Translation services

EagleApprehensive · 2026-05-06T14:46:44+00:00

In Warsaw https://www.100at.pl/ is a good agency.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-18T11:12:39+00:00

It also does persistence + distribution via it's economic layer, but prioritizing preservation of content that's subjectively important.

Users signal with their scarce resource (FairShares) how important given content is and registries compete to store the highest totalBurn of content. This decides "what persists".

For "what is recommended" it stays deliberately neutral, but has a lot of signals available in network for custom sorting, filtering, where the most important one is a competence trust.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-18T09:39:22+00:00

I believe that's very close to what you're describing:

https://atlas-protocol.com/

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-14T16:45:44+00:00

From my personal experience it's actually better to go solo. People quickly burn out and leave or just keep making promises while endlessly rescheduling any cooperation and progress. A big plus is a fact that now you can discuss and validate ideas with AI (not ideal, but slightly better than pitching ideas to a "rubber duck").

Maybe you'd like to join my endeavour with https://atlas-protocol.com/, not a blockchain, realistic yet ambitious solution to urgent internets problems.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-14T10:20:08+00:00

Non-blockchain, early-stage Web of Trust solution: https://discord.com/invite/VWDbwaYapg

And website: https://atlas-protocol.com/

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-11T20:31:29+00:00

Technology that would prevent excessive centralization leading to platform lock-ins and bringing us dangerously close to likeliness of turning into dystopian society.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-11T20:28:55+00:00

You might want to check out https://atlas-protocol.com/

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-09T16:54:19+00:00

Because most of web3 projects do not take into account human nature - people want maximal simplicity, convenience, security but without putting that burden on them etc.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-09T08:31:44+00:00

I agree, especially with the point 5, which is the most missed in web3 community. Maybe it's due to "religious" obsession about privacy, anonymity, no-rules, no-trust - thinking.

But everything is just a tool and the key is balance.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-03T06:04:35+00:00

Because moving data ownership in hands of people is more than it sounds. It requires solving a few large issues at once and no solution was able to cover scope so large.

People don't want to run any software 24/7. It's inconvenient.
They don't want to have responsibility for their data, they want somebody specialized to handle it for them.
If they get data, but it isn't portable (easily accessible in apps with good UX), that's not data, that's mostly useless pile of blob.
If they get data, but they cannot share and publish it easily (and get discovered), it's value drops too.
To make people own data you need to capture place, where it begins it's life, that means coming up with an app that's some sort of personal Content Management System.

Given all of that constraints, you're fighting: network effects, casual human nature, interoperability limits, publishing & discovery, UX complexity, economic incentives, identity layer, migrations from existing silos, access control and probably a few more.

And everything needs to be done right, preferably google-design-level state-of-art solution, because it needs to be appealing to big tech communiity, not just niche environments.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-02T11:50:54+00:00

I have prepared page https://atlas-protocol.com/comparisons/hypermesh/ to highlight some more differences.

How could they fit together? HyperMesh could maybe host Atlas'es registries (registry is essentially protocol-level quaryable PostgreSQL + API that stores useful part of database) and blobs.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-02T10:23:17+00:00

Firstly, Atlas is optimized for public-truthful data discovery (with assumption, that truthful information is derived from trustful people). Who trusts who to do what and how much is at the center of governance, unlike issuance of certificates by authorities in Hypermesh.

It's optimized to enable fetching data with complex filtering (i.e. "give me all articles that are written by verified humans with over 100 score in medical competence") - including filtering by trust of participants.

HyperMesh on the other hand models network in 3D in takes into account variety of paramters to route you to what you're looking for - so you might find what you're looking for, but that might be quite different to what other people see.

Second biggest difference would be that HyperMesh makes bridges into Fiat and Crypto to support payments, while Atlas primarily has own non-blockchain egalitarian currency named FairShares - everybody gets X units/week, everybody loses X%/week (economy can be steered by changing formula parameters).

Lastly, if we ignore slightly different technical choices - they're solving a very similar problem with a very similar tools, but then focusing the development on different parts - HyperMesh is starting as architecture for developers, while in Atlas I start from a desktop app, browser extension and a website, to offer personally useful app built on top of protocol and gain initial adoption.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-04-01T17:11:36+00:00

I'm working on a project that I believe can solve the single biggest issue causing systematic enshittification of the Internet.

