I haven't really worked in a month or so.. lmao thank you bitcoin.. I pay everything upfront for 3-4 months and then live life and then lol work to pay again for 3-4 months.. ppl are haters around my way because they think i live of SSI š¤£ a disability check lol I just laugh because only if they would actually talk to me I can actually teach them the bitcoin way but they HATERS...
Discussion
I have not mined enough fiat lately. Now I live with the angst of having to sell some of my BTC to get to end of May. To me not working enough and having to reduce my BTC stash is the source of much much angst.
Ya my btc does not reduce lol because once I pay everything I work hard for 2 months and replace and add even more because I am ahead on bills..
I pay myself everyweek from my stack.. and I replace way more than I pay myself.. budget budget
If you replace with way moreā¦ u working, no?
Ya but I don't work a 9-5.. so I can work when I want.. if you pay yourself less than what you make in a week you will come out on top
9-5 is slavery, I always end up wanting to fight the slave master. But running costs are there, and some months I simply do not find enough work, need to diversify my work portfolio I guess.
Same.. actually looking for remote work but I've never worked talking on the phone lmao I only know manual labor š fuck
We will be ok šš¾
Iām the opposite, I need that brainy non physical work I can do from home. Canāt always count on my body due to chronic illness. With some work, people would never know Iām mostly stuck to my bed on that day.
Same here. Iām just happy that I can stay and work from home when I need to. Luckily, I donāt get penalized for that because I accumulated quite some trust at work in the previous years. Had a nasty burn out a few weeks ago and this has triggered a mindset change in my head. I donāt think Iām going back to the classical āgo to work 9-5 (8-7 in my case), come home, repeatā ever again.
I hear you. I tried the standard job reorientation pathways and realized it would never be an option for me ever again. Was pushed towards self employment but Iād say my psychological profile canāt do that alone, I need a teammate with complementary profile. So, I am trying to build myself a diverse work portfolio, as many income avenues possible, nobody owning me.
I tried to diversify my portfolio too, but I quickly realized that it makes things even worse for me. I tried a deep dive into AI with only a limited success. Also employers are somehow not happy if they see you were working on one thing for 10 years and gained some reputation and then suddenly switched directions. But they also want that you to switch directions š¤·š»āāļøš¤¦āāļø
Good point with the teammate. Actually I would love to join a small startup where youād work in pairs on small pieces of a big project. But I donāt find any in the EU.
Diversifying portfolio does not necessarily mean diversifying skill set. It only means offering the skill set to more people. I can work for you, but remote, 10hrs a week, then another 5 hours at someone elseās location, and so onā¦
Think also about the one shot services you can offer. I can come, do this for you, and then you never have to worry about me. No payroll, taxesā¦ businesses like that a whole lot.
Good point š¤ This is why I had this idea of joining a science/IT business startup to work part-time or remotely.
I'm also able to live like this because I don't spend money on anything like. I don't go out and spend money just to have a good time we don't do that over here. I like to go to do stuff where it's free straight up. I'm a cheap bastard.
How do you guys deal with the fear of not finding a job again after a break or after quitting the previous one?
In the back of my mind I understand that I have a solid skills set (physics, math, programming), but in practice every time I think of a possibility that I might lose my job and nobody would need my skills, I go nutsā¦
I separate work from having a job. I was a manager in my last job so I realize that businesses have the constant need of finding solutions, especially in fast evolving industries. I am the solution, as long as I keep up to date.
This helps the mindset, not always the results.
In parallel, I collaborate with non-profits that deal with the subject matter I am passionate about. This helps my network, non-profits are in constant contact with money to make things work. (I am in the process of looking for funding for my own non-profit, weāll pay people for work, weāll coordinate pro bono) this also helps my sanity (I stay in touch with my passions) and generates a lil bit of income.
Thanks šš» Your words are indeed inspiring. In my field (academic science), itās not that easy to separate work from a job because of the public funding and the constant need to justify that this funding is required.
Switching to self-employment isnāt a great idea due to the large institutional peer pressure (if youāre not part of some famos university/institute, youāre worth nothing). This situation is one of the biggest sources of my anxiety. š
Academic science is indeed the victim of the nefarious relationship between funding and academic institutions.
Decentralized education and academic accreditation is one of my obsessions. Universities are corrupted since day one. The whole system was setup as a partnership between church and bourgeoisie, power and money. Power changed but the nasty relationships remains. Witches were burned because they were practicing medicine without the approval of the universities, without the academic accreditation. (Broom to keep their place clean, cat to get rid of the pests)
I truly believe that a decentralized education network can be implemented and that a protocol can sustain a collective aggregated academic accreditation process. I have developed a fair amount of ideas (a network spanning from introductory classes to research and startup funding, virtual and brick and mortar, with built in workplace recruitment tools) only to realize the magnitude of the taskā¦ but I was thinking dApps and tokens. Thinking relays, clients and custom NIPs is opening a new set of possibilities, with a lot of the work already being done.
The key component I am trying to tackle (conceptually) now is aggregated trustworthiness as it is key to the academic accreditation process. At lit review stage, looking for ways to turn the kind of interactions I foresee on the platform into quantitative data that could be processed to assess trustworthiness, then use the aggregation to rate teacher, tutors, assessors, locations, equipment providers, employers, aggregatorsā¦. and so on, and weigh the quality of the feedback they provide.
