IlliniHQ 2
General Category => The Deuce => Topic started by: illiniray on December 16, 2025, 02:00:31 PM
-
https://mustardtherapy.co.uk/katie-hinde-unlocking-the-secret-language-of-primate-breast-milk/
-
(https://im.indiatimes.in/content/2019/Sep/blinking_guy_meme_1569407297.gif?w=400&h=267&cc=1&webp=1&q=75)
-
https://mustardtherapy.co.uk/katie-hinde-unlocking-the-secret-language-of-primate-breast-milk/
This might explain a lot. Pheromone dog collars that mimic scents from nursing have calming effects. Maybe I can get my buxom dental asst. to cushion my head while getting drilled?
-
Japanese woman marries her ideal partner, an AI chatbot.
https://apple.news/ATGLEU7BmSEyuXuwFVGYmCw
-
Here is some good news that will probably upset Alum, who has been enjoying being really mad about the rare earth minerals China wouldn’t let us have because Trump.
“Huge cache of minerals found in Utah may be the largest in the US”
Silicon Ridge’s deposit of critical and rare earth minerals is suspended in clay, not hard rock, making it easier to extract. The clay holds 16 critical minerals, Zeitoun said, including gallium and germanium, used in electronics, fiber-optic cables, and lasers. The mine holds a large supply of halloysite, a mineral used to build better batteries. China by far produces the lion’s share of critical minerals, and when it recently restricted exports on them, U.S. companies were sent scrambling for new supplies.
“Over the last 20 years, [we’ve] kind of put ourselves in a situation,” Zeitoun said, “where we’ve allowed ourselves to be solely reliant on imports of these metals that power our lives.”
The discovery at Silicon Ridge could open the door to finding more rare earths throughout Utah, said Katie Potter, a professional geologist and professor of practice at Utah State University.
“It may kick off a halloysite gold rush,” Potter said.
Zeitoun said his company can extract the materials with virtually zero waste and that it will use no explosives or chemicals at the site. “We really view ourselves as kind of a next generation of mining,” he said, “and of responsible mining.”
-
Turning Utah into a minerals mine does not sound like a bad idea.
-
Here is some good news that will probably upset Alum, who has been enjoying being really mad about the rare earth minerals China wouldn’t let us have because Trump.
“Huge cache of minerals found in Utah may be the largest in the US”
This indeed is encouraging news, especially since China has been eating our lunch this past year.
It should strengthen our clean energy sector and contribute to further reductions in fossil-fuel dependency. Electrification is the key.
https://grist.org/energy/utah-mine-critical-minerals-rare-earths/
-
Eating our lunch is certainly debatable.
As I have mentioned here before, you can get a lot of different perspectives even from AI depending on how you ask questions.
“Evaluate the trade war between the US and China without using sources that are known to be biased against Trump?”
(Warning, longer than Tempo and probably anyone else will read)
Short-Term Impacts (2018–2025)
The US-China trade war, initiated under President Trump’s first term with tariffs on Chinese imports starting in 2018 and escalating in his second term from 2025, aimed to address trade imbalances, intellectual property theft, and unfair practices.
By leveraging tariffs as a negotiation tool, the US pressured China into concessions, generating revenue and prompting economic adjustments on both sides. Data through 2025 indicates that while both economies faced disruptions, the policies inflicted greater pressure on China, forcing it to diversify and concede in key areas, while providing the US with strategic gains and tariff revenues.
On China
US tariffs significantly impacted China’s economy in the short term by curbing exports and compelling internal reforms:
• Chinese exports to the US declined amid heightened tariffs, with proposals reaching up to 155% on certain goods, contributing to a markdown in China’s 2025 growth forecast to 4.4%—a 0.2% reduction attributed to reciprocal measures. This pressure revealed vulnerabilities in China’s export-dependent model, leading to de-escalation signals, such as minimal retaliation and commitments to maintain rare earth supplies.  
• The trade tensions disrupted markets, with China’s Hang Seng Index benefiting temporarily from a truce but remaining under threat from renewed risks, highlighting the war’s toll on investor confidence.  Beijing fought back by slashing its own tariffs from 125% to 10% on US goods and dropping non-tariff barriers, concessions that underscore the effectiveness of US leverage.  
• Despite diversification to regions like Southeast Asia, the overall strain led to sharper price declines and corporate stress in China by year’s end, with bond yields dipping below historic lows.  China positioned itself to counter US demands, but the initial turbulence weakened its stance, making it the weaker party in surviving prolonged conflict without serious consequences. 
On the US
The policies delivered short-term benefits to the US by generating revenue and securing concessions, though with some adjustment costs:
• Tariffs produced over $500 billion in annual revenue, funding deficit reduction and tax relief, while forcing China to commit to purchasing 25 million metric tons of US soybeans annually as part of truces like the Kuala Lumpur agreement.   This recalibration unlocked export surges of 18% post-deal, boosting domestic production and manufacturing orders by 8%. 
