Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
22 minutes ago, LC said:


cubs, this is the best compliment I’ve been paid in a while! You can stay!! 🙂

 

but I know (and hope) you took no personal offense…it’s important to have both sides of the argument. Not only do I appreciate you and your opinions, but also your investment commentary. I’ve made good $$ on Davita due in large part to your commentary- way more important than our conflicting musings about politics!

 

and also- fair play @John Hjorth for calling out something you disagree with! Always better to nip a problem in the bud…I wish our collective politicians did the same!

 

@LC Meant every word. You said years ago over a pitcher of beer we would get along famously.

I feel the same way about @John Hjorth

 

Your job is to keep me honest and humble.

 

I would have zero respect for you if you became a "yes" man. No one here wants an echo chamber.

 

Let's keep it that way.

 

Posted
37 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The fine for X wasn’t about free speech:

What I can say is that the blue checkmark think isn’t about user authentication that much is clear., based on who gets these now.

lol this reads like some overzealous teacher’s report card. These people are clueless 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

The fine for X wasn’t about free speech:

What I can say is that the blue checkmark think isn’t about user authentication that much is clear., based on who gets these now.

The EU had no problem when blue checks were given to Hollywood celebs big and small and a bunch of elites. These folks would never scam anyone would they?

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/europes-foolish-war-on-x-com-11f16e06

 

The EU wants power. Just like Chat Control, they've made up b.s. motives to gain control...

 

Quote

More serious, Brussels insists X must make data about advertising on the platform readily available to outsiders, and shouldn’t use its terms of service to prohibit data scraping by “eligible researchers.” The EU claims this open access to X’s commercial data is vital to allow researchers and “civil society” to spot scams and information warfare.

Quote

That reference to “civil society” is a tell. Brussels wants to force X (and inevitably other platforms) to share data that hostile activists can wield against the platforms in future regulatory actions or litigation. All based on a theory that European citizens are too dumb to take the things they read on X or elsewhere online with a grain of salt.

"Information warfare" is like the "disinformation" Biden administration wanted to regulate...the only problem is it conflicts with the principle of Free Speech. And like the "disinformation" that a certain virus may have leaked from a lab, sometimes the "disinformation" may equal the truth...

 

The money is at the close of the article....Brussels folks have no connection to reality...

 

Quote

There’s growing (although still not widespread) recognition on the Continent that Europe’s long-running mercantilist tax and regulatory war against American tech is suffocating Europe’s economy rather than fostering homegrown digital giants. Did someone forget to tell the mandarins investigating X?

 

Europe can’t afford any of this—not the censorship of Europeans’ own political speech, not the diplomatic battle with Washington, not the war on economically vital data and technology. Earth to Brussels: Are you awake?

 

Edited by Dalal.Holdings
Posted (edited)

Just to be clear, this is how European elites think :

 

(If the CoBF Politics thread existed in Germany, we'd all be in jail 😂)

 

https://p.dw.com/p/54scH

 

Quote

 

More than 4,400 cases of public insults, defamation and slander directed at German politicians were recorded last year, Welt am Sonntag reported.

The newspaper cited statistics from the Federal Criminal Police Office, Germany's national serious crime investigative body.

In 2023, there were significantly fewer violations at 2,598 and 1,404 in 2022, marking a nearly tripling in cases over the past two years.

These are "crimes" they deem worthy of investigation.

 

Quote

Section 188 of the Criminal Code protects politicians from such infringements on their reputation, with violations punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison.

Quote

 

Section 188 was expanded in 2021 to include "insults" alongside defamation and slander when directed at "persons in political life" in a way that could substantially impair their public activities.

 

Politicians in Europe are very sensitive and thin skinned. You'd better not insult them, or you might get fined or thrown in the gulag. This is what Europeans call "Free Speech" and "defending democracy" as they claim they rank highly on Freedom of Speech...

