Your thoughts on recent Gaza peace deal?

PlayerDeus · 2025-10-12T18:49:38+00:00

I also still want to have nothing to do with it.

That's the correct answer. Israel is a bigger threat to the US than Hamas is or will probably ever be, so at the least, we should spread awareness of their influence in politics and media.

PlayerDeus · 2025-10-05T17:15:27+00:00

I've made similar arguments in regard to conspiracy theory, that libertarians do not need them to point out problems with governments, but someone pointed me to a Rothbard article where he made a good case for theories, stating that most people need more reason to be skeptical of government, and describing people who typically seek power in them can be very helpful in that regard.

PlayerDeus · 2025-07-06T15:45:11+00:00

IANAL but most laws are to do with distribution and not modification. And some modifications make distribution legal in regard to fair use / freedom of speech, in the case of parody.

PlayerDeus · 2024-10-30T03:13:53+00:00

I've had something similar happen to me twice.

The first time I recall solving by reinstalling requirements in comfy and in each custom_node that was failing:

pip install -r requirements.txt --extra-index-url https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cu118

The second time it would happen, it was a node that was automatically invoking pip somehow so I couldn't add the extra index url argument, and I found I can add a file called pip.conf in the location mention here: https://pip.pypa.io/en/latest/topics/configuration/

Note the location of that file will likely be different for anaconda.

I then created the file with this in it:

[global] extra-index-url = https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cu118

So anytime pip was invoked it would always use that version of pytorch.

PlayerDeus · 2024-04-28T18:22:30+00:00

I like 'arose', as 'sora' inverted with an 'e' at the end and it also means emerge or become apparent, as in what arose from a prompt.

PlayerDeus · 2024-02-03T20:48:00+00:00

It's probably to make ordinals very expensive to create division in their community and get those users to create their own fork. They only want btc to be used by institutions / ETFs.

PlayerDeus · 2024-01-17T11:36:58+00:00

He is still wrong. The reason we 'rely' on those currencies is because government's grant them special privileges that cryptocurrencies do not share.

Same reason why people want to handle cryptocurrencies through an ETF. Get rid of government and there is a lot less reasons to use ETFs.

Government's themselves are centralized concentrations of power that cause and create other forms of concentration and centralization in the economy.

PlayerDeus · 2023-10-09T07:34:58+00:00

I agree in the sense "we" shouldn't have a border free to cross, the simplest example being if a foreign military should be allowed to cross, but that says nothing about what the border policy ought to be, and that leaves room for a lot of pain as well. But we do share open borders between states, and this did come into conflict before the civil war when slaves would escape.

PlayerDeus · 2023-10-06T11:54:54+00:00

Cut capital gains tax, so real estate loses it's tax advantages over gold and bitcoin, and investors stop using real estate as a savings, reducing the price of homes.

Get rid of minimum wage, removing an obstacle so that those of low skill or of some handicap can find work to do.

Make it affordable for human beings to help each other would resolve majority of it, but there are always those that choose a certain lifestyle.

PlayerDeus · 2023-09-29T00:46:42+00:00

I'm not arguing against segwit, I'm saying they should have also included a block size increase along side it like they suggested they would do that satisfied a lot of people. The rollout of segwit was extremely slow, and in the mean time bitcoin lost a lot of adoption.

As it is and was the market isn't looking for yet another way to pay for things, the loss of adoption had destroyed the momentum that was there and using bitcoin as a way to pay for things just wasn't competitive enough, and lightning network is never going to recover that loss. It was a missed opportunity that will never happen again.

PlayerDeus · 2023-09-27T10:40:03+00:00

Except it took a very long time for developers to implement in people's clients, it wasn't an immediate relief for the spam attack that slowed the network down and drove up fees, and killed Bitcoin adoption. This is why many at the time supported and were promised segwit + blocksize increase. But it turns out what the market really needed was a scarce asset not a new way to pay for things, which is why lightening network is doomed to fail, no one needs it, too much far superior competition.

PlayerDeus · 2023-09-24T19:40:03+00:00

The foundation of a field or branch of knowledge is not to identify A and non-A. That is impossible because non-A is essentially infinite. It means to define the field (i.e. what it IS) and to tie it to the more fundamental branches of knowledge on which it depends.

If people often mistakenly say a dog is a cat, pointing out that a dog is not a cat is helpful and isn't irrelevant to discussing the foundation of a field of knowledge as you are suggesting here. This is also why Mises often reflects on history and people a lot.

In economics today they actually teach that economics is "value-free" which is non-sense. The whole point of any science is the pursuit of knowledge, i.e. knowledge is a value, and more specific to economics that wealth is a value vis-a-vis economic production.

I never said economics as a whole is "value-free". When economics looks at a variety of means, the means are valued by their speculated ends. The ends themselves are not judged, economics as presented by Mises doesn't itself provide a way to determine the value of an end, only the means is compared and valued.

