1dullgeek
Geek

The easiest way to help the poor is to make sure you are not in their ranks. Only after you've created some way to keep yourself out of poverty can you help other poor people.

2026-02-27 13:39:34 CET

- reply

This is an overly terse follow-up from my previous cut off boost. Whichever way BIP110 is eventually resolved, the risk of a minority forcing their opinion on Bitcoin doesn’t change. Consider: that risk exists today. It’s what BIP110 is trying to exploit. The opposition to BIP110 is to not change anything. If nothing changes then that risk still has to exist. Meanwhile I continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some risks to Bitcoin (although not that one). We can quibble about how big those risks are.
I said earlier that this is a function of Nakamoto consensus. It’s actually a function of complex systems. Taleb wrote about this in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
https://fountain.fm/episode/Oz8GZDAxHzqozajATIMf
#nevent1q…llyc

2026-02-25 23:46:25 CET

Testing

2026-02-23 16:49:19 CET

- reply

For anyone who gets a transaction mined and then gets it reorged. That's every transaction on the reorged blocks not just the spam.
That is massively disruptive and could significantly undermine Bitcoin. I'm not sure if that's as disruptive as csam on chain but it's a reasonable question to think about.

2026-02-22 16:21:57 CET

- reply

This argument doesn't help resolve the question of whether or not BIP110 is a good idea. When both sides are attacking the intentions of the people on the other side we lose contact with the actual merits and problems of BIP110.
Can I ask both you and @nprofile…fg9w - people who's opinions I respect - please focus only on that?

2026-02-22 15:14:50 CET

- reply

While true, irrelevant. The risk of a chain split is not zero. The risk of csam on the chain is also not zero. The question is which is the bigger risk. I can see arguments for both.

2026-02-22 15:06:20 CET

- reply

This is compelling. Making me rethink my running bip110.
One thing that's refreshing: this note is talking about the problem rather than questioning the intention of the people. If living under a government has taught us anything it's that intentions rarely match outcomes.
So it's nice that this note only talks about the problem without impugning the people.
#nevent1q…2n59

2026-02-22 15:02:01 CET

- reply

You asked for why bip110 is a threat. Odell is saying it's a risk of a very late chain reorg. That happening days/weeks/months after activation is a pretty big problem.

2026-02-22 14:58:16 CET

- reply

There selling in grocery stores around here.

2026-02-22 14:57:19 CET

- reply

I heard about it much earlier than I decided to get some. I also wish I'd heard about it earlier but I still think it would have taken time to understand enough to take the risk.
Or maybe I'd have got caught up with some crazy exchange failure and ended up losing. I got lucky when I came in after the importance of self custody was obviously important.
I got Bitcoin exactly when I deserved to. I think that's true for most people.

2026-02-21 14:29:25 CET

- reply

I just heard @nprofile…fg9w describe the risk of a reorg from BIP110. And this is a compelling argument opposing BIP110.
I am interested in rational responses that assume the good faith of the side they disagree with. What response from BIP110 supporters of this risk? @nprofile…566r @nprofile…c93l

2026-02-19 13:43:01 CET

- reply

I am running BIP110. And you made an argument against it that made me reconsider. The argument was that BIP110 changes Bitcoin because it allows a minority to force their opinion on the majority.
After thinking about it, I do not come to the same conclusion. I don’t think that BIP110 changes anything with respect to this risk. And opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate that risk. This is a feature of Nakamoto consensus that exists today and will continue to exist regardless of which way BIP110 is resolved. If this risk didn’t already exist today, BIP110 couldn’t leverage it.
There are two ways (that I’m aware of) to reject BIP110:
1. Almost all miners refuse to mine BIP110 blocks
2. Those opposing BIP110 exercise a URSF: user rejected soft fork. This effectively splits the chain.
If BIP110 is rejected, those will remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin. Heck if BIP110 becomes the only type of blocks that miners mine, those will also remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin.
So opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate the risk that a minority can control the direction in Bitcoin. That will continue to exist regardless of which side wins. So I’m going to continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some significant risks for Bitcoin. But I’m willing to have my mind changed.
BTW Intransigent minorities are a feature of complex systems not just Bitcoin. Taleb wrote about them in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
https://fountain.fm/episode/SrnH7P2j6W6Nf04kFnFb
#nevent1q…60p9