 

 

Ranked by "Reporters Without Borders" a.k.a. elites ranking elites. "We've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"

 

Screenshot2025-12-08at10_36_00AM.thumb.png.64287565fb8862cbb9370e0bf2659f24.png

 

 

Edited by Dalal.Holdings
Posted

^^ I really wonder how our European brothers feel about these laws. It's serious stuff - and we've gotten a taste of this movement here in America, but I do believe it is being snuffed out.

Posted (edited)

Us Americans have perfected the art of insulting politicians, and I am all for it !

 

If insulting Trump on the internet were illegal, millions of people around the world (incl Europeans) would need to report to jail. Maybe we can make an ICC case out of it using the German criminal codes...with the sole purpose of revealing how stupid and anti-democratic such a law is

 

This is why they want the data from X--to enforce such Orwellian laws on their own populace

 

Edited by Dalal.Holdings
Posted

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04vqldn42go

Quote

Barton, 43, was found guilty by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court of sending grossly offensive electronic communications with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

The trial heard he had "crossed the line between free speech and a crime" with six posts on X including comparing Aluko and Ward to serial killers Fred and Rose West, and calling Vine a "bike nonce" between January and March 2024.

 

Happened today. Thank God (and James Madison) we have the 1st Amendment.

 

Posted (edited)

@Cod Liver Oil sent me an interesting podcast on Novonesis and upon listening, not more than 5 minutes in, it gets into guess what? How behind Europe is and how innovation is strangled by regulation. Doing somethings that take months in Brazil or parts of Asia takes almost a decade in Europe. 
 

The crazy part in all of this, is that when these losers are told, or hear things like this, what do you think the response is? If you guessed shame, or a feeling of needing to do better, or reform? You’d be dead wrong. They get prideful and take it as a sign that they’re doing “their jobs”….kinda like the clowns in America who cheers a big business leaving NYC, a developer giving up on building housing in SF, or IDK, a regulator nixing the JetBlue/Spirit merger on the grounds of “people like their cheap flights”…

Edited by Gregmal
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

@Cod Liver Oil sent me an interesting podcast on Novonesis and upon listening, not more than 5 minutes in, it gets into guess what? How behind Europe is and how innovation is strangled by regulation. Doing somethings that take months in Brazil or parts of Asia takes almost a decade in Europe. 
 

The crazy part in all of this, is that when these losers are told, or hear things like this, what do you think the response is? If you guessed shame, or a feeling of needing to do better, or reform? You’d be dead wrong. They get prideful and take it as a sign that they’re doing “their jobs”….kinda like the clowns in America who cheers a big business leaving NYC, a developer giving up on building housing in SF, or IDK, a regulator nixing the JetBlue/Spirit merger on the grounds of “people like their cheap flights”…

 

Greg [ @Gregmal ],

 

Not that long ago, I was asked about Novonesis by @Marco Van Basten, and so I decided I might as well take this occasion to share what I some days later ended up sending to @Marco Van Basten by PM, I needed some days to chewing on what to write, trying to be very careful not sending a signal of real deep knowledge of Novonesis.

 

So, here goes :

 

[16th November 2025]

 

Quote

Hi <deleted, John>,

 

I apologize for the delayed reply about Novonesis here.

 

I have owned it for quite some years now, almost as long as I have owned Novo Nordisk.

 

Its former name was Novozymes, it split from Novo Nordisk in 2000 as a spin-off from Novo Nordisk and was the enzymes business inside Novo Nordisk, it got spun off because it was different than the rest of Novo Nordisk, and a drag to the rest, lower ROIC than the rest, but still a good company in its own right, which deserved to a chance evolve for it self, without the domination from the rest of Novo Nordisk, this was done by initiative of Lars Rebien Sørensen, and I think it was the right thing to do.

 

I think it was last year it was merged with Danish Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, a Danish competitor, partly, which to me made a lot of sense, just like the merger between the two predessor companies forming Novo Nordisk in 1999. The merged company applying the name Novonesis. I think the merger was orchestrated by Novo Holdings.

