You argue that an individual should have the right to choose what to reveal, and how to appear, with which I agree. My question is, what exactly distinguishes clothes, walls etc from the dystopian mandatory AR glass filters. What is the fundamental difference? (is there one?)
Small lie at first maybe, but to whom?
Much preferable IMO. There is definitely a point where makeup crosses into a blatant lie, don't do it
Agreed, crucial difference. Is it a difference of degree or of kind?
Dystopian thought:
Imagine if in the future, it became mandatory to wear AR glasses, and to apply to each person the filters of their own choosing, i.e. you couldn't see them through your own eyes, but had to limit your perception of them to their desired way of being seen (because doing otherwise would be tantamount to denying their existence or some such)
nostr:note1n24yg5uqwde8nc6qcmp7th9nxq4xqsn5d9jlfhy3azzgywtql33q7puvvl
It makes as much medieval sense to me as paying for circus and being thrown to the lions (ok Roman not medieval)
The absurd thing is, why tf should a custodian be allowed to use my stocks as collateral in the first place. How does it make any sense, and how are the people who enabled this not under constant public outrage?
Agreed, that's why I like Bitcoin as well.
Educating myself on stocks and bonds is precisely what I am doing, but I had never encountered this startling concept before. A quote from the book:
"There are now no property rights to securities held in book-entry form in any jurisdiction, globally."
Right, but it's not the bank giving this guarantee but some other body, for example the FDIC in the US.
But according to the book, this also applies to securities. So any stocks or bonds you hold, are not actually yours, and in case your custodian goes bankrupt, "your" stocks will go to someone else.
I know that in many (all?) countries, when you deposit money at the bank, the bank effectively takes ownership of the money, i.e. it is no longer yours, and you are not first in line to get it back in the event of the bank's bankruptcy. Insanely, if you take out a mortgage from a bank, and put the money on an account in the same bank, then in the event of the bank's bankruptcy, your money can go up in smoke while your mortgage remains intact, i.e. they don't get cancelled out.
I was not aware that the same thing applies to securities. Any people here who know about such things?
#asknostr #nostrplebs
nostr:note1a6d3ld5k6vxdzl2y5gms02s56usvqxqfcersckp46a56f9vwje8q24k2v7
Maybe people will all wear AR glasses and just keep using the same filters "IRL"
This is taken from the book 'The Great Taking'. The author states that any security worldwide is no longer truly owned. To illustrate the absurdity of this, he uses the analogy of a car (to be clear he is not saying that this applies to cars but to securities):
"Let’s say that you have purchased an automobile for cash. Having no debt against the vehicle, you believe that you now own it outright. Despite that, the auto dealer has been allowed by a newly invented legal concept to treat your car as his asset, and to use it as collateral to borrow money for his own purposes. Now the auto dealer has become bankrupt, and your vehicle along with all of the others sold by the dealer are seized by certain secured creditors of the dealership, with no judicial review being necessary, as legal certainty was previously established that they have absolute power to take your car in the event of the bankruptcy of the dealer."
Is this true in your country? #asknostr
I'm starting to read this based on a #nostr recommendation, then I look up and it's #zapathon time
have you consider NixOS?
True, good point.
By referencing another note you'd know it came after that, i.e. partial time-ordering, but no absolute time. Including current Bitcoin block height + hash could also be a good practice, although does not prevent antedating by itself.
Maybe we could build a kind of "collective merkle tree" that increases the coverage of partial order among notes
send him to me, that way I won't waste time writing notes to myself that I'll just ignore anyway
Thanks for the OpenTimestamps reference, wasn't aware this existed
I see - including the hash of the latest block in the post tells you it can't have been written before today (which comes for "free"), however to prove it couldn't have been written *after* today, you'd have to write something like the note id + hash into a bitcoin OP_RETURN