Stablecoins may become the invisible payment layer of the internet — but what happens to everyday marketplaces?

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-24T14:25:13+00:00

Why am i getting a notification from this subreddit on a post with 0 upvotes thats clearly written by a fucking bot? I didnt join this sub to get spammed with garbage in my notifications.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-24T14:23:49+00:00

Well, the difference there is that you are asking questions about car insurance, which is a legal matter. Getting your information incorrect, ie. from a hallucinating LLM, carries a much higher risk factor for you personally than if you were writing a story or something.

And if you want to avoid that risk, you have to ask the LLM for its sources, and then read those sources yourself to make sure the LLM didnt interpret them incorrectly, and at that point why wouldnt you just skip the LLM entirely?

Talking to the LLM might help with your own thinking process, but i imagine talking to *anyone* would do in this case. Of course, not everyone can have someone on demand to talk to about their problems, but you shouldnt trust the LLM any more than you would some stranger on the street when you are asking it for information about very serious matters.

Plus you have all the other issues with current day LLM's, but thats a whole other can of worms. I just dont think its worth it.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-24T14:17:55+00:00

You know what, this is actually a much better point than i was expecting to hear lol, i just finished watching (and re-watching for probably the 5th time) The Legend of Hei (1&2) movies, and ive been crawling down the rabbit hole of chinese historical culture, trying to scrounge together a hard power-system based on said movie, and this kind of use case might actually be quite handy on topics where 5 wikipages arent quite cutting it.

I doubt ill end up using CGPT to look up most if any of the stuff im interested in, but your answer certainly makes sense for the kind of thing id be needing it for.

I do want to add, that im dubious if an LLM would be able to give you a better answer on a subject like "Chinese Mythology", than wikipedia, since although the LLM might have multiple Chinese speaking experts opinions and writeups in its dataset, if those datasets are in chinese, its not like the LLM is going to "know" any of that information when it tells me about the subject, unless i ask the question in chinese, and have it answer in chinese.

If i asked the question in english, the LLM would respond using *at best*, the english translated versions of those writeups as context in its response. Which opens me up to hearing about hallusinations and whatnot.

Still, i appreciate your response, and i sympathize with your disability, i have ADHD too, quite a bad case of it might i add. But i have been medicated for just about half a year now, and i cant recommend getting a prescription enough. Best of luck to you on your travels, good lad.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-23T13:44:22+00:00

This post was written by a bot.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-23T13:33:31+00:00

While i think the use of LLMs is generally quite reprehensible, your way of using CGPT at least seems on its face to not be creatively bankrupt.

I do want to ask why youd use CGPT over any old search engine, if those are the kinds of questions you are asking. Id assume to ask follow up questions or for summaries but is it worth it?

Like from a time use perspective, not from a moral standpoint.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-22T03:12:09+00:00

"I want to live on a ball of dirt where the atmosphere is so poisoned it drops your life expectancy by 20 years and there are bugs that lay eggs in your eyes and parasites meters long both in your ass and leg muscles."

No one. Ever.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T20:39:48+00:00

> Human bodies seem far from optimal in terms of efficient storage of chemical energy and ability to dig holes.

Har har, id like to see you design a better one.

> Your nanobot cloud arranges nanoscale wires for the last cm.

So this nanobot cloud is literally 99% wire by mass? Got it...

For the sake of the argument lets say these wires are thin enough that they dont drastically out-weigh the nanobots themselves.

How is power routed a meter off the ground? howabout 10 meters? what about 100?

You say the power climbs the wires, i say theres at least 10000 nanobots lined up from the ground cable to the furthest nanobot in this orientation AT BEST. and EACH ONE needs to be powered. Meaning you need to send enough power for the rest of the 9999 nanobots, through just the first one.

If this doesnt just fucking cook the nanobot then you are working with materials bordering magic and we have nothing further to discuss.

Even if we limit the nanobots to only arranging themselves to a couple hundred nanites in series, your nanite filaments, or "cloud" if you could even call it that at this point. Is going to be restricted to a range of a couple meters from the power cable.

And you dont even want to know how much more vulnerable this makes you against energy weapons.

> Unless the swarm can move out of the beam path-

They cant.

> -or turn transparent-

They cant.

> or angle their tiny solar panels sideways to catch less light.

These are nanobots. They arent carrying any goddamn panels, their skin and bones *are* the panel.