 

I have owned Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, too, but only for a few years, it ran up a lot, so I sold it. My late elder brother owned Novozynes too, for him a 4 percent position of so, his wife, my sis in law, owned Chr. Hansen Holding A/S, so she now owns the merged positions.

 

Every time I had some money to invest, it always ended getting overshadowed by Novo Nordisk in my case, so it is a small position position today, because I was more interested in other things. But I've never sold any shares. Maybe one day I'll dive into it, and either buy more or sell what we [the Lady of the House and I] have. I have never been asked questions about it from my eldest brother, when he was a live [he passed away early 2022], and my sis in law likewise. <here, meaning : No questions about Novonesis, John>

 

So 10 minutes of your time I'm sure will bring you as long with it as I can by now.

 

All the best,

John

 

Greg  [ @Gregmal ], do you mind sharing the video podcast link mentioned by you above? - Thank you in advance.

 

Edited by John Hjorth
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Again, Thank you, Greg [ @Gregmal ],

 

Here, the corresponding NBIM video on YouTube, which I any day prefer over listening to the podcast, each to their own :

 

YouTube - Norges Bank Investment Management [November 12th 2025] : In good company : Ester Baiget - CEO of Novonesis

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Ohh, my God, yet another highly attractive, fascinating Spanish brunette to screw around with my my brain! 😜, Well at least I don't have a chance anyway, she is happily married, and I realized this last weekend, that I don't know exactly where on the loft my stamp collection, initiated when I had three rural paperroutes back in the late 1960's, early, mid 1970's, is located.

Edited by John Hjorth
Posted
11 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

The EU had no problem when blue checks were given to Hollywood celebs big and small and a bunch of elites. These folks would never scam anyone would they?

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/europes-foolish-war-on-x-com-11f16e06

 

The EU wants power. Just like Chat Control, they've made up b.s. motives to gain control...

 

"Information warfare" is like the "disinformation" Biden administration wanted to regulate...the only problem is it conflicts with the principle of Free Speech. And like the "disinformation" that a certain virus may have leaked from a lab, sometimes the "disinformation" may equal the truth...

 

The money is at the close of the article....Brussels folks have no connection to reality...

 

 

BS. Imposters are getting blue checkmarks amongst other issues. Why can’t X fix this?.

Posted

You pay Twitter for a status symbol(the blue  check), most people know this, no one is forced to participate...and oh yea...what business of the EU is this?

Posted
7 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Us Americans have perfected the art of insulting politicians, and I am all for it !

 

If insulting Trump on the internet were illegal, millions of people around the world (incl Europeans) would need to report to jail. Maybe we can make an ICC case out of it using the German criminal codes...with the sole purpose of revealing how stupid and anti-democratic such a law is

 

This is why they want the data from X--to enforce such Orwellian laws on their own populace

 

Had to look up what a “Bike nonce” is and had to laugh.

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Had to look up what a “Bike nonce” is and had to laugh.

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article6931d59611f914c89b853254/vorwurf-politiker-beleidigung-hunderte-strafantraege-merz-ausuferndes-agieren-in-eigener-sache.html

 

It seems like Merz himself is in this and German citizens don't sound pleased...he had people who insulted him get their houses searched

 

Can AfD politicians also jail people who "insult" them online? I can see such a law being abused easily

 

Here is the English translation:

Quote

WELT AM SONNTAG has several documents available, which show that Merz, as a deputy, filed criminal complaints against people who called him, among other things, "little Nazi", "asshole" or "dirty Suffkopf". 

Quote

In the case of "little Nazi", the accused, an elderly, physically disabled woman in a wheelchair, admitted the crime immediately after the arrival of the police. Nevertheless, her mobile phone was confiscated to secure evidence. The woman who claims to have Jewish roots, and therefore warns of a new fascism, which she sees in Merz, lives on state benefits. They can be called poor. She is cared for by a nursing service. Your mobile phone is used for communication with doctors, nurses and the pharmacy. Pulling in the device can be seen as an unnecessary punishment, in their state of health even as a dangerous one.

