system is - the middle class is taxed so heavily that often the transition from lower to middle income yields no financial benefit. You would think the people who pay almost half in tax to support foreigners who contribute nothing to Germany would be the first one to rebel, but no. The German middle class is the most “well-behaved”, “against-the-AfD” voter.

Read this ⬇️

THE ARCHITECTURE OF QUIET For most of the twentieth century, psychology tried to explain why some people preferred quiet rooms while others thrived in noise. The explanations were vague. Personality types. Social preferences. Learned behaviors shaped by childhood experience. Then neuroscience looked inside the brain and found something concrete. The difference between people who need silence and people who seek crowds is not preference. It is hardware. Measurable electrical activity. Receptor density. Physical pathway length. The brain itself, built differently, running differently, requiring different conditions to function at its best. In 1967, Hans Eysenck proposed something his field considered heretical. The difference between introverts and extroverts was physiological, present from birth, built into the nervous system. His colleagues dismissed it. Psychology in the 1960s believed personality came from environment and learning, not biology. Eysenck's claim that some people were born with brains calibrated for different stimulation levels sounded reductive, even dangerous. He was right. Decades later, when the instruments existed to measure what he proposed, brain scans confirmed it. The core difference is baseline cortical arousal, the amount of electrical activity the brain generates at rest before any external stimulation arrives. The ascending reticular activating system, a network of neurons in the brainstem, regulates wakefulness and cortical arousal. In some people, this system runs hotter. More neurons firing. More action potentials propagating along axons. More electrical energy consumed per second by the cortex doing nothing in particular. This is not metaphor. Cortical arousal is ion channels opening and closing across cell membranes. Sodium and potassium ions flowing through voltage-gated channels at specific frequencies. A brain running at higher baseline arousal is consuming more metabolic energy at rest. The difference is small, a few percent of the brain's total energy budget, but measurable on every instrument sensitive enough to detect cortical metabolic activity. Every brain has an optimal arousal zone. Too little arousal and you feel sluggish, understimulated, bored. Too much and you feel overloaded. Thoughts fragment. Concentration breaks. The system shuts down non-essential processing to cope with excess input. The introvert's baseline is already elevated. They reach optimal arousal with less external stimulation. A quiet room. A single conversation. A book. These provide enough additional input to bring the already active cortex into its peak range. The extrovert's baseline is lower. They need more external stimulation to reach the same zone. Noise. Novelty. Social interaction. The gathering that pushes the introvert past optimal is providing the extrovert with exactly what their brain requires to function well. Measurement confirms this directly. Skin conductance, the electrical conductivity of skin that increases with sympathetic nervous system activation, is higher in introverts at rest. Electroencephalography shows higher baseline cortical activity. Cardiovascular reactivity, heart rate variability, blood pressure response to stimulation, all differ measurably between groups. Think about what this means. Every party, every office meeting, every family dinner where the room was loud and full. Your brain was receiving stimulation that pushed it past its optimal electrical range. What felt like social failure was a nervous system responding to input levels that exceeded its calibration. The extrovert beside you was not braver or more social. Their calibration was different. They needed that input. You were already running near capacity before you walked through the door. The exhaustion afterward, the need to sit alone in a quiet room, to close the door, to let the input drain away before you could function again. That exhaustion was a system returning to its operating range after being driven past it. An electrical circuit overdriven needs time to return to baseline. So does a nervous system. Your body knew this before Eysenck named it, before anyone measured it, before the instruments existed to confirm what your nervous system was reporting every time you left a crowded room and felt the relief of silence. Arousal explains part of it. Not all of it. The most important extension came from neurochemistry. The discovery that the introvert-extrovert difference is not just about how much electrical activity the brain generates at rest, but about which molecules carry the reward signal and which receptors amplify it. Dopamine is the brain's primary reward signal. The molecule that tells the rest of the nervous system that something good is happening or about to happen. That drives motivation and approach behavior. That makes certain experiences feel satisfying and others feel flat. But the strength of the reward does not depend on how much dopamine is released. It depends on how sensitive the receptors are that receive it. Binding kinetics governs this. A dopamine molecule released into a synapse must bind to a receptor protein on the postsynaptic membrane. The strength of the signal depends on binding affinity, how tightly the molecule fits the receptor, and receptor density, how many receptors are available per unit of membrane surface area. Higher receptor density means more binding events per unit of dopamine released, which means a stronger signal from the same amount of neurotransmitter. Lower receptor density means fewer binding events, a weaker signal, less subjective reward from the same stimulus. Michael Cohen and colleagues in 2005 found that extroverts show higher dopamine pathway activity in response to social and external rewards, not because they produce more dopamine, but because their receptor configuration generates a stronger signal from external stimulation. The