When you control for people who earn orders of magnitude more than the average person, what might the average be then? Also, I am pretty sure the average when I married back in 2015 was literally half that.
Yes, not unregulated, but free in the proper sense of the word. Christians are free, not that we are free to sin but from it.
In the same sense, a truly free economy fully supports the freedom of its participants, not that they are free to take advantage of each other but that they are free to mutually benefit one another in their trade and labor. This requires a lack of compulsion (which is socialism), acknowledges ownership (which communism does not), does not systematically favor the already rich and powerful (which is crony capitalism), does not artificially favor larger organizations over the individual (which is corporatist capitalism), and rather endorses a subsidiarity in power, both economic and political (which all forms of totalitarianism rejects).
Our current system in the US is dangerously close to the latter three, unfortunately. The three-letter-agencies have created such a regulatory system that the individual is at an artificial disadvantage to compete with the larger organizations. In this way, I say our system is not free enough, not that we do away with regulation altogether but make it favor a subsidiary and decentralized system rather than a large and centralized one.
Yes, in fact! I think he name "Distributism" is a misnomer, really. Sounds too much like "wealth redistribution." I believe people are trying to rebrand it as "Localism," which I can fully get behind.
Until somewhat recently, I viewed Distributism as an ideal state of a free economy, not a system to itself. I now see it has more to it than that, subsidiarity especially, but it does require a freedom of trade that is very compatible with the way I think most proponents of so called "Capitalism" actually desire and endorse.
God has infinite intrinsic value. Humans, who are made in the image and likeness of God, have finite intrinsic value. Those things humans need and want have borrowed value, that is subjective value, in proportion to the need or want.
"Capitalism" as meant by its proponents is simply a market economy in which people are free to trade. However, as meant by its opponents it is a system set up to profit those already rich and powerful. These, being obviously opposed to one another, one system that is free and the other rigged, ought not be called by the same name.
The system that may be endorsed by the Faith is one of virtue. As most virtues, the bracketing vices are slightly skewed closer to one than the other. For courage looks more like recklessness than cowardice, so too does the virtuous system of business and commerce look more like "croney capitalism" than communism and socialism.
Where cowardice shrinks in face of danger and recklessness is heedless of it, courage takes danger into account and proceeds with right action regardless of potential or sure personal loss, injury, and death. Likewise, where socialism/communism shrinks from unequal outcomes for unequal economic participants, and corporatist/croney/anarcho- capitalism heeds not the hungry, the virtuous economic system will suffer the the poor to need the wealthy and respect the freedom of all. The virtuous system rewards the generosity of the wealthy, not punishing the wealthy for being greater contributors than the poor, nor punishing the poor for their need.
You mean Bitcoin blocks on a NAS?
Well, you are the master! 🤙don't hang ten - hang two!
Instead: homeschool and educate them in the 98% of meaningful and useful things that are caught, not taught. Then, make a game of learning the things they don't naturally grasp.
" 'Take out the trash' automation" is called having kids 😂 Our eldest is 5y/o and happily takes out the trash 40% of the time*!
*...and puts up a fuss about it another 40% of the time, and forgets the remaining 20% of the time.
I feel that so far in #Bitcoin, #Nostr, and the #Pears stack we’ve had a strong focus on two things:
• User facing wallets, app, and features
• And fundamental network design and implementation
However, there are drawbacks to what we’ve focused on: The fundamental network development is critical, but isn’t understood and doesn’t interact well with the end user. While the end user wallets and services often have huge trade offs and rely on third parties or custodians.
We have basically let the market for centralized companies work to bridge between these two areas of development and demographics of the community.
But as has been shown with recent arrests and the fear rippling through public service providers, I think it’s critically important that we start focusing on building tools to BE a service provider, that are as simple and easy to operate as the end user wallets have been designed.
The barrier is still too large between the end UX and the core tools of these environments.
For example, we need to think about how we can design an interface that lets anyone with a couple of BTC be a private LSP, automatically, with channel splicing, and try at lets users connect to and use them in popular wallets with nothing but a QR. This would radically change the landscape if “running a server” is as easy as we can possibly make it. This would be the key to genuine decentralization of the market and the ability to quietly make a huge variety of reliable and simple services and onboarding tools that aren’t bug, public, and easily targeted businesses.
It would open up an entirely new layer of the market that is never actually targeted and with tradition infrastructure, isn’t really possible. But the new protocols we have today change this. We need to change how we think about the architecture of the market when we have new tools that, rather than simply building the same things with new tools, allow us to completely rethink how things are built in the first place.
Recently piece from nostr:npub1dtgg8yk3h23ldlm6jsy79tz723p4sun9mz62tqwxqe7c363szkzqm8up6m is a great example. IMO, It’s time we think about UX for sovereign providers the way we’ve always thought about UX for the average user.
I think the thing that makes running a Bitcoin node easy but a Bitcoin Lightning node difficult is that the L2 has a central model, whereas L1 is fundamentally decentral. The keys and signing happen in one place for the LN node, exactly like individual wallets on L1. The thing I've been pondering since I've discovered the scaling problem is if there's a way to decentralize the LN node itself, like cluster computing.
My first thought is a really big multi-sig, which would require a coordination amongst multiple virtual nodes. This would effectively be a side-chain, but more Bitcoin-native. The compound node would coordinate/automate thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of virtual nodes running a decentralized node program, for balance tracking, L1 tx composition and publishing, L2 channel management, etc.
The one hiccup is node churn and multi-ID. A quorum of peers would always be needed to be active and responsive, and key rotation would be needed, but some mechanism would be needed to ensure that someone who starts 100 nodes on virtual machines can't take over the system, like PoW.
I think the problem is that people want features, and they see the software as the provider of those, but when they want performance, they see the hardware as the provider of that. Instead, they are both responsible for either, and people should be less annoyed at Dell, HP, or Apple for poor performance and more annoyed at Google, Slack, and Adobe.
I wish Google would try that someday.
This will attract a lot of "influencers"! It's not just "likes" but real money!
I, and likely most men, are the complete opposite. Let's all agree we're made differently, and that's not only okay but great!
Very true. The danger is really quite minimal, but not zero. Young men and boys are vulnerable to the predatory behaviors of "cougars," if you will, but you and I are not in any way. instead, the way men are treated as things and not people is by both the crony capitalist/corporatist and the communist/socialist, treating them as mere components for their economic plans. The term "human resources" should give you a hint as to what they think of us.
The first word in the acronym is "Graphic", so a hard G phoneme matches better. Plus, a J phoneme makes it sound like pronouncing "gift" as "jift," which just sounds dumb.
