A Chinese soccer club has been fined by the Chinese Professional Football League (CFL) for placing ‘feudal superstitious items’ in the away team’s dressing room.
Changchun Xidu FC, who play in China League Two — the nation’s third division — have been fined 30,000 yuan (£3,070, $4,100) for the incident against Shanxi Chongde Ronghai on June 28.
A statement from the CFL said the club had “placed a number of feudal superstitious items in the away team’s dressing room” before the match, and in accordance with the CFL’s Discipline and Ethics Code, they had breached Article 115 and Article 116.
A report in the Shanghai-based City News Service claims how photos that had been widely shared online showed yellow paper charms inscribed with messages such as: “By decree, Shanxi Chongde Ronghai must be defeated.”
“The CFL will resolutely and seriously deal with all kinds of violations of regulations and disciplines in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline and Ethics Code,” the CFL statement added. “This is in place to purify the atmosphere of the stadium, and for all participants to jointly maintain the order of the game and hard-won environment.”
Changchun Xidu, second in the China League Two standings, won the match 2-0.
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.
A Reddit post struck a nerve in the crypto community, sparking heated debate over one of investing’s most painful questions: When do you take profits?
The post’s central thesis is brutally simple: Despite what keyboard warriors claim today, virtually everyone who bought Bitcoin in its early days would have sold long before it reached current prices. And according to the poster—and basic investment principles—they would have been right to do so.
Invest in Gold
Powered by Money.com – Yahoo may earn commission from the links above.
Don’t Miss:
The Reddit discussion reveals a fundamental tension between investment theory and human psychology. As one commenter noted, “If you 500x an investment yeah you sold lol.”
The math is compelling: If you bought Bitcoin at $1 and watched it climb to $100, you’d have made a 10,000% return. Taking profits at that point wasn’t paper hands—it was prudent risk management. The fact that Bitcoin later reached $60,000+ doesn’t retroactively make selling at $100 a mistake.
“Nothing is guaranteed in investing,” the original poster emphasized. “Anyone who saw their investment multiply by 1000x and didn’t cash out was essentially gambling.”
One of the most insightful comments came from a user who highlighted how net worth influences selling decisions. A college student watching $500 turn into $10,000 faces a completely different calculus than a wealthy investor seeing the same percentage gain on a larger portfolio.
For the student, that $10,000 could mean a reliable car, reduced student debt, or a house down payment. For someone with substantial assets, letting it ride might make more sense as “play money.”
This observation cuts to the heart of position sizing and risk management—concepts that crypto’s “diamond hands” culture often overlooks.
Trending: New to crypto?Get up to $400 in rewards for successfully completing short educational courses and making your first qualifying tradeon Coinbase.
Not everyone agreed with the “everyone would have sold” narrative. Several commenters claimed to have held through massive gains, with one user reporting 300x returns while vowing to “never sell Bitcoin even at x3000.”
These holders share a common belief: Bitcoin represents a fundamental shift away from traditional currency, making it a “once in a lifetime” investment opportunity. As one put it, “Bitcoin’s price is only expected to rise and fiat is only expected to plummet.”
But even among the diamond hands crowd, practical challenges emerged. One commenter admitted, “I’ve been holding BTC because I don’t know where to sell it,” highlighting the gap between investment philosophy and execution.
The discussion wasn’t without cautionary tales. One user shared how they lost 80% of their crypto holdings when the Voyager exchange collapsed, watching their “6 figure net worth reduced to 4 figure inside a week.”
This story underscores a critical point often lost in crypto success stories: unrealized gains aren’t real until they’re realized. The most perfect diamond hands strategy fails if you can’t access your assets when you need them.
Some users proposed middle-ground strategies. One suggested time-locking Bitcoin to enforce long-term holding while still allowing eventual profit-taking—releasing a set amount each year over a decade, for instance.
This approach acknowledges both the potential for long-term growth and the human need to realize gains. It’s a recognition that perfect market timing is impossible, but systematic profit-taking can work.
