Patrick Cogan

[Mihai Lasca @MihaiLasca]

❗❗ UCRAINA ESTE OFICIAL DUȘMANUL ROMÂNIEI!

Ucraina a încercat și a premeditat detonarea unei drone maritime cu 300 de kg de explozibil la bord, dar Dumnezeu le-a încurcat planul criminal prin blocarea dronei în balizele din portul Constanța.

Astfel drona nu și-a atins ținta în cele două depozite, unul de petrol și celalalt de azotat, care putea arunca în aer mai mult de jumătate din Constanța și portul maritim.

Criminalii ucraineni au monitorizat și au ghidat drona prin video până la locul unde trebuia să se autodetoneze, iar ulterior, toată mass-media infracțională s-ar fi activat la ordin și ar fi pus atentatul terorist în cârca rușilor.

Constanța putea fi în doliu în acest moment iar articolul 5 din tratatul NATO, activat. România se trezea parte beligerantă în conflictul din Ucraina fără să își dea consimțământul.

Servicile secrete au datoria să denunțe atacul criminal comis de Ucraina împotriva țării nostre!

În calitate de fost deputat în Parlamentul României și președinte al partidului PPR Patrioții Poporului Român solicit autorităților române să nu fie complice la actele criminale pregătite Ucraina și să oprim orice sprijin cu această țară ostilă României!

[Le Contemplateur @LeContempIateur]

À gauche : James Hunt, pilote de Formule 1 en 1976.

À droite : Lewis Hamilton, pilote de Formule 1 en 2026.

Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé ?

[François Camé @FrancoisCame]

Une camarade de 3eme vient d'expliquer à l'un de mes jumeaux que "mettre un point à la fin d'un texto, c'est froid et distant"...

Un ami lituanien me dit, de son côté, que les jeunes lui déconseillent fortement de mettre dans ses messages une majuscule en début de phrase, voire de ponctuer son texte. Car : "Quelqu'un qui écrit avec une syntaxe et une ponctuation soignées peut être perçu comme condescendant..."

Et quand j'interroge Grok, pour savoir si c'est une maladie très répandue, cette bestiole m'explique froidement :

- "Écrire tout en minuscules est devenu un marqueur stylistique de relâchement assumé. Cela signale : je ne fais pas d'effort rhétorique, je parle comme je pense ."
Bref, cela signale que je suis cool et sincère...

Génial.
Nous avons donc, en quelques années, régressé de mille deux cents ans. Au moins.

-Au départ, les Grecs et les Romains écrivaient tout en majuscule, sans séparation entre les mots, sans point en fin de phrase. Ce qui rend leurs textes extrêmement pénibles à déchiffrer.
- Ce n'est qu'au IVe siècle après Jésus-Christ que les scribes commencent à inventer les lettres minuscules.
- Au VIIe siècle, les moines irlandais copiant des textes latins commencent à introduire systématiquement des espaces entre les mots.
- Au VIIIe siècle, Charlemagne, lui, instaure la majuscule en début de phrase, le reste étant en minuscules (ce qui permettait de placer plus de texte dans une seule page, donc d'économiser du parchemin, ce matériau étant extrêmement cher)
- Au XIIe siècle, les Universités inventent ensuite le paragraphe, qui permet de donner un peu de respiration à un texte.
- Et ce n'est qu'à la fin du XVe siècle que le génial Alde Manuce, imprimeur et humaniste vénitien, invente la virgule et le point-virgule dans ses éditions des grands textes antiques (c'est aussi lui qui crée l'italique : trop fort🙂).

Bref, du Ve av. J.-C. au XVe siècle ap. J.-C. : il a fallu 20 siècles pour rendre nos textes lisibles.

Mais aujourd'hui, des zoulous de la "Gen. Z" ont décidé que tout ceci était "froid et condescendant".

Le raisonnement est délicieux : les points en fin de phrase, la majuscule en début... font perdre un peu de temps, quand on pianote sur un écran.
Certes, cela rend les messages bien plus lisibles, pour celui à qui le message s'adresse; mais cela demande à celui qui le rédige un petit effort supplémentaire.
Et ça, c'est pas cool.

