#GM nostr, stop saying "touch grass". Speak like a normal human being who doesn't combine online cliches into semi-coherent sentences.
Looks like they taught you to get easily distracted.
[ three weeks later ] "salmonella has taken nostr by storm lately"
LPT: don't let "pleasing others" be the main reason you do things.
This is actually a good idea, albeit it should be enforced by parents. Parental controls on nostr clients would be a good, forward looking feature. The global feed is *not* for children.
Impossible. Mises already explained that commies can't calculate.
Well, a matrix can represent vector fields
Wtf are you talking about? Where did I say I was okay with the growth in state power? Oh, Kamala Harris would be really bad for the country, but let me make sure I say the required rites about how much I loathe the government too. Better make sure I signal to everyone like a damn robot about how much I don't like the size of the government. Trump would be bad too and yadda yadda and okay, now can we move on the actual conversation and stop acting like the only conversation we're allowed to have is how much it sucks to be anti-statist in a statist world?
I've been in and around libertarian organizing for much of my adult life and I swear that we're some of the worst culprits of NPC behavior. It's like, unless we recite the lines in the correct way, then we're elidong a secret desire to dominate others! We're actually secret statists because I didn't say the Constitution was actually a victory for the statists! How dare I make a point about contemporary political realities without first reciting The Ethics of Liberty verbatim!
That's still a choice. Pretending that it isn't doesn't do anyone any favors. Having more time to alter the course is not something you can just write off.
Libertarians have a value set that is extremely specific and this makes the philosophy extremely sensitive to being opposed to even the most dogmatic of policy agendas. This is how you get essentially blood feuds between libertarian factions - Rothbard's legacy vs Rand's legacy, Mises Institute vs CATO, etc - over the variants of libertarianism.
The typical approach for libertarians faced with this sensitivity is to opt-out of the broader conversation entirely as if this puts us above it. "Ah, they both suck." isn't an enlightened perspective. It's how everyone except the personality cultists already feel. It's how everyone has felt in American politics since forever. The whole country is built upon resolving the conflicts of mutuality opposing factions, by overcoming everyone's "you-all-suck" impulse.
There is almost certainly plenty for libertarians to lose with the election of the kind of progressive fascism Harris represents. Trump doesn't have to support getting rid of the income tax to offer a meaningful distinction against Harris' radicalism. I would absolutely take the ravings of a narcissist over a power-hungry ideologue.
Again, even if you think the ultimate vision of trump is something you wouldn't accept, there is room to realize that participation is still in your best interest. Bitcoin isn't going to save you when they serve search warrants on your home and seize your cold stores. When they do forensics on the blockchain to figure out which wallets are yours, which bitcoins are yours, and blacklist them.
No, there is plenty to lose if the momentum dies in the progressive direction.
The "I'm above it because I hate both sides" argument is a bit tired. There are legitimate stakes here. Kamala Harris wants to pack the Supreme Court. This action will effectively destroy the separation of powers and turn Congress and the Court into the equivalent of the Imperial Roman Senate.
This is an actual thing that could happen. She is extremely radical and will pursue the most anti-freedom policy agenda of any candidate except maybe Bernie Sanders.
Trump can be a fool and this is still a true statement. I will happily take the narcissistic fool over the power-hungry ideologue any day of the week.
The way this question teed up the scripted monologue from Harris is extremely fishy.
Listen y'all, if every post you make is about Nostr being awesome, do you not see how this is like, the social-media-content equivalent of circular reasoning? If Nostr is good, then it has to have good content, but all the content is people talking about how nostr is good!
Please, post interesting stuff. Say something controversial. Get some current events conversations going. Literally, anything other than "GM, isn't nostr just the best?"
Please stop saying "societal" all of the time.
The first five chapters of this book https://a.co/d/1De3DOw are great
How else are they going to be able to deal with the fact that they live in France?
"more cohesive neighbors"
Canada and Mexico aren't exactly the picture of functional societies.
This is a frustratingly popular perspective on here.
Like, if you legitimately believe that people who use social media are desperate for some kind of content recommendation algorithm, then instead of being like "You plebs! You must do the work yourself!", we could instead be like "hmm, maybe we could make a content recommendation algorithm that plugs into the protocol?".
We already have clients. We already have relays. There is nothing about the design of nostr that mandates you interface with it as a raw, global feed of notes. Granted, if people are pseudonymous, then personal information can't inform those algorithms, but so what?
This is actually a great project for people who know how to design social media content recommendation. The theory behind these algorithms certainly does not inherently require that the users all be on servers owned by the same firm.