Hermit Olympics 2026

nostr:note1q49xnvypq835t0wt4c2vkf9frqa5djegfnpk389dkdr6dzkcch8sq9wfle

Do. It.

Welp, I guess this is where our dream ends 😭

Price often condenses information and provides clarity.

For a while, solar/wind proponents have operated with two simultaneous but generally conflicting narratives.

-One narrative is that solar/wind are more environmentally friendly and should be subsidized. To the extent that they don't grow sufficiently fast, it's because we're not doing enough to artificially boost their adoption.

-The other narrative is continually remind how cheap solar/wind have become. Proponents will post charts/studies showing that solar/wind are cheaper than other types of energy, and that it "just makes sense now". In practice, a lot of caveats are often excluded.

The thing is, price usually cuts through confusion on these types of matters. Especially price over a significant amount of time and space, rather than just price in a snapshot of time and locality.

If solar/wind are indeed cheaper than other energy sources, why aren't they being built in place of others? Why isn't it a no-brainer for any megacorp to just install terawatts of them all over? For example, the percentage growth of solar power in India over the past 5-10 years is impressive, but in terms of raw numbers, way more coal power was brought online during that period than solar. The answer is often that they're *not actually* cheaper in an all-inclusive sense. And if they're not cheaper, why is that? The answer is often because they're more materially intensive, less durable, and not as environmentally friendly as many proponents argue, either. That cost (panels, turbines, batteries, maintenance, decommissioning, and replacement) is going somewhere, and usually quite materially.

That's not to say that solar/wind don't have uses (they do), but their usage is often hamfisted into places where they're not the most economic choice, and where they are not the most economic choice, it's often because they're not necessarily the most environmental choice either.

Price is often ignored or fudged in analysis, but it really does provide a powerful signal in aggregate that's worth paying attention to.

Another thing I wondered is who covers the cost of the building, land, and equipment? Are they covering 50% of that?

For a10K$ investment and if you are passionate about hospitality, I don’t think it’s so bad.

Less risk, but pretty intense daily activities.

Trade offs everywhere…

🙏🙏🙏

And they get 50% of profits... ☠️

Around Union Sq maybe? Feels like a good hub

I wonder how dependent properly running this will be on the immediate death of the bitlicense

Let’s do it!

As a silent investor, maybe. I live in Washington and the possible locations are all east coast. 👀

What’s the catch

The Daniel right now

no seed oils is the new cronut, they’d make a killing now

We kinda shut the door behind us with WoT

You've muted me in the past, so it's silly to waste time pointing out what's wrong with your reply as if you care, but this has nothing to do with what I said.

Don't say you accept Bitcoin if you only accept lightning. That's not accepting Bitcoin, that's accepting lightning. Very simple.

My preference for businesses that accept Bitcoin might seem silly to you, but that doesn't make it OK to lie.

at the very least, NY could use a steak n shake

That's actually strange there's so few. Unless they're just not listed.

I used to put the dregs of my play wallets on 21. It worked once and I cleaned up 🤣🤣

I simply don’t.

No

He’s right that it doesn’t follow the same pattern, because in every other instance, the scammers have exited with their lol-gotten gains long ago and moved onto the next scam. XRP is truly unique in that the scammers are depending on a literal cult to fall for the same pump-and-dump along with fresh suckers during every bitcoin cycle. That’s the innovation!

I think regular credit or debit card payments for services would help reach, as would a nip that allows users to specify what crypto they will accept. Let the free market decide what's better.

The decision to be Bitcoin only is a principled decision, but like overlapping venn diagrams it selects for a smaller subset of users.

Some of the big apps require kyc to use zaps, so defeat the point of permissionless money. They could be good fiat to Bitcoin onramps.

We set up to be Bitcoin only, but all the people we reached out to IRL ignored that and payed cash or didn't come back.

Nostr has influencers?