Don’t panic. He is building consensus and it is a very good thing to remove that activation method as it was rejected by most users. If Luke wants the reactive way he can make his own fork proposal to do it. Indeed I think it is a good idea to separate both. I would support one and reject the other one.

Why not separating both? 1.- Reactive/emergency UASF and 2.- UASF planned 1y ahead but permanent, not temporary.
I think Emergency UASF will have way less consensus around it and when/if the offending block happens IMO it will generate a split chain. The chain with the offending block will be considered bitcoin by most people (including miners, exchanges and businesses)
Planned UASF can have way more consensus around it. I think we could limit OP_Return to 80 in CR and also make inscriptions way more expensive. Maybe we could just remove the segwit discount, or at least, change the 4x to 2x (with the additional benefit of having blocks smaller)

How does your wallet verify that a tx sent to your wallet is valid? How does it know the inputs in the tx are in the UTXO set if it hasn’t verified the whole blockchain?

Not so unpopular…

Truth, the noun, is objective. There is only 1 truth, not multiple conflicting truths.
Sentences as “cats are prettier than dogs” are neither true nor false, just opinions. There can be a lot of opinions but it’s not precise to say there are a lot of truths. “Subjective truth” is just an opinion.

Last step should say: non-existant State

Unfortunately it’s not paid. He is so stupid to believe what he says

Do we need to trust the CEO of Signal? I thought the protocol is safe and built with strong privacy so the communications are private. I dont have the skills myself to review the source code but a lot of people have and I think they have reviewed it. Isnt that the case?

X …right? Which X?