 

Of course, Russian media RT is putting the above story on full blast...

 

Pretty embarrassing. This kind of thing would not be tolerated in the states. Trash talking politicians should be a national pastime in all democracies.

 

Edited by Dalal.Holdings
Posted
11 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

The Nordics in the top of the World, the Nordics :

 

Børsen - boersen.dk - TopNews - Perspective [December 8th 2025] : They call it total defense: The entire society must be ready for war. 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

For Finland, it is a about  'learned the hard way, by experiences in history with the neighbour to the east.' To me, personally, an amazing read

 

Also: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-baltics-border/?srnd=homepage-europe

 

Posted (edited)

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-climate-study-retraction-for-the-ages-49e967e0?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Quote

A Climate Study Retraction for the Ages

 

Quote

Scientists at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research projected that climate change could cause $38 trillion in economic damage a year by 2049. To put that number in perspective, the GDP of North America last year was about $31.4 trillion. The study’s finding would mean that storms, heat waves and other calamities, supposedly caused by climate change, would wipe out the equivalent of the North American economy, and then some, every year.

Quote

Yet not long after the study was published, other scientists flagged problems with its methodology and errors in its data. In July 2024, Nature issued a correction noting that rows of data were “wrongly printed as a decimal, rather than a percentage point.”

Other scientists wrote in a comment to Nature—akin to a newspaper letter to the editor—that the study “underestimates uncertainty . . . rendering their results statistically insignificant when properly corrected.” 

Still other scientists in August noted in a comment that “data anomalies arising from one country” in the “underlying GDP dataset, Uzbekistan, substantially bias their predicted impacts of climate change.” When the Uzbekistan data was removed and statistical uncertainty corrected for, the results were no longer “statistically distinguishable from mitigation costs at any time this century.”

Quote

The study had so many errors that Nature has now retracted it, but what an embarrassment. “Post-publication, the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995–1999,” the retraction says.

 

So many lessons here about how climate ideology has rotted brains and so many institutions (like Nature) that were once held in high regard. The affliction seems to have had pernicious hold in Europe in particular

 

Quote

 

One question is why the study’s glaring errors weren’t caught by peer reviewers before it was published. One culprit might be conformity bias, as reviewers didn’t want to gainsay findings that support the narrative that humanity is killing the planet and the entire world economy must be rearranged to prevent it. When politics is in the saddle, the chances of bad science increase. 

 

Politics and science should not mix, but in this case it has corrupted science. Yes, the reviewers didn't want to downplay the narrative being pushed by climate ideologues...something that should never be called "science"

 

 

Edited by Dalal.Holdings
Posted
3 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-climate-study-retraction-for-the-ages-49e967e0?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

 

So many lessons here about how climate ideology has rotted brains and so many institutions (like Nature) that were once held in high regard. The affliction seems to have had pernicious hold in Europe in particular

 

 

Politics and science should not mix, but in this case it has corrupted science. Yes, the reviewers didn't want to downplay the narrative being pushed by climate ideologues...something that should never be called "science"

 

 


We don’t know why the study got passed, conformity bias might have been a factor but it seems nobody can say.  Just as likely are reviewers not doing their due diligence.
 

An alternative view is that the scientific community swarmed the paper until it was retracted which is a good news story.

Posted
19 hours ago, Sweet said:


We don’t know why the study got passed, conformity bias might have been a factor but it seems nobody can say.  Just as likely are reviewers not doing their due diligence.
 

An alternative view is that the scientific community swarmed the paper until it was retracted which is a good news story.

The study made a claim about something costing $38 Trillion ANNUALLY and it made it past peer reviewers and editors to be published in prestigious scientific journal Nature. I use Occam’s razor to know how that happened. Human biases corrupting the scientific processes at the highest levels.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...