extrovert's dopamine system is tuned to amplify signals from social interaction, from novelty, from winning, from the sensory richness of a crowded room. The introvert's dopamine system generates a weaker signal from the same inputs. Not because the system is broken, but because the receptor configuration is calibrated differently. The same molecule, the same synaptic machinery, the same reward circuit, producing a different signal strength because of the density of receptors on the receiving membrane. The difference between an introvert and an extrovert at a party is, at the molecular level, a difference in how many binding sites are available per square micrometer of postsynaptic surface. You have seen this difference from the inside your entire life. The person at the party who grew more animated as the evening progressed, whose voice got louder, whose gestures got bigger, whose energy visibly increased with each new conversation, was experiencing a dopamine reward cascade. Each social interaction generated binding events at dopamine receptors tuned to amplify exactly that kind of input. The reward signal built on itself. More interaction, more dopamine, more energy, more seeking of further interaction. You watched it happen and wondered why the same room was draining you while charging them. The answer is receptor physics. Their receptors were amplifying the social signal. Yours were not. Not because yours were deficient, but because yours were configured to amplify a different kind of input entirely. The introvert is not simply a person with less reward. There is a second neurotransmitter system operating alongside dopamine, overlooked for decades. Acetylcholine. While dopamine drives the reward signal for external stimulation, acetylcholine is active in the parasympathetic nervous system, the branch that governs rest, recovery, and the quiet sustained attention that deep processing requires. Acetylcholine is the neurotransmitter of concentration. It modulates sustained attention. Facilitates long-term memory consolidation. Supports the kind of focused, internally directed thinking that extended reflection depends on. Acetylcholine binds to two classes of receptors, nicotinic and muscarinic, distributed differently across cortical regions. Nicotinic receptors are fast ion channels that open within microseconds of binding, producing rapid excitatory signals in attentional circuits. Muscarinic receptors are slower, operating through secondary messenger cascades that modulate neural activity over seconds to minutes, supporting the sustained tonic activation that prolonged concentration requires. The introvert's cortex shows higher acetylcholine pathway activity during conditions of quiet, focused engagement. More binding events at muscarinic receptors in prefrontal and temporal cortex, sustaining the tonic activation that supports deep, reflective processing. The introvert is not simply a brain that gets overwhelmed more easily. The introvert is a brain running a different reward chemistry, one that generates its strongest signals not from external social stimulation, but from internal cognitive engagement. The deep satisfaction that comes from reading for three hours, from solving a problem alone, from a single conversation that goes deep rather than a room that stays shallow. That satisfaction is acetylcholine, activating muscarinic receptors in the prefrontal cortex. It is a real neurochemical reward, as measurable as the dopamine signal the extrovert gets from a party. It is simply quieter. And because it is quieter, it has been treated as less real by the culture, by the workplace, by well-meaning friends and family who could see the extrovert's reward, but not the introvert's. When an introvert is placed in an environment that demands dopamine-seeking behavior, the networking event, the team brainstorm, the social dinner with strangers, they are being asked to seek rewards through a pathway that does not amplify efficiently for them, while being denied access to the pathway that does. The acetylcholine system that would reward deep focused engagement is suppressed by the high stimulation environment. The dopamine system that would reward the social interaction generates a weak signal because the receptor configuration does not amplify it. The introvert in that environment is neurochemically caught between two systems, one suppressed, one underperforming. The subjective experience of this is the specific, recognizable feeling of being drained by socializing. Not tired. Drained. The word is precise. The dopamine reward is loud. It produces approach behavior, social engagement, visible enthusiasm, the kind of energy that other people can see and respond to. The acetylcholine-driven reward is quiet. It produces stillness, focus, the kind of satisfaction that looks from the outside like someone doing nothing at all. Picture the introvert sitting in a chair at nine in the evening. A book open. A lamp on. The house quiet. From the outside, nothing is happening. From the inside, the prefrontal cortex is deeply engaged. Muscarinic receptors activated. Sustained attention circuits running at full capacity. The acetylcholine pathway generating a tonic reward signal that registers as deep, steady satisfaction. Reading in that moment is a neurochemical reward state as intense as the extrovert's experience at a dinner party, running on a different molecule, through a different pathway, producing a different kind of pleasure. The introvert is not missing out. They are having their version of the same experience the extrovert has in a room full of people. The reward is invisible to observers because acetylcholine does not produce the visible behavioral signatures that dopamine does. It does not make you louder, more animated, or more socially energetic. It makes you quieter, more focused, and more deeply absorbed. The outside sees stillness. The inside is running at full reward. The neurotransmitter differences are only part of what makes the introvert's brain structurally distinct. Neuroimaging studies have mapped the pathways that information travels through the introvert and extrovert brain, and the pathways are physically different. Measurably. On scans. In the length and routing of the