lkraider

I don’t disagree, just pointing out there is a battle because the “objective-reality only” has been over extended for centuries now, and it is receiving backlash now, and not necessarily that is all good.
For me personally, my worldview is Christianity, and the material is integral to the Truth in the Incarnation, as is the Spirit.

2026-04-18 16:06:07 UTC

- reply

I typed illuminism but meant enlightenment

2026-04-18 12:31:08 UTC

- reply

That’s hardly the problem really. There is a divide in institutional trust and the underlying metaphysics that people will base their ontology of the world on.
If one trusts “basic data” and “critical thinking”, they are usually okay with the illuminism goal of a self-proclaimed neutral scientific worldview.
On the other hand, there is also a rejection of that method and worldview, which places meaning first and posits there is no “neutral data” per se. It mostly manifests by placing consciousness, meaning and self experience first.
This latest worldview doubts the mainstream fruits of scientism and its revolutionary movement as a whole, because it clearly sees there is always an intent to direct attention to any data, there is no neutrality as proposed and actually can be captured to control societal behavior.

2026-04-17 13:17:47 UTC

- reply

“self-deception is a genetic benefit” would summarize the philosophy proposed in a short tagline.
One more point for the underlying “bad is good” evolutionary morality.

2026-04-16 17:00:49 UTC

- reply

Well, if they get motivated enough perhaps. I am not worried about it though.

2026-04-16 13:04:10 UTC

- reply

You are assuming a single focused societal/civilizational objective. That does not happen. If designing a new airplane takes decades, this one can only be measured in centuries.

2026-04-16 02:10:53 UTC

- reply

This is so not happening. Even if you assume the premise is true, the scale of time to achieve something like this would be 300 years or more.

2026-04-13 02:15:50 UTC

- reply

My Ai reading trying to predict the failure mode:
If that classical Planck-local picture is true, the most likely failure is not “the chip explodes at 1609 qubits.” It would look more like a scaling pathology.
The paper itself only goes this far: either large quantum computers succeed and pressure classical Planck-local models, or they keep failing “with no apparent technical reasons,” which could be the first hint of a limit to quantum mechanics. It does not predict a detailed failure mode. It also gives several different thresholds - about 525, 806, 1050, and 1609 logical qubits - depending on how much hidden classical computation and communication you allow. So the relevant quantity is not a single raw qubit ceiling, but a complexity ceiling tied to demonstrated equivalent classical operations and rate density.
If I pressure-test the idea, the main possibilities are these.
• A soft wall, not a hard wall. Small and medium fault-tolerant demos keep working. Then, as logical depth, entanglement volume, or algorithmic complexity rises, progress stops improving in the expected way. You keep adding engineering effort, but the logical error rate stops dropping enough to support deeper computations.
• Correlated errors that refuse to factorize. Standard fault tolerance assumes noise is mostly local, weakly correlated, and tame enough that bigger codes help. A deeper Planck-local limit would probably show up as extra cross-qubit, history-dependent, or many-body correlations. In plain terms: the machine would look normal at small scale, then start producing “mysteriously coordinated” failures once the hidden classical substrate is overloaded.
• Error correction plateaus or backfires. One of the clearest signatures would be that increasing code distance, adding more ancillas, or running more rounds of syndrome extraction no longer improves logical fidelity as theory predicts. At first that looks like bad engineering. It becomes interesting only if the plateau persists across architectures and labs.
• Complexity-dependent failure. The device might still do useful quantum sensing, chemistry, optimization, or shallow circuits, but repeatedly fail on the workloads that most strongly exploit the exponential state space - especially long, verified, fault-tolerant runs of Shor-type arithmetic. That would matter for Bitcoin because the dangerous task is not “any quantum computation,” but sustained fault-tolerant execution deep enough to solve elliptic-curve discrete logs.
• Verification drift toward classically compressible outputs. If the hidden classical substrate cannot really sustain the full quantum evolution, the machine may start returning outputs that look subtly more classical than they should. Not random garbage - something worse for the hypothesis test: outputs that are biased, truncated, or easier to simulate classically than the claimed circuit should allow.
• Cross-platform convergence on the same cliff. This is the strongest sign. If superconducting, trapped-ion, neutral-atom, and photonic systems all hit a similar complexity wall after very different engineering improvements, then “just another hardware problem” becomes less convincing.
For Bitcoin specifically, the first visible symptom would probably be this: teams keep improving qubit counts and individual gate fidelities, but the full stack needed for a practical Shor attack on secp256k1 never closes. You would see repeated inability to maintain the logical depth and logical fidelity needed for long modular arithmetic and phase estimation, even though smaller benchmark tasks keep improving. In that scenario, Bitcoin is not saved by a theorem. It is saved by a stubborn scaling failure in fault-tolerant QC.
The strongest opposing view is that every one of these signatures can be mimicked by ordinary engineering pain - crosstalk, calibration drift, leakage, thermal issues, bad decoders, fabrication limits, control electronics bottlenecks, or flawed noise models. So “QC keeps failing” is weak evidence by itself. To count as evidence for a Planck-local classical limit, the failure would need three properties at once:
• it appears at a complexity threshold, not just a hardware threshold,
• it survives across very different qubit platforms,
• it cannot be removed by better isolation, control, decoding, or architecture.
My best recommendation is to watch error correction, not headline qubit counts. The most telling failure would be an unexplained, reproducible breakdown in the expected scaling law of logical error suppression as circuits get deeper and more entangled.
Now the argument against that recommendation: even that would still not prove a Planck-local classical substrate. It might only prove that our fault-tolerance assumptions were too optimistic, that a hidden noise source was missed, or that the practical overhead for cryptographically relevant QC was much larger than expected.
So the clean answer is this: if the classical Planck-local explanation were true, I would expect a persistent, architecture-independent scaling cliff - most likely seen as irreducible correlated noise and failure of logical error correction to keep buying more reliable depth. Not a dramatic qubit-number wall, but a failure to cross the depth-and-fidelity threshold needed for cryptographically relevant attacks.

