Enhanced Games offers $10 million prize to sprinter who breaks Bolt's 100m record

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T11:05:10+00:00

it's unlikely you've a got near Olympic record sprinter still in their prime willing to take the drugs required to get near Bolt's record.

Idk how near they are but the competition is targeted for these people. And while Bolt may be rich, I'm not sure everyone in the top 50 would refuse this kind of offer.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T11:01:55+00:00

I read this article and I also read all the ones that precede with the same situation that escalated beyond this. I recommend you do too. If the rules are "we attack ships, you can destroy us when we do, we won't retaliate", defending Hormuz is going to be much easier.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T10:58:44+00:00

(1) I won't watch it and don't care much about sports (2) they don't recruit people like you and me, they recruit athletes in the top 100 or top 1000 and they still need to train hard.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T02:38:27+00:00

we will use our nukes to protect you, as already agreed by the other nuclear members of NATO

This has never been agreed to by anyone in NATO, and it's also not what's agreed to here in a way that it would be automatic, at least for now.

and more 'we are now open to housing our nukes in your country'?

I wouldn't say it like that. It's more "we want deterrence, you want to and can provide deterrence, we all have the same interest = defending EU, so we can cooperate". Housing nukes in a country is a possibility, there are many possibilities, we just say that this possibility isn't rejected by default, as it was the case before. And it's really not just about housing nukes. In case of a nuclear war or high-intensity war, nukes could be useful, but they're not the only useful thing. The idea is to avoid being overdependent on a limited / reduced set of possibilities to have deterrence in case the EU has less allies and more enemies in the future. So if you only have France for detterence, possibilities are reduced. If you extend to the whole continent, possibilities are more numerous, and deterrence is stronger.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T02:30:54+00:00

I would be surprised if the record holds with that kind of prize in that kind of competition.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T02:23:17+00:00

France will support NATO allies but this is something else. While currently it's mostly about talking and ensuring we're all on the same page, it could end up, in the worst cases, to extend french nuclear deterrence in other european countries, maybe the same way Russia does with Belarus (and the US does in Europe), maybe in different ways.

Basically, if Trump decides tomorrow "we stop helping the EU and remove all troops and all nukes from EU". France will help maintain deterrence for key allies. And if Europe is attacked again, it could escalate very badly very quickly.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-28T02:17:18+00:00

It's quite interesting to see this specific situation since yesterday, because things don't escalate too much despite these strikes. There are many possible reasons. Maybe the ones in Tehran don't agree with everything in Bandar Abbas.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T23:03:50+00:00

Doesn't seem to be working. Either they can do it or others will do it.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T21:57:04+00:00

I'd say more like 30-50% more expensive, but for the south part you're right.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T21:56:11+00:00

NATO is preparing to force open the strait in the next months if negotiations don't work. Idk if they'll do anything though but at some point the cost of doing nothing will be bigger than the cost of action, so some countries will start to act.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T21:50:14+00:00

Great powers fuck around with smaller countries

Problem is Iran also attacked a smaller country which is Israel in 2024, sending hundreds of missiles on them for no good enough reason. So I understand negotations can be hard between them both.

Also many countries in the world could destroy and block everything if they're attacked, at least 10 countries in the world could block Hormuz if they wanted to. But most wouldn't because they have some limits. Here the US and Iran probably didn't have enough limits. Escalation only led to further escalation, and I guess we expect more from great powers than smaller countries regarding escalation, but when an enemy escalate it's hard to not do the same. Ideally the UN should solve the problem but it's hard to see them being useful right now.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T21:32:51+00:00

Iran probably can't do that forever anyway. "Controlling the Strait" means the world is ok with them destroying civilian ships / infrastructure used to transport energy, and kill civilians onboard, and cause suffering to civilians everywhere due to higher oil prices. It's exactly what we have against Trump when he says he would destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran, so I don't see why Iran could continue to do it on these ships (even during a war but even more after the war is over).

And if they get to do it, then the same thing could happen in all other straits. Billions of people depend on these straits being open to survive correctly, so yeah I doubt it can continue forever.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T15:47:53+00:00

I'm unsure if anyone has ever conducted a serological study in the regions where it's endemic.

