-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-12-14 15:25:56
Christmas season hasn't actually started, yet, in Roman #Catholic Germany. We're in Advent until the evening of the 24th of December, at which point Christmas begins (with the Nativity, at Vespers), and continues on for 40 days until Mariä Lichtmess (Presentation of Christ in the temple) on February 2nd.
It's 40 days because that's how long the post-partum isolation is, before women were allowed back into the temple (after a ritual cleansing).
That is the day when we put away all of the Christmas decorations and bless the candles, for the next year. (Hence, the British name "Candlemas".) It used to also be when household staff would get paid their cash wages and could change employer. And it is the day precisely in the middle of winter.
Between Christmas Eve and Candlemas are many celebrations, concluding with the Twelfth Night called Epiphany or Theophany. This is the day some Orthodox celebrate Christ's baptism, so traditions rotate around blessing of waters.
The Monday after Epiphany was the start of the farming season, in England, so that Sunday all of the ploughs were blessed, but the practice has largely died out.
Our local tradition is for the altar servers to dress as the wise men and go door-to-door, carrying their star and looking for the Baby Jesus, who is rumored to be lying in a manger.
They collect cash gifts and chocolates, along the way, and leave the generous their powerful blessing, written over the door. The famous 20 * C + M + B * 25 blessing means "Christus mansionem benedicat" (Christ, bless this house), or "Caspar, Melchior, Balthasar" (the names of the three kings), depending upon who you ask.
They offer the cash to the Baby Jesus (once they find him in the church's Nativity scene), but eat the sweets, themselves. It is one of the biggest donation-collections in the world, called the "Sternsinger" (star singers). The money goes from the German children, to help children elsewhere, and they collect around €45 million in cash and coins, every year.
As an interesting aside:
The American "groundhog day", derives from one of the old farmers' sayings about Candlemas, brought over by the Pennsylvania Dutch. It says, that if the badger comes out of his hole and sees his shadow, then it'll remain cold for 4 more weeks. When they moved to the USA, they didn't have any badgers around, so they switched to groundhogs, as they also hibernate in winter.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-12-07 20:02:01
## Yeah, so... nah.
People keep trying to explain to me, that women will be better-off, if they become more dangerous. While I can see the inevitableness of women living in remote rural areas learning to shoot with a rifle, and similar, I'm generally against arming women with killing machines.
This is not because I'm averse to the idea of using violence to solve problems (albeit after exhausting better options), or because I don't like guns, or am unfamiliar with them. It's also not because I don't know I would look totally, mind-numbingly hot holding something long and spearlike, while dressed in camo and wearing a T-Shirt that appears to have shrunk in the wash.
It's a more fundamental set of problems, that irks me.
## Bazooka Barbie
American gun manufacturers saturated the public and private male market so thoroughly, that they eventually turned to marketing firearms to women.
Men are scary and bad. There is Stranger Danger. We can't just make the neighborhood less dangerous because erm... reasons. Stay safe with a cute gun.
It has gone along with the predictable hypersexualization of the conservative feminine ideal. Since guns are considered aggressive, women with guns are perceived as more sexually available. Guns (and tanks, bombs, bows, etc.) make women "equal", "independent", "feisty", "hot", "freaky", "calculating", "empowered", etc.
Sorta slutty, basically.
This Gun Girl is not like the helpless, hapless, harmless homemaker ideal, of yesteryear. A woman who was dependent, chaste, gentle, wise... and in need of protection. A woman who saw the men around her as people she could rely on for providing her with a safe environment. That woman is _au revoir_. Now, sistas are doing it for themselves. 💪🏻
The New Martial Missy needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle... but make it country.
Yeah, it's marketing, but it sure has set the tone, and millions of men have been trained to prefer women who market themselves in this manner. Hard, mean, lean women. That will not remain without wider societal consequences.
You know, I liked that homemaker. I miss her. She's literally me.
## Those arms are for cuddling babies, not holding rocket launchers.
Now, that we've all become accustomed to imagery of women holding firearms, it wasn't much of a leap to condition us all to the sight of women in frontline police, guard, or military positions.
Instead of war being a terrible, highly-lethal, territorial fight amongst men, it's now cute, hip, trendy and fun. It's a big party, and women are finally allowed to join in.
Now, women have finally jettisoned the terrible burden of being society's life-bearers and caretakers, and we're just more potential enemy combatants. We know it's okay to punch women, shoot women, etc. since we've been watching it happen on screens, for decades. Women are now often assumed to be fighters, not lovers. Cavalry, not mothers.
## Girls on top
Not only does this undermine any female role -- and put female civilians under a cloud of suspicion -- it also reduces mens' claim to be paramount in governance. Why should a man be the Commander in Chief, if women are on the battlefield?