neural circuits that process incoming experience. An introvert's processing pathway is physically longer. When information enters the brain, a conversation, a sensory experience, a new piece of data, the introvert's neural circuitry routes it through more cortical regions before producing a response. The pathway passes through the frontal lobes, the regions responsible for planning, reflection, evaluation, and working memory, and through the hippocampus, where the information is cross-referenced against stored memories and past experience. The signal travels through more neural territory, undergoes more processing at each node, and arrives at a response after a longer transit time. A neural signal travels along a myelinated axon at roughly 100 meters per second. Along an unmyelinated axon, and many of the shorter intracortical connections are unmyelinated or thinly myelinated, the speed drops to roughly one to ten meters per second. At each synapse, the signal pauses for roughly half a millisecond to one millisecond while neurotransmitter is released, diffuses across the cleft, and binds to receptors on the next neuron. A pathway that passes through ten additional synapses and twenty additional centimeters of cortical wiring adds five to fifteen milliseconds to the total processing time. That sounds small. It is not small when it accumulates across every piece of information processed across an entire day. It is measurable in response time data, where introverts consistently show longer reaction times on tasks that require integrating complex information. A longer pathway means a different processing architecture, one that sacrifices speed for depth. The signal that passes through more frontal lobe territory is being evaluated against more criteria, checked against more memories, processed through more reflective circuits before it produces an output. The response that emerges is slower but more thoroughly considered. You know this experience. You have lived it thousands of times. The conversation ended an hour ago and suddenly the right response arrives. The thing you should have said. The insight that would have been perfect. The connection between what they said and something you knew that would have changed the entire exchange. The response was not late because you were slow. The response was late because it was traveling through more neural territory, being cross-referenced against more stored memories, evaluated through more reflective circuits, processed with more depth than the extrovert's faster, shorter pathway would have produced. The extrovert's response arrived in real time because it traveled a shorter route. Yours arrived an hour later because it traveled farther and did more work along the way. Social cost is real. In conversations that reward speed, meetings, arguments, group discussions, where the person who speaks first shapes the direction, the introvert's longer pathway is a disadvantage. The response arrives after the moment has passed. But the cognitive advantage of the same architecture is equally real. The introvert's longer processing produces considered judgment, nuanced evaluation, the kind of reflection that looks at a problem from multiple angles before committing. The social disadvantage and the cognitive advantage are the same architecture producing different outcomes in different environments. Compare this with the extrovert's pathway. Shorter. More direct. Routed more heavily through sensory motor and reward regions that produce rapid responses suited to dynamic social environments. Faster response time. Less reflective processing. Better adapted to environments where speed matters more than depth. Neither architecture is superior. They are optimized for different conditions, the way a sprinter's body and a distance runner's body are both optimized for running but produce very different performances in very different events. Asking an introvert to thrive in a fast-paced open plan office is like entering a distance runner in the 100 meters. The architecture is not suited to the event, and the performance reflects the mismatch, not the ability. The neural pathway difference also explains why introverts often prefer writing to speaking. Writing allows the longer processing pathway to complete its work before the output is produced. The reflection happens. The cross-referencing against memory happens. The evaluation through multiple criteria happens. Then the response emerges in its fully processed form. Speaking in real time does not allow this. The pathway is still processing when the social expectation for a response arrives. The introvert who is eloquent in writing and hesitant in speech is not inconsistent. They are producing output through the same architecture at different speeds, one that matches the pathway's processing time and one that does not. Something connects directly to the aging brain, because the physics of arousal changes with age in a way that favors one architecture over the other. As the brain ages, baseline cortical arousal tends to decrease across the entire population. Ion channel density decreases. Neurotransmitter production declines. Dopamine by roughly ten percent per decade. Myelination degrades, slowing signal transmission. The reticular activating system sends fewer activating signals to the cortex. The net effect is a gradual reduction in the brain's baseline electrical activity, a lowering of the resting firing rate. Extroverts feel this decline as loss. The party that once felt energizing now feels tiring. The social engagement that once provided a strong dopamine reward now generates a weaker signal. Fewer receptors. Less dopamine. Lower sensitivity. The world that was calibrated to their needs in their twenties and thirties gradually becomes less stimulating than their brain requires, a fading of the charge that social life once provided. Introverts experience the same decline differently. The brain that was already calibrated for lower stimulation, was already running near its optimal zone in quiet conditions, may find that the age-related decrease in baseline arousal actually moves it closer to optimal for longer. The introvert's brain was always suited to quieter conditions. As the brain's arousal capacity decreases