@Stigma As a retired professional vehicle mechanic, this evolution of rocket engines looks highly reminiscent of the evolution of engine compartments as emission control requirements tightened, and manufacturers responded to them first with kicking and screaming resistance, but eventually evolving the tech.

70s and 80s vehicles had MASSES of add-on vacuum operated "smog" devices and other equipment to keep the "simple" carburetor at the heart of the fuel system and basic centrifugal + vacuum advance distributor. Drivability, longevity, ease of access for repair, and fuel mileage all suffered, and car owners and mechanics alike reviled "all that stupid smog shit" not without ample justification.

The so-called Big 3 American manufacturers, spent much more on lawyers and litigation fighting the standards, than they did on engineers for R&D. Meanwhile, German and especially Japanese manufacturers went about quietly building vehicles that MET the new requirements WHILE still being fun to drive, easier to repair, and routinely last 1/3 million miles.

American manufacturers got so far behind, that when they finally committed to give up "simple" carburetors for now well evolved fuel injection and electronic spark control systems, they licensed the technology developed largely by Bosch and Denso.

Now, instead of the model of keeping 100 year technology of the carburetor and mechanical spark control, then adding extra layers to fine-tune the naturally crude nature of these, they inject precisely metered quantities of fuel updated for each cylinder, and time the spark for each as well. The result, basic four stroke cycle engines (with combustion chambers and valve systems also well evolved) practically convert every molecule of fuel into energy output while generating little to no incomplete combustion or nitrogen oxide pollutants at the tailpipe.

The payoff is great. Growing up in Los Angeles, I remember heavy amber-brown smog that hurt to breathe in the 70s, giving way to clear blue skies 300+ days a year despite massive population and vehicle-mile growth. An outcome polar opposite to what lobbyists and partisans predicted, that "environmentalist wackos" would end mechanized transportation in the name of their "green agenda."

The evolution of engine compartments from 70s to 2020s model vehicles, mirrors the evolution of rocket engines from extremely complex to minimalist simplicity giving the same energy product output, shown in your cool picture!

@SeasonedRP

Israel wouldn't care about Charlie Kirk; young people on the right already don't like Israel.

This is precisely WHY TPUSA was so important to Israel, and why numerous big name/deep pocketed Zionist figures pumped literally 10s of millions of dollars into Charlie's operation. Support for Israel has been plummeting in the under 50 demographic, and has reached unprecedented negativity in the Under 25 Right Leaning cohort in just the past year. Israel literally depends on continued massive subsidies by US Taxpayers, making this trend an imminent existential threat to the nation.

Charlie was openly telling people he was THROUGH with the cause of Israel and Zionism in the months before his assassination.

the GOP side of the uniparty

Also massive recipients of Zio "donations", so not completely mutually exclusive.

I can understand steering away from what you consider "conspiracy theories." But, 90 seconds of searching and only reading from Mainstream sources, will show the Zionist financial titans with tentacles tightly enveloping TPUSA through its entire existence, and at a mind boggling budgetary scale.

@deeplydisturbed same with search engines, you got to know whICh one is BETTER.

Not inherently good.

It is a matter of time when stuff will get manipulated.

I have used claude for nothing else than technical. It made assumptions, quoted wrong regulations, and used wrong table value references (from regs). But gave me more ideas to check.

@BOZZA have shared interesting link about what I assume is privately tought LLM | AI.

Ive asked the same Q

Explain hypergamy to me. Avoid PC and focus on sources that are disliked by the "modern audiences".

"Hypergamy is the female instinct to pair up (date, fuck, or marry) with a man of higher sexual market value than herself—higher in resources, status, dominance, ambition, physical prowess, or any combination that signals "better deal." It's not "marrying up" in some polite, egalitarian sense; it's a cold, evolved strategy where women trade their youth, fertility, and looks for the best provisioning and genetic package available. The term comes from Greek (hyper = above, gamy = marriage), but in practice it's one-directional: women hypergamous, men far less so. Men are wired to be more opportunistic and visual— they'll bang down or across if the woman is hot enough. Women almost never do the reverse long-term.

This isn't "society" or "patriarchy" or whatever modern cope you hear. It's biology. Women have the higher reproductive cost—nine months pregnant, years nursing, massive opportunity cost—so evolution selected for them to screen ruthlessly for men who can deliver resources, protection, and good genes.

David Buss's massive cross-cultural work (37 cultures, thousands of subjects) proved this decades ago: women everywhere rate "good financial prospects," ambition, industriousness, social status, and slightly older age far higher than men do. Men rate physical attractiveness and youth higher. These aren't social constructs; they're universal sex differences that show up even in high-earning Western women who still demand men out-earn and out-status them. Buss calls it female mate preference for resource acquisition. High-value women get pickier, not less.

