The first seasons are gold!

Not a samurai. A warrior at Nobunaga's service and a loyal one apparently. Doesn't mean he was made part of the samurai class. For instance, he was not made commit seppuku after Nobunaga's death, unlike all his surviving samurai allies.

Well, historically speaking it seems that he was an armed retainer of Nobunaga's. So if Nobunaga is the antagonist of the female ninja in the game, they should have mafe Yasuke the bad guy. Which would have been a lot more interesting in my opinion.

Most likely not related to the girl though.

I guess it's Yasuke. The guy existed, it's totally documented. Arrived with a Portuguese Jesuit mission as a servant, probably a bodyguard since apparently after being sold as a child, Yasuke had ended up in India and had been a soldier. Nobunaga liked found him exotic and thought he must be strong, so he decided to keep him as a retainer and it's documented that he was armed and was kept in Nobunaga's inner circle and even fought alongside him and was there when he died. All evidence though indicated that he was NOT a samurai in the social caste sense, armed warrior or not.

The issue then, is not that Ubisoft chose the character of Yasuke -- but the role they make him play. If I understand the trailer correctly, the female character follows the usual AC plot line and is against the centralization of power and unification of Japan, so her foe in this case should likely be Nobunaga? And Yasuke, who was historically documented to be a loyal Nobunaga warrior goes and allies with her?

I will need some clarification about this, since Ubisoft insists so much that all they do is based first of all in historical research...

Sounds almost like all these "bitcoin only company" for profit people are doomed to either be jailed, or to facilitate the jailing of bitcoiners. Who would have thought huh?

Many of you here still refuse to make the connection, but the same is happening with Nostr and devs obsessed with making social media apps like the twitters and the facebooks we all want to leave behind. They insist that "content algorithms" are necessary to make Nostr social media as successful as the centralized walled gardens. What they mean really is that they need the algos to be able to make a buck off Nostr, and if they have to expose Nostr users to the same risks Twitter and Facebook expose them to, they will.

If you become Twitter, then do not play coy when a European/Canadian/Australian/American judge issues an international order against you for "hosting illegal content" and your third world country police corps kicks your door down one night.

Once they have turned this into Twitter, the only way relay owners and app devs may possibly avoid this risk for themselves, is by shifting it onto users. Thus, taking us back to Twitter/Facebook, which at least had a decent UX...

nostr:nevent1qyvhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdshszxmhwden5te0wd682erfduenzdpwdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tcqyztnqj6l3e3uy3hwkw0n5yud43e8ygz7z6dz5p3m2j94wd64gmgcj9c8ly3

It is, but 64 months is a lot less than I expected him to get. Someone must have decided there's larger fish to fry, or he has given them something/someone worth a discount.

I am not a tech expert by any stretch of the definition, but I have read a lot about this and a lot of people seem to think that LLM's are a dead evolutionary end as far as AGI is concerned.

The "this corporation will be so powerful" angle is real. The problem is, the reaction to that 90% of the time is "Fuck yeah! Only the government should have this!"

nostr:note17pu090jnkhkt4wn0ek4wqn0ssadldglhs5l05yer3w5vks37zzksfgl90s

There are plenty of articles on the internet, but I think what many miss is an explicit contextualization. Hayek (and Friedman) visited Chile during Pinochet's military dictatorship invited by former pupils of Friedman (the so called "Chicago Boys") who had become "economic advisors" in the Pinochet government.

So Hayek was trying to validate the work of Friedman's disciples and his own theories, but as a consequence, he was lending legitimacy to Pinochet himself. On top of that, Hayek also criticized the press in the "democratic" hemisphere for "misrepresenting" Chile's (economic) situation. Friedman got himself in a similar situation for the same reasons, but after the fact he was more self-aware at least.

While I think the involvement of (at least) the CIA in the coup is at this point non-controversial, I do reject the notion that the left has spread that the coup had the explicit objective of putting the Chicago Boys in power and that Chile was "the first neoliberal laboratory". Pinochet's coup, was "simply" an anti-communist fascist regime, of the exact same kind the US favored at the time everywhere: in Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea, Southern Vietnam...