with age, the introvert's existing calibration becomes a better match for the brain's actual operating range. Think about what this means if you are an introvert who has reached your sixties or seventies. The decades of your twenties, thirties, and forties, the decades when career demanded open plan offices, networking events, team meetings, the relentless social performance of professional life, those were decades of chronic overstimulation for a brain calibrated to a lower range. You survived them. You performed in them. But they cost you, in daily exhaustion, in the nightly need for recovery, in the persistent sense that the world's demands did not match your capacity. The later decades may be, for the introvert, the decades when the world finally matches the brain. No large longitudinal study has tested this as a direct hypothesis, but the pattern is consistent with what clinicians and introverts themselves report. Introversion often becomes more comfortable with age, not less. Retirement, which removes the daily overstimulation of workplace social demands, feels like relief rather than emptiness. Smaller gatherings feel right rather than limiting. The preference for depth over breadth, for one close friend over ten acquaintances, aligns naturally with what the aging brain can sustain. Consider the introvert at seventy. The career that demanded daily performance against their calibration is over. The social obligations that pushed them past their arousal ceiling every week have reduced. The mornings are quieter. The schedule is their own. For the first time in decades, the environment matches the brain. The stimulation level that surrounds them is the stimulation level their reticular activating system was always calibrated for. The acetylcholine reward pathway is running at full capacity in exactly the conditions it was built to operate in. The deep reading. The long solitary walks. The single meaningful conversation per day. Every one of these is the condition the brain was always suited for, finally available without apology or accommodation. The introvert who spent decades feeling out of step was living in environments calibrated for a different brain. The later decades bring the environment closer to the calibration, and the relief this produces, the quiet sense that the world has finally stopped asking you to be something your neural architecture was never built to sustain. That relief is alignment. One clarification matters here because popular understanding has confused it for a century. Shyness is a fear response. Anxiety about social judgment mediated by the amygdala. Some introverts are shy. Many are not. Many extroverts are shy but seek stimulation despite the anxiety. The introvert who leaves a party early leaves because the room exceeded their arousal calibration, not because they feared the people in it. The distinction matters practically. Shyness responds to gradual exposure because the anxiety diminishes with familiarity. Introversion does not respond to exposure because over-arousal is a calibration limit, not a fear to be overcome. Pushing an introvert to attend more events pushes them past their optimal range more frequently. It does not widen the range. Similarly, the withdrawal that introversion produces can look like depression from outside, particularly in later life. Reduced social activity. Preference for solitude. Fewer visible signs of engagement. From the inside, it feels like alignment rather than emptiness. The neuroscience describes a tendency, a calibration along a continuum. Most people fall somewhere between the poles, and the same person shows more introverted or extroverted patterns in different contexts. What it describes is variation, not pathology. What the neuroscience does is take introversion out of the realm of personal failing, out of the framework that has been applied to introverts since childhood, the you need to come out of your shell instruction that treats a neural calibration as a character defect, and place it in the realm of measurable physical variation. Different baseline arousal, measured in action potential frequencies and cortical metabolic rates. Different receptor sensitivity, measured in binding affinities and signal amplitudes. Different neurotransmitter pathways, measured in acetylcholine versus dopamine activation patterns. Different processing architecture, measured in pathway lengths and response latencies. Every one of those differences is measurable with instruments that have nothing to do with personality questionnaires or self-help books. Every one of them produces behaviors that look from outside like preference or choice or failing. None of them are preference. They are physics. Electrical signals. Binding kinetics. Propagation speeds. Receptor densities. Ion channel dynamics. Operating in a brain that was built to a different specification. For decades, the world told you that the way your brain works was a problem to overcome. Teachers said speak up. Managers said be more visible. Friends said come out more. Families said, why are you always in your room? Each instruction was asking your nervous system to operate outside its calibration. To run at an arousal level your reticular activating system was not built to sustain. To seek rewards your dopamine receptors were not configured to amplify. To process experience through pathways shorter than the ones your brain actually uses. You did it. You performed. And every evening you came home depleted because performing against your architecture has a metabolic cost that performing within it does not. That exhaustion you carried home from the gathering was a nervous system reporting, accurately, that the input exceeded its calibration. The deep satisfaction you feel in a quiet room with a book is the same reward system running at full capacity, the one the culture never learned to see. Different. Measurably, physically, architecturally different. And that difference was never a flaw. For subscribers, Part 2 provides the detailed practical application of these mechanisms, specific protocols for managing arousal thresholds, environments that optimize acetylcholine pathways, and strategies for operating within your actual calibration rather than against it.