See Also: A must-have for all crypto enthusiasts: Sign up for the Gemini Credit Card today and earn rewards on Bitcoin Ether, or 60+ other tokens, with every purchase.
The Reddit thread’s most valuable insight isn’t about crypto specifically—it’s about the nature of investing decisions. As one commenter noted, “Hindsight is a b*tch.”
Every investment decision must be made with incomplete information and uncertain outcomes. The person who sold Bitcoin at $100 made a rational decision based on the information available at the time. The fact that it continued rising doesn’t invalidate that logic.
Start with position sizing: Never invest more than you can afford to lose completely. This makes holding through volatility psychologically easier.
Consider your circumstances: Your age, net worth, and financial obligations should influence your profit-taking strategy. What works for a 25-year-old may not work for a 45-year-old with a mortgage and kids.
Plan your exits: Before making any investment, decide at what point you’ll take profits. Having a plan removes emotion from the decision.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good: Taking some profits after significant gains isn’t “paper hands”—it’s risk management.
Remember the risks: Unrealized gains can disappear quickly. Exchange failures, regulatory changes, and market crashes are all real possibilities.
The Reddit discussion reveals an uncomfortable truth: Most successful long-term crypto holders succeeded despite their strategy, not because of it. The difference between conviction and stubbornness is often just luck.
For retail investors, the lesson isn’t to abandon long-term thinking—it’s to balance conviction with prudence. Take some profits along the way. You might miss some upside, but you’ll sleep better at night.
And if you’re beating yourself up for selling an investment “too early,” remember: You made a rational decision with the information you had. That’s not failure—that’s investing.
Read Next: Named a TIME Best Invention and Backed by 5,000+ Users, Kara’s Air-to-Water Pod Cuts Plastic and Costs — And You Can Invest At Just $6.37/Share
Image: Shutterstock
This article Reddit’s Brutal Truth About Crypto Profits: Why That Guy Who Sold Bitcoin at $100 Wasn’t Actually Stupid originally appeared on Benzinga.com
July’s gadget lineup spotlights tools that sharpen performance and elevate everyday well-being. This month’s releases blend precision engineering with compact convenience, catering to both gaming setups and personal spaces.
The Lemokey L1 HE wireless keyboard uses magnetic Gateron switches and Hall effect sensors for actuation points adjustable between 0.2 mm and 3.8 mm. Rapid Trigger tech boosts response times, and QMK firmware lets you map up to four commands per key on its durable metal frame.
Coway’s Airmega 50 air purifier cleans rooms up to 500 sq ft in an hour with 360° intake vents that capture dust and allergens. It runs whisper-quiet at 18.4 dB in Sleep Mode and offers a gentle nightlight that can be switched off for total darkness.
These gadgets prove that smart design can enhance both your hardware precision and home comfort—demonstrating how focused innovation improves the way we play and breathe.
In a recent analysis led by Ryan Hankins, MD, urologist at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, DC, researchers explored a compelling new angle on the use of rectal spacers during prostate cancer radiotherapy. While rectal spacers have long been used to reduce rectal toxicity from radiation therapy, emerging evidence suggests their benefits may extend further, including a potential impact on erectile dysfunction (ED) outcomes.
“We use rectal spacers to help prevent [adverse events] from radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The spacers [were] developed to help with rectal toxicity, primarily to prevent rectal toxicity from radiation therapy. We are seeing now that there may be other benefits,” Hankins explains in an interview with Targeted OncologyTM.
The study utilized a massive dataset drawn from Medicare and included 247,250 patients with prostate cancer who received radiation therapy between 2015 to 2022. Rather than focusing on individual patient-level data, the team opted for a county-level approach to maximize the reach and scale of the study.
“These are large data sets that are readily available, so this is based on diagnoses that are reported, or really government-reported diagnosis codes, and so we can dive into large data sets to see if we can find associations with improvement in these [adverse events],” he shares.
The analysis revealed a notable association: counties with higher utilization of rectal spacers during prostate cancer radiotherapy showed lower rates of ED diagnoses. While the data is observational and further research is needed to confirm causality, the findings point toward a potentially broader protective role for rectal spacers.
