Brunswick

https://highlighter.com/Brunswick@stacker.news/articles

GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)

[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/exclusive-5-years-later-justice-after-george-floyd-the-dismissed-lawsuit-revealing-the-truth-and-derek-chauvins-response-2/)

[WoT](https://npub.world/npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc)

Jesus Christ is Lord

Public Key

npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc

NIP-05 Address

Brunswick@stacker.news

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxxmmfdehhxtnfduq32amnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejszxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9ekk7mt0wd68ytnsd9hxkqguwaehxw309ahx7um5wgknqvfw09skk6tgdahxuefwvdhk66qj3nf

Publishing to

nostr-01.yakihonne.com

Author Public Key

npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc

Show more details

Published at

2026-01-13T19:04:18Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "91ac72bb69b3168c78d378c063f566d25efb6f8344890b69a182a1eded15b010", "pubkey": "c1e9ab3a56a2ab6ca4bebf44ea64b2fda40ac6311e886ba86b4652169cb56b43", "created_at": 1768331058, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "alt", "User profile for Brunswick" ], [ "name", "Brunswick" ], [ "display_name", "Brunswick" ], [ "picture", "https://i.nostr.build/Ip8jg4IqDk5yfiX3.jpg" ], [ "banner", "https://i.nostr.build/gTOe7SBr29BRydKX.jpg" ], [ "website", "https://highlighter.com/Brunswick@stacker.news/articles" ], [ "about", "GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\n\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/exclusive-5-years-later-justice-after-george-floyd-the-dismissed-lawsuit-revealing-the-truth-and-derek-chauvins-response-2/)\n\n [WoT](https://npub.world/npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc)\n\nJesus Christ is Lord" ], [ "nip05", "Brunswick@stacker.news" ], [ "lud16", "shortchapel988@minibits.cash" ], [ "pronouns", "hey/yo" ], [ "i", "github:BrunswickBTC", "d9124e8c3754865d4f56310c68c981a5" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"Brunswick\",\"about\":\"GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\\n\\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/exclusive-5-years-later-justice-after-george-floyd-the-dismissed-lawsuit-revealing-the-truth-and-derek-chauvins-response-2/)\\n\\n [WoT](https://npub.world/npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc)\\n\\nJesus Christ is Lord\",\"nip05\":\"Brunswick@stacker.news\",\"picture\":\"https://i.nostr.build/Ip8jg4IqDk5yfiX3.jpg\",\"lud16\":\"shortchapel988@minibits.cash\",\"username\":\"BrunswickBTC\",\"display_name\":\"Brunswick\",\"displayName\":\"Brunswick\",\"banner\":\"https://i.nostr.build/gTOe7SBr29BRydKX.jpg\",\"website\":\"https://highlighter.com/Brunswick@stacker.news/articles\",\"pronouns\":\"hey/yo\"}", "sig": "d3f2ae020180db761b176507c699a9996dfb044cd7c06a73e17dba0d084e95fa36bba833bff63b08e4c19b07a31fde7b4eda8c2cd4c1fd5681c5e94a89550f3b" }

Last Notes

2026-01-19 14:49:58 UTC

Why is AI output "slop"?
It is because we can sense authorship. Even behind the dryest corporate policy documents, we can sense someone, or a committee, was behind the words.
As soon as we sense it was written by AI, we immediately reject it as valueless.
Will we condition the next generation to obey the AI through AI driven education? Will they obey it, even if they are forced to?
I suspect our dreams of sitting back and doing everything for free with AI will quickly turn into a nightmare of a world of trash.

2026-01-19 04:04:24 UTC

I had a great time this weekend being trained by SERE instructors

2026-01-18 18:00:00 UTC

- reply

## Persuasion Knobs: How People Actually Respond
Scott Adams distinguishes between *life knobs*—which shape how you author your own trajectory—and a second category: **persuasion knobs**. These are not about self-improvement; they are about **how human attention and compliance actually work in real interactions**.
These knobs operate at the level of conversation, framing, marketing, negotiation, leadership, and conflict. They are situational levers. You don’t use them to become someone—you use them to move situations.
Adams’ premise is simple and unsentimental:
**people are more predictable than they believe**, and persuasion works by aligning with built-in cognitive responses rather than arguing merit.
The primary persuasion knobs he identifies include:
- Freedom
- Fear
- Curiosity
- Novelty
- Contrast
- Repetition
- Simplicity
- The “fake because”
Each works independently, but they stack.
We begin with the most powerful and least acknowledged.
---
## Persuasion Knob #1: Freedom
**One-sentence formulation:**
*People are far more persuadable when they feel free to choose than when they feel pressured to comply.*
### Adams’ core insight
Humans are **reactant** creatures. When they sense coercion—even subtle coercion—their resistance increases automatically. This happens regardless of whether the request is reasonable, beneficial, or morally correct.
Adams’ observation:
> *The moment people feel their freedom is threatened, persuasion stops and defense begins.*
This response is largely unconscious.
### What “freedom” means in persuasion
Freedom, in this context, is not political liberty or moral autonomy. It is **perceived optionality**.
People want to feel:
- They are not trapped
- They are not being cornered
- They are not being manipulated
- They retain the right to say no
When that feeling is present, cooperation increases. When it is absent, even good ideas are rejected.
### How freedom changes outcomes
Adams points out that persuasion improves dramatically when you:
- Offer choices instead of demands
- Emphasize opt-out paths
- Signal respect for autonomy
- Make refusal socially safe
Examples:
- “You can ignore this if it’s not useful”
- “This may not be for you”
- “No pressure—just an option”
These phrases don’t weaken persuasion. They **disarm resistance**.
### Why this works
Freedom lowers threat perception.
When threat is low:
- The nervous system stays open
- Curiosity replaces defense
- Evaluation replaces reflexive rejection
People then assess the idea itself instead of the power dynamics around it.
Adams’ framing is practical: persuasion fails less often when it does not feel like persuasion.
### Freedom vs. force
Force can produce compliance.
Freedom produces alignment.
Compliance is brittle. Alignment is durable.
Adams emphasizes that persuasion knobs are about **voluntary motion**, not domination. If you must force, you’ve already failed at persuasion.
### The paradox
The fastest way to get people to do what you want is often to make it clear they don’t have to.
This feels counterintuitive—but Adams’ work consistently points to the same pattern:
> *People protect freedom more fiercely than they pursue benefit.*
### Why this knob comes first
Every other persuasion knob depends on this one.
Fear, curiosity, novelty, repetition—all fail if freedom is perceived as compromised. Once someone feels trapped, they stop processing content and start protecting identity.
Freedom keeps the channel open.
The next persuasion knob builds on this openness—because once people feel free, the question becomes what draws them forward rather than what pushes them back.
#nevent1q…v93p

