Avatar
mark tyler
9baed03137d214b3e833059a93eb71cf4e5c6b3225ff7cd1057595f606088434
Bitcoin & 🫂 Oh and dimly trying to think through interesting issues. I think that I don’t have a right to force you to do anything other than not harm me or others. Seems like most people I interact with in the real world disagree with this statement. To be fair.. the devil is in definition of “harm”.

Is there a way to export my bookmarks from #Damus ? I want to back it up. #asknostr

Can we burn all the one time memory?

We talk about how much it costs to attack the bitcoin network. We hear from nostr:npub1fxqdxndvmt708gjy8nkt5jxf6nqsu8t5446559ry46suujqlj92qcqsl06 that prices fall to the marginal cost of production applies to the product of changing what people think and do as well. If you do nothing to raise the price, then it will fall all the way to just about the lowest theoretical price of changing a human.. imagine advertisers creating an LLM that nearly perfectly predicts what you’ll say, and tests millions of sales pitches until it finds one that you individually will always say yes to. Let’s raise the price of attacking the human network.

That’s right. Only those close to the sticker printer get the new load of them.

😂

Yeah, “people should” or “you should” or “she should” in the mandatory sense… I like the idea of avoiding. 🫂

Try this on the version you have before trying the TestFlight version. I think it may work

nostr:note1lpfk9q2c06xnfu5d6gd0r385cuwjlka2ue88ywkvg6u3wz2nt83qdn6s4x

As long as you can pay them in esteem and in being part of the vision, they’ll work for lower hourly rates than the equivalents from your competition.

Sorry, lots of questions - I’m super curious though 😅

😂 noo you know what I mean. I mean where are *you* coming from when you say it? To what level would you go to achieve it? What level of force are we talking about using? Is there anything short of 6.2Q (let’s say 1% short) that would be satisfactory? For example a purely zero sum / justice based approach could argue that using equal force to the original evils until payment is made in full is justifiable. More likely people believe that as long as 51% of US citizens agree on making that next partial payment, then it’s ok to use credible threat of substantial violence to force the other 49 to pay too.

Looking at the statement from a different angle, it seems that another possible way is to never do anything redress the wrong. So what does it mean to not acknowledge that as a *possible* outcome rather than just a bad outcome?

Another question I have is since “way” is a means to an end, what is the end that reparations are the only way to achieve?