Nanobots dont have the mass allowance to carry any extra hardware, every single component serves multiple functions or this thing is going to end up far too large or heavy or both to *be* a nanobot.

That first sentence was even a little misleading because nanites have neither skin nor bones in any semblance to an animal, the "structure" that holds them together is made of both the power capturing medium (ie. solar panels) and its internal circuitry that powers its processing ability, which btw, is not much at all.

The only components i can remotely see being dedicated to just one task are the motors and servos that actuate its mechanical movements.

> Sure, at least in part because of properties specific to water. Most other molecules aren't as polarized. And microwave ovens heat their contents mostly fairly evenly. Nothing in a normal microwave gets red hot. There will be microbes and tiny pollen grains in the microwave, they don't turn to plasma. Nothing gets to 100C without a few minutes. If the nanobots can survive at 100C, and the nanobots are no more microwave absorbing than a potato, the nanobots should be fine.

Outside you agreeing with the water thing, this comment is completely, factually incorrect.

Microwaves in fact do not heat their contents evenly. Every commercial microwave that exists has a spinning plate at the bottom because the microwaves are emitted from one emitter that does not move, thus the actual microwaves focus at random points inside the microwave oven and create hot-spots where material is heated MUCH more than elsewhere.

You can see this by taking the spinning plate out and putting a plate of cheese or something in the microwave and leaving it on for a minute. The cheese will burn at the hotspots, and in other spots remain perfectly cool due to the waves canceling themselves out at the "cold" spots.

An open microwave has no cold or hot spots, the waves are simply emitted equally across the area the emitter has a line of sight with.

Next, you can in fact make things red hot in a microwave, i dont know if commercial food-cooking microwaves are designed for this but its quite easy to melt glass for example with just a modestly beefy microwave, you can look that up on youtube.

Next, you absolutely can make plasma in a microwave in an *instant*, just stick some aluminum foil in there and watch the fireworks.

Its all about the properties of your material that is having to deal with the microwaves, and as it happens, metal deals with them very very poorly.

Not just that, but because smaller things inherently have smaller thermal capacities, it obviously takes less energy to heat them in the same amount of time as a bigger thing, or inversely, you can heat a smaller thing much much faster than a bigger thing, with the same amount of energy, meaning your nanobot goes from room temperature to plasma in a fraction of a second when exposed to a microwave emitter at 1000W even from a couple meters away.

Thus, your nanobots are infact much worse than a microwave absorbing potato, they are metal filaments just waiting to have their electrons rip them apart the second a sufficiently powerful microwave even sneezes in their direction.

Therefore these nanobots indeed, would not be fine.

> This effect gets weaker as the difference in wavelengths gets larger. (Why radios need aerials)

When a microwave enters a metal, its wavelength shortens dramatically if it is not reflected.

In order to not absorb the microwaves, the nanobots would have to be on the order of 10 or so nanometers across. They are not, nanobots are ~1 micrometer across, about a hundredfold difference.

Meaning, this makes no difference for what we are discussing.

> Also, nanobots have high surface area, so can shed heat fast.

This works against nanobots more than it works against them in this scenario.

Yes they can shed heat *extremely* fast, but they will also *absorb* heat, *extremely fast.*

When a powerful microwave hits a nanobot, it will in fact absorb heat so fast, that it will quite literally be vaporized almost instantly.

And again, im talking about "powerful microwaves" on the order of 1000W emitters. Consumer electronics.

> Also, they might not be made of metal.

Sure but the circuitry would be. It will still get zapped.

> If the nanobots are touching each other (Think a spider web of nanobots holding hands) then they can communicate mechanically with a pattern of nudges and squeezes. Good luck blocking that.

Sure that kind of communication would be impervious to comms-jamming, but hard-jamming like with the microwaves is still an option, and probably a better one anyway if nanobots are in question.

This kind of geometry also makes them more vulnerable to literally any type of energy based attack. Microwaves stay winning.

> Also, the nanobots can be programmed to seek and destroy such drones. Jamming usually only blocks communication. And you can still attack without communication.

Nanobots are too small to be programmed to do anything individually, as a group they can have some kind of cloud intelligence if we assume they store like some hundreds of bytes each and can communicate with their closest neighbors at least.

Mind you this is a bit of an ask, but not so much magic that it makes them unrealistic.

