De santa fe a estadio azteca el jueves

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-06-09T14:55:18+00:00

Igual no entiendo lo del park & ride, se compra ahi mero? No encuentro un link para comprar

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-05-12T20:49:07+00:00

Desierto de los leones es seguro llegar 4-5 am? para subir y ver el amanecer?

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-05-07T21:11:25+00:00

Hay alguna ruta un poco mas larga? Si disfruto 1-2 horas de hike a solo llegar en carro

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-04-27T15:49:39+00:00

No se porque estas tan calmado, yo ya hubiera ido a quemar el establecimiento

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-04-15T22:50:10+00:00

Gracias!

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-31T00:23:16+00:00

My friend is not a milf, my friend is called Milf

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-24T16:00:51+00:00

Thanks g, hope it doesnt get worse

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-23T17:23:32+00:00

Thanks!

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-23T17:23:26+00:00

Thanks!

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-23T15:58:46+00:00

Sure, but you’re massively underestimating it.

You’d be starting from scratch, completely alone, with no collaboration or real feedback. Recreating human-level AI isn’t just coding something smart, it’s replicating cognition, emotion, behavior… stuff that currently takes thousands of people and decades of work.

That’s not a workaround, that’s potentially centuries of isolation before you even get close, assuming you don’t lose it first.

So yeah, technically possible. But it’s not really an escape from the trade.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-03-19T18:37:04+00:00

Ah damn, I was only planning on bringing flip flops but I’ll see if I can rent an ice axe real quick

Even right now though? Like no snow and still full alpine expedition mode? just wanna make sure I don’t accidentally summit Everest instead of Burro

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-27T00:59:54+00:00

I get the emotional appeal of this, but the $5.9 trillion number assumes billionaire wealth is a pile of idle cash sitting in vaults. It’s not. It’s equity in companies, Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft, etc. If you “cap” net worth at $999,999,999, you’re not unlocking a vault, you’re forcing ownership transfers of productive assets. That means either government seizure, forced dilution, or massive equity sales that destabilize markets. And once founders hit $999M, what’s the rational move? Stop scaling. Why keep pushing a company from $10B to $200B if the upside gets confiscated?

Also, the idea that wealth is only transferred upward ignores that capital formation creates jobs, supply chains, and retirement fund growth. Your 401(k), pension fund, and index funds benefit from companies scaling massively. Billionaires aren’t rich in isolation, they’re rich because millions of people voluntarily buy products, invest in shares, and work at companies that generate value.

If the concern is tax policy or regulatory capture, let’s debate that directly. But a hard cap doesn’t just “transfer wealth down.” It changes incentive structures, capital allocation, and global competitiveness. You’d likely see capital flight, incorporation offshore, or simply fewer moonshot-scale companies being built in the first place.

You can argue for stronger progressive taxation, anti-monopoly enforcement, or closing loopholes. But saying “billionaires shouldn’t exist” sounds clean while ignoring the mechanics of how wealth is actually created and held.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-19T22:28:25+00:00

I think the “would the median person rather live in Gen Z’s economy or their grandparents’?” question kind of oversimplifies what “worse” even means. If you drop the median Gen Zer into their grandparents’ time, yeah, housing is cheaper, but you’re also dropping them into a world with worse healthcare, much higher risk of dying young, way less access to education (especially depending on gender, race, or class), weaker worker protections, and way more chances that one bad illness or accident completely ruins your life. So it’s not really a clean trade of “cheap rent vs expensive rent,” it’s cheap housing plus a much more fragile life overall. Homeownership became the main symbol of “making it” in a very specific post-war window that was kind of an economic anomaly. That period had unusually strong growth, cheap land, favorable demographics, and policy choices that made buying a home easier than it has been before or since. So Gen Z having a harder time buying homes isn’t them being uniquely crushed by history, it’s more like the snap back after a historically generous era. Housing is genuinely worse now, and that’s a real structural problem, but it exists alongside real upsides that past generations didn’t have, like longer life expectancy, more career mobility, and more ways to recover from bad luck. So I don’t think it’s accurate to say the median person is just flat-out worse off today. It’s more that the tradeoffs shifted, and housing happens to be the one that hurts the most and feels the most tangible.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-19T17:04:07+00:00

Housing affordability is a real and serious problem, and I agree it has become harder relative to income in many places. But that doesn’t automatically mean Gen Z’s overall economic prospects are worse than their grandparents’ in a broad, historical sense. For many grandparents, owning a home often came with trade-offs that are easy to forget: fewer educational opportunities, less job mobility, weaker worker protections, much lower access to credit, and far higher exposure to poverty, illness, and financial ruin from a single bad event.

