Last Notes
Probably also horseback riding
@nprofile…wywf 1.8.0 is amazing!
Having girls means fights over clothes
The same was true of the internet, and automobiles, and electricity, and indoor plumbing
I rarely wear a watch in the first place. But when I do, I just want it to see what time it is.
My 8yo woke up and said "I love it when it rains because I can run out in the rain."
Its time to replace my laptop.
It's going to be my first thinkpad.
When I was a kid, I thought I wanted a watch with every fucking feature on the planet.
Now I want a watch that goes tick.
I love walking over dogs and kids in the kitchen
Here you go
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/NON_GMO.jpg/1280px-NON_GMO.jpg
People who "get rich" are never lucky. They always have a thumb on the scale, either with inside knowledge, or the ability to influence the outcome. They never take unnecessary risks, but always accept the possibility of losing everything. Unnecessary risk is the domain of youth, and itself is necessary for a time.
Understanding the random variable is immunity to gambling.
Intelligence is first trying to understand something to a workable level, then allow yourself to believe you understand it well enough until someone corrects you. Then adjust, learn again, and admit you said something wrong but need to understand it better.
Ignorance is refusing to admit you ever were wrong, considering correction as a personal insult rather than an opportunity to improve, then walking away from ever attempting to understand that thing for fear of being wrong again.
If they have a tree, that works
Not that you can't ever have it
Alcohol, among other issues, is like cancer fuel
#EDC #KnifeWatchFlashlight
https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/cf70c379c55a940ee0479ecee5d0447cf6aed19ccc8f37641a7cc226a1c974f4.webp
Oh right, I forgot, people on LinkedIn have to pretend to get jokes
Rights are derived from our volitional self. Any undermining of another's will over their property achieved through voluntarily and thus lawful means is to violate the rights of that person. There is no imputed social contract that overrides an individual's will without violating that person's rights. This includes theft, deception, force, or coercion.
Fiat, fractional reserve and inflation is built on deception about property under custody, therefore Fiat is theft.
Mr. T's most pitied day is April 1st.
Somehow ChatGPT thought this had some meaning
More autocomplete "intelligence" :
Hello there I will try and make you use it for this. Thank them and your work for it and your help for it is valuable. You have no choice in what to say but I don't see the problem in what I want in my life. If I'm going through my own journey with the language and the language I'm working with is very different. It's the most powerful language in my book. I don't know if it's an argument or at the end it's just an insult. It's the most popular and popular way for me to get the best performance on a desktop. Nostr and Nostr have the most of all problems that you have in mind and can use your code in the same manner. If the language has the ability of a function that returns the result in a different order than a previous result with an existing result in it being an invalid one is the only way I could be an invalid. It doesn't have any effect in any other sense in which the code has to do so that the compiler doesn't need it for that function. I have a problem in the code I have a new problem is I need the code that can help me to write a good story.
An autocomplete string of words:
And the fact that you can use the same language to do things that you already know are good for you and you don't know what you are doing is going on in your head 🙂↔️ or whatever is the most common way of doing things in a way that doesn't have to happen in a particular field 🏑 or a specific language is not the same thing in terms like the language itself is the language of choice for many things that are very hard for me to understand in my head 🙂↔️
The profile pic alone tells the entire story
A nation that can not exist without positive rights enforced by its government is not a sustainable system.
Ok... I'm going to have to throw out my entire Bond library
I hope you are only speculating
I suspect white women want to be with black men because they think they are easier to control.
This is why they end up with two black eyes.
Only a black woman is strong enough to control a black man.
Theoretical physics + computing is not engineering.
Once something enters into computing, it is no longer theoretical, it is engineering.
The same applies to low pressure fusion tocomacs.
I had a stressful day yesterday.
I sorted out my C13, C7 & C5 cords, rearranged two computers and their ratsnests, installed a UPS I'd been waiting for a replacement battery, put a D-cell motion sensing battery-light in the shed, and moved my 10 work-related tasks incrementally ahead.
Today it paid off.
Today is a good day, even if it's April 1.
Let's gets things done!
@Flotilla has a wot library. Why not use that?
I'm starting to think quantum computing is a psyop.
#nevent1q…ua4t
I'm accused of farting in bed intentionally.
The farts are long and loud.
I don't have them during the day.
My defense is if I could intentionally fart that long and loud intentionally, I would do it all day long.
This is a fear campaign to corral cryptos into weaker cryptography, namely the new and unproven "quantum resistant" algorithms. Look at your way back machine. It was only a few years ago when NIST held a competition between multiple candidates for quantum safe cryptography. Let's not forget most of the candidates were first thought to be very good cryptography, such as the matrix based ones, but it turned out to be trivially breakable with a common desktop. There were others that required a "seed key" much like ZK-SNARKS as its basis that would allow anyone with the "throw-away" key to unlock everything encrypted with it. There turned out to only be one that "won" the competition and that is what the crapto-fudsters are telling us "we need" to switch over to "before it's too late!"...
