LionRiver

@CryptoJebb This is the equivalent of a 3rd grader discovering what “infinity” is and concluding that anything smaller doesn’t matter. There’s your problem. “Yeah well I have INFINITY PLUS ONE!!”

There are hundreds of trillions of dollars in the world, and you think $1 Million is a lot. There’s your problem.

@CryptoJebb Ambition = “I want $50M.” Delusion = “$50M isn’t a lot.” Know the difference.

Told someone $50 Million wasn’t a lot of money once. They laughed at me. I looked at them dead-pan and told them if $50 Million is a lot of money to them I guarantee that they will never have it.

@CryptoJebb Denying objective reality doesn’t make you more likely to obtain something.

@CryptoJebb If someone says Mt. Everest is tall, that doesn’t mean they’ll never climb it. It just means they understand scale. $50M is objectively a lot of money. You can aim for it and recognize it’s big. Pretending it’s small isn’t ambition, it’s just losing perspective.

@Breedlove22 I wonder how many bitcoiners also played Diablo II.

A video game I played at age 14 helped me learn how money actually works. Here is what I discovered: When I was in my early teens, I spent most of my free time playing Diablo II. Like most games it had its own in-game currency, but the currency was so easy to come by that it didn’t have much value in trade. So players did what humans have always done when their money fails them and found something else to use as money. There was a rare ring in the game called the ''Stone of Jordan'' Ring (the SOJ) that was hard to find and useful enough that people valued it. Although the game designers never intended this, the entire economy of Diablo II started using the SOJ as money. Players started trading gear for SOJs, quoting prices in SOJs, and storing wealth by accumulating them. The in-game currency was all but worthless because it was so easy to come by, but the SOJ was scarce and people recognized it. Although I didn’t have these words at the time: I had just watched a free market select the SOJ as its own money. Witnessing this monetization process left a lasting imprint on my mind that decades later would give me an early appreciation of Bitcoin. Once I understood what was happening I stopped dungeon slaying and started trading, instinctively following the basic principles of buy low and sell high until I had accumulated a wealth of rare items. Then eBay became popular and I realized I could convert all that in-game wealth into actual dollars, and that was the moment something cracked open because people were spending “real money” to acquire valuable items inside a world that did not actually exist. That was the first time the penny dropped for me. I followed that intuition for the next two decades without knowing where it was going and it took one book to give it a name. At 21 I read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” and learned what central banking actually was and the realization was so heavy I put it down, went back to work, and told myself there was nothing anyone could do about it. Without knowing any other path I continued working inside the financial system despite understanding its corrupt core. Then in 2018 I read “The Bitcoin Standard” and the two threads finally connected. The free market digital money I watched emerge spontaneously inside a video game (the SOJ) and the free market digital money I was watching emerge spontaneously in the real world (Bitcoin) were both built on similar principles. The common denominator? People always seek out the best tool for the job. When their money doesn’t work right, people find a better monetary tool. Since the money people choose to hold is a matter of survival in the social world, it is extremely difficult to force people to use an inferior money when a better money is within reach. My philosophical journey into the nature of money started with a video game and ended with a Bitcoin tattoo (my first and only tattoo to this day). To me, this Bitcoin tattoo represents my “skin in the game”: which is a principle of alignment between people and the consequences of their actions. The problem with central bankers and their fiat currencies? They have zero skin in the game. When they print money, you lose value. Their actions, your consequence: this is the misalignment. Bitcoin is the reverse. Bitcoin is a system secured by miners and holders. These incentives n Bitcoin ensure that each person bears the consequences of his own actions. The net result of Bitcoin being a monetary network with skin in the game is that it is money that can never be printed. This is because to create more than 21M Bitcoin would require a majority of users to act against their own self interest. By giving people an incorruptible option in a world running on corrupt money, Bitcoin is one of the most important humanitarian missions in the world. My Bitcoin tattoo is my “skin in the game”: a visual metaphor for my commitment to this humanitarian mission. If actions and their consequences are misaligned, it is only a matter of time before the system blows up. Bitcoin fixes this.

