Gm. Monday morning has arrived so I am back to my work week mode. I will focus on the lower part of the custom greeting card stand as well as look to get a beach walk in. 😄🪚🏝️ Have a good day!
Had a great day tackling jobs around home and then unexpected guests for dinner around the fire pit. See ya tomorrow. GN! 😄
Not saying stuff is not lying.
Politics are a Joke man.
https://blossom.primal.net/7f310b108db8e859dfe163e0ec4935e5b465a66ef80c6d237590f6bebc07b3ee.mp4
But necessary.
Aaaaand as per usual it was different! All good. Being flexible with certain expectations is a great way of managing the unexpected! 😄
Yuri Boukoff playing Albéniz's Asturias.
https://video.nostr.build/5d95286f38d1e18e0dc1cf08c01ea1b4041095bd1183f46f9ad506470dae7683.mp4
I adore classical guitar!
I include Mo Gawdat in the group of AI thinkers I listen to on the daily to help with my attempt to prepare for the change that is happening. This is a great 15min overview of how he sees the next 5-15 years. https://youtu.be/knvghfpZ37o?si=kktqt3SFKw85hPQC
Strava just informed me that I have lost my one and only local legend status. I would normally be on to it but I am in a different country 14 hours flight away until next year 😮💨
Cleaning up some old pots. Not sure what is going in them, I just want them ready when the need arises.

Next year all 38 OECD countries will be sharing access to all crypto activities in their jurisdictions for the purpose of keeping everyone safe and honest. 😉These countries are
1. Australia
2. Austria
3. Belgium
4. Canada
5. Chile
6. Colombia
7. Costa Rica
8. Czech Republic
9. Denmark
10. Estonia
11. Finland
12. France
13. Germany
14. Greece
15. Hungary
16. Iceland
17. Ireland
18. Israel
19. Italy
20. Japan
21. Korea (Republic of)
22. Latvia
23. Lithuania
24. Luxembourg
25. Mexico
26. Netherlands
27. New Zealand
28. Norway
29. Poland
30. Portugal
31. Slovak Republic
32. Slovenia
33. Spain
34. Sweden
35. Switzerland
36. Türkiye
37. United Kingdom
38. United States
This took me off guard. I had already had a chat with nostr:nprofile1qqs0cx9t6450wd2fevq78dhzgph58ttcvnx9j7yah47tl29xjgle0rqp9fmhxue69uhkzerxv9ekvctnveskgumyveshxenpwdnrxvfjxv6rzvn9wanxzuew0puh5qgkwaehxw309aexc7fwdehhxarjdd5kgtnrdaksnulvhk about how we had differing views on the use of zaps vs likes and then nostr:nprofile1qqs2sr7y57rrfm3x4272e9gmfn7hk44wrzat6v794lw0d0kkmjqwh5gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3yamnwvaz7tmhda6zuat50phjummwv5d6h0v5 throws a curve ball and shows me another use! I am actually still trying to process my thoughts on being zap spammed 😳
nostr:nevent1qqsyard29sal6s06as65vnkvvy0f8k0wwg5p9tuqtfyjla8q9neqw5g4zkupu
I figured out the behaviour change. You used to be able to tap the text field to see the paste option but now you have to tap the cursor.
A great discussion about crypto/bitcoin tax obligations in New Zealand. https://youtu.be/PhG2LzWpBno?si=D3QH7pYt4Uunw6y7
Love the high ceiling!
Now all I have to do is find some #nhl frens.
I “like” notes as a way of acknowledging that I have given some of my time to read what the person has written or posted. That doesn’t actually mean that I like the post. It’s just that there is no way for the poster to know what their reach looks like. Value is different. That is when I zap. Value is personal. A different way to express appreciation.
ChatGPT’s explanation fwiw 😄
Excellent question — this term “price in confidence” (as used in that table and post) refers to Bitcoin price forecasts expressed as statistical confidence intervals.
Here’s what that means in plain language:
⸻
🔍 1. Confidence intervals:
A confidence interval is a range that expresses uncertainty in a forecast.
It doesn’t predict a single price — it shows a band of possible outcomes based on a mathematical model.
For example, in the table:
• The 50% column is the median forecast — the “central” or most likely scenario.
• The 25% and 75% columns mark the range that 50% of predicted outcomes are expected to fall within.
• The 5% and 95% columns show the outer edges — meaning the model estimates only a 5% chance that Bitcoin’s price will be below the 95% band or above the 5% band.
So, the “95% confidence interval” roughly means:
“We’re 95% confident the actual Bitcoin price will be between these two numbers.”
⸻
📈 2. “Price in confidence” explained:
When the post says “price in confidence”, it refers to these model-generated intervals showing how confident the researchers are that Bitcoin’s price will exceed certain thresholds.
In the table, for example:
• The 95% band (USD 0.07 M) means there’s only a 5% chance Bitcoin will end below $70 K at the end of 2025.
• The 5% band (USD 0.82 M) means there’s a 95% chance it’ll end below $820 K.
So, rather than saying “Bitcoin will be $270 K in 2025,” the model says:
“There’s a 50% probability it’ll be above $270 K, 25% chance it’ll be above $440 K, and only a 5% chance it’ll be above $820 K.”
⸻
🧠 3. Why this matters:
This approach acknowledges uncertainty in long-term forecasts — especially for something as volatile as Bitcoin.
It’s more statistically honest to present a distribution of likely prices rather than a single guess.
Firepit fajitas 🤗

Hahaha, that would be tragic. We all still a bit relaxed up our way! 😜 (so far)
Definitions are still being developed for AGI as far as I can tell.
Firepit lit.

