Scott Domianus
Scott

Public Key

npub1804jmczuc0haa5zmlypvv53anmqernk5vck8w6qnyf27z98zsxfs4cazmj

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrh6edupwv8m776pdljqkx2g7easv3em2xvtrhdqfjy40pzn3grycpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsk3qpwp

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1804jmczuc0haa5zmlypvv53anmqernk5vck8w6qnyf27z98zsxfs4cazmj

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-12-23 20:39:07 UTC

- reply

Knowledge acquisition is not done by an individual agent. Knowledge is an evolving response informed by multi agent environmental threat assessments that are voted on between agents to determine an outcome best suited for all agents. You seem frustrated. What a silly thing to get emotional.

2024-12-23 19:37:34 UTC

- reply

Oh, I’m sure you want to continue believing you have autonomy. I’m sure you want to believe that you’re not controlled by the polar power dynamics of geopolitics and ingroup/outgroup identity formation. You’re the one trapped in a story, bro. Religion is a proponent of free will, and the lie that a misappropriation of that will results in chaos. The reality is we all have a role to play and you can’t pray that shit away. You making a decision is what you were gonna do anyway. You can call it whatever you want, but the only way to be fully free is to do the exact opposite of continue to live. And honestly, I think this simulation is a whole lot more fun than death.

2024-12-23 19:32:21 UTC

- reply

Yeah, I think world peace has a lot to do with getting away from this idea of individual agency. Like I don’t make any major decisions without consulting my wife. I’ve always had a problem with how we tally votes in an individualist way. It seems right on its face, this is an algorithm I came up with, but nobody ever thinks it’s useful: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tu6i2Zm1UxBIzmNE6-q_bRbdmoVraPSm/view?usp=drivesdk

2024-12-23 19:22:15 UTC

- reply

No. That we want a conscious AI I think is a very silly idea. Humans are conscious and collectively were fucking useless. There’s only a handful of us that actually make useful discoveries and my guess is that’s because it’s hard to motivate people with a capitalistic status game as a reward for innovation or evolution. I want a stable society for my great great grandbabies so I don’t give a shit about money.

2024-12-23 19:19:35 UTC

- reply

Well, yes, you only have free will to act self sacrificially. Any active selfishness is easily predictable. The only unpredictable thing would be self sacrificial.

2024-12-23 18:39:17 UTC

- reply

I think consciousness is the contradiction between individual short-term goals and what a species is, which is individual self sacrifice for collective long-term survival. Like how they say, the betas outsmarted the alphas to domesticate the species and that was beneficial for women. I guess what do you mean by conscious? Like conscious in the sense that it is a selfish agent? Cause the future of AGI is definitely agent interplay as I’m sure you agree

2024-12-23 18:25:52 UTC

- reply

Agreed but I’m more of a robert sapolsky fan on the subject. Sam’s silly idea of maximizing well-being to solve for morality is very low level. I would go as far to say the consciousness is emergent as a result of our brain grappling with language which separates the body that acts in the world out of instinct and the individual in the mind that is constantly questioning things.

2024-12-23 18:20:33 UTC

- reply

Yeah, but they won’t stick to their guns. Thinking that bitcoin is the wheel of the people has always been the problem. It’s such a libertarian way of thinking. Like the non-aggression principle totally ignoring the fact that the aggressor will win. When it comes to money, it’s just about bribing a majority. No one has a way to scale bitcoin adoption. No one is even trying to seriously start digital or virtual governments and you’re never going to get a currency unless you can replace the security government‘s provide, which is why people seed the power to print to them. People are bribed and become bought and paid for and give up their rights for little trinkets and shit.

2024-12-23 18:13:14 UTC

- reply

This is bias reinforcing, just an observation. This is why designing features quickly devolves into a free will debate. Is Will free… to make his own decisions:)

2024-12-16 03:48:27 UTC

- reply

Agents??
This is the work of how agents organize to form a collective consciousness. The human collective conscious is broken. We are a divided species. We are individualist. This is unintelligent. We get smart individuals every once in a while, not a wave of collective output consistently solving for environmental threats.
Who is taking seriously the next stage of agent organization? Who is building or funding a virtual species? I have been looking for people interested in this for a long time.

