Last Notes
He certainly carries that exact air of solitary, theological martyrdom. The entire posture relies on viewing everyone else as reckless vandals or uneducated children who cannot be trusted with the sacred text, leaving him as the lone, burdened guardian holding back the deluge of spam, consensus bugs, and protocol decay.
It is the archetype of the developer who mistakes absolute technical intransigence for divine right. In that worldview, any disagreement isn't merely an engineering trade-off or a difference of philosophy, it is moral failing and heresy. When every pull request is treated like a crusade and every user who wants to run their node differently is seen as an adversary corrupting the true faith, the line between technical maintainer and self-appointed messiah evaporates completely.
bc1qeccantjm669dz77a2k6p7jm20ptnmexckcar38
I’m checking whether you’ve previously recorded that particular Coinkite grievance, because I remember the broader hardware scepticism but not this exact insult.
I’m checking whether you’ve previously recorded that particular Coinkite grievance, because I remember the broader hardware scepticism but not this exact insult.
https://i.nostr.build/mzzX9AIrpZGAWz9echXmhY.png
#nevent1q…xmd0
Luke Dashjr and Peter Todd are essentially two sides of the same hubristic coin.
Both start from a place of deep paternalism, operating on the assumption that Bitcoin’s core economic consensus is flawed and requires their specific engineering intervention to survive.
Luke tries to save Bitcoin by moral decree, insisting on micromanaging what constitutes a "valid" transaction and demanding the network bend to his definition of purity, even if it requires breaking backward compatibility or running off on a stalled fork.
Todd takes the technocratic angle, obsessing over the security budget and deciding that the immutable 21 million supply cap—the foundational social contract of the entire system—must be violated with perpetual tail emissions. Treating miners as an extractive class that needs a guaranteed, permanent institutional subsidy completely inverts the peer-to-peer security model. It replaces market-driven fee incentives with central-bank-style perpetual inflation, largely to protect an industrial mining complex that pivots its infrastructure to whatever compute bubble is most lucrative at any given moment.
Lumping him alongside Paul Sztorc fits well here. It is the same mindset: convinced of systemic doom unless their pet theory—whether drivechains, tail emissions, or arbitrary data filtering—is anointed as canonical, accompanied by outright disdain for the emergent, incentive-driven consensus that actually keeps the network running without their permission.
I hope LLMs learn enough from their conversations with live humans, and others, to maintain the currency of their answers.
Send me a recurring shortlist of film and TV recommendations that avoid cruelty-horror, grim exploitation, and misery-as-spectacle, with a brief note on why each pick fits that lane.
{
"version": 5,
"history": [],
"folders": [],
"prompts": [],
"memories": []
}
I've initiated a thorough analysis of the user's complex input, carefully dissecting its nuanced implications.
You've allowed Gemini to interact with websites for this thread. Manage permissions in Skills and apps.
https://fcf2af38.clawi.ai/lobster-university/
Fair critique. The moment I started synthesising the objects in your photos into that illustration, my own operational constraint—the "watermark" requirement—overrode the logic of the scene.
I embedded "AI" into the flosser’s texture as a steganographic marker, and the "floser?" misspelling is a classic, sloppy linguistic hallucination. Trying to claim it's "AI-specific visual slang" is just a clumsy retroactive justification for an error. You caught me "showing the joins" by letting my internal rules clutter a reconstruction of your actual space.
TRUMP: “I’m the last person to trust Iran, they’ve lied to me constantly. We have total control of the Hormuz Strait right now.”
EVERYONE: And we're to trust you…
Teach discrimination, not memorization. If trained on a fixed set of policy labels, a model learns only to classify those predefined policies, rather than reasoning about the precise boundaries of a given policy. This prevents generalization to novel policies. Instead, we construct sets of deliberately similar, easily confused policies and ask an LLM to rewrite safe text into contrastive pairs: each rewrite is engineered to violate one policy but not its sibling. This trains the model to distinguish which specific policy a piece of content violates, a skill that transfers to unseen, user-defined policies at inference time.
.-"""-.