REFERENCE:
Hankins RA, Sato R, Mehta P, Bhattacharyya S, Ezekwekwu E, Collins S. Real-world U.S. county-level analysis of erectile dysfunction diagnosis following radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: The impact of rectal spacer utilization. J Urol. 2025;213(5S):e1327. doi:10.1097/01.JU.0001110184.48142.9e.03
Isack Hadjar crashed out of the British Grand Prix in dramatic circumstances after hitting the back of Kimi Antonelli’s Mercedes in treacherous conditions.
With Silverstone being hit by rain during the Grand Prix, and the race having to be run behind the Safety Car for a portion, Hadjar crashed out on the approach to Copse once racing got back underway.
Replays showed the huge amounts of spray in the field of vision of the Racing Bulls driver, with the rear of Antonelli’s Mercedes suddenly appearing as Hadjar hit the back of the W16.
Click play on the video above to watch Hadjar’s crash during the British Grand Prix.
Amazon has the AirPods Pro 2 for $169.99 ahead of Prime Day, down from $249.00. Free delivery options provide an estimated delivery date of around July 11, while Prime members should get the headphones sooner in most cases.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
Compared to past sales, this is a match of the best price we’ve tracked so far in 2025 and it’s an overall solid second-best price on the AirPods Pro 2. Amazon also has the AirPods 4 available for $99.99 during this sale, an all-time low price.
We’ve begun tracking all of the best early Prime Day deals in our dedicated post, and it also includes every color of the USB-C AirPods Max on sale at $479.99, down from $549.00. If you’re on the hunt for more discounts, be sure to visit our Apple Deals roundup where we recap the best Apple-related bargains of the past week.
Deals Newsletter
Interested in hearing more about the best deals you can find in 2025? Sign up for our Deals Newsletter and we’ll keep you updated so you don’t miss the biggest deals of the season!
Popular Stories
iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 14 New Features
Apple’s next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are just over two months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices.
Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models.
Latest Rumors
These rumors surfaced in June and July:Apple logo repositioned: Apple’s logo may have a lower position on the back of the iPhone 17 Pro models, compared to previous…
Apple Watch Ultra 3 Launching Later This Year With Two Key Upgrades
The long wait for an Apple Watch Ultra 3 appears to be nearly over, and it is rumored to feature both satellite connectivity and 5G support.
Apple Watch Ultra’s existing Night Mode
In his latest Power On newsletter, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman said that the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is on track to launch this year with “significant” new features, including satellite connectivity, which would let you…
iPhone 17 Pro Max Battery Capacity Leaked
The iPhone 17 Pro Max will feature the biggest ever battery in an iPhone, according to the Weibo leaker known as “Instant Digital.”
In a new post, the leaker listed the battery capacities of the iPhone 11 Pro Max through to the iPhone 16 Pro Max, and added that the iPhone 17 Pro Max will feature a battery capacity of 5,000mAh:
iPhone 11 Pro Max: 3,969mAh
iPhone 12 Pro Max: 3,687mAh…
AirPods Pro 3 to Help Maintain Apple’s Place in Earbud Market Amid Increasing Low-Cost Competition
Apple’s position as the dominant force in the global true wireless stereo (TWS) earbud market is expected to continue through 2025, according to Counterpoint Research.
The forecast outlines a 3% year-over-year increase in global TWS unit shipments for 2025, signaling a transition from rapid growth to a more mature phase for the category. While Apple is set to remain the leading brand by…
Here’s How the iPhone 17 Pro Max Will Compare to the iPhone 17 Pro
Apple should unveil the iPhone 17 series in September, and there might be one bigger difference between the Pro and Pro Max models this year.
As always, the Pro Max model will be larger than the Pro model:iPhone 17 Pro: 6.3-inch display
iPhone 17 Pro Max: 6.9-inch displayGiven the Pro Max is physically larger than the Pro, it has more internal space, allowing for a larger battery and…
Apple’s Upcoming Macs Listed in New Report
AppleInsider’s Marko Zivkovic today shared a list of alleged identifiers for future Mac models, which should roll out over the next year or so.
