pull down to refresh
All problems are coordination problems. When the systems through which consensus emerges fail no new problems are solvable. This has a ratcheting effect until new consensus mechanisms emerge and dominate, creating periods of stability. It doesn't matter how wealthy we are or how productive the mean employee is, because the structures created to solve past problems cannot foresee or account for the problems that emerge subsequently, either by themselves or from the very success of historical systems (e.g. social media, so called "first world problems).
When people cannot imagine viable solutions to intractable or wicked problems because it's impossible for consensus to form around them they feel increasingly impoverished and pessimistic. In the west we imagine solutions coming from rugged individualism, and the beauty of bitcoin is that is that it solved a collective a problem, a problem with the commons, through rugged individualism and self interest, but that is rare. Most problems aren't like that.
Even within their frame
The frame, as I understood you, is that glozow was recruited by cold email, when people like Atack were already verifiably committed to Bitcoin.
It was a cold email unless you support the contrary with facts, some thread between her failed application and the email tying her to bitcoin.
This article was in no way malicious or spiteful or emotional. The fact that she made an application a year earlier and by her own statements had "given up" on "Blockchain" strongly supports his statement that this was a cold email. A warm email would have had some preceding trail.
That trail may exist, and it may have been intentionally omitted for "sport" by the author, but frankly such an accusation screams emotional discomfort at the obvious conclusions from the facts available, and you should rather respond with an alternative set of facts that broaden the picture.
I'm shocked that 7% of women between 46-50 had their first child over 40. I suspect that is going to drop off a cliff because this is a cohort that got their career started well before the financial crisis of 2008, which had a dramatic impact on fertility due to the impacts it had on career development and on the corresponding male demographic.
What could hold it up is the amount of career supports women have had at the expense of men post-2008, and improvements in IVF technology and availability.
But then this data is pre-covid, so that would have cratered the chances of younger millennials to have children over 40, due to anxiety and a variety of other economic and cultural factors.
Scam Altman is top of the list. Shocking that someone with so little personal entrepreneurial success has been able to judge and critique others for so long. Anyone with that level of political acumen is pure evil.
It's a very complex proof of concept. I try to break everything down to the narrowest detail so that it can do is tasks without compaction.
Fix this first thing
I don't have design specs. I just keep sprints as tight as possible and constantly smoke test my way towards what I am trying to build. I don't know what design specs would look like to be honest, as in how extensive and detailed, whether diagrammatic or markdown.
I did try to be spec driven but after a few sprints it became apparent that the specs generated were directionally correct but woefully inadequate, and that I just had to feel my way forward. It would be nice to start with a lot of boiler plate that covered every possible design pattern, but I'm using Wordpress and don't want to spend time figuring out how to do it right rather than just getting it done as proof of concept. I can worry about perfect architecture when it's working end to end with real traction.
I have 5-10 Claude sessions open at any moment, and another 5 Codex sessions, and then Gemini and Codex conduct code reviews automatically on each PR.
I have it structured so that there are a couple of seasons that work high level, then each sprint gets an orchestrator, and each task in a sprint gets an implementation session.
I find my biggest problem is working on something complex, then waiting for it to finish, moving to another sprint to move it along and losing my focus.
I have ADHD and moving between different unrelated complex tasks is difficult, easy to forget what the sprint was about entirely.
I have multiple staging environments and protocols for testing and deployment, different sessions can test autonomously, and they can use Chrome and SSH, so they can test autonomously.
Right now I'm struggling with regression testing and making sure I'm implementation sessions don't duplicate code we already have. I'm not a developer so it's not natural for me to go snooping around the code looking for architectural issues.
I think these problems are solvable with some reasonable UI principles, e.g. recognition over recall. Although I'm working in the terminal, I use descriptive branch names that match dedicated worktrees.
If I could configure my setup so that Claude Code in the terminal would get labelled as "Ready" or "Working" and labelled using status definitions that I can set then I'd be able to keep track of the state and the progress of agents with less cognitive overhead on he operational side and more attention to the details of the tasks.
Unrelated question: these 512 sats, where do they go? They don't change the balance I see in the header. Just curious.
A friend gave me this link: https://t.me/hiveblockchain
You could ask in there.
Steemit was a pioneer, I'm shocked that Stackers don't know about it.
Yes, it was a shit coin, but it couldn't have been done on Bitcoin at the time, and it did find PMF until government broke down. It was the only shitcoin at the time whose value didn't track Bitcoin's, it found a completely new audience and onboarded them to crypto, unlikely basically all of the new people at the time who came through Bitcoin. In that regard it was more successful than SN, which has never found PMF outside Bitcoiners.
The purists moved to a fork called Hive. They will meet in places like Kuala Lumpur.
Perfect illustration of the folly of libertarianism and market fundamentalism.
Most cooperation is not rooted in trade. Trying to price everything in a singular unit of account is the market equivalent of the Soviet Union trying to centrally manage the price everything. A person cannot price everything that they attend to any more than a bureaucracy can price every good or service in the economy. I'm both cases there are computational limits.
We're just so lucky that there were enough centrist Dad's present to form a silent and civically minded wall against male privilege and prejudice. Our bitcoin has been saved. Hurray!