But you see you don't actually understand how lawmaking works there's this set of procedures and dates that BLEAAAARGHHHHHvomitvomit

This is still the dark ages of software development. I don't mean that in the common nonsense sense of "methods," but of perception and of goals.

As a whole, this behaves exactly like a primitive age does: all effort spent solving the same problems over and over again.

A "technology," if it means anything, is something you do that stops you from solving the same problem over and over again. You can spend J energy solving every instance of problem X as it manifests into infinity, or you can spend J energy abolishing X through a "technology."

Capitalism rewards every industry, not only "tech," to never abolish a good X. Instead, it encourages us to create some machinery to sell temporary remedies for getting rid of every instance of X as it crops up everywhere.

If "technology is what matters," then we must change the social system and culture we live in, because that culture is the greatest meta-machine for mass suppression of technology that has ever been invented.

People's instincts, individually and collectively, are always to correctly decide when to erase instances of problem generators, and when to attack the problem generators themselves. The current system and culture eliminate 99%+ of that wisdom. It's massively stupid.

Before I try to solve the GoodReserve vs. GoodStaking problem, which involves math and time and interest, let me solve something easier, which is all of modern politics.

Here's an example. When the pandemic was in the first wave here in Brazil, you could see lots of cultural noise about the fact that rich people were not dying because they got hospital care, whereas poor maids etc. were getting infected by rich people e.g. coming back from Italy.

Then, after a while, this story died. We "know" this now, but nothing happened.

When this sort of thing happens -- lots of noise, followed by normalization -- we are trained to think that that's *OUR* fault as cultural noisemakers.

IF ONLY WE MADE MORE NOISE, we think.

Why do we think that?

We think that because of all the times making noise worked.

Or did it? Did it actually work? Was it actually the noise that "changed" things?

Nope. The noise doesn't change anything.

EVER.

Here's how this works.

OK let me try math again.

GoodStaking: you invest X, like you would in a savings account. After many years it produces Y interest, of which Y/2 go to the reserve over time, and Y/2 becomes G$ that you own.

No, that's wrong. Jesus.

The entire Y goes into the reserve, and that generates a Z amount of G$.

Z/2 goes to people as UBI.

Z/2 goes to you.

OK, so I wasn't that far off.

If I donate a large amount of money to the reserve, what I am doing is emulating a large Y. I'm taking a ton of money that I *have* (so it would be a "principal" today, a X) and pretending it's like a Y of someone else that will do GoodStaking.

The money that I have is a small X. It will generate a small Y. Instead, I want to take my small X and pretend it's a large Y, which would originate from a large X. That I don't have. Because I'm poor.

So if I want to make the largest possible impact into the UBI reserve, to make a splash, and help it be noticed, I can take the small amount of money I have, the X I have, and pretend it's a Y of staking, and time warp it to the present and use the X to buy G$ from the reserve.

The US peoples could create an organization that issues a RENT token that is nominally worth 1 USD each of debt as a kind of bond to every homeowner so there is no excuse and you will not be making other people homeless.

The government can do this kind of thing very easily and in fact, every government is doing this, but if your government won't and you have the tech and the social climate to pull this off without being assassinated then you should do it because it would work.

Social debt can be redeemed by anyone, anytime. The origination mechanism of a token tells the story of whether it will be redeemed by society in an entirely volunteer fashion.

If a RENT token exists, you know that it was created by people to avoid other people being evicted. Then you can choose to honor it if (i) you can (iia) you think rent is legitimate or (iib) you think it's strategic to help pretend rent is legitimate (iii) you believe the issuer

Democratic, bottom-up currency creation is a technology that we must hand to people. It must be trivial to create tokens, and we must learn the power of volunteering *towards currencies*. This is an entire social language that's going to emerge.

I'm having difficulty seeing the need for any other currency in the world other than G$.

If it works, and it is decentralized, then why would we need more than one global-reach currency?

If it does the job perfectly, then why do we need another?

I don't mean there won't be others. What I mean is that maybe Crypto UBI will be like the existing non-democratic crypto market ranking. There will be a first-place market cap amount, and exponential decay to the #2, #3, #4, etc.

This is in contrast to the simplistic view where we assume there will be X systems and they all have more or less the same abstract Y market cap or reach, and they all add up to an integrated system with X*Y market cap.

