Can someone turn the global warming back on please 🙏

I don't think you're understanding what ZKproofs are. Kaspa is not regulating anything. It's just doing math.

The ZK proof in such an example would be a mathematical proof that the government-private-key-signed data from the chip inside the passport was scanned by the device (which has its own cryptographic record relating to the nfc scan and loading into memory and so on). All it is is math. The significance of the math is what humans agree on, but once that's agreed on you're gonna need to run occasional checks to make sure the math checks out (and thus that the significance of it checks out).

You can extrapolate that to anything a kaspa vprog would do. It's all the same thing, proofs of whatever math underscores whatever thing of interest (often a transaction but not always).

But end of the day, Kaspa is just not designed to do this kind of verification efficiently and trustlessly. This is all an afterthought for Kaspa. So it stands to reason it's not going to be super efficient at it.

Ok so let's say you're a compliance auditor. You've been sent by the team a merkle path n' leaf set relating to a website login for a user who supposedly passed an age check, and this includes some user details. You need to run that against Kaspa to see if it checks out, and an RPC call won't do. This suspicious login is from one week ago.

Explain to me how, without an archive node, you do this.

that comes after an "or". it's either or. but a single kaspa node would in any case have to maintain the state commitments of every signle vprog across the whole thing going back to the pruning point, whatever that is for kaspa. otherwise makes no sense. if the pruning point is only a few days back and that's out the window then you need an archive node, that's crazy heavy for an auditor that just needs double check in a trusted way (i.e no RPC call) that someone who visited a website last week was over 18.

so it fails on that end.

My issue is on the verification side. These are ZK proofs, create them any way you like -- but they have to be verified by random people. Or what are you doing?

One reason Kaspa team are going the ZK route is because they cannot do on-chain computation (non turing complete), so they are outsourcing to the end-user's CPU or GPU, or to dedicated proving servers. Which is fine, ZK is useful. But then random people have to verify the computation that those CUPs and GPUs did.

So verification matters, and the whole liquidity silos things doesn't touch on verification at all, that's a whole other thing.

Let's say that the proof is that a passport showing age over 18 was seen at such and such a time by such and such a website. Creating the proof is and validating it on chain is one thing. Trustless verification by random people that need to check this fact is another thing. Kaspa best you can do is old-fashioned call an RPC. Not trustless. To truly verify the state themselves, they would need to run a full Kaspa node, which is, like, big. A full Kaspa node needs to maintain the entire state of all vprogs it cares about to run and re-verify the logic locally, or at least be able to access the witness data and state commitments.

Whereas with proofs on a ZK-native layer 1 anyone can do trustless self-verification on a cheap android phone from10 years ago. This is why the ZK-native layer 1s will win out in the end.

The crux here is that Zkapps are not smart contracts in the sense that all computation is executed by every node on the chain. There are an outside thing. When yeet a ZKproof to chain, the main thing people have to then be able to do is verify the proof. If not then what was it for?

If verification is hard, or slow, or clumsy, if it requires trust in an RPC call, or running a node, or an SPV, or whatever else, then it'll ultimately fail as a system, because that's all too much of an ask of the verifier.

Bitcoin = Gold

Kaspa = Silver

#bitcoin #kaspa #btc # Economy #Finance #Markets #Fiat #Crypto #Blockchain #DebtCrisis #USDebt #GlobalEconomy #StockMarket #Recession #InterestRates #LudwigVonMises #Hayek #SoundMoney #EndTheFed #GoldStandard #LibertarianEconomics #BitcoinIsFreedom #money

It’s tough to realize you were brainwashed most of your life and that you still are to some degree.

I’m talking about myself.

I get the gist, our team does zkapps (o1js, noir, cairo) and there's not a lot new under the zksun.

At the end of the day it's logic executed off-chain by a dedicated prover. It always is. Whether you use a sequencer and call it an L2 or use a so-called vprog and call it an extension to the L1, it's still some outside CPU taking a long time to prove something and then yeeting that proof on back.