Résultat : si je refuse de faire un effort pour les autres, et que je les oblige à en faire un... je ne suis pas une grosse feignasse égocentrique.
Non : je manifeste, tout au contraire, combien je suis cool et sympa.

Question de génération, surement.
Ok boomer, tout ça, tout ça...

Mais j'avoue, pour ma part, que je trouve ce genre de philosophie un zest paradoxal.
Voire un peu agaçant.🙂

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@greasyactivist @Helios_Movement Same here

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Activist: "Methane is eighty times worse than CO2. Your cows are a disaster."

Farmer: "Eighty times over how long?"

Activist: "However long. Eighty times worse, end of."

Farmer: "Eighty is the twenty-year figure. Over a hundred it's thirty, because the stuff is mostly gone in twelve. You've quoted a number for a gas that doesn't last long enough to earn it."

Activist: "It's still up there heating things."

Farmer: "Then it breaks back into the CO2 the grass pulled out last spring. A stable herd refills the same puddle it empties. Your exhaust digs a fresh hole every mile and fills in none."

Activist: "So you admit it's potent."

Farmer: "Potent and gone, like a firework. Fossil carbon is quiet and forever, like a debt. You scream at the firework and wave the debt straight through."

Activist: "..."

Farmer: "You picked the loudest number with the shortest fuse to attack the one carbon that cleans up after itself. Burp and all, she's nearer neutral than your boiler will ever get."

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@sam_gzstrength I'd argue it targets the weakest in the link, leading to greater functional strength, which is the whole point. If you are just interested in go faster muscle hypotrophy over functional strength you might have a point, but for me strength wins, always.

[Chay Bowes @BowesChay]

Ukrainian drone killed five Azerbaijani sailors on a ship in the Azov Sea.

You won't see anyone from the EU screaming and demanding justice for Azerbaijan.

They are complicit in the murder of those sailors.

[healthbot @thehealthb0t]

The secret to living to 100?
HIGH CHOLESTEROL

A massive Swedish study tracking over 800,000 people for 35 years just revealed: Every single centenarian had HIGH total cholesterol. The higher your LDL, the longer you live.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

The power of these subwoofers

[📹 Jon Rabe / skyhighcaraudio]

[⚽️ Kyle Sheldon @kylesheldon]

Is this the best World Cup team photo of all time?

Bravo, Norway 🇳🇴⚔️

[Electroverse @Electroversenet]

The Guardian claims ocean warming is causing a staggering collapse in marine life, but the study it cites actually shows the opposite.

When a year is warmer, fish biomass is found to increase by as much as 24%. When years turn colder, biomass falls by around 15%.

That is the observed data.

To preserve the climate narrative, however, the authors then abandon real year-to-year results and switch to a modeled decadal trend.

The model assigns warming a negative effect and reports a decline. That decline is not observed, it is modeled.

The authors go on to admit they cannot separate temperature effects from overfishing, which is the primary, well-known driver of fish declines worldwide.

Since fishing pressure is not included, the model loads losses onto temperature by default. Even though, as per the study's own data, warmer years mean more fish.

The collapse exists only in the model.

[Gerhard Lenz @GerhardLenz]

»Eine neue Studie der Technischen Universität Athen stellt die Klimawissenschaft auf den Kopf. Sie zeigt: In den letzten 40 Jahren hat sich die isotopische Signatur des atmosphärischen CO2 nicht verändert – menschliche Emissionen sind schlicht nicht erkennbar. Damit wird die Grundannahme der UNO und des IPCC, wonach fossile Brennstoffe die Hauptursache des Klimawandels seien, fundamental infrage gestellt.