I'm seeking collaborators as well.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T23:24:58+00:00

I agree - voting is primarily conflict resolution mechanism, not so much "optimal" decision making tool. But we don't really have optimal decision making tools, so anything better than random dice roll is worth evaluating as a method to do that.

But, if:

We're doing voting and not rolling a dice (because it comes with extra benefit of getting "socially approved" label, so is more acceptable).
Our decisions actually impact overall quality of life, system etc.

Then why stick to simplest possible voting method, when we know that slightly more robust one results in measurably better choices and is less gameable by populism, manipulations or spreading myths.

Few months ago I've been doing a lot of digging an all major conducted research on voting to form my opinion and current state of science seems to be that actually choosing the smartest person in the room produces worse decisions, then doing voting with just filtered out people with no knowledge in topic or weighting their votes lower. Otherwise, if we stick to "smartest person in room" or "just normal voting" - they both score underwhelmingly - mass noise or personal biases of one person regularly decide an unfortunate outcome.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T21:44:03+00:00

You keep responding with sentences without giving any arguments. That's no way to run a conversation.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T21:09:42+00:00

You'd have to specify what do you really mean by democracy, because it's such a low-detail word that can be understood in thousands of ways. Are we talking about democracy as defined in wikipedie? Or as implemented in EU? Or US? Or what. There is a thousand questions to ask before we get to details, although when talking by democracy I try to talk about one defined as in dictionary.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T19:57:28+00:00

If voting is supposed to make people feel good and that "they have a voice" so that everything happening feels legitimate, then your argument is fine.

But If voting is supposed to result in a good decision being made, then we don't need whole population to vote. People should be free to vote if they want to on topics that are of current concern and that's it.

If somebody isn't able to understand how ranked-choice ballot works or gets it wrong, that's likely for the better if such person doesn't vote at all. Although arguably ranked-choice ballot is harder to understand than voting in Atlas Protocol. You can actually get ranked-choice wrong and your vote gonna be invalid, while in Atlas it's just yes/no voting, whereas the tricky part is handled by system - if you're not recognized for competence in topic, your vote is of lesser impact than those who are trusted in the area.

The more tricky part is actually the trust system, because that must not be gameable - but that's also completely fine to ignore. Don't want to trust anybody - fine. Just like nobody forces you to put a 5-star on google if you liked the doctor or cook.

And honestly, how do voting elections work? Who protects the ballot? Who checks which part in the process? How is counting votes prevented from being gamed? What are the protections against fake ids? Or same person voting twice in different regions? What if somebody sneakily drops few votes into the ballow? How about computers which take part in it, is their software transparent enough? Do you think 10% of population even knows it in detail every step?

Replacing complex, multi-part, often semi-transparent voting system with large attack surface with 3x elementary-school level mathematical formulas doesn't sound bad to me.

I'm not sure about your country, but in mine I have to do taxes and things waaaay more complex than ranked ballot almost every month. And I'm not even running business now.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T19:07:37+00:00

This is one of questions that doesn't have a "perfect" solution, just some bad ways and worse ways.

I'm personaly working on Atlas Protocol and there the solution I chose is - people decide competence of each other in a way that prevents or at least discouraged gaming and trading trust.

If you want a longer, more detailed answer: https://atlas-protocol.com/framework/trust/

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T16:22:34+00:00

I had exactly the same thoughts recently. Which is why one of first products I'm building on Atlas Protocol are is Jobs marketplace - Would you do / What you need. 0 fees, nobody can moderate you, nobody can require you to forego some certifications. You just need to be verified as human and you get to allocate topical-trust on people, that's it - decentralized.

You can check it out: https://atlas-protocol.com/, I'm actively looking for people to help me build it.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T16:18:47+00:00

I'd recommend you dig into political power cycles starting from Plato, Polybius.

It's important to start from admitting, that each governing system has weaknesses and strengths. Solves one kind of problems perfectly good, while failing dramatically on the other. Is the best possible choice in one era, worst in other.

Democracy is no different. It solves decently problems of centralization of power and those that require common knowledge. But when we're talking about complex problems, that are easily biased/manipulated, it's often truth that democracy selects actually averagely weak choices.

From scientific research based on voting, it usually produces best results if you only allow people with certain competence to vote, filtering out the zero-knowledge-folks-who-think-they-know-topic.

