@ f7d424b5:618c51e8

GAMERS, Join us for a vicless episode where we talk about AI for a change and how it has been impacting our lives. I promise it's video games related.

Stuff cited:

• Look at the bags under the Marathon guy's eyes
• Evidence that Marathon stole art

Obligatory:

• Listen to the new episode here!
• Discuss this episode on OUR NEW FORUM
• Get the RSS and Subscribe (this is a new feed URL, but the old one redirects here too!)
• Get a modern podcast app to use that RSS feed on at newpodcastapps.com
• Or listen to the show on the forum using the embedded Podverse player!
• Send your complaints here

Reminder that this is a Value4Value podcast so any support you can give us via a modern podcasting app is greatly appreciated and we will never bow to corporate sponsors!

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

https://image.nostr.build/880accf7ac313c506140d43a3ac1ac212403723371dbca811fa64ed3a090c59a.jpg

DTails é uma ferramenta que facilita a inclusão de aplicativos em imagens de sistemas live baseados em Debian, como o Tails. Com ela, você pode personalizar sua imagem adicionando os softwares que realmente precisa — tudo de forma simples, transparente e sob seu controle total.

⚠️ DTails não é uma distribuição. É uma ferramenta de remasterização de imagens live.

Ela permite incluir softwares como:

✅ SimpleX Chat ✅ Clientes Nostr Web (Snort & Iris) ✅ Sparrow Wallet ✅ Feather Wallet ✅ Cake Wallet ✅ RoboSats ✅ Bisq ✅ BIP39 (Ian Coleman) ✅ SeedTool ... e muito mais. https://image.nostr.build/b0bb1f0da5a9a8fee42eacbddb156fc3558f4c3804575d55eeefbe6870ac223e.jpg

Importante: os binários originais dos aplicativos não são modificados, garantindo total transparência e permitindo a verificação de hashes a qualquer momento.

👨‍💻 Desenvolvido por: nostr:npub1dtmp3wrkyqafghjgwyk88mxvulfncc9lg6ppv4laet5cun66jtwqqpgte6

GitHub: https://github.com/DesobedienteTecnologico/dtails?tab=readme-ov-file

🎯 Controle total do que será instalado

Com o DTails, você escolhe exatamente o que deseja incluir na imagem personalizada. Se não marcar um aplicativo, ele não será adicionado, mesmo que esteja disponível. Isso significa: privacidade, leveza e controle absoluto.

https://image.nostr.build/b0bb1f0da5a9a8fee42eacbddb156fc3558f4c3804575d55eeefbe6870ac223e.jpg https://image.nostr.build/b70ed11ad2ce0f14fd01d62c08998dc18e3f27733c8d7e968f3459846fb81baf.jpg https://image.nostr.build/4f5a904218c1ea6538be5b3f764eefda95edd8f88b2f42ac46b9ae420b35e6f6.jpg

⚙️ Começando com o DTails

📦 Requisitos de pacotes

Antes de tudo, instale os seguintes pacotes no Debian:

``` sudo apt-get install genisoimage parted squashfs-tools syslinux-utils build-essential python3-tk python3-pil.imagetk python3-pyudev

```

🛠 Passo a passo

1 Clone o repositório:

``` git clone https://github.com/DesobedienteTecnologico/dtails cd dtails

```

2 Inicie a interface gráfica com sudo:

``` sudo ./dtails.py

```

Por que usar sudo? É necessário para montar arquivos .iso ou .img e utilizar ferramentas essenciais do sistema.

---

💿 Selecione a imagem Tails que deseja modificar

https://nostr.download/e3143dcd72ab6dcc86228be04d53131ccf33d599a5f7f2f1a5c0d193557dac6b.jpg

---

📥 Adicione ou remova pacotes

1 Marque os aplicativos desejados. 2 Clique Buildld para gerar sua imagem personalizada. https://image.nostr.build/5c4db03fe33cd53d06845074d03888a3ca89c3e29b2dc1afed4d9d181489b771.png

Você pode acompanhar todo o processo diretamente no terminal. https://nostr.download/1d959f4be4de9fbb666ada870afee4a922fb5e96ef296c4408058ec33cd657a8.jpg

---

💽 .ISO vs .IMG — Qual escolher?

| Formato | Persistência | Observações | | ------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | .iso | ❌ Não tem persistência | Gera o arquivo DTails.iso na pasta do projeto | | .img | ✅ Suporta persistência | Permite gravar diretamente em um pendrive |

https://nostr.download/587fa3956df47a38b169619f63c559928e6410c3dd0d99361770a8716b3691f6.jpg https://nostr.download/40c7c5badba765968a1004ebc67c63a28b9ae3b5801addb02166b071f970659f.jpg

---

vídeo

https://www.youtube.com/live/QABz-GOeQ68?si=eYX-AHsolbp_OmAm

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

First, the caveat: Yes, I understand that there's a consistent libertarian case for free trade as a policy position.