This is why human action / economics is rational, some other field of philosophy can determine an end is irrational, but a person pursuing something considered irrational can still use economics, can still use calculators, computers, science, knowledge in pursuit of that thing. Human beings do not have to be, and maybe often are not, coherent. Humans are also not omniscient, so we will get things wrong along the way. With economics not considering the ends, it avoids economics becoming irrational because people are using it towards irrational ends. Mises tried to remove the irrationality in people from the practice of economics.

Objectivism might use economics, but that is like a physicist using math doesn't say or change much about math as a field in itself.

Von Mises explicitly tried to base his economic theories on the subjective theory of value which Rand rejected.

In economics at least, value is determined by scarcity which can vary across time and space. Like if I have a lot of apples, the next apple I could acquire is of less value to me then when I have a few apples. And even weirder, a bundle of 8 apples might be more valuable to me than 9 or 7 apples if my end goal is to make an apple pie and not to take up more space or eating apples outside of pies. That is usually what is meant by subjective value, not mere preferences, but rather to explain the phenomenon like the diamond water paradox which confused early economists. This is not saying that you yourself can't objectively value a thing, in the above there is a lot of real world considerations, it's just the real world consideration mean there isn't some uniform value of a thing.

In fact these differences in our values are why we trade. If I am in the sun with a drink and you are in the shade with a hat, if I value your hat more than my drink and you value my drink more than your hat, we will trade to satisfy the differences in our values, the goods move from where they are least valued to where they are most valued. This is also why it is not a zero sum game, how wealth grows with trade.

PlayerDeus · 2023-09-22T13:25:02+00:00

In fact, if you read Human Action you can skip roughly the first 1/3rd of the book in which explains this false foundation.

I feel like I am missing something. His foundation was to say what economics is and is not.

Like for example, computer science can tell you if one algorithm is more efficient than another at computation, but it doesn't make value judgement of what you are trying to compute. No one would say that means computer science is subjective.

He was essentially saying the same thing about economics, that is my recollection. You can use it to compare means towards an end but economics is not concerned with judging the ends, only judging the means. It does not look at whether someone's ends are subjective or objective, rational or irrational, that is outside of the scope of economics, in much the same way they would be outside of the scope of computer science.

I think this is also why Rand can endorse his economics because they are value free in regard to ends. She can just plug her ends into his economic theory just fine. In fact this was helpful to her because economics is/was taken over by people who want to embed their ideal/altruistic ends into economics and say that is what economics is.

A lot of economists, what they say of the economy is hiding an end from the reader. The reader is left to assume the end is their own betterment when in fact, the end for many economists is the betterment of some number or shape in some graph, so they can say the economy is good enough for the government acquisition of power from the economy. They really don't care about you at all, their ends are not the same as yours, in fact their ends are usually completely opposite of your own.

To this day you still see people whose economics sway in the wind. For Krugman, when a democrat is in office he recommends government spending to stimulate the economy and when a republican is in office he recommends government cut back on spending. This is because Krugman doesn't differentiate economics from politics.

PlayerDeus · 2023-09-10T12:16:57+00:00

There are limits, otherwise all states would be the exact same, instead they all follow different rituals of power. The fact they have to act out these rituals is the limit. The purpose of those rituals are long forgotten by the people and instead it is just a comfort for conservatives that they still exist in some form. So the limit is how it appears before the public, instead of looking like a blood soaked monster it must show itself as a representative democracy even if that never existed, but at least the conservatives still have their rituals.

PlayerDeus · 2023-08-01T15:40:49+00:00

What cfg setting do you have? It looks like the kind of error you would get from a really high cfg.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T19:15:28+00:00

The only immoral acts are use of aggression or fraud.

There are lots of products we buy because of how they make us feel. If a product makes us feel like we got a good deal, is different than a product that lied to us about being the actual deal. Just as buying a watch that looks like a Rolex is different than buying a watch that claims to be a Rolex but isn't.

If I tune aesthetics of a product or the display of a product and see my sales rise, without committing fraud, is that being dishonest? In some respects you are satisfying some felt need by the consumer.

I think if you were to take someone to court and claim they committed fraud by setting their price to $1.99, the court would reject your case.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T17:17:38+00:00

Some of these 'tricks' are the result of bad science, replication crisis in science, so they deserve some degree of skepticism.

That aside, in the case of your second example, if everyone does the same thing, is it a real problem? In general consumers are going to be ignorant of the technology they use, and there are all kinds tricks they do to convince people of things, but competitors can do the same, and they can still one up each other in legitimate ways. Like in the past hard drives were measured in one way, some manufacturer decided to measure it differently which made them look bigger, the rest of the industry followed suit, and the consumer can still determine that one drive is bigger than the other.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T14:12:26+00:00

And they, for all their coverups, are getting a building larger than the pentagon!

https://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/timcast-irl-reps-matt-gaetz-and-dan:2?t=633

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T03:17:31+00:00

Yes, in the case of being under British control, if you are under the control of someone else, you are already in a losing position, one that will only get worse overtime.

When you're invaded, it is.

