If you ever need to explain what "cope" means, just link to this video.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Great advice.
If I could give you one success life hack.
And trust me. I literally have a hyperbaric healing chamber in my house. I take life hacks seriously.
If I could give you one tho. It'd be this.
Grab a bunch of epic fantasy books as thick as your head. Replace all your TV and social media time reading them.
Your brain will slowly start to work again. The focus from reading the thick ass wordy books will slowly put it back together.
Sanderson. Abercrombie. Gaimman. Pierce Brown. Great places to start.
Replacing this as your main time wasting hobby will give you absolutely crazy returns when it comes to actually making money. The focus you gain will make you lethal.
Asi9 retweeted
Asmongold calls out the “heretics” pushing “subversive” ideology through Christianity, uses James Talarico as an example
"Ppl psyoped Christians into thinking that being a good Christian is being obedient to ppl that want to subvert u..so many bought in..basically..they take the entire page and they take out one sentence and it’s like, Jesus said u should love ur neighbor..God also said a million things but we're gonna ignore those..loving ur neighbor means u have to give foreigners all of ur stuff"
"A great example is James Talarico..bad actor who uses the Christian faith to push ideology that's subversive to ppl they're preaching to..I think he's (a heretic)"
Hun er tydeligvis ikke meget for dialogkaffe mere, eftersom hun har lukket sit kommentarspor.
Gad vide hvordan hendes bror har det?
Nadja Natalie Isaksen skriver at hendes mor er norsk/italiensk og opvokset i Norge og blev danskgift, men at det bliver hun ikke dansk af.
Det må så betyde, at Nadja heller ikke er dansk.
Eller hvad mener du @larsmathiasen #dkpol
Asi9 retweeted
Irrelevant. Du påstod hun var ETNISK dansk, og det er decideret forkert i forhold til den gældende definition på begrebet “etnisk”. Du har ikke formået at godtgøre hvorfor din (forkerte) brug udenfor definitionen skulle være korrekt, endsige tilnærmelsesvist brugbar.
Du har forsøgt alle strategier nu: forvrænge definitionen, sammenblande begreberne, appelere til skurke, afspore, cherry-picke, citere udenfor kontekst, tilskrive Grundtvig holdninger han ikke havde, og flytte målstolperne ved at forsøge at skifte emne.
Hvor mange flere måder ønsker du at tabe debatten på?
This is the people who are hating on $ICP btw.
Someone (who might not even be a real person) who has their LLM write a wall of text because they can't win a discussion themselves.
The Real Problem: You’re Comparing Apples to Server Farms
1. “TPS” means something completely different on each chain
ICP counts every canister call as a transaction — including internal smart contract-to-contract calls, background processes, and inter-canister messages. On Ethereum or Cardano, none of that would ever be counted as a “transaction.” On ADA, a transaction = one signed, on-chain settlement operation. This isn’t a speed comparison, it’s a category error.
2. ICP’s TPS is aggregated across parallel subnets
ICP is not a single chain. It runs on dozens of independent subnets operating in parallel. There is no theoretical TPS ceiling for ICP — it scales directly with the number of nodes. Meaning: the 209,708 TPS figure is achieved simply by adding more subnets. That’s horizontally scaled cloud computing, not a single fast blockchain. You might as well compare AWS to Cardano.
3. “0 Second Finality” is marketing, not physics
ICP has a block time of 0.48 seconds. Zero seconds don’t exist. What’s actually meant: ICP uses Threshold-BLS signatures (Chain Key), achieving finality within one consensus round — roughly 1–2 seconds. That’s genuinely excellent, but “0 seconds” is a lie by omission.
4. The fee comparison is structurally dishonest
ICP uses a Reverse Gas Model: developers pay via Cycles, end users pay nothing. The $0.00009 fee applies to raw ICP token transfers only. The ADA fee is what a normal user actually pays. If you want an honest comparison, ICP’s user-facing fee for dApp interactions is $0.00 — which is simultaneously better and worse than how it’s being presented here.
5. Showing ADA without its roadmap is cherry-picking
Cardano’s Ouroboros Leios upgrade is targeting ~1,000 TPS later in 2026. Cardano’s Layer-2 protocol Hydra has already exceeded 1 million TPS in testing. The post frames ADA as an 18-TPS fossil — without mentioning that L1 scaling is actively in progress.
Bottom Line
The numbers are real. The comparison is propaganda.
This is a classic ICP marketing move: pull Chainspect screenshots, put them side by side without context, and hope nobody asks what “transaction” actually means on each chain — or how ICP’s subnet architecture works. ICP has genuine technical advantages — sub-second finality, horizontal scalability, Reverse Gas. But this comparison undermines all of that by arguing dishonestly. If you want your thesis to be truly bulletproof, you need to explain the architectural differences — not hide them.
