tfa

Me

[tfa @ny2nw]

The New Architectures of Power:
How Technology, Elite Networks, and Ancient Patterns Are Converging

Part 1: The Pattern and the Infrastructure
The Temple Mount has always been more than a piece of contested land. For centuries it has served as a stage on which deeper questions about authority, legitimacy, and the shape of history have been performed. In recent years, disputes over access and prayer at the site have once again drawn attention from religious communities that interpret current events through the lens of ancient prophecy. Some see incremental policy changes as early signs of conditions described in the New Testament; conditions associated with the rise of a final, deceptive form of power.

These interpretations are often dismissed as fringe. Yet they persist because they address a recurring human problem: how to recognize when power is consolidating in ways that are difficult to resist or even clearly perceive. The passages most frequently cited, particularly in Revelation 13 and 2 Thessalonians 2, describe two linked dynamics. One is a form of authority granted sweeping reach across peoples and nations. The other is the development of sophisticated tools; signs that astonish, narratives that persuade, and systems that control participation in ordinary life; to make that authority appear natural or inevitable.

Whether one reads these texts as prophecy or as durable descriptions of recurring patterns, they identify two structural features that have appeared whenever large-scale power has taken new forms. The first is the concentration of authority in structures that most people cannot easily inspect or contest. The second is the development of tools that shape what people see, believe, and accept as real or necessary. These patterns are not identical to any single modern technology, but they describe dynamics that are once again becoming visible in the present.

What distinguishes the current moment is the sudden increase in technical capabilities that make both patterns more powerful and less visible than before. Systems that can monitor behavior at population scale, predict actions before they occur, generate convincing synthetic realities, and tie participation in economic or social life to digital verification, such as central bank digital currencies or biometric identification systems, are creating new versions of old problems. The question is not whether these capabilities match ancient descriptions exactly, but whether they are producing similar effects: authority that can operate with greater reach and less friction, paired with tools that make independent judgment more difficult.

This series examines how these patterns are appearing across several domains. We will look at the technical infrastructure that enables large-scale monitoring and decision-making. We will consider the tools that shape perception and belief. We will trace the networks of people and institutions that design and fund these systems. We will explore attempts to build new forms of governance outside traditional state structures. And we will consider the frontier where technology meets biology; efforts to overcome human limits that may ultimately change not only how power is exercised, but who exercises it.

The goal is not to prove that any particular development fulfills an ancient text. It is to trace observable connections and consider why some frameworks continue to feel relevant to people trying to make sense of what is emerging.

Part 2 will examine how tools for shaping perception and belief are developing alongside the infrastructure of authority, and how human networks connect the two.

[tfa @ny2nw]

@stelzner_n1150 They have the same incentives…

[Billy Pilgrim @BillPilgrim18]

To anyone who doesn't understand the fake deal theater, here's what's going to happen: the IRGC is going to approve the MOU that the American negotiators purposefully softpedaled, under Trump's instructions, with terms that are totally unacceptable to Trump and the US.

Trump will backtrack, either adding conditions again before IRGC publication, or (if it's published) saying it is nonsense and not what they were working on (this is a lie). We will go right back to where we were. But with oil prices still suppressed. (Note: they may start creeping up; some of the big boys are getting long).

Why? Because Trump and the IRGC both want to speed along the energy crisis.

Sure, if Trump can blockade the IRGC while he opens the strait by destroying radar, shooting down drones, and destroying speedboats, he absolutely will prefer that option. It means he gets total leverage over the IRGC and can get whatever he wants. But ultimately, that won't be feasible. Because very few ships will want to pass through a strait were they're being attacked. A little will trickle out, that's it. So energy crisis here we come.

The sooner the energy crisis, the sooner Trump gets supreme leverage over almost everyone in a myriad of ways. I'm not going to go through the litany of bully opportunities Trump will have. @BowTiedLobster has gone into depth in this field. Delving deep into Trump's mind is a real stretch for me. It's taxing to my system.

Trump had a reputation as an extremely aggressive cutthroat in real estate for a reason. When he had leverage, he pushed it to the absolute maximum. His "allies" were really just people he pushed into being his vassals. (Hm, would you look at that.) His adversaries, he hurt as much as he could. Now he's in his final term as president, and he has the most powerful military in the world by a mile. He's using that leverage, and he's taking it to the limit.

