What is so sad about the French riots is how today’s dire situation was so very predictable (and predicted). Attached is a piece I wrote a couple of years ago, during the Paris Olympics:
research.gavekal.com/article…
PiRK retweeted
And here is another, more recent, piece on France that I wrote this summer
research.gavekal.com/article…
PiRK retweeted
Emmanuel Macron et Brigitte Macron assistent à l’avant-dernier concert parisien de Céline Dion à la Plénitude Arena.
PiRK retweeted
The AI-powered “bug-pocalypse” is changing the security landscape across software.
@Bitcoin_ABC has continued to meet that challenge with disciplined security work, rapid response to disclosures, and ongoing hardening of eCash.
Thanks to @roqqitdev and their team for helping make it stronger.
After months of hard work I am happy to make public the 2026 Bitcoin ABC Security Audit: teamsocket.net/security/2026…
The report details my security findings in @Bitcoin_ABC's @eCash node software from May - Sept.
PiRK retweeted
Dude it’s hilarious how Jeremy and LPNH are just asking libertarians to be ideologically consistent.
I would respect them more if the naysayers just said “honestly, LPNH are not wrong, but we have not reached a point where we are ready for deadly violence against theft.”
It’s just a personal risk management question at this point.
"So many projects today are using crypto as an excuse to build a financial product with smarter people and more workable regulations. But this "competence arbitrage" is a short term thing. Real change will come from technology arbitrage."
@BytesOfMan
The @ProofofWriting AMA with @BytesOfMan has started. Open the link below in a browser window and you can ask your questions. If you'd like to use POW but don't have XEC, ask me and I'll give you enough to try the platform. proofofwriting.com/feed/cd0c…
PiRK retweeted
The US is slowly becoming aware that copyright law, generally, does not work at scale. They will come up with some special way to word why this is different, but the reality is you cannot own ideas regardless of the form they are presented in.
Vulnérabilité à la sécheresse des espèces d'arbres européens
Source : Hervé Cochard, webinaire de 2022
draaf.auvergne-rhone-alpes.a…
Can't tell if this is the best criticism of Christianity or the best point in favor of it. Christianity did one thing well for millennia, then rejecting Christianity broke that thing. Or is it Christianity failing that caused its rejection? The causality is not clear to me.
There is no right answer to the wrong question.
Communists, for example, ask why people are poor. They don't understand that poverty is the default state of every living thing. And the correct question is "what is needed to be not-poor?"
Asking "Does atheism work?" can't give you a right answer, because it's the wrong question.
Atheism isn't a thing. It's the absence of a thing. So it can't work. And it can't not work. Because negative spaces don't do anything.
What looks to you like atheism not working is actually something else.
Either we stopped doing something that worked, or something we're doing stopped working.
Now, the easy, and also possible, answer is that, in the past, Christianity worked better than nothing, so replacing it with nothing was a step back.
But it wasn't replaced with nothing suddenly and for no reason at all.
If masses of people fall out of love with a religion, and you don't like that, you have to ask yourself why, and you have to assume they had some sort of reason other than being just generally bad and wrong.
Christianity was rejected because some aspect of it didn't work for people. Either it stopped accomplishing something that it used to, or the terrain changed, and people needed something that it couldn't provide.
To be conservative is to see the value of that which we learned in the past, and want to preserve it. But that means understanding why it worked, not just going through the motions like a robot.
I suspect that the mass rejection of Christianity has something to do with the way it stopped helping young men get sex, and started preventing them from doing so.
It failed to adapt to changes in the technological landscape that moved the age of marriage from 16 to 32. People can't keep it in their pants until the very end of their fertility window. Their instincts are specifically evolved to not allow this.
You had one job, Christianity. Helping young people be fertile and productive members of a strong society.
You succeed for many generations, but then you failed.
You don't get to blame that failure on the people who rejected you because of it.
Who is the most sane BLMIS guy who would be interested in joining my podcast?I don’t want Madoff, he just rambles & makes up stories. I want someone who can explain the investment strategies the firm underwent after diverging from legitimate funds.