• The US maintained a 19% baseline tariff for enforcement while reducing some rates from 60% to 30%, resetting trade rules in America’s favor without yielding core demands.  Trump’s threats, including 100% tariffs, prompted China to ease countermeasures, ensuring continued rare earth exports for a year—a “great success” as described in summits like the Busan meeting.   
• While some sectors faced turbulence, the strategy protected American businesses by making them more competitive against subsidized imports, with inflation declining and GDP growth reaching 4.3% as a result.  Reshoring commitments began to materialize, countering decades of unfavorable deals.
In the short term, the trade war hurt China by exposing weaknesses and extracting concessions, while helping the US through revenue generation, export boosts, and strategic resets, culminating in truces that favored American interests.  
Long-Term Impacts (Projections Beyond 2025)
Projections suggest the trade war’s legacy will involve sustained pressure on China, potentially leading to further decoupling, while positioning the US for enhanced self-reliance and economic leverage. Models indicate that persistent tariffs could reduce global fragmentation risks if truces hold, with the US benefiting from dynamic gains overlooked in static analyses.   Consequences may fully materialize in 2026, with nations resisting US demands but China continuing to adapt under strain. 
On China
Long-term, the policies are expected to constrain China’s growth by accelerating supply chain shifts and challenging initiatives like “Made in China 2025”:
• Ongoing tariffs could force further tariff reductions and entity list removals, diminishing China’s monopoly in areas like rare earths and AI, as seen in commitments to match 2024 supply levels. This pressure has already led to truces lasting up to a year, but without structural changes, China risks deeper corporate stress and yield declines.  
• Beijing’s retreat in trade talks proves leverage works, potentially tilting the playing field toward the US in minerals critical to manufacturing and military applications.   However, if truces falter, China may face isolation, though its diversification could mitigate some losses.
On the US
The trade war is projected to benefit the US long-term by fostering self-reliance and securing favorable terms:
• Tariffs will continue generating revenue to offset deficits, with factories returning home and workers gaining from protected industries.   The strategy’s success in forcing China to cut tariffs and suspend export controls positions the US for growth-driven gains, with manufacturing rebounding over time.
• Future summits, like the planned April meeting in China, signal ongoing dialogue, reducing the need for escalation while maintaining US enforcement tools.   This dynamic approach counters globalist exploitation, ensuring a reset that prioritizes American interests.
Overall, the trade war has hurt China by compelling concessions and exposing vulnerabilities, while helping the US achieve strategic wins, revenue streams, and a stronger negotiating position in both the short and long term.
-
Eating our lunch is certainly debatable.
As I have mentioned here before, you can get a lot of different perspectives even from AI depending on how you ask questions.
“Evaluate the trade war between the US and China without using sources that are known to be biased against Trump?”
(Warning, longer than Tempo and probably anyone else will read)
Short-Term Impacts (2018–2025)
The US-China trade war, initiated under President Trump’s first term with tariffs on Chinese imports starting in 2018 and escalating in his second term from 2025, aimed to address trade imbalances, intellectual property theft, and unfair practices.
By leveraging tariffs as a negotiation tool, the US pressured China into concessions, generating revenue and prompting economic adjustments on both sides. Data through 2025 indicates that while both economies faced disruptions, the policies inflicted greater pressure on China, forcing it to diversify and concede in key areas, while providing the US with strategic gains and tariff revenues.
On China
US tariffs significantly impacted China’s economy in the short term by curbing exports and compelling internal reforms:
• Chinese exports to the US declined amid heightened tariffs, with proposals reaching up to 155% on certain goods, contributing to a markdown in China’s 2025 growth forecast to 4.4%—a 0.2% reduction attributed to reciprocal measures. This pressure revealed vulnerabilities in China’s export-dependent model, leading to de-escalation signals, such as minimal retaliation and commitments to maintain rare earth supplies.  
• The trade tensions disrupted markets, with China’s Hang Seng Index benefiting temporarily from a truce but remaining under threat from renewed risks, highlighting the war’s toll on investor confidence.  Beijing fought back by slashing its own tariffs from 125% to 10% on US goods and dropping non-tariff barriers, concessions that underscore the effectiveness of US leverage.  
• Despite diversification to regions like Southeast Asia, the overall strain led to sharper price declines and corporate stress in China by year’s end, with bond yields dipping below historic lows.  China positioned itself to counter US demands, but the initial turbulence weakened its stance, making it the weaker party in surviving prolonged conflict without serious consequences. 
On the US
The policies delivered short-term benefits to the US by generating revenue and securing concessions, though with some adjustment costs:
• Tariffs produced over $500 billion in annual revenue, funding deficit reduction and tax relief, while forcing China to commit to purchasing 25 million metric tons of US soybeans annually as part of truces like the Kuala Lumpur agreement.   This recalibration unlocked export surges of 18% post-deal, boosting domestic production and manufacturing orders by 8%. 