2025-12-25 17:24:14 CET

Merry Christmas!!! 🎄🎄🎄

2025-12-07 16:54:18 CET

- reply

I'm posting this below the 2000 sat limit because I don't need you to read it on the pod but I know you read all of these and wanted to give a different perspective
As a pilot, there are some outcomes that are so catastrophic that we build in lots and lots of mitigations so that we don’t EVER encounter them. An example is fuel. Running out of fuel increases the likelihood of a crash to nearly 100%. Meanwhile the actual incidence of fuel related crashes in commercial aviation is very close to 0. The fact that the incidence is close to 0 doesn’t mean we can safely remove fuel reserve requirements, or proper fuel planning processes.
This is how I see the SPAM debate. There are some outcomes (e.g. illegal data in the chain) that are so bad that, even if we haven’t seen it yet, we have to build as many mitigations as possible. If the US government can prosecute the samourai developers despite Section 230, it’s hard to imagine that node operators that knowingly host illegal data would also be immune from prosecution as a way to attack Bitcoin. So we have to build in multiple layers of mitigation to prevent that catastrophe. With Core deciding to open up OP_RETURN to 100k bytes, they’ve taken away one of those mitigations.
For me personally, best case scenario: OP_RETURN goes back to 83 bytes and the inscriptions bug gets fixed.
Barring that, what is the next best mitigation in order to prevent the catastrophic result of illegal data on the chain? Certainly a soft fork is a far worse option. But it might be the next best option.
Still I’d much rather that core come to their senses. If not, that more people run knots - or some other bitcoins that allows for filtering OP_RETURN. Only after both of those fail, would I like to see a soft fork. Because we can’t tolerate the catastrophic result of illegal data on chain.
https://fountain.fm/episode/LCHvtqGAP4hoU4nsJY12
#nevent1q…xu9h

2025-11-25 18:18:46 CET

- reply

Personally I like 4. But you should not trust my sense of style.

2025-11-21 20:11:06 CET

- reply

Thank you. This was helpful.

2025-11-21 16:23:45 CET

As a pilot, there are some outcomes that are so catastrophic that we build in lots and lots of mitigations so that we don’t EVER encounter them. An example is fuel. Running out of fuel increases the likelihood of a crash to nearly 100%. Meanwhile the actual incidence of fuel related crashes in commercial aviation is very close to 0. The fact that the incidence is close to 0 doesn’t mean we can safely remove fuel reserve requirements, or proper fuel planning processes.
This is how I see the SPAM debate. There are some outcomes (e.g. illegal data in the chain) that are so bad that, even if we haven’t seen it yet, we have to build as many mitigations as possible. If the US government can prosecute the samourai developers despite Section 230, it’s hard to imagine that node operators that knowingly host illegal data would also be immune from prosecution. So we have to build in multiple layers of mitigation to prevent that catastrophe. With Core deciding to open up OP_RETURN to 100k bytes, they’ve taken away one of those mitigations.
For me personally, best case scenario: OP_RETURN goes back to 83 bytes and the inscriptions bug gets fixed.
Barring that, what is the next best mitigation in order to prevent the catastrophic result of illegal data on the chain? Certainly a soft fork is a far worse option. But it might be the next best option.
Still I’d much rather that core come to their senses. If not, that more people run knots - or some other bitcoins that allows for filtering OP_RETURN. Only after both of those fail, would I like to see a soft fork. Because we can’t tolerate the catastrophic result of illegal data on chain.

2025-11-21 13:43:52 CET

- reply

I do the same.

2025-11-10 19:18:59 CET

- reply

Sure. One way of doing that is adjusting the permissionless p2p software to reduce the threat.

2025-11-07 20:49:27 CET

- reply

And remember I'm asking why Livera's statement above is wrong. I am not asking anything else.

2025-11-07 20:48:46 CET

- reply

Not all of it. But you not willing to type out a single sentence makes me think you don't have an answer. Care to prove me wrong?

2025-11-07 20:46:38 CET

- reply

Don't we all agree that the law fair imposed on tornado cash developers and samurai developers is a travesty?
And it's that kind of power you're assuming won't be leveraged against CSAM on a node?
If software developers are at risk what makes you think that node runners aren't?