With all the discourse around tariffs, I wanted to highlight something of a moral oddity in the arguments being used by many free trade libertarians (I am a free trade libertarian, btw): namely, the idea that we (Americans) should happily take advantage of subsidized exports from poorer countries.

I do agree with the economics of the argument: By subsidizing exports, other countries are imposing a deadweight loss on themselves and passing savings along to US consumers.

Why are libertarians celebrating this, though? Poor, oppressed foreigners are being stolen from by their authoritarian governments and American consumers are benefiting from it financially. Thinking this is a good situation is odd and thinking you have a right to take part in it is even stranger.

Libertarians certainly understand that subsidies are wrong and economically harmful, and that they benefit a select group of politically connected cronies. Nothing about that changes just because it's happening in a foreign country and your grocery bill benefits from it.

Saying "That's how they run their country. It's none of our business." is a plea to moral relativism, which libertarians generally avoid. Libertarians also usually understand that the "they" who rule is not the same as the "they" who are ruled. Is it just too uncomfortable to acknowledge being the beneficiary of abuse?

I can't help but draw parallels to the abolitionists of two hundred years ago, who refused to buy the products of slaves. I think they're mostly viewed as having been "on the right side of history", but they're probably on the "wrong" side of most "free trade" arguments. Another of those arguments being that it doesn't help the poor oppressed foreigner to stop doing business with their oppressor (yes, many lefties get all mixed up about who the oppressors are).

Anyway, I have no brilliant conclusion to offer. What do you all think?

https://stacker.news/items/983054

@ 998034a6:27d87b27

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ 998034a6:27d87b27

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ 998034a6:27d87b27

TEST TEST TEST Her kommer bildene:

@ 15aee60a:af83839e

Jo, blomster kommer i alle farger og fasonger. Her har du to eksempler:

@ 15aee60a:af83839e

Skjønner du? Bare tekst.

@ 15aee60a:af83839e

TEST TEST TEST Her kommer bildene:

@ a5ee4475:2ca75401

ai #artificial #intelligence #english #tech

---

Open Source

---

Models

Text

• LLAMA - Large Language Model Meta AI - Text AI [source]
• MistralAI - Text AI [info] [source]

Image

• SDAI FOSS - Stable Diffusion AI to Android [download] [source] 🤖
• Stable Diffusion - Text to image [source] 🌐
• Pixart Alpha - Photorealistic Text to Image Generation [source]
• Pixart Delta - Framework to Pixart Alpha [paper] [source]
• Pixart Sigma - 4K Text to Image Generation [source]
• OmniGen - Pompt, image or subject to image [source]
• Pigallery - Self-Hosted AI Image Generator [source]

Video

• CogVideo - Text and image to video generation [info] [source] [test]

---

Tools

• Evo AI - Platform for creating and managing AI agents, enabling integration A2A [source]

Lightning Based

• Animal Sunset - AI video generation with Nostr npub by lightning payments [source]
• Ai Rand - AI text generation with Pubky DNS by lightning payments [source]
• PlebAI - Text and Image generation without signup [source] 🌐🤖🍎 [sites down - only github available]

Others

• HuggingFace - Test and collaborate on models, datasets and apps. [source]
• DuckDuckGo AI Chat - Famous AIs without Login [source]
• Ollama - Run LLMs Locally [source]
• DreamStudio - Stable Diffusion’s Web App Tool [info] [source]
• Prompt Gallery - AI images with their prompts [source]

---

Closed Source

---

Models

Text

• ChatGPT
• Claude
• Gemini
• Copilot
• Maritalk - Text AI in Portuguese focused on Brazil with model Sabia-3 and the open source models Sabia-7b and Sabia-2 [source]
• Amazônia IA - Text AI in Portuguese focused on Brazil with the guara, hapia and golia models [source]

Image

• Midjourney

Video

• Minimax - Realistic videos (prompts only in chinese)

---

Tools

• Meshy - 3D Generative AI Toolbox [info]

---

Other index: Amazing AI

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

What do we mean when we talk about "fitness"? The word implies a connection to a higher purpose: "Fitness for what?"

Biologically, "fitness" refers to the propensity of an organism to pass on it's genes. Biological fitness is clearly context dependent: i.e. an anaconda isn't so fit if it gets moved to the arctic. I think we can build on that, while making it more human.