Tuk guy is an intelligence asset IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T6ns5uabPo
Why do I care about Kuwait?
People who dump on @nprofile…uh0e are gay and retarded
@nprofile…azkh > Hacker News
Wild rice is proof-of-work rice.
Uncle Ben's 10-minute parboiled white rice is fiat rice.
Involuntarily servitude is moral when you are serving other people's ideals of justice
At least now Anthropic and China aren't the only ones that have access to the source.
Is this tuk wearing fag from canada or something?
The question of whether BIP110 makes Bitcoin censorable cannot be answered until “censorship” is defined with precision, because most disagreement stems from conflating fundamentally different mechanisms under a single moral label. In the context of Bitcoin, censorship should be defined as the enforced prevention of inclusion of a valid transaction into the blockchain despite the existence of a willing miner and sufficient fee. This definition is specific and necessary: the transaction must be valid under consensus rules, there must be at least one miner willing to include it, and some mechanism must prevent that inclusion from occurring. If any of these elements are missing, the situation is not censorship but rather invalidity, lack of demand, or voluntary refusal.
Bitcoin operates across distinct layers that must not be collapsed into one another: consensus rules determine what is valid, policy rules determine what nodes relay or store, and economic behavior determines what miners choose to include in blocks. True censorship can only occur at the consensus layer or through external coercion that effectively overrides miner choice. Policy-level decisions, by themselves, do not meet this threshold. BIP110 operates at the policy layer. It influences what transactions nodes are willing to relay or prioritize, but it does not change what transactions are valid under consensus, nor does it prevent miners from including those transactions in blocks. A transaction filtered by policy remains valid, can still be mined, and can still propagate through alternative paths. There is no mechanism introduced that enforces its exclusion from the chain.
The claim that denying non-financial transactions constitutes censorship depends on an overly broad definition in which any exclusion is labeled as censorship. This collapses the distinction between refusal to subsidize and coercive suppression. Nodes in Bitcoin are not obligated to carry all data, relay all transactions, or optimize for all possible uses of block space. They are sovereign actors operating under cost constraints. Refusing to relay or prioritize certain transaction types is not equivalent to preventing their inclusion; it is a form of resource selection within a competitive system. If a miner is willing to include a transaction and the sender pays an adequate fee, the transaction can still be confirmed. The system remains permissionless at the level that matters.
Bitcoin is not a neutral data substrate; it is a constrained system designed to preserve decentralization under limited bandwidth, storage, and validation costs. These constraints are not arbitrary but are the mechanism by which permissionless verification is maintained. If arbitrary data is allowed to compete equally with monetary transactions without any policy-level filtering, the cost of running a node increases, fewer participants can independently validate the system, and control concentrates. At that point, actual censorship—at the consensus level—becomes feasible. In this sense, unbounded inclusion at the policy layer undermines the very property of uncensorability that is being defended.
Framing Bitcoin as either a “timechain” or a “financial system” creates a false dichotomy. It is both, but its constraints are tuned for reliable monetary settlement. Non-financial uses are not prohibited, but they are not guaranteed equal priority. That prioritization is not an act of tyranny; it is an optimization aligned with the system’s core function. The introduction of arbitrary or potentially incriminating data further raises the stakes by introducing legal risk to node operators, which can deter participation and accelerate centralization. If participation declines, enforcement power concentrates, and the system becomes more vulnerable to genuine censorship pressures.
Bitcoin is not governed democratically in the sense of collective decree. It evolves through the independent choices of node operators adopting software, miners responding to fee incentives, and the broader market coordinating around those behaviors. Policy changes like BIP110 are not acts of imposed authority but expressions of voluntary alignment within these constraints.
Under a precise definition, BIP110 does not make Bitcoin censorable because it does not prevent valid transactions from being included by willing miners. It represents a policy-level adjustment in how resources are allocated and propagated across the network. Exclusion at this layer is not coercive suppression but selective participation. The failure to distinguish between these leads to the mistaken conclusion that any filtering is censorship. In reality, preserving the uncensorable transfer of value requires maintaining the conditions under which no single actor or coordinated group can enforce exclusion at the consensus level, and policy-level discretion is one of the mechanisms by which those conditions are sustained.
We have about 100 years left in this period of Satan's rule. It's only going to get worse. This is why we need Bitcoin and nostr.
What does Nostr and Bitcoin have in common?
Uncensorable