To prove that, one only has to look at the first years of the dictatorship. Pinochet's economic measures were far from liberal, and as a consequence the economic situation after the coup did not improve at all (only inflation, partially). Only then, when Pinochet feared that the social unrest would topple him and got desperate to try anything, did the Chicago Boys get a chance to implement their recipe, which as we all know, eventually caused Chile not only to recover but to progress beyond any other Latin American country for decades until today.

The problem was that, obviously, the success of economic liberalism was used by Pinochet (and then by Reagan and Thatcher, famously) to obtain the legitimacy necessary to justify and carry on with all of his other anti-liberal agendas. This is still the case today in most of the Spanish speaking world, where by association with anti-marxism, and because Friedman-Hayekian libertarians appeared happy to divorce economic liberalism from social liberalism, "libertarianism" has been coopted by the most anti-human, collectivist, ultranationalist, theocratic, militaristic... in short, anti-liberal, sectors of the political spectrum.

Here's one video from Reason, apologetic of Friedman's behavior towards Pinochet and Chile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTU1sxLnlgc that basically says that Friedman was a poor innocent American scholar who took for granted the American framework of social liberties, so he simply could not imagine that morals where important too and was surprised that his actions were "misinterpreted". I guess they don't give a pass to Hayek because he was an Austrian born in 1899 who should have known better than to legitimize a fascist dictatorship with the excuse that he thought it would be "temporary".

One more academic article also apologetic/excusing Hayek: https://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/hope.econ.duke.edu/files/Hayek%20and%20Chile-version11%20%282%29.pdf

Changing subjects, as for Henry George yes, Poverty is the one you want to read, but please for the love of god grab the abridged version because good old Hank didn't have the gift of writing xD

Yeah, but at least where I live, it's become impossible to do SEPA to Binance. Only card, with the corresponding 2% penalty.

With KYC, Binance, using a credit card is the cheapest.

No KYC, Bisq, but like all P2P markets is more expensive than centralized exchanges. That., however, shouldn't be a problem if you're buying to hold long term (and if you're not, just buy at a centralized exchange then).

Malthus meet Marx.

Forgot to add: like Hayek though, I am completely in favor of what has been wrongly labeled as "limited democracy". Democracy is simply a decision-making method that works quite well for equally-shared common goods, from the point of view of keeping the non-agression principle as the core of a society. But that's all it should be applied for.

The extension of this method to EVERYTHING, including the private property and life of individuals, is the problem. That's when democracy becomes the dictatorship of the majority and simply a tool of legitimization of unlimited rule by the elite, as seen in the West today.

Oh well, I totally disagree with Hayek's Pinochet shenanigans. I find them shameful, revolting and incredibly damaging to the cause of liberty -- 60 years later the label "liberal" still means ultra-right wing in the whole Spanish speaking world, thanks to the Chicago Boys.

They are proof too for Ayn Rand's critique that the "libertarians" (as in Hayek/Friedman) really only concerned themselves with coming up with a few moral arguments to justify economic laissez faire, instead of arriving to laissez faire as the necessary conclusion of a moral principle like she claims she did (and, more to my liking, like Henry George explicitly).

As an anarchist, this is one of those things like freedom of movement and settlement (aka uncontrolled immigration) where I believe separating between current reality and hoped future is fundamental.

To begin with, Germany is not a liberal utopia. It's a Corporatist regime, like the rest of the developed world. To follow, its only real existential threat in the classical sense (State vs State) is another Corporatist regime, Russia. This adversary, due to its historical path dependence, is economically and socially underdeveloped and institutionally more old fashioned than Germany.

In short, unlike Germany (and the rest of Europe) with its dictatorship of the majority as legitimating façade for its rule by the elite, Russia is a classical strongman fascist dictatorship in which formalities can be dispensed with end Putin rules by brute force and a simplistic ultranationalism, the appeal to long gone soviet imperialism, social ultraconservatism and other crude means of mass control (quite similar to the tools the CCP uses, sans the economic uplift of 300 million people of course).

In the end both regimes, Germany and Russia, work upon identical assumptions: the State ultimately owns everything and everybody within its territory, and there is no limit to the will of the ruling elite. All they need to do is find the right lever within the toolbox of the legitimating apparatus.

