HOLY COW BROO! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO START THE SAME KIND OF PROJECT! But I might not be able to start it anyway cuz of my big exam this year. Let me share the idea with you. First let me tell you existing projects that are similar to your idea:

Iris.to: Browser client. Has tagging, threading, and social graph filters but still misses semantic aggregation and long-form curation.

NOW LET'S COME TO THE BIG SHOW.

So. I named the project: Noēsis (Greek: "direct knowing") 😤 (Btw, this will be bit hard to build since it is a neural interface) The basic framework is as follows:

If you want relay health, popularity, and content type support:

Probably not as big of a deal as it seems. Most other credit ratings agencies had already downgraded US debt, so it's not exactly providing new information to the market.

What I recall from previous downgrades was concern over certain large funds (like pensions) only being allowed to hold AAA rated bonds. They would then have to dump rather large treasury holdings.

Two things can happen to make that relatively unimportant: 1) the funds can change their rules and 2) other large buyers can step in at a very similar price point because the Treasury market is unfathomably deep.

If you have a simple Electrum wallet file then it actually makes things pretty easy.

Thanks for your comments.

My basis for the statement is that the value of art is subjective.

It cannot be attributed value based on data because the data doesn't exist. Maybe if AI was told a new Picasso had been unearthed, it would value it in the millions, but what about which Picasso is the best? It has to go on data provided by humans (the most expensive sale or the most revered piece in a major museum).

Finally, if humans know that art was created by a machine (with no experience, history, or toil) we value it very low.

Why are we attempting to destroy the value we create? Why are we keen to give up the pursuit of experts attributing value to art?

It will take us all time to adapt to the changes AI brings, but we should use it for tasks we don't value, not ones we do.

Welcome to the Saloon!

Ohh, sorry for that, will look into it!

Awesome, thanks for the progress update and feedback! The feeling of stacking repos / commits is one of the coolest things, it's like building a canvas of knowledge and work slowly over years I definitely wanna help every new dev get addicted to that experience.

I appreciate the feedback this is helpful AND encouraging to know people are going through it and finding value! This is just V1 of the starter, I will redo it and improve it at some point soon cause I know how important it is to have an empowering and fun intro for this stuff and these little blockers can be so devastating for that hah

Now in terms of brainstorming - it would be cool if I can run a (local / self-hosted) agent that helps me reduce and focus the information that I consume across youtube, nostr, social, sn. I get easily distracted, I watch stupid zero-value videos, etc. If I could have a configurable agent that helps me get "less, but better" content and yet still make sure that it's engaging and entertaining, that would be really useful.

Thanks for sharing 🙏❤️

Pokemon is a game for Gameboy. Twitch is a live video streaming app. “Twitch Plays Pokemon” was a popular phenomenon where Twitch users would collaborate to play a SHARED game of Pokemon on Gameboy. Here's how it worked:

Participants would use the Twitch message board to enter commands that then got executed in the gameplay. For example, if someone entered the command “right”, that would cause the player to move 1 space to the right. Commands would execute immediately after they were received, and anyone could enter a valid command at any time. You can think of Twitch Plays Pokemon as the more practical equivalent of placing a Gameboy in the middle of a crowded room and telling everyone to push buttons at the same time. As you might expect, the gameplay of Twitch Plays Pokemon was quite “twitchy”, but in a very “infinite monkey theory” way, progress could eventually be made.

In an effort to streamline play, a new game mode was devised in which players would “vote” for the next command and, every 4 seconds, whatever command received the most votes over the previous 4 seconds would execute in the game. Also introduced in this mode was the ability to attach multipliers to a command, such that the command would execute that number of times. For example, “right2” would cause the player to move 2 spaces to the right. “right3” would cause the player to move 3 spaces to the right, and so on. The highest number any participant could place after a command was 9, meaning whatever command they entered would execute 9 times. As you might expect, gameplay in this mode was less chaotic, more efficient, but it also meant each participant had less direct and immediate influence over the game. If a group of even 5-10 got together and colluded on their votes, they could practically take over the game and make contrarian ideas irrelevant. The new game mode was called “Democracy”, and the original game mode became known as “Anarchy”. Which game mode was engaged was itself governed by a democratic process: if more participants wanted to play in Democracy mode, then Democracy mode engaged; if more wanted to play in Anarchy mode, then Anarchy mode engaged.

To summarize: in Anarchy mode, everyone had equal influence over the game, but progress was slow and clunky. In Democracy mode, progress was fast and efficient, but colluding groups could marginalize individual participants and ruin the game for them.

So… individual participants discovered a means of effective protest whenever Democracy mode became suffocating, but they could not garner enough votes to switch back to Anarchy mode. Someone would type the command “start9” into the comments. This command meant “open the start menu 9 times in a row”, which, as you might imagine, would be enormously disruptive if executed. The entire screen would be blocked by the start menu, over and over. Typing “start9” was a participant's way of signaling to other participants that they felt marginalized by Democracy mode, and they were ready to fight back. If others felt the same, they could also begin typing “start9” - then, sure enough, “start9” would finally receive more votes than the colluding group's command, and the menu opening would begin. Every 4 seconds, the menu would open 9 times…again, and again, and again…until finally, the colluding group would be forced to either cooperate in reverting the game mode back to Anarchy mode or quit altogether.

Playing in Anarchy mode was impractical, but people did not want to play a game where they had no voice, where a group of insiders had taken total control. And so “start9” became the battle cry of the individual, the out-group, a means of signaling to other individuals that it was time to fight back against the usurpers - to use their own rules against them, until there was no alternative but to return control to the individual participants.

I believe is important to support territories that somehow are struggling, I pick the bottom 5 by revenue for this month (excluding #56 ~openagents because is a proprietary one)

Hope this ideas help spin up your territories a bit more!

Today, we earlier shared this post to introduce the SN/~AGORA to BitcoinTalk forum users.

We likewise welcome stackers feedback and advice. Here the SN more complete version: #1034121

WARNING: this has all the signs of being malware.

If you download this specter-desktop fork and run it, it will likely steal all of your funds.

No source has been provided that implements the alleged functionality.

The only changes the fork implements are to markdown files

The dmg file that the github fork links to contains malware: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/10590330f76ceac4b2a7dc661e1e4bf993eedabccd4f419ec594413213d9e666/behavior

On it.

Hope it helps: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5553448.0

eager to read more gripping tales

Let's go...