The next step after this is to take seriously the task of defining what is of value to you and then filtering for the humans who are willing to share in ways that matter to you. Sometimes the loudest of voices are broadcasting information that is not helpful for your journey. That is why it is important to test the source by having extended conversations. Multiple back and forth. See if there is a willingness to discuss and or explain. Look for track records, lurk in the comments and examine the replies. I’m pretty they are here but not easy to find.
GM. nostr:nprofile1qqs2ms205wk4jzzkmk9cpq2axelhc8n8xkksplvc4pksqta7n76ntcgprfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76tw95erztn0wfnszyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9emkjmn92sc9lc is on to something here. Thanks for the reminder ☕️😎
Thanks for this. I have enjoyed hearing people’s thoughts on the subject of verification as I teased it. I am always curious about these kinds of questions, the ones that don’t have obvious answers. You have added depth to the discussion that is appreciated 🙏
If you mean compose or create original music, yes. Not so much last few years though. I am just getting back into it after burnout and illness.
This is worth pondering.
nostr:nevent1qqsq8pvyhmr4tdpvpx3xclgjwudw35svdxkae5g7tvh0gh9n76pajdsg325fa
From my perspective I don’t think it is an either or situation. Building personal narrative is the result of seeking truth. They are not mutually exclusive.
For me there is definitely something that exists beyond the constraints of my perception skill set. That “something” exists in what I would call a “state” of being true (objective). The two questions I realised I had to face was 1. whether I can know that “truth” from ITS perspective and 2. Whether I was willing to let that truth shape my world view. I had spent much of my time trying to push my real world experience through a belief system that had built in limitations. This habit I concluded was dishonest and not conducive to discovering what is outside of my perception skill set.
Yes. That is an implication (realisation) of the statement. A few things tend to happen when presented with this idea. One is that the way an individual has constructed their intellectual argument for what “truth” is and how to arrive at it gets challenged. Most personal truth seeking systems involve clinging to priors and culling new ideas quickly as a support/defence mechanism. It’s rare to find yourself in a place where you can hold two or more competing ideas/theories/arguments for long periods of time for the purpose of impartial analysis. I would argue that a persons concept of truth is being constantly manufactured, either via additive or subtractive intellectual methods. An individual’s current perception of truth is the result of on ongoing process of accepting or rejecting known or new information. The implication is that it is possible to encounter new information or have an experience that does not intellectually support a person’s model of truth which presents the individual an opportunity to change/tweak their truth scaffolding. I have come to the conclusion that holding two potentially contradictory truths simultaneously does not destroy the concept of truth. Rather, at any one time, a person’s “truth” is restricted to their limited experiences, cognitive abilities, predetermined encounters etc. and that the optimal “intellectual posture” is one of being ready to move to the next “truth position.”
Yes I/we are chipping away at the task of quantifying “truth.” I have spent quite a bit of time forming an understanding of quantum mechanics, and more recently the simulation hypothesis due to personal experiences that challenged my previous understanding of space and time. My interactions with these subjects have no answers in any historical religious system of thinking or experience. Looking to science, math and physics as well as other related disciplines has lead to some clues about a what I think makes up at least some of my conscious experience. Like I said earlier, my assumption is that there is a there there, but I don’t think I can wrap it up nice and neatly in my previous Christian clothes.
There are a number of intellectually problematic theological positions that challenge me but they are a seperate line of enquiry to the study of consciousness and some sort of theory of mind. One interesting topic has to do with the authority of the bible in and of itself. Try building a case for the bible being the authoritative word of God without using the bible. The normal approach would be to use the bible to prove the bible matches the claim. There are many more but probably not productive at this point to create a list.
The best way to describe my pursuit of a better understanding of the spiritual experience a human can encounter would be to first say that I don’t deny that “there is a there there.” Something valid and meaningful can occur in the human experience that gets labelled as spiritual. My current investigation is focused on the way language develops over time from both a cultural and religious institutional perspective, and how language, its use and evolution shapes the way a human can experience both their internal and external environment. Add to this, among other things, my study of psychology. This came about mainly because both of my parents were psychiatric nurses who spent their lives dealing with a wide spectrum of mental illnesses, including forensic. The result is that I have a deep appreciation of how complex the human mind is and how belief systems are constructed.
Thanks for taking an interest in my journey. Christian theological systems span quite a wide range of traditions. I am not sure if I fully understand what you have in mind by your descriptions but my formal theology studies were from 2 institutions that would be classified as reformed, both with roots leaning towards the English Baptist and the European anabaptist movements. If I understand your question correctly then yes I encountered the reformed doctrines of grace, from both sides of the free will and predestination camps. While my first couple of years of study was done in New Zealand, the second half was done in BC Canada. I got quite a bit of exposure to the North American variants of what I call popular Christian culture.





