Better security. It doesn't have a secret chip that generates and stores the mnemonic phrase. Therefore, I do not need to trust the manufacturer of secret chips. SeedSigner is simple and cheap. It will not attract the attention of the security services. I can reproduce it disassembled, like parts from a construction set. Or throw it away, and buy the parts again in a new place.
What do you think: jade or seedsigner?
Now about your question. Ludwig von Mises warned that the replacement of living economic agents with abstract concepts leads to errors in further reasoning. Free trade is one of these abstractions. Free trade is a convenient abstraction that denotes the actions of specific people. To answer your question, you need to replace the trade with people in it. Then your question is: Do people who trade without outside interference thrive?
Such a question requires clarification: what kind of people, what do they sell, etc.? It is not for nothing that they say that the answer to any question is hidden in the question itself, if it is correctly formulated. And the answer is obvious: not all people prosper, not from all transactions, not all their lives. It is easier to draw generalized conclusions than to be guided by them in life.
No, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't interpret the scientific evidence in favor of our own ethical preferences. Because neurophysiology or neurobiology have no connection with ethics. And any interpretation to substantiate one's own ethical preferences is always subjective. From the point of view of a living organism, it is justified not only to trade, but also to parasitize, steal or take away by violence. The English royal family has been practicing this for centuries very successfully. Just like the unemployed of California, the vagabonds of India, the politicians of every country. And many more billions of human beings. Not all people understand and accept the benefits of free trade. Not everyone can learn this. Not everyone can withstand the competition. Everyone wants stability, income guarantees, and a monopoly. Therefore, the king of England, the Californian professional beggar or the Indian slacker choose their lifestyle in strict accordance with our human nature. It is the same for all of us. And from its common root grow free trade, parasitism and robbery. Only a small part of people colonized America. The rest are still breeding in Europe. The advantages of the free market are not enough of an argument for them. They don't need free trade. Some kind of trade is enough for them. Because something else is more important to them. The same can be said of the 3 billion Chinese and Indians. They agree to predatory trade and do not change anything in their lives. Note that they have been living like this for thousands of years. The knowledge and practical experience of Western civilization are available and open to them. Conclusion: free cooperation is acceptable only for a part of human beings and not necessarily for everyone. For some, one thing is reasonable, for others another.
Matt mistakenly identifies the concept of rational behavior from the point of view of ethics and science. Scientists do not understand rational behavior as the same as philosophers or economists. Any neurophysiologist will tell you that robbery is also a reasonable reaction of a living organism to the conditions of the external environment. It is impossible to derive ethical norms from biology. This is unscientific and dangerous. It is dangerous, because any ethical concept can be derived from biology. For example, not only the king of England considers robbery ethical, but also millions of Englishmen who gladly feed it.
I used to like his books. Until I began to study the books of neurophysiologists. Unfortunately, Matt adjusts the scientific data to his own beliefs. The scientific concept of reason and rational behavior has nothing in common with our ethical concepts of reason and rational behavior. Therefore, it is impossible to look for confirmation of one's ethics in science.
1. Silent payment on Blue Wallet.
2. Bolt 12 on Coinos.
What does the Austrian School of Economics say about time preference? If I postpone consumption, I will save and benefit society.
Until now, no one has connected Bitcoin with Satan. On the dollar bill it says that it was created with faith in God. If faith in God gave birth to such abomination, then what gave birth to Bitcoin? Lucifer is a symbol of dissent, resistance to lawlessness, skepticism, freedom, fortitude, rebellion against slavery. And heavy music. In your picture I see him.
From Satoshi's diary:
10/24/2024 I thought they needed hard money for the cyber economy. But it turns out they needed idols.
#satoshi
#bitcoin
Not subsidizing chemical companies is only the first step. It is not enough. It is necessary to abolish state regulation of the chemical industry. Including in terms of environmental restrictions. Courts and insurance companies will protect people more effectively than officials. The best thing you can do for people is to eliminate your position, eliminate all government control bodies and abolish laws regulating the economy. Do not impose your ideas on people under the guise of state coercion. People will sort out their own lives. You just need to not interfere with them. Give people freedom.
If you have a lightning address that isn't Primal or Alby comment below so I can give you 21 freedom units. #zapathon https://nostrcheck.me/media/3f770d65d3a764a9c5cb503ae123e62ec7598ad035d836e2a810f3877a745b24/f2c3c47d1009892963e7038cd4a764d222c0126a03aaf65ad27cfa05e3a20b50.webp
I have
A man should not talk nonsense. A man should not repeat other people's nonsense. No one is a legend. A man can thank sponsors, but he should not lick their boots. Maintain your dignity and do not spread other people's nonsense. A man should think with his own head, and not repeat other people's thoughts like a parrot. Remember, an independent man has no legends, no idols, no authorities.
1. He is amusing. In the post, he wrote that these personalities are legends. But here in the comments, he unexpectedly writes that he meant their projects. So what did he actually mean: the people or the projects? A person is a person. A project is a project. For an intelligent person, the difference is obvious.
2. Why do we need to glorify a person for their past achievements? Where does this irritating itch to create an idol, an authority, a figure of worship come from? Where does this idolatry in us come from? Why are we always looking for a master? Haven't we heard: do not create for yourself an idol? Where does this irritating itch to kneel come from?
3. He will say: because of their merits to the community. I will respond: good deeds are not a reflection of personality. You can do something truly outstanding. But that does not make you outstanding personally. And it is not just about personal modesty. Even intelligent people can be foolish. Let me give examples.
