Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

TD! The comeback is complete. Locklan Hewlett throws. Myles Simmons does THIS. 43-36 SAHS Jacket Football. 15 ticks left.

35,622 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Polymarket introduced new fees to kill bots on 15-minute markets. Result? They just eliminated competition for the two apex predators. These wallets did not just survive. They mutated. While the platform tried to "fix" the system, these two made $918,357 in pure profit in one month. On the fees that were supposed to bankrupt them. Someone on Twitter was complaining his stops get blown at the exact same second every time. Said he was up against HFT bots with direct exchange connections. In the comments someone dropped two profiles. Said here are your "manipulators". Just code. $522,439 profit in one month. $65 million volume. First place on crypto leaderboard. This is not a person. This is PurpleThunderBicycleMountain. His profile: The second profile looked like it could not top the first. 0x8dxd. Second place. $395,918 in the same month. But here is what breaks the brain completely. In December 2025 this wallet had $313. Three hundred thirteen dollars. Now his all-time profit exceeds $658,000. The numbers do not lie. $313 turned into a fortune in six weeks. See for yourself: The mechanics are uncomfortably simple. Both trade the same thing. 15-minute crypto markets. Bitcoin up or down. ETH above or below. Every 15 minutes a new contract. Here is the trick. You look at Polymarket and see 50/50 odds. For you this is a fair coin flip. But these two do not look at Polymarket. They look at Binance. When BTC makes a move on the exchange Polymarket does not know yet. Price already moved. Direction already determined. But odds on the platform still show yesterday. The window lasts 30 seconds. Sometimes 90. It is like playing poker against someone with a mirror behind your back. He already sees your cards. You still think you are bluffing. During this time the bot enters at old prices. Buys YES at 25 cents when real probability is already 80%. Or NO at 1.5 cents when the market already crashed. Then the window closes. Odds catch up to reality. Bot gets $1 for every 25 cents. This is not forecasting. This is harvesting from people staring at a stale screen. One trade stands out. ETH dumped on spot. PurpleThunderBicycleMountain loaded NO at 1.5 cents. Kept buying as price rose to 15 cents. Window closed down. Every share paid $1. 785% in fifteen minutes. On one trade. The craziest part is 0x8dxd stats. Win rate 98%. Out of 6,615 trades. Almost perfect. A human cannot trade like this. A human has shaky hands. A human doubts. A human sleeps. The bot does not sleep. The bot does not doubt. The bot just waits for Binance and Polymarket to diverge for 30 seconds. And takes the difference. Their profit curves both grow without a single pullback. No crashes. No nervous breakdowns. Methodical. Mechanical. Relentless. Polymarket introduced fees to stop this. Result? Small bots died. These two took their market share. A 1.5% fee means nothing when your average return is 300%. Here is what kills. Anyone can spend months learning Python. Rent a server near the exchange. Write an algorithm. Test. Debug. Lose money on mistakes. Or just open their profiles and see what they are buying. The blockchain stores everything. Every position. Every timing. Full history in the open. They spend thousands on infrastructure. Write code for months. Optimize milliseconds. Anyone can just watch where they enter. $918,357 in one month between them. First and second place on the leaderboard. This is not theory. This is a working machine. Right now somewhere BTC is making a move. Polymarket still shows old odds. These two are already entering a position. Only one question remains: Will you be the one selling to them at stale prices? Or the one entering alongside them? In 15 minutes a new contract opens. 14 minutes left.

Blaze

61,835 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

88,596 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The clinical term is malignant narcissism. There is a specific kind of man who walks into a room and immediately begins rearranging it. Not the furniture. The people. By minute four, he has forgotten the names of half of them. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the system. The clinical term is malignant narcissism. It sits at the intersection of four things: narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial features, paranoia, and sadism. The sadism part is what people miss. He does not simply lack empathy. He has inverted it. He reads your emotional state with the precision of a surgeon, then uses that information like a scalpel. Maximum discomfort. Minimum legal risk. Otto Kernberg, the psychiatrist who formalized the concept, called it one of the most dangerous personality structures a human being can carry. Not because it is loud. Because it is effective. And because it is almost impossible to name while you are standing inside it. History keeps producing the same man. Robert Maxwell looted his employees’ pension funds while they trusted him completely. Hundreds of millions. He knew the whole time. There is no evidence he experienced this as a problem. Silvio Berlusconi governed Italy like a man who had confused the country with his personal property. Laws bent to fit his legal situation. Courts were hollowed out when they became inconvenient. People who spent time close to him reported the same thing afterward: you left the conversation certain you had agreed to something. You just could not remember what. Charm makes you feel good about yourself. This makes you feel good about him. There is a difference. It takes most people years to locate it. The pattern has a shape. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. It begins with grandiosity so complete it functions as a worldview. Other people exist in one of three categories: instruments, obstacles, or audiences. He is perfectly pleasant to all three, for exactly as long as they remain useful. The moment that changes, so does he. The switch is not gradual. It is a door closing. It continues with a specific relationship to truth. He does not lie the way ordinary people lie, defensively, to avoid consequences. He lies the way a chess player moves pieces. If I can make you accept a false thing, I have demonstrated power over your reality. If you push back, I do not retreat. I escalate. The goal was never the fact. The goal was always the submission. It sustains itself by dismantling anything capable of judgment. Independent courts. A free press. Rival centers of power. These feel to him not like inconveniences but like attacks. The structure that can judge him is the structure that must be broken. This is not calculated. It is reflexive. It is as automatic as flinching. The frightening thing is not that these men exist. The frightening thing is the gap between when the room starts rearranging itself and when anyone names what they are watching. That gap can last years. Decades. Sometimes it outlasts the man entirely, and the next generation inherits the rearranged room and calls it normal. By the time someone says it plainly, the furniture is long gone. And he is already in the next room. Gandalv

Gandalv

23,407 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten