That said, the first time I took a bunch of things I'd previously built, plugged them into each other in a new way and they just started doing a new, desirable thing... like nothing I've expected as a mechanical engineer.

Dismissing something because there's a risk seems as short-sighted as embracing something because there's a possibility. Seems like there needs to be more discussion of the likelihoods and scales of said risks and possibilities.

I would have preferred some questioning and push back towards the Marxism in the last third (the power structure/ colonialism nonsense, and lots of the over the top messaging, and mandates were the result of a government that's too big, powerful, and close with the corporate world), but the first 2/3 was really good!

Perhaps I'm a bit of an autist who can be a bit literal, who's been mocked "a few" times for daring to think for myself 🤣

Should we encourage the state to use bad money so that we can stay pure?

There's no such thing as being too smart, only focusing on the wrong information, which is often accompanied by counterproductive biases.

So, do people not want the government to save in or use good money?

Is Bitcoin not "money for enemies"?

And I won't argue that I'm doing a great job of steel maning the related arguments, but I feel like the related arguments are largely coming from people who would rather lose than have the people they don't like get any credit for them winning.

Most of my friends are quite progressive, and in the same way that some religious people's strong morals surrounding abortion don't allow them to acknowledge pragmatic considerations in said topic, I'd argue that many progressives are their own worst enemy because many seem to feel morally obligated to consider perfect to be the enemy of good.

I'll be here! 🤙

How'd you know? 🤣

I also ask my wife if there's anything particular that she wants to watch.

I'm a designer! And I work on medical stuff!! But I do mechanical devices, not software, so.... 🙃

Everyone thinks their shitcoin's the exception 😁

We're all shitcoiners, and that's okay. What's not okay is lying about shitcoining.

Also, part of the joy of the plural of Bitcoin being Bitcoin rather than Bitcoins, is that the smallest guppy, and the largest whale can both equally accurately and equally vaguely say "yes, I have Bitcoin"

While at least at first glance it seems reasonable to assume that there's a fact of the matter regarding the highest temperature that there's ever been, or will be, that doesn't mean that that's the highest theoretically possible temperature.

What do you mean when you say pure order? In my mind, that implies something like a perfectly crytaline structure, but I see no reason to assume that to have been the case. It does seem to generally be assumed that the universe started more ordered than it is now, but to say perfectly ordered seems to assume a preferred way of ordering things. Stephen Wolfram has done some interesting work which seems to show that order is purely a function of perspective.

If seemingly artificially constraining temperature is required to learn new things in physics, than perhaps we know all that there is to know.

Also, "how do you measure the temperature of bitcoin..." presupposes that bitcoin has a temperature which is an assumption that I see no reason to make. To me, it sounds like trying to use inches to measure inflation, which I'd argue is incoherent and the completely wrong tool for the job. To me, it sounds like you're talking about something other than temperature which may or may not be conserved between Bitcoin and the material world.

Energy is assumed to be conserved in closed systems, but the universe isn't assumed to be a closed system, so energy isn't assumed to be considered within the universe. As the universe expands and things move farther apart, gravitational potential energy increases but doesn't come from a reduction in any other form of potential energy. The expansion of the universe seems to be continuously piping more and more energy into the universe.

If we make convenient, unjustified assertions in the name of enabling ourselves to learn new things, then we haven't learned new things, we've just made unjustified assertions, and this doesn't mean that your assertions are unjustifiable, but as far as I'm concerned, they're far from sufficiently substantiated or obvious to assume to be true.

I don't want to hear why it's important that they're true, I want to hear flushed out explanations of why they're true.

Similarly, maybe these will all feel like small assumptions compared to what they get us, but to me these seem like anything other than small assumptions.

Also, given that I rightfully don't have much of an opinion on literally every topic, sometimes comments give more perspective.

For me, reading comprehension isn't a strange, so sometimes it's more column A, and sometimes it's more column B 😁

I'm still curious about the grounds on which you can claim that temperature has a maximum given that kinetic energy can be arbitrarily high.

Also, given that physicists don't seem to generally assume the universe to be closed, do you mean something different from them, or are you building a potentially atypical yet necessarily assumption into your model, and if so, is there a reason for doing so other than that it's necessary for the modeled work?

Roughly speaking, most animals avoid moving more than necessary because doing so is a waste of energy and only increases the amount of food they need to find which reduces the likelihood of surviving and passing on their genes.

I assume that for the exact same reason (among others), humans, on average, don't think any more than necessary. Given that our brains consume something like 20% of the calories that we use, a group could potentially noticeably reduce how much food it needs to collect if a few people think real hard, and everyone else follows their lead.

I'd argue that since the Green revolution, since there have been more than enough calories for "everyone", we haven't needed thought leaders, but we long ago evolved to lazily rely on them, so people want them.

I get the impression that most people are actively against thinking for themselves because it's uncomfortable and people are soft and love comfort.

I assume that trying to get the masses to think for themselves is about like trying to make communism viable, and to be clear, I share share the average bitcoiner's perspective on the viability (or lack thereof) of communism.