True, and you make a fair point. But I dont think i have found a recommendation for such a writer who is newly writing now.

Every writer I've heard about lately got their start (and recognition) before AI -- okay, AI has only really been capable of the deluge for the last year or two -- how does a new writer go about finding readers these days?

Giving money away for free is difficult to sustain (I certainly am not planning on doing it). This is especially true when anyone with an agent can point it at your faucet.

What's your reasoning for wanting to run a faucet?

Hadn't heard of it before, but after watching the trailer, I'm curious.

That value-association with "money" is important and I probably should have considered it more before embarking on this adventure.

I thought about using words like "auction" or "market" but figured the simple route would be better.

Have you ever tried to explain SN to someone? How did you feel it went? What sort of language did you use?

In my mind trust refers to relative visibility (ie show me things from users who like the same kind of things as me), while reputation refers yo what SN used to call "global trust" (I think?) -- all users are ranked and those who are higher get more visibility.

I wonder if there is a world where the experience of SN when not logged in (anon mode) is purely sats based, while the logged in experience is unique to each user: what you see is affected by users you trust.

I've been reading a lot about the recent (last couple years) decision on LessWrong to ban Said Achimz. LW seems to value a unified experience for all users (I have no idea what their code actually implements, just going off what the head mod and other users say). They seem to want a forum where users end up talking about the same things. So they use reputation while a place like X is based on relative experience, and so users are shown a feed that is presumably? unique to them.

We currently show everyone the same feed (except for muting), and I believe it is one of the principal sources of strife on the home page. SN could show each user what they want to see, but this would be a big change from treating the home page as a market.

Yes! That is exactly it! Sadly, I think I got rid of it.

In trying to answer this, I kept thinking, honestly: I like sats as the only moderator. Do we really need trust?

I think zapping (both up and down) is not very widespread. There are a limited number of SN users who are highly active zappers and many more who only occasionally zap. So the burden of using money as the moderator falls on those few rather than emerging as a consensus of the whole community. Trust might be a way of magnifying the actions of users who the community tends to agree with.

Heres one example: Zapping (both up and down) is not a terribly widespread habit -- it seems like there are some users who are highly active, and then many more who only occasionally zap or not at all. This means when some scammer boosts their stuff, the burden of downzapping it mostly falls on the few who really care (rather than some beautiful world where everyone chips in a little bit to create a big downzap effect). The same is true for downzapping: if one user decides to go on a jihad against another, the victim is often on their own to boost their posts back up. If we had some amount of trust affecting the weight of zaps, highly trusted users could spend less to achieve the same effect.

I'm very interested in being convinced that no trust is required, and that we only need to tweak the way sats are used, but we've been using only money as a moderator for more than half a year now and it is clear that when someone wants to spend to distort things away from what most users would like, it is expensive to combat them. And that there isn't a "whole community" reaction against such a strong hand. Rather it seems that most users were kind of like "ugh, I guess I'll just check back when this is over."

Now, the reality of SN is that such actions things seem to pretty quickly be "over" because it is expensive to manipulate on a big scale. And we did get some pretty nice reward pools.

I, myself, didn't know of Williams. You've made me curious about him though. I see he has a book called Butcher's Crossing which I am now interested to read.

He doesn't seem to have ever made it very big (although sharing the National Book Award with John Barth is fairly big). I wonder how such storytellers will find these days -- not bug enough to attract a national publisher, but serious about writing and good enough to find some readers whose life will be changed by their words...I'm worried that in the onslaught of slop, such writers will be truly hard to find. Between self publishing and AI generated writing and the general increase in writing being published everywhere, I don't know how I would find a modern day John Williams...unless by the recommendation of a knowing reader like yourself.

This doesn't really change the conclusion of your post, but for what it is worth:

source

i had this little Sony mp3 player in 2007 or so that was just about the size of a silver dollar (and about 1 cm thick). it barely had a screen and about three buttons, but it was the coolest device i've ever owned.

I did: https://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/109619410/what-if-you-could-pay-to-postreply

but I need to try again with a different question (I tried to soften it a little and shouldn't have).

Good writeup! I hope it sticks around and grows. Music has gotten so locked-down in the streaming era that it's hard to believe there was a time when we had hard drives full of music. Next we need to bring back the mp3 players!

I'm sympathetic to this approach, but I also think that the longer there is serious work being done on cryptography that might be useful in the event that quantum does turn out to be an issue, the better. The worst case scenario in my mind is that we rush the introduction of new cryptography to bitcoin and it ends up having vulnerabilities. So if there are people who do work on it now and it gets poked at and hardened it seems like a positive to me.

This is one of the reasons I like in-person events so much: you meet people who aren't living on X.

I am confused by how Core Lightning approached this disclosure.

But I am more confused* by how calle and the "red team" has been going about things

*confused in the second usage here means: *it really looks like they are just trying to get a bunch of attention for people.

I would be very pleased with this. Biggest hurdle to registering is the stupid phone number requirement.

I like the nitter not and appreciate your point about x. It would be better if more people posted full context I think (and this is something I do try to do).

Mostly I noted calle's saying that he shouldn't "have to go to stackernews" to find out about things...

But it seems like CLN had a plan for how their announcement would go and it is not going that way.