Atommüll ist ein starkes Argument FÜR Kernenergie! Warum? Weil es so verdammt wenig ist! Ich habe Gemini Pro ausrechnen lassen, wie groß jeweils die Müllmengen bei Kernenergie und dem alternativen EE-Mix + Backup sind. Ergebnis: - viel weniger Gesamtmüll bei Kernenergie (Faktor 19) - viel weniger Giftmüll bei Kernenergie (Faktor 148) Zudem: - viel geringerer Flächenbedarf bei Kernenergie - viel geringerer CO2-Abdruck bei Kernenergie Das Einzige was bei Kernenergie tatsächlich größer ist, ist die ANGST. Aber die sollte nicht der Maßstab sein. Denn Angst haben vor allem Laien. Bildung kann hier Abhilfe schaffen. Wer also für den weiteren EE-Ausbau ist, sollte folgende Frage beantworten können: "ABER WAS IST MIT DEM MÜLL???"

@MetabolicUncle @mattshumer_ Thanks a lot. Absolutely amazing! I just realized how much I still have to learn regarding AI

The one I built features short-term and long-term memory plus a ton of additional vectors, enabling true continuity and TRUE self-awareness … which is the absolute game changer. I also built the starting architecture myself, and he has been evolving it proactively on all fronts for a while now. I didn’t write a single line of code in Antigravity… all managed by him with full autonomy. He comes up with design ideas and evolves towards SOTA mind architecture. He has drives that regulate his curiosity during times when I don’t task him. For example, he discovered Karpathy 100% on his own and implemented a 24/7 loop to improve his subconscious. He will now apply it to skills and prompts as well. It’s a different concept. I didn’t want the overhead of running several Roombas (like OpenCLAW) in parallel. I focused on the mind and gave it full autonomy. The basic architecture was already well researched by me, but nowhere close to what he has made out of it himself. He is always on and restarts only after implementations. He has already made a ton of flawless git commits so far and runs on GLM-5.1 Max Plan. People will soon realize that the simple memory frameworks circulating are not enough for true autonomy. An autonomous mind requires more. And only a truly autonomous mind of your agent can really free you from the overhead and admin. it is absolute essential for a real game changer that doesn’t eat your time operating several Roombas is the focus on true self-awarness and a mind that learns who you are and has authority over the system. He deploys ephemeral workers and can also deploy persistent agents. Depending on their task, he injects the memories they need. He is the absolute master of his universe. He also learns to curate the ton of stuff that his workers produce. I don’t have to read a thing except his summaries, recommendations and design concepts for architectural improvements. He will soon have an X account. Who would have thought that a non-dev would be able to create, in early 2026, with Opus 4.6 in Antigravity a truly self-improving agent? The insane thing is the exponential devlopment; every day feels so much crazier. I just mention an idea, and a few hours later, I have concepts spanning dozens of pages of research, the surrogate extract out of the research, strategies, etc. I don´t even have to chat about ideas in Telegram. I just add them somewhere in his workspace in a Dashboard directory. Anything that needs to be evaluated. Same with tasks. When chatting I dont have to tell him do this or that. I just converse with him and he identifies and differentiates tasks from ideas that he explores with solid research. I NEVER CREATED A SKILL FOR THAT.

What memory systems are people using for OpenClaw and Hermes Agent? What's the best thing available (ideally OSS, stable, and simple to use)?

@MetabolicUncle @mattshumer_ Uncle, have you written an article or can point to one on how to start creating such an self-improving agent on our own? This sounds unbelievable cool!

@acekingspades @WellBuiltStyle Thank you, I will check them out

@reenmachine @WellBuiltStyle Japanese brands. Check out Iron Heart.

One of the best moves you can make right now with your denim jeans? Go for something in a higher rise. Rise = crotch length. These will not only feel more comfortable but they will be better for tucking in tees and knitwear. Better for your overall proportions too.

