#INTJ Man and computer programmer. Love games. Love friends. Love movies. Not necessarily in that order. Crypto currency investor and miner since 2014 & NFT fan

Northern California
Joined December 2008
#Bitcoin is the most direct expression of money that has ever existed. It converts energy and time into money which is exactly what money represents in the first place. 🧐 Long $BTC and short the bankers.
7
9
2
82
Will all they AI powered hacking maybe we'll at least get the unredacted Epstein files.
1
20
QuadraQ retweeted
This isn't a CRT. It's a MiSTer on a modern 4K TV, through a Morph 4K running firmware v4. Beam-to-glass CRT simulation, a rebuilt deinterlacer, Tate Mode and more. Out now in beta, free for every owner 👇 pixelfx.co/post/morph-4k-fir…
49
86
12
823
35,464
Once a woman figures out that everything she wants for her marriage comes via prioritizing sex, she'll finally have the husband and the marriage she never knew was possible.
Sex is the one thing a husband and wife share with no one else. Treat it like the center of the marriage, because it is. When it fades, everything else in the marriage starts to drift with it.
43
149
6
2,431
68,754
QuadraQ retweeted
They still don't understand Gen X in the workplace. We don't want free pizza parties. We don't want mandatory team-building retreats. We don't want motivational speeches about being a family. And we definitely don't want another company-branded coffee mug. You know what we want? 💰 Pay us what we're worth. 🏖️ Let us take our vacation days without guilt. 🏡 Respect our time outside of work. 🤝 Trust us to do the job we were hired to do. 📵 Stop expecting us to be available 24/7. We're not looking for an office to become our second home. We have lives, families, responsibilities, and better things to do than pretend a pizza party makes up for being underpaid and overworked. Pay us fairly, respect our boundaries, and let us get on with our lives. That's the perk. That's the culture. That's it. 😂
475
1,058
102
7,671
285,908
Decred v2.1.7 is out! - Fixes for network and mixing DoS attacks - Improved mixing - Memory leak fix - Testnet initial sync fixed - New safeguards against unexpected transaction spends, including double spends. In dcrd v2.1.7, If a node sees an unexpected spend that should be impossible, it shuts down instead of running in an unsafe state. This safeguard would have stopped the previous inflation bug.
5
20
2
54
2,779
A U.S. congressman wants to change how we legally “own” video games. Rep. Ritchie Torres has announced plans to introduce the Power To The Players Act, a bill that would direct the FTC to create rules protecting consumers who buy video games. The proposal would give players three basic rights: >The right to own the games they purchase, rather than simply receiving a revocable license >The right to keep playing games after online servers are shut down, through an offline mode >The right to transfer or resell games they own Torres argues that if a company can take a game away simply by shutting down its servers, then the consumer didn’t really buy the game in the first place. Torres also hopes the legislation could eventually establish a precedent for ownership rights across other parts of the digital economy: “If you pay for it, you own it.”
793
8,624
545
59,552
934,511
A federal court told Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and GM they can legally record and intercept your private texts and call logs the second you plug your phone into the car. The infotainment system downloads everything. You can’t see it. You can’t delete it. Police can. The judge said that’s not a privacy violation unless you prove it already damaged your reputation or your business. You paid tens of thousands of dollars for a rolling wiretap. This is the surveillance state on four wheels.