2026-01-18 05:29:06 UTC

God is spoiling me

2026-01-17 21:00:00 UTC

- reply

## Knob #5: Mating Instincts
**One-sentence formulation:**
*Much of human behavior is driven by mating instincts operating below awareness; recognizing this prevents confusion, self-deception, and manipulation.*
### Adams’ core claim
Scott Adams argues that **mating instincts are one of the most powerful and least acknowledged forces shaping human behavior**. They influence decisions far beyond romance or reproduction, extending into careers, politics, morality, consumption, and social conflict.
The mistake most people make is believing these instincts are either irrelevant to them or fully under conscious control.
Adams’ position is blunt:
*If you don’t account for mating instincts, your models of human behavior will be wrong.*
### What Adams means by “mating instincts”
Mating instincts are not reducible to sex drive alone. They include the broader machinery of **sexual selection**, which expresses itself as:
- Desire for status
- Desire for admiration
- Desire to be seen as competent or powerful
- Desire to be virtuous, heroic, or morally superior
- Desire to be chosen, noticed, or respected
These drives often surface indirectly, cloaked in respectable language:
- Ambition framed as “impact”
- Competition framed as “principle”
- Virtue framed as “identity”
- Risk framed as “conviction”
According to Adams, the instinct fires first. The story comes later.
### Why people deny this knob
Acknowledging mating instincts is uncomfortable because it undermines preferred self-narratives. People want to believe they are motivated by reason, ethics, or calling—especially in public.
Adams points out that denial does not weaken the instinct; it **amplifies distortion**. When motives are unexamined, they leak out sideways as hypocrisy, overreach, or self-sabotage.
This is why people often:
- Overinvest in status games they claim not to care about
- Escalate conflicts unnecessarily
- Take risks that don’t improve their actual lives
- Perform beliefs more loudly than they live them
### Why Adams treats this as a “knob”
Because awareness changes behavior.
Once you recognize mating instincts at work:
- You stop misreading others’ actions
- You stop rationalizing your own excesses
- You gain the option not to play certain games
This doesn’t remove the instinct. It **restores choice**.
In Adams’ framework, ignorance of mating dynamics is not innocence—it is vulnerability.
### How this connects to the previous knobs
Running systems, stacking talents, and practicing affirmations all tend to **increase perceived status** over time. That naturally activates mating dynamics—both in yourself and in others.
Adams wants you to see this early, before:
- Success changes your incentives
- Attention distorts judgment
- Competition replaces purpose
Without this awareness, people often mistake biological pressure for destiny.
### What Adams is not claiming
He is not saying:
- All love is fake
- Moral commitments are meaningless
- Humans are nothing but animals
He is saying:
- Biology applies pressure
- Pressure shapes behavior
- Awareness restores leverage
You don’t transcend instincts by denying them. You transcend them by seeing them clearly.
### Why this knob matters
Mating instincts quietly steer people into roles they never consciously chose. They explain why intelligent people act irrationally, why institutions rot from the inside, and why personal success often carries hidden costs.
Understanding this knob does not make you cynical. It makes you **harder to fool**—by others and by yourself.
The next knob continues outward, because once you understand the biological pressures in play, the question becomes how you navigate social reality without losing authorship.
#nevent1q…x3p4

2026-01-16 17:43:36 UTC

- reply

It was plaatered all over the news August, Sept and October 2024. I'm not doing the work for you

2026-01-16 16:00:00 UTC

- reply

## Knob #4: Affirmations
**One-sentence formulation:**
*Your brain responds to repetition as instruction; affirmations program attention, expectation, and behavior in ways that make opportunities appear that otherwise never would.*
### Adams’ view of affirmations
Scott Adams has been explicit that this idea did not originate with him. He credits **Norman Vincent Peale**—particularly *The Power of Positive Thinking*—as a major influence. Adams initially approached affirmations with skepticism, but long-term personal experience forced him to revise his model of how the mind works.
His conclusion is pragmatic, not mystical:
**the brain appears to require programming**, and repetition is one of the primary programming mechanisms.
### What Adams observed
Over decades, Adams practiced affirmations consistently—simple, repeated statements about desired states or outcomes. He reports that:
- Opportunities appeared without deliberate pursuit
- Helpful people entered his life unexpectedly
- Problems resolved through paths he could not have planned
- Outcomes occurred that were disproportionate to effort
He explicitly states that he tried to explain this away using:
- Confirmation bias
- Selective memory
- Pattern recognition
…and still found those explanations insufficient.
His description is blunt: *“It’s as if things just come to you that wouldn’t otherwise.”*
### What affirmations are doing (on Adams’ terms)
Adams does not claim affirmations alter reality directly. His implied model is that affirmations:
- Retune attention toward opportunity
- Change micro-behaviors unconsciously
- Alter confidence signals others respond to
- Increase persistence under uncertainty
- Prime pattern detection toward usefulness rather than threat
In short, affirmations change **what you notice, what you attempt, and how long you stay in motion**.
Because most opportunities are weak signals rather than obvious doors, small perceptual shifts can create massive downstream effects.
### Why repetition matters
One-off positive thoughts do nothing. Adams emphasizes **repetition**, because repetition is how the brain distinguishes signal from noise.
The brain treats repeated inputs as instructions:
- Advertisements work this way
- Propaganda works this way
- Self-talk works this way
Affirmations are simply *self-directed programming* instead of outsourced programming.
### Positive vs. negative programming
Adams often contrasts affirmations with their inverse: chronic negative thinking.
Worry, rumination, and anxiety function as **negative affirmations**:
- “This will go wrong.”
- “I’m not prepared.”
- “Something bad is coming.”
These are also repeated.
They also program attention.
They also produce outcomes.
Adams’ claim is symmetrical: **negative thinking is powerful too**—just destructive.
### Convergence with Christian teaching
While Adams does not ground this in theology, the alignment is obvious.
Scripture repeatedly warns against anxious preoccupation:
- *“Be anxious for nothing…”*
- *“Do not worry about tomorrow…”*
- *“Your Father knows what you need.”*
The biblical concern is not mere emotional discomfort. It is **misdirected trust**.
Anxiety rehearses scarcity.
Faith rehearses provision.
Both are repeated internal statements.
Both shape perception and action.
Both generate real consequences.
In this sense, affirmations parallel a biblical discipline: **guarding the inner narrative**.
### Why this knob is controversial
Affirmations attract ridicule because:
- Mechanism is unclear
- Effects are probabilistic, not guaranteed
- Abuse by magical thinking discredits the practice
Adams’ defense is empirical, not ideological:
> *If a low-cost habit repeatedly improves outcomes, dismissing it because you can’t fully explain it is irrational.*
You are already programming yourself.
The only question is *with what*.
### Why this knob matters
Affirmations operate upstream of motivation, courage, and persistence. They influence which systems you keep running and which you abandon prematurely.
If systems are engines, affirmations are **fuel quality**.
They don’t replace effort.
They determine whether effort sustains itself long enough for reality to respond.
The next knob pushes this outward—because once your internal narrative is stabilized, the next constraint is how you interact with resistance, failure, and other people.
#nevent1q…xztz