In fact, why should men be in charge of anything, anywhere? Look at them. There they are. Hiding at home. Cowering in their kitchens, wringing their hands and fretting, while courageous, dangerous women protect _them_ from dangers foreign and domestic.
Women are the better men, really.
Is this really where we want to go?
## The final bitterness
But one thing I find most disturbing is something more personal. The ubiquitous nature of firearms in American homes has made domestic violence increasingly deadly. Adding more guns, for the female residents, often serves to make such violence even more deadly for women.
It turns out, that women are usually reluctant to shoot people they know; even more than men. Women without this inhibition are prone to sharing their home with men missing the same trait. And, now, they have more guns.
-
@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1
2024-09-27 07:10:40
# Let's talk about baking bread
I've mentioned a few times, how large-scale central planning leads inevitably to artificial scarcity and rising prices. Allow me to illustrate -- using a completely invented allegory about bread -- that has absolutely no parallels to any economy you may already be familiar with.
## We start with 20
Let us say, there is a group of 20 people in a village doing something that requires some niche skill and interest, but not inordinate amounts of talent or uncommon knowledge, such as baking loaves of bread containing emmer wheat. This is not an easy thing to do, and you'd have to read up on it and practice, to begin with, but it's not an insurmountably-high barrier for anyone who already knows how to bake.
Now, they're not baking all that much of this bread, as the market for people who want to eat it, is still rather small. But, they're happy to bake the bread, and sell it below cost (at $10), as they can see that the market is steadily growing and they know that there is a possibility of recuperating their investments, and maybe even turning some profit. They hope to eventually profit either directly (through the selling of the bread), or indirectly (as A Person Who Helped Invent Emmer Bread), or ideally some combination of the two.
They are baking away, and honing their baking skills, and scrounging up the money for bigger and better ovens or cleverly-arranging discounted contracts for slightly-larger deliveries of wheat, and more and more bakers see this activity and wander over to their village, to see how this bread is made. Well, the current bakers are starting to sink under all of the bread orders they are receiving, and customers are complaining of late deliveries, so they start to ask the 10 visiting bakers, if they would like to also set up a bakery and take some of the production off of their hands.
## We now have 25 bakers
The visiting bakers consider it and 5 agree and the rest wander off again, as they already are quite busy baking the bread they've always baked, and they aren't as certain of the possibility of growth, for this new type of bread.
The 5 additional bakers take a while to setup shop and assemble staff and place wheat orders and etc., but after a few weeks or months, they are also adding to the bread supply. There are now 25 bakers, all completely booked-out, producing bread. The price of bread has fallen, to $8/loaf.
And the bread they produced! All of the bakers competing for orders and expanding their product lines and customer base quickly lead to the white emmer bread being followed by whole-grain emmer bread, emmer dinner rolls, emmer-raisin bread, and even one rebel daring to bake spelt-emmer pretzels because... Well, why not? The customer, (who, at this point, is the person eating the bread), gets to decide which bread will be baked, and the pretzels sell like hotcakes.
The emmer hotcakes also sell like hotcakes.
No baker is making much (or any) money off of the baking, but they all can see where this will end up, so they are still highly motivated and continue to invest and innovate at breathtaking speed. We now have emmer baking mixes, "We luv emmer" t-shirts, emmer baking crowd-sourcing, all-about-emmer recipe books and blogs, etc. The bakers see this all as an investment, and cross-finance their fledgling businesses through selling other bread types, their spouse's day job, burning through their savings, or working Saturday night, stocking shelves at the grocery.
Everyone can be a winner! Everyone can find their niche-in-niche! Everyone can specialize!
Private enterprise for every baker, who rises and falls on his own efforts alone! And although everyone was competing with everyone else, there was no bitterness, as everyone could clearly see that effort and reward were in some sort of balance.
## We are now short 3
But, alas, that was not meant to be. The joy and harmony is short-lived.
A gigantic, wealthy foundation, who is dedicated to "ensuring much emmer bread will be baked, by financially supporting emmer bakers" enters the chat.
"We have seen that there is much baking going on, here, but just think how much better and more baking could be done, if we financed your baking! Isn't that clever? Then you could really concentrate on baking, instead of having to worry about financing your business or marketing your products. All you have to do, is apply to receive our baker's grant, by signing this form, acknowledging that you will only bake products containing nothing but emmer and you will otherwise support our mission. We promise to pay you $100/loaf."