The report does not reveal anything too surprising, but it does serve as further evidence that Apple is seemingly working on new models of every Mac, including the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro.
Apple is…
At the best of times, manufacturer participation in motorsport remains a fickle thing. Companies dip in and out of racing categories on a whim, citing vague and incredulous excuses such as “objectives reached” or “changes in corporate strategy”, which is really just corporate code for “after years of trying and billions spent, our empty trophy cabinet has forced a shareholder-pleasing retreat from factory-level racing”.
Trunk Volume
35.5 cu.ft.
Roadside Warranty
48 month/unlimited
Corrosion Perforation Warranty
144 month/unlimited
Powertrain Warranty
48 month/50,000 miles
There was a time, though, that the flipside also rang true. In Formula One’s pre-ban-hammer days of the 1970s, when innovation was still revered as opposed to being reviled today – and technology was still in its infancy – nearly anything went and everyone wanted in. Think back to the Tyrell P34 six-wheeler, the first ground effect cars and, indeed, turbocharging.
Renault pioneered forced induction into the sport in 1977, followed by Ferrari in 1981, BMW in 1982 and TAG-Porsche the next year.
Related
The Difference Between An F1 Engine And A Road Car V6
While a road-legal V6 and one used in Formula 1 share the same number of cylinders, a wide range of differences separate them.
To balance performance against the benchmark and naturally aspirated 3-liter Cosworth DFV V8 used by nearly all on the grid, the turbo cars were restricted in capacity to 1.5-liters. Renault and Ferrari both opted for a V6 configuration for their engines, yet BMW chose to go an entirely different direction with not just four cylinders, but a production-based block whose roots hail as far back as the mid 1960s.
Using road car engine blocks is a common, cost-efficient occurrence in grassroots motorsport. Further up the competitive ladder, it’s less likely: such engines are bespoke and designed from scratch to deliver ultimate performance and reliability. That BMW looked towards such an unlikely source to serve in racing’s highest tier is already unusual. That this production-based engine evolved to the highest-powered F1 engine in history almost defies belief.
The BMW 1500 Engine Developed Just 80 hp, But In F1 Spec Had 17 Times That
The BMW 1500 Neue Klasse was produced between 1961 and 1965. As a keystone entrant in its history, apart from saving BMW from financial ruin, it’s the car that took post-war BMW into a new era and established the brand as a pre-eminent manufacturer of luxury sports sedans.
The 1500’s engine capacity was just that: 1.5 liters, distributed between four cylinders in a bulletproof cast-iron block and producing 80 hp; the former being strong, cheap and bearing excellent resistance against wear.
Over time, the engine – codenamed M10 – would undergo several upgrades and be featured in successive models such as the 1600, 2002 and E21-gen 3 Series, as well as being homologated for racing in up to Formula 3 and Formula 2.
Paul Rosche, BMW’s engine doyenne for more than 40 years and responsible for the piston power of all M-branded models up until 1999, including that of the McLaren F1 supercar, chose this engine for its familiarity, lightness, compactness, simplicity and durability.
A more compact engine would also deliver secondary benefits in F1, such as less weight and better weight distribution, ease of packaging, cooling and installation, the latter assisting the rear aerodynamics to work harder. Durability was enforced with titanium conrods and gear-driven camshafts.
With a KKK turbocharger fitted and fuel injection controlled by electronic management as an F1-first, in debut form the engine – now christened M12/13 – first appeared in 1982 with the Brabham F1 team, with a peak capability of 800 hp. It was naturally disposed to high-revving, being well oversquare. The latter is a preferable trait in racing engines where long, low-rev torque-producing strokes are undesirable. The downside was ridiculous turbo lag demanding a change of driving style and perfect throttle timing between corner entry and exit, to have the steering wheel straight just at the moment the turbine unleashed its tar-tearing terror.
Related
Watch Hennessey’s Twin-Turbo 1,700-HP Hemi Glow Red-Hot On A Dyno
Hey, what’s Ram CEO Tim Kuniskis doing there?