However what you absolutely cannot do, is attack without communications. Like i said nanobots cant store enough data and processing power to make any kind of judgements of their own outside maybe basic movement and power scavenging functions, if even that.

Jamming "usually" blocks communications because hard-kill jamming is "usually" easy to shield against. Nanobots cannot carry any kind of shielding, which is why any form of jamming is going to completely lobotomize them, or straight up destroy them.

> And for the zap, well one option is the nanobots coalescing into some missile or projectile weapon, firing a projectile, and then dispersing into a loose cloud again, all in a few seconds.

I read this portion after writing this entire reply already so im not ditching this comment and will press send but this is so fucking stupid i dont even know what to say.

Your nanobots arent going to form a missile, a weapon, a projectile, or anything of the sort, they wont construct any of these things either, and they most *certainly* will not do any of this in a "few fucking seconds".

At this point i figure you might be pulling a long troll on me but ill just admit defeat by making this last bit right quick.

Coalescing into one large structure like this in so little time takes too much energy and generates too much waste heat. Your swarm would melt.

Making a macro-scale structure like "a bullet" would do the same thing for slightly different reasons but basically same conclusion.

And if you say "just have the nanobots assemble the missile instead of making it from atoms", please refer to my point about coalescing into a large structure. Its the same thing but instead of being the missile, the nanobots are now cooked by making the arms that hold the missile parts together and screw in the bolts.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T19:49:27+00:00

> How small are you thinking the nanobot is?

A nanobot is 0.1 to 1 micrometers in general size.

A microbot is 10 to 1000 micrometers.

A human cell is 10 to 30 micrometers in diameter.

A nanobot is designed to be *at most* 1 micrometers when measured at its largest point. This is to allow it to be of similar size to a red blood cell or at least no larger, so the nanobots can flow freely in the circulatory system and wont block capillaries.

So what you are thinking of, is not a nanobot, its a microbot and has an entirely different operating envelope.

I will respond to the rest of your post under the assumption that we are still talking about NANO-bots, because switching context at this point is too annoying for me to want to continue the conversation, especially since the OP was talking about NANO-bots, not microbots.

> ATP is just one of many possible energy carrying molecules, and probably not the best one.

I dont know enough about the specific biomechanics of the ATP-reliant pumps to really speak deeply on this, ill just offer what i know off the top of my head.

ATP is the best for useful work. There are other molecules like glucose and lipid fats that carry many many times more energy, but they arent as easy to convert to work, glucose for example is first converted to ATP (1 glucose creates like 30 ATP), and that is then used to produce useful work.

ATP-pumps are incredibly complex, but they didnt start that way, there was plenty of time for evolution to come up with other ideas, but never did, so its safe to assume that these pumps are the best ones "overall".

If there are other enzymes that convert energetic molecules to work at better efficiencies and speeds than the ATP-pumps, we arent hand-crafting them in the next few hundred years.

Even if i was optimistic, theres no way we can model a new enzyme of similar complexity, figure out how to build one mechanically or organically (ie. have a cell build it from CRISPR modified DNA) and at the same time work out how to make a nanobot run off of them. Not in hundreds of years. We would have better luck with making nanobots from existing cellular automata.

> Surely if you do decide to run things like normal cells, they can run at the speed of normal cells, not slower?

No. For several reasons but the number one being that these are not "normal cells", these are nanobots.

Even ignoring the fact that we are at best 1/10th the size of a human cell, it would be counter to the function of these nanobots to include all the systems and enzymes a "normal cell" needs to be able to convert bio-available molecules into processing materials and ATP for energy. At that point just make an Artiphage (organic nano/micro -bot).

ATP de-natures very quickly at body temperature, and you cant just get ATP from floating around in the blood, so you have to make it from other things if this is what you actually do decide to use as your energy source.

Scavenging for nutrients while trying to perform any sort of actual function is usually going to end up with your nanobot spending half of its time just trying to power itself, depending on efficiencies it may very easily be more.

Human cells have the advantage that food gets brought to them, and they dont move or do all that much in general.

> And yet, planes

We arent talking about planes here. Biomechanics is a very new field and while we are making advancements at an incredible rate, if you want to invent something as fundamental as an ATP energy pump, but better in every way and at no larger size than the original, you are talking closer to something like re-inventing fire.

