A simpler, cleaner complement to the trashfire that is the web.

Why not explain with some examples from your experiences? I looked up bitmessage but didn't find much about the spam other than some reddit post asking if the spam wars were over. It sounds like POW alone is not sufficient to counter spam and so you are saying POW is not the answer. Is that it?

Why would it fail to slow spam, for example on nostr, if relays required some POW for messages? Would the threshold need to be so low as to allow mobile devices to successfully post and then spammers would pretend to be mobile devices (or not even need to pretend because of the low threshold)?

You might like https://gmi.skyjake.fi/lagrange/

Relevant: https://invidio.us/watch?v=dZDsLaKI3M4

A rake with a telescoping pole, perhaps?

We depend on normies to live. Check out some episodes of "Alone" to see what life is like outside of exchange with normies. That said, yes, it's difficult to relate to people, especially people with whom we disagree. Figuring out how to not completely separate and at the same time not completely conform is a challenge. 🫂

No but that's another amazing cut.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul (paraphrasing George Orwell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Epler

The video is from above, so there's an aircraft or satellite looking down. What are some defense possibilities? Smoke? Radio jammer? Warm moving decoys? Spring-loaded net? Another drone to intercept?

"Imagine ... we live in a world where people no longer have to work. Machines do everything we don't want to do."

In many ways, we have been living in this world for over a century. An example: https://blog.strom.com/wp/?p=7791 https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/141576

Hazlitt discussed machines in Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson. https://leeconomics.com/Literature/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A143%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22Fit%22%7D%5D

Each person's time is still scarce. The machines are scarce and their time is scarce. The raw materials are scarce. So they will still be economized even if we have an abundance available compared to now.

As for "inflation ... goes to those who put in the physical effort. ... are you happy with 2% inflation?" I don't think the answer to that is impacted much by the scenario. The question boils down to "is 2% theft OK?" or rather "is inflation theft in a proof-of-work scenario?" If the situation is more like US dollars, where only a few are eligible to inflate by official capacity but everyone else is banned, then no, it's not OK. If the situation is more like gold, where anybody can buy property and mine if they put in the effort, then yes, it's OK.

In your scenario something went wrong with a fixed 2% inflation that everyone is subject to. First, why should everyone be subject to this one medium of exchange exclusively? They should be able to choose among media. Second, how could it be fixed at 2% or why 2%? How can you bootstrap such an agreement? Surely one asset could be created with that 2% inflation rate, but that leads back to the first point: no one should have to use it.

"Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution." - Allen West

Is it getting that intent from comments in the code documenting the intent? If not, it is hard to imagine how it could guess the intent. High-level intent or goals or ends are usually the missing comments in code and/or commit messages.

"... the Mandate exceeded the CDC's statutory authority, improperly invoked the good cause exception to notice and comment rulemaking, and failed to adequately explain its decisions. Because 'our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,' ... the Court declares unlawful and vacates the Mask Mandate." - Kathryn Mizelle

Yes. It takes active effort to suppress the mad action of the state. Would that it did nothing or close to nothing.

A nice thing about markdown is its legibility in raw form. My nostr client presented the raw markdown and it was easily readible.

I think he said he would end the endless wars. While he did not end them, it appears he did not start any new ones or escalate existing ones. The previous president to achieve that I think was Ford.

The campaign trail is not unlike a comedy tour. Mostly present the known good material to confirm it is still good. But try some stuff every now and then to gauge the response.

Regardless of what the politician does or does not do, it is public opinion that tolerates or prohibits policies, so the exchange is useful in that it reveals that people are against CBDCs.

When a GPT model responds to a question and we humans interpret the reply as intelligent it is we who hallucinate. I don't mean these models are not useful, powerful, or admirable. They are wonderful. I mean the model is not thinking or reasoning in the first place therefore it is incapable of hallucinating. When the model reponds with an unsatisfactory answer it is doing nothing differently than when it responds with a satisfactory answer. We are humans. We think and reason. We have bodies and brains related to our minds. Granting the models the capacity to "hallucinate" gives a false impression that they had a right mind from which they deviated. So it is we humans who hallucinate and not the GPT models.

"Si autem, ut iam dixi, naturalis iuris est, ut nemini negetur iusta sui defensio, tanto utique minus negari oportebit, quanto maior erit sui defendendi necessitas, et quanto maius erit malum illud, contra quod se quisque defendit. Verbi causa, si concellum est a iure naturae, ut prohiberi non possim, ne me defendam ab ictu cultri, multo minus igitur prohiberi potero, ne me defendam ab ictu bombardae. Unde sequitur, ut si ius nactus sum a natura defendendi me et purgandi a Crimine minori, multo maxime ius habeam me defendendi et purgandi a Crimine maiore ... Imo sequitur, ut quo grandius est malum atque crimen, quod mihi intentatur, et a me repellere habeo, eo etiam melior et magis idonea concedi debeat defendendi ratio, per meliores et aptiores quosque aduocatos; qui proinde ex vi iuris naturalis negari non poterunt." - Incerto Theologo Romano (Friedrich Spee)

Translated to English: "If however, as I have said, it is natural law that no one can be denied a fair defense, then the greater your need to defend yourself and the greater the evil against which you are defending yourself, the more unjust it is to deny you a defense. For example, if it is granted by natural law that I cannot be prevented from defending myself against a knife blow, then all the less can I be prevented from defending myself against bombardment. Therefore it follows that if I derive from nature the right to defend myself and clear myself of a lesser crime, then all the greater is my right to defend myself and clear myself of a greater crime ... Indeed it follows that the more serious the evil and crime of which I am accused and which I must repel, the better should be the defense which is granted to me through better and more capable lawyers. Therefore, according to the power of natural law this cannot be denied." - An Unknown Roman Theologian (Friedrich Spee)