depending on your hash but I’m getting about 1000 sats daily give or take
I’ll admit I’m collecting the daily sats from braiin pool and not really solo mining 🤷🏻
You may wanna stack some in case it catches on #zap #zapthon 👉🏼 https://satsfaucet.com/register?r=frontrun
Sorry guys, I’m out too #cumberland #otc#gm #nostr #plebchain
A Counter-Case: Reframing the Debate on Rule of Law and Legal Activism
1. The Rule of Law Is Not Above Accountability
While the letter defends legal professionals against government criticism, it omits the possibility that lawyers and firms, like all actors in a democracy, are subject to scrutiny and public accountability. The notion that criticism constitutes retribution assumes a chilling effect that may not be universally valid. If law firms engage in advocacy—especially politically charged or high-profile cases—they inevitably enter the public arena and must accept a level of transparency and consequence.
2. Public Confidence in Legal Neutrality Matters
The legal profession enjoys broad autonomy, but when law schools or firms appear to align with specific political or ideological movements, they risk eroding public trust in legal impartiality. Government leaders—and citizens—may reasonably question whether such institutions are truly upholding the law, or selectively interpreting it to advance an agenda. This is not an attack on the rule of law, but a demand for its consistent application.
3. Free Speech Is Not Freedom from Consequences
The letter criticizes the punishment of individuals for speaking out on matters of public concern. Yet it conflates lawful expression with immunity from consequences—social, professional, or even legal. Speech that incites, misinforms, or undermines democratic institutions may cross into harmful territory. Dissent should be protected, but not all speech is equally constructive or protected, especially in a professional or legal setting where trust, decorum, and ethics matter.
4. International Students and Activism: A Complex Legal Landscape
The letter expresses concern over international students fearing deportation for political activism. But non-citizens, by legal definition, have limited residency rights and are subject to immigration law, which may restrict certain forms of political engagement. This isn’t necessarily a violation of constitutional rights but a reflection of the legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens, which is standard in most nations.
5. Rule of Law Also Requires Institutional Restraint
Ironically, by taking a broad ideological stance, the law school risks weakening the very impartiality it seeks to defend. If legal institutions openly align with a specific narrative, it may invite political counter-pressure. The long-term survival of the rule of law depends not just on defending free speech, but on the restraint and neutrality of those who interpret and enforce the law.
⸻
Conclusion
The Harvard Law letter raises valid concerns—but it does so from a position that may blur the line between legal advocacy and political activism. The counter-case asserts that accountability, balance, and humility are just as essential to the rule of law as defending it from external threats.
Would you like this adapted into a debate format, op-ed, or point-by-point rebuttal for presentation?
I want to know why they don't want us to know
Assuming the current downward trend continues, Bitcoin's 50-day moving average would cross below the 200-day moving average (forming a "death cross") around May 9, 2025, approximately 42 days from today.
This estimation is based on simplified linear trends, and actual market behavior may vary significantly. #llm #timedelta
⚙️ Bitcoin: Sum of Its Parts
1. Blockchain Ledger
A decentralized, append-only database (ledger) that records every transaction.
Immutable: Once written, it cannot be changed without rewriting the entire history.
Public: Anyone can audit it in real time.
Function: Provides transparency, trust, and eliminates the need for central record-keepers.
2. Proof-of-Work (PoW) Consensus Mechanism
Miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles using computational power.
The “winner” adds the next block and earns new bitcoins + fees.
Function: Ensures consensus across a decentralized network without trust. Makes attacks extremely expensive (i.e., 51% attack).
3. Fixed Supply (21 Million Cap)
Hard-coded limit; no more than 21 million BTC will ever exist.
Issuance follows a halving schedule (every ~4 years), reducing new supply.
Function: Makes Bitcoin a scarce digital asset, mimicking gold but with predictable supply mechanics.
4. Private/Public Key Cryptography
Every user has a public address (visible) and private key (secret).
Ownership is proven by signing transactions with the private key.
Function: Enables self-custody and permissionless ownership without intermediaries.
5. Decentralized Network of Nodes
Thousands of nodes around the world validate, store, and propagate the blockchain.
No single point of failure or central authority.
Function: Makes Bitcoin resilient, censorship-resistant, and immune to political manipulation.
6. Open Source Code & Community Governance
Anyone can audit the code; changes require global consensus.
No CEO, no board—protocol development is slow, conservative, and peer-reviewed.
Function: Trust comes from transparency, not personalities or organizations.
7. Bitcoin as Native Digital Money
Unlike stablecoins or tokens, BTC is the native asset of the Bitcoin network.
It doesn’t rely on any issuer or peg.
Function: Makes it a sovereign form of digital money.
🧠 Where Does Bitcoin Derive Its Value?
Digital Scarcity
First digitally scarce object in human history.
Cannot be inflated like fiat or easily replicated like digital files.
