13
John
1349d8b7b84708052b349ad55db300b528ca2af1ef85f566f05aed86979d26f5
Aspirational bohemian

Personally I think there's something else people mistake for empathy. An emotionless chain of logic, usually compounded with a wrong assumption or two, about the other person and their situation - often with artificial amounts of inferred emotion injected at the end of the process. Ever come across the type who are extremely angry on someone else's behalf, while having no skin in the game? I suspect it can be a form of virtue signal, conscious or otherwise; though I'm not sure how I'd be confident enough in that assessment to ever know for sure

Thank you! Most promising solition so far, though my first attempt only extracted fhe first half an hour of audio... I'll continue to dabble with it

Found this on zapstore, but still throws a 'not logged in' error on certain videos

Replying to Avatar hzrd149

Well I guess I cant watch youtube videos anymore. although maybe that's a good thing, I was wasting a lot of time there

nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc do you have instructions on how I can start running a youtube downloader / uploader for novia? I tried the app but there doesn't seem to be any downloaders running

I’m glad I’m not the only one. Seems some even quite freedom-centric folk are often yt only, so I can’t watch. (Even more frustrating as I usually don’t want the video anyway, just the audio)

For this feeling x100: get some old tech; vinyl, cd, cassette, and a pair of wired-somehow speakers. Listen outside the matrix. As loud as you like (or as loud as being considerate to others allows). Listen to the good stuff more often.

All imagined futures will come to pass to a certain extent. We choose which future we live in, with certain constraints (where we start from, how to get from here to there, how many we bring with us). Not everyone realises this. Our job is to imagine and live the best future possible; taking as many of our loved ones with us as possible. The more you carry, the less high you can fly. It’s a choice; not always an easy one.

Keys to a lot of currently unopened doors…

GM. You have at times been a light in the dark, appreciated.

(Still haven’t worked out how to zap yet, on my peculiar assortment of hardware)

Needed: A Nostraciser. A Nostracising app, maybe. Someone sends a link - FB, YT, TikTok, whatever - and it resolves (for me) to a ‘sign in to continue’ and I can’t see it (as I’m not willing to sign up). Paste the link into the Nostraciser, and it converts the content to a Nostr post, so anyone can see it. It would be Nostracised. (Maybe linguistically a bit like an exorcism?)

Probably getting ahead of myself, but if nostracising became a commonly understood concept - it might help Trojan-horse everything else into everyday life.

cc nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev nostr:npub1a8jzweysxa9qmtmht874736aalm0lwdsl306nrys9d05ktlrhw3qcr5pj4 nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6

Replying to Avatar Simple Steve

Seems like part of the utxo ownership debate lies in the taboo corner of the “with freedom comes responsibility” rabbit hole. It feels uncomfortable to ask the further question “but what about the person who doesn’t want responsibility and is happy to give up some freedoms.” When this arises in our mind we sometimes switch from the curious mode to the “ought” mode and say “well they should…” or we proudly recall a founding fathers quote about choosing death over the lack of freedom. But those responses feel more like avoiding the question. When we say choosing death we mean choosing our own death, not the death of others making a different choice. Most deep thinkers in this space hold the non-aggression principle fairly central to their ethics so we wouldn’t initiate violence towards someone giving up freedoms for the benefit of non responsibility. We’d advise against that choice, but again we’re avoiding the question. I think there’s a very good chance that a very large percentage of people will simply choose the non responsibility route. Furthering the taboo nature of this line of thinking is that this becomes close to some kind of freely chosen slavery. But we needn’t go down that tangent when as the issue applies to the non slave who simply chooses a little less freedom. Many of us thought the Covid cellar dwellers were cowards, but so long as their choice affects only themselves, we respect their right to be cowards. I would never encourage that route, but regardless of encouragement, I think most people will chose it. Imo most will happily give up the benefits of utxo ownership over the responsibility of utxo ownership. I also think it’s avoiding the issue to imagine that some UX improvement or protocol change will make the foundational issue go away. Sure better ux can help a little but 99% of the “bad ux” problem is that you are responsible for losing your coins, and the extent to which you do not have the ability to lose your coins is the extent to which you don’t own the coins. Everyone knows there’s something dishonest about the person claiming they have a technological solution that fixes this. Clearly some have the hfsp mentality - they know most don’t want the responsibility, likely nothing will change that, and attempting to create more utxo space is pointless. Others feel it is our responsibility to create more space for them incase this dynamic changes and suddenly most people want the responsibility. I think it’s fairly obvious right now that a very small percent of people want the responsibility. Maybe if your circle of friends is only bitcoiners you’d think otherwise, but if you have non bitcoiner friends and family you know what they’re like. And it’s not bitcoin, it’s that they’d always prefer to not be the one responsible. And to think that Bitcoin will fix this about people I think is again being dishonest. My point here isn’t so much that I have to solution to the problem. I’m more trying to point out that it’s this taboo topic that I think lies behind the utxo debate. I guess I’m also writing this to clear up my own thoughts on it. Maybe I shouldnt post it. Screw it, this is Nostr here goes

There is definitely a space for *alternative* trust models. This excites me about fedimint - it opens it up for groups the majority of whom don’t understand the bulk of what bitcoin is/does/how it works, and aren’t interested, but need a practical solution. Bitcoin banks could also cater to the masses in this way with a slightly different trust model. Yes it’s more risk, but the tech can’t police all bad actors out of existence - just leave the surface area for deception smaller, and ultimately provide a choice, to keep the various actors honest. I feel (abused) monopolies are a very large part of what is wrong with a lot of stuff right now