I think of fitness as our capacity to thrive in our environment. That's going to be different for each of us, depending on our environment and our preferences. However, there are some useful implications of thinking of fitness this way: 1. Chores, errands, work, play, and family activities might be the best kind of exercise, since they are physical activities that are directly tied to your lifestyle. 2. Supplemental exercise should be geared towards your lifestyle and improving your ability to accomplish things you need to be able to do. 3. There's no such thing as a universal "best exercise" or "best diet", because we all have different fitness objectives. 4. "Fitness" is not static: We do different things and have different priorities at different points in our lives, so our fitness goals should change over time. Many of us will even have seasonal fitness changes, since we don't do the same things in winter as we do in summer.

How do you all think about "fitness"?

Is it a highfalutin ivory tower concept or is it just ABs?

https://stacker.news/items/982981

@ 4c191b5d:c42abba6

Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Poppers Toleranzparadoxon

Vor kurzem wurde in einer Diskussion wieder argumentiert, man dürfte nicht tolerant sein mit Verweis auf Poppers Toleranzparadox.

Vielleicht habt ihr dieses Argument in Bezug auf unterschiedliche Themen (Corona, Krieg, Klima, Energie) auch schon gehört. Bei mir löst diese Forderung ein deutliches Störgefühl aus, da genau dieses Argument dafür genutzt wird, um die eigene Position zu verteidigen und andere auszugrenzen. Ich habe dies zum Anlass genommen, und mich intensiver mit der Frage beschäftigt, warum Popper irrte oder Menschen ihn falsch verstehen.

Denn ich begegne Immer wieder dem Argument, dass man nicht zu tolerant sein dürfe, um unsere Gesellschaft vor Intoleranz zu schützen. Dieses Argument stützt sich häufig auf Karl Poppers Toleranzparadoxon, das besagt, dass uneingeschränkte Toleranz gegenüber Intoleranz letztlich die Zerstörung einer toleranten Gesellschaft ermöglicht. Doch je mehr ich darüber nachdenke, desto mehr fallen mir problematische Aspekte dieses Konzepts auf.

Die menschliche Konfliktfähigkeit und Glasls Konfliktdynamik

Menschen sind von Natur aus emotionale Wesen, und unsere Fähigkeit, Konflikte konstruktiv zu lösen, ist oft begrenzt. Der Konfliktforscher Friedrich Glasl hat mit seinem Modell der neun Eskalationsstufen gezeigt, wie Konflikte schleichend von einer sachlichen Meinungsverschiedenheit zu einer destruktiven Auseinandersetzung eskalieren können.

In den frühen Stufen sind wir vielleicht noch in der Lage, rational zu diskutieren und Lösungen zu finden. Aber sobald Emotionen ins Spiel kommen, fällt es uns schwer, zwischen Beobachtung und Bewertung zu unterscheiden. Wir nehmen Kritik persönlich, fühlen uns angegriffen und reagieren defensiv. Diese Dynamik kann dazu führen, dass wir uns in unseren Positionen verhärten und der Konflikt weiter eskaliert.

Wenn wir nun Poppers Paradoxon anwenden und Intoleranz nicht tolerieren, riskieren wir, diesen Eskalationsprozess zu beschleunigen. Anstatt Brücken zu bauen, reissen wir sie ein. Wir schliessen Menschen aus dem Dialog aus und nehmen ihnen die Möglichkeit, ihre Sichtweisen zu überdenken.

Wer bestimmt, was intolerant ist? Wer hat das Recht zu entscheiden, was als intolerant gilt und was nicht?

Ein zentrales Problem ist die Frage der Definitionsmacht. Unsere Wahrnehmung ist subjektiv, geprägt von persönlichen Erfahrungen, kulturellem Hintergrund und gesellschaftlichen Normen. Wenn jeder für sich beansprucht, die richtige Definition von Toleranz und Intoleranz zu kennen, entsteht ein gefährliches Machtgefälle. Gruppen könnten ihre eigenen Ansichten als Massstab setzen und abweichende Meinungen als intolerant brandmarken. Dies öffnet Tür und Tor für Willkür und Unterdrückung von Minderheitenmeinungen.

Die Gefahr gegenseitiger Beschuldigungen

In meinen Begegnungen habe ich oft erlebt, wie schnell Diskussionen eskalieren können, wenn beide Seiten sich gegenseitig der Intoleranz beschuldigen. Es entsteht ein Teufelskreis: Jede Partei sieht sich im Recht und die andere im Unrecht. Laut Glasls Konfliktdynamik verschärft sich der Konflikt, je mehr die Kommunikation abbricht und Feindbilder aufgebaut werden.