2026-01-16 15:28:56 UTC

- reply

Am I supposed to prove something they were hiding? Look for yourself.

2026-01-16 14:19:22 UTC

- reply

The robots weren't enough proof?

2026-01-16 13:04:14 UTC

Biden's last 6 months in office were perhaps the best period of presidency in America's history... because he was dead.

2026-01-16 12:45:18 UTC

- reply

Power and money in bureaucracy ≠ creating high quality design and products.

2026-01-16 05:19:30 UTC

I'm considering making a follow-pack of fags - people that irritate me.

2026-01-16 05:12:18 UTC

- reply

I'm going to assume you mean in a man's beard.

2026-01-15 22:22:13 UTC

Experientia docet
If you believe you must first learn how others do a thing before attempting it yourself, you will eventually discover that those others learned by doing first. Their methods worked because they were fitted to their temperament, circumstances, incentives, and support structures. Once abstracted from those conditions, the method no longer transfers. What you call “learning” was delay. You would have learned more, faster, by beginning directly and allowing reality to correct you. Experience has no substitute because it cannot be borrowed.

2026-01-15 19:51:52 UTC

- reply

💩

2026-01-15 19:47:44 UTC

# Roads Without Roots: Mobility, Christianity, and the Fragility of Moral Order
Here is a claim that sounds strange until it becomes obvious, and frightening once it does:
**Moral order depends on friction.**
When exit becomes cheap, responsibility erodes.
When responsibility erodes, respect collapses.
This is not a story about decadence, ideology, or bad intentions.
It is a story about infrastructure.
---
## Roads Are Not Neutral
Large-scale road systems do more than move goods and armies.
They **reconfigure human accountability**.
Roads:
- collapse distance
- lower exit costs
- dissolve reputational enforcement
- weaken local obligation
- enable anonymity at scale
This is not moral speculation. It is structural reality.
Where people can leave easily, promises weaken.
Where obligations can be escaped cheaply, permanence feels irrational.
Civilizations have encountered this problem before.
---
## Rome Knew the Danger
The Romans built the greatest road system the world had ever seen — and they noticed the consequences.
As roads expanded:
- people detached from land and kin
- cities filled with rootless populations
- crime became mobile
- trust declined
- household authority weakened
- marriage and birthrates among citizens collapsed
Rome responded not by restoring friction, but by **centralizing control**:
- marriage laws
- penalties for childlessness
- legal intrusion into family life
- moral regulation by decree
They understood the problem.
They chose management over covenant.
It didn’t work.
---
## Christianity Was Not an Accident of the Roads — It Was a Solution to Them
Christianity emerged inside a high-mobility empire and did something unprecedented:
It **reconstructed moral constraint inside the will**, rather than relying on place, blood, or civic status.
Christianity offered:
- covenant without geography
- obligation without enforcement
- brotherhood without kinship
- permanence without enclosure
This made it uniquely portable.
A Christian remained bound:
- on the road
- in exile
- in prison
- in diaspora
- in slavery
Christianity was not merely compatible with Roman roads —
it was the only moral ontology that could survive them.
---
## Feudalism: Reintroducing Friction
After Rome’s collapse, medieval society did something unfashionable but effective:
It **raised exit costs**.
Feudalism, guilds, parishes, and manorial systems:
- bound people to place
- thickened reputation
- enforced obligation socially rather than bureaucratically
- stabilized family, work, and worship
This was not enlightened, but it was functional.
Christian morality endured because society **reintroduced friction** to support it.
---
## America Repeats the Pattern — Faster
Railroads reopened the problem.
Automobiles accelerated it.
Highways completed it.
By the mid-20th century:
- exit became cheap
- abandonment became anonymous
- reputation became optional
- permanence became fragile
The Interstate Highway System did not cause moral collapse —
it **made collapse scalable**.
By the late 1960s:
- obligation felt punitive
- permanence felt naive
- fault felt cruel
- exit felt therapeutic
Law followed reality.
---
## No-Fault Divorce: Covenant Admitted Dead
No-fault divorce did not liberate marriage.
It **ratified the death of enforceable permanence**.
Once exit was cheap:
- fault could no longer be coherently enforced
- responsibility could no longer be symmetrically imposed
- respect collapsed by structural necessity
Marriage became an administrated preference, not a covenant.
---
## Fiat Money: The Same Move, One Level Up
In 1971, the U.S. closed the gold window.
Obligation was severed from settlement.
Constraint was replaced with credibility theater.
Default was reframed as policy.
This was not coincidence.
A society that cannot sustain lifelong vows
cannot sustain redeemable money.
Both depend on the same thing:
**the ability to bind the future**.
---
## The Invariant
Here is the law underneath it all:
> **Respect exists only where one will must still account for another will as an irreducible source of constraint.**
Cheap exit destroys that condition.
Roads dissolve local enforcement.
Law replaces covenant.
Management replaces respect.
---
## Why This Matters Now
Modern society has:
- maximal mobility
- minimal friction
- declining trust
- collapsing commitment
- expanding enforcement
- moral language without moral leverage
We are not witnessing moral failure.
We are witnessing **structural unbinding**.
---
## Final Compression
Roads did not make people worse.
They made responsibility optional.
Christianity once solved this by moving covenant into the will.
Modern systems rejected that solution and chose administration instead.
When exit is free, respect cannot survive.
And when respect collapses, no amount of policy can restore it.
This is not a culture war.
It is a civilizational constraint problem.
And almost no one is prepared to name it.