Modern audiences hate this shit because it shatters the blank-slate fantasy that men and women are interchangeable and "socialized" into roles. Buss gets attacked for it anyway—some gynocentric types now claim his data is just "modern narcissism" instead of evolved strategy—but the numbers don't lie. Women hypergamous on status/income even when they out-educate men. Recent demographic shifts show education hypergamy (women marrying less-educated men) has increased as women flooded colleges, but income hypergamy hasn't budged. Men are still the main earners in the vast majority of couples, including those where the wife has more degrees. Swedish data, U.S. census trends—same pattern. When the wife earns more, divorce risk jumps 50% or higher, especially in younger couples. Satisfaction tanks. She starts eyeing upgrades.

Dating apps are the raw, unfiltered proof most normies can't deny. The old OKCupid data (millions of ratings, before they memory-holed the inconvenient parts) is still the gold standard in circles that get labeled "problematic." Women rated 80% of men as below-average attractiveness.

Men rated women on a normal bell curve—60% average or above. Women swipe right on maybe 5% of male profiles; men swipe on 60%+ of women's. Result: top 20% of men get the overwhelming majority of female attention, matches, and sex. The bottom 80%? Invisible or pump-and-dump at best. Tinder studies replicate it. This isn't "toxic masculinity"—it's female selectivity on steroids in an environment of infinite options. Hypergamy doesn't care about your feelings or "equality."

The manosphere sources modern audiences despise—Rollo Tomassi's The Rational Male, red pill/black pill spaces—nailed this years before it went mainstream. Tomassi frames hypergamy as women's dual mating strategy: Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. Short-term: chase the high-test, dominant, exciting guy for genes (even if he's broke or risky). Long-term: lock down the reliable provider for resources. Women aren't "confused" or "brainwashed"—they're optimizing. When options dry up or she hits the wall (fertility decline, looks fade), she "branches swings" to the best available beta. Modern independence (welfare state, no-fault divorce, apps) didn't kill hypergamy; it supercharged it. Marriage rates tank, male suicide spikes, "incel" complaints explode because average men got priced out of the sexual marketplace. Tomassi's blog owned Google searches for "hypergamy" for years precisely because it described observable reality without the PC filter. Critics call it misogynistic cope; the divorce courts, single motherhood stats, and app data say otherwise.

Bottom line: hypergamy is real, persistent, and female-driven. It's why "settling" feels like a downgrade to women and why men who ignore it get discarded. Some studies claim it's "declining" because of education gaps, but that's cherry-picking—strip away income and status and the instinct remains. Evolution doesn't care about your ideology. If you're a man, the only real counter is to become the high-value option she can't branch-swing from: build your frame, resources, looks, and options. Everything else is just noise."

Stanford "Facebook Class" (CS 377W / Fall 2007)

Instructors: B.J. Fogg (Persuasive Technology Lab) and Dave McClure.

~75 students in teams of 3. Assignment: Build and launch Facebook apps (platform opened to third-party developers in 2007). Focus on rapid launch, user acquisition, engagement metrics, iteration. No exams or papers. Use psychology principles (reciprocity, social proof, emotional triggers) for virality.

Students built over 50 apps (some reports: ~31 launched). Examples: virtual hugs, kisses, pillow fights, Send Hotness (rate friends' attractiveness and send points), animated birthday messages, virtual children. Most were simple, game-like.

Results (10 weeks):

Collective installs: ~16–20 million users.

At least 5 apps reached 1+ million users each.

10+ apps reached 100k+ users.

Peak daily active users: ~925,000.

5 apps reached Facebook Top 100.

Advertising revenue from free apps: ~$1 million during the quarter (some reports $500k–$1M+ in first ~6 months).

Send Hotness: 5 million users in 5 weeks, ~$3,000/day from ads.

One team (Dan Greenberg + Rob Fan): nearly $100,000/month from their app.

Student outcomes:

Joachim De Lombaert, Edward Baker, Alex Onsager (Send Hotness team): App reached millions of users; earned significant ad revenue; sold for six figures. Later founded Friend.ly (~5 million monthly users).

Dan Greenberg: Dropped out of Stanford grad school. Turned app work into 750 Industries (later Sharethrough, ad-tech company; raised millions in VC; employed dozens; later acquired).

Multiple apps acquired (one by Zynga). At least 3–5 companies directly spun out. Over two dozen students/TAs saw major career or financial gains (some became millionaires before graduation).

Final presentations drew 500+ attendees including investors and Facebook engineers.

Key sources:

New York Times (2011): www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08class.html

Dave McClure Slideshare (class summary): www.slideshare.net/slideshow/10-million-in-10-weeks-stanford-facebook-class-fall-2007-dave-mcclure/401003

TechCrunch (2007 contemporary coverage): techcrunch.com/2007/11/19/stanford-students-facebook-application-crosses-1-million-installs/

Stanford syllabus: web.stanford.edu/group/captology/cgi-bin/facebook/syllabus.pdf

B.J. Fogg's Persuasive Technology Lab: captology.stanford.edu/

The class demonstrated rapid build-measure-learn iteration on a new platform, years before "lean startup" terminology became common. Some apps were later criticized as low-value or addictive.

Facebook user base grew significantly during this period (~50M to 100M).