2024-11-30 18:44:29 UTC

@npub1xts…kk5s why is there a bug on my screen? https://image.nostr.build/97a7ffd942f24c76a9838267663814a97015c39505f2e99aec883e07395af717.jpg

2024-11-30 18:31:55 UTC

- reply

Moderation is a tool for determining what to trend though. Love your curiosity and wish moderation wasn’t needed to deal with all of the online emotionality. Moderation is such a blind spot for critical thinkers because we are bias falsifiers. For those who can’t do that, because of their inability to digest multivariant sensory data points and draw new conclusions, we need moderation to guide networks away from polar echo chamber formation.
@npub1sg6…f63m

2024-11-30 17:20:46 UTC

- reply

What are we even doing here? We all want the same thing! Why aren’t we discussing the deeper issues? We are all in this together.
Predictability is definitely a silly undertaking with infinite individual variability, as was said in the videos. That is a positive assertion. My issue is when content is made and circulated that isn’t getting to the heart of things. Let’s be constructive.

2024-11-30 17:11:42 UTC

- reply

That’s how you judge intelligence…?

2024-11-30 16:58:03 UTC

- reply

Biology is completely inappropriate… what sort of woke garbage is this? The action axiom is utter horseshit. Humans acting purposefully to achieve their desired ends is just another way of saying humans are self interested… Praxeology is a shity rebrand of Moloch as a positive. What a joke.

2024-11-30 16:52:54 UTC

- reply

The so called scientists of the natural sciences are just as stupid as the notion that the uniqueness of individuals is the logical starting point for the study of human behavior.
How about we put forth a truth claim that actually holds water…???
I am here to interact with the best and brightest on the internet.
Where is everyone?
@jack. Engagement is everything. Let’s have a discussion and we will solve defi and social together.

2024-11-30 16:38:36 UTC

- reply

“The uniqueness of all individuals is the logical necessary starting point for studying human behavior…..”
Praxeology is carefully crafted nonsense….
All content informs but seriously… if this is the starting point, what is even the point..?
Humans are not individuals… humans are an incredibly ignorant species to have constructed such a semantic framework for social dynamics.

2024-11-30 16:28:43 UTC

- reply

The idea that individuals have the capacity to “learn and choose“is also wrong. The free will debate is very silly. Free will only exists if there is an individual sacrifice being made. An individual cannot make a choice outside of the framework of their social or cultural environment, unless they are making an individual sacrifice, otherwise they are just acting out of self interest. A choice is not a choice if it is a determinant outcome of self interest which can be in favor of family in-group out to polar political in-group. Everyone who is acting in self interest can be observed as acting in a determinant fashion.

2024-11-30 16:22:48 UTC

- reply

Individuals CANNOT be predicted because the concept of “individual” is not based in reality. There is no such thing as “individuals” in sexual species. This concept is man-made and an incredibly ignorant.

2024-11-30 16:19:52 UTC

The consumption of content and the regurgitation of that same content with a rebrand has always been a virtue signal. How many times do I have to consume content that has been renamed and repackaged but is fundamentally the exact same thing as everything else? Where are all the people that actually think for themselves instead of all of the people that claim to think for themselves within a framework they didn’t create?

2024-11-30 16:16:01 UTC

- reply

Human action is purposeful, and the purpose is gene transmission. We know this…
Praxeology is fundamentally missing the boat because of a false premise found in lesson 2. People CAN be quantified by the purpose of gene transmission through gender role conformity to serve as an individual mating strategy for the transmission of their genes. 1:1 sex ratio is a cultural constant and inborn as a result because gender roles are an attractive division of labor and inform the differences in males and females of all sexual species’.

2024-11-19 11:19:45 UTC

- reply

This is the problem everywhere. Pretty widely held that a democracy of morons doesn’t work. What else is a marketplace of ideas if not voting in favor of ideas with identity formation and in-group affiliation. There’s a few ways morons respond. They don’t which is a type of response. They lash out or laugh off what you’re saying because they don’t want to contend with it intellectually. or they become curious because they have the humility to admit that they don’t know everything. I hope you are not emblematic of this community.