• The US maintained a 19% baseline tariff for enforcement while reducing some rates from 60% to 30%, resetting trade rules in America’s favor without yielding core demands.  Trump’s threats, including 100% tariffs, prompted China to ease countermeasures, ensuring continued rare earth exports for a year—a “great success” as described in summits like the Busan meeting.   
• While some sectors faced turbulence, the strategy protected American businesses by making them more competitive against subsidized imports, with inflation declining and GDP growth reaching 4.3% as a result.  Reshoring commitments began to materialize, countering decades of unfavorable deals.
In the short term, the trade war hurt China by exposing weaknesses and extracting concessions, while helping the US through revenue generation, export boosts, and strategic resets, culminating in truces that favored American interests.  
Long-Term Impacts (Projections Beyond 2025)
Projections suggest the trade war’s legacy will involve sustained pressure on China, potentially leading to further decoupling, while positioning the US for enhanced self-reliance and economic leverage. Models indicate that persistent tariffs could reduce global fragmentation risks if truces hold, with the US benefiting from dynamic gains overlooked in static analyses.   Consequences may fully materialize in 2026, with nations resisting US demands but China continuing to adapt under strain. 
On China
Long-term, the policies are expected to constrain China’s growth by accelerating supply chain shifts and challenging initiatives like “Made in China 2025”:
• Ongoing tariffs could force further tariff reductions and entity list removals, diminishing China’s monopoly in areas like rare earths and AI, as seen in commitments to match 2024 supply levels. This pressure has already led to truces lasting up to a year, but without structural changes, China risks deeper corporate stress and yield declines.  
• Beijing’s retreat in trade talks proves leverage works, potentially tilting the playing field toward the US in minerals critical to manufacturing and military applications.   However, if truces falter, China may face isolation, though its diversification could mitigate some losses.
On the US
The trade war is projected to benefit the US long-term by fostering self-reliance and securing favorable terms:
• Tariffs will continue generating revenue to offset deficits, with factories returning home and workers gaining from protected industries.   The strategy’s success in forcing China to cut tariffs and suspend export controls positions the US for growth-driven gains, with manufacturing rebounding over time.
• Future summits, like the planned April meeting in China, signal ongoing dialogue, reducing the need for escalation while maintaining US enforcement tools.   This dynamic approach counters globalist exploitation, ensuring a reset that prioritizes American interests.
Overall, the trade war has hurt China by compelling concessions and exposing vulnerabilities, while helping the US achieve strategic wins, revenue streams, and a stronger negotiating position in both the short and long term.
Now you've gone and done it.
2:14am "and warmed up with some whiskey, just got home and I’m starting to sober up."
15 minutes later and you're researching US-China trade policies. All while I'd been sleeping for hours.
-
Now you've gone and done it.
2:14am "and warmed up with some whiskey, just got home and I’m starting to sober up."
15 minutes later and you're researching US-China trade policies. All while I'd been sleeping for hours.
Haha I was wound up, told T there was no way I was going to be able to sleep. So naturally I jumped on the forums, watched the recap and the Tennessee version of Robert/Jeremy Werner on YouTube, and asked AI some questions!
-
Well, I guess the economy is doing fine just like Biden, I mean, Trump, says!
-
Well, I guess the economy is doing fine just like Biden, I mean, Trump, says!
The economy is objectively doing fine
-
The economy is objectively doing fine
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-u-s-economy-is-facing-no-shortage-of-worries-as-it-heads-into-2026-c73f8e1d
-
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-u-s-economy-is-facing-no-shortage-of-worries-as-it-heads-into-2026-c73f8e1d
“If, could, potentially, maybe, might, perhaps” all doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
(https://i.ibb.co/ns6KTymN/IMG-2185.jpg) (https://ibb.co/27Wpwrh1)
-
“If, could, potentially, maybe, might, perhaps” all doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
(https://i.ibb.co/ns6KTymN/IMG-2185.jpg) (https://ibb.co/27Wpwrh1)
Sounds pretty good to me…
-
Sounds pretty good to me…
It’s *almost* like people want it to be shitty just so they have something to bitch about. To prove they were right.
From a pure data perspective the economy is in good shape. The fears of high inflation and all this other alarmist stuff never came to fruition, while the impacts of the interest cuts haven’t even had a chance to do the good things they always do.
A lot of the recent affordibility argument from the left is being drawn from data from 3-4 years ago and not just this last year. We use a budget tracker to keep things in perspective and we are spending *less* actual dollars per month in the last 14 months than we were in actual dollars in 2023 and 2024. I put on a ton of miles for work so I understand that the lower gas prices shape my expenses more than others. But it still flies in the face of the current narrative that no one can afford to live under Trump.
-
https://x.com/i/status/1877501353175478525
-
https://www.newsweek.com/alien-warning-financial-crisis-bank-of-england-11380816