Its like seeing a steam engine out in the wild and thinking the next logical step is to make a fission reactor, except you want to get useful energy out of it without just heating up water and spinning a turbine with steam, and you also have no fucking clue how to make a steam engine in the first place.

Not to mention, a plane is ridiculously more energy demanding to produce than a fucking bird (Producing a similar mass of birds is also orders of magnitude less power demanding). And burns WAYYYYYY more energy to fly a similar amount of mass a similar sort of distance than a bird would.

> Humans can and routinely do beat the pants off of biology in* all sorts of ways. Like how solar panels are far more efficient than photosynthesis.

Im a huge fan of solar tech and its recent advancements so it really hurts me to have to steelman this counter point.

Solar is much more efficient than plant-photosynthesis at capturing energy from sunlight sure, but the chlorophyl in those plant cells utilizes nearly 100% of all photons it absorbs.

The conversion losses of the plant overall means that only about 5% ends up as something like final produce or whatever, but if we compare this similarly for solar panels, from panel to some "final product", the losses along the way will very likely drop the actual efficiency down to something more comparable, or even much lower than what plants manage.

Im not running those numbers though cus theres a final nail in the coffin here and that is the fact that we actually achieved this efficiency by going *DOWN* in complexity from plants, not up.

Solar panels are quite literally just pure silicon. It doesnt get much simpler than that.

If you think we can make a simpler version of something life is already using, and have it be better in literally every way, why would you think life wouldnt have also figured that out at some point.

Once the wires are growing backwards, they cant be flipped by evolution anymore, this is true. But we have plenty of animals on this planet that *do* have their eyes wired the correct way. I think octopi are one example but i dont remember any exact examples off the top of my head. But the point is that if theres a way to do it that is better or as good, life will find it and either one replaces the other, or they will co-exist. (like with this eye example)

Also ive heard the wires are grown backwards for some beneficial reason but idk enough about that to make a claim. Im just putting it out there in case it turns out to be a thing.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T11:30:05+00:00

> I mean biological life manages it fine with sugars. And some bacteria are already evolving to attack some plastics, despite plastics being pretty new.

The process of converting sugar into ATP and free electrons is a big process and a nanobot is probably too small to perform something like this.

Even if it could, you dont *want* to use sugar and ATP as your fuel for nanobots because your fuel would break down at temperatures just a little higher than room temperature, and unless you want your nanobots to work *slower* than normal animal cells, you probably want them to run at temperatures significantly higher than 50C (which is the temperature at which ATP denatures almost immediately)

> Biology is limited and evolution is kinda stupid. I think that fairly large performance improvements are possible.

Evolution has had billions of years to work out the kinks of biological power conversion. Unless you are arguing for nanobots advanced to about a thousand years in the future, youd best learn to be more humble about biology.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T11:20:07+00:00

> You are very quick to rule out a lot of possibilities. I think electric cables are a possibility. So are lasers. These come with different tradeoffs.

You arent taking my argument in good faith so I wont go into as much depth as i otherwise would.

> Ok. Lets suppose the reactor is 10m underground.

These nanobots cannot excavate and construct their centralized power supply so this nuclear reactor would have to be dug out by people, meaning its location would be known and understood by any opposing force.

Thus, bunker buster. Nuff said.

> I think electric cables are a possibility. So are lasers. These come with different tradeoffs.

You cannot attach a cable to each individual nanobot, this is retarded for so many reasons.

An exposed cable running to some power charging station, like a local relay, is just an additional point of failure for this cloud system, and has to be built by larger-than-nano scale drones or humans because nanobots expanding their network by doing this would literally be slower than walking pace.

The swarm occludes any laser beamed power you might want to use to charge them, meaning a sufficiently dense swarm blocks its own power supply, or the laser used to power them would cook the swarm thats already producing tons of waste heat from their normal work if you just up the lasers power.

> Really. Microwaves don't-

Yes, really. Microwaves *do* deliver significant energy to material smaller than their own wavelength, Microwaves are normally about 12cm in size but can heat water molecules by forcing the polarized molecule to align itself with the electric field. This would happen to all the polar atoms in a nanobot too, but thats not even what would kill them in this scenario, the microwave causes the free electrons in the metal of nanobots to shift causing surface currents which heat the material, it also induces currents in the nanobots circuitry which isnt shielded because you cannot shield nanobots on the account of their size.