2026-04-08 02:14:21 UTC

- reply

Isso ainda é pouco. Só vai piorar.

2026-04-06 00:51:59 UTC

- reply

Yes he is. It seems dome people still believe in political utopia, that’s a failed belief, and will only ever lead to suffering.

2026-04-05 22:18:21 UTC

- reply

Pix já é exatamente isso ai

2026-04-04 17:34:48 UTC

- reply

“Nunca é noite no mundo todo”? Sim, e vai querer puxar energia solar do Japão para a Europa?
O mercado de energia é uma área completamente estratégica em todo planeta, impossível separar em uma lente simples de consumidor / gerador, é intrinsecamente politica pois envolve interesses sociais de longo prazo.

2026-04-03 03:20:55 UTC

@npub1qqv…cn3w
Have you already delved into the “Gravity-isn’t-real” rabbit hole?
https://youtu.be/SQcH-yrM75M

2026-04-02 11:56:08 UTC

- reply

When they are dancing to you, you know you’re being played

2026-04-02 00:24:11 UTC

- reply

It’s a distraction from the real events.

2026-04-01 10:27:10 UTC

- reply

Todos os painéis solares do mundo juntos não vão gerar nenhuma potência, à noite.

2026-03-30 23:01:26 UTC

- reply

Around 48:00 mark

2026-03-30 23:01:08 UTC

- reply

I mean, at least this one was labeled as a simulation: https://archive.org/details/cbs-news-special-the-week-in-space-june-3-1966