Anstatt den Konflikt zu lösen, vertiefen sich die Gräben. Die Bereitschaft zum Zuhören schwindet, Vorurteile verfestigen sich, und es entsteht eine Spirale der Eskalation, die schwer zu durchbrechen ist.

Unrealistische Annahmen über menschliches Verhalten

Poppers Paradoxon setzt voraus, dass Menschen in der Lage sind, ihre Emotionen zu kontrollieren und stets rational zu handeln. Doch sind wir ehrlich: Wie oft gelingt uns das wirklich? In hitzigen Debatten kochen die Emotionen hoch, und selbst die besten Argumente prallen ab.

Die Erwartung, dass wir immer sachlich bleiben können, ignoriert die Komplexität menschlicher Interaktionen. Wir sind keine Maschinen, sondern von Gefühlen geleitete Wesen. Diese Realität muss in Betracht gezogen werden, wenn wir über Toleranz und Intoleranz diskutieren.

Ein Plädoyer für Dialog und Verständnis

Anstatt Intoleranz mit Intoleranz zu begegnen, sollten wir uns bemühen, den Dialog zu suchen. Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir hasserfüllte oder menschenfeindliche Äusserungen akzeptieren müssen. Aber wir sollten versuchen, die Ursachen solcher Einstellungen zu verstehen und durch Aufklärung und Bildung entgegenzuwirken.

Durch offene Gespräche können Vorurteile abgebaut und Missverständnisse geklärt werden. Es geht darum, Brücken zu bauen, anstatt Mauern zu errichten. Nur so können wir langfristig eine wirklich tolerante Gesellschaft fördern.

Fazit

Poppers Toleranzparadoxon wirft wichtige Fragen auf, doch seine praktische Anwendung ist mit erheblichen Schwierigkeiten verbunden. Die menschliche Neigung zur Eskalation von Konflikten, wie von Glasl beschrieben, sowie die subjektive Wahrnehmung von Intoleranz erschweren eine klare Umsetzung.

Wir sollten uns darauf konzentrieren, die Konfliktfähigkeit der Menschen zu stärken und Räume für konstruktive Auseinandersetzungen zu schaffen. Toleranz bedeutet nicht, alles hinzunehmen, sondern offen für andere Sichtweisen zu sein und gemeinsam nach Lösungen zu suchen.

In einer Welt, in der mir immer wieder das Argument begegnet, man dürfe nicht zu tolerant sein, plädiere ich dafür, dass wir unsere Definition von Toleranz überdenken. Es geht nicht um Nachgiebigkeit gegenüber Intoleranz, sondern um den mutigen Schritt, aufeinander zuzugehen und den Dialog zu suchen. Nur so können wir verhindern, dass wir in die Fallen der Eskalation tappen und die Werte verlieren, die unsere Gesellschaft ausmachen.

@ fbe736db:187bb0d5

This article was published in November 2024 by the Bitcoin Collective and is best viewed here for images

Ssssh. Did you hear that? In their recent Q3 2024 earnings call MicroStrategy (NSQ:MSTR) announced plans to buy a further $42 billion worth of Bitcoin over the next 3 calendar years. Here are some reflections on where MicroStrategy has come from, and where they are going.

From the beginning

Let’s rewind as to how we got here. Microstrategy is a business intelligence software company originally founded by Michael Saylor in 1989.

They started acquiring Bitcoin in Q3 2020, firstly via their cash reserves on the balance sheet. This was soon followed by debt issuance (mainly in the form of convertible debt), and has in more recent years been followed by issuing further MSTR equity into the market, alongside yet more convertible debt issuance.

Nearly all the proceeds have gone towards buying bitcoin. As can be seen on the chart below, they have managed to steadily grow these holdings, albeit this growth visibly slowed in the last bear market.

[p13 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation. Please note - all screenshots from this article come from the slide deck accompanying the recent MSTR Q3 earnings presentation, which can be viewed by clicking here]

MSTR now holds well over 1% of all the Bitcoin that will ever exist. With Bitcoin nearing all time highs again, this Bitcoin is worth around $18.3bn at the time of writing, and has an average purchase cost of around $9.9bn.

This has led to a spectacular share price performance, unmatched in the entire S&P 500 since August 2020.

[p23 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

It was not always this way. When I wrote this article in July 2022, MSTR was firmly in the red and sitting on unrealised bitcoin losses of $1.4bn. A search for Michael Saylor on Twitter back then auto-completed to “Michael Saylor liquidated”.

