nostr:nprofile1qqsyvrp9u6p0mfur9dfdru3d853tx9mdjuhkphxuxgfwmryja7zsvhqpzamhxue69uhhv6t5daezumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcscpyug any way to "mute" someone when their notes are received as part of tag subscription but to let it pass when someone reposts or replies, etc? (I.e. respect an "endorsement" of a note when coming from a follower?)

Intention is to silence someone who's spamming too much but respect my followers who might want to boost a particularly interesting note.

What's the point that you're making? Don't leave it implicit.

Except, truth is not the story malicipus people make of it, but the original story as it was intended. And lies must eventually bend to the truth. Give up, lying pieces of shit.

This isn't guaranteed to be a positive 😋

They're supposed to be a total banger.

I hear ya. I will not talk about non-free software around Richard Stallman.

In Stargate, in one episode, they discuss a truly universal language between aliens from vastly different races. The language is based off the abstract representation of atoms, as these are the only truly common ground/knowledge available for communication.

Okay, so let's discuss your questions.

"What data is being carried?" — whatever the idea/topic/concept is about. "Data" is the general term what it is that the sounds represent.

”Where is it stored?” — it is in the sounds of what is spoken, created in the mind of the speaker, possibly referencing memories or other sources directly or indirectly.

"How does this constitute meaning?" — that's the point: it doesn't. "Data" does not represent meaning. The listener needs to derive meaning, hopefully the correct meaning if sufficient context — prly common knowledge/ground — is provided. This is why there can be data without fact or truth. E.g. when I point to a horse and say to you "That is a unicorn.", I transmit through sounds this sentence as data. You can interpret it and know what I am saying, yet you also know it to be false.

Do not think you know the true story, when you hear the story indirectly and/or from unreliable or untrustworthy sources.

I think we're on track. I use "data" and "data-carrier" to indicate that it is about "data" before meaning and understanding is established, with "information" being data that has meaning established. (Unfortunately not guaranteed correct, just any meaning.)

"Facts" being data that is also established to be truthful, often corresponding to past events, such that you can point to them and if your interpretation is correct, it shows that the facts are truthful and possibly they themselves provide information. (If you point to a rock and say it's a rock, then your data is fact but it doesn't give you much information, it doesn't tell you much without any accompanying information or context.)

Now if you tell people things, those words carry data, but not necessarily truthful or correct or sensible. People who try to find meaning may succeed or fail, but that doesn't make the meaning they found reality. Similarly, that would mean reality is conflicting according to different people, i.e. different people's deviating interpretation.

You can mislead people to believe data is a particular facts or expresses particular information, but that doesn't make it true. It just makes you fool a person, and this person is fooled to believe it is true.

Let's call a hardcoded password a "flaw" 😋😂

I don't see your point. If people confuse data for reality, it doesn't become reality, is simply misleads people. There is a difference between data and facts. The difference between "data" and "information" is made explicit for the benefit of highlighting and emphasizing that meaning, interpretation and understanding are relevant.

Now you claim that just arbitrary data becomes reality, even if it can be proved incorrect. That's not true. What you're actually saying is that people can be misled.

Now to figure out who actually deceived us.

No of course words aren't facts. They're a means of communication, (partial?) data-carriers.

Coward. Say what you really want to say.

To be clear. This concerns years of preemptive attacks, abuse and harassment. This wasn't my doing. I got years of attacks without knowing why, without prior warning. Where it goes wrong, is that they assumed to have fucked up a far larger part of my life by now.

The interviews you talk about, are very likely from 5+ years ago. I don't recall exactly.

The same holds for the "promises" I supposedly made and the "integrity" I supposedly do not have. You all do not get the story in chronological order. You get the cut-and-paste version created by psychopaths to fit the deception.

This is useful information, though. This is strong confirmation that it's all a constructed narrative based on individual independent out-of-context statements. This also means that I haven't answered incorrectly in years. Instead, they just make up all the lies as convenient, on-the-fly.

I think my assumption is right on this ... what you think you know is in reverse chronological order. I have had to deal with many people, constant harassment. No interviews in 3 years or so. Everything is based on lies made up by psychopaths. You do not get the real story. You get a cut-and-paste constructed narrative from a bunch of tyrants and psychopaths.

Interviews? Many years ago. Not for a long while. What are you referring to? Something's off again.

Does this mean there's going to be hell on earth?