679
8,414
652
15,855
534,382
The reason I don't have a lot of time for the "I'm getting short-changed in my marriage" complaint so many men have, is because it invariably comes down to two issues: - you vetted poorly - you negotiated poorly In the case of the former, there's no constructive way forward because she is either bad faith or the incompatibilities are too great to manage. There is no point staying with such a woman; you are enabling a parasite, and it is always the worst option (I don't care what excuses you have, it's always better on the other side). But you only learn the character of your woman for certain by trying to fix the marriage - in other words, renegotiating the dynamics in the marriage. Which is why regardless of what the core problem is, men must always start their process of improving things there. This is where you learn the more or less universal truth: most men have terrible marriages because they are terrible negotiators. I am not even simply talking about their poor persuasiveness, but the absence of fundamentals. They lack self-control, self-respect, and the willingness to walk away. Most actually lack the will to even address relationship issues openly. They are afraid of conflict. Suffice to say this kills their ability to change anything in the relationship from the outset. Their woman knows subconsciously she has full control and leverage in the marriage. Appealing to her good will under these circumstances is silly and weak. It's like Guatamala insisting the US to treat them as an equal. A good woman may give you some of what you want (weekly maintenance sex, for instance, vs dead bedroom), but never all of it (enthusiastic sex on the regular). She has no incentive, emotional or practical, to do otherwise. In other words, in order to achieve change in your marriage - you need to want the change more than you want to keep what you have. You cannot be afraid of how she responds. You have to know what you deserve. That may include addressing fundamental weaknesses in your live to prove you deserve it, like improving your preselection and persona (how you look, your wealth/status, and how you act). But more often than not, the real variable missing in is cultivating the belief that you should be getting more. You must address the deeper self-worth issues lowering the vibration of your personality - like internalized shame. Once you get a foothold on some of these issues, you will usually see improvement in the marriage. But it's never a decisive change, because after you address this first stage of being a doormat comes the second trap: the overly empowered ego. Now you are finally willing to express what you want, but you are pretty much all you care about. You are defensive. This takes the form of reactivity or excessive deterrence, where guys blow up over disrespect and become volatile, or escalate situations to deliberately make her feel unsafe or insecure. Things get toxic; trust gradually breaks down. Although superficially the woman feels like she can't control a guy like this, subconsciously she knows she still can - because they're caught in a pattern with each other. She can provoke him, and get his attention. The difference is just that the dynamic has gone from win-lose with her winning without a fight, to a power struggle. If a guy has enough leverage, it's possible he may decisively flip the dynamic in his favor. But this position will always be tenuous romantically, as the woman will always resent her position, and be looking for a way to change it. And since marriage laws give women power, you are never really safe trying to exert control over her. You are also never going to have an intimate relationship with a woman under these circumstances, since you are getting your own needs met at her expense, and in this context she will view any attempts to get emotionally close with her as weakness. So what should you do differently? Do not push back against her bad behavior and disrespect as an assault on your ego, so much as an assault on the connection between the two of you. This framing is so important, because it shifts the conflict and misunderstandings between the two of you from the strategic to the tactical. You are not saying she needs to give you X or Y. You are saying X or Y needs to be given in order to have a healthy relationship. You are stating your needs and requirements, but in the context that your needs and requirements being met lead to hers being met. You are not criticizing her. You are calling out a way she's operating - a modus operandi that is not only stopping you from being treated the way you deserve, but from her from getting the love she wants. This shifts the entire frame of the conversation between the two of you from win-lose to win-win. In other words, she gets what she wants by giving you what you want. But the only way you can do this is a) knowing what it is she really wants at her core from a man beneath what her dysfunctional patterns are incentivizing, and b) by being willing to give up what you have been getting from her in the short term. For instance, you may want more passionate, connected sex - but that means you need to be willing to discard the low-effort maintenance sex to get it. You have to have higher standards, which means walking away not simply from nothing... but from "OK". This is usually a subtle, multistep process that requires gradual self-confrontation over our validation issues and letting go of them. Because in the end, to get what we want from the people we emotionally invest in, we have to paradoxically let go of the need for them to give it to us in the first place. We need to break our co-dependence with them, which emerged from making them responsible for our own fulfillment. Women control us in committed relationships not because they are evil, but because we told them in so many words and actions that we needed this sexual and emotional fulfillment from them, and gave them not only pressure but leverage. This obligation is what killed their agency, and when choice dies so does desire. To have a passionate marriage, a woman must experience the duality of you deep want and desire to be with her, along with your unbending commitment to honoring yourself at all costs. She can have you, but never own you. Yet to have you and your love she must surrender completely; if she holds back she is manipulating you, and you won't accept that. You will walk, and she will get nothing. A woman can only truly trust and give herself to a man who is simultaneously devoted to her and committed to his own truth like this, and the result is a relationship that has the weight of a long pair-bond, with the lightness of the honeymoon phase - instead of the usual one of mutual extraction and frustration. But becoming this type of man is easier said than done. It is a long process, that starts with confronting your fears, and then confronting your woman, and then confronting yourself. It involves enormous pain and release. And just when you think you've finished the process, you find another layer of obstacles to intimacy. It never ends - because the path of releasing fear is eternal. There is always a new edge to confront. But each barrier you overcome opens up not only more love in your life, but more freedom. You really can have your cake and eat it too. But no one said it would be easy.