2026-01-15 19:16:14 UTC

## No-Fault divorce and WTF happened in 1971?
When the law removes one spouse’s ability to refuse, exit, or impose cost, respect collapses by structural necessity, not by moral failure.
---
### How This Happened So Fast (1960s → 1970s)
No-fault divorce did not emerge because society calmly reasoned its way to justice.
It emerged because **multiple social shocks converged**, creating an opening that legal and bureaucratic elites exploited.
#### 1. The Sexual Revolution (Technological Shock)
- Oral contraception decoupled sex from reproduction.
- Marriage lost its function as the primary regulator of sexual behavior.
- Long-term obligation no longer matched short-term incentives.
This created instability *before* the law changed.
#### 2. Therapeutic Psychology Replaced Moral Language
- Duty was reframed as repression.
- Suffering was reclassified as pathology.
- Commitment became conditional on “personal fulfillment.”
Once permanence is pathologized, fault becomes cruelty.
#### 3. Second-Wave Feminism (Legitimate Grievance, Asymmetric Fix)
- Real injustices existed: dependency traps, abuse ignored by courts.
- But the solution chosen was not symmetry.
- It was **risk transfer**.
Marriage was transformed from a bilateral covenant into a **unilateral option with enforced financial extraction**.
#### 4. Bureaucratic and Judicial Incentives
Fault-based divorce was:
- evidentiary
- adversarial
- morally complex
No-fault divorce was:
- administratively simple
- caseload-efficient
- discretion-expanding
Courts preferred manageability over justice.
---
### Why Elites Benefited
This was not accidental.
**Beneficiaries included:**
- Legal systems (expanded authority, reduced burden)
- The therapeutic class (ongoing intervention, expert dependency)
- The state (greater leverage over family formation)
- Financial institutions (two-income necessity, debt expansion)
The family unit was weakened.
The individual became administratively legible.
Dependency shifted upward.
---
### How Coordination Happened (Globally, Rapidly)
This was not voted in by deep public consensus.
It followed a familiar pattern:
1. Cultural narratives shifted first (films, novels, TV)
2. Permanence was portrayed as naïve or oppressive
3. Reform was framed as “modernization”
4. Early adopters were praised; dissenters shamed
5. International policy imitation followed
This is **elite Schelling-point coordination**, not organic moral discovery.
Within a decade, deviation looked regressive.
Alignment became mandatory.
---
### Why This Outcome Is Structural and Inevitable
Here is the theorem:
> **Respect exists only where one will must still account for another will as an irreducible source of constraint.**
No-fault divorce, as implemented:
- Removes male exit leverage
- Presumes financial guilt without fault
- Makes refusal symbolic
- Makes compliance enforceable
Once a will is trapped, it is no longer modeled as an agent.
It is modeled as a resource.
At that point:
- Respect cannot be demanded
- Deference cannot be expected
- Reciprocity becomes incoherent
This is not about intentions.
It is about **incentive geometry**.
---
### Final Compression
The 1960s did not liberate marriage.
They **restructured it so that one will became optional and the other became captive**.
Once law enforces asymmetry, disrespect is not a vice.
It is the equilibrium.
You cannot moralize your way out of a structural violation of agency.
You can only restore constraint—or accept the consequences.
#nevent1q…59hl

2026-01-15 18:54:59 UTC

- reply

Its simple. In today's family law environment, women own everything and men have no legal power within the marriage without her ascent. This asymmetry structurally produces disrespect and disregard for the man. That ubiquity of disrespect in heterosexual relationships produces a cultural shift that expands outside the marriage, into general culture. Notice how fathers were represented on television and fiction before and immediately after Reagan enacted no-fault divorce in 1969 as governor of California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

2026-01-15 18:45:38 UTC

You cannot legislate respect. You can only make disregard costly.
Where constraint returns, respect follows
#nevent1q…yylq

2026-01-15 18:36:18 UTC

# Why Governments Don’t Respect Their Citizens — and Why Bitcoin Changes the Equation
Many liberty-minded people sense this intuitively:
as government power expands, respect for the populace evaporates.
This is not a moral failure.
It is a structural law.
## Respect Is Not a Virtue — It’s a Signal
Respect is not kindness, civility, or rhetoric.
Respect is the recognition that another party remains a **source of constraint** on your will.
You respect what you cannot fully:
- dominate
- replace
- extract from
- ignore
Respect tracks **irreducible agency**, not good intentions.
## Power Concentration Destroys Respect
When a government gains power while the people lose options:
- Exit becomes costly or illegal
- Refusal becomes symbolic
- Noncompliance becomes punishable
- Dependence becomes engineered
The populace ceases to be a counterparty and becomes an **input**.
At that point, respect is no longer rational.
Not because rulers become wicked, but because **they no longer have to ask**.
## Why Democratic Rituals Feel Hollow
When real constraint disappears, governments simulate respect:
- Elections without exit
- “Public comment” without veto
- Managed dissent
- Narrative flattery (“the will of the people”)
These are not expressions of deference.
They are signs that deference is no longer structurally required.
Consent becomes theater once refusal has no teeth.
## Taxation as a Diagnostic
Voluntary payment implies respect.
Forced extraction implies ownership.
When taxation is unavoidable, unescapable, and non-negotiable, the relationship has already shifted:
From partner → resource
From citizen → yield
The moral language may intensify, but respect is already gone.
## Governments Respect What Can Leave
States do not fear:
- atomized individuals
- captive labor
- compliant populations
They fear:
- capital flight
- skilled exit
- parallel systems
- jurisdictional arbitrage
Respect follows leverage, not legitimacy claims.
## Bitcoin Reintroduces Constraint
Bitcoin is not moral reform.
It is **structural resistance**.
It restores:
- exit without permission
- refusal without violence
- value storage without capture
- coordination without central approval
This is why it provokes hostility rather than debate.
Bitcoin doesn’t ask the state to be virtuous.
It makes the populace optional again.
## Why Deference Will Never Be Granted Voluntarily
No centralized power gives up leverage out of enlightenment.
It gives it up only when constraint reappears.
Bitcoin does not overthrow governments.
It **forces negotiation** back into a relationship that had become unilateral.
## Final Compression
Governments don’t disrespect citizens because they hate them.
They disrespect them because they don’t need them.
Respect only exists where power must still ask.
Bitcoin doesn’t demand respect.
It makes disrespect expensive.

