Profile: b81776c3...
Precisely.
As for DNS, its installed base is the only excuse for its perpetuation. Public/private key pair signing is the only non-client server option that remains.
Sensible move decentralising the NIPs, well done.
Shakespeare.diy is very very good! Will come and say hello shortly nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424
Does it work with https://gittr.space/ yet?
Nice try. Now every nostr user is obliged to have bitcoin and subsidise the miners while the relays get?
Decentralised personal and group relays are probably the best solution, you can't spam my relay, and I only hook it up with others. The word "relay" is another poor nomenclature choice. It doesn't much relay as store and forward, and it doesn't do that to the extent that say SMTP MTAs did.
The motive for this, enriching miners while they do nothing and others do the actual work looks like an indirect subsidy.
Fortunately it's not mandatory and if you choose it, all strength to your hand. Best outcome is this isn't yet-another-login-protocol kind of problem that complicates and reduces utility. Coming from the home of Electrum, that's no surprise.
If you're running an LNbits remote signer, please update it at https://nostrconnect.com/
Diffs here
https://github.com/lnbits/nsec-remote-signer/compare/main%40%7B1day%7D...main
Should I upgrade the older smaller NRS with this code? The picture didn't match, but I did anyway and now it doesn't light up and say GM any more?
https://t.me/nostr_offtopic/152070
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqwlsccluhy6xxsr6l9a9uhhxf75g85g8a709tprjcn4e42h053vaqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hsqzpnxyckywfe89js005avd
The anarchist is the one who refuses every cause for the joy of his life radiating from inner spiritual intensity. -- Renzo Novatorehttps://todon.eu/tags/anarchism
The anarchist is merely selfish.
I've been trying to get this brilliant Substack writer to come over to Nostr, and he wrote about it in this article. He's very well aligned on getting around gatekeepers, writing on subjects outside the Overton Window and from a content perspective, would be great for Nostr. But the reason he's not switching or releasing his work here is simply the friction, and the lack of discovery. What do you think?
Full article here: https://www.decentralizedfiction.com/p/decentralized-fiction-and-the-inherent
The benefits aren't free, those from the centralised are paid for in surveillance and control, in nostr, it's DIY effort.
If you write it, post it everywhere you can, if there's an RSS feed it can be automatically, more or less, deployed to a nostr relay.
The person in the video is not Decarlos Brown. It’s Jaleel Smith-Riley, sentenced back in 25th October of 2016. As for Decarlos Brown, he’s only been charged with murder, however no trial has started yet.
Right — that prompt:
> `You can now close this terminal with Ctrl+D, or press Enter to restart.`
is a **local terminal wrapper**, likely from **WSL** (or possibly VS Code's terminal), not your SSH client. Here's what happened:
1. You were in a remote session (via SSH or Docker exec).
2. That session exited with code 1.
3. The terminal wrapper you’re using (e.g. WSL terminal, Windows Terminal tab, VS Code Remote window, etc.) gave you a **local message** — *not from the remote host*.
4. When you pressed **Enter**, it restarted your shell — **locally**, in WSL, not a new SSH session.
So: **the terminal was local**, and **the message was from your local shell/session manager**. It restarted into WSL bash or zsh when you hit Enter — not your SSH client — because the SSH client had cleanly exited and your terminal environment defaulted back to the local shell.
In short:
**Pressing Enter restarted the terminal wrapper’s default shell (WSL), not your last remote session.**
I was at Deluxe Espresso Bar in Wellington - https://swarmapp.com/user/106081/checkin/689673c824b4810617dbac44?s=8anZzDZM3Rz_reGXyx18lyOOEN8
I was at Sri Penang in Wellington - https://swarmapp.com/user/106081/checkin/6895029959d8587fb7a36313?s=lb1w0b8-Ke5mLdzrLKHsoUoqIK8
I was at Chouchou in Wellington - https://swarmapp.com/user/106081/checkin/68926e6699ecd41a85931cf5?s=YpKaEhQEhjx9Oin845TaoxRKp-U
You can't fence off danger, you can't filter "bad" from the network.
You've got your feels and intuition but civilisation is stepping beyond your gut and emotion and using brain thinks.
Not only does the attempt fail, and burden the "innocent," it will eventually reveal itself as a very bad idea.
Underlying a lot of Trump's administration are ancient or emergency powers, given for "good" reason, but now, the risk is revealed.
Imagine a Britain where access to Wikipedia is restricted not by a hostile foreign power, nor by a rogue ISP, but by our own government. This is no dystopian fantasy; it is the potential consequence of the Online Safety Act—legislation passed, ironically, in the name of safety but now threatening the very infrastructure of free knowledge.
Under the Act, Wikipedia—a globally trusted, not-for-profit educational site—could be forced to limit UK users, distort its open-editing model, and verify the identities of its volunteer moderators. Why? Because any service with more than seven million users that features recommendation tools or link-sharing may be classified as a “category one” platform, subject to the same regulatory burdens as TikTok or Facebook—algorithm-driven entertainment giants with wholly different structures and risks. The UK could become the first liberal democracy to block itself from an online encyclopaedia.
Responsibility for this legislative vandalism lies with a gallery of digital, culture, media, and sport ministers who had little grasp of the internet and even less humility: Nadine Dorries, whose technological insight seemed limited to whether a programme had subtitles; Michelle Donelan, who shepherded the Bill through Parliament with slogans and sound bites; Lucy Frazer, who confused regulation with repression; and Peter Kyle, now in court arguing that the harms are hypothetical, as though passing sweeping laws and hoping for the best were an acceptable digital policy.
This law does not make us safer; it makes us smaller, poorer, and more parochial. It is censorship under another name. Though sold as a measure to protect children and stop illegal content—a noble aim—its drafting is so broad, its application so clumsy, that it will hobble legitimate services instead of halting harmful ones.
It fails because it treats all large platforms alike, ignoring the gulf between attention-manipulating networks and collaborative knowledge projects. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dopamine slot machine. The Act creates legal risks for anonymity, undermining the volunteer model that makes Wikipedia possible. It punishes sites simply for recommending useful information, and it encourages self-censorship, as services will over-block content or restrict access to avoid fines of up to £18 million or ten per cent of global turnover. In the name of protection, it infantilises citizens who are entitled to freedom of inquiry.
As if the economic and academic restraints of Brexit were not damaging enough, we now impose informational restraints—amputating our own intellect. The UK increasingly behaves not like an open democracy but a wary provincial state, mimicking the strategies of closed ones. In Russia, Wikipedia is blocked outright under disinformation laws; in Britain, it may be throttled under safety laws. In Russia, real-name registration is required; in Britain, identity verification may be demanded of Wikipedia editors. The difference is one of degree, not kind.
Wikipedia does not harvest data, sell ads, or serve political agendas. It has no billionaire CEO tweeting policy on a whim. Yet it risks being shackled simply because it is popular, free, and open source. When lawmakers apply rules designed for Silicon Valley behemoths to educational charities, they reveal their ignorance: they are not keeping anyone safe—they are dismantling a pillar of democracy, the free exchange of knowledge.
Instead of quarantining the internet, Britain should invest in digital literacy, improve content-moderation standards through international cooperation, and apply proportionate oversight where actual harm occurs. Censorship does not work; education does. If we continue down this path, we will find ourselves regulated like autocracies, governed by mediocrity, and informed by algorithms designed in fear. And the bitter irony? We will be unable to look up the history of our mistake—because Wikipedia will not load.
A low probability event is not a black swan, which after all were abundant and long-standing where known. In your example you demonstrate our knowledge of the event and how likely the known event is to occur, in the long run.
Love your work, great to see you here!