It is alleged that Rosche had a preference for using engine blocks from the 1500 roadcars that had already covered 100 000 kilometers (62 000 miles) for the F1 application, as it was reasoned these would have been proven not to have suffered from any casting imperfections.
By 1982, the M12/13’s power could be reliably upped to 640 hp for races – a number set to skyrocket in the coming years. In fact, that was nothing against its full destructive capability when set to qualifying mode, where it developed a still-standing record 1,400 hp.
Or more.
Because nobody knows precisely how much.
BMW M12/13/1
Displacement
1,496 cubic centimeters
Cylinders
Inline-4, turbocharged
Construction
Grey iron block, light-alloy cylinder head
Bore and Stroke
89.0 mm x 60.0 mm
Valves Per Cylinder
4
Maximum Power
1,400 hp @ 11,500 rpm
Maximum Torque
Approximately 1,106 lb-ft
Boosted Beyond Breaking Point
Paul Rosche’s timeless quote is a perfect postcard of that era’s mechanical mayhem: “It must have been 1,400 bhp, but we don’t know the exact figure since the engine didn’t go beyond 1,280 hp.”
The only way to achieve such monstrous power, was for BMW to have wound the boost up to 80 PSI and revving the engine beyond its 11,500 rpm limit, at the cost of already-laughable reliability.
Understandably, F1’s special qualifying-only engines of that period were called “grenade” engines.
Read More
Gordon Murray Will Take Combustion Engines “Right To The Ragged Edge” Of Their Lifespan
The downturn in demand for EVs is nothing but good news for the sports car as far as Professor Gordon Murray is concerned.
These were F1’s true days of thunder, as mechanics regularly suffered constant burns from contact with red-hot exhausts and fatigue from an incessant number of engine changes over each race weekend. Spare a thought for the cars, too, that regularly suffered bent chassis tubing from wrestling the engines’ twisting forces.
It was not in vain, though, as Nelson Piquet powered to the 1983 F1 crown in the Gordon Murray-designed BT52, with BMW becoming F1’s first-ever championship-winning turbo engine just 630 days after the company entered the sport as an engine supplier. As a bonus, they’d beat Renault at their own game despite the French company enjoying a five-year head start.
The BMW M12/13 Engine Was Far More Than Just The Sum Of Its Parts
It’s easy to look back and reduce the M12/13 and its successor, the M12/13/1’s esteem to the sole value of its admittedly ludicrous four-digit power output.
Beyond that, though, the creation of the Brabham BT52 necessitated innovation. The car’s arrow shape originated as a result of moving all the available mass to the rear to aid traction, just weeks after a ban on ground effect cars for the 1983 season was instituted and rendering the convention of mounting the radiators alongside the driver useless.
Furthermore, gearbox internals would have had to be significantly beefed up, and aerodynamics adapted accordingly around optimized engine packaging. So, too, were the drivers, who had to man-handle the 1,000-hp beasts without the aid of power steering with nothing but anticipatory alertness and gladiatorial bravery to deal with the sudden onslaught of boost.
BMW Quit F1 While It Was Still Ahead
To prevent dominance by turbocharged cars, from 1984 onwards, F1’s governing body, the FIA, implemented a gradually increasing fuel capacity limit. Along with a mandated reduction in boost pressure that would start in 1987, the resultant need to save fuel hampered the turbo cars’ performance as intended.
All too aware of the M12/13/1’s vicious power resulting from a ferocious appetite for octane, BMW foresaw that these interventions would curtail future success, and withdrew from the sport at the end of 1986.
Related
Ford, Hyundai, and BMW Wanted A Piece Of Red Bull F1
According to Helmut Marko, several teams were interested in getting into bed with Red Bull’s Formula 1 team.
By that time, the humble 1500 sedan would have turned a full 21 years old, its creators blissfully unaware of the stratospheric heights the offspring of its M10 engine would reach in F1 – and later leaving the sport with not a whimper, but an indelible bang that still continues to inspire awe today.