@_D_dot_ In a world full of 🔵, you have collective survival, but you lack individuality and competitiveness to thrive. In a world full of 🔴, you have chaos due to selfishness, no cooperation or trust. You need a world full of some 🔴 and majority 🔵 living in a system built by 🔵.

To be clear i think it’s fine if you still pressed red. It is objectively the safest choice as an individual. But I also think that, while not directly responsible, your vote WILL contribute to whatever results occur and you do have to come to terms with that

“We don’t live in a high trust society” >test society >high trust wins >test again >trust wins >test again >trust wins “Well obviously they’re all lying”

@ChrisPacia 🔴 logically wins if the goal is to just stay alive and save yourself. It’s guaranteed self-preservation. 🔵 logically wins if the goal is to keep everyone alive, knowing not everyone will go 🔴. It’s collective group survival.

The pattern played out like this: - Duh Red is the obvious choice. Nobody dies if everyone pushes red. There's not reason to push blue. - Blue button pusher think they have a bullet proof rebuttal... Some confused or irrational people will push blue. Therefore the knee-jerk red reaction is naive and the true enlightened position is that that you must push blue. Unfortunately, that turns out to be the naive position. Consider the following...

@mikethree Then what do you call a functioning society? 🔴 people live in a 🔵 society lol. You need both to thrive. You only need 🔵 for everyone to survive. 🔴 is individualist and can’t survive on their own without the blue 🔵 system/infrastructure.

blue button pressers are bent out of shape because their lives literally depend on convincing everyone else to think like they do and press the button they need them to press if they could they would force you to press the blue button at gunpoint and kill you if you refused

@NodeChuck @ProctorZ 🔵 people are literally your parents who raised your dumbass toddler self while you walked around clueless to the dangers of the world 🔵 people is literally just a collectivist group effort for the benefit of everyone. It’s not morals. It’s not virtue signaling. It’s logic.

@ProctorZ Blue people are the same ones who would join a cult. They are looking for validation, even if it's for making stupid decisions for group cohesion.

I'm late to the whole red & blue button thing but all I can say is that I cannot even grasp the mindset of people who seem to think pressing blue is the sane decision.

@hacylhacyl @RemyTheRedVT Babies or not, 🔵 is still for collective group survival. A risk, but saves everyone. 🔴 is for guaranteed individual self-preservation. No risk, but guarantees your own survival. Choose what you want.

@RemyTheRedVT Seems like there are two versions of this debate, one where you include babies, drunks, blind people, and those who accidentally slipped and hit Blue. And the other where everyone who votes is in full control of their mental faculties and their color choice is 100% intentional.

I’m late to the red/blue party but here’s my take I guess lol. Simplest view I can give is: Yes, if everyone is able to touch the button with full awareness of what they’re doing and no chance to fuck up, red makes sense. But that isn’t how reality would ever play out. In a scenario where -everyone- gets the red/blue button at the same time, you have the following: -old, baby, blind, deaf, asleep, unconscious, incapacitated, etc people who cannot touch either button, or end up touching the blue button in error -no guaranteed ability to make sure people you care about touch the red button -awareness that no matter how you feel about it, a certain number of people will touch blue. The red/blue button includes people who don’t touch the button at all as part of who dies if 51% of people don’t touch blue. So every coma patient, every person in surgery, every quadriplegic, or person with an inability to choose dies, not just blue button pushers. It also doesn’t clarify whether or not, for example, unborn children who are close to birth count as ‘everyone’ by the standards of whatever horrible entity decided the red/blue button question would be a fun thing to pose to humanity. So what do we do if the death radius includes fetuses inside their mothers as people who didn’t choose? And would you really want to take a chance on whether or not they are included since there’s no way to guarantee it? Under that scenario, choosing red guarantees a lot of people die through no fault of their own if more people press red than blue. I’m not going to pretend I’m a saint, because I’m not. I cannot rightly promise that I wouldn’t press red if there was a guaranteed way for me to ensure everyone I love did too. But because I can’t guarantee that, I would most likely press blue, because that is the only way I could maximise the chance that my loved ones, including the ones who can’t choose would survive. Is it silly from a pure survival standpoint? Yeah, probably. But I don’t think I could live with the guilt of knowing I killed my sisters unborn child, or my toddler niece who likes blue more than red, or my dad when he’s unconscious in surgery because I wasn’t willing to risk my life to try and hit a measly 51% target.

