Damus
Nikita Rjaško profile picture
Nikita Rjaško
@nktrjsk

Ráda se dělím o své myšlenky, názory, atp. Přikláním se k anarchokapitalismu a libertarianismu obecně, jde mi ale hlavně o svobodu. Každý vydobytý kousíček svobody vnímám jako úspěch. Specializuju se na programování, ale ve volným čase se ráda věnuju i jinejm oborům IT, studuju různé přírodní, společenské a humanistické vědy. Taky se podílím na FOSS projektech nebo píšu a pomáhám udržovat českou Wikipedii.

Relays (2)
  • wss://wot.shaving.kiwi – read & write
  • wss://lnbits.mcld.eu/nostrrelay/test – read & write

Recent Notes

Juraj🏴💛🌘 · 12w
He did not provide further information 😉
ChainCampCZ · 15w
Patří Bitcoin do školních lavic? 🟠 Zní to jako provokace, ale finanční gramotnost bez něj už dneska trochu pokulhává. Otázka je jak — srozumitelně, bez ideologie a bez toho, aby to z...
Nikita Rjaško profile picture
Je zajímavý, jak se škola vnímá jako prostředí bez ideologie (a tomu se pak podřizujou alternativní ideologie). Přitom ve (státních) školách je ideologie státní, demokratická, jenom tím, jak je všude, tak nikoho nenapadne ji zpochybňovat. Ale taky je pravda, že aby člověk mohl do škol proniknout, tak musí "sklopit uši".

Nikita Rjaško profile picture
credits: https://lgbtqia.space/@alice/116557894595102272

If you're not familiar with Jenga, here's how I'd describe it: it's a cooperative, turn-based game in which you and one or more willing partners attempt to build anticipation until someone gets too flustered and spills the pieces. The real win condition isn't knocking the tower over — it's the moment just before it falls, when everyone is leaning in, wide-eyed, holding their breath. The goal is to sustain that tension together for as long as possible. And when the tower finally does topple, it should be exciting and fun for everyone involved, followed by positive aftercare. That's what makes people happy they played with you — and want to play another round.

Flirting works exactly the same way.

The game is played by taking turns: you poke around for a good piece, make a small move, and raise the stakes _just a little bit_. Then you wait. Your partner takes their turn, and if they're into the game, they'll leave an opening for you. Each exchange builds on the last. Neither of you is trying to win _against_ the other — you're collaborating toward a shared peak.

A lot of people misunderstand this, and it shows. The most common mistake is forcing the game — not everyone wants to play with you, and that has to be respected immediately. Another is going for the "big move" early: opening with something aggressive in the hopes of a quick resolution. Sure, it might work occasionally, but if your only goal is to knock the tower over as fast as possible, you're better off playing alone. Along the same lines, there are plenty of subtle ways to pressure someone into losing their footing — don't use them. That's not flirting, that's coercion, and depending on how far it goes, it can cross into something much worse.

The mistake on the opposite end is dragging out your turn because you're too afraid to make a move at all. Hesitating forever doesn't protect you — it just stalls the game for everyone. If you're playing in good faith, genuinely trying to make the other person have fun, most people will be flattered by the effort even if they're not interested in playing a full round.

So how do you actually start? Try complimenting something the other person put effort into — their earrings, their hair, their shirt. Then disengage. Say it, smile, and go back to what you were doing. If they want to play, they'll engage you. If they don't, they'll say thanks and move on, and that's completely fine.

The trick is reading cues and leaving your own. Most people who want to be interacted with will signal it — a smile, a glance, a bid for conversation. If you notice one, you can gently respond to it. And when you take your turn, try to leave them something to work with: volunteer a detail about yourself, ask something open-ended, give them a thread to pull. Co-op games fall apart when one player doesn't know what to do on their turn, so don't leave your partner hanging.

To put it concretely: say you're in line at a grocery store and someone catches your eye. Wait until one of you is about to leave the line, then say something like _"Your hair is amazing — I love that color blue"_ and turn back to what you were doing. If they respond with _"Thanks, I just dyed it!"_ and pause, that's your turn again. You might say _"Did you have it done professionally? I've been meaning to try something new"_ — and now the ball is back in their court. Each turn takes a cue from what they gave you, and offers something in return.

If things are going well and you'd like to keep them going, just say so. _"I really enjoyed talking to you, and I'd love to do it again if you're interested — can I give you my number?"_ Direct, honest, low-pressure. That's how good games end: with both players glad they sat down to play.
1
Nikita Rjaško profile picture
# Gell-Mann amnézie v kontextu státu

Gell-Mann amnézie je psychologický jev, kdy si člověk uvědomuje nespolehlivost médií v oblasti, kterou zná, ale jakmile začne číst o tématu cizím, opět slepě věří prezentovaným faktům. Tento mechanismus lze fascinujícím způsobem aplikovat i na vztah mezi občanem a státem.

V kontextu státní správy se tato amnézie projevuje jako schopnost společnosti ignorovat systémovou nekompetenci. Občan může mít hlubokou osobní zkušenost se selháním státu – například v podobě byrokratického chaosu při vyřizování stavebního povolení nebo nespravedlivého postupu úřadu. Nicméně v momentě, kdy stejný státní aparát komunikuje strategii v oblasti energetiky, zdravotnictví nebo zahraniční politiky, občan často zapomene na svou zkušenost s neefektivitou a přijme oficiální narativ jako objektivní pravdu.

Tato „systémová slepota“ je pro svobodnou společnost nebezpečná. Vede k erozi odpovědnosti, protože instituce mohou opakovaně selhávat, aniž by čelily skutečnému tlaku na změnu. Vzniká nebezpečný rozestup mezi „oficiální realitou“ prezentovanou v tiskových zprávách a „životní realitou“ obyvatel.

Když se Gell-Mann amnézie stane kolektivní, stát přestává být vnímán jako soubor procesů, které mohou být chybné, a začíná být vnímán jako autorita, jejíž slovo je v každé nové oblasti implicitně pravdivé. Výsledkem je paradox: občan ví, že stát v jedné věci lhal nebo selhal, ale věří mu v té další, čímž neúmyslně udržuje neefektivní systém v chodu.