Our vids have show that @80Level is literally sponsored by Epic Games & promotes UE shills to damage control for UE5.
Our 19th video will be severely crushing for anyone who STILL defends unreal engine 5.
Your support for Threat Interactive got EG's CEO to admit to a problem.
Make his finest asset yours
Follow & Repost with #XboxCheekyControllerSweepstakes for a chance to win a custom Xbox Series X console & 2 Cheeky Controllers designed by Deadpool.
Ages 18+. Ends 8/11/24. Rules: https://t.co/MI0oKWl1Xf
@Marvel Studios' Deadpool and Wolverine, in theaters July 26
If you're tired of social media apps/sites selling your data, pushing sh**ty scam ads on your feed, and wasting your precious time...
It's time to take a look at NOSTR 👀👇
Here's 2 quick reasons why we should have zero-trust in the NYTimes article on Bitcoin.
First have a look at the table they compiled on the top 6 miners (the full table is much longer)
I have the actual data from these miners (and the others in their table) compiled over an 8 month period.
The NYTimes article overstates actual fossil fuel use by the following levels - using special accounting rules reserved only for Bitcoin miners it would seem to justify the overstatement:
Riot: overstated by 82.5%
Atlas: overstated by 32.8%
Cipher Mining: overstated by 74.9%
US Bitcoin Corp: overstated by 74.9%
Rhodium: overstated by 89.9%
Bitdeer overstated by 82.5%
The emissions levels are also overstated on average by 81.7%
Also, ample evidence of cherrypicking to support their thesis by NYTimes.
for example:
There are now 26 Miners in US&Canada using 90%+ sustainable energy (and growing rapidly). They are:
DPO, Terawulf, Bitfarms, Gryphon Mining, Soluna, Hive, Cleanspark, Iris, DMOBlockchain, Sato, Cowa, Blockfusion, Hut8, Marathon, Cumulus, Ocean Falls + a further 8 using emission-negative mining which I document here https://t.co/26BeWETsUc
Cherry-picking evidence 1: NYTimes only focused on 2 of these 26 miners (Cleanspark and Terawulf)
Cherry-picking evidence 2: Then within these two, they only focused on (you guessed it) their least renewable-energy backed site(s), neglecting the sites that were predominantly renewable-energy based.
This is inception-like cherry-picking: cherry-picking within cherry-picking !
Their omission of data was not accidental
So in summary - we have evidence of significantly overstated real percentages of fossil fuel emissions, and using overwhelmingly incomplete datasets to support a thesis.
The article is full of such transgressions of genuine objective reporting. But I'll stick to these data-transgressions and leave the rest for others to pick apart.
✦ GIVEAWAY ✦
Win an #NFT from the upcoming collection 💫
To enter :
• Like & RT
• Tag an NFT collector
End on December, 12th
Be ready for #TheInfernity ⚔️
New Week, new #StrangeHands#ETHGIVEAWAY Winner will receive 0.3 ETH in 48 hours :)
To Enter:
🤚Like
🤚Follow
🤚Retweet
🤚Tag 3 Friends
🤚🚨Join the Discord! https://t.co/UmAIzT1h6Y
#NFTGiveaway#NFTCommunity