I just want client side only, custom feeds. I'd like to be able to slap together a feed that's RSS bots, a separate feed that's my friends, one to keep up with nostr development, one that's hashtags etc. What's with this focus on one feed, is it because that's what xitter does? Nostr can do so much more!

It's my go to at this point. It's an arch desktop without all the setup, absolutely fantastic, you can't beat it.

I go the "no desktop" route and install Wayland, xwayland and a compositor (sway for me, and I also have labwc and sfwbar for a "normal" cascading, mouse oriented environment that I hardly ever use, and ly as my login manager) but if you prefer a DE and you like KDE or whatever that stuff installs seamlessly by itself.

I think it's a cool idea. I I think nostr performs the functionality that a user wants from RSS much better than RSS does. And it comes with a comments section, you can't really beat it.

Try talking to the feeder guys, they might be receptive, https://github.com/spacecowboy/Feeder

I see you use those chest refrigerators in your builds, they're pretty expensive, I was thinking 120v AC because I can get a lot of refrigeration for pretty cheap and newer ones are pretty efficient. Trying to do a self sufficient place for many people, and that means a few freezers.

OK didn't see this before I replied to the other reply.

I want to wire everything 12v except refrigerators and a few plugs, all from an inverter. I've lived in RVs before, and there's a lot to like and dislike but that's one thing that was fantastic, everything is wired in 12v DC, I honestly hate high voltage AC, it's designed for long range tranission but in off grid on solar and batteries, wiring everything for AC to convert 12 or 24 volt DC to AC to run lamps that have LED bulbs that convert it right back is stupid. I'm not gonna do that.

I figured decent strips along exposed rafters and I want to wire and program up a controller to fade in, then dim to redshift then out at a certain time based on the date, longitude and latitude, that's a different conversation but I am interested in good quality LED strips.

Yeah I went and looked at your profile, you build these things as a business right. They're really cool. I've seen lots of tiny houses, but the ones I usually see look pretty different from the ones you build. I saw one where the countertops were welded square pipe steel frame? And you use security glass with wire in them right?

Let me ask you, what do you think about acrylic or polycarbonate for windows? To me they just seem like better materials security wise, it's just they'll get scratches and discoloration over time.

I am going to build a house for my family in the next couple of years, and I've got some unorthodox ideas about how I want to do things and it helps to be able to talk to someone that builds things, especially high quality things like what I see you've made.

Also still curious about the stove and lights lol

Dude... I need the details on that stove.

And the strip lights. And just generally how you built this or what premade structure you bought lol.

Well, it's not that it's bad. Just some interesting decision making in how the client works, user experience, and some quirks. I'll give you some examples.

When replying to someone, unless the note you're replying to is short, you can't see the whole thing when replying. Even pushing "show more" won't actually show you all of the note if it is long enough, and there's no way to scroll down.

There's also the issue of the block list. Everyone knows about this with Amethyst, there's a block list for spammers that gets passed around and updated as people report spam, but you can't see it. The user should be able to see it if they want to unblock someone just for themselves.

Every time you open the application, their kind 0 which is their "about me" and avatar URL and all that gets fetched, as well as the actual avatat. Every. Single. Time. There's no caching. There should be caching, at least of follows, that's a lot of data, on low bandwidth connections this makes it unusable. It even fetches your own information! The sane way would be to cache this information and then update if it pulls it and it's different.

It saves drafts as draft kinds to the relay automatically, so if you're typing a reply and you go do something else for a second, the draft goes out, there's no way to turn this off. I don't want my half written notes sent to the relay!

That's not exhaustive, just what I can remember right now off the top of my head.

There are a lot of options that seem like basic user friendly functionality that just aren't there. I can't think of many off the top of my head, and going into that would turn this into a feature request ramble, but generally speaking client developers in every corner of tech have begun to make decisions for the user and restrict their options instead of empowering them, it's a trend I've noticed and is getting worse, and amethyst does some of that, but almost every nostr client I've used does something like this.