2025-11-07 19:21:54 CET

- reply

I don't know what the percentage is. But it seems to me that if 80% of nodes will accept non-BIP444 blocks then why would miners care about the 20% of nodes that reject those blocks?

2025-11-07 19:19:30 CET

- reply

Wow. That's quite a leap. I have not argued for the spam chain. I run Knots. I think that a soft fork is probably a good idea.
But I still don't see how only 20% of us can force miners to mine blocks that follow BIP444 if 80% of the nodes will accept non-BIP444 blocks
The UASF during the block size wars is a little more complex than the fact that few nodes signaled support. It was supported by exchanges and waller providers. And that amount of support is what forced the miners to capitulate.
Do we have that level of support for this soft fork?

2025-11-07 18:57:32 CET

- reply

It takes a 58 minute video, not made by you, to answer what you think is wrong in @nprofile…azdv's 29 word statement?
I'm happy to agree that busting open OP_RETURN is stupid. I'm running knots. But I still do not see what is wrong with what Livera said.

2025-11-06 13:15:12 CET

- reply

Re: a soft fork, I have posted a question on Matthew Kratter's videos: if we only have 20% of node runners switching to knots why do you think we have sufficient consensus to force the miners to mine the soft fork blocks?
https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK
#nevent1q…azaq

2025-11-05 15:28:17 CET

- reply

What part of that quote is wrong?

2025-10-23 12:55:20 CEST

- reply

Re video, it's great when there are visuals that help convey information. But as soon as people do that the audio version suffers and I tend to switch to the video version only. Is there some way to stream sats while watching the link to the video feed?
https://fountain.fm/episode/NJ9Vr8mMPTAt9Q7GUgCb
#nevent1q…p4xe

2025-10-22 20:03:40 CEST

- reply

Really great conversation!
https://fountain.fm/episode/rP3NzJ1DwFx4mL0QJUDu
#nevent1q…adz5

2025-10-09 16:06:26 CEST

- reply

The time frame on the right picture is a lot longer than in the left picture. I think if both covered a span of 9 years they wouldn't look as similar.

2025-10-08 22:55:27 CEST

- reply

"or core v30" earned a boost.
https://fountain.fm/episode/m5UWl6c6aIKWvmpyz13G
#nevent1q…z2dz

2025-10-02 20:11:13 CEST

- reply

But it's a ponzi! /s

2025-09-28 13:39:25 CEST

- reply

"Learning is discovering that you're wrong on a regular basis"
Very succinct and useful phrase.
https://fountain.fm/episode/G9eDXVvRvoOLyo21gqcF
#nevent1q…wufz

2025-09-27 14:05:16 CEST

- reply

Really great episode. I kindly request more like this, where the topic is about how one might help convince my skeptical church leadership to save on Bitcoin.
This is particularly relevant to me as I've been saving my tithe in Bitcoin on their behalf for a few years now. (With their blessing.) But I don't want to give it to them yet because their policy is to immediately turn it into USD.
So any advice or discussion on how to get them to change their mind/policy is very much appreciated.
https://fountain.fm/episode/mJib1qwQMTyFnDzT8oew
#nevent1q…m3vy

2025-09-23 14:02:55 CEST

Back to the grind. Stacking continues.

2025-09-16 15:27:06 CEST

- reply

When your church is the same...

2025-09-08 14:34:01 CEST

- reply

Interesting how you seem to think that technical process is all that matters and yet you resort to an argument to trust.
Ok.

2025-09-07 16:23:49 CEST

- reply

Running 29 will continue to work until there is some issue identified and fixed in a later version.
Running 30 you lose the ability to filter OP_RETURN > 80 bytes.
Running knots you get all the fixes applied to 30 and later plus you retain the ability to filter OP_RETURN size. But you can also turn that off if you want.
To me knots gives me the most options. 30 removes an option that I wish to exercise. So for me, it's knots.