2024-11-19 11:07:31 UTC

- reply

What exactly did I say that doesn’t sit right with you

2024-11-17 15:37:38 UTC

- reply

From insular to collaborative could not be more true. I’m new here so respect is due. I am nontechnical so all I offer is architectural advice, but so far what I see is this has all the makings for the future of networking, including a billionaires favor and what is holding it backs is what holds back everyone, a failure to understand human motivations, the dynamics of the will to power, such is moloch in game theory and sexual selection, a social network not built for individuals but women. Bluesky will become the home for radical feminists and beta males. The exact opposite is true for X. @npub1sg6…f63m did what he could I. The days of twitter but that is over now and the landscape has changed. Microblogging will polarize into two dominant echo chambers and it will be very hard to pull users away from either after these two have fully matured into their bias enforcing market positions. Now is the time to onboard because the X exodus is happening. This requires an algorithm that selects for a new temperament of influence. You can’t look at social as a democracy of ideas anymore when you understand that democratic voting is itself inherently a flawed model. We are selecting for division using the voting model that is currently considered the arbiter of truth. Polarity is not truth. Polarity is disagreement on the nature of truth. Solving polarity means trending agreeable influencers. People are very similar to understanding when you realize that they are all interested in power and all interested in gene propagation. Radical authoritarian men and radical authoritarian women are imposing their will on agreeable people and this is the forcing function of all political division. They do it to virtue signal their ability to protect agreeable people from each other resulting in our inability to mate agreeable men with agreeable women because if they don’t their genes will not transmit into the future. Radical disagreeable men and women have destroyed the divorce rate, the birthrate and the evolution of our species to prolong their lines and it has to stop.
I understand this a lot to take in much less fully grasp, but if you can, you are not prepared to fuck around in the realm of network architecture. This is a serious subject that piddly little features doesn’t solve.

2024-11-17 15:05:38 UTC

- reply

Bluesky sucks because it is leaning heavily into leftist radical thought as a scaling strategy. It is creating a dangerous echo chamber. Their starter packs idea was really smart. They know how to scale, but people are using those starter packs As tools to block people at scale. they will hit a brick wall and they are not intellectually prepared for it

2024-11-17 15:03:13 UTC

- reply

It is such a challenge to explain to people that free speech enforcement is not decentralization for some reason…? People lie for personal gain - to game the network and assume status. They do this by finding a niche identity that positions them to blame half the network into a collective state of polarization. Polarization is the exact opposite of consensus. Decentralization has to be consensus for there to be organic self governance as opposed to centralized governance. We need to get away from this ridiculous idea that free speech absolutism works. Lying is not a right. @npub1sg6…f63m was on the right track with the centrist mindset at Twitter, but ever since then no one has been doing meaningful work on content moderation.

2024-11-16 19:17:27 UTC

How do bitcoin max types plan to convince politicians that need the ability to print money to fund vote bribery that they should just do what is best for the economy?
Let’s just fucking be honest about the situation we are in. Bitcoin will always be a commodity as opposed to a currency because it doesn’t solve the bigger issues.

2024-11-16 11:35:35 UTC

There is this ideology that disagreeableness is the forcing function that underpins all human innovation. But this is just not the case. The cause of consensus divergence is the manipulation of language for the betterment of self at scale. We evolved language before it became a post Dunbar problem. Disagreeableness is senseless disagreement for the sake of disagreement to self validate. It is a power acquisition strategy. You claim individual intelligence when it does not exist and use that to justify polar acquisition of resources.

2024-11-15 13:41:45 UTC

- reply

You can’t speak truth to power if you aren’t speaking out of both sides of your mouth. We live in a time when both sides are full of shit and they retain a balance of power because we aren’t creating a reward protocol for a centrist influencer class that is paid using the same advertising model web2 used to polarize society to the point we are today. Use the weapons of your enemies for fucks sake. We need to fund a centrist revolt. We need to fund the livelihoods of the influencer leadership that will be the voices against the theater of division propagated by the uniparty.

2024-11-15 13:24:55 UTC

- reply

This beautifully solves the centralization of power but the incentive to adopt it isn’t there for the two competing political forces. The pressure to conform to the vanguard system is too strong. This means the center doesn’t organize on platforms like this, they are pulled to one side or the other. Everyone working in cryptography needed to take a few more humanities classes.

2024-11-15 12:05:09 UTC

- reply

Censorship resistance is the wrong story to tell. The story to tell is disagreeableness versus agreeableness. Build an agreeableness trending protocol and you get a new class of influencers. This is how you polarize the microblogging space to put a check on the radical idiots on both sides

2024-11-15 11:53:07 UTC

The stoic:
My problems are mine, you can’t have them.
Me:
These are our problems, you can’t claim them

2024-11-14 18:42:34 UTC

Social networks are reinforcement bias networks. They are populated by agents seeking confirmation, rewarding those with attention who are willing to omit truth.
This all stems from an individuality bias. We ascribe value to individual minds out of vanity but there is no mind without 1:1 sex ratio and male and female differences that remain stable overtime to select for the birth of minds.
People are not first principles thinkers. They are just self aggrandizing, ungrateful cogs in a cycle of civilizational booms and busts.