Decentralization & Censorship Resistance
No central authority can freeze or reverse a transaction.
Vital in unstable economies, authoritarian regimes, or during capital controls.
Security & Network Integrity
Most secure blockchain in existence (by hash power).
Tamper-proof history backed by massive energy expenditure.
Global Liquidity & Recognition
Traded globally 24/7 with increasing institutional access.
Recognized as property, commodity, or even currency in various jurisdictions.
Portability & Final Settlement
Can move millions across borders in minutes without intermediaries.
Final settlement: no chargebacks, reversals, or waiting for clearinghouses.
Monetary Policy Credibility
No central bank. No political influence. No surprise rate changes.
Transparent, predictable issuance.
Social Consensus
Value is partly memetic: belief in Bitcoin’s function and future grows through adoption.
It’s valuable because people trust it will remain secure, scarce, and borderless.
🚨 A Critical View
Bitcoin’s value doesn’t come from cash flow, yield, or intrinsic use, like traditional assets. Instead, it’s:
Monetary premium on top of its utility as decentralized, scarce money.
Backed by belief in rules over rulers, math over manipulation.
In other words, Bitcoin is a protocol that monetizes trustlessness, energy, and time—and turns them into a bearer asset. #plebchain #tldr
#thecrew
Let the retail FOMO begin #gme #btcreserve #gm #nostr #plebchain
#freesats #plebchain #zap 👉🏼 https://satsfaucet.com/register?r=frontrun
notes with recent replies feels that way to me
practically empty 
#mempool
Title: “The Third Ballot”
Washington D.C., 2032.
It began with a whisper—a memo leaked to three media outlets titled “Strategic Legal Pathways for Post-22nd Term Reconsideration.” Buried in legal jargon and cloaked in hypotheticals, the document outlined an argument: that the 22nd Amendment’s limitation on two terms applied only to consecutive elections.
The author? An anonymous constitutional scholar with links to President Jacob Thorne’s legal team.
Thorne, a populist firebrand, had swept into office in 2024, after previously serving from 2016 to 2020. His second term had been chaotic but effective—booming markets, controversial alliances, and a Supreme Court that tilted harder right. His base adored him. His party feared him. And when the 2032 primaries began, they found themselves leaderless, disorganized—and surrounded by signs, again, screaming:
“THORNE 2032: BACK FOR GOOD.”
A simple campaign video dropped in April. Black and white. His voice narrating:
“The founders never said anything about consecutive. And the people never said they were done.”
It hit 70 million views in three days.
The Lawsuits Came Fast.
Secretaries of State in California, Illinois, and Michigan blocked him from the primary ballots. His team sued under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming political discrimination. Courts across the country delivered conflicting opinions. A federal judge in Texas called the 22nd Amendment “silent on the nuances of re-election spacing.” Another in New York wrote, “There is nothing ambiguous in ‘shall be elected… no more than twice.’”
Meanwhile, Thorne continued campaigning—not officially, he said. “I’m just visiting the people. If the people demand it, who am I to say no?”
At the Republican National Convention, chants of “Let him run!” clashed with shouts of “Two is enough!” The party splintered.
The Supreme Court Took the Case in June.
Thorne v. United States Election Commission was the headline of the summer.
His lawyers argued that the Amendment was written during a time of Cold War fears—meant to prevent consecutive dynasties, not staggered ones. They cited historical ambiguities, presidential emergency powers, even the notion that if the people voted for him, it would be anti-democratic to stop him.
The government’s case was blunt:
“This is a test of whether the Constitution still binds men to limits—or whether powerful men can stretch it until it breaks.”
The Ruling Came on July 4th. Poetic Timing.
8-1 against Thorne.
Chief Justice Alvarez, writing for the majority, stated:
“The Constitution does not equivocate. A man who has been elected twice to the presidency may not be elected again. The term ‘consecutive’ does not appear in the Twenty-Second Amendment. And no interpretation—historical, legal, or moral—permits us to insert it.”
Thorne stood behind a podium in Tulsa that night, defiant.
“They fear the people. They fear you. But this is not over. History is longer than courts.”
His supporters roared. But the campaign collapsed.
By August, Republican leaders rallied behind a compromise candidate. Thorne founded an independent “America Eternal” party. It fizzled.
He sued again, this time in international court. Denied jurisdiction. He ran TV ads saying the Court was corrupt. By October, interest faded. The country had moved on.
Epilogue – 2035
Thorne sits in exile on a private estate in Georgia, dictating his memoirs.
The title?
“The People Voted. The Judges Didn’t.”
It sells moderately well. A documentary is in production.
But the Constitution holds.
For now.
#bitcoin is not a thing anymore; it's THE thing #plebchain #nostr
Remove #kyc from your #sats #lightning to #coldstore https://ff.io/BTCLN/BTC/?ref=rfhp58pd