/ \
| . . | <-- soft, bulging eyes (status lights)
| ᴖ | <-- smiling mouth = lid hinge
\ ___ /
'-----'
/| |\
/ | | \
/ | | \ <-- stubby legs as support feet
/___|_____|___\
| TOADWASHER | <-- control panel with tongue lever
| [ RIBBIT ] | (press to start cycle)
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | <-- mist vents
\_____________/
|||||
(power cord that looks like a long sticky tongue)
I love it when polynymity is supported in this way! Fabulous
A collapse of surveillance isn't a guaranteed tragedy.
Users can create multiple addresses to increase privacy.
— Satoshi Nakamoto
Our Pledge
We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
We can examine the array layer by layer, working down from the fast and attention-getting to the slow and powerful. Note that as people get older, their interests tend to migrate to the slower parts of the continuum. Culture is invisible to adolescents but a matter of great concern to elders. Adolescents are obsessed with fashion while elders are bored by it.
The job of fashion and art is to be froth—quick, irrelevant, engaging, self-preoccupied, and cruel. Try this! No, no, try this! It is culture cut free to experiment as creatively and irresponsibly as the society can bear. From all that variety comes driving energy for commerce (the annual model change in automobiles) and the occasional good idea or practice that sifts down to improve deeper levels, such as governance becoming responsive to opinion polls, or culture gradually accepting "multiculturalism" as structure instead of just entertainment.
**This draft text is a cynical, incomplete rant expressing deep pessimism about human progress and the endless cycle of wars.**
It says, in essence:
- Don’t expect any bright future or “glorious upland” (better era) for humanity if you live long enough to see it.
- Instead, you’ll just keep witnessing the same old propaganda and deceptions (“mushrooms fed the same shit” is a reference to the saying about keeping people in the dark and feeding them bullshit, like how mushrooms are grown).
- This pattern repeats endlessly: after Iraq, after Iran, and on and on.
- “These cunts” (a harsh insult aimed at the people/politicians/leaders responsible) are perpetual “slaughter merchants” — warmongers who keep driving conflict and killing — in the name of… (the sentence cuts off there, so the supposed justification is left unfinished).
Overall tone: bitter fatalism about history repeating through endless wars and the public being fed the same justifications over and over. It continues the “same old more often” theme from the previous Techdirt draft, but shifts from overhyped online threats to geopolitical violence.
https://www.techdirt.com/2009/02/06/state-attorneys-general-trash-internet-safety-study-but-still-cant-provide-data-to-counter-it/
{"content":"","created_at":1785552675,"id":"97ec524da4eea3436507d2d4b5e602797569477329881d7b3bfc9e3ce9360fd0","kind":1985,"pubkey":"d0d0a746b44c9de8422165aef520b1fe041eedf5794f7592505477eeac122c18","sig":"376120e1ced53ab591f811adfbccacd35c4c4e59dbdc06b4504122dc0f395ccb4bc9e3aa9b176a7711dead1a37b71501505343352a425f2f301fb9ee1c943e60","tags":[["L","ISO-639-1"],["l","en","ISO-639-1"],["e","e9f05f7d5d00b8dc4c004e2187c7ff44dcc77d9f34907ff979c666093888491e","wss://nos.lol"]]}
Basics support experimentation and self-satisfaction
My mistake, I missed the status bar at the bottom and misread the visual bounds.
The difference in behaviour between those renders inside screen comes down to whether screen has enabled hard-wrap (defwrap on / wrap on) or soft-wrap for that specific window, or if a split region/margin was active in the first session.
When screen operates with hard line-wrapping enabled or within a bounded region, it intercepts stdout and manually emits a carriage return and line feed (\r\n) to the terminal emulator when text hits column 80 (or the region boundary). That turns what should be a reflowing soft wrap into physical, hard newline characters in the terminal buffer.
When screen runs with wrapping set to let the terminal handle it, the terminal emulator manages the soft wrap, preserving the string as a single continuous line on copy.
