The other half of fiat science studies are intentional deception, usually to make a claim that what our ancestors have been doing for thousands of years is bad actually, while what modern bugmen have been doing for only a few decades is good actually. 
nostr:note1wnmyl4kukh0edywhl4u0q9tmk0vw2k4nq3zh5rdc2rfknxnvjhqs24kzvk
Each day is another opportunity to do better.
Hyperinflation is coming regardless. Austerity is untenable at this stage of fiat economics.
In the Wheel of Time universe, no Aes Sedai will speak a word that is untrue.
They may withhold speaking, or speak truths with double meanings, as they are not required to cast pearls before swine, but they will never outright lie.
This is in line with my own morality regarding truth-telling. 
He saw the meme. 
“I have been realizing more and more that partisans to opposed philosophies share the same premises, which are usually unconscious. Furthermore, these premises are transmitted by such social institutions as the structure of language and the learning of roles, influencing us in ways of which we are hardly aware. Thus the conventional saint and the conventional sinner, the ascetic and the sensualist, the metaphysician and the materialist may have so much in common that their opposition is quite trivial. Like alternating heat and cold, they may be symptoms of the same fever.”
— Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 
Most of fiat science is proving things we already knew (for example, that seals don’t enjoy hearing sonic booms over and over, or that Beagles don’t enjoy being eaten alive by sand flies at the behest of Dr Fauci).
The purpose of these “studies” isn’t to make meaningful scientific discoveries, but rather, to check bureaucratic boxes that inflate the importance of the bureaucracy while slowing the pace of real innovation.
The question of whether Seals like or dislike sonic booms is irrelevant. The real question is whether the benefits of mastering the final frontier is worth the price of sonic booms, and whether it is ethical to put innocent animals through greater suffering than is needed to prove obvious conclusions we already know to be true. 
“Ordinarily we think of self-consciousness as the subject’s awareness of itself. We would be far less confused if we saw that it is the subject-object’s awareness of itself. For the knower is what he knows in somewhat the same way as the seemingly two surfaces of the Möbius strip are one. Pushing the analogy a little further, conscious experiencing seems to be a field which, like the strip, twists back upon itself. It is not, then, that I know both other things and myself. It is rather that the total field I-know-this knows itself.”
— Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 
“The difference between ourselves and the animals is possibly that they have only the most rudimentary form of the individualized consciousness but a high degree of sensitivity to the endless knot of nature. If so, the extreme insecurity of their lives is by no means as intolerable as it would be for us.”
— Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 
Whenever something cannot be questioned, that’s a tell that it ought to be questioned.
“Are you really going to question the integrity of the election results?” Yes.
“Are you really going to question the safety and efficacy of vaccines?” Yes.
“Are you really going to question the soundness of the US dollar?” Yes.
Anyone who is familiar with the scientific method knows that the way to get at truth is to ask questions and seek answers from first principles. It may be true that the election results are accurate, that some vaccines are safe and effective, and that the US dollar system is sound, but if so, no panic should arise from asking these questions. It should be easy to verify that every vote corresponds to an eligible citizen, that every vaccine has undergone long-term double-blind placebo-controlled trials with clear results, and that the US dollar system is on a sustainable path to paying off its debt and remaining the global reserve currency for decades to come. Yet it isn’t. Ask yourself why.
In a civil society, challenging assumptions and thinking critically should be encouraged, not vilified.
If Paul Revere were alive today, he’d be a “paranoid crypto anarchist.” 
The point Saylor makes that he (FDR) “didn’t really seize the gold” and “kick in everybody’s door” is an argument for self-custody rather than against it.
Meaning, if you’e held your own gold when Executive Order 6102 was issued, you’d have been fine. But if you’d held your gold with a bank, there would be no way to get it back. You’d have to accept the conversion to fiat.
It’s great that the institutions are adopting Bitcoin now, and Saylor deserves credit for leading the way. Institutional adoption of Bitcoin was always going to be a step towards mass adoption. And it is true that certain use cases do require custodians, which is fine so long as users are aware of the trade-offs.
But it cannot be overstated that by holding your Bitcoin with trusted third parties, “the main benefits are lost.”
Satoshi warns against this in the very first page of the whitepaper.
“Our difficulty is not that we have developed conscious attention but that we have lost the wider style of feeling which should be its background, the feeling which would let us know what nature is from the inside. Perhaps some intimation of this lost feeling underlies our perennial nostalgia for the ‘natural life,’ and the myth of a golden age from which we have fallen.”
— Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 
Many are saying this. nostr:note19m2k2pkygs0fu8jp79x5nwfx37lg37y2xh8l6deg5m8ymm3k6hjst7gxkn