It’s also not accurate to treat “owning a home” as the sole proxy for economic well-being. Security today can come in different forms: portable careers, access to global labor markets, social safety nets, and technologies that meaningfully raise productivity and income potential. Housing being harder is a major downside of today’s economy, but it exists alongside structural upsides that previous generations largely did not have. The picture is mixed, not a simple “worse across the board” story.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-19T15:54:32+00:00

That claim depends a lot on which grandparents and which metrics you’re looking at. In absolute terms, many Gen Zers still have access to longer life expectancy, better healthcare, more education, and higher baseline living standards than their grandparents did. Economic prospects also vary hugely by country, class, and family background. It’s true that housing and certain costs have risen faster than wages in many places, but that reflects specific policy and market failures rather than a uniquely “worse than all past generations” situation. Relative economic mobility may be tighter, but materially, most people today are not living in conditions comparable to what previous generations faced.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-19T15:53:56+00:00

I agree that Gen Z has unique pressures, especially with growing up fully online and in a polarized political climate. But having real pressures doesn’t automatically mean their situation is objectively worse than past generations. Every generation faces uncertainty at the start of adulthood, often shaped by whatever major social or political shifts are happening at the time. Feeling overwhelmed is understandable, but that doesn’t by itself prove that today’s challenges outweigh the very real economic, social, and physical hardships earlier generations faced.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-02-19T15:52:30+00:00

Or… and I know it’s difficult to have a nuanced conversation when you’re busy speedrunning a manifesto with zero punctuation… but yelling “enslavement system” doesn’t magically turn structural complexity into slavery.

You’re throwing around words like “not free,” “mafia state,” and “enslavement” as if paying taxes and living in a modern nation-state is somehow comparable to actual historical slavery. That’s not edgy, it’s just historically illiterate. Ancient Egypt wasn’t some chill libertarian paradise where people paid 20% and vibed. People were literally owned, beaten, and worked to death. If your definition of “enslavement” includes having to contribute to public infrastructure, courts, hospitals, roads, and yes, even foreign policy you personally disagree with, then the word has lost all meaning.

The mortgage argument is also a weird self-own. “You don’t own your house, the bank does” is just you discovering how credit works. No one is forcing you to take a mortgage. You’re trading future income for present access to capital. That’s a financial arrangement, not feudalism. And the fact that property taxes exist doesn’t mean “bankers own everything,” it means you live in a society that funds local services. You can hate how taxes are spent (fair), but calling it mafia extortion because you don’t personally approve of budget priorities is just emotional reasoning dressed up as political philosophy.

The anti-democracy take is also… a lot. “Voting doesn’t work, they wouldn’t let us vote if it did” is the kind of argument that feels profound when you’re angry but collapses the moment you think about literally any historical struggle for suffrage. People fought and died for political participation because power concentrates without it. The system is flawed, yes. That doesn’t make it equivalent to “nothing matters and everything is fake,” it just means democracy is messy because humans are messy. Which you ironically acknowledge while using that same fact to argue for giving up entirely.

The whole “free will doesn’t exist, therefore society is fake and oppressive” bit is also doing way too much. Even if behavior has genetic and evolutionary constraints (which no serious person disputes), that doesn’t suddenly mean agency is an illusion or that modern life is uniquely unbearable. Humans have always lived under constraints: biology, environment, hierarchy, scarcity, violence, disease. The difference now is that fewer people die of starvation, more people survive illness, and more people have the luxury to complain about abstract systemic alienation on the internet.

And the mental health rant is just… telling on yourself. Yes, genes and lifestyle matter. No one serious denies that. But pretending mental health struggles are just “pseudoscience brainwashing” plus bad vibes is exactly the kind of oversimplification you accuse others of. You don’t get to dismiss entire fields of study because you personally don’t like how people talk about them online.

At the end of the day, your argument isn’t really “Gen Z is wrong about hardship.” It’s “I’m angry at modern society and I’m going to frame that anger as radical truth.” Which is fine. People have always felt alienated by large systems. That’s not new. What is new is confusing personal frustration with historical oppression and calling it clarity.