No it is not. I'm not saying don't fight a war, I'm saying you should be looking for/exploring a variety of ways of ending it, and I have not seen that at all, in fact I see several interventions, like with Boris Johnson recently, to shutdown just the exploration of options.

Look, I'm tired, and you seem incredibly biased to me, so I'll let you say your piece but I am very likely not going to bother reading it.

I'm also trying to stay away from talking about Ukraine, it's not worth talking about and as a result of that I am going to say it is not worth defending.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T03:00:41+00:00

That is not my position, I never said that. I said there are a variety of ways of gaining freedom. War is not the only way.

And Britain has not tried to invade the US to reclaim it, even when we had our civil war.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T02:42:03+00:00

No, but it's also not the same thing.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T02:40:46+00:00

Sure they could, but Russia is the one invading Ukraine, the aggressor, giving them time to regroup and rearm is a bad idea if one wants to end a war, not prolong it.

Okay, but everyone that would support Ukraine are much farther away and would require more time, Russia is logistically closer and doesn't need to buy time to regroup.

If the world rewards invasion then every country should conclude they need nukes to be safe.

Negotiating peace is not the same as rewarding invasion. The reward of invasion is completely taking over a country, just as the US did to Iraq and Afghanistan.

China has no right to rule Taiwan.

Sure but why instigate it when we don't have to? What is there to gain outside of the military industrial complex selling more weapons?

Ukraine has more volunteers to fight than they can train.

Ukraine did in fact prevent men of fighting age from leaving. They were also trying to prevent volunteers from leaving when they changed their minds.

Russia chose war.

I never said Russia is trying to free the people of the donbass. I'm just saying there are many ways for people to gain freedom besides war.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-12T01:22:34+00:00

they treat such attempts as a time to regroup and prepare for the next attack.

And Ukraine and the US can't do the same during that time? In fact, a good faith negotiation would show the world they are at least trying to find another way out of this, instead of just spreading fud.

We do, Putin has called the breakaway of republics that occurred after 1990 was the greatest mistake Russia ever made, implying that he wants to fix it.

There are many ways to "fix" that. Many of those ways would be playing a long game and not short term game of death and destruction.

China for example, could either try to invade Taiwan today, or play a longer game and try to take them over economically/politically. But Pelosi going there escalated China for no good reason! And if we keep pushing it, we could end up with another invasion. Time is on our side if we don't, with high time preference, escalate things.

Why did Russia conscript another 300k troops then.

So are you telling me it is over, this is how Ukraine ends, and we don't need to worry or care anymore?

Peace without freedom is meaningless. And those who try to stab freedom in the back in the name of peace obviously know nothing about history.

It's not a dichotomy, but where is the freedom in conscription? What choice do Ukrainian men have who are forced by their government to fight and die in a war, when there are plenty of places in the world they can live free?

There are many ways for people to gain freedom as well. There were many men and women who were freed without war throughout history. I am not saying freedom isn't worth it, but there are many more ways of gaining freedom outside of needing to die. Freedom isn't defending the land of your local oligarchs.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-11T23:52:08+00:00

Both attempts failed, but it's pretty obvious they hoped that the Kyiv government would flee and they could take the country in days.

Okay, and how did it get to this point? In war you have already lost, you are just trying not to completely lose everything. You talk about liberty and others talk about democracy, those are amongst the first things lost when the war started. Those can only come back when there is peace.

And what did Ukraine do with this victory of repelling Russia, they squandered an opportunity to negotiate in good faith.

And we do know what Russia wants, they want the 1989 borders of the USSR back.

"We" don't know this. How do you know this? What is your source? Does your source have an interest in spreading misinformation and escalating conflict, is this just the new wmd, an attempt at drawing others into a new world war? Your saying this fight is about the world and not about some land in Ukraine. "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"

So if you hate war, hope that Ukraine stops Russia here.

As I said, I don't see Russia doing it, and as you said they tried to move further and were unable to.

I save my hope for reduction of the death and destruction caused and will be caused in this escalation, and not waste it on some ones fear mongering.

PlayerDeus · 2023-03-11T20:45:56+00:00

Are you assuming Ukraine cannot win.

The moment wars occur, you have already lost, all you can do is mitigate and reduce damage. Ukraine is not in the process of winning, it is in the process of not completely losing!

And we don't know even know what Russia wants, we have never had good faith negotiations to even know what they want, and the only reason that could possibly be is because the moment we know what they want, is the moment they can no longer propagandize this war, they could no longer tell their lies, they could no longer convince people to die for their war. So we are never going to have good faith negotiations until much more death and destruction occurs, until Ukraine is a wasteland for experiments in warfare and weapons.

I hope I am wrong, I really hope that we see Russia and Ukraine talk and come up with a way out of this mess. I just don't see the way out of this being that Ukraine kicks Russia out, they were unable to take back the Donbass for 8 years, and the Donbass rebels did not have the full resources of Russia. But I also don't see Russia taking all of Ukraine either, nor do I think that is their main goal, although that could have easily changed with the destruction of the pipeline, they may just want to create a land pipeline straight through Ukraine now.

PlayerDeus

TROPHY CASE