The 2 people making spelt-emmer pretzels, and the 1 person making spelt-emmer cookies, refuse to sign on, and slink off, as they are very convinced of the rightness of including spelt. One emmer-purist baker refuses on some economic principle that nobody comprehends, and immediately turns around and goes back to work in their bakery, with their shoulders hunched. But the remaining 21 bakers happily apply for a baker's grant. The mixed-grain bakers are upset about the breakup of the emmer market, and spend some time sulking, before wandering off to the new, much-smaller, spelt bread market, that is setting up, down the street. Where they sell their bread for $6 and slowly go bankrupt.
## And then there were 10
2 weeks go by. 4 weeks go by. Baking has slowed. The grant hopefuls hold a meeting, where they discuss the joys of baking. Baking slows further.
Everyone is too excited, to find out if their new Universal Customer will be paying for the bread they bake. $100 a loaf! Just think of it! All of the bakers quickly do the math and realize that they not only will turn a profit, they can buy themselves a nice house and a new car and...
Nobody listens to the complaints from The Old Customers, who are the useless individual people only paying $8, despite them slaving away, all day, in front of a hot oven. They should be happy that they are getting bread, at all! Instead they complain that the bread is dry, that the delivery is late, that the bottoms are burnt. Ingrates.
And, then, the big day arrives, and the foundation happily announces that they will be giving 10 lucky bakers a grant.
The bakers are stunned. It had seemed that all of the bakers would be getting the grants, not only part of them. But, of course, the Universal Customer looked through the applications and tried to spend its money wisely. Why give grants to 5 bakers, who all produce the same type of olive-emmer bread? Give it to one, and then tell him to produce 5 times as much bread. He is then the olive-emmer bread expert and they will simply keep loose tabs on him, to nudge him to bake the bread in a sensible manner. And, of course, he shall always focus on baking olive bread, as that is what the grant is for.
The bakers stroll off, to their bakeries. Those who baked olive bread and received no grant, close up shop, as they can see which way the wind is blowing. The other grantless bakers reformulate their bakery plans, to see if they can somehow market themselves as "grant-free bakers" and wonder at how long they can stand the humiliation of selling to demanding, fickle customers at $8/loaf, when others are selling at $100/loaf, to an indifferent customer who doesn't even eat it.
The happiest 10 bakers leave for another conference, and while they are gone, their bakeries burn down. Their grants continue to flow, regardless, and the actual bread eaters are now standing in line at the last few bakeries, paying $20/loaf.
The End.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-08-24 07:57:16
# We can talk about something else, now.
Making boosts/quotes the primary way new users find a variety of topics is a fundamental flaw. We don't need boosts (which merely results in the main trending list trending even harder, as people feel safer boosting something that is already popular), and hashtags have become the mess they naturally will become.
## We need topical forums and relay-based community boards.
This would actively encourage those of us who want to write on OtherTopics to write more on them, as we would have some chance of the material being found by those interested in it. And it would spare us having to win some general popularity contest, just to be able to converse about golfing, Hinduism, or veganism.
Scrollable "timeline" feeds, even with AI assistance (like DVMs), don't accomplish this as well, as they eliminate the ability to skim the top-level and selectively read. You have to scroll, scroll, scroll.
It would also reduce the overloading of the original posts with videos, which is starting to give Nostr a Tik-Tok vibe. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, and we should probably have clients like that, but it makes life hard for anyone who wants to have a deeper discussion. People scrolling have trouble even "seeing" a text-based OP, but using the written word is a true signal to the other people, that you are capable of carrying a conversation through text.
## Examples for other styles of client
(I am including the Communities in Nostrudel and Satellite, even though they don't yet work, effectively.)
Some of the things that set these clients apart, is that:
1. they are topic-first or thread-first, not person-first,
2. they sometimes allow voting (I suppose we could rank by zaps),
3. they often allow the user to override the default order and simply look at whatever is newest, most popular, or where their friends are currently active (i.e. they allow for easy sorting and filtering),
4. they cap the depth of threads to one or two levels, keep the indentation tiny, or offer a "flat" view,
5. they are primarily text-based (Reddit broke with this and now their main pages look really spammy),
6. they allow you to see all of the entries in the thread, at once, and simply actualize to display the entries that pop up in-between,
7. they often have some indication of what you have already read (this is application data) and allow you to sort for "stuff I haven't looked at, yet".
https://i.nostr.build/uCx5YKMOsjhKBU5c.png
https://i.nostr.build/hMkm2oKpos0pWaV9.png
https://i.nostr.build/mGQONMw5RC8XKtph.png
https://i.nostr.build/TCSkG1bPuMOL0jja.webp
https://i.nostr.build/3fLjCSNdtefiZmAH.png
https://i.nostr.build/BHgo7EKTK5FRIsVl.png
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-08-15 20:52:04
## Here's how people use OtherStuff apps.
1) They usually go there to write or post, not to read or view, unless someone they _closely_ follow wrote about it in a Kind 01 note, SimpleX chat, Slack Channel, Telegram group, etc.