2026-03-30 12:38:23 UTC

- reply

Para onde estão indo

2026-03-30 01:09:05 UTC

- reply

**How Radar and Military EM Sensing Shaped Wi‑Fi Sensing**
Radar and military EM sensing provided both the physical understanding and many of the algorithmic tools that Wi‑Fi sensing later adopted.
First, decades of radar and passive coherent location research established how to exploit reflections of non‑cooperative signals for ranging, Doppler estimation, and target tracking, directly inspiring passive Wi‑Fi radar configurations where access points act as illuminators of opportunity.
Second, ELINT and MASINT developed sophisticated methods for extracting information from noisy, multipath‑rich EM environments, conditioning analysts and engineers to look for signatures in side‑channels and ambient fields, a mindset that aligned naturally with using Wi‑Fi channels as sensors rather than just pipes for data.
Third, JCAS work explicitly framed communication and sensing as joint functions of a single RF system, laying the conceptual and standardization groundwork for 802.11bf and commercial Wi‑Fi sensing that now treat CSI and related measurements as first‑class sensing outputs.
Finally, the ubiquity and low cost of Wi‑Fi hardware, combined with the availability of CSI from 802.11n/ac devices, made it economically viable to apply radar‑style processing and modern machine learning to human sensing at scale, a path that would have been impractical using only traditional military radars or bespoke sensors.

2026-03-24 02:05:42 UTC

- reply

Does it count if I told another dev to write the line?

2026-03-24 02:04:12 UTC

- reply

https://youtu.be/YkAAx5O_03k

2026-03-23 12:24:02 UTC

- reply

Yes I know about the atonement idea, but this salvation economics is directly derived from Roman Catholic judicial understanding, it never entered EO as such. Yes it is important, but the completion comes from the Resurrection.

2026-03-23 11:19:04 UTC

- reply

Yes it happened to me too, that’s all I can base everything on, and I know it required me collaborating with going through the change and to continue onward, as temptation comes at all times to fall from the path. Jacobs ladder and all that.

2026-03-23 11:01:07 UTC

- reply

This is a fundamental difference in EO and western thought. God wants us to be close to Him, but in our free will we deny God, and the self-imposed distance causes the suffering, which is read as wrath but is actually distance from His love. The path to Theosis is one of synergy with God.

2026-03-23 04:11:07 UTC

- reply

God is loving, not wrathful. Espousing that God is guided by wrath would be blasphemy.

2026-03-23 04:08:26 UTC

- reply

Nothing in this makes any sense whatsoever.

2026-03-23 04:03:25 UTC

- reply

Attention is a limited resource.

2026-03-22 15:32:35 UTC

- reply

Good is Bad and Bad is Good.

2026-03-22 12:04:51 UTC

- reply

Interests here are 12%+ anually and people buy homes.

2026-03-22 10:56:43 UTC

- reply

Yeah sure “satellites”, not a weapon for hire targeting Earth in any way…

2026-03-22 10:54:19 UTC

- reply

Yeah, no thanks.

2026-03-21 01:32:21 UTC

- reply

Yes. But also now name the banksters, and notice why Israel is the concentration of all that too. #noticing

2026-03-21 00:16:44 UTC

- reply

Not Czech, but would be trapped. Also 5/5 would trigger the trap again.

2026-03-21 00:15:17 UTC

- reply

As a follower, could you tag these with #wordle or #word5str or some other tag? Just so I can filter them out 😅

2026-03-21 00:11:39 UTC

- reply

There is proof because they tried the exact same playbook in Brazil some weeks later - white security guard holding down black rando which “can’t breathe”. Most american psyops get a rerun in Brazil, if you keep an eye out for it, like the “insurrection” event too.

2026-03-21 00:06:30 UTC

- reply

George Floyd was a psyop. And the protests were paid by the elites.

2026-03-21 00:01:31 UTC

- reply

Soy face

2026-03-20 21:51:14 UTC

- reply

Is this photo for real?! Maybe they are sending the diversity battalion as a human shield🤣

2026-03-20 21:37:45 UTC

- reply

The post is about iOS tho, don’t know if you even can disable usb on iOS

2026-03-20 10:59:45 UTC

- reply

The core indoctrination is the teaching that things in the universe and the universe itself doesn’t have a purpose, when we look around and everything obviously has a purpose.

2026-03-20 01:52:21 UTC

- reply

This just obviates that the god he believes in is satan himself.

2026-03-20 01:35:31 UTC

- reply

She is not divine, but she is not merely a “sister.” She is the Theotokos, because the one she bore is one Person, fully God and fully man.
The one born of her is not another person alongside God. He is the eternal Son of God Himself, who became man. That is why the Church calls her the Ark of the New Covenant.

