0 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 9 Jun \ on: EU: Solving The Debt Problem econ
Yes, those are called "national governments of the EU members".
None of the present political forces would recognize itself as someone who doesn't question the health of society:
- the left believes that the society is deeply sick with [a-z]*{ism|phobia}
- the right believes that the society is sick with the absurd and out of control wokeism
- the libertarians see the statism of both the left and the right as the sickness
You can't move your force in non-Newtonian ways, otherwise somebody would get a Nobel prize already. Jin is purely Newtonian.
The next level for the Yang practitioners is realizing that the torque should be applied not just to the arm, but to the leg as well. Both Chen style and Bagua teach that openly and upfront. See Chen style "silk reeling force".
the text coded invoice is actually smaller than the QR code
The QR code isn't necessarily shown in the smallest size it can be while still being recognizable. I'd guess it's the opposite: it's shown the largest it can be.
The QR code involves an error correcting code (Reed-Solomon) which can eat about half the area (depends on the settings with which the code was produced). So double your text area to accomodate the error correcting codes.
Once you do that, I believe that the QR code would actually win in efficiency in terms of size. That doesn't mean that you can't use letters if you want the thing to be human-readable, but for invoices it would be a whole lot of letters.
Yes but the average normie won't meet you. An average normie would meet an average Bitcoiner, and that is probably why the average normie has a low opinion on Bitcoiners.
I have read and listened to punk6529, the self-described meme maximalist (I'm not sure what's his stance on memecoins, I paid attention to him only during the NFT era). He argues for his position rationally and persuasively. I disagree with him anyway (that's why I stopped paying attention) but he's way above a random degen.
By the way I believe that "gm" (the common greeting on Nostr) was originally popularized by punk6529. Check out the Temple of GM in his "Open Metaverse". That tells me that he's not too wrong in his culture building ideas, he just overestimates their importance IMO.
That's exactly the normies' reaction when they look at us. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that the normies are right. I'm just making this observation.
A Bitcoin company must:
- implement KYC and FATF travel rule to ensure that no money whatsoever goes towards buying shitcoins
- immediately terminate services to users who want to pay with fiat
- drop partnerships with companies such as Casa that dare to serve E***m users
- should borrowing be necessary, all company debt must be denominated in sats
So one of the top qualifications would want would be not having a bank account?
Of course a Bitcoin company can't have a bank account!
The plan for SN seems to be:
- outdo substack in content quality and the number of users
- unfuck worldwide democracy and media
As @callebtc teaches, every business should issue ecash for its services, and people would buy their services by atomically swapping LN or sat-denominated ecash with service-denominated ecash. This isn't entirely realistic though. First, the government will kill such a business on sight. Second, the services are not necessarily fungible: for Uber rides it won't work.
Is there even something to fix? But what?
This is a very good question. Westerners have strong cultural bias against haggling. However, haggling isn't inherently harmful, it's just very inefficient as practiced in an Eastern bazaar. The "dynamic prices" are basically haggling, except the customer is pretty helpless.
Here's what haggling is for. You come to the bazaar and see a thingumbob that you want to buy as long as the price is lower than 2 Msat, but you shouldn't say this out loud. The vendor wants to sell it as long as the price is higher than 1 Msat, but won't say this out loud. If you have a good haggling strategy, you might pay only 1.01 Msat, but if the seller has a good strategy, you might pay 1.99 Msat instead. Ideally a haggling protocol would converge to a point with a predefined split of extracted value, for example, if we target equal split, than an ideal haggling protocol would end up with the price of 1.5 Msat. We don't have that though.
Generally if the valuations are known, then the winner would be the party that is able to bind itself the strongest, thus disempowering itself the most. So your best strategy would be something like "I swear in the name of Satoshi that I will not pay more than 1.01 Msat for that thing!". If it's credible, then you win. Proverbial bridge burning refers exactly to the same dynamic: to win you must cut your own options as much as possible, which historically sometimes led to actually burning your only path to safety.
A couple of easy puzzles to round this up:
- why companies tend to communicate with you through the lowest level drones that have no power whatsoever?
- women fought to get more options and got them, but now they complain that too few men want to marry. What has happened?
If ads in the start menu were not enough to make normies switch to Linux, then mere AI won't be enough either. The normies will love their new AI assistants.
I liked the article and especially his perspective of "the first civil war in a digital nation".
His complaint about neither book mentioning ZK-SNARK is understandable but since Bitcoin doesn't have gas, introducing resourse-hungry opcodes like OP_ZKSNARKVERIFY are not practical. That said, I do hope that similar functionality can be achieved with either OP_CAT or various BitVMs.
I wonder though why his article on civil wars in digital nations never mentions ETC.
I will not give up custody of my Bitcoin, no matter what, and you shouldn't either.
You know that for this post you got zapped around 5 ksats (so far) custodied by SN, right?
What a word diarrhea...
Hey author, the word "epistemic" means that if you can make predictions and they come true, then your epistemology is cool. It doesn't mean "hey let's make more collectivism". In the woke universities you can write any crap that says "let's replace capitalism with communism" and you'll get a pat on the head and maybe a bunch of nice-looking but meaningless credentials. However, this has nothing to do with anything epistemic or scientific, no matter what the university might tell you.
the radical individualism of the sovereign individual model risks undermining the foundations of a democratic society by suggesting that individuals can and should be able to opt out of traditional forms of political and social obligation in favor of self-selected digital communities, the sovereign individual thesis weakens the bonds of mutual responsibility and collective action essential for addressing complex global challenges
The "traditional forms of political and social obligation" require the wokes to at least not sabotage the decrees of elected president Trump. And do they do it? Of course not. "We won't let Trump vaxx us with the untested vaccine!" - remember that? But when someone wants some individual liberty - oh no! but our democratic society!
The individuals can, in fact, opt out of "political and social obligation" - specifically, if you want my taxes, then you're a thief and fuck you. (Please address further questions about taxation to DarthCoin.) So "Sovereign Individual" tells the truth. If the foundations of your precious society can be undermined by simply pronouncing the truth then your society sucks.
By presenting technological change as an autonomous and inevitable process, it downplays the role of human agency and democratic decision-making in shaping the future, Most importantly, it means insisting on the primacy of democratic deliberation and collective decision-making in guiding the trajectory of technological development.
(lots and lots of crap that suggests that scientific discoveries are determined by elections)
Who exactly voted for the virus capability research?
When did we get to vote on researching fusion?
etc...
It's all nonsense. Research never worked like that.