7,050 dollarballs for one SPX thingy!

Or,

you could buy 0.094 #bitcoin with that instead.

"The average person has one boob and one testicle."

Richard W Hamming

Block reward is #Bitcoin's security budget.

Satoshi's coins is #Bitcoin's hacking budget.

As scientists age, the problem isn’t that their minds slow down, it’s that they’ve invested decades in a particular framework, and accepting genuinely new ideas would mean discarding that investment. So they don’t. They dismiss new approaches, often without realizing they’re doing it, because the new ideas don’t fit the worldview their careers were built on.

This is why we must wait for #Bitcoin to be adopted, suddenly, be the inheritors of science and reason.

Right now most of the wealth in our global economy is stored in advice held by people in this category, boomers, who struggle with new ideas not because they can’t learn, but because accepting them would invalidate the framework their careers were built on.

Read the dead guys.

They have no incentive to fool you.

Don't listen to the ruthless. They will pretend to explain everything, but they will tell you to give up your time and energy for them.

Security costs money.

Law is meaningless without the force to maintain.

You can appeal to moralism all you want, but that simply is not the world we live in. It never was.

#bitcoin

Energy, Narrative, and the Question of Manufactured Scarcity


The people who tell us to use less energy to save the planet are, in practice, destroying supply and demand to reshape populations. Their narrative is suppressed behind the one they feed us through available media. Dystopian alarmism, calibrated to manufacture consent for restriction. This is ideology, much like all power in the world has been propagated over centuries. It is not new. The mechanism is not new.
The people who tell you that energy should become more individually abundant, and that the media narrative is alarmist bs, are producing a better world for humans in their environment. Energy abundance is the single greatest driver of poverty reduction, health, and individual autonomy in recorded history. This is not opinion. This is observable. Cheap energy built the modern world, and restricting it does not save it. It restructures who gets to participate in it.
The distinction matters: the first group operates from ideology dressed as science. The second group operates from epistemology. Critical thinking grounded in established axioms and direct observation of change. But here is where honesty demands precision. Every framework, including energy-abundance optimism, rests on assumptions that can calcify into dogma. The moment you call your own position axiomatic while dismissing the opposition as purely ideological, you risk performing the same closure you set out to critique. Genuine critical thinking holds its own frame open to falsification. That is what separates epistemology from belief.
The real question underneath all of this is whether scarcity is natural or manufactured, and who benefits from each framing. There is a documented gap between what IPCC working group reports actually say and how those findings get translated into public discourse. That gap is not accidental. It serves specific interests. But acknowledging manufactured narrative does not mean all concern is manufactured. Resource constraints, externalities, geopolitical energy dependence. These are real variables, not alarmism. You can be radically pro-abundance and still hold that transition pathways involve trade-offs. The sharpest version of this thesis does both.
More people are moving toward the abundance position, and the trajectory favours it. Globally, energy demand is rising. Most governments are pursuing more supply, not less. The political landscape is messier than two clean camps, but the direction is legible. The prevailing group is not prevailing because it won an argument. It is prevailing because reality is expensive to deny indefinitely.