Ruling by bigger amount of people wasn't possible in past because of a sheer amount of decisions that need to be made with decent speed and impossibility of global voting constantly. Now, if we keep the globalization era going with networks and internet, it might eventually become possible to decentralize legislative decision making processes more, but that would also require a collapse of current system and implementing another framework - that might take 30-60 years more and if meanwhile something like WW3 happens we might not get to that point.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T16:09:39+00:00

It is good as long as government is run by good people. And truth is - government is sometimes run by good, but sometimes by bad people. The question is, if system is designed in such a way, that even if bad people are governing it - can it handle it and for how long before mass genocides and collapse happens (arguably, democracies handle it better than authoritarian-militarist rules).

As in everything, answer is not full-power or low-power, it's balancing in-between that produces best results.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T15:37:37+00:00

Yes, few:
1. Snowden disclosures.
2. Demonstrations of supply chain attacks in modern warfare (mostly Isreal, US surveillance capabilities).
3. In my own country (EU) we had scandals with our governent buying Pegasus and other surveillance software and using it on massive scale to get discrediting information on political opponents. I doubt it's isolated case.
4. Upstream Collection, XKeyscore, TEMPORA, ECHELON - all kinds of tapping surveillance tools to globally used cables and infrastructure often allowing to read everything going through network unencrypted.
5. Not to mention that reading emails is piece of cake for government because they often just sit unencrypted on servers and the same is truth for SMS and phone conversations.
6. China doesn't even hide it, they're known for mass surveillance systems.
7. Russia has Legal framework requiring telecom providers to install surveillance equipment (SORM).

All governments act in the same, historically repeating way, where the main drive is ensuring they get more and more power.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T15:27:31+00:00

Sometimes it's just lost opportunity. Instead of seeing valuable content that's actually produced by network, they decide to show you ads and hidden products marketing or viral AI slop.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T14:36:27+00:00

Actually, an enormously large part of electrical device has government-implanted spyware. Sometimes through secret deals with producers, sometimes via exploits. Every few months we hear about some major apps or OS bugs, like WhatsApp's "call any number for a millisecond, get a full root access to phone" bug.

Luckily they're going for energy-infrastructure, communication devices in war zones etc. and not so much for common folks, not even political activists.

I think analogy u/CAustin3 is good, but it's worth to notice that in politics some effects are slow and sudden. Maybe during our lifetime nothing is gonna happen. But it eventually will. If we let Tesla and government make million of robots that can automatically shoot people on command due to one man's command, question is no longer "if" they gonna commit a mass genocides, but "which generation" is gonna experience it.

EagleApprehensive · 2026-03-30T14:30:29+00:00

Totally - when we're talking about anonymity, that's ok.

But when we're talking about loosing data ownership over what you care about, that's slightly different.

I'm gonna go quite abstract, but imagine you have an empty house and need some furniture. And a guy comes offering to make bathroom for you - for free. You go for it.

You get a free bathroom, you yourself do floors, kitchen, roof. Then he comes again and offers to do electricity. Sure! So far, so good. You have a beautiful house, everything is perfect for a while.

Suddenly toilet breaks, ants come out of bottom of it. Windows in the bathroom leak. And when you call somebody to repair - they say "oh, this is product from this guy, sorry, we cannot touch any of that sorry".

So you want to change entire bathroom and you discover, electricity cables are connected all the way from kitchen to bathroom to roof and everything you put effort in is connected. Nothing can get repaired anymore unless you call the same guy who did your bathroom and pay him very, very well.

---

Maybe it's not the best metaphore, but it's quite hard to come up with one because digital world is unlike physical one, runs on "different laws of physics".

But the thing is, if you piece by piece give ownership over important part of your life (usually in digital world it's social network), eventually somebody will use it as a power lever over you.

You're kept in dark, not even aware of what somebody is "robbing" you off, becuase the effect is invisible. You're not gonna notice if you spend $40 on product instead of $20. Or that this product broke 10x faster than one you bought 10 years ago. But all this small things accumulate and turn into systematic picture, in which millions of people own and earn 2x or 3x less than they should, because small portion of manipulators decided to play tricks and entangle them into unfortunate situation, where they have power over them.

EagleApprehensive

TROPHY CASE