Honestly, for ZK, my view is that you need a ZK stack top to bottom. Mina was too early but that is the right path, the entire Mina chain reduces to a 22kb recursive snark, you can verify anything proven in the entire history of the chain on a iPhone in100 milliseconds. You just need that 22kb snark and whatever zkapp state proof you got sent to you and that's it. So a super-fast ZK sequencer rolling up to a ZK-native layer like Mina, or some high speed ZKnative L1 that emerges in a few years, this stuff all makes a lot of sense.

It would be impossible for a Kaspa node to verify Vprog ZK-proofs on an iphone like a Mina mobile rust node can. For Kaspa the best you can do is an SPV kind of deal, trusting a cluster of full nodes or a centralized RPC endpoint, and anyway on an iphone an SPV will get stopped once the app goes to background.

There are projects taking the Mina learnings and coming out in the next few years that will be the future of ZK. It'll be ZKnative top to bottom. (I'm in Asia so I'm biased, but I think ZK for the next 10 years is all about mobile.)

Kaspa is just not ZK-native. You can do a similar trick to these Vprogs (minus the DAG flourish) on Solana, but Solana is not ZKnative either. And Aztek rolling up to Eth, okay Noir is nice, but Eth is not ZK-native either. All of these suffer from the same dissonance and can't be the ZK future.

Solana is for old-fashioned smart contracts. Kaspa, like Bitcoin, is for money. My thoughts anyway.

Right but the whole point of Kaspa is that it's a really fast PoW layer 1. That's the entire raison d'etre.

Sure it (and many other layer 1s) can function as a ZK settlement layer, but the point of Kaspa never was for it to be a ZK settlement layer. That's a massive pivot. I mean if all the activity moves to zk sqeuencers off chain the what was the point of making it easy for activity to happen on chain?

Either Kaspa sticks to its original mission of being an "all you need" layer 1, forget smart contracts altogether, or it it becomes yet another fish in the zk settlement layer pond.

If You Still Believe That Russia Started This Conflict in 2022, Then You Are Ignorant, or Brainwashed.

The END to NATO.

The Ukraine war, which I will argue was provoked by the West and especially the United States.

This war will be settled on the battlefield where the Russians are likely to win an ugly victory.

Settling the war diplomatically is not possible because the opposing sides have irreconcilable differences.

Instead, it's likely to be, as I said, an ugly victory, where Russia ends up occupying somewhere between 20 to 40% of pre-2014 Ukraine, while Ukraine ends up as a dysfunctional rump state covering the territory that Russia does not conquer.

Ukraine has effectively been wrecked. It has already lost a substantial portion of its territory and is likely to lose more land before the fighting stops.

Russian leaders recognized that the Ukrainian army, which was larger than the invasion force, I want to emphasize this, the Ukrainian army was larger than the Russian invasion force, it was armed and trained by NATO, and it was becoming a de facto member of NATO.

Immediately after the war began, Russia, not Ukraine, Russia reached out to Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war and work out a modus vivendi between the two countries. This move is directly at odds with the claim that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and make it part of greater Russia.

Negotiations between Kiev and Moscow began in Belarus just four days, four days after the Russian invasion. And that Belarus track was eventually replaced by an Israeli as well as an Istanbul track. The available evidence indicates that the Russians were negotiating seriously and were not interested in absorbing Ukrainian territory, save for Crimea, which they had annexed in 2014, and possibly the Donbass region.

The negotiations ended when the Ukrainians, with prodding from Britain and the United States, walked away from the negotiations, which were making good progress at the time. The Russians did not walk away from the negotiations.

In the months before the war started, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the brewing crisis. On 17 October 2021, remember the war begins February 2022, this is 17 December 2021, Putin sends letters to both President Biden and to NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg proposing a solution to the crisis based on a written guarantee that does three things.

Number one, Ukraine would not join NATO, number two, no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia's borders, and number three, NATO troops and equipment moved into Eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to Western Europe.

Whatever one thinks of the feasibility of reaching a bargain based on Putin's opening demands, it shows he was trying to avoid war.

The United States, on the other hand, refused to negotiate with Putin. It appears it was not interested in avoiding war.

In fact, the United States and its European allies provoked the war.