I have my ideas for an ideal client, and I don't expect that without building it myself, but there are some things that are so standard or self evident that you've got to ask, why is it done this way?

I'll counter this with your own argument: the unit of account is what we use to measure wealth. It doesn't matter what you wish the unit of account was, all charts are fiat charts.

Holding bitcoin is bitcoin wealth. You're just measuring it in fiat, because fiat is the unit of account, so there's no other way to measure it.

Are you building wealth by holding bitcoin? Yes, even when measured in fiat, you're building real wealth no matter what you measure in. Well, for now anyway.

Amethyst, but I don't really think any of them are that great (yet).

Right now, my working solution to this problem is separate keys. People want to follow your 130 char tidbits, follow this key, they want your long form, follow another, they want your videos, that's a different key, etc. It's not too cumbersome especially if you pick one (your kind 1 publishing key for example) as your canonical identity with the information on how to follow your other stuff in your kind 0.

Good god this protocol gets more unwieldy and complex every time a discussion is had. The complexity is rising as the square of the feature changes.

There's a 4th solution: a client can make itself configurable to display any kinds the user wants, warning them that if the client doesn't support the kind it will display the raw message.

Option a is the topic of discussion here and you don't even want to talk about it at all?

I think you're probably right about the ideal solutions. But I'll share a story with you so you can understand the frustration.

I'm currently developing a tool that uses nostr and torrents. I have read all the nips (which are changing very fast) and I came across nip-35. It is a torrent specification. The kind is 2003. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

It only supports v1 hashes. These are sha1 hashes. These are insecure. Of course, there's nothing preventing a user from sticking a sha256 hash in there, that's up to the client. Side point here: why is there a separate spec for a type for this that can and will simply be ignored by clients? Digression aside, this is not a very well thought out spec.

So, there's a part of the specification for "i" tags, that include website specific tags for imdb and myanimelist among others. What kind of silly shenanigans is this? A generic torrent spec for a decentralized protocol has a carve out in it's design for imdb? That's fucking silly.

Is this a generic torrent spec or a piracy specific spec? Is this a general type or designed by someone with a specific client in mind that they are building? It is very badly thought out. Looks to me like more of a "decentralized popcorntime" NIP than a torrent specification. Useful, definitely, but not suitable for general use with torrents.

So as a result of all that (and a few other considerations) I'm publishing magnet links in what I'm building as kind 1 by default. I will also code in the option to select kind 2003 so that users who want to use this kind can.

And a lot of event types and nips are like this, just badly thought out, that have been merged. I know, you don't want to artificially restrict development, you want to let this evolve how the userbase needs it to, you don't want it to be a generic transport protocol and all that. But a lot of this stuff is client specific, or not well thought out. There's going to be a lot of fragmentation, legacy support for deprecated nips, and things like that if this continues it's going to get away from you and the rest of us, just like how it is harder to build a web browser from scratch than to land a spacecraft on the moon. A little foresight would go a long way here.

I hope so man. That would be pretty cool.

Why? That's wonderful. The more the merrier. You need less plants this way.

Well, youre saying "bottom line murder is wrong", I'm saying it's not always murder, we seem to be in agreement on that. You're saying when the state does it they commit injustice because of the process by which they do it, I'm in agreement with you. But you keep making those same points which aren't in contention at all and which we have already addressed.

> None of what your saying is objective fact. Again, I don't think abortion is wrong, but defining it at the moment of fertilization is not objective because personhood is not a scientific fact, it's subjective philosophy.

I do thing abortion is wrong. I did not define personhood as the moment of fertilization.

The goal of subjective philosophy is to get closer to objective reality, saying that can never be achieved means saying that philosophy and morality are irrelevant. We can just define person hood however we want, throw pur hands up and say "welp, subjective!" and treat whoever we want however we want. That is obviously not our goal here. We are trying to find that place where it's immoral to snuff the zygote. I say, that place is when it's probably not going to spontaneously snuff itself.