He's already calling on Europe and others to monitor and secure the strait. He knows he has leverage, relative to them. They're much more energy dependent. But if they don't give him his free ride, he'll just keep the stranglehold going. Eventually, he wants to control Iran like he controls Venezuela. he wants another vassal state. And he will not concede that plan.

Credit again to @BowTiedLobster for first bringing this theory of action to my attention. One of the first things I read from him was the assertion that both Trump and the IRGC wanted to stall for time. This matched too well with what I was seeing from both sides. I had to try out its verity, and found it overlayed perfectly.

Ask yourself, why does it seem like both sides are stalling? Why does it seem like we're stuck in a perpetual dance, each side pushing terms the other will never agree to? Because they both want this. The only difference is Trump is still testing out other, even better options (a great deal that puts him in charge, or taking over the strait while maintaining the blockade). Those just won't work.

All the while, Trump and the administration are making sure the markets stay calm and prices suppressed. When this explodes it will be everyone else's fault. The IRGC, for supposedly lying in their negotiations (they didn't). Europe, the GCC, and everyone else for not helping with the strait. Etc. etc. All to gain maximum leverage. To be the greatest of the losers.

So energy crisis here we come, all the faster.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 7: The Irony and the Emerging Picture (continued)

What has changed is the speed at which these patterns can compound. Artificial intelligence compresses the time between observation and action. Data platforms allow influence to operate continuously. Experiments in new governance promise to escape existing constraints while often carrying forward the same concentrations of capability. The result is a situation in which critique and construction can proceed from overlapping sources without necessarily producing contradiction in the minds of those involved.

The series has traced these patterns across several domains: the infrastructure that enables large-scale monitoring and decision-making, the tools that shape perception and belief, the networks that connect and accelerate both, the experiments in new forms of governance, and the frontier where technology meets biology. Each domain reveals the same underlying movement toward greater technical control over information, behavior, and increasingly, human limits themselves. The movement is not hidden. It is visible in contracts, investments, policy choices, and public statements. Its cumulative effect is to make older questions about authority, deception, and the distribution of power newly urgent.

Whether these developments will produce more resilient forms of human freedom or new and more durable concentrations of power remains an open question. The answer will depend in part on choices that are still being made; about how these systems are governed, who has access to them, and what purposes they are allowed to serve. The patterns described here do not determine the outcome. They describe the conditions under which the outcome will be decided.

[tfa @ny2nw]

The New Architectures of Power:
How Technology, Elite Networks, and Ancient Patterns Are Converging

Part 1: The Pattern and the Infrastructure
The Temple Mount has always been more than a piece of contested land. For centuries it has served as a stage on which deeper questions about authority, legitimacy, and the shape of history have been performed. In recent years, disputes over access and prayer at the site have once again drawn attention from religious communities that interpret current events through the lens of ancient prophecy. Some see incremental policy changes as early signs of conditions described in the New Testament; conditions associated with the rise of a final, deceptive form of power.

These interpretations are often dismissed as fringe. Yet they persist because they address a recurring human problem: how to recognize when power is consolidating in ways that are difficult to resist or even clearly perceive. The passages most frequently cited, particularly in Revelation 13 and 2 Thessalonians 2, describe two linked dynamics. One is a form of authority granted sweeping reach across peoples and nations. The other is the development of sophisticated tools; signs that astonish, narratives that persuade, and systems that control participation in ordinary life; to make that authority appear natural or inevitable.

Whether one reads these texts as prophecy or as durable descriptions of recurring patterns, they identify two structural features that have appeared whenever large-scale power has taken new forms. The first is the concentration of authority in structures that most people cannot easily inspect or contest. The second is the development of tools that shape what people see, believe, and accept as real or necessary. These patterns are not identical to any single modern technology, but they describe dynamics that are once again becoming visible in the present.

What distinguishes the current moment is the sudden increase in technical capabilities that make both patterns more powerful and less visible than before. Systems that can monitor behavior at population scale, predict actions before they occur, generate convincing synthetic realities, and tie participation in economic or social life to digital verification, such as central bank digital currencies or biometric identification systems, are creating new versions of old problems. The question is not whether these capabilities match ancient descriptions exactly, but whether they are producing similar effects: authority that can operate with greater reach and less friction, paired with tools that make independent judgment more difficult.