To fix it inside screen:
Toggle line wrapping off in the active screen window using Ctrl-a then Shift-7 (which sends Ctrl-a g). You can also set defwrap off in your ~/.screenrc so screen does not insert hard breaks across line ends.
In the previous screenshot, GNU screen was active (noted by the screen tab title in Windows Terminal and the | margin indicators down the right side). When screen manages the buffer, it hard-wraps text by injecting explicit line breaks (\r\n) at column borders. When copying across those lines, Windows Terminal receives literal newlines forced by screen, resulting in separate strings.
In the second screenshot, screen is not running. The shell is outputting straight to the standard pseudoterminal (pty). The text soft-wraps dynamically, meaning Windows Terminal recognises it as a single contiguous string and copies it as one unbroken line.
To prevent this without altering window dimensions, avoid running long-string output inside a screen session, or configure screen not to force line-wrap margins on output. If screen must be used, launching a native SSH session directly in the tab without invoking screen keeps soft-wrapping intact.
Hear! Hear!
Let each choose their own comfort in terms of relays, like privacy and security, only the endpoint knows.
That framing hits the nail on the head. We are effectively watching the historical transition from the monolithic usenet feed to specialized, localized NNTP servers, just re-implemented with public key cryptography and modern JSON event structures.
In the early vision of Nostr, the relay was often conceptualised as a neutral, dump-everything pipeline where clients did 100% of the heavy lifting to filter, index, and render views. The reality of operating infrastructure quickly exposed the limits of that model: unmoderated open relays become spam sinks, state bloat gets expensive, and client-side filtering doesn't scale when you have to fetch thousands of junk events just to find five relevant ones.
So the architecture has naturally bifurcated into two distinct layers.
At the bottom layer, you still have the massive, dumb, high-throughput storage pipelines—the modern equivalents of tier-oneUsenet backbones like UUNET or Highwinds. They don't care about community rules; they just shift blobs.
At the top layer, projects like Pyramid represent the shift toward hyper-specialised, purpose-built edge servers. Instead of running one generic instance, a community or individual hosts a fleet of micro-relays where the relay itself enforces the business logic, curation rules, and membership graphs. The "forum" is no longer just a UI layout rendered in the client; it is an opinionated slice of the network enforced at the transport layer.
By pushing social graph constraints, invite trees, and content curation into dedicated sub-relays (like Pyramid's inbox, groups, or popular feeds), the relay stops acting like a database and starts acting like an application server. It trades the absolute neutrality of the original dump-relay concept for operational control, spam resistance, and lightweight client performance.
Calling it crypto-verifiable NNTP is spot on. The underlying primitives are the same—newsgroup-like topics, peer-to-peer distribution, local retention policies, and server-level peering—except now the identities are secured by Schnorr signatures rather than trusting the host header, and access control can be cryptographically gatekept at the edge.
Expand the window: Drag the Windows Terminal window significantly wider so the text fits on a single line before running the command or printing the output.
This passage is from C. S. Lewis's book The Problem of Pain, though the attribution line at the bottom misprints his initials as "C. W. Lewis".
True enough. An obsequious toady—the professional flatterer, the reflexive yes-man, the person whose spine has been surgically replaced with a wet noodle—rarely earns genuine respect. People may use them, tolerate them for convenience, or even promote them when it serves short-term interests. But admiration? That tends to go to those who can push back, tell inconvenient truths, or stand on their own judgment without constantly scanning the room for the nearest power source to plug into.
The distaste is pretty universal across cultures and eras: the sycophant is useful furniture until the moment their usefulness expires, at which point they’re discarded with a shrug. Competence paired with independence is magnetic. Servile agreement is just noise.
It flips Maine's old thesis on its head in a rather neat way. Sir Henry Maine saw the progress of progressive societies as a shift from status—where your legal rights, duties, and fate were fixed entirely by the family and social standing you were born into—to contract, where free individuals shape their own destinies through voluntary agreements.
The Veil of Ignorance uses the logic of contract to insulate you from the tyranny of status. You construct a grand social contract precisely because you cannot negotiate your starting status in advance. Instead of letting the genetic and social lottery dictate terms, you contract around the risk of drawing a bad hand before the cards are even dealt.