Seit Jahrzehnten predigen die Hohepriester des Weltklimarats (IPCC), dass die Menschheit durch ihre fossilen Emissionen das Klima der Erde ins Wanken bringe. Das Mantra lautet: Mehr CO2 in der Luft, mehr Hitze auf dem Planeten, mehr Katastrophen vor unserer Haustür. Doch eine neue Studie aus Griechenland zerschmettert dieses Glaubensgebäude – und das mit nüchternen, überprüfbaren Daten. Demnach hat sich die isotopische Signatur des atmosphärischen CO₂ in den letzten 40 Jahren nicht im Geringsten verändert. Mit anderen Worten: Es gibt keine Spur fossiler Brennstoffe in unserer Luft. Der Mensch ist im atmosphärischen Kohlenstoffkreislauf schlicht nicht erkennbar.« 👇🏻

Mehr dazu: https://t.co/BjzV55EPrm

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

"Livestock use 83% of the world's farmland and give back just 18% of our calories."

There it is. The killer stat, lifted off the infographic, courtesy of Poore and Nemecek's enormous 2018 study in Science: nearly 38,700 farms across 119 countries. Damning. Wildly inefficient. Somebody fetch the cow a P45.

One small question before sentencing. Where is that 83% of land?

It's grass. Worldwide, around two-thirds of all farmland isn't cropland at all; it's pasture and rough grazing. Fell, moor, steppe, marsh, scrub.

Marginal land, to use the term of art. Too steep, thin, wet, or cold to grow a single thing a human can chew.

In Britain, about 65% of farmland is good for grass and little else. You are welcome to plant lentils on a Cumbrian hillside. You will then watch them sit there, baffled, and die.

What that land does grow is cellulose, the most abundant biomass on Earth and a substance your gut regards as scaffolding. You cannot eat it. Nor can any pig, chicken, or vegan.

A ruminant can. That is the entire trick. She walks across the inedible two-thirds of the world's farmland and turns it into milk and meat.

So the cow isn't squatting on prime arable while the nation starves; she's working the land that grows precisely one crop, grass, which she eats, which is the whole point of her.

Calling that inefficient is like calling a fishing boat inefficient for its poor performance on the motorway.

Then there's the calorie sleight of hand, which is somehow the dafter half.

Yes, beef is a modest share of calories. So is a glass of cooking oil. You can get calories from a spoon of sugar. Calories are the easy part.

The hard part is everything else the steak is carrying. On DIAAS, the actual measure of protein quality, beef scores about 1.0 to 1.1, with milk and eggs a shade higher.

Wheat limps in around 0.45. Almonds manage 0.40. The FAO won't let a protein scoring under 0.75 make a quality claim at all, which quietly disqualifies most of the plant kingdom.

Then there's B12, of which plants contain essentially none, plus heme iron and zinc in a form your body can actually be bothered to absorb.

Ranking food by raw calories and declaring the steak a failure is like ranking a library by how well the books burn.

By that measure, petrol is the finest meal in Britain.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

The chances of a deer taking you out at a crosswalk are slim. But never zero.

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@a_fiszer @SamaHoole Continue to believe your beliefs, they are not supported by the science or the data, and I don't care. I've made my point well enough for any objective person to easily check the truth themselves, so no point continuing this discussion with you.

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@a_fiszer @SamaHoole No, it's not an adaption, you've already admitted that the brain has an innate ability to use ketones, thus it doesn't need to "adapt". If ketone become present, e.g. eat mct oil, they are used immediately, no "adaption" needed.

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@a_fiszer @SamaHoole No, but when there IS both ketone and glucose available AND the brain preferentially uses ketones and NOT glucose, as has been experimentally shown to be the case many times, it does mean that the brain prefers ketones.
You may choose to deny this fact, but it is still a fact.

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@a_fiszer @SamaHoole The brain does not need to adapt, if there are both ketones and glucose available, it will preferentially use ketones, not glucose. A baby's brain in utero and in the first few months of life uses predominantly ketones, not glucose, its ketone utilisation is inherent, not learned

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@a_fiszer @SamaHoole I don't think you know basic biochemistry. There will ALWAYS be glucose available for the small areas of the brain that do need glucose, no matter how deep in ketosis one is. Homeostasis will ALWAYS maintain a normal blood glucose level. Most parts do prefer ketones when adapted

[Patrick Cogan @patrickrcogan]

@carsonight @SamaHoole If you can't just cut out sugar, then yes.