Bringing Kiev into the European Union and promoting a color revolution in Ukraine, you all remember the Orange Revolution, which was designed to make Ukraine a pro-Western liberal democracy, are the other two prongs of the policy.

Russian leaders across the board said repeatedly before the war. that they considered NATO expansion into Ukraine to be an existential threat that had to be eliminated.

Putin made numerous public statements laying out this line of argument before 24 February, 2022.

Other leaders, including the defense minister, the foreign minister, the deputy foreign minister, and Moscow's ambassador to Washington also emphasized the centrality of NATO expansion for causing the crisis over Ukraine.

Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, made this point succinctly at a press conference on 14 January, 2022.

Lavrov says "'The key to everything is the guarantee "'that NATO will not expand eastward.'

Substantial number of influential and highly regarded individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine, would be seen by Russian leaders as a mortal threat and eventually would lead to disaster.

William Burns, who was recently Joe Biden's head of the CIA, but he was the American ambassador to Moscow in April 2008 when the decision was made to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, wrote a very famous memo that I'm sure some of you are familiar with to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This is a quite remarkable memo, and I'm going to quote extensively from it. "'Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest "'of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. "'In more than two and a half years of conversations "'with key Russian players, from knuckle draggers "'in the dark recesses of the Kremlin "'to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, "'I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine and NATO "'as anything other than a direct challenge "'to Russia's interests.' "'NATO,' he said, quote, "'would be seen as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. "'Today's Russia will respond. "'Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze. "'It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling "'in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.'"

This was written by Bill Burns in 2008. Burns was not the only Western policymaker in 2008 who understood that bringing Ukraine into NATO was fraught with danger.

Both Angela Merkel, who was then the German chancellor, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy adamantly opposed moving forward to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Merkel said, "'I was very sure that Putin is not going "'to just let that happen."'From his perspective, that would be a declaration of war.'"

Putin saw Ukraine joining NATO as a mortal threat that could not be allowed and was willing to go to war to prevent it from happening, which he did, of course, in February of 2022.

Relations between Europe and Russia will not only be poisonous, they will also be dangerous. The possibility of war will be ever-present.

In other words, the threat of a major European war will not go away when the fighting in Ukraine stops.

Russian victory in Ukraine, would be a stunning defeat for Europe. Or to put it in slightly different words, it would be a stunning defeat for NATO, which has been deeply involved in the Ukraine conflict since it started.

The political fights, some will question the future of NATO, given that it failed to check Russia, the country that most European leaders describe as a mortal threat.

Threats to the EU aside, the great reduction in the flow of gas and oil to Europe since the war started has seriously hurt the major economies of Europe and slowed down growth in the overall Eurozone.

General Observations

The Ukraine war has been a disaster.

It has had catastrophic consequences for Ukraine.

It has poisoned relations between Europe and Russia for the foreseeable future.

It has made Europe a more dangerous place.

It has also caused serious economic and political harm inside Europe, and badly damaged transatlantic relations.

Most European leaders, and I'm sure most people in the various European publics, will blame Putin for causing the war, and thus for its terrible consequences. But they are wrong. The war could have been avoided if the West had not decided to bring Ukraine into NATO, or even if it had backed off from that commitment once the Russians made their opposition clear.

Had that happened, Ukraine would almost certainly be intact today within its pre-2014 borders, and Europe would be more stable and more prosperous. Crimea would still be part of Ukraine.

***Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a globally recognized expert in international relations.

#Putin #NATO #Ukraine #war #Russia #

If You Still Believe That Russia Started This Conflict in 2022, Then You Are Ignorant, or Brainwashed.

The END to NATO.

The Ukraine war, which I will argue was provoked by the West and especially the United States.

This war will be settled on the battlefield where the Russians are likely to win an ugly victory.

Settling the war diplomatically is not possible because the opposing sides have irreconcilable differences.

Instead, it's likely to be, as I said, an ugly victory, where Russia ends up occupying somewhere between 20 to 40% of pre-2014 Ukraine, while Ukraine ends up as a dysfunctional rump state covering the territory that Russia does not conquer.