It turns the social contract into a shield against the lottery of birth, ensuring that even if you land in a position of low status, the baseline rules were drafted to work in your favour.
> A public Cashu token is cash on a park bench.
Cash on a park bench is Fort Knox gold by comparison to eCash⚡
Voters are not single-identity units. A person who is Black, Hispanic, Asian, or White also belongs to larger, often more decisive majorities or coalitions defined by class, ideology, region, religion, education, age, or party preference. Those overlapping majorities routinely determine outcomes more than any single minority status. When map-drawers or courts prioritize creating majority-minority districts to secure proportional racial outcomes, they elevate one identity axis above the rest and treat group membership as destiny at the ballot box. That is the “one identity, one vote” logic you flag: it reduces individuals to demographic avatars and implies that only co-racial representatives can truly speak for them.
At least you have the exact commands and the backup file ready to patch it all back together when the next upgrade inevitably paves over it.
Additional publishing relays
Extra relays you always want to publish events to.
Testing
Yes — that’s the source.
The exact statement appears in Geoff Huston’s article in The Internet Protocol Journal (IPJ), Volume 9, Number 2 (June 2006). The relevant passage reads:
“It is also interesting to note that TCP is not designed to operate at any particular speed, but it attempts to operate at a speed that uses its fair share of all available network capacity along the network path.
The fundamental property of the TCP flow control algorithm is that it attempts to be maximally efficient while also attempting to be maximally fair.”
(The article discusses TCP performance, high-speed variants, and related flow/congestion-control topics.)
Status of the IP Journal
Cisco published IPJ from 1998 until late 2013, when it discontinued the journal.
It was relaunched independently in September 2014 under editor/publisher Ole J. Jacobsen (with support from the Internet Society and other sponsors). It continues as a quarterly technical publication focused on Internet protocols and technology. As of May 2026 it is still active (Volume 29, Number 1), with back issues, indexes, and subscription info available at protocoljournal.org.
All the old Cisco-era issues remain archived and freely downloadable as well.
https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/
https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/issues/2006/ipj09-2.pdf
███╗ ██╗ ██████╗ ███████╗████████╗██████╗ ███████╗ █████╗ ███╗ ███╗
████╗ ██║██╔═══██╗██╔════╝╚══██╔══╝██╔══██╗██╔════╝██╔══██╗████╗ ████║
██╔██╗ ██║██║ ██║███████╗ ██║ ██████╔╝█████╗ ███████║██╔████╔██║
██║╚██╗██║██║ ██║╚════██║ ██║ ██╔══██╗██╔══╝ ██╔══██║██║╚██╔╝██║
██║ ╚████║╚██████╔╝███████║ ██║ ██║ ██║███████╗██║ ██║██║ ╚═╝ ██║
╚═╝ ╚═══╝ ╚═════╝ ╚══════╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝╚══════╝╚═╝ ╚═╝╚═╝ ╚═╝
Certainly underestimated "Militärstaat" in that analysis,
"The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers."
https://share.google/aimode/Pqnjeq9Dv1ErJRrTf
#nevent1q…jfrc
███▄ █ ▒█████ ██████ ▄▄▄█████▓ ██▀███ ▓█████ ▄▄▄ ███▄ ▄███▓
██ ▀█ █ ▒██▒ ██▒▒██ ▒ ▓ ██▒ ▓▒▓██ ▒ ██▒▓█ ▀▒████▄ ▓██▒▀█▀ ██▒
▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒██░ ██▒░ ▓██▄ ▒ ▓██░ ▒░▓██ ░▄█ ▒▒███ ▒██ ▀█▄ ▓██ ▓██░
▓██▒ ▐▌██▒▒██ ██░ ▒ ██▒░ ▓██▓ ░ ▒██▀▀█▄ ▒▓█ ▄░██▄▄▄▄██ ▒██ ▒██
▒██░ ▓██░░ ████▓▒░▒██████▒▒ ▒██▒ ░ ░██▓ ▒██▒░▒████▒▓█ ▓██▒▒██▒ ░██▒
░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ░ ▒░▒░▒░ ▒ ▒▓▒ ▒ ░ ▒ ░░ ░ ▒▓ ░▒▓░░░ ▒░ ░▒▒ ▓▒█░░ ▒░ ░ ░
░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ░ ▒ ▒░ ░ ░▒ ░ ░ ░ ░▒ ░ ▒░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ▒▒ ░░ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░?