13
18
3
262
18,251
This is not just because religious couples usually have better polarity & shared purpose, but because they are more selfless and generous towards each other. It's EGO that destroys relationships; usually the woman's when it comes to sex. The bedroom dies when it becomes a means of control not maintaining connection. This is why the win-lose paradigm you see promulgated on here over and over again is so dangerous to digest. The more red pill / feminism you internalize as "the complete truth", the less you're able to humanize the opposite sex. Relationships become extractive - and you cannot extract from someone over the long term and keep them. Operate in good faith, and you might get burned. You might have to learn some lessons about discernment and boundaries the hard way. But if you operate in bad faith you're guaranteed to push everyone functional and decent away from you in life. Don't be so obsessed with cultivating desire that you forget trust.
"No group of Americans seems to be having more sex—and more satisfying sex—than married men & women who regularly attend a place of worship. In fact, we find the only Americans who have avoided the country’s “sex recession” are husbands & wives who attend religious services at least twice a month." ~ my latest @TheAtlantic w/ @grantjbailey
7
20
2
256
21,086
"No group of Americans seems to be having more sex—and more satisfying sex—than married men & women who regularly attend a place of worship. In fact, we find the only Americans who have avoided the country’s “sex recession” are husbands & wives who attend religious services at least twice a month." ~ my latest @TheAtlantic w/ @grantjbailey
"In the popular imagination, religious faith and a thriving sex life don’t tend to go together. Movies, books, and TV shows depict religious couples as sexually inhibited or dysfunctional. But the data tell a different story." @TheAtlantic theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0… @FamStudies
273
898
397
8,930
1,891,680
This is a new button added to $DCR on X “Trade with Kraken”
6
9
34
952
Researchers at Oxford argue that LLMs can't invent anything. It's impossible mathematically. The paper is called "Theory Is All You Need." Teppo Felin and Matthias Holweg take the famous "Attention Is All You Need" title and flip it. Their argument is that AI predicts from the past, while humans reason forward into the future, and those are two different kinds of thinking. Start with the numbers. The authors estimate a large language model trains on roughly 13 trillion tokens. A human reading at 150 words a minute would need about 164,000 years to get through that. A child hears around 20,000 words a day and roughly 36.5 million words in their first five years. It's the same task with wildly different data, and the child still ends up with language that goes far beyond anything they heard. Their point is that the model learns which words tend to follow other words. It becomes a mirror of what people have already written. It doesn't build a theory of how the world works, so it can't step outside its training data. The paper's sharpest thought experiment makes this painful. Imagine an LLM trained in 1633 on every scientific text ever written up to that point. Ask it about Galileo and heliocentrism. Thousands of years of geocentric texts would swamp Galileo's ideas, so the model would tell you he's wrong. It would also rate Tycho Brahe's astrology as more credible than the idea that the Earth moves, because more people had written about astrology. Then there's flight. In 1888 the scientist Joseph LeConte looked at bird data, noted that no bird above 50 pounds could fly, and concluded humans couldn't either. Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, said he had not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation. The New York Times estimated in 1903 that flight was one to ten million years away. Nine weeks later the Wright brothers flew. The Wrights didn't have better data. They had a theory. They broke flight into three problems, lift, propulsion, and steering, built their own wind tunnels, and generated the data that didn't exist yet. Wilbur wrote in 1900 that he had been "afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man." Every prediction machine on Earth would have told him no. The authors call this the data belief asymmetry. Every real breakthrough starts with someone believing something the existing data says is wrong. A system trained to minimize surprise can't do that by design. They're not anti AI. They say AI will win at routine, repetitive decisions that extrapolate from the past, which is most decisions. They're just pushing back on the idea that you should replace humans with algorithms whenever possible, which is a direct quote from Kahneman. I use these models every day and this matches what I see. The new stuff comes from the human at the keyboard who decides the data is wrong. LLMs don't think, you do!