2025-09-07 15:14:40 CEST

- reply

I disagree with this. Bitcoin is technology and economics. And that means every economic actor has input on what it is and should be.
#nevent1q…fja4

2025-09-07 15:05:08 CEST

- reply

This sounds a lot like "trust me bro"

2025-09-04 16:04:14 CEST

I'm overwhelmed by how often people want to solve the pedestal problem before the monkey problem.

2025-09-04 00:24:49 CEST

- reply

Meant to say filtering. Dyac.
https://fountain.fm/episode/vNS3UnEX1NMhmngvCl9m
#nevent1q…g4gp

2025-09-04 00:24:09 CEST

- reply

I don't think keeping transactions with op_return > 80 bytes is censorship. In exactly the same way that I don't think letting minors create more than 21 million Bitcoin is censorship. Calling both of those censorship is demagoguery.
https://fountain.fm/episode/vNS3UnEX1NMhmngvCl9m
#nevent1q…nw46

2025-08-07 19:42:15 CEST

- reply

I think you misunderstood the fire movement. They're not trying to get a 25x return. They're trying to reduce their spending so that having a nest egg that is 25x their annual spending is easier. And then live a lifestyle that allows them to withdraw 1/25th (4%) every year. The growth they need to sustain that is to merely match inflation. They don't need 25x to do that.
https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp
#nevent1q…mqx4

2025-08-07 14:21:59 CEST

- reply

Also, "Bitcoin is already an index of human incentive" is the most insightful thing I've heard in a while. I'm shamelessly stealing that.
https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp
#nevent1q…v675

2025-08-07 14:14:23 CEST

- reply

As a PNRI, not all of us are stuck in the fiat mindset. I personally am as all in on Bitcoin as I can be until I actually retire. It's my long term savings. It's my checking. My paycheck goes directly into Bitcoin.
We are not beholden to our generational ideas. And it is each of our responsibility to question our assumptions. Which has fed my orange pill.
https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp
#nevent1q…fr6w

2025-07-29 17:58:08 CEST

- reply

Such a great summary of the changes that dramatically increase aviation freedom! Thanks for all the preparation put into this!
https://fountain.fm/episode/WyszWnOztSieCCZgsN3v
#nevent1q…gnvt

2025-07-11 18:29:29 CEST

- reply

Boost!!
https://fountain.fm/episode/kXECvtVUz0YchqJwYojt
#nevent1q…0qqp

2025-07-11 12:55:51 CEST

- reply

Boost
https://fountain.fm/episode/ZOACbcepHZjip9ZL6sUl
#nevent1q…v50m

2025-07-10 16:46:00 CEST

- reply

Boost!
https://fountain.fm/episode/kXECvtVUz0YchqJwYojt
#nevent1q…n658

2025-07-10 15:44:30 CEST

- reply

It's nice to see you post some wisdom from the dad.

2025-06-19 14:24:32 CEST

- reply

Your episodes keep getting better and better. This is a topic that I wrestle with as a Christ follower and a Bitcoin maxi. You took it much deeper than my personal wrestling had gone. Thank you!
https://fountain.fm/episode/Keyhfckw10zK0t8OR8mo
#nevent1q…53g7

2025-06-12 12:39:24 CEST

- reply

Personally I'm focused on decentralization of nodes. Anything that diminishes node sovereignty is a departure from Bitcoin. This seems to me what core is doing.
https://fountain.fm/episode/Tw9hZ8o62HCijYfbehpu
#nevent1q…k9pd

2025-06-04 14:41:49 CEST

- reply

Every day.

2025-05-22 17:19:37 CEST

When it comes to the importance of Bitcoin becoming a medium of exchange, I generally agree. But I'm skeptical about it's urgency. I think the path to that is first becoming a universally recognized store of value. I don't think we can get to medium of exchange without the majority of people wanting Bitcoin.
But I think it's going to happen on it's own. If enough people want bitcoin, they will naturally be willing to trade for it. The only question is if they'll be able to. If the infrastructure that Bitcoin has will support being able to earn and spend Bitcoin. But necessity is the mother of invention. When we get to the point where people universally want it, that will create incentive for a lot more brains to work on that problem than we have now.
I guess I'm not worried. I think it's required. And I think it's going to happen.
I'm sure there's a gap in my thinking. Would love to hear what it is.