2) While they are there, they sometimes look around at what their frens have posted, zap them, leave a comment or a reply, etc. Sometimes they spend hours there. They really like it!
3) Then they leave.
4) If someone responds to anything they posted or wrote there, with anything other than a Kind 01 reply, they do not know about it, because it does not show up in their normal feed or notifications.
5) They do not come back until 1) happens again.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-07-21 10:46:33
# My suggestion for scaling up and staying humble
## The original protocol design was "good enough for now"
When Nostr was invented and got started with developing implementations, the *Original Devs* (ODs) were convinced this was going to be big... maybe... someday... hopefully.
But, whatever they did at the moment should definitely scale up a bit and be a bit flexible, to attract innovators and keep up the momentum. So, they designed the protocol to be open and left the specifications a bit vague and very high-level, so that nobody was forced into a particular implementation, in order to adhere to the spec. And they put the specs into a GitHub repository and managed them by a committee of collaborators, who were generally open to changes to the specs, including breaking changes.
That was smart. And it was "good enough for now"... back then. After all, Nostr (and the associated wiki and modular article specs) hadn't been invented, yet, so they couldn't write the protocol in the protocol before the protocol existed. They're good, but not _that_ good.
What they specifically wrote, into the [Nostr Protocol](https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips) was:
> To promote interoperability, we standards (sic) that everybody can follow, and we need them to define a **single way of doing each thing** without ever hurting **backwards-compatibility**, and for that purpose there is no way around getting everybody to agree on the same thing and keep a centralized index of these standards...
>
> Standards may emerge in two ways: the first way is that someone starts doing something, then others copy it; the second way is that someone has an idea of a new standard that could benefit multiple clients and the protocol in general without breaking **backwards-compatibility** and the principle of having **a single way of doing things**, then they write that idea and submit it to this repository, other interested parties read it and give their feedback, then once most people reasonably agree we codify that in a NIP which client and relay developers that are interested in the feature can proceed to implement.
# I disagree with this statement.
I don't disagree with what they _meant_, or what they _wanted_, I disagree with what they specifically wrote.
Standards (defined as prose specifications) are not the only -- or even best -- way to ensure interoperability or to check for backwards-compatibility. And, as they later note, basing a protocol off of implementations is arguably worse (but faster) than using specifications, as implementations have a life of their own and are sometimes simply shoddy or buggy, their content eventually differs from what ends up in the final standard, or there are soon multiple implementations covering the same spec "in theory", but not in practice, so that their events are incompatible.
And then the inevitable, heated discussion begins:
* Which implementation is the Real Standard™?
* Who controls the Real Standard™?
* How is the Real Standard™ spec supposed to be written?
* Does everything have to be in the same file type or markup language? If not, how can we ensure compatibility?
* What is realistic content for the data files?
* Is the Real Standard™ including all of the information needed to ensure interoperability, but not anything more, without reducing innovation and artificially forcing consensus by encouraging copy-paste or forking of product code?
## There is a third way: write the test first
We actually do not need standards to define a single way of doing each thing. A *test* is another way, and I think it is the best (i.e. the most-efficient and most-effective) way.
Specifically, I think we can borrow the simple behavior-driven design (BDD) language called Gherkin (or something similar), which is used to write dynamic specifications: i.e. implementations that test adherence to a set of rules, rather than an implementation that uses the rules to perform some task for an end user.
Gherkin simply allows you to create standard scenarios and test data and write the tests up in a way that can be performed manually or through automation. For example ( [source](https://www.pragmaticapi.com/blog/2013/01/21/bdd-atdd-for-your-agile-rest-api-part-2/) ):
(For a concrete example of such a TDD Protocol for Nostr, please see the [nostr-voliere repo](https://github.com/schmijos/nostr-voliere/tree/main/features) from nostr:npub1axy65mspxl2j5sgweky6uk0h4klmp00vj7rtjxquxure2j6vlf5smh6ukq .)
## This really is better
This TDD Protocol design would have some downsides and some upsides, of course, like any change.
### Downsides
* You can't write a TDD spec by yourself unless you understand basic software functionality, how to define an acceptance test, and can formulate a use case or user story.
* The specs will be more informative and agnostic, but also longer and more detailed.
* Someone will have to propose concrete test data (i.e. a complete json event) and spec interlinking will be explicit, rather than writing "...", "etc.", or "sorta like in that other section/doc, but not really" all over the place.
* The specs will tend to focus on positive cases, and leave off error-handling or most edge-cases, so developers can't use them to replace unit tests or other verification of their product.