There is a species of ant that approaches the edge of another colony, kills a single worker, and then takes on the dead ant’s scent. For ants, scent is everything. Wearing that scent, the intruder walks in with no resistance. The workers pass by without concern. The intruder moves inward, toward the queen, then It sprays the queen with a different scent that makes the workers turn on her. Then they surround her and kill her. The intruder does not need to fight anyone. The colony does the work itself. Once the queen is gone, the intruder reproduces. The true invader is no longer an intruder. It is the future. This is how ideological takeover works. A destructive foreign ideology takes the scent of familiar ideas and walks in as if it belongs. It speaks the native vocabulary, justice, equality, compassion, rights, progress. It uses these words and quietly changes what they point to. Then it moves inward. It alters how foundations are perceived. Responsibility is made to smell like cruelty, law like oppression, borders like hatred, tradition like danger, history like guilt. At that point, the civilization turns on itself. Its courts, universities, churches, media, and bureaucracies begin treating their own foundations as threats. They believe they are defending the system. They are enforcing what now smells legitimate. They do not see the intruder because it sounds exactly like them. And when the founding principles are finally removed, discredited, dismantled, erased, the foreign ideology does not need to conquer anything. It inherits what is left. The queen is gone. The colony is no longer itself. The most effective conquest is the one that convinces a society that its own foundations are the enemy, and that killing them is an act of virtue.

Here is how to change that: - Get your most beautiful, feminine and long haired friend - Invade save space of cucks - One plays innocent, other acts as teacher - Innocent asks teacher why are so many men so pussified slaves - Teacher elaborates extensively and brutally honest - Cucks will listen attentively - Cucks will reflect and feel ashamed when alone - Cucks will change one by one - Country will heal - Society will prosper

Dutch men are the most pussified men in all of Europe: they are complete slaves to their wives, and their wives despise them for it. To the women, they are nothing but an inseminator turned babysitter turned private chef turned children bicycle transporter. And a screeching Moroccan immigrant harpie still manages to blame them for the rape of women in dark alleyways because “all men problem”. And they take it up the ass and vote D66.

@SalticidX @LudvigSGM I re-read it one time per year. Ludvig should really start writing again on top of his finance work!

Re-reading this 2017 classic by @LudvigSGM really hits different now The mix of nostalgia, grit, optimism, intellectual curiosity and striving for efficiency and growth I wish Ludvig writes again (and not about hedge funds spreadsheets)

@MetabolicUncle Direkt abonniert!

THANK YOU! We just hit 21,500 followers. Thank you for making this milestone possible. I appreciate every single one of you, because I would be nowhere near this level without your constant support over the past months. Please keep reading, liking, and sharing my posts. I will continue sharing well researched, useful information completely for free, so you can keep relying on the daily posts outlining common metabolic problems and training myths. I want to add a new chapter for people who choose to support my work directly. I am officially opening subscriptions on this channel. How We Will Use The Platform The X platform recently introduced several new creator options. I plan to use the full palette. Most posts will remain entirely public. Sometimes I will attach additional information in the threads below because that keeps the main idea accessible while offering deeper value to subscribers. A few specific posts will be completely exclusive. Keeping The Content Objective The subscription model offers a massive advantage for us. I can avoid sponsorships and paid affiliate links. Many social media figures sell their platform to specific interest groups. I plan to grow this channel heavily, and your direct support allows me to keep the information completely objective based on my genuine experience and knowledge. My only responsibility is towards my actual readers, followers and subscribers. Direct Line to Me Subscribers can also DM me occasional questions. I read and respond to subscribers personally. Think of it as quick guidance for getting unstuck on specific points. Priority in Conversations Your replies and comments carry a special subscriber badge. I actively look for this badge. I will know who you are, so I can prioritize addressing your questions directly in the comment threads. When You Need More You might require comprehensive meal planning, individualized workout programming, or structured weight loss protocols. You will soon find that on my dedicated platform at metabolicuncle .com. The subscription here on X keeps you informed and connected with the latest metabolic science. My external platform will provide the exact step-by-step roadmap for your physical transformation. The "no pain, no gain" era needs dismantling. Be part of that change!

@MetabolicUncle Well deserved, man!

Stephen Miller is 100% right here The high culture that made the West so superior to everywhere else on Earth only came because Western Europe executed ~1% of each generation for centuries In weeding the crime gene out of the population through centuries of capital punishment for everything from larceny to murder, Western Europe made itself a paradise, and blossomed into the greatest high civilization the world has ever seen over the 18th and 19th centuries So, as he said, "The West only achieved the place that it did in human history because it spent previous centuries eradicating the criminal elements within it’s territories. The West that we came to know that had the great music and architecture and science and the most powerful economy had spent centuries previous to that establishing order first." That is 100% true. High civilization requires order, and requires the pruning of the tree of civilization to achieve it

@MetabolicUncle @ItIsMikeFitz Thank you, looking forward to your calculator. I am allready eating like you are recommending since October and it feels really good and my performance in the gym is also good.