All you have to do is design the controls the way they want to be designed. If you don't introduce some unneeded damage in it, then there won't be the need to come up with another system that fixes the damage and actually does complete "the system" that we will use.

E.g. Bitcoin would have worked, except it introduced the damage that is Proof-of-Work, which means it is unusable and will be replaced by Ethereum, which will use PoS, thus fixing the damage.

Kerala High Court resumes hearing of Bail Application of M Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary of Kerala Chief Minister

Sivasankar is presently in ED's custody for alleged involvement in the Kerala Gold Smuggling case. He is also being investigated by the NIA and Customs Department.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta is arguing for Sivasankar.

He denies ED's allegations that Sivasankar contacted customs officials to clear the baggage alleged to be containing smuggled gold.

Gupta claims statement made by co-accused Swapna Suresh about Sivasankar's involvement are not credible as the same were made after her arrest.

Gupta points out that the correspondence between Sivasankar and Swapna does not disclose any knowledge on the latter's part.

He also tells Court that all of Swapna's statements categorically denied his client's involvement in gold smuggling, until before her arrest.

A hearing is underway now in the case of Richard Barnett, one of the Capitol insurrection defs (photographed at Pelosi's desk) — the govt is challenging an Arkansas magistrate judge's release order. Chief Judge Beryl Howell in DC halted his release until she rules on the matter

Prosecutor Mary Dohrmann begins by arguing Barnett flouted laws "in the most brazen and flagrant manner possible" when he breached the Capitol: "He knew exactly what he was doing."

Prosecutor says the note that Barnett left for Pelosi in her office — "Nancy, Bigo was here you bitch" — was "disturbing" and says the photographs of him sitting at Pelosi's desk show that he appears to "relish" the notoriety

Govt says Barnett doesn't have a criminal record, but notes police reports where a caller lodged a complaint that he'd pointed a rifle at a car with a "Black Lives Matter" sticker and, in a separate incident, was carrying around guns in public

So, on the subject of bonkers hyperbolic pretzeling over the Bell judgement, Grace 'destroy books I don't like & make inappropriate jokes about sterilising teenage girls' Lavery has some thoughts.

Tell me why my feminism is wrong Grace.

Oh

Well, if anyone thought the Bell judgment was going to make TRAs reconsider making massively overblown claims with no evidence backed up with nothing but a thick wadge of emotional blackmail.... HAHAHA, no one thought that.

A high court in the UK made a delimited judgment about teenager's ability to consent to puberty blockers. This puts all trans people everywhere in the world at risk.

Because if any human anywhere has any thoughts that deviate in any way from the rote line dictated by

the trans rights movement, this puts all trans people everywhere in mortal danger.

Let's be honest Grace. It doesn't put trans people at risk. It puts trans ideology at risk. Because trans ideology depends on the idea of innate gender identity, and the trans child is the

necessary material evidence of the ontology of gender identity.

That is, children are being medicalised to provide evidence to underwrite adults identities.

Nothing to see here.

Short thread on impeachment witnesses:

First, let’s remember that this case had unusual and powerful evidence in the public record. If you are prosecuting a bank robbery and you have the surveillance camera footage, you don’t need witnesses to tell you what happened.

1/

Second, the only areas where witnesses could help was confirming what the circumstantial evidence already showed about Trump’s knowledge and intent, both before and after the riot. Mgrs did great job of using his own tweets to show his knowledge but witnesses could confirm.

2/

The case was really strong as is but new witness testimony would very likely become the sole focus of the media and the public. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid taking risks with witnesses a) who are adverse to you and b) whose testimony is unknown.

3/

Since the only witnesses that would be helpful are ones close to Trump, executive privilege would invariably be an issue. If a witness is not cooperative, s/he would likely fall back on EP to avoid testifying. Hashing that out would take months.

4/

The reality is that Trump has created a dynamic through the Ukraine whistleblower and Ukraine witnesses where his domestic terrorist supporters threaten violence against witnesses against him. This fear is real and it is a huge problem. This should be everyone’s focus.

5/

Listening in to the Peter Harding arraignment. (THREAD)

Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy is presiding.

Criminal complaint against Harding is from DC District Court dated 1/11/21.

Harding is charged in a 2 count complaint from DC District - violating 18 usc 1752 (a)(1) and (a)(2) unlawfully being on federal grounds.

Second count is Title 40 USC 5104(e)(2)(c) violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Max for both is 1.5 years and a fine.