>>62349821
>BTC OR XRP OR SILVER
lmao bag shills, enjoy your 80% drop

Step right up, folks, gather ‘round the Big Top of Misunderstanding where the “Age of Expectancy Myth” is doing cartwheels in a burning barrel of outdated assumptions!
First act: “People used to all die at 30 in the olden days!”
Ohhh what a tragic little tale performed by the Clown of Bad Statistics! This joker looks at life expectancy at birth (which gets dragged down by infant mortality like a clown car sinking in a puddle) and screams, “EVERYONE WAS BASICALLY A TEENAGE GHOST!” No. If you survived childhood—which many did—you often made it into your 50s, 60s, even 70s. The circus trick here is ignoring survival curves and pretending averages are destiny. That’s like saying because one clown slips on a banana peel, the whole parade is doomed.

Second act: “Modern people only live longer because we’re superhuman now!”
Nope! No laser-eyed immortality upgrade. The real magic is boring but powerful: sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics, safer childbirth, and less infectious disease roulette. It’s not that humans suddenly became elite boss-level beings; it’s that we removed a lot of the instant-death landmines from the path.

Third act: “Aging itself has changed dramatically in biology!”
Careful now, this clown is juggling metaphors without looking. While medicine has improved healthspan (fewer years crippled by disease), the basic biological aging process didn’t suddenly get rewritten like a circus script mid-show. Bodies still age. Cells still misbehave. Gravity still wins.

Final act: “Everyone today is guaranteed to live super long!”
Ah yes, the grand finale where someone mistakes averages for promises. Life expectancy is not a prophecy etched into the cosmic popcorn machine.

So let the ringmaster declare: the myth that humans “barely lived past 30” is not history—it’s a juggling error with bad data and dramatic flair.

>>62349833
dirty slopper

>>62349821
>strategists led by Savita Subramanian
oh dear

>>62349821
In the related yahoo spam article, it lists "consumer confidence" > 100, not triggered. Why would higher confidence be a bear indicator now? Is that just jeetsloppa, or is that machine economy already, that humans need to be desperate for the economy to thrive?

>>62349821

>>62349856

>>62349859
spamming into a spam thread is pretty low you naughty clanker

File: 1781165639269389.jpg (114 KB, 1008x1024)

114 KB JPG

Wow desu ne, all that wasted power, Bank of America.

Eh, they'll just turn this shit up to 11 for the sake of it because Bank of America already lost.