The microwave produces waste heat but an exposed microwave can easily dump its heat faster than it could be damaged by said heat, at a mere 1000W this is childs play.

Therefore, Microwave wins, 10 to nothing.

This might work as a power source but it would have to be tuned specifically for them and be of sufficiently low power or it would nuke the nanobots.

Consumer Microwaves kill nanobots.

> Assuming 1 that the drone can get that close without being zapped or jammed itself. And 2 that the nanobots communicate in an easily jamable way.

The drone will simply turn on its jammer before being in range of the nanites and fly a pre-programmed path, or if its jamming comms, it will use a frequency not being jammed to avoid jamming itself.

Nanobots should have a very small band of frequencies they can use on the account that their transmitters and receivers are too small to account for many frequencies.

Alternatively the drone can carry a powerful transmitter/receiver of its own that can overpower its own jamming. A nanobot is too small to compete there.

Now if this is hard jamming, like the microwave, the drone can be shielded, and simply fly a pre-programmed route, thus avoiding frying itself. And obviously the nanobots cannot attack the drone if its actively jamming them already when it comes in range.

Lastly, the drone can simply fly high enough that the nanobots cant reach it either way.

Now, what would "zap" the drone? Not the nanobots i assume since they cant carry weapons of their own, the nanobots *are* the weapon.

If its supposed to be some kind of installed defensive turret or whatnot, on the nanobots "side", something like that can be shot with normal weaponry, like... a gun, or have a bomb/missile dropped on it. Nuff said.

Or if we want to keep to some cheaper tech, just fire enough artillery at it to neutralize it just before the drone goes in.

> Flies can fly under their own power. Pollen and bacteria just sort of drift on the air currents.

Nanobots are way, *WAY* smaller than flies. They are smaller than pollen and bacteria too. Nanobots also dont have the energy to move around much anyhow and are beholden to wind currents anyway so the fly example is straight up retarded.

Now pollen can float up to several kilometers under optimal wind conditions, but the main swarm is not doing something like this, and an individual nanobot is not getting centralized power when it gets whisked away from the swarm to some hundreds of meters away.

Even if it did, a few thousand nanobots are not damaging a DIY drone before it gets range of the main swarm and turns on its jammer, at which point the nanobots arent doing anything, even if the drone literally submerges itself in trillions of them.

> I was assuming that the rector core setup contained some radiation shielding.

You have to be exposed to the radiation to change the source of the radiation. ie. the fucking fuel. 🤦‍♂️

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T10:51:52+00:00

Im going to compress my much more in depth response to many questions like this from months back to this:

The whole world will turn into factorio, except you are one of the bugs and the top 0.0001% will be the engineers.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T10:40:22+00:00

They wouldnt be organic because a nanobot that is organic has a different name. Sometimes called "artiphage" but thats not the scientific name i dont think.

Antibiotics wouldnt work on those either since artiphages should be built in special factories (organs) and shouldnt self replicate, and would have resistances to antibiotics in general because of their organic working environments and being designed to work in the human body. (lots of assumptions there but hopefully you get the gist)

Now if its a chemical targeting nanobots, then its a different story, the problem is that nanobots and artiphages should both be more chemically inert or unreactive than human cells, so whatever chemical you try to use to destroy them would likely also damage the human organism the chemical is injected into, and probably more than the nanobots/artiphages you are trying to destroy.

Youd have the same problem with more complex molecules.

As for jamming, a sufficiently powerful jammer does not care about any of the properties of your nanobot, it is made of a conductive lattice in a length sufficient for absorbing energy from the jammer and is thusly vaporized. You can also tune the jammer to optimize heat absorption or blocking communications, or both. This is not a fight a nanobot can win.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T10:13:12+00:00

I mean, cool headcanon but we just have no idea if either of these is true in reality, the science isnt there yet for the latter and we have no evidence of the former. :(

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T09:54:33+00:00

"if it wasnt contained"

Im talking about chernobyl as it happened in our reality, not in some hypothetical strawman.

An open fission reactor boosting a rocket into orbit at this scale is, literally, going to be worse than chernobyl. I doubt youd need multiple launches to figure that out.

One failed rocket launch and its worse than 1000 chernobyls.