That all said (and it was a lot), taking my anarchist hat off and putting myself in the shoes of the ruling Corporatist bureaucracy of Germany, some form of conscription, that is, a period of time where the State, instead of owning 50-70% of your working time as it does regularly, owns 100%, makes sense to deter of confront a foe like Russia. It is consistent with the foundations of the regime, and it's not more egregious than what is already in place. I have no doubt they would rather spend the resources (both money and political legitimacy and will) on other stuff, like they have done these past 40 years but, like they're taught in college, the material conditions are the material conditions, and Putin's Russia is an unreliable neighbor.

Also, I haven't even read the details, but I'm quite sure that regardless of the proposals floated now, what will actually pass, if it does (it will have to beat the Russian and internal anti-Western propaganda apparatus first), it will be not simply a form of military service, but also "social service", which will be the heavily favored option for most conscripts.

I have to say, in a utopian future where a dictatorship of the majority somehow gave me, as Supreme Ruler, a consistent and sustained mandate to reform the Corporatist regime into a libertarian one, I would probably institute a form of mandated military service too. None of that social nonsense, strictly military.

And I would keep it in place until there were no existential threats in the form of Corporatist, classical fascist, or any other form of socialist state-worshipping regimes around my country who could potentially force a regime change on us by an act of war.

For the same reason I would keep a border and strict immigration rules, and would look closely at trade with states and regimes who do not apply similar rules (or lack thereof) to the ones we would apply internally.

These are clear violations and restrictions of freedom and thus incompatible with liberalism, there simply is no question of that. But they would be externally generated ones, out of necessity vs existential threats. Internally, the transition would be total, until the State evaporated completely from people's lives, except in those few affairs mentioned above.

I would call this an acceptable transitional "compromise".

nostr:nevent1qyvhwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddakk7um5wgh8q6twdvhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ekk7um5wgh8qatz9uq3uamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwp6kytnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46z7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hsqgytfdtkqq8pnk6k5sqhgrnyfuef2alqfm2n8rszgnwevdjeydw2qcew5hsm

Bisq has Monero too.

I think the ossification debate has recently taken an interesting turn, seeing how Saylor, who has been so vocal about it, has become a villain among maxies.

nostr:nevent1qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytndw46xjmnewaskcmr9wshxxmmd9uq3yamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd36ju6m99uqzqmfjwz60ale6u6qh3v6zrlns8ex0h90m5g9x3eu0720f68mkp7rs6893v3

I went 90% meat and eggs for a few months and it absolutely worked: digestive problems gone, lots of fat gone, general health improved.

However, it was not the meat only: I increased raw meat dramatically (beef tartar 3-4 times a week, usually with raw or fried eggs), and switched to intermittent fasting with one meal at noon with maybe something like a yoghourt in the afternoon, so 16-18 hours of fasting.

Completely eliminated raw veggies (salads), all breads, all pastas, and most rice. I did keep some of the potatoes and cooked veggies like onions and peppers as sides for the meat.

Now I have tuned down the amount of meat (increased slightly carbs, but more the cooked veggies), while keeping the rest, and I seem to retain most of the benefits.

So I'm inclined to believe I was initially right about this whole "carnivore" thing.

Radical proponents of it are people who had horrible diets to begin with. Mainly Anglo people who come from terrible culinary deserts and have little food culture to begin with. It even seems it gives them an excuse to insist in their rather infantile foods habits - hating on veggies, fish, and complex flavors and textures, like 3 year olds.

Sorry, but it's true, and there's a reason why this carnivore nonsense doesn't come from Japan, Spain or Italy, which incidentally have some of the longest life expectancies, quality of life and number of individuals over 100 years old.

The truths of the diet are hidden by the theatrics of its proponents. It is true for instance that many of us do need to increase our (good quality) meat and animal fat intake, and that ALL of us need to heavily and radically cut down in carbs and vegetable stuff that's indigestible and ferments inside our gut.

It is also true though that Homo sapiens are not obligate carnivores and thus *require* more than animal meat (and definitely more than just beef) to survive and thrive.

nostr:note1tfzxl0cmt2yzgz46qcln4nn0ezptpl0y42t3kfu25useu7hhdw7qcead9v

If you want to be accurate, that's not true. Inflation measures the decrease of purchase power of a currency, not its monetary mass, whichever you choose (M1, M2, etc).

An increase of monetary mass at a rate exceeding demand for money (caused by increased economic activity) is one of the ways to cause inflation, in this case by causing nominal price increases.

The USD is inherently inflationary because there is no limit to this mechanism. Bitcoin is not inflationary because there is.