2026-01-15 18:26:06 UTC

In a functional society, respect was demanded because if you didn't show it, your reputation would suffer.
In today's society, respect is rare and only afforded to those who might provide something of value you.
Respect is not only earned, it is also sold.

2026-01-15 15:51:39 UTC

You can't see dysfunction until you step outside of it.

2026-01-15 15:37:01 UTC

- reply

He said "they [Israel] want the US to do it [destroy all their enemies]."
I'm not disagreeing with everything else he is saying, only his frame that the "US" is separate from Israel.
https://blossom.primal.net/c44c007bb525457e06db6e9f01da9d0a0301a5cd168ccab2353911a02384f548.png

2026-01-15 15:28:38 UTC

- reply

Goebbels has Jewish facial features

2026-01-15 15:26:35 UTC

- reply

That what "Israel wants" is different from what the "US" government wants. Every Protestant church in America is captured and completely invested in Zionism. They seriously believe building a third temple will bring Jesus back. If you read Revelation, and realize their interpretation of it, they literally believe we can't get paradise without WWIII

2026-01-15 15:22:03 UTC

- reply

He is wrong because he thinks the US is separate from Israel. Israel isn't the 51st state, it's the 1st state.

2026-01-15 15:00:00 UTC

- reply

## Knob #3: Talent Stacking
**One-sentence formulation:**
*You don’t need to be the best at one thing; you become valuable and hard to replace by combining several above-average skills into a unique stack.*
### What Adams means by “talent stacking”
Talent stacking is the idea that **rare value comes from combinations, not extremes**.
Very few people are world-class at any single skill. But many people can become *top 10–20%* at multiple complementary skills. When those skills are combined, the resulting profile is uncommon enough to create outsized leverage.
Adams’ key insight:
> *Being pretty good at several things beats being great at one thing that lots of other people also do.*
### Why this works in practice
Single skills are commoditized.
- Specialists are easy to categorize.
- Categories are easy to replace.
- Replacement caps leverage.
Stacks are harder to replicate.
- They don’t fit job descriptions cleanly.
- They cut across silos.
- They create roles instead of filling them.
Someone who is:
- Decent technically
- Clear in communication
- Persuasive
- Reliable
- Systems-oriented
…is far more valuable than someone who is merely excellent at one narrow function.
Not because any one skill is exceptional—but because the **intersection is rare**.
### Talent stacking vs. “finding your passion”
Adams rejects the advice to “follow your passion” as naïve and risky. Passion is volatile. Markets don’t reward sincerity; they reward utility.
Talent stacking is pragmatic:
- You build skills that are useful.
- You let interest grow downstream of competence.
- You follow opportunity, not fantasy.
Passion is allowed—but it is not required.
### Why talent stacks create freedom
A narrow identity traps you.
- One role
- One ladder
- One failure mode
A stack gives you **optionality**.
- Multiple applications
- Multiple income paths
- Multiple exit routes
If one path collapses, others remain viable. You are less dependent on any single institution, manager, or market condition.
This is what Adams means when he says talent stacking is a “superpower”: it makes you *hard to corner*.
### How Adams thinks about building a stack
He emphasizes:
- Skills that compound (communication, persuasion, learning)
- Skills that travel across domains
- Skills that improve the effectiveness of other skills
He discourages:
- Hyper-specialization without leverage
- Identity built around credentials alone
- Waiting to be “chosen”
You don’t need permission to build a stack. You just start stacking.
### The deeper pattern
Talent stacking aligns with Adams’ broader worldview:
- Systems over goals
- Probability over certainty
- Exposure over prediction
You are not betting your life on one outcome. You are increasing the number of ways reality can reward you.
### Why this knob matters
Talent stacking shifts the question from:
*“What should I become?”*
to
*“What combinations can I assemble?”*
That shift replaces fragility with resilience. You stop optimizing for approval and start optimizing for leverage.
Tomorrow’s knob pushes this further—because once you have a stack, the next constraint isn’t skill, it’s how effectively you apply it in the presence of other people.
#nevent1q…7sxe

2026-01-15 04:35:32 UTC

I'm coming out of the dark ages and changing the LED bulbs over my kitchen table to incandescent.
https://i.nostr.build/mXWAbcqQQG5fIKJd.jpg

2026-01-15 04:30:16 UTC

We almost hit 100k again today. Did anyone notice?

2026-01-15 04:26:46 UTC

Sometimes the firehose is off

2026-01-15 04:24:24 UTC

- reply

Good heuristic

2026-01-15 03:06:49 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin extraction tool?

2026-01-15 03:05:15 UTC

- reply

Creates Twitter - Destroys government monopoly over journalist comms
Creates Square - Destroys government monopoly over payment comms
Creates Bitchat - Destroys government monopoly over protester comms
What's next on the docket @nprofile…eqct?

2026-01-14 20:51:29 UTC

I support March 4 Life, but I do not support children marching for life outdoors in the midst of societal collapse, where leftist domestic terrorists could take our children from us. I go so far as to say it is irresponsible for Catholic high schools to pressure parents to allow their children to march in front of state capitols, out in the open, and pretend as if our country is stable and civil enough to make such an activity even remotely safe. If your aim is to send your children to be martyrs for Christ, that's your business, but schools should ensure a high level of security in such an event. To provide none is not a reasonable assessment of risk.

2026-01-14 20:22:59 UTC

- reply

He denied Christ up until the end, then he invoked Pascal's wager a few days before he died.

2026-01-14 20:03:53 UTC

I tried this for first time today. It worked! Will be scheduling another post for tomorrow. Very powerful!
#nevent1q…3nj5

2026-01-14 18:42:21 UTC

- reply

Zoom out. The feet are 2 miles below the top of the head, where you would expect them if the head were about 1000' wide. Shoulders appear appropriately where one would expect. The mountain range is approximately proportional to a coffin.