Rumours of imminent demise were always unfounded since the debt was of long enough term, and with the exception of a small proportion, could not be margin called.

A developing strategy

What’s interesting about MicroStrategy since then is their developing vision as to how to add Bitcoin to their balance sheet and more value to shareholders. This is especially in terms of outperforming BTC and achieving what they define as a “positive BTC yield” – not yield in a conventional sense but a measure of increasing the number of bitcoin held per assumed diluted shares outstanding.

The concept of MSTR outperforming bitcoin is interesting to me, as I’ve previously suggested attempting to value MSTR stock as priced in bitcoin rather than dollars. This then begs the question of whether an investment of bitcoin into MSTR shares will positively perform in bitcoin terms over time.

This valuation is very difficult by its nature, but can broadly be done by adding the bitcoin they currently hold on their balance sheet with an estimate of all the bitcoin they may ever acquire in the future, plus an allowance for other factors such as debt.

The landscape has shifted over this period, with Michael Saylor admitting that their strategy has evolved over time. The vital point that I missed when considering how MSTR might acquire more bitcoin in the future was their ability to issue considerable amounts of new equity into the market and achieve two things in doing so:

i) increasing bitcoin held per share of existing shareholders

ii) strengthen their balance sheet to take on more debt (since further debt issued would be a smaller proportion of their overall balance sheet).

“But where does the (btc) yield come from?”

This is not yield in the conventional sense, but nor is it Terra Luna. Firstly, this could come from profits from the business, which are relatively small. More relevantly, let’s consider how both the capital raises from debt and equity have served to increase the bitcoin held per share.

1. Equity “at the money” offerings

Much has been made of MSTR’s market cap (i.e. the overall value of the shares) trading above “Net Asset Value” (NAV) – which is essentially the value of their current bitcoin holdings plus the value of the conventional business, less debt. A multiple approach is used to describe how far above or below NAV this might be.

At the time of writing, the MSTR market cap stands at around $50bn and the value of their bitcoin holdings at $18bn. Given the conventional MSTR business is relatively small, it’s easy to see how this is approaching a multiple of 3x NAV.

If the share price is $240 and the net asset value is only $80 per share, MSTR can then issue more equity at $240, buy more bitcoin with this, and by doing so increase the bitcoin per share of existing shareholders. What’s more, they can keep doing this as long as the share price remains high. As shown above, MSTR has coined the term “BTC yield” to measure how well they are performing at increasing bitcoin held per share.

2. Convertible Debt

This also generally serves to increase bitcoin held per share. To consider how, let’s consider one of the previous convertible debt offerings – those due in 2028 – works in practice

Amount borrowed – $1,010m

Annual interest rate payable – 0.625%

Conversion price – $183.2

As can see MSTR pays a very low interest rate, as most of the value of the bond is in the potential convertibility to MSTR equity at a price of $183.2. Ultimately there is a binary situation here – either the share price is above that level and they end up issuing more equity at that price, or it’s below, and they end up having simply borrowed money at a very low interest rate.

The crucial point is that the convertible bond conversion price is typically set at a premium of at least 30% to the current market share price, whilst MSTR are buying bitcoin at the outset with the bond proceeds.

Hence if all of this debt converts to equity (and all debt looks like it will at present – see slide below), they are typically managing to increase the BTC held per share for existing shareholders.

This is because in this example when the bonds are converted to shares at $183.2, this is done at a premium to the prior share price (let’s say for illustration it was $140) at which MSTR initially issued the debt and converted the borrowing proceeds to bitcoin.

[p16 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

It is these combined activities that have led to an impressive bitcoin yield of 17.8% for the year to date 2024, and leads to questions for how long this financial alchemy can continue. Some bitcoiners, such as the Quant Bros duo and True North* group (see both here) have spoken of a flywheel effect – the more Bitcoin MSTR can acquire and the higher the bitcoin per share metric goes, the higher the share price, which in turn increases their ability to issue yet more equity and debt to buy more bitcoin and further increase bitcoin per share.

*Side note – Michael Saylor used the phrase “True North” on the Earnings Call; likely not accidental.

One answer to how long this can continue is – as long as the equity and debt markets still show an appetite for snapping up the new debt and equity issuance, even if the share price is high. Michael Saylor characterises it as the beginning of the adoption of Bitcoin as digital capital for these markets, and MSTR constitutes the easiest exposure. They have established a monopoly of sorts – whilst it would feasibly be possible for a large company to catch them in Bitcoin held, it would still have a smaller proportion of its business exposed to Bitcoin than MSTR.