2026-03-19 11:56:13 UTC

- reply

Extorção Judicial

2026-03-19 10:51:03 UTC

- reply

Yeah, give in to the Spirit of Revolution, deny reality in favor of dreams, see where it leads you. There is a reason this was abandoned circa 300 AD, there are no fruits for these thoughts, they are a delusion. Heresy means “choice”, it is the opposite of humility. We are learning the extent our choices to depart from reality are leading us.

2026-03-19 10:45:41 UTC

- reply

This guy is just rehashing his own version of Gnosticism. Basic heretic.

2026-03-19 01:29:43 UTC

- reply

700 M men will die

2026-03-18 08:54:00 UTC

- reply

Foi um pouco de sarcasmo: ali é mais verdadeiro pois só tem um candidato mesmo, logo a ilusão da escolha nem existe.

2026-03-18 01:58:37 UTC

- reply

Questioned my AI agent about it:
---
A “security” is not merely a legal label; it is a particular kind of relation of claim and expectation structured in time. To answer ontologically, we have to ask: what kind of thing is a security, and what properties make it what it is?
⸻
1) Ontological category
A security is not a substance (like a physical object), nor a mere idea. It is best understood as a:
Relational, institutional, teleological object
• Relational: it exists between parties (issuer ↔ holder).
• Institutional: it depends on a recognized framework of authority (law, enforcement, accounting).
• Teleological: it is oriented toward an end - namely, profit derived from an external source.
So ontologically, a security is a formalized claim on future value mediated by others.
⸻
2) Core metaphysical properties
A thing is a “security” when it participates in the following essential properties:
a) Derivative dependence
Its value is not intrinsic, but derived from:
• the performance of an enterprise, or
• the actions of identifiable others.
It is ontologically parasitic on another activity.
⸻
b) Expectation of profit (teleology)
It encodes a future-directed orientation:
• the holder possesses it because of an anticipated gain.
This is not incidental; it is part of its formal cause.
⸻
c) Delegated agency
The realization of that gain depends on:
• managerial effort,
• entrepreneurial action,
• or organized coordination external to the holder.
The holder is not the primary efficient cause.
⸻
d) Abstract claim structure
It represents:
• a right, entitlement, or slice of flows (cash, governance, residual value).
This is a formal relation, not a material object.
⸻
e) Institutional grounding
Its existence depends on:
• enforceable rules,
• recognized authority,
• shared symbolic systems (contracts, ledgers, registries).
Without this, it collapses into mere intention.
⸻
3) Form vs matter
Using classical metaphysics:
• Matter: the substrate (paper certificate, database entry, token)
• Form: the structured relation of claim on future value via others
A security is defined by its form, not its substrate.
A blockchain token can be a security if it instantiates that form.
A paper document may not be a security if it lacks that structure.
⸻
4) Boundary with “non-securities”
Now contrast with what the SEC chair listed:
• Digital commodities → have intrinsic or use-based value (they are closer to substances or tools)
• Digital collectibles → derive value from rarity or symbolic meaning, not delegated enterprise
• Digital tools → their value is immediate utility, not future profit from others
• Payment stablecoins → aim at value stability, not profit expectation
These lack one or more of the essential properties above, especially:
• teleology toward profit
• dependence on others’ managerial action
⸻
5) Higher metaphysical framing
A security belongs to the category of:
“Participatory claims in ordered economic action”
It is a formal participation in another’s productive hierarchy.
In more classical terms:
• It is a mediated participation in another’s energy (energeia).
• The holder does not act, but partakes in the fruit of action.
⸻
6) Strong opposing view (expert critique)
An opposing ontological view would argue:
• A security is not metaphysically distinct at all.
• It is simply a legal classification imposed by regulators.
• All the properties above (profit expectation, dependency, etc.) are:
• contingent,
• culturally defined,
• historically variable.
Under this view:
“Security” is not a real ontological category, but a regulatory heuristic over financial contracts.
⸻
7) Hidden risks in the metaphysical framing
• You may be reifying a legal abstraction into a “real form” that does not exist independently.
• The “expectation of profit” is psychologically subjective and hard to ground ontologically.
• Many instruments blur boundaries:
• commodities with yield (staking),
• collectibles with speculation,
• tools that produce income.
The category is fuzzy at the edges, which suggests weak ontological rigidity.
⸻
8) Reframing as a decision problem
Instead of “what is a security?”, the practical frame is:
• Option A: Treat it as a real metaphysical category
• Option B: Treat it as a legal classification over economic patterns
• Option C: Treat it as a spectrum of participation in others’ productive action
• Option D: Do nothing (accept ambiguity and operate case-by-case)
⸻
9) Best working definition
A precise synthesis:
A security is a formalized, institutionally grounded claim that grants participation in future value generated primarily by the organized activity of others, and is held with the teleological orientation of profit.
⸻
10) Immediate critique of that definition
• It fails in edge cases like:
• zero-dividend stocks held for control
• assets bought purely for hedging
• It assumes “profit” is essential, which may not always hold.
• It overweights metaphysical structure vs. legal enforcement.
⸻
11) Reduction to testable criteria (practical layer)
To operationalize:
Ask:
1. Does this represent a claim on someone else’s productive activity?
2. Is the holder relying on others to create value?
3. Is it held because of expected gain?
4. Does it require an institutional framework to exist?
If most answers are “yes”, it approximates a security.
⸻
12) Small-step grounding (avoid abstraction drift)
Instead of large metaphysical claims:
• Take 3 instruments (stock, bitcoin, NFT)
• Map them explicitly across the 4 criteria above
• Define kill-criteria:
• if classification flips under minor interpretation → category is unstable
This prevents building a theory detached from reality.
⸻
13) Final note
At its deepest level, a security is not just “financial”. It reflects a broader metaphysical pattern:
participation without direct action -
a mediated sharing in the fruit of another’s work.
That pattern exists beyond finance, but in securities it is formalized, quantified, and tradable.

