I am.
nostr:note1vjsvx5juw86mt6am9dt534mmctg2cf4k2u6x468x9gh04du04jlscfy54m
That dude posts a full video report every day in his social networks, plus he travels and gives more interviews than he probably spends understanding the situation at the front line. I doubt you can gain substantial insights from yet another interview of him claiming "his country is defending Europe".
Not supporting any of the sides here (both are pieces of the well-known brown substance), but it was indeed interesting to watch, although the questions by Tucker could've been more critical. The history digest in the beginning was also hilarious – not a single objection from Tucker. Just keep in mind this war is not in the interest of simple people in any of the contries involved.
Luckily, if you don't watch public TV in Germany, you are not affected by things like this. Well unluckily for me, I get exposed to it every once in a while and I did notice similar rhetoric, although it rather came from tabloids like Bild etc. The whole rhetoric simply resonates very well with the currect political agenda (we are the good ones, we do our best to keep the shit together, bad people have infiltrated our democracy, most likely directly paid by Pu... well you know whom). I think the reason is partially the elections in the US and Europe coming up this year and it is an obvious attempt to consolidate around some "external enemy". Partially the fear that, if Trump is elected, EU economies will stagnate if not dive into a new round of recession due to tax raises and businesses and technologies relocating to the US offering more favorable conditions. It doesn't mean though that Russia is not planning something like that, nor does it mean one can simply relax and lean back. But if the recent history has taught us something, it is that a serious crisis is always much more unlikely than just a gradual and slow decay of economic and social prosperity.
Über die Dörfer.
Spiele das Spiel.
Gefährde die Arbeit noch mehr.
Sei nicht die Hauptperson.
Such die Gegenüberstellung.
Aber sei absichtslos.
Vermeide die Hintergedanken.
Verschweige nichts.
Sei weich und stark.
Sei schlau, laß dich ein und verachte den Sieg.
Beobachte nicht, prüfe nicht,
sondern bleib geistesgegenwärtig bereit für die Zeichen.
Sei erschütterbar.
Zeig deine Augen, wink die anderen ins Tiefe, sorge für den Raum und betrachte einen jeden in seinem Bild.
Entscheide nur begeistert.
Scheitere ruhig.
Vor allem hab Zeit und nimm Umwege.
Laß dich ablenken. Mach sozusagen Urlaub. Überhör keinen Baum und kein Wasser.
Vergiß die Angehörigen, bestärke die Unbekannten, bück dich nach Nebensachen,
weich aus in die Menschenleere,
pfeif auf das Schicksalsdrama,
mißachte das Unglück, zerlach den Konflikt.
Bewege Dich in deinen Eigenfarben;
bis du im Recht bist und das Rauschen der Blätter süß wird.
Geh über die Dörfer.
Ich komme dir nach.
P. Handke, 2006
This account is officially nuked. Nsec will be erased after this message is posted. Stay information-rich, not attention-seeking. See you someday somewhere, anons.
#plebchain #coffeechain #zapathon
Neutrons don't decay spontaneously. If they did, they would fall apart into free quarks. But the inter-quark forces are so strong that one would need to wait for a time much longer than the lifetime of the universe, or accelerate them in a collider to near-relativistic velocities. What you were probably referring to is beta decay (also known as proton or electron emission) in which a neutron can (doesn't have to) spontaneously turn into a proton-electron pair. This process usually happens in the nuclei of atoms where weak intra-nucleus forces and external perturbations can provide sufficient energy to make this statistically likely. So strictly speaking, it is the nucleus that decays by emitting electrons (or positrons), which unter certain circumstances can render the nucleus unstable (e.g., in super heavy atoms). The conversion is accompanied by the emission of an anti-neutrino (or neutrino), a near-zero-mass particle to conserve the total momentum.
Neutrons don’t have an „outer shell“. They are made of three quarks held together by strong nuclear forces that have a quantum-electrostatic nature. Also, neutrons don’t beta decay, the nucleus does, which emits an electron or positron depending on the emission type.
Gross is the name of the guy the company was called after. Dizzy sounds cool if you don’t think of the meaning.
Spotted in local coffee shop:
Mini nostr:npub137c5pd8gmhhe0njtsgwjgunc5xjr2vmzvglkgqs5sjeh972gqqxqjak37w 🐕🫂 
shiba cake
States are neither evil nor not evil -- they are societal intermediates on the way to some new order. Bitcoin is neither evil nor not evil -- it is a code simulating an electronic cash system. Bitcoin is not a state for the same reason that an apple is not a hockey puck.
It is really fun. I can bullshit my students during lunchtime and then submit job applications into /dev/null, pretending I do science.
Have a nice trip.
Yes, you are generally right. However, my point was preventing on- and off-ramps for large amounts of bitcoin. States and banks don't care about me buying 0.001 btc every month, but they really care about whales not buying or selling their thousands of bitcoin randomly because this affects fiat really hard.
I think what would help is a self-sufficient bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't need an off-ramp.
"Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." (von Neumann)
Generating truly random numbers is a merely technical problem. There's no fundamental limitation like Heisenberg's uncertainty (well, our electronics hasn't yet reached that state where this would matter). Faulty electronics introduces unwanted correlations. Quantum computers *might* solve this problem once and forever.
Also, one shouldn't mix up two things: a single realization of a random process (which can be perfectly random) and the underlying statistical distribution (which is deterministic and can be quantified numerically or analytically).
Sorry for nerd speech.
Yes, I was mostly agreeing with you. From a physics point of view, there's no true randomness in the sense that some phenomenon would be truly unpredicable (*correcting my nerdy glasses*). Behind each apparent randomness is a law that may or may not be amenable to experiment. Even the white noise that I mentioned is not truly random because we can calculate its power spectrum. Quantum mechanical systems are not random either. So if all of these fundamental things are not random, why would a human/feelings/instincts be?