### Upsides
* The specs will be concrete and clear, in a type of pseudocode, while leaving the actual implementation of any feature up to the individual developer, who uses the spec.
* The specs will be orderly and uniquely-identifiable, and can have hierarchy and granularity (major and minor tests, optional tests, tests only under certain conditions, etc.)
* Deciding whether changes to the spec are breaking changes to the protocol would be simple to determine: Does the previous test still pass?
* Specs will always be final, they will simply be versioned and become more or less defined over time, as the tests are adjusted.
* Product developers will feel less like they "own" particular specs, since their implementation is actually what they own and the two remain permanently separate.
* Developers can create an implementation list, defining specific tests in specific versions, that they adhere to. This makes it more transparent, what their product actually does, and lowers their own documentation burden.
* Rather than stalking the NIPs for changes, or worrying about what some other implementation someplace has built, developers can just pull the repo and try running the relevant tests.
* Each product developer can test the spec by trying to perform or automate/run it, and request changes to ensure testability, raising the quality of the spec review process.
This is already a lot to think about, so I'm just going to end this here.
Thank you for reading.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-28 13:04:48
# An immodest proposal
It is grant season again, and -- as every grant season -- there is some cheering, some complaining, and much bewilderment, as the grants are announced and monies are dispersed.
I'm mostly a bystander to this spectacle, but it's impossible to ignore it, or to not become emotionally entangled in the general circus of it, so I've decided to write about it -- again -- as it is effecting me and interrupting my own efforts -- again.
What I'm about to suggest here is something that has never been done before (at least, not on a grant system of this scale), but it's always easy to criticize, whine, or fall into conspiracy-theorizing, so I've decided to try something more constructive and propose a solution.
## The Five Whys
Why do some projects get turned down for grants?
Why do some people receive grants over and over and over?
Why do others refuse to apply for grants?
Why is an enormous amount of money being spent, but nobody knows how much is left over?
Why is it not really clear who is receiving what?
Why, why, why?!
## Doctor, heal thyself!
Leaving this many whys lying around, or responding to them defensively or with small information-leaks, is an open communication fail on our open communication protocol.
We don't really have the excuse of not knowing how to communicate transparently and publicly, since that is our professional specialty. If we can't figure out how to run a grant program in the most _continuously innovative and traceable_ way possible, even though we are a collection of some of the most talented perpetual innovators on the planet, then who can?
We are all process engineers, so let's engineer our own processes.
## The application process
The main problem with the grant application process is that there is a grant application process. There shouldn't be. Everyone who is working in our space is working transparently, actively marketing their ideas, and everything they do is a matter of public record.
We know who the builders are. We know what they are doing. We can interact with them about what they are doing. We can turn on our computers, pull out some popcorn, and entertain ourselves all day, every day, just watching them labour and think aloud and debate, and fork various repositories or Nostr notes.
There is, at most, a loss of information, as there are so many people working on so many things, that it can become difficult to even track one particular person. That means it is not too much for us to ask, to suggest that anyone interested in a grant at least make their interest known in some small way.
## Wave if you want a grant
That way should be as small as possible. Tiny. Ideally, they shouldn't even have to go that way themself; others should be able to nominate them. A 10-minute barrier to entry is already high, if it requires some formal, explicit act of supplication.
Does that sound silly to you?
Then you do not understand how profoundly logical, forward-thinking, and diligent software developers can be. If they "just fill out a form" and/or "have an informal discussion", in order to receive money, it smacks disturbingly of "job interview" and "contract". These are people for whom contract law is holy law, so many will agonize over the decision.
- Some already have a job and they don't know how it will be in the future. What if they have to work overtime?
- Or they have a family and worry that they can't promise to deliver within some particular time. The wife could get pregnant, the baby could get sick, they might have to move house.
- Maybe they are students and exam time is approaching. Or they are simply shy or very young, and therefore reluctant to be seen "tooting their own horn". There is probably someone more worthy, and they are taking away the money he would get.
- Maybe they were hit with such an inner building passion that they hacked the whole implementation out their last vacation and... well... it's now already there. Everyone is already using it. Darn. Why apply for a grant, for something you've already finished? Seems sort of silly. Is that even allowed? What are the grants even for?
- What if they already have such a well-publicized project, that everyone is already watching them and keeping tabs? Then it's embarrassing to apply, on a lark, and get turned down. But if they don't apply, then everyone encourages them to apply. What to do?
- Many prefer to keep their head down and keep building, for months or years at a time, and clap politely when others are awarded a grant. In fact, they happily zap the recipients and then go right back to building and releasing. They're often grateful to just bathe in other people's joy, by proxy, while they stack sats and stay humble and keep coding.
