pull down to refresh
@ek
4,675,072 sats stacked
stacking since: #57444longest cowboy streak: 233 verified stacker.news contributornpub16x07c...2j2s96s89dekzyis
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 27m \ parent \ on: SN release: drop territory costs, bug fixes meta
Sorry, I forgot that you also reported it and only mentioned that we shipped a fix in #732201.
Will those of us who paid the full 3 million sats still get to keep out territories for life if you eliminate the option in the future? ...or are you planning on removing that and pushing us to a monthly or yearly payment?
we don't know yet, all we know is that in hindsight, we probably shouldn't have added territories for life
Afaik, @k00b mentioned it worked great against people zapping themselves. It also helps with network fees since we pay network fees out of that budget and it increased revenue for founders a lot. So I don't think we want to reduce it.
We also discussed a little bit to add a weekly plan and not have any discounts between plans, so a month would cost as much as 4 weeks and a year would cost as much as 12 months. These options would then just exist for your convenience.
The idea was that the discounts were meant to incentivize long-term thinking founders but it seemed to have the negative effect: territories on more regular bills are better maintained than territories bought outright (also the reason we're debating removing
once). Removing the discounts would also make it mentally easier to start a territory for a week and see how it goes. You're not punished for not knowing immediately if it will work out or not. I think there are many cool ideas for territories but having to pay and commit to a territory idea for at least a whole month is maybe too risky.But we already have too many territories so we want to see some churn first before we add an option for even more territories or have a better interface to discover territories.
the growth of this blog and the minimalist movement over the years since it began stand as proof
nitpick: it's not a proof, it's evidence
Why does miners choosing their own blocks not solve the centralization problem? If a government wants to ban addresses, they now have to force every individual mining farm to not include specific transactions in their templates instead of just forcing a few pools. I don't know what the ratio of mining farm/pool is though.
It's stored locally so if your browser data gets deleted, it will be gone, yes.
But you can enable device sync in your settings then we will store it encrypted on our server and send it to your other devices if you entered the same passphrase there.
we will use LNDK along-side LND:
While LND does not support BOLT 12 at this moment, you can run LNDK along-side your LND node to begin trying out BOLT 12.
edit: Oh sorry, I see you meant receivers that use LND won't support BOLT12
Mhh. I would say agency is what I feel when I wake up and feel a strong motivation to follow my plans for the day because I think it actually matters in the long run.
So basically, for me, agency is about believing that what I do matters. But it doesn't mean that I can't also believe that there are limits to how much it matters. 🤔
Data storage is very cheap, see S3 pricing: it costs us $0.023 per GB and month for the first 50 TB.
It does mean though that stackers only pay once and we have to pay for it forever but it's still so cheap and it improves UX a lot. You can also consider it part of territory bills.
lol. I guess too much spam was uploaded.
We give you 250MB free data every day if you're logged in and used it to post on SN as explained here:
There are also fees for uploads but your first 250 MB within 24 hours are free. After that, every upload will cost 10 sats until you reach 500 MB. Then the fee is raised to 100 sats until 1 GB after which every upload will cost 1,000 sats. After 24 hours, you can upload 250 MB for free again. Uploads without being logged in always cost 100 sats.
Aren't the videos uploaded like this but didn't post will expire after 24 hours?
What do you mean? He used it in a comment so it doesn't expire.
I’m finding it hard to reply because this feels like one of those posts where nothing I say will do it justice—whether to the post itself, the world, or even my own thoughts. The more I reflect on agency, the assassination, my similar tendency to see most people as NPCs, and the term NPC itself and what it does to us when we use it, the more I realize I am just treading water.
It feels like I’m trying to say some things, but I don’t know what they are. I only know that when I say something else, that’s not it. What if we quite literally don't have the words for certain modern feelings, and all we can do is to circle around them without ever explicitly stating them? Maybe that sounds overly dramatic, but that is how I feel. Do others ever feel this way? Is there a specific term for it? Or is it just an intrinsic part of the human condition—so universal that we never even bothered to invent a word for it? I must admit, that would be terrifying. It reminds me of George Orwell's 1984, but instead of eliminating words to limit human thought, we created societies with bigger problems than a single human mind can ever comprehend in full.
Anyway, with this disclaimer out of the way, I want to say that this post reminded me that I dismissed the news about the assassination as "just an American thing." However, I am usually pretty aware that the US basically defines Western culture and whatever happens there, usually also starts happening here in Europe not too long after, at least to some degree. So there is the first conflict. Why did I not really care? I think partly it was because I perceived most reactions as noise: some people were shocked, some were cheering, some people were shocked that others were cheering, but none of them struck me as original, thoughtful or unbiased. I don't blame them though. If someone asked me what I am thinking about the assassination I would probably just have replied: "that's probably not good." Not very thoughtful myself.
But I also didn't care about the assassination because I didn't think that it matters that I do:
Do I have to care about it? I mean, surely it matters that some people care about it, but does it matter if I do?
I think this brings us back to the question of agency. It's pretty hard to be agentic when in 99.99% of the things that happen in the world, what you did or didn't do didn't matter. So much is beyond our control, it's very tempting to just lean into that realization.1
In that sense, I can understand why we take mental shortcuts and dismiss the fact that every single person has an experience as complex as our own by labeling them as NPCs. But it’s also somewhat ironic since thinking of others as NPCs is itself kind of NPC'ish. After all, it’s a mental shortcut, not so different from the mental shortcuts we see in others that lead us to think of them as NPCs.
So perhaps the key difference is that some people are more aware of them than others, as mentioned in the article:
Unlike most people who decry others as NPCs, Luigi showed enough awareness to identify that he, too, lived much of his life on autopilot, confessing that he sometimes wasted whole afternoons doomscrolling social media.
But I’m also increasingly worried that people like me, who try to remain neutral observers, will also end up in the crossfire eventually anyway.
I think that was most of what I wanted to say. I hope there was at least a shimmer of original thoughts in there.
Oh, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to force myself to listen to my thoughts, as the author of the article described it here:
Writing forces you to hear your thoughts. It is a confrontation with yourself. This is its greatest value, and its greatest pain.
Footnotes
-
I guess that makes me a bit of an existentialist?? ↩