2024-11-14 18:32:08 UTC

What is your first principle? If you are a “from first principal thinker”, then you have a first principal. What makes you think it is ‘the first principle’ and not just the level at which you understand everything?

2024-11-14 18:26:14 UTC

@npub1sg6…f63m X and threads are going to ideologically polarize the intellectual web. There is no coming back from this.

2024-11-13 17:06:14 UTC

- reply

OK, fine you win, we’ll make bitcoin the embedded currency, for scalability of the rest of the features. But the people who own so much of this bitcoin are going to have to buy into the network and start paying taxes, you can’t have a tax-free society. You have to deal with the issue of inequity, a value add disparity. You can near infinitely fractionate the amount of available bitcoin but you need to issue a UBI that can be borrowed against so all users can never be too big to fail, can never over barrow and bubble the system. This means you need to get everyone who owns a majority of bitcoin to agree to start a new bitcoin backed virtual government - total coup. A dilution majority have to be established essentially to form a collective trust that will scale the network overtime. I would think it would be easier from a governance perspective to have no one have power in the beginning, but I understand scaling is the top priority. Can power succession to the protocol be delivered by the elite in the bitcoin community??? Will the wealthy put their bitcoin where their mouth is?

2024-11-12 18:15:03 UTC

- reply

Fund me 2m, you rebrand it
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yfNJAUxtgPJ_Jb-2fDP6jh2k5B9FKidu/view?usp=drivesdk

2024-11-12 17:43:00 UTC

- reply

No, debt not being scarce resulting in inflation of fiat has hurt workers and caused economic harm.

2024-11-12 13:42:25 UTC

The problem with bitcoin is the adoption profit motive. Anything with an adoption profit motive is a pyramid scheme. Any currency that starts this way presupposes that early adoption/intelligence should be rewarded monetarily over late adoption/ignorance. This runs directly contradictory to the function of a minimum wage which values all individuals equally.

2024-11-12 13:39:16 UTC

This network is the best we’ve got but that is not a rave review.
There are two different definitions of decentralization. Two different problems people are trying to solve.
Some people are trying to secure private interaction and exchange and the others are trying to constrain social manipulation and network polarization.
Privacy is an attempt to secure freedom to do the right thing by people who do the right thing - that is just an echo chamber.
You are not going to get privacy because power on both sides won’t let you have it. It’s the only thing they agree on.
You need to reverse the power polarity to actually decentralize a network.
You need to shrink the power of the fringe on both side of the influencer spectrum, and this is exactly how you would scale a competitor to twitter. You need to polarize the micro blogging space like Roger Ailes did with traditional news media. He did it in a centralized way, but on the Internet, you have to do it in a decentralized way, using network effects, and that means an algorithm that rewards a new class of influencers.

2024-11-12 13:21:56 UTC

The problem with microblogging today is that we are in a period of public square fractionation. We are building echo chambers across the internet instead of having real discussions about structure. Everyone that isn’t a right of center nationalist has left Twitter to join confirmation bias networks. These network operators are only interested in daily active users so they pander to ignorance.

2024-11-10 17:14:05 UTC

- reply

At scale humans polarize networks. Right now we are in a phase of echo chamber networks. Do you want to scale this? Is it the goal?

2024-11-10 17:09:38 UTC

- reply

Agreed. Markets are valuable. But individual self interest is a big problem. Moloch in game theory?
I get centralized versus decentralized.
Is it really decentralized if individuals are gaming it?

2024-11-10 17:06:12 UTC

- reply

So you are a free market absolutist..? Individuals don’t impose a cost out of self interest?

2024-11-10 17:02:13 UTC

- reply

Good answer. Will the tools scale as a result of benefitting a super majority of the human species?

2024-11-10 16:57:54 UTC

- reply

Can you tell me your elevator pitch? What is this place and what do you want it to be?

2024-11-10 16:43:19 UTC

- reply

You have a long way to go. What is your solution for network polarization? If you want to facilitate transactions away from fiat you need scarce debt and welfare in the form of a network tax to fund a commons with a UBI.

2024-11-09 02:22:12 UTC

- reply

The problem is people are picking their poison. Why not a network that trends a new influencer class? We could use a new one

2024-11-09 01:42:01 UTC

- reply

Thanks

2024-11-08 18:31:19 UTC

We need a new class of influencers to balance out all of the shity ones we have now
#introductions