I can say unashamedly I've stuck around for 6 years+ because NGU.

#hodloncomrades don't trade #bitcoin

You’re born with a ton of fucks to give, so you spend them like a kid with a credit card. You give fucks about your friends, about your grades, about your fashion sense, about strangers’ opinions. You give way too many fucks about way too many things. You have so many.

Then, as you get older, you have maybe 10 fucks per month, so you learn to budget them. You allocate fucks to family and career, but there aren’t enough fucks to give to the newest fads. Oh, someone at work has something they need my help with that’s outside my job title? I’ll do my best to allocate some fucks, but this month is pretty tight.

Then, as you get even older, you’re down to 1-2 fucks per month, and those fucks are pretty damn precious. You give them to your family and your hobbies and your job, and that’s kinda it. It’s not your fault – fucks expire too quickly. I would’ve liked to have saved my fucks from when I was younger, but it's not an option - there are no fuck vaults for normal folks.

Then, you hit fuck insolvency. You’re getting like 1 fuck a year, and you have to make it last. So you go without, and even previously fuck-worthy things, you just can’t give a fuck. Some people run out really quickly, Some wealthy folks have a fuck trust fund that pays out a decent amount even into old age.

At some point, the fuck faucet runs completely dry and you’re out of fucks to give. It’s just basic Fuckonomics.

This is how you handle the system.

Society wants women out of the house

because when a woman doesn’t raise her children

the government and internet does

There’s this theory that the body eats until it gets enough protein and then hunger basically subsides. Which I’ve found to be true, so maybe you weren’t getting as much protein and the additional 100 grams first thing in the morning was super helpful in lowering total calories.

Its snappier for sure. Noticeable when running things through tor, etc.

Screen is nice, no idea if I notice 90hz v 60hz difference.

Fingerprint scanner in display screen with like 70% hit rate.

From a source I trust.

30k by end of day.

I watched this Chomsky video a while back and at first was incensed. Talking about it with a friend, he mentioned that there are plenty of subject matter experts who disagree with Chomsky, and that Chomsky is speaking out of his field of expertise. Since then I realized that a long list of complaints without context is also a potent way to argue even when wrong. Again I’m not saying his conclusions are wrong, just that those two possible issues being present in the video had been gnawing at me for a while. So I asked GPT what people who disagree with Chomsky say to try to add some nuance to the conversation.

Any international relations folks on the thread want to attack or defend Chomsky’s reading of events? I read up on the Wikipedia version at least of one of the issues.

Does Senator Warren have like fifty cats living at her house? She may need mental help.

What if Balajis is right about the timeline? Not likely, but possible given this week’s developments

#[0]

From ChatGPT:

There are a range of opinions among people who disagree with Noam Chomsky's views on US imperialism. Some common critiques of Chomsky's perspective include:

Underestimating the complexity of US foreign policy: Some argue that Chomsky's analysis of US imperialism is too simplistic and fails to account for the multiple factors that shape US foreign policy, including economic interests, geopolitical considerations, and domestic politics.

Overemphasizing the role of ideology: Critics argue that Chomsky places too much emphasis on ideological factors, such as the desire to spread democracy or defend human rights, in explaining US interventions abroad. They suggest that other factors, such as the desire for natural resources or strategic advantages, play a larger role.

Ignoring the positive aspects of US foreign policy: Some argue that Chomsky's analysis of US imperialism is overly negative and fails to acknowledge the positive contributions that the US has made to global stability and security, such as its role in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II.

Failing to consider the intentions of other nations: Critics suggest that Chomsky's analysis is too focused on US actions and fails to consider the intentions and actions of other nations, such as Russia or China, which also engage in imperialist practices.

Overgeneralizing about the motives of US leaders: Some argue that Chomsky's analysis assumes a uniformity of motive among US leaders and fails to account for the diversity of perspectives and interests within the US government and military.

Overall, while Chomsky's views on US imperialism have been influential, they are not universally accepted, and there are many alternative perspectives on the topic.

Now that’s certainly not to say that everything Chomsky said here was wrong.

Not sure your gun stops you from being enslaved by the government. The power to strip your freedom via throwing you in jail is more than enough.

Many bitcoiners claim they are stolen from via taxation. Well, why not stand up for your rights and not be a slave stooge that is stolen from. Don’t pay your taxes and shoot the IRS when they knock on your door?

Why not shoot the tsa agent who made you wear a mask in the airport?

I guess the argument is always, well that’s just a little bit of my liberty taken away but when they really cross the line, that’s when I’ll shoot them all…

The instant you give government the power to limit the right to bear arms in any way, they will eventually limit you to zero.

For a very long time, there were no real regulations on firearms possession in the US. Then, the NFA happened to handle "criminals". That act made the government into criminals.

I do not "trust" a marine with a gun, if he believes he is in service to a government. Nor should you.

If the people do not have access to equivalent arms as the infantry, they will eventually be attacked. It's already starting. You need to decide of a few hundred innocent lives are worth the trade of a few hundred million, and slavery to the State, in the long run.

The instant you give government the power to limit the right to bear arms in any way, they will eventually limit you to zero.

For a very long time, there were no real regulations on firearms possession in the US. Then, the NFA happened to handle "criminals". That act made the government into criminals.

I do not "trust" a marine with a gun, if he believes he is in service to a government. Nor should you.

If the people do not have access to equivalent arms as the infantry, they will eventually be attacked. It's already starting. You need to decide of a few hundred innocent lives are worth the trade of a few hundred million, and slavery to the State, in the long run.