He certainly won't. Some people think that if they go on a plane and it crashes, they will be the only ones who will be saved by taking megadoses of vitamin D and other supplements.

The problem regarding Vitamin D is that you call megadoses to what are optimal doses. Throughout the history of mankind we humans have been very exposed to the sun, until relatively recently, about 100 or 200 years ago. Producing 20 or 30k IU daily simply by exposure to the sun was the norm. Spending your life in the office in front of a computer without sunlight is the exception rather than the norm from a historical point of view. Now it seems like taking a 2K pill even if you don't get sun hardly ever is a mega dose.

It seems to me that it would be to die in your sleep or under anesthesia. On the other hand, combinations of potent drugs would not be bad either, with heroin in the cocktail or something like that. Anyway, you won't get hooked, lol.

Yes, it is the end:

Bitcoin has died 421 times

I am rather a moron denier. That is distorted journalistic garbage. Just like the garbage argument you use that doesn't mention the most important part of what I said.

I don't know why a Bitcoin Ambassador has to fit that definition. You have Michael Saylor for example who has only been in this world for a little over a year and is clearly a Bitcoin Ambassador. He has done more to popularize Bitcoin in one year than many have done in several years, especially in popularizing it among businesses. They don't need to have been around for 10 years.

How scary!

Younger age groups are generally asymptomatic and have a near 0 chance of dying from coronavirus.

That's junk journalism that seeks to scare people. This is what they normally do. They live by causing emocional impact on readers but it has been exacerbated since the coronavirus.


You have commented without reading the news. Although I guess it has happened to all of us at one time or another.

I don't see why there should be a relationship between inflation and social mobility. Or I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly.

 My understanding is that social mobility occurs in open societies with open economies. There someone born into a poor family can end up a multimillionaire and conversely, an imbecile who squanders a multimillionaire inheritance can end up broke and homeless. There are always those who complain that the children of the rich have an advantage, and it is true, but it is a much better system than the caste system of India or the medieval society of the Middle Ages.

As for inflation, it is true what you say, it causes money to be worth less and less and those who have money have to take risks by buying assets, but it is a controlled risk. Those who have great wealth and buy prime real estate assets and blue chips risk less than it might seem at first glance. Someone who does not have as much money but is not poor can do the same but on a small scale. I would say that this type of investor tends to risk more because he doesn't have a large patrimony to protect, and I don't know if that's what you're saying.

However, if we look at the extreme cases of inflation or hyperinflation, as in Venezuela, I see even less social mobility because what happens there is that almost everyone gets poorer except those in power and the few that are left with some money leave the country.

The truth is that, without being a catastrophist, the price drop and the subsequent sideways movement is lasting longer than I would have thought. I would say that this has to start to rebound already in these months and I hope that this year we will pass $100K but you never know.

This is an eternal debate that does not have a clear and unique solution for everyone. On the one hand, lack of money usually causes unhappiness, and going from not having much money to improving the economic situation usually brings happiness. On the other hand, the rich also cry. The point is that money usually helps to be happy but it is far from being the only thing to take into account.

To me that chart only tells half the story. Annual inflation matters, if we believe it, as the CPI does not accurately reflect the effects of currency printing, but even more important is cumulative inflation. An average inflation of 3% causes you to lose half your purchasing power in a few lustrums. Of course, if there are big spikes it is even worse, and the best way to protect yourself is to buy inflation-beating assets, Bitcoin being the one that seems the best, at least in the last 10 years.

For me the one that helps to understand it visually clearer is:

https://mempool.observer/

I would say it is easier to understand if you don't have much technical knowledge.

Money is only a means. It is neither good nor bad in itself. With money you can pay someone to kill someone else or you can contribute to charitable causes. I think the poor man's thinking that money is the root of all evil is a self-defense mechanism: "I'm better off without money, otherwise I'd become evil". Kiyosaki says something like this.

Of course not.

At some points you could say that the price was in a bubble because people invest too early in anticipation of what the asset might become in the future. Something like that happened in the .com bubble and with the price of Bitcoin in 2017 but that is not to say it is an unfounded bubble like the tulip bubble.

I don't think I'm going to be solely responsible for driving the price to the moon. I would say the one who has had the most influence lately is Saylor, but Tudor Jones and others also help with adoption, especially institutional.

As far as I know, in most, if not all, countries in the world, casinos pay taxes. I guess you mean that there are many crypto casinos that operate in a kind of legal limbo and do not pay taxes in countries they should.

In general, taxes are bad for business. If casinos start paying taxes, or paying more, this will also have repercussions on the customer, they will probably give less promotions, or less rakeback, or raise the HE.

Another thing is that it is not ethical or legal that they are not paying taxes and have to pay them.

Precisely the opposite is what I have been explaining, and I see that you, again, simply assert the opposite without providing arguments. Good for you.


Current nutritional guidelines are definitely not a miracle and do cause health issues for lots of people.


It seems to me that you are smarter than these Charles-Tim-like arguments you are making. The latter is a false dichotomy. People can listen to their doctor (or better, consult more than one doctor) and also listen to certain Youtubers who happen to be doctors.

At no time did I say that they can lose weight doing fuck. What I have said is that the argument that you have to eat less and move more to lose weight is a garbage argument based on a flawed model that assumes that all calories are equal, that does not take into account the hormonal reaction of the body when we eat different types of food, that does not take into account that the body reduces basal metabolic expenditure and many other things. However, with ketogenic diets, you don't count calories and eat until you are well satiated and you don't need to move more to lose weight, although exercise should always be part of a healthy lifestyle.

Proudhon never tires of making a fool of himself. I'd like to see his face. Usually these types of people are people who have not bought Bitcoin or who bought Bitcoin at the time and then sold at a loss at the slightest dip in price. To make these kinds of predictions is to wish their past bad decisions are correct.

Inflation as calculated in the CPI is one thing; actual inflation is another. If the official data show 4%, the real inflation is surely much more, which means that they cannot hide it as much as they would like to.

In theory, this is going to flow money into Bitcoin and other assets. It doesn't have to be a today-to-tomorrow thing, but in the next few months for sure.

Ok, so I think we are going to mostly agree on this one. To me, this OP's insistence on bumping the thread every time he finds a case looks also like racism. And it certainly does nothing positive to solve the problem.

I am exposing the ideas of Dr. Bret Scher and Dr. Fung but I could mention many others. You mean they don't know how complicated the human body is? It's the other way around, the classical model that all calories are equal is too simple.


You see, that's why I didn't even read you, because you mix truisms with nonsense and twist the things I say. Just because you can lose weight doing keto without exercise does not mean that exercise is not necessary in a healthy lifestyle.