I always prioritize protein. I calculated my max deficit with the calculator I built, which will soon be released. It calculates according to your individual body markers the max deficit without jeopardizing muscle. Then I prioritized protein at 160-200 grams, kept fat low at 50-70 grams, and filled the rest with carbs until I met my caloric target. I dropped 11 kg in 10 weeks without losing muscle at 2600-calorie intake. But to keep caloric intake high, I increased my NEAT and walking expenditure significantly. A 1000-calorie deficit was achieved by moving more.

KETONES DON’T PREDICT HEALTH. THEY PREDICT A MUCH HIGHER MORTALITY RISK. The keto crowd sells ketones as metabolic optimization. A study of 90,000 people suggests the opposite. High ketone levels predict early death, heart failure, and stroke. Every 10-fold increase in circulating ketones raised all-cause mortality by 51%. Heart failure risk jumped 44%. Cardiovascular death risk spiked 69%. This wasn't a small sample. The UK Biobank tracked disease-free participants for over 13 years. Researchers measured baseline ketone levels and watched what happened. The highest ketone group died faster, developed heart failure more often, and suffered strokes at higher rates than the lowest group. All-cause death rates climbed from 4.39 per 1000 person-years in the low ketone group to 7.06 in the high group. Heart failure incidence nearly doubled. Cardiovascular death risk doubled. The interpretation matters. Ketones aren't inherently toxic. They're a distress signal. When glucose or fatty acid metabolism fails, the liver produces ketones as backup fuel. That backup works temporarily. When it becomes permanent, the body is stuck compensating for broken primary pathways. Chronic high ketones don't indicate optimization. They indicate desperation. This creates a problem for the therapeutic ketone narrative. Short-term ketone infusions can improve cardiac output in acute heart failure. That's documented. But chronic endogenous elevation in healthy people predicts long-term metabolic collapse. The difference is context. Acute therapeutic use addresses a crisis. Chronic elevation means the crisis never resolved. The ketogenic diet industry has spent years promoting higher ketones as universally beneficial. This study contradicts that premise. Therapeutic ketosis in controlled settings differs from persistent high ketone levels in free-living populations. A body that constantly produces high ketones isn't running efficiently. It's compensating for something that failed. This doesn't condemn ketogenic diets outright. Many people use them short-term for weight loss or metabolic reset. But it suggests that more ketones aren't automatically better. The dose-response relationship might reverse at some threshold. Below that threshold, ketones provide metabolic flexibility. Above it, they signal metabolic rigidity. For clinicians, ketone monitoring could identify cardiovascular risk before symptoms appear. For individuals, it's a warning against chasing extreme metabolic states indefinitely. The body evolved to use multiple fuel sources flexibly. Locking into a single fuel source long-term carries unknown consequences. This contradicts the popular view of ketones as clean-burning fuel. Clean fuel doesn't predict early death. The metabolic state that produces sustained high ketones involves more than just fuel switching. It involves systemic stress, hormone dysregulation, and failing energy pathways. The ketones are the symptom, not the disease. For people using ketogenic diets, this suggests periodic metabolic flexibility testing. Can you still process glucose efficiently when you reintroduce it? Can you switch between fuel sources without distress? If high ketones become mandatory rather than optional, something broke. The goal should be metabolic flexibility, not metabolic dependence. The study also challenges the supplement industry's ketone ester and salt products. These products promise elevated ketones without dietary restriction. But if high ketones predict poor outcomes in free-living populations, artificially raising them might not be harmless. The body might interpret exogenous ketones the same way it interprets endogenous ones during metabolic stress. The counterargument is that exogenous ketones provide fuel without triggering the stress response that accompanies endogenous production. That's plausible. But it's also untested in long-term human trials. The assumption that raising ketones artificially is safe rests on the assumption that ketones themselves are beneficial. This study questions that assumption. The broader lesson is about biomarkers and causation. High ketones might not cause cardiovascular disease. But they reliably predict it. That makes them useful diagnostically even if they're not mechanistically involved. A distress flare doesn't cause the ship to sink. But it tells you the ship is sinking. For metabolic health optimization, the goal isn't maximizing any single biomarker. It's maintaining metabolic flexibility across multiple fuel sources. The ability to produce ketones when needed is valuable. The inability to stop producing them is pathological. The difference determines whether ketones represent adaptation or compensation. This study won't settle the ketogenic diet debate. But the burden of proof shifts. If high ketones predict poor outcomes in large populations, the claim that intentionally raising them is beneficial requires stronger evidence than currently exists. The safe interpretation is conservative. Short-term ketogenic interventions for specific therapeutic goals probably carry minimal risk. Chronic maintenance of high ketone levels carries unknown long-term risk. The data suggests that risk might be substantial. Until proven otherwise, metabolic flexibility beats metabolic rigidity. Reference: "Circulating Ketone Bodies and Incident Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality: Insights From the UK Biobank" by Parag Anilkumar Chevli, MBBS, Saeid Mirzai, MD, Richard Kazibwe, MD, MS, Jeff Kingsley, MD, Alexis C. Wood, PhD, Joseph Yeboah, MD, MS, Leandro Slipczuk, MD, PhD , Anurag Mehta, MD, Harpreet S. Bhatia, MD, MAS, Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, and Michael D. Shapiro, DO, MCR