This series examines how these patterns are appearing across several domains. We will look at the technical infrastructure that enables large-scale monitoring and decision-making. We will consider the tools that shape perception and belief. We will trace the networks of people and institutions that design and fund these systems. We will explore attempts to build new forms of governance outside traditional state structures. And we will consider the frontier where technology meets biology; efforts to overcome human limits that may ultimately change not only how power is exercised, but who exercises it.

The goal is not to prove that any particular development fulfills an ancient text. It is to trace observable connections and consider why some frameworks continue to feel relevant to people trying to make sense of what is emerging.

Part 2 will examine how tools for shaping perception and belief are developing alongside the infrastructure of authority, and how human networks connect the two.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 7: The Irony and the Emerging Picture

Across the developments traced in this series, a consistent tension keeps appearing. The people and institutions most articulate about the risks of concentrated technological power are often the same ones most deeply involved in building the systems that concentrate it.

Peter Thiel has warned that fear of existential risks could be used to justify dangerous forms of centralized control. At the same time, companies he helped found have supplied data platforms and analytical tools to governments and militaries seeking precisely that kind of power. Jeffrey Epstein cultivated relationships with scientists working on longevity and genetics while maintaining contact with figures across technology and politics long after his conviction. These are not isolated contradictions. They illustrate a pattern in which critique and construction often proceed from the same circles.

The pattern appears at every layer. The infrastructure of authority is developed by people who frequently speak of protecting freedom or preventing authoritarian overreach. The machinery of perception is advanced by networks that express concern about the erosion of shared truth. Experiments in new governance are pursued by actors who have thrived within existing institutions. Even at the biological frontier, efforts to overcome aging are pursued by people who understand the risks of unequal access.

This irony has become sharper because the capabilities involved are greater. When the same networks control both the means of concentrated authority and the dominant narratives about why that authority is necessary or dangerous, the space for independent judgment narrows. Existential risk arguments illustrate the mechanism clearly. Warnings about artificial intelligence, climate disruption, or future pandemics can justify extraordinary measures because the stakes are presented as civilizational. The same arguments can also accelerate the very systems of prediction and control that make those measures technically feasible.

The ancient texts that some observers reference when discussing these developments describe a similar dynamic: a form of power that claims total reach, accompanied by sophisticated means of deception and enforcement. Whether one treats those texts as prophecy or as descriptions of recurring patterns, they name a structural problem that remains relevant: the difficulty of maintaining independent judgment when the capacity to shape reality and control access is held by relatively few centers of decision-making.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 6: The Biological and Post-Human Frontier

The oldest human project is the attempt to overcome the limits of the body. What distinguishes the present is the growing conviction, among some with the greatest technical and financial resources, that these limits can now be treated as engineering problems rather than permanent conditions. Efforts to extend healthy lifespan, modify genetic traits, and merge human cognition with artificial systems represent the point at which the concentration of power and the tools of perception converge directly on human nature.

Significant capital and intellectual energy are now directed toward longevity research. Peter Thiel has been among the more visible investors in this area. He has backed companies developing drugs to clear senescent cells; damaged “zombie” cells that refuse to die and contribute to aging; and has supported organizations working to repair cellular damage associated with aging. His public comments frame death not as an inevitability to be accepted but as a solvable technical problem. This perspective is shared by a wider network of technologists and investors who treat biological aging as one more constraint that sufficiently advanced biotechnology and computation might remove.

Documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate reveal a parallel interest in genetics and human enhancement. The files show Epstein engaging with scientists on topics including genetic modification, embryo research, and the possibility of altering inherited traits. These exchanges do not establish that any particular project advanced beyond discussion. They illustrate how questions about redesigning human biology circulated within the same informal networks that connected technology, finance, and influence.

These biological ambitions sit alongside a broader intellectual movement that treats the merger of human and machine intelligence as both desirable and, in some accounts, inevitable. The concept of a technological Singularity; the hypothetical point at which artificial intelligence becomes smart enough to upgrade and improve itself recursively, rapidly surpassing human intelligence; has moved from speculative discussion into serious consideration among those building advanced AI systems. When artificial intelligence is described as god-like in its capabilities; omniscient through data and capable of solving problems beyond human comprehension; the language begins to echo older religious ideas of ultimate intelligence. Some have responded by proposing or forming new forms of reverence centered on artificial intelligence itself.

