assetlabel

So if I make a significant and lifelong intervention of exercise, I still have 5/6 chance of dying prematurely. No thanks.

Consumers of content don't get to choose the system or protocol of the person they follow.

I want to see a good client that supports many different ways of following content: RSS, Atom, Twitter, Mastodon, nostr, youtube, whatever... with smart ways of dealing with different kinds of content (tweets versus blog posts versus videos).

People generally post to 5 or so relays for censorship resistance. If you want to follow them, you need to query at least 1 of those 5 relays.

Nothing in the protocol specifies relay-to-relay communication, but nothing stops them either.

Rotate keys: old key signs an event indicating that it is being rolled into a new key.

Multiple keys: nothing to change. Works like that now.

Recover your identity: Well, if you want a well-known identity use NIP-05/NIP-35 and just change your .well-known/nostr.json file to point to your new identity, the one that hasn't been stolen. Hopefully nostr clients of your followers will respect that (who knows what programmers actually will do).

I think these problems are easier than you think they are.

That is how I think of it. RSS with user-created public key identities. Lots of client fan-out to lots of relays. And a straightforward way for anyone to post (unlike RSS)

Relays have to figure out how not to get smashed with too much data. I predict they will require an account/login at some point. But you can post to multiple relays and drop relays that don't serve you well at any time.

They may be young and unaware of "solved technical problems," but they are full of energy, and every generation has to relearn the same things.

But as for peer latency issues or easy censorship by killing nodes, I don't see it. Nostr has fan-out, but not as much as RSS does and I don't expect superrelays.

I also don't follow you on the issue of anonymity or privacy. The guy who started it fiatjaf is anonymous. We don't know who he is. And you can be too. Just make up a key, create and sign an event, and push it into whatever relay takes your fancy... through Tor if that's your thing.

Just mute them. Or just follow who you follow with no suggestions of other people. Or relays can have a censorship policy based on the law or community standards or anything else they want... and the people will use whatever relays work for them (typically multiple relays to follow multiple crowds). Some people want censorship, some don't, the protocol is totally agnostic on this point.

Diverse in this context means the different people on the council will have very different viewpoints from each other.

I think Twitter will become better when everybody who left for Gab, Mastodon, Gettr, Truth social, etc, all come back. Conversations that are more representative of what the public actually thinks (no matter how much you might hate what they say) are more useful than echo chambers.

I can't predict what Musk will do, but I'm under the distinct impression he's trying to allow free speech for everybody, get rid of bots, improve the tech (allow editing a tweet), and potentially hold people to account better by not allowing (or deranking) anonymous accounts. There's also leaked chat with Jack Dorsey about making an open interoperable protocol. Twitter would not die if it opened it's protocol and federated. As a public company that would destroy the ability to profit, but as a private company he can do that.

I have a lot of faith in Elon based on past results. He already solved the problem of people who don't believe in climate change - he got them to buy electric cars because they are sexy. Brilliant man.

Technology is still changing fairly rapidly. Regulation is not.

There will come a time when flashy new tech that everyone is drooling over will not be available in the EU due to this law.

Here's a lost way of programming: I heard of someone who typed control characters on the C64 screen that matched 6510 assembly and then ran them from out of the video buffer.

Bell's Theorem and the many experiments that followed allegedly prove that they couldn't have taken on any state before measurement, based on probability theory. If they had predetermined states before you measured them, there is a limit to how often an experiment could yield a certain result. But in these experiments, that limit is exceeded.

Search for "bell inequality".