> And your point about uninterrupted process, is basically just a short hand for viability. Which has changing goalposts every decade.

No, it's not. "Moment of viability" is the point when the fetus could survive on it's own outside the womb. This is of course constantly changing with medical technology, and the moving goalposts are not just that, but things like "detectable heartbeat", "can it feel pain" etc, not just with viability, and usually by pro abortion people. I'm not talking about any of that, I'm talking simply, if left undisturbed, does this thing become a baby by itself. An egg, no. A sperm, no. A fertilized embryo, also no. So when? That's the answer to this question, "is it murder to stop the process of development?" Because that's what we are doing, we are trying to find an objective point when it does, you're saying it doesn't exist, but then you can objectively tell me that smothering a newborn is murder, I would guess you think that aborting the day before the due date is murder, those are objective facts, but at what point does it become murder, you say there's no objective measure of that. I'm saying that's not true, and not only that but that it is absurd, if you can claim that killing a human at any age is murder objectively then you can pinpoint when in the life cycle that becomes the case, and further I'm offering a coherent argument for a specific moment, a specific part of the process, not reliant on time or any of that, reasoning why I think that, if your only argument is "no that can't be it because there isn't one" youre arguing with the wind.

>You dismissed my point about living inside of another organism because of circular logic btw

Living inside another organism is part of our natural life cycle. To say it isn't a human being in that part of the life cycle is the actual inconsistent thing here. Humans are dependent as babies on their mothers for survival for quite a while, so should the mother be able to just not feed it? See, that's entirely inconsistent. As organisms, we live inside our mothers for a while. We are still organisms, and a specific type of organism, a human being.

> ...I do not think pre-meditated murder by uneffected agents acting on behalf of the state is proportionate.

I'm 100% with you. The way it's done in our society is unjust. But what I'm trying to get at is, if putting people to death is fundamentally unjust. Most people I've talked to that are opposed to it tie the two inseparably and it clouds the morality of the fundamental question.

As far as your other points, I disagree entirely. Any credible threat of violence can be met with whatever preventative measures the potential victims warrant appropriate. I don't have to wait til I'm about to be killed to protect myself, if I know an attempt on my life is impending I can justifiably act.

There is a possibility that humans die by accident, from disease, we don't say that that means we can't objectively call them human or that because of this fact it is OK to kill them. Same with one developing in the womb. Nobody holds anyone responsible for an accident happening to somebody unless it's the result of negligence. I don't see any inconsistency here whatsoever.

By "uninterrupted" I mean deliberately interrupted.

> It doesn't live inside of another organism

This is irrelevant. Living inside another person is part of our natural life cycle. It's part of the nature of the human being, just as a butterfly spends time in a cocoon.

All the other details that you say make a baby human are the same as my examples earlier, it talks, it walks, they aren't the reason we call it a human. A baby on a feeding tube is still a human. If you use these as the criteria then of course it's going to be murky to you. Find the fundamental differentiator, not a list of most-of-the-time criteria with tons of corner cases and caveats and you'll see my point.

> If you don't think a baby's humanity is different than that of an unborn one and you think that that belief is objective, then how is a sperm or an egg not an unborn baby even before they meet?

I've told you already, the criteria that is most objective is, at what point in development does it occur that, if the process is not *deliberately* interrupted, more than likely it will result in a baby. That's the point you can call it a person. This precludes sperm, eggs, even fertilized embryos, most of which go unnoticed.

Well, I think imprisonment is cruel and unjust, but aside that, you and I have already agreed that killing someone in self defense is just, and you haven't actually responded to my reasoning at all. You're reiterating your position, which is fine but doesn't lend itself well to fruitful discussion.

A jury, the state, all that I can agree with. That doesn't mean though that a group putting someone to death is always unjust, just that our mechanisms for doing it are.

I'd argue that me and my buddy deciding to go grab someone and kill them for, say for example, killing my cousin or raping my nephew or threatening to do so is entirely just.