Ukraine has effectively been wrecked. It has already lost a substantial portion of its territory and is likely to lose more land before the fighting stops.

Russian leaders recognized that the Ukrainian army, which was larger than the invasion force, I want to emphasize this, the Ukrainian army was larger than the Russian invasion force, it was armed and trained by NATO, and it was becoming a de facto member of NATO.

Immediately after the war began, Russia, not Ukraine, Russia reached out to Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war and work out a modus vivendi between the two countries. This move is directly at odds with the claim that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and make it part of greater Russia.

Negotiations between Kiev and Moscow began in Belarus just four days, four days after the Russian invasion. And that Belarus track was eventually replaced by an Israeli as well as an Istanbul track. The available evidence indicates that the Russians were negotiating seriously and were not interested in absorbing Ukrainian territory, save for Crimea, which they had annexed in 2014, and possibly the Donbass region.

The negotiations ended when the Ukrainians, with prodding from Britain and the United States, walked away from the negotiations, which were making good progress at the time. The Russians did not walk away from the negotiations.

In the months before the war started, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the brewing crisis. On 17 October 2021, remember the war begins February 2022, this is 17 December 2021, Putin sends letters to both President Biden and to NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg proposing a solution to the crisis based on a written guarantee that does three things.

Number one, Ukraine would not join NATO, number two, no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia's borders, and number three, NATO troops and equipment moved into Eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to Western Europe.

Whatever one thinks of the feasibility of reaching a bargain based on Putin's opening demands, it shows he was trying to avoid war.

The United States, on the other hand, refused to negotiate with Putin. It appears it was not interested in avoiding war.

In fact, the United States and its European allies provoked the war.

Bringing Kiev into the European Union and promoting a color revolution in Ukraine, you all remember the Orange Revolution, which was designed to make Ukraine a pro-Western liberal democracy, are the other two prongs of the policy.

Russian leaders across the board said repeatedly before the war. that they considered NATO expansion into Ukraine to be an existential threat that had to be eliminated.

Putin made numerous public statements laying out this line of argument before 24 February, 2022.

Other leaders, including the defense minister, the foreign minister, the deputy foreign minister, and Moscow's ambassador to Washington also emphasized the centrality of NATO expansion for causing the crisis over Ukraine.

Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, made this point succinctly at a press conference on 14 January, 2022.

Lavrov says "'The key to everything is the guarantee "'that NATO will not expand eastward.'

Substantial number of influential and highly regarded individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine, would be seen by Russian leaders as a mortal threat and eventually would lead to disaster.

William Burns, who was recently Joe Biden's head of the CIA, but he was the American ambassador to Moscow in April 2008 when the decision was made to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, wrote a very famous memo that I'm sure some of you are familiar with to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This is a quite remarkable memo, and I'm going to quote extensively from it. "'Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest "'of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. "'In more than two and a half years of conversations "'with key Russian players, from knuckle draggers "'in the dark recesses of the Kremlin "'to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, "'I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine and NATO "'as anything other than a direct challenge "'to Russia's interests.' "'NATO,' he said, quote, "'would be seen as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. "'Today's Russia will respond. "'Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze. "'It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling "'in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.'"

This was written by Bill Burns in 2008. Burns was not the only Western policymaker in 2008 who understood that bringing Ukraine into NATO was fraught with danger.

Both Angela Merkel, who was then the German chancellor, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy adamantly opposed moving forward to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Merkel said, "'I was very sure that Putin is not going "'to just let that happen."'From his perspective, that would be a declaration of war.'"

Putin saw Ukraine joining NATO as a mortal threat that could not be allowed and was willing to go to war to prevent it from happening, which he did, of course, in February of 2022.

Relations between Europe and Russia will not only be poisonous, they will also be dangerous. The possibility of war will be ever-present.

In other words, the threat of a major European war will not go away when the fighting in Ukraine stops.

Russian victory in Ukraine, would be a stunning defeat for Europe. Or to put it in slightly different words, it would be a stunning defeat for NATO, which has been deeply involved in the Ukraine conflict since it started.

