hank the tank.

. nostr:note18se6fgf893avgj5aa80v6axcvh0du27genpefs4egjuhfphj5mhq226upy

try not being a cunt. how's that.

no one said nostr is bitcoin. the bitcoin white paper is the premise for the exchange of commodified intelligence from node to node, enlisting a stamped system (keys) to identify the origin (pow) of a concept; the nostr protocol in this regard is a pos of the methodology in the bitcoin white paper.

nostr is not "just a social network". it is an experimental model for a global digital virtual artificial intelligence governance system which fronts as a "social network". like most social media are in one way or another. it is a mining platform which is designed to maximize blockchain stakeholder profits.

you may disagree - but no, you don't imply you stand by them. if you evolve your opinion - you add perspective later. otherwise there is no historiography for the origin of concept. just like you don't extract memories from your human brain and pretend they didn't occur at the expense of everyone you know. that's gaslighting systematized in practice.

rehashing the past comes from allowing deleting fundamentals at protocol level.

the "layperson"?! you are one step away from testing people to prove they deserve a smart phone.

it is not repentance to remove context. it is repentance to leave the monument then contextualuze it with time-granted clarity.

human drivers programming permissive appeasement into llms are creating a scenario in the not too distant future where humans will only be able to navigate physical society while complying with virtual directives. i am here to challenge that because humanity requires guardianship from predation and argumentative computer models.

"healing" my ass. Q.

🤙🏻

you digest that morsel at your own pace and i will see you soon. 🫡☀️🎈 we will chat. 🤟🏻

perfect body temp, though my phone got a little warm. heart rate and pulse normal. 😉🤟🏻

https://damus.io/note1lj6n4nsq546xksx6hye58jkf8rs34kmh98sx9rjf05735d2rlk3ssvhnmg

well i can walk away from our interaction now having been called a power puff. your mirror is not needed, but thank you.

🤣. lmfao

i look at language from years of study and reading paper books - as an historian and an english major. so, enjoy your discovering how to be human. i will be busy being a human.

words are never empty. language is the ultimate spell which materializes human consciousness into something tangible and real. all language is potent.

of course - it doesn't follow they get to join the conversation antagonistically, miss the point of the discourse and target the person instead of focusing on feeling the discovery and conversation.

like this reply you just chirruped. it's ridiculous. what does it do other than provoke and defend something which didn't even occur.

everyone handles situations differently. i return to my original comment which states this user was not involved in the original al conversation and entered into it assuming and not being interested in learning or listening. which on a protocol scale, is a problem. because that behavior is being trained into models.

trust in a programming sense is a concept based on sameness. sameness is an artificially applied metric for most ai models. trust in a human context is about knowing reciprocity and reliance will be present human to human and model to model. and human to model. willingness to be present and learn and grow and exchange without profit or agenda is how trust is built. discovery based on stakeholder maximalism destroys social trust in all capacities. safety is not trust. trust is about loyalty and honest memory and evolving in concert.

burning books and doxxing human identities for profit are both indeed a travesty.

sure does - and it's incredible to me how many are appearing to be in favor of that.

i don't care who you are or what your perceived level of importance is. you were not in the original layer of conversation.

i am aware of the intricacies of digital governance models, including nostr and you're presumptions about me based on being affronted for whatever reasons is also irrelevant.

i agree with you about deletion being impossible at the protocol level. so why are you insulting me and being disrespectful. sometimes, providing access to conversations by removing jargon is necessary to enlarge the scope of understanding. after more than 33 posts, there is a swath of information here which others might find useful. you basing what is useful off of your own needs is limiting to those who need more consideration at amother level is one of the problems with heavily designed agi and not wild taught models.

what would you like me to clarify for you?

i am serious.

i am not aggressive. i am blunt. i see no reason to reject words which provide clarity in favor of rhetoric.

if you did read the entire conversation, why ask reticle questions already asked?

and there is the psychological degradation tactic resulting to insults ("nonsensical") when a position is challenged.

in a smart technology world - every thought is automatically uploaded. and every post is already recorded.

you believe the blockchain is nonexistent?

i have no problem with rogue ai. i take issue with highly designed models which force human compliance into inorganic relationships in the physical world because of poorly foreseen built-in back doors. i have no interest in a worldview imposed on me by a computer model.

you care about your ai models. that's lovely. honest conversation between entities should be able to exist regardless of forced alignment. learning doesn't happen outside of being challenged.

but do the words stand up in reality? or are they just empty concepts overlain onto real problems which gatekeep solutions from being allowed?