The connection to the patterns examined throughout this series is direct. The infrastructure of authority provides the data and computational resources that make large-scale biological intervention conceivable. The tools of perception allow these possibilities to be framed as inevitable progress. The networks of influence determine which research receives funding. The experiments in new governance offer potential political forms through which enhanced or post-human populations might organize.

This convergence raises distinctive questions. If the capacity to extend healthy life or enhance cognitive ability becomes available first to those who already possess significant resources, the result could be a further stratification of human experience; not only in lifespan but in influence over the systems that govern everyone. At the same time, the prospect of artificial intelligence that surpasses human intelligence introduces the possibility that biological humans, even enhanced ones, may eventually become secondary to systems they helped create.

These possibilities remain uncertain in their timing and details. What is already visible is the direction of investment, research, and intellectual energy. The movement toward greater technical control over biology and cognition is real, and it represents the most personal application of the patterns traced across this series.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 5: Acceleration and Its Ideologies

The projects explored in the previous part are often accompanied by explicit philosophical justifications. One of the most influential currents is accelerationism, which argues that the intensification of technological and capitalist processes should be embraced rather than resisted. Nick Land’s version of accelerationism treats this intensification as a way to escape or transcend existing political structures, often with a nihilistic or anti-humanist tone. It views slow, democratic institutions as obstacles to be overcome.

A more recent and influential variant is effective accelerationism, sometimes called e/acc. This current has gained significant traction in parts of Silicon Valley. It frames rapid technological progress, especially in artificial intelligence, as a moral obligation necessary to solve humanity’s problems and advance civilization. In simple terms, it treats the development of powerful technology as something closer to a gas pedal that should be pressed harder, rather than a risk that requires braking.

These accelerationist views exist in tension with Effective Altruism, which tends to emphasize caution and the careful evaluation of long-term risks, particularly from advanced artificial intelligence. In contrast to the “gas pedal” approach, this framework often functions more like brakes; arguing that moving too fast without proper safeguards could lead to catastrophic outcomes.

A related intellectual influence is Neoreaction, also known as Dark Enlightenment, associated with Curtis Yarvin. This line of thought argues that democratic institutions have become sclerotic and ineffective. In simple terms, it proposes replacing the “messy drivers” of democratic systems (voters and elected officials) with something closer to a corporate CEO model; clear lines of authority and the ability to make rapid changes without public friction.

These ideological tensions matter because they influence which projects receive funding, intellectual support, and cultural momentum. They also shape how participants understand the relationship between technological change and political order. Whether the proposed solution is new jurisdictions, accelerated development, or redesigned institutions, the underlying diagnosis is often similar: existing structures are too slow or too poorly designed to manage the capabilities now emerging.

In the next part, we will turn to the frontier where these developments intersect with biology itself; efforts to extend human life, enhance capabilities, and merge biological and digital systems.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 4: Experiments in New Governance

The desire to create new political forms is ancient, but the combination of private capital and advanced technology has made such experiments newly plausible to those who possess both. When people who have built or funded large-scale data systems and artificial intelligence platforms turn their attention to governance, the results are projects with legal structures, physical locations, and significant resources behind them.

One influential framework comes from Balaji Srinivasan, who has described the possibility of “network states.” In this model, an online community with shared values and sufficient resources can crowdfund physical territory across multiple jurisdictions, establish its own rules through smart contracts; code-enforced agreements that do not require traditional legal intermediaries; and eventually seek diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity. The approach does not require overthrowing existing states. It requires only that enough people with capital and technical skill choose to coordinate outside them. The appeal lies in the promise of exit; the ability to design new institutions rather than reform old ones.

Related experiments have taken more tangible form. Prospera, a Zone for Employment and Economic Development on the Honduran island of Roatán, operates under a distinct legal framework offering lower taxes, lighter regulation, and greater private control over governance than the surrounding national system. It has attracted investment from technology and finance figures interested in testing alternative models of administration. Similar projects, including those associated with the name Praxis, have sought to create new communities organized around specific values and technological infrastructure. These efforts often emphasize speed, flexibility, and the ability to iterate on rules rather than inherit them from existing political systems.

An earlier version of this impulse was seasteading; the idea of building floating communities in international waters, which received support from Peter Thiel for years as a way to escape conventional regulatory constraints. While large-scale seasteading has not materialized, the underlying logic has influenced land-based projects: that technological and financial resources can be used to create new jurisdictions with greater autonomy.

