I do mine #monero at home (using solar).

Returns would be negative if I was paying for grid power, true, but that's mostly about my government's very foolish energy policies.

No one is stopping you from using monero but there are valid technical reasons it’ll never be global money

If your life is on the line swap sats for something engineered to be fully private. No brainer. But 99.9999% of people’s lives aren’t on the line from a tx so it’s a different calculus.

Sender privacy is real good with just some simple best practices.

Receiver privacy is crazy hard to avoid leaking data.

How do you mine it?

FUCK OFF

Bitcoin wasn't made to be private. It's in the code.

If you wanna argue about it, I suggest to go scream at bitcoins white paper and lmk how that goes.

Bitcoin for global money, it's built in.

Monero for global transaction privacy, it's built in.

It’s not as private as you think

nerd moment - in my bit to find the optimal way to get a job done faster in the most efficient manner - Newton's laws come into play

Acceleration is rate of change of velocity (v) with respect to time (t).

a=Δv/Δt

Where:

a is the acceleration

Δv is the change in velocity

Δt is the change in time

What is velocity? Simply put, what it takes to go from point A to point B with a certain speed and direction, in a certain given time

The formula for velocity is given by:

v=Δs/Δt

Where:

v is the velocity

Δs is the change in displacement

Δtis the change in time

Key here is that you have to know where you are heading, and chug along. Hence acceleration expedites your change in velocity - where you keep progressing from one point to another in the shortest time possible.

Newton’s second law talks about force that’s applied to a certain mass resulting in the acceleration you want (F=mA).

Mass here can be interpreted as the right amount of work put in to generate the momentum to go from point A to point B. That added with force, aka a good self-driven push (or external-factor related push), you would be accelerating.

Mathematically, it is expressed as:

F=ma

Where:

F is the force applied to the object (Newtons, N)

m is the mass of the object

a is the resulting acceleration of the object

In short, if you want to get a job done real quick, you need

- the right amount of work needed to take you from point A to point B

- know which direction you are heading

- give it a good push

- and try to go between 2 points at shortest time, and replicate to all other points C, D, E

And voila! Jobs accelerated.

Beat the hell out of me if that makes sense but I'm trying all ways possible, Newton's laws included!

Nerd out

just a heuristic Jac

but you should take note that if most of your ideas about health lead you to things that healthy humans don't naturally prefer, then you're probably on the wrong track

exceptions are to be expected obviously

This is totally incoherent, you should have some warm milk with honey or something else pleasant and easy to digest, you'll feel better.

I don't use a spell checker so sorry for the typos I guess. Though, I suspect you understood me perfectly, just wanted to brag about something or lash out.

Just because our ancestors starved, often didn't get enough sleep, fought violently and did all kinds other bad things, it does not mean they'll "turn out" to be good.

Our evolved preferences are a simple heuristic for the parts of our environment that are good for us and the parts that are bad. We prefer to have food often, to sleep a lot, to feel safe and not engage in violence. Even though very few of our ancestors had these things, they are obviously good.

I didn't say rotting things were good (let's put aside the question of fermented foods for a bit). Our ancestors were repulsed by things, that indicates strongly that they are bad.

But I think you are missing my point. I am saying that we are all dumb as rocks. We barely evolved any intelligence at all, and far too often we think we know things and we act on that supposed knowledge to our detriment. And so when someone says "It's very obvious which things were good and which weren't" my point is that it absolutely is not obvious:

* It was obvious that the sun caused skin cancer and we should lather up. It was not obvious that the sun's vitamin D production cut heart disease risk so far that sunscreen wearing caused more deaths.

* It was obvious that saturated fat caused heart disease, and so margarine would be healthier. It was not obvious that trans fats cause huge problems to human bodies that did not evolve to handle huge loads of trans fats.

* It was obvious that intestinal worms were bad (duh!) until we learned that our bodies expect them. I have personal experience on this one.

Nothing is obvious. We live in a hyper-complex system.

And so we have to trust that we evolved to work against a certain kind of environment and we should mimic that environment as much as possible to avoid risk, because any sort of changes to that environment are very likely to be in the bad direction (some could be good, but always bet the other way) even if they seem obviously in the good direction.

I am constantly amazed at how fine tuned life is towards it's environment, and how even small changes in the environment cause species extinctions. And yet us humans are tweaking our own environment in massive ways, and then suprised that we develop allergies, autoimmune diseases, metabolic syndrome. The causes are obvious. The solutions are hard to put into practice, but we know what they are. Tribal people don't have diabetes, autoimmune diseases, metabolic syndrome, allergies, etc.

Saying "fasting also comes with innumerable desteuctive [sic] effects the worst of which is an increase in cortisol" presumes we know far more than we actually know about fasting, about cortisol, about why your body is producing it, etc. I can point you to many studies showing how fasting is very healthy, despite the alleged spike in cortisol, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make here. The argument I'm trying to make is that humanity is a lot dumber than we pretend to be, to the extent that simple heuristics like "do what your ancestors did" do better than trusting the current science does.

It turns out our ancetors didn't have fruit all year round... we probably shoudn't either. It turns out they sometimes went days without eating, because they couldn't find any more food. Turns out that is good for us too. Our ancestors almost all ate meat - we should too. Our ancestors didn't use fluoride in their water or toothpaste - we shouldn't either. Fluoride hardens teeth with calcium, why shoudln't it then also harden arteries with calcium? that seems obvious to me but it is the opposite of what we are told. Flouride occurs naturally in some water supplies, but if your ancestors didn't come from there, you aren't attuned to it. Our ancestors didn't live indoors. Our ancestors sat around fires at night. Our ancestors squatted, they didn't sit in chairs. Lots of things to mimic that, if you try it, you will find you start to feel a lot healthier.

Evolutionary biology and game theory -- it is an entire way of thinking. It changes everything.

You're missing the point.

I didn't call your previous argument non-sensical because you didn't leave room for exceptions but because you lumped everything in our evolutionary past into the probably good category whereas I would argue that it's very obvious which things were good and which weren't.

If you want an evolutionary argument it's better to think about pur evolved preferences.

For example, we evolved the preference to be repulsed by rot and excrament. This would not be possible had we not been exposed to these things for our entire evolutionary history. Yet your argument would say that rotting things are good because they've always been part pf my environment where I would tell you that, quite obviously, they are not.

The same can be said for worms or starvation.

Worms tho

You can believe that living naturally is good without going to thw extremes of irradiating yourself with natural uranium, starving yourself, then infecting yourself with worms.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here

Very sympathetic to evolutionary arguments.

But in this case it's non-sensical.

Humans evolved with all kinds of intestinal worms and fungal parasites, should we then infect ourselves with worms to be healthy? No.

What you have to remember is that although evolution can (sometimes after millions of years) turn a formerly toxic substance into a benign one (or even a beneficial one, see oxygen). It is not omnipotent. A lot of the environment we evolved with is just harmful and evolution has not had enough time to make it not so.

yes

btw, I don't have any trouble with my weight. If this was still pre 2016 I'd challenge you to post physique and mog you