I never saw the white version of the poop emoji before.

It's a start for sure. And if myself, or some others I know, are representative example, once you go self custody and get past that scary feeling, you start a domino effect of self sovereign realizations

Final settlement my friend ⭕️

Maybe in this cycle individuals can heed the warnings of the elders who have lived through a cycle.......maybe live long enough to see it broken and onto a more empathetic pathway.

Having a strong, global, neutral property right (for the first time ever) mitigates, if not fixes, this.

gm mahdood~

Look up anything you can find about Diogenes. He's not exactly a stoic but the stoics definitely respected him. Diogenes didn't write anything down but he lived by example his philosophy and he adhered to it without fail. Many of his teachings aligned with stoicism, but they diverge because society saw Diogenes on the surface and without context it was abrasive and off putting. He seems more comfortable than the richest person on earth and he has nothing. He saw a child drinking water from his cupped hands at the trough and promptly discarded his cup. He slept amongst stray dogs because he found no virtue in the structure of society and the short sighted nature of the people in charge so he provided them with an example of his enlightened philosophy while eating hand outs, assaulting the rich, and masturbating in public. Alexander the Great said if he could be anyone in the world he would be Diogenes.

Gm Nostr. ☕️

Freedom isn't about doing what you want, it's about not needing what everyone else is addicted to.

Now go crush today and I’ll catch y’all in a bit. PV.

GM frens 🌞

Strength conditioning this am

Steps are coming right up 🚶‍♂️

It’s all backwards. “Israel has a right to defend itself” yet I have no right to defend myself from thieves who would steal from me, then use that money to murder children.

imagine my *cough* surprise 🤡

nostr:note10hcf7ecd9eevv2wdceynvvq6hf2dgtvmg02twhmrcqmzx20xe3tse53x8k

Man, where did you get that chivalry is not Christian? I am just not sure what to do with a claim like that. I have literally read the early chivalry manuals and they are definitely Christian manuals on moral conduct for soldiers written by Christians for Christians and full of Christian values.

I agree that life in the modernity was soft for a while, compared to starving because of a drought or or something. But that wasn't because of kings or knights. That was because of technology and we definitely have better tech now. Culture is another question.

I get that you might not like the idea of going to church if you are not a Christian and that's fine. Christians believe in free will. I don't think it was ever a wide spread thing that anyone was forced to go to church by anyone other than their parents, and parents do need to make decisions for kids.

No, I said what *I* think modernity's story is. Speaking for myself and not trying to put any words in your mouth at all.

Chivalry was a code of honorable behavior created by christian military leaders to stop their soldiers from misbehaving on campaigns (such as mistreating peasant women) because that's part of what happens when you take soldiers into the field.

The old chivalry manuals, from before it got perverted into the modem romantic thing by Elanore of Aquitain and her Troubodours writing the King Aurther soap operas, were very solid and based.

I agree with your general point on nostalgia, I just disagree with that particular example. I think that one goes the other way around. The middle ages get a bad rap.

Sorry, man. I'm picking a nit and being pretty autistic here and I acknowledge that. I have taken an interest in this bit of history and I've been really surprised by what I found. Very decentralized and free. Hard living, but just because of nature mostly. One of the best times on human stuff. Very decentralized too.

Modernity just teaches us to think it was oppressed to deflect from the fact that modernity is actually way more oppresive on a human level.

They were talking about how "no ai content" seemed good, but didn't like how it would be used in content analysis, creating the app itself, and how OtherStuff had AI everywhere else in it. They basically confused & mixed up AI with automation and said they didn't want it anywhere.

The second point is about where they're coming from. They think platforms care about them, and they have a say in what they do.

They said "I don't want AI being trained from my content", expecting platforms to cater to and protect their values. Yet the platforms extract as much value from them as possible, and that includes AI training.

Nostr data is about as accessible as connecting to the internet, there's no protectors to negotiate with. You're not negotiating with anyone about what you want to say, but you also can't tell anyone what not to do with what you say.

I didn't say you said that. I'm just saying that's all sort of part of the same modern narrative frame and I question that knights in the "dark ages" were all a bunch of rapists. Or that women were generally oppressed in Christendom. The whole "dark ages" vs "enlightenment" thing is pretty loaded. What were knights and kings actually like? I'm not attacking you personally, man. I'm just not sure I buy modernity's story anymore.

Trying to raise the dead...

13 years today from this picture, and still as meaningful as day 1. However, I definitely needed this tattoo redone 😂

It took a bit for me to untangle what was off in the video for me.

1) It's almost a "not even wrong" problem, where one can agree on their stance of not supporting the AI industry as a driver for loss in jobs, slop, etc. etc. But they're averse to it like you'd have aversion to a color, and "The AI" is one color.

At that point you're basically arguing for manual content review. Pushed further, you'd almost expect them to start freaking out that the abacus was ever invented.

2) They're also implicitly coming from a mindset where the platform should protect their users. While at the same time, the platform's revenue model is fundamentally antithetical to their wellbeing, so they have to continually tread that dissonance between feeling like opinions matter to their farmers.

Because everything is so open on nostr, we can only expect that everything written/done can be analyzed at any level of detail. We're not asking "platforms" to protect us in any way. We WANT our data/speech to propagate as a fundamental. After that's established we have other rules to tweak the level of openness and visibility.

Cause they die young ?

More than “wrong” but owned his shilling of the mRNA poison with sufficient contrition, then yes I would consider whatever he had to say.

I agree with this generally, but not in this case. Was such a total and catastrophic epistemic failure, has to be owned for credibility to be retained. Not like we disagree about whether tariffs are a good idea.

I also remember that. Disqualifying for me.

Regards dont get offended. They laugh and get even 🔥⭕️

Unique yes. Special...

Only I may classify myself as a regard

Bringing up my mom tho... risky business

GM hahaha