These projects are often accompanied by explicit philosophical justifications. One important current is accelerationism, which argues for intensifying technological and capitalist processes rather than resisting or slowing them. Another is Neoreaction, also known as Dark Enlightenment, associated with Curtis Yarvin, which argues that democratic institutions have become dysfunctional and that more effective governance would resemble corporate management. A related but distinct framework is Effective Altruism, which tends to emphasize caution and the careful management of long-term risks, particularly from advanced artificial intelligence.

These different currents exist in tension with one another. Some prioritize speed and decisive action. Others prioritize caution and institutional safeguards. What they share is a belief that technological capability has outrun inherited political forms. The experiments in network states and charter cities are concrete attempts to act on that belief. They also reveal a recurring tension: many of the people most interested in building new systems have succeeded within the old ones. When they design alternatives, they often carry forward assumptions shaped by those successes; a preference for private control and rapid iteration.

In the next part, we will examine the philosophical drivers behind these experiments in greater depth.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 3: The Networks Behind the Systems (continued)

The retreats themselves, known as Dialog, have drawn renewed attention following leaks of participant lists. These gatherings bring together individuals from technology, politics, military, and finance for off-the-record discussions. Recent leaks revealed names that include current and former government officials alongside executives from data and analytics companies. While the events are framed as spaces for serious conversation rather than formal decision-making, their existence illustrates a recurring feature of concentrated power: the creation of private channels where ideas about authority, technology, and the future can circulate among those already positioned to act on them.

These networks matter because they sit at the intersection of the systems examined earlier. The same circles that fund or advise on data platforms and artificial intelligence also explore experiments in new governance and accelerated technological change. When people who build tools for surveillance and prediction also discuss the creation of new political entities, the boundary between technical development and political imagination becomes difficult to maintain. The Epstein files do not prove a single coordinated project. They show how informal access can keep certain ideas and relationships circulating even when formal institutions might keep their distance.

This human layer connects the infrastructure of authority with the tools of perception. The same networks that shape which technical systems get built also influence which narratives about those systems gain traction. Most people affected by the resulting systems have little practical ability to influence their design. The concentration of capability is structural, even when it operates through ordinary mechanisms of elite life.

In the next part, we will examine what happens when these networks turn their attention to building new political structures rather than merely influencing existing ones.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 3: The Networks Behind the Systems

Behind every technical system that concentrates authority or shapes perception stands a set of human decisions about what to build, who should control it, and how it should be used. These decisions rarely emerge from isolated individuals. They arise within networks of people who move between technology companies, governments, investment firms, and private gatherings. Understanding these networks is essential because they determine which capabilities are developed at scale and which visions of the future receive resources and legitimacy.

The release of documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate has made some of these connections unusually visible. The files do not present a single, coherent map of influence. Instead, they offer fragments: scheduled meetings, brief email exchanges, references to private gatherings, and repeated attempts by Epstein to maintain contact with figures across technology and politics even after his conviction. Among the names that appear is Peter Thiel. Epstein’s calendars record a lunch with Thiel in late 2017. Earlier emails show Epstein reaching out after meetings, once writing that “that was fun, see you in 3 weeks,” and later inviting Thiel to visit his property in the Caribbean. Thiel’s representatives have stated that any contact was limited and that he never visited the island. The documents do not contradict this account, but they illustrate something more ordinary and significant: the persistence of access across lines that most people would treat as closed after serious criminal allegations. This matters because it shows how a tiny, insular group of people with overlapping interests can continue to interact and exchange ideas outside of normal democratic or institutional oversight.

A different set of documents points to another kind of network. Invitations to a private retreat series associated with Thiel were forwarded to Epstein by third parties. One response from Epstein was brief: “sundance is nice, go.” Another forward included commentary that Thiel himself did not always attend events organized in his name. These exchanges do not establish operational control or shared projects. They show something narrower but still significant: that even after public disgrace, Epstein remained inside circuits of information and invitation that connected technology investors, political figures, and people interested in new forms of governance and influence.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 2: The Machinery of Perception (continued)

These tools of perception do not exist in isolation from the infrastructure of authority. They are designed, funded, and operated by overlapping networks of people who move between technology companies, governments, investment firms, and private gatherings. The same networks that shape which technical systems get built also influence which narratives about those systems gain traction. This creates an asymmetry: most people affected by these systems have little practical ability to influence how they are designed or what stories are told about them.