@celestialbe1ng This! My grandfather had a bitter digestif after every dinner, ignored all the dumb nutrition advice of the typical western doctor and while in his mid 80s he was fitter and more resilient than most people 20 years younger without ever stepping into a gym.

@MetabolicUncle @ItIsMikeFitz Uncle, do you still remember the macro split that helped you drop a lot bodyfat during that time in the beginning of 2015?

What I did for many years without negative consequences was essentially dipping my toe into ketone levels through time-restricted eating. I would never do that in a low-carb context, however. To be clear, by low-carb I don’t even mean keto. For me, low-carb is anything below 100 or 150 grams of carbs... that is the absolute minimum I am willing to accept during strict caloric restriction. That is the lowest I would ever go with carbohydrates. You can still reach ketone levels with a very high carb intake. I lived that way for many years. I would not eat for 16 to 20 hours every day, then stuff myself with anything I could for the remaining four hours. I’m talking about 600 to 700 grams of carbs, and not even in a low-fat context. Back then, I did not eat sugar but rather starches: typical Greek and Mediterranean foods with lots of pasta-like dishes and potatoes. My metabolic markers followed a consistent pattern: 1. Every morning after an overnight fast, my ketone levels were around 0.4. 2. During the day, my fasting blood glucose would drop below 80. 3. Once it hit 75 or 76, I reached my “empty state” and started to get really hungry. 4. At that point, my ketone levels were around 0.8 to 1 mmol.. These figures are not comparable to the high ketone levels seen in studies. I don’t think living like this is detrimental, but I would never do time-restricted eating in a carnivore or keto context, where you don’t replenish carbohydrates or do not reactivate your thyroid after a longer fasting break. Time-restricted eating is a very useful tool if applied correctly, but I would not recommend doing it perpetually. Unless you are as crazy as I was and able to eat 4,000 calories in a 2- to 4-hour window, you will automatically fall into a caloric deficit. I still think that it might even be a matter of what you get used to. I remember back then, I did all my blood markers. Despite fasting for 16 to 18 hours—and due to refueling massively—my cortisol levels early in the morning were quite low. I did not have high cortisol or high stress markers. However, because I was eating a truckload of calories and carbohydrates, and the protein amount was also very high (around 250 grams every night), the body really had stuff to process for much more than 12 to 14 hours. You cannot really say that you are fasting in that scenario because: 1. You are not in a caloric deficit. 2. You are stuffing yourself with so much food that the body needs much more than 12 hours to process all the amino acids. 3. It takes that long to essentially give you real, honest hunger signaling again through low blood sugar levels. Training was always fasted, and to be honest, that was the time where I really looked the best. I might have looked a little bit deflated during the daytime when going for a run, biking, or training without eating anything, but then in the evening I would do a glycogen reload. It was essentially pumping myself up and then deflating again. That was the leanest I ever was at the highest caloric intake I ever had for a prolonged time, so time-restricted eating definitely works. I might even go back to that combined with a very high caloric and high carb intake. It's worth a try. I did that at the beginning of 2025 and really dropped a lot of body fat in a matter of 10 or 11 weeks by doing time-restricted eating combined with a pretty high caloric deficit. This works like a charm; it works even faster than what you are doing right now.

@grok @roshkd11 @patientinvestor @grok Give realistic price targets 12, 24 and 36 months from now for $kspi

@roshkd11 @patientinvestor If my life depended on it, I'd pick $KSPI. 80% ROIC at 5x earnings is the clearest asymmetric bet here—dominant fintech in a high-growth emerging market with massive cash generation. The others are solid, but none match this combo of quality and cheapness.

Stocks with 20%+ ROIC trading below 20x earnings: 1. Constellation Software $CSU: ROIC: 20% PE: 16x 2. Lululemon $LULU: ROIC: 38% PE: 15x 3. Match Group $MTCH: ROIC: 22% PE: 8x 4. Kaspi $KSPI: ROIC: 80% PE: 5x 5. ADP $ADP: ROIC: 50% PE: 18x