gotham_now / is on Nostr

"57a17b1dff81ccfb8ce78f721092bed1ad9224393860bafdfcea1591eabf8cb10ed867d32f6db055dc33cf59a802e1ff0033e96ca117373af899e6442b5383d1"

Last Notes

2024-05-14 14:43:08

- reply

*less recognition of the time passing in that moment

2024-05-14 14:41:21

- reply

I read, not sure where, that our perception of time is relative to our total experience of its passage. The more days you’ve had the shorter each new day appears to you. I’m not sure why that would be the case but it matches with my experience. Perhaps we filter out more of the details as our model of what is happening becomes more robust, so as we get older the brain is less attentive to the particular moments: it categorizes moments more effectively over time as a member of some set, saving resources but leading to this recognition of the time passing in that moment.

2024-04-18 03:12:00

- reply

Heterodox Academy put out an illustrated edition called “All Minus One” that covers the main points in two editions. They have links to pdfs of both here:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/all-minus-one/

2024-04-17 22:53:54

- reply

Providing the means for others to recognize a stupid game with stupid prizes in Bitcoin will disincentivize that behavior here. We can help everyone who wants to engage in that kind of behavior by directing them to their natural habitat, the shitcoin casino.

2024-04-11 15:59:51

- reply

Can it generate the same output despite environmental changes? This is not the same as adaptability; this is adaptability constrained by consistency in output. The ultimate adaptability outcome for Bitcoin is fiat. That’s not useful, so you implicitly disregard it. The ultimate adaptability in the universe is entropy. That doesn’t mean we view life as good if it immediately conforms with this outcome. I don’t think ossification vs adaptability is a useful frame in general. Principles vs pragmatism is a better framing of what I think you are trying to get at.

2024-04-02 21:24:47

- reply

Meh, the vogue of envious historians damning everyone more successful as deficient by their preferred standard is as much a product of our own time as it is a reflection on the period of “robber barons”.

2024-03-24 23:51:39

- reply

When I have this feeling, and I’m glad someone named it, it usually comes with a sense similar to that of knowing there are so many excellent books that I will not read, songs I will not hear, and stories I’ll never know. This used to bother me as a kid, but now it’s more of a reminder that the good things in life are so numerous.

2024-03-23 05:23:51

- reply

I enjoy knowledge for its own sake. I have always held that truth is worth pursuing. I’m excited if I can learn something new, whatever that may be. My day gets even better if I can apply that knowledge to achieving a goal, making a process better, or otherwise improving a situation.
I’ve come around to the view that where it’s appropriate and useful for me to judge others, which is rarely, the best criteria is virtue in the sense of excellence. Pragmatically it’s often better to figure out some criteria you share in common and work from that basis when addressing disagreements.
I’d like to see a world where individuals are free to pursue their passions and become the best versions of themselves they can be. What little I can do to help that process along is worthwhile, so I do what I can where I am with that in mind.

2024-02-09 17:09:18

- reply

No worries.
His mindset of territory, unification, and religion among a common people (the definition of which seems mostly based on what is useful at any given point) reminds me most of kings from European history.
I think he calculated he could expand or set up a buffer state, neutralize a perceived threat, and deal a blow to the US. I think, like most leaders now and in the past, he doesn’t really factor in human lives except to the extent that the domestic populace will revolt or it will weaken the states’ ability to project power in the future.
The fact that the madman portrayal was the chosen narrative by the same group with direct experience interacting with Putin is inexcusable unless they believed that he would never appear in media in the West. If they had chosen to use the ex-KGB ruthless killer that became dictator portrayal it would have made more sense, been far closer to the truth imho, and avoided all of the problems they will now have. It seems to me the choice to go with the madman frame was made to preclude negotiations.
Frankly this whole thing reminds me of WWI. An ultimately pointless conflict between arrogant powers. It was entirely avoidable, but no one with an ability to influence the outcome cared enough about the people affected to try.

2024-02-09 15:22:11

- reply

Your framing isn’t helping you. I didn’t claim to “like” any part of the interview in the sense of supporting Putin. I stated I don’t explicitly.
My judgment was based on how well he articulated his perspective, not that all his claims would bear out as truthful. If you don’t expect leaders, particularly those in a war, to use truth when useful and lies when useful you deserve to be deceived.
That being said, I don’t speak Russian so it’s unclear to me if the translation should have been grandfather. Either way, I thought it was an obvious attempt to paint Zelensky as a hypocrite. I thought the interpretation of WWII’s beginning was odd too. I thought his explanation of Soviet era policy regarding the treatment of Ukrainians as a separate group was odd. I thought his unwillingness to release that reporter was an obvious missed opportunity when you consider the potential gains, but I think that was one of the few instances where his domestic audience concerns overrode his desire to appeal to a foreign audience.
He isn’t a madman, and that’s a narrative disaster for the West.

2024-02-09 05:39:44

- reply

Putin has a clarity of perspective that, while obviously biased to reflect well on his own actions, enables him to describe the actions of all parties involved. Tucker encourages this throughout the interview. It is helpful if you are unfamiliar with the perspective of the Russian state. The more interesting parts of the interview occur later, around halfway, when Putin is describing recent developments in the global political situation. Throughout the interview he describes the actions taken by the US and Germany in a way that is calculated to undermine domestic support of those policies in those countries. He also repeatedly encourages Tucker to check his version of events with the US officials involved.
Putin comes across as, given a realpolitik perspective, a competent leader that can make his case simultaneously to both a foreign and domestic audience. The case is not new, though it likely will be to many that watch the interview.
The portrayal of Putin as a madman in the West will now likely backfire. The contrast is damning.
If you wanted Tucker to berate him, you’ll be disappointed. Otherwise, the interview was done well.
I hate that this has to be said, but it is possible to think all of this and not support Russia’s war in Ukraine or Putin in general. What you want and what is should be kept separate when attempting to understand reality.

2023-12-28 23:59:44

“The offshoots of human mental efforts, the ideas and the judgments of value that direct the individuals' actions, cannot be traced back to their causes, and are in this sense ultimate data. In dealing with them we refer to the concept of individuality. But in resorting to this notion we by no means imply that ideas and judgments of value spring out of nothing by a sort of spontaneous generation and are in no way connected and related to what was already in the universe before their appearance. We merely establish the fact that we do not know anything about the mental process which produces within a human being the thoughts that respond to the state of his physical and ideological environment.”
Excerpt From
Theory and History
Ludwig von Mises

2023-12-28 23:48:03

- reply

Heaven by DJ Sammy, Yanou, and Do.