Avatar
Andy_R
8911ee0510b86e4736187e40e80fa97b05bb4c1b4e0e477de0400def2b8a96dd
Replying to Avatar ODELL

Your boy Parker can’t stop shilling for Elon over Nostr. Have him on Dispatch and hash it out.

Get some usdt or choose someone else that takes bitcoin if it’s a hassle for you. Pushing people to bitcoin seems to have the opposite effect. Offering is all you can do. And then offer again next time.

Title should be “Autism Diagnosis Prevalence Rates”. Doesn’t exclude environmental factors, but also doesn’t tell us any clear story.

nostr:npub1rxysxnjkhrmqd3ey73dp9n5y5yvyzcs64acc9g0k2epcpwwyya4spvhnp8 Would be a challenging and advanced build, but the people need a good BitAxe home build tutorial!

nostr:npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8 nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx This is bad idea, yes? Free hardware wallet, not being shipped by the manufacturer (confirmed shipped by Swan). Not what you would call trust-minimized.

Sorry for late reply. Appreciate the explanation. The case for it weakening bitcoin seems to be that it incrementally makes running a node more expensive because more space is required. Harder to remain decentralized long term.

I’m open to hearing a rebuttal to that. I agree with you on the point of permissionless is of utmost importance. But I’m on the fence about impact to nodes.

Seems question though is not should we change bitcoin, but rather simply whether I choose to disassociate with those that promote these things for a couple reasons. First, possibly for the incremental harm to decentralization through higher node requirements. Second, because it may to cause financial harm to others when we’re trying to get them safely to bitcoin.

When you are arguing with people over this I think you’re sometimes thinking they are asking to change bitcoin when in fact they are just social shaming. One is an attack on bitcoin being permission-less. The other is free speech shaming. I’m with you fighting against the former and I also support the latter.

An analogy would be, I think drugs should be legal. If you sell drugs to addicts, I think you’re a shitty person.

That’s fine. I don’t hold him on a pedestal because I’m not in a religion.

You, can call that agnosticism if you like. But if I tell someone I’m agnostic vs atheist, then they have a far less accurate view of my opinions.

By this definition, Richard Dawkins is also agnostic. It’s a view that there is no evidence of religious claims to understanding life, and a view that science explains most, not all. He’ll never tell you he can prove no god.

Someone who says they can prove no god I agree is religious. But this isn’t a common viewpoint of people who call themselves “atheist”.

I think atheist is a better description of my view than agnostic on a sliding scale, and I don’t enjoy being boxed into a religious because of this. I have no “faith”. Just strong opinions.

I can think something is most likely true without 100% certainty and I’m in a religion? Or if I’m not 100% certain I don’t get to call myself an atheist. What is 99% sure called?

Never been to an atheist meetup and I don’t make a habit of discussing it. A few people that do doesn’t make it a secular religion.

Sincerely happy for people that find peace and fulfillment in religion. Not sure why finding ways to insult atheist view is important to keeping a religious one. Everyone do you.

Happy Easter to those that celebrate. But nah, Christianity is not a pillar of American life. Pillar means it would crumble and fall without. That’s a scary thought if this country can’t continue without it. Separation of church and state is a pillar. I’d fight to preserve everyone’s right to their own religion.

Let’s move on to separation of money and state.