2026-01-14 17:00:00 UTC

- reply

## Knob #2: Systems vs. Goals
**One-sentence formulation:**
*Goals tie your wellbeing to outcomes you don’t control; systems let you win every day by executing processes you do control.*
### What Adams means by “goals”
A goal is a specific future outcome: something you either achieve or fail to achieve.
On Adams’ terms, goals have several built-in problems:
- They are binary: success or failure, nothing in between.
- They depend heavily on factors outside your control.
- They delay satisfaction until completion.
- Until the goal is achieved, you are failing by default.
This creates a psychological trap. Even steady progress feels like loss. Motivation collapses when timelines slip. Identity becomes hostage to results.
Adams’ point is not that goals are bad intentions—it’s that they are **fragile motivational structures** in a stochastic world.
### What Adams means by “systems”
A system is a repeatable process you execute consistently that increases the probability of good outcomes, without requiring any single outcome to succeed.
A system:
- Can be executed daily
- Is under your direct control
- Produces immediate “wins” through participation
- Compounds advantage over time
Examples:
- Writing every day instead of “becoming an author”
- Exercising regularly instead of “losing 30 pounds”
- Reading broadly instead of “becoming smart”
- Practicing persuasion instead of “winning an argument”
With a system, success is defined as *showing up*. If you ran the system today, you succeeded today.
### Why Adams prefers systems
Adams assumes reality is noisy, probabilistic, and unfair. Talent is unreliable. Planning is brittle. Luck plays an outsized role.
In that environment, optimizing for outcomes is irrational. Optimizing for **process** is rational.
Systems:
- Reduce anxiety
- Preserve motivation
- Prevent despair during setbacks
- Keep you moving when goals would stall you
Over time, systems expose you repeatedly to opportunity. Outcomes emerge as side effects.
### The deeper insight
Goals ask: *“Did I win?”*
Systems ask: *“Did I do the thing?”*
One binds your sense of success to the world’s response.
The other binds it to your own execution.
Adams’ claim is blunt but practical: **you don’t control results, but you do control repetition**. Repetition beats intention.
### Why this is a foundational knob
Like framing, systems operate upstream of most visible success. People who appear “lucky” are often just running better systems for longer periods.
Once you shift from outcome obsession to process ownership, you stop waiting for permission from reality to feel successful. You become harder to discourage, harder to derail, and more likely to stumble into wins you never planned.
Tomorrow’s knob builds on this again—because once you’re running systems instead of chasing goals, the question becomes which internal levers actually keep those systems running.
#nevent1q…p8md

2026-01-14 15:12:23 UTC

- reply

Autism is an evolved state

2026-01-14 14:39:25 UTC

What basic and ubiquitous things do we have today that will be considered toxic waste requiring costly abatement in 50 years?

2026-01-14 14:26:24 UTC

- reply

Liberty is what you do freely, not what others do to you.

2026-01-14 14:22:48 UTC

- reply

Now tell me how much you can sell it for

2026-01-14 03:07:26 UTC

- reply

Only the most technical will understand bitcoin. People only need to understand that it is money. Understanding the difficulty adjustment is too high a bar - way, way too high. People want to be able to be ignorant and focus on the things they already know and enjoy. One should not need to be a day-trader to keep their wealth from being stolen by inflation. They shouldn't need to be a computer engineer to just use money. The average person will want bitcoin when they need it to buy things and to pay for things. Most people under 30 can't save 50 bucks from one month to another. They aren't going to understand why their money needs to preserve its value from year to year. If they aren't earning enough to keep up with their cost of living, they either blame themselves and get another job or they blame their employer and find a higher paying job; they never blame the money, and they definitely don't connect it to government spending. They just think "things are just getting more expensive" and "that's the way it's always been". The concept of inflation is way too abstract. The word alone is abstract. Most people aren't integrative systems thinkers. Bitcoiners are unusual that way - extremely unusual. We can only wait for the world to come around, and they will, but we bitcoiners will be grouped in with "anti-vaxers" and flat-earthers, because people that distrust the government already are. We are grouped in with conspiracy theorists, unfortunately, because that's the pigeon-hole we fit in for most people. People tolerate us, but *other* us. They will treat our ideas like leprosy, because they know if they take them on, they will be shunned the same way they shun us... And they are comfortably ignorant. Fuck 'em.

2026-01-14 02:41:18 UTC

- reply

Its about the same here

2026-01-14 02:22:51 UTC

Some things I think Jimmy Dore is lit. Other times I think he's delusional. He does not have a reliable take. I think he surrounds himself with blue collar liberals.

2026-01-13 19:36:27 UTC

This is my attempt at honoring the late Scott Adams’ contribution to the world.
Over time, Adams articulated what he called a *user interface for reality*—a practical framework for navigating the world as it actually operates, not as we wish it did. These ideas are not about moral virtue-signaling or abstract truth-seeking; they are about agency, persuasion, survival, and authorship in a reality mediated by human perception.
I will be posting one of his core bits of advice each day—what he referred to as the *knobs*: adjustable parameters that determine how effectively you author your own life, influence outcomes, and interact with other people inside complex social systems.
---
## Knob #1: Accept the Frame (Subjective Reality)
**One-sentence formulation:**
*Reality is experienced through narrative frames, not raw facts; if you argue facts without first identifying the frame, you are operating inside someone else’s interface.*
### What “the frame” is
A *frame* is the invisible boundary that defines how information is interpreted before reasoning begins. It determines what counts as relevant, what is assumed, what is emotional, what is moral, and what is even allowed to be questioned.
Frames are not facts. They are **contextual lenses**.
Most people mistake the frame for reality itself. That mistake is the primary source of confusion, manipulation, and wasted effort in politics, business, relationships, and public discourse.
### Subjective reality, not relativism
Adams is not claiming that objective truth does not exist. He is pointing out that humans do not interact with objective truth directly. They interact with **compressed, biased, story-driven models** of reality that feel true because they are coherent, emotionally resonant, and socially reinforced.
In practice:
- Truth does not persuade.
- Frames persuade.
- Facts are interpreted *after* the frame is accepted.
This is why intelligent people can look at the same data and reach opposite conclusions—because the disagreement is upstream of the data.
### Why arguing facts usually fails
When you argue facts inside a hostile frame, you legitimize the frame itself. You accept its premises, its moral structure, and its implied authority.
Examples:
- Answering a loaded question accepts the accusation.
- Defending yourself inside a false narrative validates the narrative.
- Providing data to someone who has framed the issue emotionally is ignored or reinterpreted.
Once you are inside the wrong frame, no amount of factual accuracy will save you.
### What “accept the frame” actually means
It does **not** mean agreeing with the frame.
It means recognizing that:
1. A frame is present.
2. It is shaping perception.
3. It is optional.
Once you see the frame as a construct rather than reality, you regain freedom of movement. You can:
- Reframe the issue
- Step outside the frame entirely
- Or use the frame tactically without believing it
The key shift is epistemic: *the frame is not the truth; it is the interface.*
### Why this is the first knob
Every other knob—persuasion, confidence, identity, leverage, emotion, narrative—depends on framing. If you misidentify perception as reality, you will constantly fight uphill battles against invisible constraints you never agreed to.
Adams’ insight is brutal but accurate:
**You don’t lose most arguments because you’re wrong. You lose because you never noticed the rules of the game.**
Seeing the frame is the beginning of authorship.
Tomorrow’s knob builds on this: once you see the interface, the question becomes how to move within it without being owned by it.

