🧇It's false advertising, there is nonweed in this waffle 🧇

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=745x872&blurhash=%7B9J%3F%7B7_44%3Bfn4TROcEnh03%25gO%5BM%7CbvM%7CnNj%5D00D%25%7DkMxXSNHV%40snn3Di---TH%3FR.X9jEX8NHIU%251pdNft7S%24O%5BXTD%2Cn-%25fWZogSOMKI%5DpdRSWY%251R5jExuNIaeofwt%24y-%3AbE%24%7Bwbjq%24zxVxB-QNG&x=098c27a6f4eeb176e6e0d4d18f13eb9e43fb0c50ef8ef092e4fb432940dbdb5a

On Twitter we used to do #followfriday where people would curate recommendations for new users. That practice got replaced by algorithmic follower recommendations. I think we should embrace people helping people. It can be manual set of links to start but also we could build it in to a feature using lists.

nostr:note18tmm4qk4tjdyxqljhgk0nx4zk7qklxvux8xqygs6wjme63str6aqeuttyh

Consider today's online world. The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers. Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophany more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harrasment, and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.

It’s because so many were trying to make IPFS do anything worthwhile

Turns out it’s trash and also centralized!

LOL

Many bitcoiners think establishment powers are now in the "and then they join you" phase of the struggle.

I don't. I think they're more entering the earlier "and then they fight you" phase.

Or more specifically, they are happy to join in on the price exposure side (i.e. ETFs), but they are fighting against privacy (especially) and self-custody (to some extent). The struggle for financial privacy, custody, and overall self-autonomy is just heating up.

The gradual shift of critics from "bitcoin is a useless speculative asset with no intrinsic value" to "bitcoin is so powerful that direct usage of it must be curtailed" can be dangerous.

Devs, scientists, technologists, cypherpunks. I want to follow you.

Send 👋 👇