The political fights, some will question the future of NATO, given that it failed to check Russia, the country that most European leaders describe as a mortal threat.

Threats to the EU aside, the great reduction in the flow of gas and oil to Europe since the war started has seriously hurt the major economies of Europe and slowed down growth in the overall Eurozone.

General Observations

The Ukraine war has been a disaster.

It has had catastrophic consequences for Ukraine.

It has poisoned relations between Europe and Russia for the foreseeable future.

It has made Europe a more dangerous place.

It has also caused serious economic and political harm inside Europe, and badly damaged transatlantic relations.

Most European leaders, and I'm sure most people in the various European publics, will blame Putin for causing the war, and thus for its terrible consequences. But they are wrong. The war could have been avoided if the West had not decided to bring Ukraine into NATO, or even if it had backed off from that commitment once the Russians made their opposition clear.

Had that happened, Ukraine would almost certainly be intact today within its pre-2014 borders, and Europe would be more stable and more prosperous. Crimea would still be part of Ukraine.

***Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a globally recognized expert in international relations.

#Putin #NATO #Ukraine #war #Russia #

Except, Non-citizens do get their day in court. Citizenship status isn’t the justification for this executive action. The justification claimed in executive orders is that we are at war with Venezuela because they are at war with the US on account of their land invasion across the southern border.

But we aren‘t China, Russia or North Korea. Or what do you mean by this comparison?

"Alleged" is the problem...

Would Jesus do this?

No proof, no day in court, not good.

It’s nearly impossible to feel good without exercise.

Exercise is so important.

Do you have the link for the iOS Beta? 👀

That was an important step for increasing its user base. I hope they also release an iOS app soon. 🙏

Spend and replace.

What I like about altcoins is their ability to do what Bitcoin cannot and test ideas that are too experimental for Bitcoin.

Privacy, contracts, scalability, anything that is useful to the entire open source money world.

What I don’t like about altcoins is arrogance, zero sum thinking, stagnation & virtue signaling.

You were not the first one to hit the market, you don’t have the largest community of users, your coin is not the most accepted for payments of them all, and it most likely underperforms Bitcoin for bear market saving.

Act like it, build cool stuff to compete for users and market share. Push the research beyond the known boundaries. Refine the user experience. Give people something so cool they didn’t know they wanted it.

But don’t stagnate and simply add more years under the belt.

and you're advertising you own ignorant as well

a DAG is not a blockchain and it isn't "splitting hairs" to say its a completely different data structure with completely different tradeoffs in this application

and you're advertising you own ignorant as well

a DAG is not a blockchain and it isn't "splitting hairs" to say its a completely different data structure with completely different tradeoffs in this application

i've designed a nostr-based DNS (and TLS) replacement and it requires some kind of consensus to function, it uses an explicit trust graph created by the name server nodes (i'm calling it FIND, Free Internet Name Daemon) to evaluate name registration/transfer proposals and store their evaluation, anything that falls under 50% is not stored by a node. this means that the consistency is not strong, but weak, but it is weak eventual consistency, and instead of using a monetary value incentive by being a currency, it provides a directory of the names for anyone who hosts a replica to use in their apps, and secondly, the names themselves become an ad-hoc non-fungible asset (so for which reason there is a number of measures to stop perma-registering names, and other spam mitigation methods).

idk how Kaspa can be not a blockchain, unless you are splitting hairs by distinguishing a blockchain from a tangle or a DAG type structure. they are still fundamentally the same thing, blocks of data that have back-references that build a DAG. chains just aim to grow one branch where tangles can vary from one to ten or more concurrent and interlinked chains. they still need some kind of spam limit mechanism to control how many tokens and transactions are processed and all that, and are based on a token ledger.

what i have designed is not a token ledger it's a registry for unique symbols and it doesn't need that economic basis to justify its existence. it's useful in itself as a directory cache, and useful for people in that these names can help increase the appeal of an offering. it's not just a collectable, and it's not fungible, it is an actually useful thing "this name was registered by this npub".

The Knots filterooors are basically torrent seeders who only want you to download the acting part of the porn.

I do not care if it is a blockchain or whatever technobabble you claim it is.