2026-01-13 18:11:54 UTC

- reply

Wow

2026-01-13 17:09:34 UTC

Give me low interest rates or give Jerome Powell life!
- Donrick Trumery

2026-01-13 16:00:13 UTC

When the government and banks are building, America is not.

2026-01-13 01:49:21 UTC

Virtue signal ahead
#nevent1q…y9ll

2026-01-12 17:18:55 UTC

- reply

#naddr1qq…d0we

2026-01-12 04:29:53 UTC

- reply

Very good day

2026-01-12 04:10:35 UTC

- reply

Subscribed

2026-01-11 20:58:45 UTC

- reply

https://i.nostr.build/KGK3O.jpg

2026-01-11 20:42:08 UTC

- reply

It has everything to do with diet. You almost have to have an IQ over 130 just to figure out what you should and shouldn't eat.

2026-01-11 20:40:58 UTC

- reply

I meant it in the opposite sense. If you as an adult are not overweight, it is a mark of intelligence. Not that if you are overweight, you must also be unintelligent.
If your children are overweight - I mean obese, and not weightgain during pre-puberty - it's a matter of your stupidity, not your children's lack of self control. By stupidity I don't mean intelligence, but lack of wisdom of and lack of taking responsibility for your children's health.
One can be intelligent and stupid, and one can be wise and unintelligent, but one cannot be both wise and stupid.
If you choose to ignore what the food and your lack of discipline is doing to your children - particularly with what information is available today - you probably are stupid and willfully ignorant. Eating soy, canola, preservatives, artificial flavors and colors, high carbs, junkfood and other manufactured slop is a choice, and making that same decision for your children is neglect.

2026-01-11 16:06:30 UTC

Owning bitcoin in a cold wallet is like holding 100-year old preferred stock certificates in Ford in your safe. No matter what happens to the stock market, your claim is still valid.
This analogy addresses the fears of "what if the internet goes down?" or "what if they shut down the miners?". No matter what happens to the network today or tomorrow, your proof of ownership is preserved behind 256-bit elliptic curve digital signatures. The bitcoin network is primarily a transaction processing and validation system.
For self-audit purposes, possession of secure private keys plus a validated copy of the blockchain showing an unspent output spendable by those keys is sufficient to be certain of one’s bitcoin holdings, independent of current network availability.

2026-01-11 15:42:32 UTC

Physical health is evidence of intelligence in adults.
Fat children is a marker of stupid parents.

2026-01-11 05:06:39 UTC

- reply

Our kicker kicked our own ass

2026-01-11 04:29:16 UTC

- reply

Twirter is the public toilets in central park

2026-01-11 03:12:54 UTC

- reply

Works for me. Maybe you need to grant access to files first

2026-01-11 00:43:30 UTC

- reply

Are you going to start talking about how much joy you get about watching these people get blown up too?

2026-01-10 23:12:00 UTC

- reply

Change your tampon

2026-01-10 15:58:59 UTC

- reply

If you are being given only two decisions, (whether either of them are evil or not) you are probably being manipulated. To choose neither is to remove power from the manipulation. If you are being given two choices and you don't like either, and you are being given a deadline to choose (like "if you don't choose now, I'm taking away the better option"), that is definitely a manipulation.
The addage about "choose between two evils" can be real and is unavoidable at times, and the solution "choose neither" can also be a resolution, but both addages are only a warning, not a hard rule.

2026-01-10 15:49:59 UTC

- reply

Whoever that fag reporter is cannot be trusted. He just yesterday did term-loading deception on a different story. There are at least three angles. The agent couldn't see the direction of the tires when he decided he was being targeted to be run over. How can everyone ignore that she was not obeying LEOs and fleeing with a person in the line of travel? Her wife was trying to open the passenger door at the same time. It's obvious she panicked, it's also obvious the officer determined in that instant her intent was to run him over. Being an adult means you have to acknowledge nobody is absolutely right, and that doesn't mean they are automatically unjustified. Nobody is arguing that she should have been killed, but also it seems one side wants to argue the officer is automatically wrong because of it. This situation is exactly how Derek Chauvin was unjustly tried and convicted, the difference is Mayor Frey isn't the ICE officer's boss, and AG Ellison can't withhold evidence again.

2026-01-10 15:31:53 UTC

- reply

I would love to remain in the Catholic church, but it decided I wasn't worthy about 1700 years ago.

2026-01-10 15:23:06 UTC

- reply

Yes. There is a third video taken from a ring cam on a house but I can't find it.

2026-01-10 15:10:23 UTC

- reply

You are hearing this from immature adults. Age brings wisdom, but few recieve it.

2026-01-10 05:55:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…hded

2026-01-10 05:49:54 UTC

Pot smoking makes you more susceptible to programming by the media. You smoke, snack, and zone out in front of the tube. Your altered state of mind lowers skepticism of what you are being told, so long as what you hear tends toward some form of paranoia.