**That is why a large subset of potential grant recipients never even apply. That is also why those who have received a grant are less reluctant to apply for another.** Successful application breeds successful application. The emotional barrier to entry has fallen. To those that have, shall be given.
## Let's use Nostr to run Nostr grants
We should turn the tables around completely. We want the developers to keep developing, not jumping through hoops. We don't want them to be distracted and internally torn over the ethics of requesting funding. We don't want them to be afraid to apply for grants or be mystified by the grant-giving process, or be humiliated or frustrated by a declined grant.
1. Let us come up with very clear, understandable criteria for rewarding grants, write them down, and publish them on Nostr Wiki. Accept comments and critiques of the criteria. After every round of grants, we should review the criteria, suggest improvements, and publish the new version in the same place.
2. Let every application be judged according to this criteria and the results should be published after every round. The results should include a rating for each criteria and (if the grant is given) the amount of the grant awarded or (if the grant is declined) the reasons for the decline and what the applicant can improve to have a better chance of receiving a grant in the future.
3. Ideally, **no applicant should walk away from a declined grant feeling hopeless or slighted.** Every applicant should feel like the grant process gave them valuable feedback on their own efforts and expert guidance on what they should maybe focus more on.
4. Every application should be a standing application that has to be explicitly removed from the list by the person listed as an applicant. Anything not removed automatically enters the next round. If there is no further development on the project, then the application should be paused and removed after 2 rounds of being paused.
5. The application process should consist of adding yourself or someone else to a Wiki Grant Application List and linking to some documentation of the project. Any npub that trolls or spams the list should be prohibited from further contribution. The quality and completeness of that documentation should be a factor in grant acceptance.
6. Grant decisions should include a "handicap" (like in golf), that take into account how Nostr-experienced the applicant is and how easy it was for them to add a new implementation to some already-existing system. The tendency should be to award newer applicants such grants, with more-experienced applicants competing for long-term funding or being offered a paid(!) place on the grant board, but not both.
7. Each grant round should be proceeded by a grant scope declaration (we shall be awarding X number of grants with an average of X Bitcoin per grant) accompanied by a funding overview and update (How much money was collected since the last round? How much did we spend? How much do we have now? etc.).
## Okay, this is just a prototype
I'm sure that I'm going to be bombarded with naysayers, critics, and people who think I am "writing above my pay grade", but I wouldn't be me if I let that daunt me.
All I am trying to do is change the discussion into one focused on uncovering the grant problems and offering grant solutions, rather than debates about whether some particular person was grant-worthy, or long rants on some particular person's real motives.
It's a lot of Real Money. It's worth talking about, but it's not worth fighting over. Let's talk.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-25 09:28:03
Should show up here as content
nostr:note1m9jdd9w9qxwa8gfda6n3sku7nf6mjnxylhaaa8wpnvdz85xajrasrrpj2a
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-24 06:05:05
# The new Great Library
We have all heard tales of Amazon or other booksellers banning customers from their bookstores or censoring/editing purchased books. The famous [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/), and similar organizations, are performing a good work, to help protect many of our precious books from this fate, but it is merely a centralized website and therefore not censorship resistant. Also, it mostly posts books in English or German.
So, we at nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz have decided to move Project Gutenberg to Nostr and house it in the most distributed way possible: on relays. Specifically, our new, public [Citadel relay](https://thecitadel.nostr1.com/) for out-of-print books (and other documents), but also on any relay, anywhere.
And, because we are a very humble group, we're naming the effort "Alexandria". And the first book to be printed on Nostr is the Bible because *obviously*.
## Why on relays?
Well, why not on relays? Relays are one of the few widely-distributed databases for documentation in existence. The relay database spans the entire globe and anyone can maintain their own relay on their personal computer or mobile phone.
That means that anyone can house *their own* books.
Which books are their own? Any books they have in their own possession. Any books someone would have to physically pry out of their cold, dead, computer.
## Notes are perfect for publishing
Once we begin generating eBooks from notes with an associated header (which will be quite easy to do, so long as they are written in markdown or similar), they will also be readable, downloadable, and storable in ePub format (see [Pandoc](https://pandoc.org/epub.html)). And it is, after all, only a matter of time until someone enterprising makes an ePaper Nostr client for calmer reading of notes, and then you can download and read them, without having to bother converting beforehand, which maintains their Nostr-navigation.
The new event kind [30040](https://wikifreedia.xyz/nkbip-01/) allows us to take any sort of note containing any sort of characters and create a type of "note collection" or "book of notes", "journal of notes", "magazine of notes". And it can be nested or embedded in other notes, creating any sort of note-combination and note-hierarchy you can think of, only limited in size by the ability of your computer to processes the relationships.
