Avatar
monk_cactus
0da54ff10e1931782c8db2cb7519a282cb990f39dff378dc5a2cc67a63794007
We must cultivate our garden | Statistics and Data Science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

I got it when I was ~12 I think. Didn’t grow any new appendages. Multiple decades later and so far so good ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don’t. I assume Damus tries to publish to every relay I’ve added, but I don’t actually know if that’s the case

Ok help a nub out.

I have a computer running umbrel with Tailscale installed. I have another computer with Tailscale installed. They’re both set up and associated with my Tailscale account.

How do I use the IP of the umbrel machine to access the web dashboard on the other machine?

From what I can tell, you try to get people to attest with their key that you’re not a bot. There also seems to be rules about who can attest, which I imagine are being tracked in the backend of that website.

I’m not really interested, it seems like a lot of work, and I don’t have problems with spam so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ah so the scientists would be incentivized to spin their findings as marketably as possible in order to secure more funding in the future? You don’t say

You’re assuming the givers are giving with a near-term expected application of results, which is not the case with grant funded research.

What you’re saying is true about privately funded research and development within business. Reread what I said about that

True, but that’s more a statement about government theft than anything. These grant proposals are reviewed by blinded academics, not government employees or appointees.

Unless the private grantors have the expertise to review proposals at scale, they would likely follow a similar process

I’m not so sure about that. Any system that operates like this will have the same problem:

1) Scientists must look for funding

2) Scientists with the best reputation are more likely to be funded

3) Scientists are incentivized to prioritize reputation above scientific rigor

This would plague private funding just as much, assuming we’re talking about grant style funding where the scientist has a large amount of freedom.

Within private sector R&D, you don’t have this problem. But you also don’t get the flexibility to pursue questions that have no clear monetization path.

I can’t remember where I read this, otherwise would cite. I’m also paraphrasing because I can’t find it.

“The product of science is truth (or as close as we can get). But the product of scientists is reputation”

Terrible incentive alignment

100%

I mean that’s the beautiful thing about bitcoin and it’s anti-fragility. They (govs) can just keep crying harder while the bitcoin economy grows. It’s first and foremost a dark market money.

If they realize they’re going to have to go full on evil empire to stop it, that’s when you bail. And like you said, best to have a plan for that before you need it