Human action is purposeful, and the purpose is gene transmission. We know this…

Praxeology is fundamentally missing the boat because of a false premise found in lesson 2. People CAN be quantified by the purpose of gene transmission through gender role conformity to serve as an individual mating strategy for the transmission of their genes. 1:1 sex ratio is a cultural constant and inborn as a result because gender roles are an attractive division of labor and inform the differences in males and females of all sexual species’.

This is the problem everywhere. Pretty widely held that a democracy of morons doesn’t work. What else is a marketplace of ideas if not voting in favor of ideas with identity formation and in-group affiliation. There’s a few ways morons respond. They don’t which is a type of response. They lash out or laugh off what you’re saying because they don’t want to contend with it intellectually. or they become curious because they have the humility to admit that they don’t know everything. I hope you are not emblematic of this community.

What exactly did I say that doesn’t sit right with you

From insular to collaborative could not be more true. I’m new here so respect is due. I am nontechnical so all I offer is architectural advice, but so far what I see is this has all the makings for the future of networking, including a billionaires favor and what is holding it backs is what holds back everyone, a failure to understand human motivations, the dynamics of the will to power, such is moloch in game theory and sexual selection, a social network not built for individuals but women. Bluesky will become the home for radical feminists and beta males. The exact opposite is true for X. nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m did what he could I. The days of twitter but that is over now and the landscape has changed. Microblogging will polarize into two dominant echo chambers and it will be very hard to pull users away from either after these two have fully matured into their bias enforcing market positions. Now is the time to onboard because the X exodus is happening. This requires an algorithm that selects for a new temperament of influence. You can’t look at social as a democracy of ideas anymore when you understand that democratic voting is itself inherently a flawed model. We are selecting for division using the voting model that is currently considered the arbiter of truth. Polarity is not truth. Polarity is disagreement on the nature of truth. Solving polarity means trending agreeable influencers. People are very similar to understanding when you realize that they are all interested in power and all interested in gene propagation. Radical authoritarian men and radical authoritarian women are imposing their will on agreeable people and this is the forcing function of all political division. They do it to virtue signal their ability to protect agreeable people from each other resulting in our inability to mate agreeable men with agreeable women because if they don’t their genes will not transmit into the future. Radical disagreeable men and women have destroyed the divorce rate, the birthrate and the evolution of our species to prolong their lines and it has to stop.

I understand this a lot to take in much less fully grasp, but if you can, you are not prepared to fuck around in the realm of network architecture. This is a serious subject that piddly little features doesn’t solve.

Bluesky sucks because it is leaning heavily into leftist radical thought as a scaling strategy. It is creating a dangerous echo chamber. Their starter packs idea was really smart. They know how to scale, but people are using those starter packs As tools to block people at scale. they will hit a brick wall and they are not intellectually prepared for it

It is such a challenge to explain to people that free speech enforcement is not decentralization for some reason…? People lie for personal gain - to game the network and assume status. They do this by finding a niche identity that positions them to blame half the network into a collective state of polarization. Polarization is the exact opposite of consensus. Decentralization has to be consensus for there to be organic self governance as opposed to centralized governance. We need to get away from this ridiculous idea that free speech absolutism works. Lying is not a right. nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m was on the right track with the centrist mindset at Twitter, but ever since then no one has been doing meaningful work on content moderation.

How do bitcoin max types plan to convince politicians that need the ability to print money to fund vote bribery that they should just do what is best for the economy?

Let’s just fucking be honest about the situation we are in. Bitcoin will always be a commodity as opposed to a currency because it doesn’t solve the bigger issues.

There is this ideology that disagreeableness is the forcing function that underpins all human innovation. But this is just not the case. The cause of consensus divergence is the manipulation of language for the betterment of self at scale. We evolved language before it became a post Dunbar problem. Disagreeableness is senseless disagreement for the sake of disagreement to self validate. It is a power acquisition strategy. You claim individual intelligence when it does not exist and use that to justify polar acquisition of resources.