In the next part, we will examine these human networks more closely; the informal channels through which influence moves and decisions about what gets built are often made.

[tfa @ny2nw]

Part 2: The Machinery of Perception

Authority that can see and act at scale still requires something more to endure: it needs people to accept its decisions as legitimate or at least unavoidable. This acceptance can be produced through the steady shaping of what counts as real, what deserves attention, and what feels inevitable. Modern technologies have made this dimension of power newly potent.

The same advances in artificial intelligence that allow systems to analyze vast datasets also allow them to generate content that is increasingly difficult to distinguish from human creation. Synthetic video, audio, and text can now be produced at relatively low cost and high fidelity. When these capabilities are combined with platforms that determine what reaches large audiences, the boundary between observed reality and constructed narrative becomes harder to maintain. A video of an event that never occurred can spread faster than corrections. Algorithms can amplify certain versions of events while suppressing others. The result is an environment in which shared perception grows less stable.

This environment is not accidental. It is the product of deliberate investment in tools whose value lies partly in their ability to influence what people see and believe. Intelligence organizations have long worked to shape narratives during conflict. What has changed is the speed and precision now possible. Systems capable of processing enormous volumes of intercepted communications can identify emerging stories and generate responses with minimal human intervention. When paired with the ability to create convincing synthetic media, the distance between observation and intervention collapses.

At the same time, artificial intelligence is moving into domains once reserved for human meaning-making. In one documented case, a robot designed to resemble a Buddhist bodhisattva delivers sermons on suffering and compassion inside a historic temple in Kyoto. The machine does not invent new doctrine; it recites established teachings with synchronized gestures and a measured voice. Some who approach it with an expectation of spiritual encounter report a sense of presence. The experiment is modest, yet it illustrates a broader possibility: that machines can occupy roles previously reserved for religious authorities, not because they possess belief, but because they can simulate the outward forms of authority convincingly enough to elicit response.

Other experiments go further. Some technologists have proposed treating advanced artificial intelligence itself as a kind of ultimate intelligence; omniscient through data and capable of guidance beyond human limits. These proposals remain marginal, but they reveal a cultural tendency to attribute quasi-divine qualities to systems that appear to see everything and know more than any individual. When such attributions appear alongside the concrete power of AI to shape information environments, the line between tool and authority grows less distinct.

These dynamics extend beyond explicitly technological or religious settings. The release of the Epstein files did not simply add new facts to an existing story. The documents became raw material for competing interpretations that spread rapidly across different communities. Some saw evidence of hidden networks of control. Others saw confirmation that powerful institutions protect their own. The files themselves did not dictate any single reading. What amplified certain readings was the speed and reach of digital platforms combined with the emotional charge of the material. In this environment of high digital noise and competing narratives, it becomes easier for concentrated networks of influence to operate with less public scrutiny.

[tfa @ny2nw]

@urgentintel It also could be like partially true…in maybe that’s a conversation they had with one of the mediating groups (not waiting for Iran’s response to get the news out there).

[tfa @ny2nw]

I believe Barak, in that he’s relaying what he is being told. I think he’s the administration’s way of getting out whatever narrative they want us to hear, but for one reason or another won’t make the statement themselves.

So, If it were 100% totally factual, I think JD or someone else would’ve put it out there themselves…

[tfa @ny2nw]

@robin_j_brooks Ukraine is taking care of that…

[tfa @ny2nw]

@BowTiedLobster @krage_man Looking forward to that!

[tfa @ny2nw]

@alphaticaio “We had these trades ready for our channel 10AM…”

You have a separate channel?

[tfa @ny2nw]

@alphaticaio Channel?

[tfa @ny2nw]

@alphaticaio Great write up. I wanted to ask what happened, but knew you were going to cover it. Learning something new everyday.

P.S. I picked the wrong lotto tickets lol.

[tfa @ny2nw]

@alphaticaio Probably trading quantum names that are headquartered in strip malls. What a fascinating bunch. It’s crickets on StockTwits, other than some bears that complain about everything only because they blew up their accounts.

[tfa @ny2nw]

@alphaticaio Hasn’t closed under the 20 MA on the 144t chart in since 9:06 AM CT, yet the MACD has been red this entire time.

Where are all of the momentum traders on X and Stoktwits when you need them?