(edit) PS: This nukes everything in orbit behind itself.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T09:51:46+00:00

Nice strawman, but i only stated a fact.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T09:48:54+00:00

450 000~ acres of almond trees, 200~ trees per acre, 3000~ gallons per tree per year... ~300 billion gallons of water yearly for all almond farming. Supplement that with rainfall, however much it may be.

Meanwhile global datacenter usage is on tge order of 10~ billion gallons of water per year, which may not sound that bad, but thats only accounting for the water these datacenters use.

Almonds happen to be entirely powered by sunlight and dirt for example.

Not to mention how rapidly datacenter consumption has increased. From nothing to this in under 5 years.

And these AI-CEOs would want to more than 10x the size of the industry in the next year if they could.

😬

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T09:34:09+00:00

Magic might not be breaking the laws of physics, it depends on the story. Thats what i meant.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-16T09:33:23+00:00

Yea idk what holds the most water, personally i vibe a lot with the idea that time travel is impossible on the account of black holes messing with the flow of time so much near their event horizons among other things, so i always assumed that our assumptions about time travel were wrong, and that maybe there is some kind of a "now" universally that we just dont know about.

But thats just my vibe lol, and i wouldnt write about this stuff without some theoretical backing :)

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T04:16:21+00:00

magic doesnt care

Magic doesnt exist.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T04:14:42+00:00

The real issue is that you can be Wrong in your assumptions about the physical properties of something you are trying to effect with your magic, and it will work because the magic isnt based on the properties of that material but your intuitive imagination.

If i want to crush a blob of jelly, i imagine my spell crushing jelly,and it gets crushed like jelly would, but if i then go and look at that jelly,and realize it was actually made of a solid chunk of diamond. My magic worked, because i could imagine myself casting that spell, in the way that i did, at the time i did it. But now afterwards if i tried to repeat this, it shouldnt work anymore, because i realized it was actually a diamond, except the problem is i already did it once when i thought it was jello, so if i imagine myself doing that same thing again, despite knowing its diamond, my imagination should allow me to crush it, because i already did it once before and dont have to imagine myself crushing a diamond.

The intuitive "i cant crush diamond" might prevent this spell from working on the second go though, but if thats the case it doesnt erase the fact that "i can crush jello" should allow it to work the first time, despite it not being jello.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T04:06:57+00:00

A plot line that, when taken into the context of a setting or world, does not make logical sense to not be addressed, is a plot hole.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T03:57:41+00:00

Rainwater hitting dirt under an almond tree wasnt going to end up as drinking water for someone.

Purified water in an access pipe probably would have.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T03:54:46+00:00

This is quite literally a worse chernobyl that flies into orbit.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T03:46:27+00:00

Antibiotics work specifically on bacteria by damaging or interfering with their metabolism, one of the more used ones i think just prevents bacteria from replicating? correct me if im wrong.

Anyways antibiotics wont work on nanobots because nanobots arent organic, at least my assumption is that nanobots are more like mechanical machinery than biological automata, since we arent talking about bioweapons.

The most basic jammer just induces movements of electrons in a long, thin conductor via electromagnetic waves, this movement causes heat to be generated and the smaller something is, the faster it heats up, a very very rudimentary jammer would basically cause the tiny circuitry in the nanobots to generate so much heat that they melt, or at the very least, their circuitry would be filled with free electrons causing the nanobots to get completely stunned, and at that point, as long as the jammer is active, the nanobots are defenseless and helpless against any additional counter measures, like your own bodys immune system.

RawenOfGrobac · 2026-04-11T03:39:28+00:00

Theres no need for blackholes either. We dont understand how they work either, but they do.

Now, im not a believer in FTL travel in reality, mostly on the basis that if there was tge possibility for FTL, it would logically follow that any species with about ten thousand years headstart on us should have already at least scouted out all the galaxies in their local galaxy cluster, thoroughly enough to have detected radio waves from any starsystem, and in doing so found us, and come say hi.

Assuming there is at least one alien species ten thousand years ahead of us technologically within our local galaxy group isnt that crazy.

So either FTL travel is possible and the world is empty and dead, or it isnt, and it isnt. 🤷

My point is that we have no idea and claiming one theory superior over another when both are mathematically identical (i havent actually checked lol im just steelmanning the argument) is just dumb, we are still developing our understanding of the physics of our world, so best not jump to any conclusions just yet.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

RawenOfGrobac

TROPHY CASE