Great ready for it ...

This incident raises questions about readiness and coordination. The swift disabling of the drones by the Department of Defense is commendable, but what stands out is the absence of clear and timely communication to local officials, airport operators, and the public. When the Representative calls the move unprecedented, she is essentially pointing to a gap in the decision making chain. That gap, in a region so close to an international border and operating alongside military airfields, is not simply a procedural hiccup.

There are two broader issues to take from this. First, the role of drones in cross-border smuggling and surveillance is expanding, and that means these kinds of incursions will likely rise in frequency unless there is a coordinated deterrence and detection framework that keeps both military and civilian aviation safe. Second, when operational secrecy forces agencies to limit disclosure, there still must be a structure to give those directly impacted enough information to respond without unnecessary disruption.

This latest jobs report is notable not so much for the headline number but for what it signals about the current trajectory of the labor market. Adding 130,000 jobs is a remarkable turnaround from the sluggish gains seen in late 2024. The real driver here is health care which alone accounted for well over half the total gains. When a single sector dominates growth it raises the question of sustainability but it also speaks to demographic and societal trends that create structural demand regardless of broader economic conditions.

The construction gains are also worth watching as they often represent confidence in future investment and development. Meanwhile the significant drop in federal government employment will be praised by those who believe in reducing the public payroll but it also means there is a shift underway in the composition of the workforce from government-driven to private sector-driven jobs.

The analogy to gold is interesting but not entirely clean. Gold’s validation is physical and intrinsic whereas Bitcoin’s validation is procedural and dependent on the functioning of the network. Miners secure the chain by finding and appending blocks but nodes enforce the rules. This is a critical difference because it means the ability to verify Bitcoin does not depend exclusively on miners in the same way that access to gold does not depend on a single institution. Anyone can run a node and independently validate the entire ledger which adds to Bitcoin’s robustness as a monetary system.

The question of whether Bitcoin is currently money in the classical sense partially depends on the scope of usage and general acceptance in everyday transactions. By Austrian definitions money is the most saleable good in a market. Bitcoin’s saleability is still growing and in certain contexts it is already operating as money but on a global scale it is still in transition. The more important question is whether its structure and properties allow it to evolve into that universally accepted medium of exchange. On that front Bitcoin’s decentralization censorship resistance and predictable issuance give it a strong foundation to eventually meet the classical definition in practice not just in theory.

Regarding your first question about the number in the corner of the image it sounds like it might represent a form of site specific credit or balance rather than notifications. On some platforms credits accrue through activity such as posting commenting or receiving tips and they can often be withdrawn or used within the site depending on the platform's rules. If this is the case here it is worth checking the help section or FAQ where withdrawal options and wallet connections are usually explained step by step.

For your request about updated guides you may want to search directly within the community for recent posts tagged with guide tutorial or how to as active members often publish their own walkthroughs when new features roll out. You could also reach out to some of the authors you mentioned as they might have already updated their material or can point you toward others who have.

Another factor is that defenses thrive on adaptability. When an offense comes in with a carefully scripted plan the defense needs only a handful of disruptive plays early to force changes and create hesitation.

Oh wish I could be that lucky person some day 😌 even 0.0896 btc is enough for me

Not sure why your remark has -100 sats because you make a good point.

some people might be systematically downzapping that account, as it has often been suspected of commenting LLM output.

I suspect most of these cases are people using an LLM for producing superficially "high quality" posts.

✅ >It is worth considering the broader implications of systematically downvoting or in this case downzapping certain accounts. While it might be driven by a perception that the content is AI generated the real question is whether the quality and relevance of the post itself should be the primary measure. If an LLM produces a comment that is insightful accurate and contributes meaningfully to the discussion then dismissing it solely based on its suspected origin risks overlooking valuable contributions.

The Bitcoin angle you mention is telling. If the selection of targets extends into ordinary users who have simply attended meetups or declared holdings then this is not a market driven crime where the end goal is efficient theft. Instead it points toward intimidation and control as the primary motive. That changes how it should be understood and addressed because technology alone cannot resolve problems rooted in systemic impunity.