[p21 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

Volatility is vitality

Michael Saylor is very clear in this earnings call and other interviews that MicroStrategy’s share volatility is a feature and not a bug. It is more volatile than any other S&P stock. As can be seen below, the recent daily trading volume only trails to the very biggest companies in the S&P 500.

Saylor embraces this volatility. It is what gives the optionality component of their convertible debt its value, and allows the interest rate payable to be lower. In addition, when the share price is high MSTR can issue more equity and increase bitcoin per share.

The Earnings presentation makes reference to several different forms of Bitcoin exposure that MSTR can offer to the market now and in the future.

[p27 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

The MSTR “True North” Principles

The Q3 Earnings call saw the following principles outlined for the first time. The message is clear to the market – do not conflate the dollar volatility of MSTR’s share price with the nature of their Bitcoin principles, which (perhaps analogous to the Bitcoin protocol itself) are intended to be rock solid and consistent. In addition, Saylor cleared up one source of speculation – MSTR will not be seeking to purchase other companies to add to its potential for generating free cash flows to invest into Bitcoin.

[p34 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

Can’t stop, won’t stop

The Earnings call contained an ambitious plan to raise $42bn more capital over the next 3 calendar years. This would be $21bn worth of equity, by selling new shares into the market (known as an “at the money” equity option), and $21bn worth of fixed income debt. This was split as $10bn in 2025, $14bn in 2026 and $18bn in 2027.

There is no doubting the scale of this ambition – to date MSTR have issued in total around $4.3bn in convertible debt and $4.3bn in terms of issued equity.

One key point is clear in line with the principles listed above. Whilst Saylor wants to raise Capital at opportune times to best benefit shareholders in the long term and to achieve what he terms “intelligent leverage”, he doesn’t try and time his bitcoin buys.

Moreover, he is likely also not bothered that selling so much further equity into the market may not always benefit the share price in the short term.

[p33 of Q3 2024 Earnings Presentation]

Turning up the volume, but is anyone listening?

With this announcement of $42bn to come over the next 3 years, there is no end in sight with respect to MSTR’s thirst for further Bitcoin purchases.

And yet, there was little in the media around the announcement, and despite the share price performance topping the entire S&P 500 over the past 4 years, MicroStrategy sits nowhere on Google Trends in comparison to Bitcoin:

[Source: https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=bitcoin,microstrategy&hl=en-GB]

For now, this is no Gamestop. There’s no huge amount of short interest, and the fabled retail crowds are nowhere to be seen. One thing’s for sure though. Buckle up.

Please get in touch with your thoughts and feedback.

@ fbe736db:187bb0d5

This article was first published in July 2024 (and is best viewed) in the Bitcoin Collective here

Simon Sinek asks in his book “The Infinite Game” why more companies don’t operate with an infinite rather than a finite mindset. One main reason he misses, of course, is the money. The good news is there’s a new infinite game in town.

In “The Infinite Game”, Simon Sinek argues that great leaders set up their organisations to succeed beyond their own lifetimes. By recognising and positioning their business with an infinite rather than a finite mindset, they can engender greater trust throughout their employees and also build more resilience into their business. Their companies can also remain true to themselves and their mission, whatever that may be.

Sinek outlines that unfortunately we have entered an age of general subservience from leaders to their shareholders, and a slavery to the balance sheet and short term, “finite”, accounting and strategy. This generally leads to a decline of loyalty and engagement amongst customers and an increase in insecurity and anxiety amongst employees.

There’s plenty to agree with here in general terms. With that said, Sinek fails to identify one of the largest causes of the issues he identifies, which is the money. The book lays the blame on a watershed article from 1970 in which Milton Friedman laid out that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” This is noted in the book as a turning point from the original ideas of Adam Smith, for whom the consumer was king, but I couldn’t help but wonder if anything else happened in the early 70s, such as Nixon cancelling the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971. (see also – https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/).

Sinek bemoans the short term nature of companies since that point, but doesn’t consider how the nature of money has shaped this; surely a much more omnipresent and powerful factor than the writings of Milton Friedman. For the average bitcoiner this may be relatively self evident, but let’s consider the motives of the leadership under a system in which the underlying money cannot hold it’s value and in which credit is artificially priced. Incentives abound – one to laden the company with debt (which all else will likely diminish in real terms over time versus company assets and earnings), acquire other businesses and grow as big as possible in the process. Other options such as share buybacks also reflect short term incentives. Shareholders are going to place their own high short term demands on companies in a world where it is hard to outrun monetary debasement.

