log☇︎
15 entries in 0.161s
mircea_popescu: somehow the whole http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=from%3Amircea+%22opposable%22 slash http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=from%3Amircea+%22opposability%22 item just not native to most heads.
mircea_popescu: now, why the fuck they'd use an implicit grammar-lexicon bundle like this, i have no fucking idea. but the fact that they ~shouldn't~ (which they should not) is NOT opposable to me! since they do, i have my argument!
mircea_popescu: "but your right honorable greatness! WE HAVE NO OPPOSABLE THUMBS!"
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-06-13#1824464 << in perhaps better formulation, the very point of having arbiter is so as to avoid exam taking ; the whole point of having "written contract" (import here pizarro's coc, import here the "opposable instrument" thread with trinque, etc) is to permit exam taking. these are contrary design constraints. ☝︎☟︎
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform note that this hash is not opposable to anything. you can hash the system time for all the difference it makes.
mircea_popescu: except they';re trying tyo you know, make it opposable. to everyone but not themselves.
mircea_popescu: monkeys are social rather than solitary. this goes with "have two limbs and opposable thumbs". how exactly they make use of those limbs or invest that sociality is also up for grabs, but doesn't speak to the principle.
mircea_popescu: what odds do you give it this entire infrastructure of detectable unopposable broken promisery will be jetissoned at first opportunity by everyone involved ?
mircea_popescu: no reason miner would make this opposable.
mircea_popescu: the fundamental problem here is that there's no way to reason in the manner you expect to reason. IF anything about the wot process is opposable to anyone involved ; then the wot process becomes by that measure less useful. no change whatsoever appears in the swamp it's made to confront.
mircea_popescu: anyway, phf 's notion of "recourse" is a lot more important than directly obvious in context ; it's a direct restatement of the "opposable" concept used in discussing deedbot payment design, and altogetgher the trestlework of sanity in operations.
mircea_popescu: facts are opposable. intentions aren't a thing.
mircea_popescu: there have to be layers. my hitting return is "this statement was made" ; my signing should be "this statement was made with a view of it being opposable to the maker".
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-02#1576521 << they are ?! why ? i have no intention for my rating of X to be opposable to me. it is information i provide free of charge and on an as-is basis, literally saying "if you're trying to eval X i may be able to help". it would be the height of impudence for y to demand something on the basis of "i have this here signed thing". ☝︎
mircea_popescu: also known as singularily opposable contracts or w/e you call declaratory contracts in english