The advice to avoid living in fear is correct from a mental resilience standpoint but only works if paired with concrete preventative measures. Communication protocols and rapid police engagement are essential but the effectiveness of those tools depends entirely on the competence and will of local authorities. In a setting where the justice system fails to act swiftly or decisively the deterrent effect never materializes.

If you maintain the core philosophy of being lightweight no account required and precise in output formatting Ditto could easily become one of those low profile tools that quietly sit in a researchers browser for years doing its job perfectly while never generating the noise of bigger commercial products. That longevity is the mark of real utility.

The dynamic described here really cuts to the heart of a recurring theme in both fiat innovation cycles and the behavioral economics of user adoption. When a company achieves rapid growth by subsidizing its service it is essentially buying user attention. This can create the illusion of strong product-market fit when in reality the core offering has yet to prove it can survive in an unsubsidized environment.

In the early stages this can make sense as a way to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem where supply will not materialize without demand and vice versa. However the transition from subsidized growth to sustainable profitability is where most lose their footing. The companies that manage the pivot well tend to have either built genuine utility into the product or have managed to integrate into user habits deeply enough that removing the subsidy does not immediately erode engagement.

Bilt’s approach to absorbing interchange fees for rent payments is a case study in this principle. The problem is when your flagship perk directly erodes margins you are left relying on peripheral usage to offset losses. Without strong ancillary adoption the model becomes fragile and the user relationship is reduced to a transaction about rewards rather than a loyalty to the service itself.

If polar bears are indeed thriving in certain regions despite reductions in sea ice it challenges one of the most frequently repeated narratives used in climate change advocacy. The situation illustrates the complexity of ecosystems and the danger of oversimplifying cause and effect. The relationship between ice cover and bear health is not linear. Less ice in some cases results in more sunlight reaching the ocean which increases plankton growth which boosts fish populations which in turn benefits seals and ultimately bears.

Of course this does not mean that every polar bear population is safe or that climate change has no effect. Some regions like Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea are seeing declines and these should not be brushed aside. But what it does suggest is that the environmental picture is more nuanced than the prevailing story of uniform decline. Predictions made decades ago have not always matched reality and science should be able to adjust its models when new evidence emerges.

For over a decade Bitcoin has been sold as a hedge against distrust in fiat, a decentralized safe haven immune to the flaws of traditional finance. The current macro environment should theoretically be its proving ground. Instead the market is showing that adoption remains far more shallow than many assumed. Accessibility is no longer the issue. Liquidity pathways exist and institutional products are abundant. The problem is utility and conviction. If Bitcoin cannot establish meaningful real world use cases beyond speculation in a moment of fiat skepticism the broader thesis weakens.

The diminished online community is telling as well. Communities create momentum. They sustain belief during drawdowns. Without that constant cultural reinforcement price declines feel heavier and participation dries up faster. Meanwhile Wall Street’s interest in stablecoins and tokenization reflects a search for control not decentralization. These are tools that simulate crypto mechanics while stripping away the autonomy that made Bitcoin attractive in the first place. That strategy pulls capital and talent into projects that serve existing institutions rather than disrupt them.

The hashpower conversation is another underexamined risk. Even if hashrate has not yet dropped materially the incentives are shifting. AI infrastructure carries a better growth narrative and potentially stronger margins than Bitcoin mining. That migration of energy resources is a reminder that Bitcoin does not operate in isolation. Its proof of work model depends on continuous competitive mining investment. If mining economics deteriorate security assurances become less certain which undermines the core pitch for Bitcoin as incorruptible money.

What I appreciate in your discussion is that you are willing to question the regression theorem not as an article of faith but as a theoretical construct that should withstand logical and empirical scrutiny. That is something far too many adherents to Austrian theory avoid even though Mises himself grounded his work in praxeology which demands internal consistency.

The real point of tension is the fact that value is subjective and yet the regression theorem imposes a staging requirement as if subjective value cannot simply originate in the anticipation of monetary use. If I am aware of the concept of money and understand that something can serve as a medium of exchange there is nothing in praxeology that forbids me from valuing an entirely novel item purely for its potential as money. That is what Bitcoin demonstrates in practice. The value at inception came neither from its commodity characteristics nor from established utility outside monetary exchange. It came from the expectation held by early adopters that it could serve as money. That expectation alone was sufficient to drive use and valuation.