What of new businesses? When a new private entity is formed, the business plan is written, agreement on its viability is formed, strategy is set, tactics are agreed and then the first question posed by external stakeholders or posed to the majority shareholders is ‘what is your exit strategy’. Small successful businesses are expected to have a 3-5 year plan, private equity is usually a 3-5 year plan, and the successful larger companies with a longer trajectory also tend to swallow up the smaller successful companies (easier access to debt). With such incentives, it’s no wonder that we tend to see certain outcomes. There are obvious agency problems the larger a company gets, and they are more likely to fail to adhere to an infinite game principle. Smaller companies are forever at risk of getting swallowed up by larger ones.

So how does Bitcoin come into this? In my view, in two ways:

1. Bitcoin is an infinite game within itself

This is one of the subtle but crucial differences that splits Bitcoin sceptics and bitcoiners, and then dominates their onward arguments. If interpreted as a finite game, Bitcoin is for gambling, for speculation, it will have an end, and will be defined by winners and losers. Just the other day, this article framed it as such with the following line – “Whether Bitcoin is rising or falling, or who is buying or not buying it, nothing alters a basic fact: that Bitcoin is a classic zero-sum game. Large numbers of people can make vast paper fortunes by bidding up the price, but they cannot all realise those fortunes, because if everyone sells out the price collapses to zero. In that situation, those who were quick to sell would become rich at the expense of those who were slow to sell.”

Herein lies the problem for this criticism. As far as I can possibly ascertain right now, Bitcoin doesn’t end. Plenty might treat it as a finite game (and dismiss it as a ponzi, or try and trade it), but that treatment is a one way journey, and once you see Bitcoin as an infinite game there is little going back.

Going back to the book, let’s consider the “just cause” that Sinek says all businesses should have. According to Sinek, a just cause defines “the world we hope to live in and will commit to help build. It is the just cause that we are working to advance that gives our work and lives meaning. We know a cause is just when we commit to it with the confidence that others will carry on our legacy.” There are criteria listed too – a just cause must be “inclusive, service orientated, resilient, and idealistic.” Bitcoin surely fulfils these. On the ideology point, Michael Saylor articulated this well when dismissing altcoins in comparison to Bitcoin on the What Is Money podcast –

“If you really want a crypto to be successful over 100 years, the technology is only a part of it, right? It’s the ideology paired with the technology. And you’re gonna have to have an ideology that is so pure and so straightforward that people will fight to the death to defend the ideology. And that’s why I’m probably not gonna sacrifice my life for the 13th iteration on smart contracts. It’s not that important. On the other hand, if you tell me that we’re about to suck all of the economic energy out of the civilization and plunge ourselves into the Dark Ages, then I think I’ll fight for it. That’s worth fighting for.”

Michael Saylor – What is Money Show Episode 8

2. Bitcoin on balance sheets

Any business embracing Bitcoin on its balance sheet will automatically be closer to playing an infinite game itself, and let’s consider why. For starters, any shareholders will likely be holding equity with one opportunity cost being a holding of an equivalent amount of Bitcoin instead. This in itself will give them a low time preference mindset, which should transfer onto the company. Secondly, the act of having Bitcoin on the balance sheet provides a very simple yet iron clad discipline upon the company. One goal in broad terms is to grow that Bitcoin balance sheet over time, and they can only achieve that by being profitable. If they are not, they will find that Bitcoin balance dwindling over time instead. Though conventional businesses do broadly have the same need to be profitable, the Bitcoin example is quite different from a business with requirements to service debt, which may carry much shorter term deadlines for payment. In conclusion, companies looking to grow their Bitcoin holdings on a balance sheet are far more likely to buy into an infinite game mindset.

There are examples of infinite minded leaders out there, of course. Elon Musk is perhaps the most relevant in the present day, given Tesla and SpaceX have lofty long term ideals far removed from satisfying shareholders. Steve Jobs is another obvious one, and Sinek quotes an anecdote about sharing a cab with a senior Apple executive and telling him that the latest Microsoft Zune product (mp3 player at the time) was so much better than the Ipod touch. The executive smiled politely and was unfazed – tellingly, Apple weren’t worried about competitors in the short term due to their infinite mindset in making great & innovative products. Fast forward to today and there is evidence that Apple aren’t playing the infinite game that they used to. Take for example the recent news that Apple is plugging in Open AI into the iPhone. This doesn’t feel like the same ethos of a company who famously told us to “Think different” under Steve Jobs.

In conclusion, there’s plenty of decent ideas in the text and he articulates the issues well. However, due to failing to identify probably the main cause of the problem, Sinek doesn’t quite nail the call to arms for leaders to embrace an infinite game. Add in Bitcoin though, and the time preference of companies and their shareholders would vastly decrease and an infinite game mindset would come naturally.