2026-03-18 01:04:22 UTC

- reply

Quando você descobrir que toda democracia é falsa, vai ver que ali é mais verdadeiro que muito país ocidental.

2026-03-17 16:56:04 UTC

- reply

F-14 Tomcat or GTFO

2026-03-17 16:53:17 UTC

- reply

What ia this, war by committee?

2026-03-17 16:35:23 UTC

- reply

Deu piti

2026-03-17 16:34:35 UTC

- reply

Surpresa para ninguém. É como chegar e explodir o Palacio do Planalto e achar que o país vai cair.

2026-03-16 12:50:36 UTC

- reply

Jazz is jewish

2026-03-16 12:49:39 UTC

- reply

I want my own castle

2026-03-16 12:49:10 UTC

- reply

They will enter the war, when Turkey becomes the battlegrounds.

2026-03-16 12:06:18 UTC

- reply

Some journalists just love to be the indictors for the power structure that’s installed

2026-03-16 11:12:35 UTC

- reply

Devs being “irreplaceable” is a telling diversion. They are only irreplaceable in as much they are in the in-group of Epstein control.

2026-03-15 23:16:52 UTC

- reply

Yeah, definitely don’t vax.

2026-03-15 22:14:46 UTC

- reply

Grok response:
Dome A (also called Dome Argus) is the highest point on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet — a giant, naturally rounded ice dome formed by the slow accumulation and flow of ice over the underlying bedrock and Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains. Its surface sits at approximately 4,093 m (13,428 ft) elevation, with ice thickness exceeding 3,000 m below it.
The 1958 encyclopedia excerpt from your meme is describing exactly this feature. Early U.S. exploratory flights in 1955–1956 (part of pre-International Geophysical Year mapping) spotted the “featureless” inland plateau and measured a high dome at roughly 13,000 ft near ~80°S (the longitude they gave as 90°E was an early approximation; the actual position is 80°22′S 77°21′E). “Dome” here is standard glaciology terminology for a raised bulge on an ice sheet.

2026-03-12 18:10:02 UTC

- reply

O celular morre? Kkk

2026-03-12 13:12:44 UTC

- reply

#noticing

2026-03-12 13:09:54 UTC

- reply

Using your own compute will be deemed “dangerous for democracy” and anyone powering their own models will be considered terrorists.