@RemyTheRedVT It’s guaranteed individual self-preservation versus a risk for collective group survival.

@pterodaustro 🔴 is obviously best for individual self-preservation 🔵 is the “moral choice” for some people, but it’s also logically the best for collective group survival if the goal is the keep EVERYONE alive. 🔴 also doesn’t know that “everyone in the world” includes babies & children.

i do not think you need to defend your choice on a dumb internet hypothetical like its an actual moral choice but i do think every argument for red and why it wouldnt be a pro-other people dying button is bad. the reasoning is poor

want to make it clear that i do not give a shit about the actual discourse this dumb poll is generating but i do find it a lil fascinating how like 90% of the people ive seen talking about it are in favor of the red button and present as the obvious choice. because i read this -

@theramblingfool Western individualim seems ideal for “freedom”. But it’s not realistic or practical for overall collective group survival.

Cooperative theory of mind is something humans are actually REALLY good at intuitively. Paradoxically, if you give people WEIRD-style western analytical frameworks to replace intuition, we get worse at it. Non-western voters would press blue at even higher rates than us.

@WeavingAmbrosia @theramblingfool @subcountability You don’t even need to factor in children, guilt, feelings or morals. 🔵 is just better for collective group survival, which beats the individual 🔴 thinker mindset any day of the week. You still need both types for society to thrive, but 🔵 keeps the whole tribe alive.

@theramblingfool @subcountability Yeah but it’s not even just optimism it’s just realizing blue has built in numbers kids are more likely to pick blue people which children in their life will desperately pic blue because of that. survivors guilt will all push blue I think many reds in real life pick blue

If you're smart enough to understand the hypothetical requires analytical reasoning, but not smart enough to evaluate the hypothetical's actual complexity, you're going to be wrong and very confident. And anyone who understands enough to get it right will look stupid to you.

@theramblingfool @subcountability 🔴 thinkers optimize their individual self-preservation. It’s generally the first instinct for most people, like myself. 🔵 thinkers optimize collective group survival.

There's a correct choice given your belief in the likelihood of blue winning and the moral values you bring to the hypothetical. It's a hybrid analytical/moral question. Smarter people tend to be blue because (1) smarter people tend to be more optimistic, which increases their estimate of blue's likelihood of winning, and (2) smarter people can assess the hypothetical with greater complexity, whereas a flattened view of the problem biases one towards red. Most of the rationales I've seen for red can only come from stupid people (but most people that hold almost any belief aren't smart). The rationale for red most likely to be a smart person is cynicism. Because if you're cynical, you're more likely to think blue winning is an impossibility, in which case the problem becomes less moral, more analytical, and biased toward red.

@clintoptions “According to people familiar with the matter”

GameStop Preparing Offer for eBay -WSJ

@TheUltimator5 WSJ’s “According to people familiar with the matter” is trust-me-bro catshit wrapped in fake-news dogshit until it’s officially announced by GameStop themselves. But big if true.

The WSJ article is bullshit and we all know it. MSM just needs the cover to explain away price action as it happens so people don’t go looking deeper. $GME

@Cointelegraph “According to people familiar with the matter” per WSJ It’s not official until it’s official.

🔥 BIG: GameStop ($GME) is preparing an offer to acquire eBay, per WSJ.

@Cointelegraph “According to people familiar with the matter” is not official news.

🚨 HUGE: GameStop (GME) surges over 9% following reports the company is exploring an acquisition of eBay.

@wallstreetbets Big if true. But it’s “According to people familiar with the matter” - WSJ So it’s not official until it’s official.

GameStop $GME is preparing to make an offer to acquire eBay $GME up 6% at $26.53 WE'RE SO BACK