Don't do that then
Excellent defense, inauthentic fraudulence, when detected and easily distinguished, informs us of the nature of any antithetical agenda.
Feature: click on feed header to cycle through user defined preset algorithm. I.e. click notifications once to see all, twice to see today, three times to see only zaps. Click home once to see all twice to see irl friends, thrice fo sho
It's not economically viable in a one dimensional profit narrative. But these keynesians always fail to recognize dynamic system complexity, human action, irrational actors, bad faith actors. It only takes one buyer to make a sale.
No, libertarians who don't operate in cartoon would advocate that park shitting be regulated by something other than a centralized authority funded by theft, with a monopoly on force, using arbitrary and observability ineffective measures for doing so. (At the exclusion of other innovative solutions.)
As with all things related to zaps, nostr:nprofile1qqsvn6daczcrcgdaxdap9h84k33af876l6yy4gfth9gvrqhfund7nwqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ycmw9e3k7mgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgthy2nr is gameable. Owner can simple self zap above the bidding amount and no winner will collect anything. Self-zaps are free, and zapping above the payout makes the whole zapping to win irrelevant since it’s a loss. Thanks for participating
Zaps are not actionable data unless both parties are known individuals within the heuristics of my nostr access paradigm.
A move toward localism, neighborly IRL connections, civic accountability, Pride in my Precinct.
Honed mastery among memesters in roasting motto, logo, and mission statement worshipping, top heavy, administrative state bureaucrats suit led micromanaging self appointed karma police HOA busybodies run rampant with their unchecked instabilities toxifying otherwise harmoniously productive mutually beneficial cooperative win win good times for the rest of us while we pitch in at the park library block party shared garage sale potluck friendlies
Nostr use case: post assignment details, visible to providers after filter, who accept, or bid to accept. Wot review, did provider meet expectations? Reviews of reviews recursively.
That is really, really good. Sent to my kids. The UI is brilliant. Complete with a doom arc where account gets banned, and the perfectly matched UI requires apocalyptic gestures.
'I love government,' Sunny reminisced whistfully.
'Government is force by definition. Whatever it has, it has taken.' Milt offered without obligation.
'Of course. I have sufficiently considered the tradeoffs. Being of sound mind, I rationally choose government.'. Sunny stated.
'Perhaps your focus cannot account for relevant unseen unmeasurables.' Milt responded
Sunny considered carefully before responding respectfully, 'Let us bravely discuss the matter, nuances, intricacies, subtleties, in our shared quest for ever widening understanding! I am eager to learn that which now eludes me -- the nature of my personal bias, or at least what of it your enlightened wealth of shareable experience, knowledge, and extraordinary depth of comprehension may illuminate of any blindnesses I carry, or illusions I hold!'
Conversations that must exist if the token libertarian's assumptive premises are sound. The logical conclusion of an aim to rationally maneuver freedom into existence through language.
Let's throw off all the algorithms and make this the most popular Nostr post of all time
Yes, it makes sense to have different degrees of follow. nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgewaehxw309a5xyu3wvdhhyctrd3jjuum0vd5kzmp0gankr4 wrote about this many, many moons ago.
I prefer user defined 'connections' with organically adopted consensus over a few commonly used to calculate WOT. i.e. 'this x NPUB marks y NPUB as 'restraining order' approximates an objective, useful measurement while not compromising freedom to 'follow' someone without implying trust.
Odds that any note created will be permanently stored in at least one place approaches 100%
Maybe the interplay between free will and determinism is like a moebius strip.
If I make great decisions while course correcting as needed, I have a good chance of being ready to make the right choice in an important moment.
And then I can be grateful for what does not entirely feel like an independent decision in retrospect, and certainly was not one over which my control was the common thread that guided results.
It forces the population to adopt suboptimal workarounds that distort truth sensing and interaction among them. Which isn't a condition of being in control, but also wouldn't get 'this isn't working,' from censors.