My problem is that my brain works quite well conceptually, but I am not the best at building š I think I was the most effective when my work was mainly to be a brain and I had arms and legs that I could lead. š¤£
listen to Saifedeanās podcast on the topic of academia (episode 80) (thank you #[4]ā it was truly worth a listen)
Wow, sounds like a really interesting and challenging idea that youāre working. To add my 50 cents to what you said, itās not only education that requires trustworthiness. Modern science got stuck in what we call the āreproducibility crisisā, which is partially caused by the fundraising and publishing system we have. Meaning that high impact journals wouldnāt accept a solid piece of science, no matter how well done it is, and always prefer to publish a fancy study coming from a top research institute. In many cases the conclusions of these studies are not justified by data but are automatically believed by the reader based on, letās say, coolness of the authors and the journal. => Publishers care less and less about whether or not the results of such studies can be verify or disproven independently. They just have to be believed by enough colleagues.
I know personally people having been banned from arXiv.org at the request of another entity. The game is all fucked.
Even young aspiring scientists end up gravitating towards popular ideas because they know that will help their career.
Pre internet, pre-prints (notes) were sent to relevant libraries (relays) and anyone could read, criticize, contact the author, be inspiredā¦ I think Nostr offers a perfect model for academic publishing initiatives.
Not using government money changes a whole lot of things, as explained in the podcast.
Let me expand a little on what I see as being the main problem. Peer-review is a weapon. It can be run for hire (many peer reviewed paper did not even have a methodology section, research on the matter shows) it can also be used ill intentionally to censor.
Again, Nostr offers the possibility of reimagining the peer review system. Filtering is absolutely needed, but the mechanism should be distributed and incorruptible.
Maybe a pre-print needs to pass many community layers before it can be considered a published article. Maybe here as well aggregated trustworthiness can play a role over time. Maybe a degree of randomization is needed.Maybe we should reconsider what a published paper is forā¦.
Is it to achieve status via publication? Is it to meet quota and maintain position in a research center or university? Is it to serve the needs of the sponsor? (big pharma I am looking at you)
Or should a published paper be about moving forward collectively and advertise the people doing the work so that they can get funded? About helping fostering a spirit of collaboration where verification rewards the individual, the research and the collective effort.
The web was born out of the desire of collaboration amongst particle physicists. Tim and the people who helped him at CERN (even if he claims otherwise, nobody helped him and ooops the archive was lost and he needed to rebuild it manually) wanted to improve collaboration, decentralize research. But, everything was victim of governmental funding, and lack of belief.
The truth is that W3C is probably been hijacked by Google (possibly one of the reasons Tim left). The web is corrupted to the coreā¦ Nostr offers the potential of fixing that.
The idea of decetralized publishing (or better to say decoupled from greedy publishing houses like Springer) has been circulating in the science community for a while. arXiv and bioRxiv have solved many problems, but not all. There have been good attempts to decommercialize the scientific publishing business, for example, the eLife journal. But also eLife is slowly drifting to the conventional publishing scheme and has changed its publishing strategy and fees several times already.
The major problem here is how to verify a scientific publication. I very much like the analogy to #bitcoin mining where a network of clients (scientists) would submit their manuscripts (transactions) to publishing agencies (relays), with the latter initiating a decentralized review process (mining) and finally appending it to the global knowledge database (blockchain). But to me there seem to be two large obstacles:
(1) Who is going to validate those? In the bitcoin universe, you as a user don't need a specific expertise to validate bitcoin transactions or to solve cryptographic hashes to have a chance to win the block reward. Some computer knowledge is of course needed, but the validation/mining is done by soulless machines. And it's a very objective thing ā no misunderstandings, no ambiguity. The question is then: How can we formulate a mathematical problem such that its solution corresponds to verifying a scientific claim? Itās absolutely nontrivial.
(2) How do we make this new publishing system self-sustained? Again, in the bitcoin universe, this is achieved by block rewards to the one solving the cryptographic puzzle correctly. Would the same scheme work in science? How do we ensure the system is not misused to mine rewards insead of validating scientific arguments?
All in all, the question that you raised has immense importance in my opinion. Despite (1) and (2), trying to approach this ideal is definitely worth working on it.
Tough questions my friend. But, as you mention worth exploring.
Indeed, decentralizing money is the easiest feat, itās a fairly simple ledger with printing money and collecting fees as incentive; and it was not an easy feat.
Thatās why I ponder so much on trustworthiness without really finding a solid answer.
For financial sustainability it is easier for me to think in the context of education as an industry or music and film distribution as I have a better grasp of how the end product can be sold, and then work backwards from there to imagine fair reward of added value into the human chain.
With research, funding in itself is the cause of the problem. So, I would need to better understand who already fund research, why, how do themselves get the money to do so and then offer them a way to continue to do so without corrupting the new process, but also consider what funding can look like when the non scientific community comes in contact with research goals, crowdfunding based on non scientific communication on the research, but with direct funding channel.
ššš The posts are getting longer and longerā¦ Maybe itās worth a whole podcast already š
Deal. Iām gearing to run a fortnightly (for now) podcast/nestcast titled āDonāt Mind Me, Just Snoopingā mixing Nostr devs and normal plebs each episode. Youāre listed for discussion on scientific publishing (first a pre recorded part with only you then a live section with the devs and possibly audience interaction). Deal?
Historical side noteā¦
https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
The information at the top of the page is inaccurate. This document was lost by Tim and he recovered it from someone at CERN he had originally sent it to. The man in question had received it after being promoted to head of his own team and had some seed funds at disposition, which he used to fund Tim.
I know this because I have browsed the very early web from the NexT computer Tim coded it from. Being too young and stupid to understand how historically significant it was.
The computer was accidentally thrown awayā¦