## Save the Zettels
The associated kind 30041 adds the prospect of breaking longer texts or articles up into sections or snippets (called "Zettel" in German). We can then collect or refer to particular bits of a longer text (like a chart, elegant paragraph or definition, data table), directly. Anyone can create such snippets, even of texts they didn't write, as they can add a reference to the original publication in the tags of the new event.
This means we no longer have to "copy-paste" or quote other people's works, we can simply tie them in. If we worry about them being deleted, we can fork them to create our own, digitally-linked version, and then tie that in. This means that source material can be tied to the new material, and you can trace back to the source easily (using Nostr IDs and tags, which are signed identifiers) and see who else is branching out from that source or discussing that source.
## It's gonna be HUGE!
We are making a big, beautiful library... and you are going to build it for us. Anyone, anywhere can therefore publish or republish any document they wish, with Nostr, and store it wherever they have a relay, and view it on any client willing to display it.
You will own something and be happy.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-23 07:03:28
I've been dealing with a lot of aspiring IT people, lately, and it has me sort of jaded.
I'm trying to think of the level of competence I would expect of someone like myself because it has changed, dramatically, since I started out, 26 years ago. I've only now managed to catch up enough to feel "requalified" for my own profession, so I thought I'd write it down for all of you, so that you know what to look for.
As in, what is the new "industry standard" knowledge level for a software business analyst?
### If I were hiring a business analyst today, I'd ask...
1. What do e-mail, FTP, and UML have in common?
2. What is the difference between an intranet and the Internet? Name the four Internet layers and one protocol for each.
3. What are unit tests and integration tests and what are they useful for? Who should write them? Who should be looking at the results?
4. What is a build server and why use one? What is the difference between continuous integration and continuous deployment?
5. Please explain the three source control commands: commit, push, and pull.
6. Please explain the three Linux commands: pwd, ls, cat.
7. How do software branches work? What is a merge conflict? What are pull requests?
8. What is the difference between an activity diagram, a state-machine diagram, and a class diagram and when is it best to use which?
9. What are DDD and TDD? What purpose do they serve?
10. What are use cases and user stories? When is it best to use which? What is gherkin?
11. What is the difference between stateful and stateless?
12. What is agile programming?
13. Explain the difference between Kanban, Xtreme Programming, and Scrum, and when is it best to use which?
14. What is the difference between functional and object-oriented programming? Why use one, rather than the other?
15. What are wireframes, mockups, and prototypes?
16. Name two network topologies and give an example for an implementation of each.
17. What are XML, Json, and Yaml and why use one, rather than another?
18. What is an ORM and why use one? What are validators?
19. Name three types of databases and a use case they are ideal for.
20. Explain the importance of data sets to machine learning.
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-21 19:11:51
# Finding Catholics and Catholic-friendly content on Nostr
## Obvious Catholics being obvious
nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl
nostr:npub1k92qsr95jcumkpu6dffurkvwwycwa2euvx4fthv78ru7gqqz0nrs2ngfwd
nostr:npub1wqfzz2p880wq0tumuae9lfwyhs8uz35xd0kr34zrvrwyh3kvrzuskcqsyn
nostr:npub1ecdlntvjzexlyfale2egzvvncc8tgqsaxkl5hw7xlgjv2cxs705s9qs735
nostr:npub1rcr8h76csgzhdhea4a7tq5w5gydcpg9clgf0cffu6z45rnc6yp5sj7cfuz
nostr:npub1fyd0awkakq4aap70ual7mtlszjle9krffgwnsrkyua2frzmysd8qjj8gvg
nostr:npub1q0fe26apcqeeyqnlre29fqu7ysx0ucm5ly637md3zlvy2xcfsm3s0lsv4r
nostr:npub1dvdcmtp5llrp63jdlmhspe9gffsyu9ew7cu3ld3f9y7k79nxzjxqf4d4rm
nostr:npub1paxyej8f8fh57ny0fr5w2mzp9can9nkcmeu5jaerv68mhrah7t8s795ky6
nostr:npub1tvw3h5xqnuc2aq5zelxp3dy58sz7x9u8e6enkxywmrz70cg2j2zqjes44n
nostr:npub13tahtl9pjw9u5ycruqk84k6sfmkyljsr7y2pc4s840ctlm73fxeq3j6e08
nostr:npub1w4jkwspqn9svwnlrw0nfg0u2yx4cj6yfmp53ya4xp7r24k7gly4qaq30zp
## Other good Christian follows
nostr:npub1hqy4zwnvsdmlml4tpgp0kgrruxamfcwpgm4g3q2tr3d2ut3kuxusx73psm
nostr:npub1cpstx8lzhwctunfe80rugz5qsj9ztw8surec9j6mf8phha68dj6qhm8j5e
nostr:npub1ak5kewf6anwkrt0qc8ua907ljkn7wm83e2ycyrpcumjvaf2upszs8r0gwg