2026-01-10 05:44:47 UTC

What in the hell happened to Jesse Ventura's brain?
#nevent1q…jggv

2026-01-10 04:36:12 UTC

I think the phrase “AI slop” is pointing at something real, but I don’t think the core problem is low quality or even inaccuracy.
It’s authorship.
What’s getting crowded out of the internet isn’t information, it’s effort. Belief. Risk. The small imperfections that signal a human actually stood behind the words and meant something by them.
AI doesn’t create lies so much as it creates inflation. You give it a thought, a hunch, a half-formed intuition, and it expands it into something clean, explanatory, and complete. And that’s impressive. But what gets lost in that expansion is the signature. The cost. The trace of a person.
You can feel it when you read it. Everything is grammatically correct, well-balanced, reasonable. And somehow interchangeable. Like it could have been written by anyone, which usually means it was written by no one.
What made the internet interesting in the first place wasn’t polish. It was compression. Slang. Assumed context. Sharp edges. People saying things a little wrong because they were trying to say something true before it slipped away.
Perfecting that kind of speech doesn’t preserve it. It erases it. When you “clean up” a person’s words too much, it becomes faintly comic, like translating street talk into a formal memo. The meaning survives, but the humanity doesn’t.
And here’s the subtle part: even when AI is acting on a person’s will, the output no longer belongs to them in any meaningful way. The will initiates the task, but it doesn’t inhabit the result. The authorship thins out. Responsibility dissolves. What’s left is content without a spine.
I don’t think this is about banning tools or moralizing technology. It’s about remembering what speech is for. Conversation is not a lecture. Posts aren’t white papers. Most of us aren’t trying to explain the world; we’re trying to meet each other in it.
If everything starts to sound like a textbook, people will stop listening. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s weightless.
So maybe the response to “AI slop” isn’t better prompts or better filters. Maybe it’s a renewed preference for costly speech. Words that took something to say. Words that could only have been written by that person, in that moment, with that set of constraints.
I don’t need perfection. I need to know someone was actually there.
(P.S. this was AI slop)

2026-01-10 00:01:43 UTC

- reply

They are too addictive. Nostr only.

2026-01-09 18:22:38 UTC

- reply

I tried those pirate websites. They are all getting shut down

2026-01-09 18:04:26 UTC

- reply

You have to sign over a paycheck to a dozen streaming services just to watch your local football team. My solution: watch minor leagues where it's far less rigged.

2026-01-09 16:07:55 UTC

Am I the only one with a supressed impulse to explicate turrets-style?

2026-01-09 14:11:11 UTC

- reply

That's what my kids do whenever they get fiduciary media as fungible debt green-ink notes

2026-01-09 00:17:26 UTC

- reply

My grandad called cryptos (including bitcoin) a "sheeney scheme". My dad calls bitcoin a "swindle by gooks". Not sure what to do with them.

2026-01-08 19:32:29 UTC

- reply

Maid-rite

2026-01-08 19:28:43 UTC

Goodbye Scott Adams

2026-01-08 17:05:21 UTC

- reply

I try to raise my kids like they are in the 80s. It's not absolutely constrained, but it teaches them how to be themselves.

2026-01-08 06:13:14 UTC

The easier it is to travel and communicate over long distances, the less time we spend together and share ideas.

2026-01-08 05:02:33 UTC

- reply

I tried fixing it. Spent 25 years doing it. It's out of my hands. Outside my circle of influence. Took me too long to figure that out.

2026-01-08 04:56:49 UTC

- reply

Burn it all down. My country has been dead for 30 years. My only home is distant enough I can't hear gunshots and sirens in the middle of the night.

2026-01-08 04:38:45 UTC

They don't make hats that fit me

2026-01-08 04:36:55 UTC

- reply

Welcome new nostard

2026-01-08 04:00:17 UTC

- reply

ICE is about the only legitimate federal department and that's the one they rile up the regardettes about the most.

2026-01-07 03:56:12 UTC

- reply

Why is he still talking about Biden?

2026-01-07 02:31:59 UTC

- reply

"Ariba Venezuela Mushachos" 🤣🤣🤣🤣

2026-01-06 20:54:14 UTC

- reply

Without white men there would be no white women.

2026-01-06 20:52:45 UTC

- reply

I wasn't considering new UTXOs as new monetary units, I was referring to the sum of all bitcoin existant on-chain. What I mean is that all bitcoin units come into existence through proof of work, not that all proof-of-work cause new bitcoin to come into existence. The transaction fees are the block reward in addition to the new (created/issued) bitcoin, and proof-of-work is expressed for the fee portion as much as for the issuance portion. Theoretically at some point in the future, when the tx fees reliably exceed the issuance, the hashrate might synamically vary block-by-block depending on total available fees in the mempool.

2026-01-06 20:29:44 UTC

- reply

New bitcoin is created (issued) each block according to the halving schedule. Of course 2140 isn't a hard date, ita dependent on the block time which generally less than the target block time due to average hashrate growth.

2026-01-06 20:27:56 UTC

#nevent1q…6y4q #naddr1qq…ukcj

2026-01-06 19:24:29 UTC

Money must be anchored to the physical world. That anchor is energy.
If a monetary unit can be created without cost, without energy expenditure, it has no physical basis. Even a perfectly cryptographic, trustless system that enforces scarcity without work would still be ungrounded. It would be a symbol without substrate.
What money represents is an exchangeable good that required effort to bring into usefulness. Effort implies time. Time implies energy. Value begins there.
Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is not incidental. It is the bridge between the abstract and the physical. Energy was expended. Humans chose to expend it. Will was embedded into existence. Like artisanry, that work is indelible.
Without the work, Bitcoin would lose its relation to the real world. With it, Bitcoin becomes an intangible good that can nonetheless carry real value. Existence of bitcoin testifies that someone sacrificed something irrecoverable: time, proven by energy burned.
Scarcity amplifies this. Cryptography preserves it. Ownership is not just possession of bits, but possession of the proof that work was done, will was exercised, and value was brought into being.

2026-01-06 06:42:38 UTC

I have known that Venezuelan dictators have required overrides in election machines produced in the US for nearly 25 years. This at the insistence of "certain US three letter agencies" for color revolutions in South America.
What I did not know is Russia, China and Iran had influence over the Venezuela.
What I also did not know is Iran, Russia, UK, Frence, Canada, US, Australia and NZ all share intelligence and personnel and have since Gen. Marshall.
Its all a marionette show, people.
Look up Harrison Bergeron.

2026-01-06 06:33:33 UTC

Lord she's restless,
Like cotton candy clouds that sail the day,
Slow and free.
And she possesses,
A mind that can't resolve itself to stay,
For long with me.
I thought I tried to keep her tied and satisfied
Until she really needs me,
(Yes I do.)
But when that certain look comes on her face,
I can't replace it, and she leaves me.
She's a butterfly in mid July
Who just can't wait to try her brand new wings
On brand new things.
And she needs no rhyme or reason when she goes.
Her mind is on what lies beyond that wall of blue horizon,
I suppose, and heaven knows,
She'll go sailin off on any old wind that blows.

2026-01-05 21:16:29 UTC

Nostr is the most PRIVATE social media because nobody ever reads your posts

2026-01-05 20:10:18 UTC

Minnesota - Land of 10,000,000 chumps

2026-01-05 19:56:22 UTC

- reply

Bring a spray bottle

2026-01-05 19:37:44 UTC

- reply

You are made for this