289
886
169
3,110
1,108,188
One of the most important programming languages of the future may be C. Not C++. Not Python. Not Rust. In the era of AI-generated software, we no longer need the runtime cost of languages built for human readability. When AI writes the code, C becomes king again. Here is why: 🧵
154
151
45
1,173
301,224
Signal is testing a major privacy feature: You can create a Signal account without a phone number. The new numberless registration uses an Account ID and Account Key, with an optional username. There’s a small catch: it requires a one time fee of around $3 to help prevent spam. The payment isn’t directly linked to your Signal account. Signal says it uses the same zero knowledge proofs as its donation system to ensure there’s no link between the payment and the account. For now, the only payment method is Google Play, which requires Google Play Services. Signal says it plans to add other payment methods in the future. A pretty significant step for privacy, even if the current implementation still has a Google dependency. Would you use Signal without a phone number? community.signalusers.org/t/… #Signal #Privacy #OpenSource #DeGoogle
178
200
54
1,556
127,165
“Who’s a good boy?!” Hackers just dumped the contents of a Flock camera. They found: 🔴Software explicitly detecting people, not just plates 🔴1.6 million images logged in 21 days 🔴Key to decrypt files stored on the device itself. Finds directly contradict Flock, which claims someone with physical access can't access images. Making it worse,@GainSec warned about the physical access issue more than a year ago & Flock downplayed it. And yeah, the Flock camera logged “Who’s a good boy?!” about every 2 minutes, all while plagued with errors, crashes & reboots. By @dmehro & @josephfcox wired.com/story/hackers-floc…
194
7,558
342
24,867
886,179
Xenogears is being rebuilt for PC in Godot, 28 years after Square’s PlayStation RPG first launched. The unofficial Xenogears Atlas project already has Lahan running, with native PC support and widescreen in development. #RetroGaming generationamiga.com/2026/09/…
37
628
71
4,891
177,412
This is bigger than Sony. In the current age we need laws defining digital ownership or we'll continue to be subject to this abuse.
Sony said you don't own your games… but we have all the receipts. After Sony recently argued in court that “reasonable consumers” understand they don't actually own their digital games, fans have started compiling every example they can find where PlayStation used language suggesting otherwise. The Consumer Rights Wiki has now documented dozens of examples of Sony using phrases like “games you own” and “you already own” across PlayStation's own websites and services. That evidence is being collected as part of the wider backlash surrounding Sony's digital ownership policies and the ongoing lawsuit over how PlayStation presents digital game purchases. Sony's legal argument hasn't been decided by a court yet, but gamers clearly aren't letting the company's older wording disappear. Do you think Sony's old “you own” wording will come back to haunt them?
1
7
196
QuadraQ retweeted
This hackernews comment finally says it out loud.
190
3,586
219
36,521
948,002
Breaking: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic are faking the AI warnings due to slow growth ahead of IPOs Below are his reasonings: 1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down. 2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents. 3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery 4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out
612
3,203
482
20,273
1,757,998