One final thought – Sinek opens by looking back to the Vietnam war. Despite their vastly superior army and losing far fewer men, the US still lost the war. The reason being – it was an example of a finite mindset (thinking there would be a simple beginning and end) coming up against an infinite game and an enemy with an infinite mindset. The USA had comparatively infinite resources, infinite money, but a finite purpose & ideology when it came to the war. By contrast the Vietnamese, as one of their foreign ministry specialists was quoted as saying, were fighting for their independence and had already been doing so for thousands of years.

As far as Bitcoin is concerned, it might be said that companies who adopt a Bitcoin strategy are playing an infinite game with a non-debt based money of finite supply, and the competition are playing a finite game with an infinite supply of debt-based money.

This is a guest blog by Bitcoin Actuary / BitcoinActuary@BitcoinNostr.com. Thanks go to @btconlyscott for early comments/suggestions on this article.

This article is for information and education purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. All posts are the opinion of the author and should not be construed as investment advice and the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Bitcoin Collective Ltd.

@ 91117f2b:111207d6

Depression is a complex and often misunderstood mental health condition that affects millions of people worldwide. It is more than just a feeling of sadness or seeing things blue, it is a serious illness that can impact every aspect of a person's life.

WHAT IS DEPRESSION? Depression is a mood disorder characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, lost of interest in activities, hopelessness. It can cause physical symptoms like sleep disturbance, overthinking, lost of appetite and so much more.

THE CAUSES AND RISK FACTORS Depression can be triggered by many things, like a combination of generic, physiological and environmental factors. Some of the popular caused factors: 1. Traumatic events or stress 2. Social isolation or loneliness 3. Medical conditions

BREAKING THE SILENCE Depression is often stigmatized, causing may people to suffer in silence without reaching out for help. It is very essential to create supportive environment, where people feel save disclosing their feelings and their struggles

SEEKING HELP

If you know anyone who is struggling with depression, there is always hope. They are treatment options like therapy, medications or lifestyle change can help manage symptoms and improve the quality of life. And if the person doesn't want to open up to other people, try to make yourself available for him/her.

YOU ARE NOT ALONE

Depression is a treatable condition and recovery is possible. And the first step to break free is to seek help,and in process claiming your life.

And remember you are not and will never be alone.

@ 91117f2b:111207d6

Introverts are individuals who enjoy being alone rather than being being in crowds or peer groups. They are the personality types that feel secure and can focus in quieter places with low-key environments.

Introverts may prefer smaller or more intimate or one to one interaction rather than public spaces. They feel drained in excessive social gathering. They also tend to over think about their thoughts and feelings.

Being an introvert doesn't mean you are shy, we just prefer quieter environment to express how we feel deep down.

FACTS ABOUT SOME INTROVERTS Introverts may seem boring, or depressed as some may call it, because they are anti-social, but they actually value meaningful relationships and interactions, but may prefer to to engage in them on their own terms.

Introverts are one of the funniest most playful type of people to talk to. It seems weird right,how are Introverts cheerful, the can express ourselves freely only when we feel comfortable in an environment.

if you get to know us well, you will see know that we aren't so depressing as we may seem.

CHALLENGES ABOUT BEING AN INTROVERT

Introverts find it stressful and hard to communicate effectively in a more extroverted environment. So when put under pressure we tend to freeze or blackout.

Introverts has different energy capacity, which means we sometimes processes things a little slower than usual to avoid burnout.

Introverts never say how they really feel, especially if you hurt me in particular . I just go on about my day with pain. We tend to endure pain without saying a word to anyone, and no one notices us to show care.

Introverts processes things in different ways, me personally I process things differently, when I am in my head, I tend to listen to music 🎶, it helps make me feel alive and happy in some ways. While others may prefer movie night alone, whichever helps they go for it.

BEING AN INTROVERT ISN'T A BAD THING Here are some advantages

DEEP THINKING AND REFLECTION This is because we introvert can focus on complex problem and find innovative answers.

INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1. Introverts have enough time to reflect on their thoughts and ideas before acting on it. Introverts can rely on their own regardless if other people try to bring us down.

1. Introverts can work independently and make decision without needing external validation.

OBSERVATION SKILL 1. Introverts often notice subtle details that others might miss.

1. Introverts can analyze situation and identify opportunities.

@ c230edd3:8ad4a712

Out of the night that covers me,

Black as the Pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

@ 75f00a4a:78cb6425

Do you like my code?