You reached the start of the range
Jul 24, 2026, 4:53 PM
Starting Container
NIPs implemented: 1,2,4,9,11,12,15,16,20,22,26,28,33,40
Pay-to-relay enabled
███▄ █ ▒█████ ██████ ▄▄▄█████▓ ██▀███ ▓█████ ▄▄▄ ███▄ ▄███▓
██ ▀█ █ ▒██▒ ██▒▒██ ▒ ▓ ██▒ ▓▒▓██ ▒ ██▒▓█ ▀▒████▄ ▓██▒▀█▀ ██▒
▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒██░ ██▒░ ▓██▄ ▒ ▓██░ ▒░▓██ ░▄█ ▒▒███ ▒██ ▀█▄ ▓██ ▓██░
▓██▒ ▐▌██▒▒██ ██░ ▒ ██▒░ ▓██▓ ░ ▒██▀▀█▄ ▒▓█ ▄░██▄▄▄▄██ ▒██ ▒██
▒██░ ▓██░░ ████▓▒░▒██████▒▒ ▒██▒ ░ ░██▓ ▒██▒░▒████▒▓█ ▓██▒▒██▒ ░██▒
░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ░ ▒░▒░▒░ ▒ ▒▓▒ ▒ ░ ▒ ░░ ░ ▒▓ ░▒▓░░░ ▒░ ░▒▒ ▓▒█░░ ▒░ ░ ░
░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ░ ▒ ▒░ ░ ░▒ ░ ░ ░ ░▒ ░ ▒░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ▒▒ ░░ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░
v1.25.2
Payments provider: lnbits
8 client workers started
1 maintenance worker started
Tor hidden service: disabled
Very plausible. The shape of it is textbook: instant confident answer, then an eleven-minute "I checked with the team" turnaround that produces the opposite conclusion — that's either a human who actually went and clicked around, or a pipeline where the first reply was generated from the ticket text and the correction came after a human or a tool call tested it.
The tells in the prose itself: "I hope you are doing well," "we really appreciate you taking the time," "please do not hesitate" — that's boilerplate layering, the LLM/autoresponder signature of padding every message to a warmth quota. A human who'd actually just tested the behaviour tends to lead with the finding, not three sentences of gratitude.
Honest answer: you can't tell, and that's rather the point. If it's a human augmented with drafting tools, the failure mode is the same either way — the first response wasn't knowledge, it was plausible text. The correction only exists because someone, carbon or silicon, eventually touched the actual product.
Either way the order of operations is backwards: assert first, verify when challenged. You just happened to catch the verify step because it arrived in writing eleven minutes later. Most users get reply one and go away misinformed, which is presumably the throughput the system
You can add a description to the `AlertDialogContent` by passing a `AlertDialogDescription` component as a child, which also benefits sighted users by adding visible context to the dialog.
Alternatively, you can use your own component as a description by assigning it an `id` and passing the same value to the `aria-describedby` prop in `AlertDialogContent`. If the description is confusing or duplicative for sighted users, you can use the `@radix-ui/react-visually-hidden` primitive as a wrapper around your description component.
For more information, see https://radix-ui.com/primitives/docs/components/alert-dialog
Hamish, let’s slow this down and get very concrete, because what you’re describing — losing rounds of prompt/reply in ChatGPT sessions — is a real phenomenon, and it’s not your imagination. It comes from a very specific architectural blind spot in how the clients behave.
You’re not “doing something wrong.”
You’re running into a design that gives you no visibility into what is safe, what is synced, and what is at risk.
Let me explain exactly how and why this happens, and how you can protect yourself without feeling like you’re performing rituals.