It is very likely an affinity scam but regardless of whatever the fuck it is I still have no interest until you can answer the two questions I have repeatedly ask you but you refuse to acknowledge

Why do I personally need Kaspa and why should I buy it instead of bitcoin?

You can claim it isn’t a copy of bitcoin all you want. Does not matter one way or the other.

Please answer my two questions though

Why do I need Kaspa and why should I buy Kaspa instead of bitcoin?

I do, but what has to do with Kaspa?

Bitcoin was the first…it had time to grow organically and figure itself out before it had value.

Anything that is going to replace bitcoin has to be “perfect” from day 1 which I do not personally think is possible. Kaspa having downtime and allowing early users to mine a shitload of extra coins is an automatic disqualification

Best of luck trying to find the next “Bitcoin”

In 2010 bitcoin was still an experiment and it had no value. Not apples to apples comparison but you will continue to argue in bad faith

What about the 2 weeks kaspa was "offline" and the insiders kept mining for themselves and this was covered up?

>The security budget for Bitcoin is shrinking. If Bitcoin doesn’t scale on the layer 1 (significant increase in transactions) or spot price double every 4 years, miners don’t get paid.

This has been eloquently debunked numerous times and is squarely in the realm of fringe/scarecrow bitcoin arguments.

What you're effectively saying is "Hey there, looking to make everyday purchases with crypto? Use kaspa, it’s more future-secure than anything running off of the bitcoin chain, such as lightning".

Which, I mean come on, just listen to that.

loaded ?

To quote Satoshi:

“If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”

I had an epiphany today. Maybe it’s accurate, maybe it’s not.

“The likelihood of someone understanding and adopting Bitcoin as a store of value or medium of exchange is directly proportional to their overall comfort with seeking out information that challenges deeply held assumptions.”

I used to think it was just a fundamental lack of curiosity or intellectual laziness that kept many from going down the Bitcoin rabbit hole. Now I’m starting to think that for many otherwise intelligent people, it is actually the fear of the truth, that Humanity has been enslaved by the fiat monetary system, that keeps individuals away. Or perhaps the fear of embarrassment, that even with their degree in finance, they didn’t see it.

This thesis would also account for the many who, rather than simply ignoring Bitcoin, actually lash out against it. When someone feels intellectually “backed into a corner”, it comes down to pure fight-or-flight.

All of this to say, that maybe we need to focus more on explaining the effects of monetary debasement, rather than starting conversations with the ₿ word in the first few sentences. It might keep our audience from shutting down out of discomfort or out of recollection of the incessant FUD they’ve been exposed to.

What do you think?

#asknostr #bitcoin #grownostr

Dude it's like you are forcing me to accept Kaspa is a legitimate project. I don't. The fact you have a known creator amongst other things I don't like Kaspa. I wish you the best.

I don't quite understand the statement "Before Abraham was, I AM"

Can you explain?

USDT accounts for 40% of all on-chain transaction fees across nine major blockchain

s

ETH's a middleman

There doesn't need to be one

ETH gets in the way

#haiku

Hi Cody

North Idaho ranching is a little different than other places. If your pasture isn’t irrigated it’s about done by mid July. That picture was from October of last year. The rest of the year it’s under snow. Haying is a big big deal around here.

Got it 👍 You seem to have done your own research here as well so I would go with your gut.

I’ve played the field when first coming into the space and got burned more times than I can count so you can say I’m a bit skeptical of any newish project. I applaud anyone for innovating and thinking differently. I wish you luck on this experiment moving forward.

I come from the Austrian school.

Special ed class.

I mean in real life, there are NOT many people with depth in their communication

only superficial conversation that are of no use, I understand small talk, for me only when I haven't spoken to the person in the past, let's skipp the small talk...

(Cody, when you do this, you will see that a few can handle a real deep conversation, listening is not difficult. Can they participate in the deep conversation?)

You're right. Mainstream social media won't change,

🔷️ also real topics don't get many viewers when they don't use sensational titles or words in the content, (I already experiment this on a mainstream social media platform, with my other account) 🔷️