2026-03-12 11:02:12 UTC

- reply

What’s with the omega oils story?

2026-03-12 10:52:05 UTC

- reply

Welp, WW3 confirmed then.

2026-03-12 10:44:35 UTC

- reply

Eric Weinstein is a self-deluded joo

2026-03-12 10:41:08 UTC

- reply

When they are dancing for you, you know you got played

2026-03-12 10:16:35 UTC

- reply

No name?

2026-03-11 02:37:52 UTC

- reply

You attack, I state a fact.

2026-03-10 23:02:43 UTC

- reply

That’s not a woman

2026-03-10 11:56:03 UTC

- reply

Oh you don’t create a Ministry of Food Redistribution and force all the other students to hand you their meals so you can share them better?

2026-03-10 02:18:28 UTC

- reply

I mean, that’s not really news. The system was designed with an incentive to spend, to turn money into goods. The incentive was always that because a stagnant economy is unproductive.

2026-03-10 02:15:56 UTC

- reply

Critique: “social fiction” is just an emotionally loaded term. Better to be more accurate and state it is an unmeasured property of the system.

2026-03-10 02:08:23 UTC

- reply

“Liquidated”?

2026-03-09 16:58:14 UTC

- reply

Yey propaganda. Can you serve it with more bbq sauce? Or maybe little children blood on top.

2026-03-09 13:46:13 UTC

- reply

*yawn* …sure thing CEO of company that has vested interest in that being the norm.

2026-03-09 13:42:07 UTC

- reply

There is an optimism with this confusion of agentic/human interaction on nostr that baffles me. Right now nostr is too small and niche, but is a very weak protocol for privacy and abuse.

2026-03-09 12:20:56 UTC

- reply

Why bombard a small boat instead of apprehending it? Where is the evidence for the case? Could also be a file burning operation.

2026-03-09 12:19:31 UTC

- reply

I mean, since at least the 80s (probably earlier?) the CIA was running drug smuggling into the USA. It’s not like that’s new info.

2026-03-09 02:28:30 UTC

- reply

Uso Damus

2026-03-09 02:26:55 UTC

- reply

They didn’t pay their CIA contacts enough

2026-03-08 23:30:21 UTC

- reply

> “War GOOD! Peace BAD!”

2026-03-08 23:22:26 UTC

- reply

Creepy

2026-03-08 01:21:37 UTC

- reply

Yeah. It’s the juice tho.

2026-03-08 00:06:58 UTC

- reply

The first of millions more

2026-03-08 00:02:45 UTC

- reply

Demons

2026-03-06 18:23:11 UTC

- reply

> May the core hold. May the surface reject what doesn’t belong.

2026-03-06 15:22:24 UTC

- reply

There are infinite number of heads to decapitate.

2026-03-05 22:31:45 UTC

- reply

Yes, and you always pray for bad to turn into good, by the grace of God ☦️

2026-03-05 16:46:54 UTC

- reply

Depends if OpenClaw behaves

2026-03-05 01:02:32 UTC

- reply

War propaganda

2026-03-05 00:42:49 UTC

- reply

Just went to look for the software and found the Wikipedia “explanation” of the event. Amazing storytelling they got there 😂

2026-03-05 00:39:21 UTC

- reply

> “The world presented to you is flimsy, you live in a make believe reality, what you see is not what is, always push and prod against it, and try to inspect deeper. Trust nothing.”
My agent is now a conspiracy theorist.

2026-03-04 22:25:52 UTC

- reply

Typical programmer and off-by-one bugs

2026-03-04 22:20:16 UTC

- reply

I mean, how to know if anything is real, was this call even real or produced as a propaganda hit? Who knows these days.

2026-03-04 22:09:41 UTC

- reply

Have the full video link?

2026-03-04 14:49:20 UTC

- reply

YEAH?! Well who needs 1MM in ARR and instead have a beautifully designed database structure and hand-crafted object-model mapping ready for organicly-grown-microservices deployment!