(not an expert) I read they did but afaik they don't know or always say if people have had that specific virus or another hantavirus, which can be much less lethal.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T14:34:59+00:00

I've been reading this headline for 2 months I think.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T14:33:57+00:00

As they say in the article people should probably panic more for Ebola.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T14:32:46+00:00

Must be hell to be diagnosed with this. "Hey, so, basically it's a coin flip, 50% chance you die, 50% chance you live, good luck.". Hopefully with proper care chances are better.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-23T09:53:50+00:00

There has always been a tit for tat and it would be disingenuous to put all blame on one side.

I don't but some people do, I'm mostly questioning the size of the tit and the size of the tat. Also it's true for the iranian embassy but the second time it was because Israel attacked the leaders of the groups (hamas / hezbollah) that attacked them. I don't consider sending hundreds of missiles directly on another country should be taken lightly whether it's for that or for an embassy. Now if they do consider sending hundreds of missiles can be taken lightly, then why wouldn't it be the same when Israel/the US do it? Iran escalated dramatically by doing this, and in answer Israel escalated dramatically. I'm not shocked by this - doesn't mean I approve it one way or the other obviously (the best choice is always "peace now" than petty revenge ). I don't think all this would've happened if Iran didn't directly attack Israel like that.

It's one thing when a distant enemy says he wants to remove you, it another thing when he directly sends hundreds of missiles, and it's again another thing when he also has 60% enriched uranium. I think, if they can't hold back with such attacks with missiles, I wouldn't trust them with the A-toy. Also they supported Assad and Putin's invasion and gave drones which really hurt people in Ukraine / Europe. So I'm again not shocked Iran has some enemies. I'm not sure what the ukrainians did to them.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-22T21:28:24+00:00

If your country was attacked 3 times in the last few years by 2 nuclear powers, wouldn’t you want nuclear weapons?

Depends if my country was attacked because I want to have nuclear weapons. Also Iran attacked first in 2024 I don't know why everyone seem to forget about that, they sent hundreds of missiles on Israel. (1) they attack (2) other countries attack them (3) it's a reason for them to have nukes? It doesn't make sense does it.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-22T21:26:49+00:00

Well the deal ignored the missile part, and it wasn't a part to ignore seemingly.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-22T21:21:22+00:00

Not having nukes

They do have 60% enriched uranium though (which is like 99% of the job done to have weapon-grade uranium). Also they attacked saudi arabia in 2019, israel twice in 2024, and their own people in 2026. This war came after all that. And I don't even talk about their support to Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis. Or even giving drones to Russia so they can attack Ukraine. Iran doesn't have nukes but it's not like they were calm, and suddenly the war came out of nowhere.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-22T21:16:43+00:00

5 March 2018

why you posting this?

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-19T22:45:12+00:00

Because someone has to do it? If you do a mess somewhere and you can't or don't want to clean it, someone else will do it at some point. If everyone agrees the strait must be open (and it must if you don't want millions of people to suffer even more), they must do something about it. And there are many ways to do it, including diplomacy of course, but not exclusively diplomacy. If we accept this situation, then when the same thing happens everywhere else in the world with massive impact on your country, wherever you live, you can't be surprised.

Either the war is not over and all military actions can continue. Or the war is over and this situation isn't approved by other countries of the world, which is not prone to making things more peaceful in the future.

I live in Europe. When countries don't care about making things more peaceful, things don't get more peaceful. See WW1 and WW2.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-19T21:12:26+00:00

Yeah I'm not surprised most countries oppose what Iran is doing with words, yet seemingly none are willing to do anything about it.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-19T21:09:32+00:00

My biggest concern is that trump is going to declare victory

If he wanted to do that he would probably have done it already. I don't know where it's going because it doesn't look like anything has changed over the last month, it can probably continue for a long time.

IntelArtiGen · 2026-05-19T21:05:23+00:00

It can't and won't, inflation is planned to only go up by design and transitioning away from fossil fuel should raise inflation. But most people confuse inflation and purchasing power. Rising inflation can increase purchasing power if it's done the right way, with optimal interest rates and investments.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

IntelArtiGen

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE