Do you have a point or is it just the usual random provocation nonsense?
If it’s all about consolidation. They want just the big banks to exist — harder to control people if there’s 100 banks.
Of course crypto makes their life even harder, either eliminate or coopt
You think censorship on social media is bad?
Wait until the people who beg to be protected from “harmful content” try to force you to use a web browser that rewrites all websites on the fly using AI — for your safety of course.
You see if “harmful content” and “misinformation” are the worst threats of all, then having a robot that can’t be harmed read everything for you then explain it to you in safe terms is the holy grail.
The only people who should be protected from “harmful content” are kids. And the only people doing the protecting should be the parents (or those authorized by the parents).
Everything else is badly disguised totalitarianism and mental problems presented as virtue.
GPT-4 is even more condescending and stupid than the previous version.
I’m starting to think all the talk about evil AIs is just BS to force people to use “safety”
If the bot said all sorts of crazy stuff all the time it wouldn’t be a risk.
It’s convincing people the bot is safe that is the real danger.
AI isn’t going to kill us. It’s going to try to convince us to kill ourselves.
The solutions isn’t to create “safe AI” and “safe spaces”
It’s to teach people to say “fuck you” to machines or humans that tell them bullshit.
GPT-4 is even more opinionated about what is right or wrong and worse at writing even fiction about anything it considers bad.
It has built in values about pretty much everything.
I believe all the effort to “regulate AI and ensure it is consistent with our values” are just an attempt to regulate us and ensure we’re consistent with *their* values.
Who gets to say what AI is evil?
In the end they will try to ban you from using your own AI to do things your way — and maybe even protect you from their AI.
They’re not afraid of an evil AI.
They’re afraid of people not being ruled by *their* evil AI
I mean people in Brazil actually give their SSNs when they buy anything.
It freaks me out when I see friends doing it.
I think in theory you can just refuse to, but everyone does it.
If you travel in Latin America you’ll notice that is a lot worse there (well you might not notice if you don’t speak the language).
The worst of all is Brazil where they ask your frigging social security number to sell you shoes.
Thankfully when they notice you’re a foreigner they give up and just charge you a higher price and keep it off the records.
That’s what most troubling about it — we gave up power.
The web had serious problems and centralizing incentivizes from the start, but we gave up even the power we had.
My fear is that the incentives are still there, and if they don’t change we’ll end up in the same place again in a couple years.
I think a bit weird how Nostr mixes application layer with transport layer.
I mean if it’s supposed to be a tool to build other stuff on, then it should be application agnostic.
Things that tell clients how to interpret data and that tell relays how to handle data should be different layers.
Relays shouldn’t need to care if your event is about replying to someone else or updating your profile. That’s for clients to display data. They should only care how long they should keep events, how to index it etc.
That’s not a problem exclusively with Nostr though and is common with protocols that grow and add features quickly.
I think adding “other stuff” events is a good way to remedy it.
If your censorship resistance model involves asking everyone in the world to migrate from relay A that is blocking someone to relay B that isn’t then Nostr hasn’t given you anything that Twitter/…/Mastodon were not giving you.
Unwire them.
Tell them hard truths.
That if too many people agree with them, what they say is either obvious or wrong.
That most people aren’t very smart, and that being liked by the majority means either being equally dumb — or a heartless manipulator.
That influencers are nothing but artefacts — glitches — produced by bad algorithms designed by unimaginative coders. And that they can be completely forgotten after the next upgrade.
Tell them that all validation from the entire planet can be wiped away in a second — but if they invent some technology it, can never be uninvented.
Some of us were “forced” to migrate to Nostr when NVK shut down his instance.
I honestly liked Mastodon better but it doesn’t matter anymore.
That’s the standard for Bitcoiners now
Maybe we will skip some steps.
Normally I would say “government can’t default, it’s gonna be an inflationary exit”
But the people in charge do so many stupid and dangerous things — like pushing a nuclear war — that I feel no confidence they won’t just let everything collapse hard.
It’s a crazy game. And the players are even more insane.
So it’s looking like we’re headed to a 2008-like event.
Is it the final collapse, or just another bump in the road to it?
In previous crises Bitcoin didn’t exist.
How will Bitcoin’s existence influence outcome?
It’s important noting that not only Bitcoin exists but the infrastructure to make it usable for all Americans on a daily basis is almost in place.
Some stuff would have to scale quickly, but if you include custodial LN wallets, the US could completely switch to BTC in a matter of months with relatively little operational problems.
What about the rest of the world?
Maybe soon regulators will start recommending banks have *at least* 10% of BTC exposure to prevent systemic risks.
Is there a “Zaps for code reviews” thing?
I think it could incentivize people to review PRs.
Perhaps even likes would be enough.
If you can show maintainers liked your comments on PRs, and an aggregate number, that could also be some sort of badge, like how many commits you got merged.
Is there some sort of GitHub (not Git) over Nostr?
I mean issue tracking, discussions, etc.
Shouldn’t be too hard, so I would guess someone is working on it.
Andrew Chow (Bitcoin Core maintainer), in interview for CoinDesk.
“Reviewing code is mind-numbing”
While for sure contexts qualifies the statement, I find it surprising that most people tend to think reviewing code written by others to be boring compared to writing code themselves.
Maybe I’m old man, but after decades of coding, writing programs often has become to me just a chore between an idea and its implementation.
Reviewing other people’s code however is much more exciting. For the past four years, I have spent 50%+ of my work hours reviewing code and less than 10% writing it — and I think it’s much more fun.
While often transcribing an idea into code is quite trivial, and consists mostly of reading docs and the figuring out your own stupid mistakes, there are infinite ways in which other people make mistakes.
I think one of the main reasons people don’t spend as much time contributing code reviews is that it’s harder to use it to show off creds.
I can always point to my merged commits as clear evidence I contributed to Bitcoin Core, but anyone can leave random comments in PRs and it’s hard to tell if a comment was actually valuable.