Let's start with Aristotle, who believed that meteors are "vapors of the earth that rise up, and when approaching a certain 'sphere of fire,' ignite and fall down." We can recall his interpretation of the existence of paleontological remains: the Stagirite explained them as actions of "underground imitative forces that replicate what happens on the surface."
But I. Newton believed that all reports of meteors are a silly invention because they have "nowhere to fall from." Also, "based on comparisons of astronomical and historical evidence," he defended his own belief that the age of the Earth does not exceed six thousand years.
F. Bacon passionately discussed the role of witches in the destruction of crops, V. M. Bekhterev was a fan of "color therapy," W. Gladstone claimed that the ancient Greeks did not distinguish colors, and the great Liebig was convinced that yeast is not living organic matter.
Robert Boyle demanded that miners report from what exact depth the "habitats of demons" begin and what their "nests" look like, while Buffon stated that commercial use of atomic processes is impossible in principle. Tycho Brahe insisted that all planets revolve around the Sun, except for the Earth, which remains stationary. Joseph de Lalande claimed that the probability of flying in a hot air balloon is a mere fantasy, and the French Academy of Sciences laughed at the idea of a lightning rod. They also mocked Leibniz's differential calculus, the theory of the telegraph, and categorically denied the existence of aerolites (meteors) to the extent that they demanded their removal from all museums.
The great Christian Huygens considered the shortage of hemp ropes to be the main problem of the planet Jupiter. According to Huygens, the presence of "four moons" (at that time, only four of Jupiter's satellites were known) irrefutably testified to the unrest of the seas of this planet and, accordingly, the need for a very large amount of super-strong rigging for the strength of the sails of the Jovian fleet.
Edward Clarke (1820–1877) warned that the education of women leads to the "drying up" of their wombs, while the most authoritative gynecologist of his time, George Neffis (1842–1876), insisted that masturbation leads to insanity.
Sir Arthur Keith led and organized the respectful dance that paleoanthropology of the first half of the 20th century led around the remains of the so-called Piltdown Man for almost forty years (we remember that some joker crafted them from a relatively recent skull and an ape's jaw, then painted them with potassium bichromate and "threw" them into the scientific community as the oldest fossil).
A. Szent-Györgyi taught that protein conducts electricity, although in reality, it is an insulator.
This amusing register can be continued almost indefinitely.
Leibniz rejected Newton's ideas of gravity; Tesla and Marconi claimed to receive radio signals from Mars; Darwin passionately preached and developed the absurd theory of pangenesis; Richard Owen could not find the hippocampus in a monkey's brain; Cuvier argued that evolution is complete nonsense; Karl von Baer categorically denied the kinship of living organisms; Edmund Halley believed that the Earth has internal spheres, also surrounded by an atmosphere, the leaks of which create the aurora borealis; J. Priestley was convinced of the existence of phlogiston; R. Virchow laughed at the real skull of a Neanderthal, making an authoritative craniological conclusion that it belonged not to an ancient man, but to a Russian alcoholic Cossack of the 19th century; W. Hopkins and C. Lyell were convinced of the stupidity of L. Agassiz's assertion that ice could move boulders, and therefore suggested not even discussing the idea of moving stones by glaciers as absurd; A. Vesalius categorically opposed the division of nerves into motor and sensory; K. Varolius (Varolius) claimed that it was the cerebellum that was the organ of sound perception; Dalton was convinced that the anterior chamber of his own eye contained a blue liquid and that it was this anomaly that discolored the picture of the world for him; Galvani remained until the end of his days in the confidence that he had discovered an "electric fluid" capable of resurrecting dead organisms. Even on the basis of this laconic selection, we see that the most brilliant chemists, physiologists, physicists, geologists, having slightly gone beyond the limits of their narrow competence, were deeply mistaken in their assessments of the most important phenomena and facts. What's even funnier is that they were no less often mistaken while remaining within the boundaries of the discipline to which they devoted their lives to studying.
Why have we now listed these funny and, to varying degrees, shameful mistakes of great scientists? Solely to remind us that mistakes remain mistakes regardless of the "height" from which they were made.
4. And the last thing. SeedSigner does not only protect my property. It also does other important work that you will not immediately see and understand. Every time I turn it on, it does not remember me. It does not depend on my personal qualities. Each time it begins communicating with me from a clean white sheet, on which there are no records of my past. In this way, it trains me not to have authorities, not to depend on legends, not to rely on them. It preaches absolute independence, absolute sterility and absolute power over oneself. That is why I am happy when my children work with it. Thank you, creator of SeedSigner, for helping me raise my children in the right direction. I do not know your name. And I do not want to know. Because your personality does not matter. Only your work matters. You are not a legend. And for this, thank you!
Yes, I understand everything. Do you think if Chuck were alive, would he accept Bitcoin?
Don't you think you called Chuck a cunt? People might associate that with him.
Not socialism, but interventionism. Socialism, as a social system, is impossible due to the absence of economic calculation in it.
Mises said:
Some people find monetary calculation disgusting. They do not want the voice of critical reason to awaken them from their dreams. Reality irritates them; they strive for the realm of unlimited possibilities. A social order where everything is calculated in dollars and cents is disgusting to them. They call their complaints noble manners, worthy of friends of the spirit, beauty and virtue, contrasting them with the shameful baseness and meanness of the bourgeoisie. But the rationality of the calculating and calculating mind does not interfere with the cult of beauty and virtue, wisdom and the search for truth. Only romantic dreams are unable to survive in an environment of sober criticism. The cold-blooded calculating subject is a severe critic of the sublime dreamer.
Kill scam!nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac
nostr:note12yq4ld40d6n6gm6ejsskqakawwhu6pr4360la9qalpdz0f9tae8qwcpeu9