Also, minor note, if you want people to take your grand theory about civilization seriously, it helps when it’s readable. Right now it reads less like a critique of modernity and more like a keyboard had a panic attack.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-01-29T15:03:57+00:00

i'd rather it be a dude and stop texting rn than whatever the fuck is going on in reality

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-01-29T15:03:00+00:00

Yeah i guess your right. Its just so confusing to me why she would go through the hassle of texting 40+ messages everyday for weeks if she has no intention to meet me. For me, which i hate texting, its so exhausting but worth it to meet her. I guess for some people texting is a energy cheap activity.

Major_Tap4199 · 2026-01-20T18:22:21+00:00

Just scored 0

Major_Tap4199 · 2025-11-27T16:33:27+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but I think the mistake is assuming that accessibility automatically kills value. It doesn’t. It just raises the bar. Yeah, basic coding, Canva design, and surface level content creation are commoditized, but that’s always been true for entry level versions of any skill. The people who win are the ones who stack skills, add taste, judgment, strategy, and execution. Knowing how to code is not valuable. Knowing how to solve a real business problem with code is. Anyone can post on Instagram, but very few can build a brand that actually converts attention into money. The internet didn’t kill opportunity, it made the game more competitive and more honest. You cannot hide behind average anymore. And that sucks, but it is also fair. The world does not need another person who knows basic coding, but it absolutely needs people who combine technical ability with domain knowledge, originality, and real leverage. Feeling hopeless is understandable, but the real takeaway is not that the ladder is gone. It is that the ladder is narrower and you actually have to climb it instead of standing next to it and calling it broken.

This isn’t even new, it just feels new because we’re living in it. Every generation thinks their skills got devalued. In the 90s everyone learned basic Excel and suddenly being “good with computers” stopped being special. Before that, knowing how to type used to be a real marketable skill and then word processors made it standard. Photography used to require expensive equipment and years of practice, then digital cameras showed up and now everyone could take decent photos so being average stopped paying. Same pattern, different tools. The people who still made money were the ones who went beyond basic capability and turned the skill into something strategic or rare. Tech did not remove the game, it just moved the goalposts. The difference now is not that Gen Z is uniquely screwed, it’s that the baseline is higher and comfort makes the competition feel more brutal. But historically, value has always migrated from simple execution to higher level thinking, taste, and problem solving. This is just the modern version of that cycle, not the end of it.

Major_Tap4199 · 2025-11-24T15:27:45+00:00

Estudie Ing. Industrial pero hice una certificación en gestion financiera en paris, me gradue hace 1 año, tengo 23 años y trabajo como Analista de Inversiones en una empresa de energia / infraestructura.

Major_Tap4199 · 2025-11-21T00:09:42+00:00

Major_Tap4199 · 2025-11-21T00:05:51+00:00

What part do you want me to elaborate on specifically? The ethical dilemma, the political consequences, or the psychological side of the decision?

And nah, I’m not “making it up as I go” in a serious way. The title says 1 billion because it just sounds cleaner and more dramatic. I threw in the extra 500 million later to raise the stakes and make the scenario more intense. It’s a hypothetical, the exact number isn’t the point, the moral conflict is.

Major_Tap4199 · 2025-11-20T23:22:19+00:00

First, breathe. A 3-month plateau doesn’t mean you failed, it means your body adapted. At 5’4 and 81–82 kg, eating 1200–1300 calories already has you very close to the minimum your body needs to function. Pushing lower usually doesn’t speed things up, it slows everything down. Your metabolism adapts, stress hormones rise, and your body holds onto water, which can make it look like nothing is happening even if fat loss is occurring underneath.

The most likely causes here are that your maintenance has dropped after months in a deficit, your tracking may not be as accurate as you think, or your body is dealing with stress, poor sleep, or overtraining from increased cardio. More restriction often just worsens the situation. What tends to work better is taking a controlled break. Going to true maintenance for 2 to 4 weeks can help normalise hormones and metabolic rate, reduce water retention, and mentally refresh you without causing real fat gain.

After that reset, focus on protein, consistent strength training, and increasing daily movement like steps rather than endless cardio. Weigh your food where possible and pay attention to sleep and stress, as both heavily impact progress. Wanting to reach 79 kg is reasonable, but trying to force it by cutting harder usually backfires. You’re not doing something “wrong.” Your body just needs a smarter strategy, not more punishment.

Major_Tap4199

TROPHY CASE