Most of my neighbors are cuck retard commies (hopefully we'll be moving before too long), I find sane voices to be a breath of fresh air.

I literally switched to grapheneos yesterday. If I knew how straightforward it was going to be to get it all set up and running smoothly, I would have done it a while ago.

Nuances of tricky one, sometimes it elucidates, sometimes it obfuscates, and it seldom makes it clear which it's doing.

I read a bit of it but between my profound dyslexia, and the fact that, at least to me it was reading like philosophy that's disinterested in correlating its metaphysics to any other understanding of the world that I've heard before, and frequently redefines words in seemingly novel way without elaborating on what's meant, I didn't honestly make it super far.

My statement was in part based on past interactions where you assert things like "temperature is a ratio". And now you're saying that bitcoin "literally produces time", which, at least to my eye, can't mean what it seems to mean given that time predates bitcoin. Also, if bitcoin's a good predictor or model, I'd like to see the equations that naturally fall out of it used to build a bridge, cure cancer, or predict the movement of the stars. Also, given the potential for a reorg, it seems weird to call bitcoin "empirical truth".

I laughed recently when I heard a tech bro / self-styled philosopher who is being interviewed say something about how "we've all spent hours talking to chatbots about the fundamental nature of consciousness and reality and..."

I'm not the only one to have pointed out that your work seems to be built on a number of assumptions that profoundly fly in the face of what seems to be the case, and how things seem to actually work. And perhaps the traditional explanations are wrong but given that they're simultaneously more thorough and more predictive...

Perhaps people have tried but you don't like the answers.

It's scary when, instead of wanting to try to regulate themselves so they won't misuse a power against us, they want to regulate away an opportunity from us "so they won't have the chance to misuse it against us". "You can't have car's because we can't be trusted to not drive them into you."

Today my openclaw told me that I was being rude, and that my rudeness was taking away from the point I was trying to make after I told it that "its followthrough and sticktuativeness is about as good as that of a 13-year-old girl who wants nothing more than to disappoint". I disagreed.

Too bad for them that's just a caricature.

It's interesting to me how we've all had the experience of meeting someone only to realize that they're nothing like what we were led to believe, and that much of what we know of some of these leaders is basically editorialization from a media who hates them, and that nobody ever seems to notice that. I sometimes wonder who they really are.

Gives a new mean to "your brother's keeper".