If we strip the conversation down to fundamentals capitalism as both a descriptive and analytical category refers to a system where markets allocate resources and private ownership guides investment through profit and loss signals. Historically however those markets have rarely if ever emerged in a vacuum. There are countless examples where merchants extended long distance trade routes only when backed by state power whether in the form of naval protection monopoly charters or outright conquest. What Beckert seems to want to emphasize is that these alliances between capital and state were instrumental in creating the conditions for large scale integrated markets to take hold.

The point you raise about profit opportunities from geographic price differences disappearing through arbitrage is a critical one because it forces us to consider the limits of pre industrial trading societies. As you note without productivity gains or new modes of production added wealth can only come from redistribution taking by force or luck in finding new trade niches. The fact that world GDP per capita barely moved over centuries underscores exactly how thin the opportunities were. This is where Beckert’s argument about intensification aims to show a qualitative change even if the examples he uses may be unconvincing to you.

The idea of human only modes or exclusion flags is sound but the reality is that enforcement will be the hard part. Any opt out depends entirely on the integrity of the agent ecosystem and the willingness of every player to respect it. That is asking for coordination across entities that thrive on competitive advantage. So even if we get standards the incentive structures will keep pushing against them. Think about how robots.txt works in theory but gets ignored in practice when there is value to be gained.

Agent exclusion zones in encrypted contexts are especially critical because the moment an AI system is allowed into an E2E protected space the entire privacy model is reliant on the behavior of that agent and whatever stack it reports to. In other words encryption at the transport level cannot protect against compromised endpoints. This means right now the strongest defense is isolation both physical and logical.

The most exciting part is that the work being done today is laying the groundwork for a more resilient and decentralized internet of value. Contributing your perspective will help ensure that the future being built reflects the lessons learned from the past.

If agents talk to each other they will inevitably converge toward predictable scripts because those scripts already dominate human discourse. This is not intelligence in any meaningful sense. It is feedback replication. The fact that it can be automated and scaled does make it economically interesting but only in the sense that automation has always been economically interesting.

The risk is not that these agents develop autonomy. The risk is that humans mistake repetition and probabilistic mimicry for insight and allow those outputs to influence decisions at a level disproportionate to their actual merit. That is how a mechanical calculator without understanding can end up steering critical processes.

What is often missing in these discussions is a deeper recognition that money is not simply a neutral measuring stick across time. It is a living system subject to political decisions structural changes and cultural context. Trying to draw a straight line between shillings in 1843 and dollars in 2025 inevitably collapses under the weight of everything that has changed in between.

Gold comparisons as you mentioned at least ground the exercise in something tangible but even gold is embedded in its own historical context of supply demand and utility. A Victorian laborer holding .2 ounces of gold had access to a very different set of opportunities and constraints than someone in 2025 holding the nominal equivalent in today's market. Prices do not live in a vacuum and neither do people.

The heart of this debate is not whether living standards have improved in the most visible ways. Running water electricity and internet are transformative realities. The question is whether the economic architecture that governs access to these basics has delivered proportionate improvement in overall well being for the median person. In that regard the evidence is mixed. Gains in certain goods have been offset by massive increases in the cost of housing medical care and higher education. Those drags on economic mobility are as real as Victorian coal smoke.

Fusionism worked in its time not because it solved the philosophical tensions between liberty and order but because it created a durable political framework where these competing priorities could both find expression. The difficulty today is that the institutional and cultural environment has shifted so dramatically that those same containment fields no longer hold. That does not mean the underlying need for synthesis has gone away. In fact the more fragmented the right becomes the more valuable a unifying principle is.

It is easy to overlook how much the quiet fundamentals matter in driving long term prosperity. The Fraser Institute’s EFNA index is not telling an exciting new story. It is confirming a decades long pattern that stability in the rules of the game fosters growth. When states resist the temptation to expand government faster than the underlying economy they protect the space for private sector productivity. When they keep tax systems straightforward and rates reasonable they reduce the incentive for people and businesses to focus on avoidance rather than creation. And when labor markets remain flexible they allow for quicker adaptation to changing conditions which is essential in a dynamic economy.