2025-05-21 16:27:15 CEST

- reply

"Fractional reserve is just banking" this seems like it translates to: If you need someone else to hold your Bitcoin for you, you risk rehypothication.
Doesn't bitcoins qualities allow me to not need an external bank?
https://fountain.fm/episode/kiUyNnsb2GCEDthCRjwu
#nevent1q…r6pe

2025-05-19 18:40:45 CEST

- reply

Really enjoying this series that I only discovered when #6 showed up in fountain. In the middle of #3. Good stuff!

2025-05-17 18:17:46 CEST

What I wish @npub1guh…6hjy had asked in TFTC #620:
"Isn't slower block propagation a feature when there are transactions that contain OP_RETURN > 80 bytes?"
"Doesn't that create a higher cost for including spam in the chain?"

2025-05-07 21:22:20 CEST

- reply

Whatever helps their political friends.

2025-05-07 19:05:34 CEST

- reply

I had so much fun getting together with this great community! Looking forward to the next. Also I got some free eggshells.
https://fountain.fm/episode/NhDXEYoPLBWE4kA6ztaa
#nevent1q…m4nd

2025-04-24 16:07:25 CEST

- reply

Ok. You can have the last word.

2025-04-24 15:32:22 CEST

- reply

Only at 90k?
First lower prices means my future purchases are cheaper.
Second, higher prices mean my previous purchases are more valuable.
So I don't really care about price. Every direction is beneficial.

2025-04-24 14:26:24 CEST

- reply

I agree the money supply won't deflate. But it doesn't matter what I think or you think. Words don't have meaning because I decide they do. They have meaning based on our collective use of them. And people use deflationary to mean price deflation. I'm fine with that. Words can have multiple meanings.

2025-04-22 19:19:28 CEST

- reply

If you're sticking to the idea that Bitcoin's supply is deflationary, you have a point.
But that's not the only meaning of deflationary. The effect of Bitcoin's fixed supply is increased purchasing power over time. Meaning that the price of things goes down because human innovation is constantly competing those prices down. And there's no way to inflate Bitcoin's supply to cause those prices to increase.
Hence Bitcoin is deflationary.

2025-03-26 15:53:19 CET

- reply

Men have wives.

2025-03-07 20:44:20 CET

- reply

Sure. I'll do tha... Oh. Nevermind.

2025-03-07 20:41:27 CET

Bitcoin is not crypto. That word was only after there was more than one thing that needed description and people wanted to lump what they thought of as similar things into a category.
When Bitcoin was the only, no one called it crypto. They called it Bitcoin. So when you say crypto, you're really saying "all the Bitcoin wannabes"
Conclusion: Bitcoin is not crypto.

2025-02-27 18:19:39 CET

- reply

High wing, low wing. Whatever. Beats no wing.
#teamlowwing
https://fountain.fm/episode/mmIEDClBocOtBobdjTHe
#nevent1q…xnhm

2025-02-23 17:35:41 CET

- reply

You make a tradeoff either way. On the base layer, in exchange for security you have to pay in transaction time or fees or sometimes both.

2025-02-19 14:07:34 CET

- reply

Good morning! ☕

2025-02-17 04:41:45 CET

I'm watching Arcane. And it ranges between compelling and stupid.
I'm in a stupid stretch and I don't know if I can put up with it to get to the end.

2025-02-16 17:57:37 CET

- reply

Checks: Yep he is a politician.
So probably.

2025-02-16 17:44:03 CET

GM Nostr!
I'm trying to get my son started in Bitcoin. Suggestions for good "bitcoin for beginners" books or resources? Specifically looking for resources that do not include shitcoinery
I'm looking more for "how to" resources. Like:
- how to pick and use a software wallet
- how to pick and use a hardware wallet
- what are seed phrases and how to store them
- what is multisig and how and when to use it
NOTE: I already know all this stuff. I'm looking for reference materials for my adult son that could help him learn in addition to information from me.
@npub1rxy…hnp8 is already on the list of resources I've given him.
Are there any "bitcoin for beginners" books that he could read?

2025-02-14 14:47:14 CET

GM!
It's a sunny day today and I'm going to safety pilot for a friend and then fly my airplane back from maintenance.
Excited!