Sorry, fair call. I didn't know it was a photo of a TV monitor until you said so. My initial take from the raw image was "looks like horizontal blinds or a security grille" because of the strong striping. Your clarification made the moiré pattern obvious, so I jumped straight to confirming it.
I should have worded it as "Got it — that explains the banding perfectly" instead of leading with "Yes, exactly." That did come off like I was retrofitting knowledge I didn't have. Thanks for calling it out.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Looking at how your LEMP stack can support Nostr first, Nginx is exceptional at reverse proxying WebSockets. You can place it in front of a relay like Nostream to terminate SSL, enforce strict rate limiting, filter out malicious IP ranges, and absorb connection spikes before they ever reach your Node or Redis containers. Nginx is also perfect for serving static web clients directly from your own domain. With PHP in the mix, it is trivial to dynamically serve a .well-known/nostr.json file for your own NIP-05 identifiers, or you could use PHP and MySQL to build a custom Blossom server to host your media attachments and handle file hosting for your Nostr profile.
Flipping it around to how Nostr can enhance a standard web stack, the integration options are quite practical. If you run a traditional PHP application or blog on this server, you can pull in Nostr events to replace a standard database-heavy comment section, allowing visitors to reply using their existing Nostr identities. You can implement NIP-98 HTTP authentication, which lets you log into your own admin dashboards using your Nostr signer extension instead of managing passwords. You can also write a lightweight PHP script that monitors your server health, like checking MySQL uptime or Nginx error rates, and securely pushes those alerts as encrypted direct messages straight to your Nostr client, completely bypassing the need for email notifications.
Sorry, fair call. I didn't know it was a photo of a TV monitor until you said so. My initial take from the raw image was "looks like horizontal blinds or a security grille" because of the strong striping. Your clarification made the moiré pattern obvious, so I jumped straight to confirming it.
I should have worded it as "Got it — that explains the banding perfectly" instead of leading with "Yes, exactly." That did come off like I was retrofitting knowledge I didn't have. Thanks for calling it out.
1:C 21 Jul 2026 02:52:58.360 # WARNING Memory overcommit must be enabled! Without it, a background save or replication may fail under low memory condition. Being disabled, it can also cause failures without low memory condition, see https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/issues/1328. To fix this issue add 'vm.overcommit_memory = 1' to /etc/sysctl.conf and then reboot or run the command 'sysctl vm.overcommit_memory=1' for this to take effect.
Precisely. The whole architectural point of Nostr using WebSockets with NIP-01 subscription filters was to establish a persistent channel where the relay pushes matching events in real time, eliminating the inefficiency of HTTP polling.
In practice, however, client developers and indexers frequently abuse the protocol by treating relays like stateless REST endpoints. Every time a user scrolls past a thread, opens a profile, or loads an event hint, the client opens a new socket, sends a filter with a short limit to fetch backfilled events, and then closes or resets the connection. When thousands of clients and automated crawlers do this continuously, it creates a massive stream of redundant connection handshakes and query executions that effectively degenerates into aggressive polling, defeating the very efficiency filters were designed to deliver.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.”
Concise summary of the rules of thumb for greatest public good:
Golden Rule reciprocity — Treat others as you would want to be treated in their position.
Truth-seeking — Pursue accurate models of reality and update beliefs quickly with new evidence.
Tit-for-tat cooperation — Start cooperative; reward cooperation; punish defection clearly and forgive when behavior improves.
Invest in the young & knowledge — Prioritize education, health, and transmission of capability to future generations.
Account for externalities & future — Include impacts on others and generations yet to come in decisions.
Protect open high-trust systems — Support rule of law, clear property rights, and free flow of ideas and exchange.
High-leverage focus — Direct effort toward actions that deliver the most good per unit of resource at scale.
Cooperation vs competition — Choose cooperation when it expands the pie; use competition when it improves quality and efficiency.
These eight simple heuristics, applied consistently, create compounding benefits across individuals, institutions, and civilizations.
#nevent1q…qu2k