nostr:npub1mt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgs5mm7cz
nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh
nostr:npub1356t6fpjysx9vdchfg7mryv83w4pcye6a3eeke9zvsje7s2tuv4s4k805u
nostr:npub1kun5628raxpm7usdkj62z2337hr77f3ryrg9cf0vjpyf4jvk9r9smv3lhe
nostr:npub1qf6gsfapq94rj0rcptkpm9sergacmuwrjlgfx5gznjajtvkcx3psfhx6k5
nostr:npub1ll99fcrclkvgff696u8tq9vupw9fulfc8fysdf6gfwp7hassrh2sktxszt
nostr:npub1zy37ecnhpvx4lmxh4spd0898sxdj0ag8m64s9yq499zaxlg7qrqq8c53q6
nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs
nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn
nostr:npub18zqmath26txwfhc70af8axk7pftjre9x7cf0lxkg92nvj2cpfgts8va790
## Christian follow list
An exhaustive list of Christians is maintained by nostr:npub1mt8x8vqvgtnwq97sphgep2fjswrqqtl4j7uyr667lyw7fuwwsjgs5mm7cz. Just look at his list on https://listr.lol/
## Catholic community
You can also join the community, to reach other catholics (usable on #Nostrudel #Coracle #Amethyst and #Satellite):
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqyx7cpzqqnd3dl8hnptg9agfugwmdcmgfl7wcrfjpgfpv28ksq6dnmqc0e8qqyyxct5dphkc6trmu6k9l
## Christian topic relay
And always make sure to use the #catholic hashtag, to get onto the top-specific christpill relay (add it to your relay list: wss://christpill.nostr1.com/).
Hope that helps! 😊
-
@ dd664d5e:5633d319
2024-06-16 08:01:38
# Bitcoin Capitalism
## But who would build the roads?
Discussing who would build the roads is the classic intellectual excersize of anarchists, everywhere. Would everyone build the stretch in front of, and within, their property? Would private entities build the roads and charge a toll? Would roads fall into disarray and we'd use more rugged vehicles, such as mule-drawn carts and offroad vehicles? Would we eventually abandon the wheel and switch to camels and hovercraft?
Most discussion participants assume it will devolve down into some combination, but Bitcoin might put a break on the toll road option. Bitcoin rises in purchasing power so quickly and inexorably, that any complex, long-term, expensive project becomes an investment with guaranteed negative nominal returns and a high probability of negative real returns.
You would struggle to demand tolls at a price high enough to cover the nominal costs of the initial investment (although they might cover maintenance and running costs), and the tolls you could demand would steadily shrink in nominal terms.
## Bitcoin reduces the investment profit motive
The [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/investing) describes investing as:
>to put money, effort, time, etc. into something to **make a profit** or get an advantage
Bitcoin means that you make a monetary profit by saving capital, rather than by deploying it. To deploy Bitcoin is always to simply spend it. The capital is consumed. Gone. Poof!
Whereas if you simply hodl it, you will rapidly grow wealthier and wealthier without commiserate effort.
There will be no such thing as a profitable return on investment because the best returns will always be in savings. Your best financial bet is always to save all of your Bitcoin and use the infrastructure other people have built, at great loss to themselves.
## This is correct
This is actually how capitalism should work. It is not an error.
Someone or a group of someones deploys capital, first, to build something, and they alone hold the risk of failure. They do it without expecting their (entire, nominal) capital returned because they value the building planned more than the capital trapped in it. The capital invested is primarily transformed, rather than returned, and the invested capital raises the living standard for everyone who then uses the building.
This is actually high-time preference behavior called "patronage". This is not the opposite of saving, but something often done in addition to it. It is investment devoid of a financial profit motive.
## We have come full-circle
What Bitcoin does, in perpetuity, is raise the risk of capital so high that a financial loss is expected, so capital deployments beyond those required for personal consumption will only come from the generous and the particularly far-sighted.
Bitcoin moves investments out of the purely financial realm back into a preference for the public good and a willingness to sacrifice, with returns often being tokens of gratitude, special privileges, increased social standing, hopes of indirect business advantage, or promises of treasure in the afterlife, rather than direct returns of capital, or even profits.
Who will build the roads? The nobility, the pious, the ambitious middle class, and the volunteering tradesmen will build the roads, just as they once built the cathedrals.... and the roads.