2025-02-12 19:38:13 CET

- reply

Bitcoin as a store of value is solving an immediate need for those who see it.
Bitcoin as a medium of exchange isn't. Using it for MoE is fine. But it's not going to reach scale until that function is needed at scale.
I don't think we're there yet.
https://fountain.fm/episode/ewQqkZ9lcCHP4P4BkV8O
#nevent1q…8u5f

2025-02-12 18:01:57 CET

- reply

😂🤣

2025-02-12 17:54:56 CET

- reply

True. I am happy that the price is still on sale. I'm just confused by it.

2025-02-12 15:24:26 CET

- reply

Ok, but the graph seems to suggest demand is increasing. Why are people deciding to sell now to meet that demand at a lower price?

2025-02-12 15:07:12 CET

- reply

And yet the price is not impacted. I don't understand. Possibilities?
1. The data on inflows is incorrect
2. The price is manipulated? Not sure of how that works
3. The ETFs aren't holding the amount of BTC they say they are
4. Something else I haven't thought of

2025-02-12 15:03:36 CET

I have finally got my wife to the point where she's willing to read a book on Bitcoin.
She wants to do this, in part, because she wants a different perspective than mine.
She likes stories. And primarily learns thru stories. Any suggestions for a book that might help her understand Bitcoin a little better?

2025-02-11 15:20:14 CET

Good morning!
I hope your day is productive and enjoyable.

2025-02-10 13:53:52 CET

- reply

Nostr >>> x > twitter

2025-02-10 13:51:49 CET

- reply

Twitter was neutral? Elon made X partisan? That's the most revisionist history thing I've heard in a while.
I remember Twitter removing posts and deplatforming anyone who tried to reference the NY post story about the hunter Biden laptop.
That's what @Rabble thinks is neutrality? I'll take community notes any day over that crap.
Has @Rabble read the Twitter files?
https://fountain.fm/episode/DYPKRSkN11EmYDhrhH0H
#nevent1q…necs

2025-02-03 21:44:21 CET

Flystr
https://image.nostr.build/7813658863c68e0683daab0da0f2c7f2a3565f0c51ed64d9d83d62a93072497a.jpg

2025-02-01 18:23:37 CET

I'm looking for a mythical service to try and live on a #Bitcoin standard. Does anyone know of any such service?
Or maybe I'm missing some of the features of Fold, Swan, Strike or River?https://image.nostr.build/0f6e85be79a21cd005e2999c040e9ccce6acd9e08d79291a108ab8f60fb78a97.png

2025-02-01 17:05:38 CET

- reply

Applies to politicians too.

2025-02-01 17:04:39 CET

Totally irrational pet peeve:
NVIDIA is pronounced en-vid-ee-ah
NOT nuh-vid-ee-ah
NOR nih-vid-ee-ah
If that small subset of the world will please correct their pronunciation, I will be able to stop losing my mind.
Gentle reminder: I know this is irrational.

2025-01-30 14:49:05 CET

- reply

GM!

2025-01-29 21:17:48 CET

Without fail, when I start looking at the political system, I end up freaking out that I don't have enough Bitcoin.

2025-01-21 16:24:25 CET

- reply

GM. Waiting.

2025-01-20 21:01:00 CET

- reply

Reminds me of The Mask
https://image.nostr.build/e029152bcbc547e1b607b457ea0aceed31c752fc4b15c3f8f77dbe53e9f3e7fe.jpg

2025-01-17 15:49:47 CET

- reply

Channel name: Altcoin Daily?
Has a cradano hashtag?
Yuck

2025-01-17 15:45:10 CET

- reply

Bitcoin invents time travel

2025-01-17 01:42:39 CET

- reply

Went in skeptical. Changed my mind.

2025-01-16 19:25:12 CET

- reply

Is an npub a digital id?

2025-01-16 19:23:25 CET

I still have to deal with email at work. And a huge portion of it is automated announcements if operational events in my application. Between that and a lot of users, I have to deal with 2000+ emails per day.
The only way I've found to make sure I don't miss important things is:
1) email filters
2) inbox zero
Open to suggestions on how others keep their sanity in email.

2025-01-16 15:46:21 CET

Good morning 🌄
Hope you have a good day.
If you'd like me to pray for you, reply and let me know.