You can’t speak truth to power if you aren’t speaking out of both sides of your mouth. We live in a time when both sides are full of shit and they retain a balance of power because we aren’t creating a reward protocol for a centrist influencer class that is paid using the same advertising model web2 used to polarize society to the point we are today. Use the weapons of your enemies for fucks sake. We need to fund a centrist revolt. We need to fund the livelihoods of the influencer leadership that will be the voices against the theater of division propagated by the uniparty.

This beautifully solves the centralization of power but the incentive to adopt it isn’t there for the two competing political forces. The pressure to conform to the vanguard system is too strong. This means the center doesn’t organize on platforms like this, they are pulled to one side or the other. Everyone working in cryptography needed to take a few more humanities classes.

Censorship resistance is the wrong story to tell. The story to tell is disagreeableness versus agreeableness. Build an agreeableness trending protocol and you get a new class of influencers. This is how you polarize the microblogging space to put a check on the radical idiots on both sides

The stoic:

My problems are mine, you can’t have them.

Me:

These are our problems, you can’t claim them

Social networks are reinforcement bias networks. They are populated by agents seeking confirmation, rewarding those with attention who are willing to omit truth.

This all stems from an individuality bias. We ascribe value to individual minds out of vanity but there is no mind without 1:1 sex ratio and male and female differences that remain stable overtime to select for the birth of minds.

People are not first principles thinkers. They are just self aggrandizing, ungrateful cogs in a cycle of civilizational booms and busts.

What is your first principle? If you are a “from first principal thinker”, then you have a first principal. What makes you think it is ‘the first principle’ and not just the level at which you understand everything?

nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m X and threads are going to ideologically polarize the intellectual web. There is no coming back from this.

OK, fine you win, we’ll make bitcoin the embedded currency, for scalability of the rest of the features. But the people who own so much of this bitcoin are going to have to buy into the network and start paying taxes, you can’t have a tax-free society. You have to deal with the issue of inequity, a value add disparity. You can near infinitely fractionate the amount of available bitcoin but you need to issue a UBI that can be borrowed against so all users can never be too big to fail, can never over barrow and bubble the system. This means you need to get everyone who owns a majority of bitcoin to agree to start a new bitcoin backed virtual government - total coup. A dilution majority have to be established essentially to form a collective trust that will scale the network overtime. I would think it would be easier from a governance perspective to have no one have power in the beginning, but I understand scaling is the top priority. Can power succession to the protocol be delivered by the elite in the bitcoin community??? Will the wealthy put their bitcoin where their mouth is?

Fund me 2m, you rebrand it

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yfNJAUxtgPJ_Jb-2fDP6jh2k5B9FKidu/view?usp=drivesdk

No, debt not being scarce resulting in inflation of fiat has hurt workers and caused economic harm.

The problem with bitcoin is the adoption profit motive. Anything with an adoption profit motive is a pyramid scheme. Any currency that starts this way presupposes that early adoption/intelligence should be rewarded monetarily over late adoption/ignorance. This runs directly contradictory to the function of a minimum wage which values all individuals equally.

This network is the best we’ve got but that is not a rave review.

There are two different definitions of decentralization. Two different problems people are trying to solve.

Some people are trying to secure private interaction and exchange and the others are trying to constrain social manipulation and network polarization.

Privacy is an attempt to secure freedom to do the right thing by people who do the right thing - that is just an echo chamber.

You are not going to get privacy because power on both sides won’t let you have it. It’s the only thing they agree on.

You need to reverse the power polarity to actually decentralize a network.

You need to shrink the power of the fringe on both side of the influencer spectrum, and this is exactly how you would scale a competitor to twitter. You need to polarize the micro blogging space like Roger Ailes did with traditional news media. He did it in a centralized way, but on the Internet, you have to do it in a decentralized way, using network effects, and that means an algorithm that rewards a new class of influencers.