Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • In any dispute between to testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two

    In any dispute between to testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two tests of decidability:

    1- Rationality (incentives)

    2 – Parsimony (occam’s razor)

    If the incentive exist to fictionalize, and if fictionalism is defeated by parsimony, then the person is in fact lying.

    The only time to use a god is via positiva (poetic meaning and communication) but it cannot be used via negativa (truth or argument).

    The reason gods were necessary is intergenerational transfer. if gods were mortal they could not explain the long standing.

    A god is just a unit of measure of the intertemporal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 10:41:00 UTC

  • Humans must calculate something in order to choose from fields of choices, and s

    Humans must calculate something in order to choose from fields of choices, and status signaling is the acquisition with the highest returns both practical and emotional. This isn’t a problem UNLESS YOU’RE SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE’S CAPITAL (a parasite). Virtue signaling is theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 20:35:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994677355653292032

    Reply addressees: @standsApart @KennethBuff @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994676440976289792

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994676440976289792

  • The NYT article conveys is that it is that virtue signaling is a form of conspic

    The NYT article conveys is that it is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of.
    Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 14:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994585863207182336

    Reply addressees: @KennethBuff @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KennethBuff @sapinker Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (“The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KennethBuff @sapinker Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (“The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

  • —“why Are We Not Seeing a Shock from Gender Asymmetry in India and China?”—

    1- Economic opportunity is masking conflict – as it always does. The return of economic limitations restores group conflicts. 2 – Substantial underclass populations still preserving family. 3 – So there is sex pressure but still hope. 4 – And there is marriage retention and still hope. 5 – Unlike the west, they are not wealthy enough to destroy the economic security of the family. 6 – Japan is the … oddity. (Low testosterone in asian men is not a good thing) In any society where the woman are capable of both single motherhood and middle class (technological) workplace substitution of men, we should see a retreat to serial marriage and excess males. Males are cost to a woman while raising children if they are working. This same effect won’t occur in populations with IQ’s below 95 (massive underclasses). And the upper classes will always find greater competitive and status value in dual incomes or high male income with supported females. Without eugenics either environmental, agrarian, or political, it is very hard to maintain human advancement.

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • BTC – Initial Generation Issues

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”–

    —“Aren’t Central banks failing?”—Jacob Liam Youngman No evidence of it. Just the opposite, that central banking has made it possible to drag backward nations out of poverty by the billions. You can say that keynesian monetary policy in an attempt to limit unemployment has been a failure if for no other reason than it inflates away all the increases in productivity. You can say that keynesian economic theory and monetary policy does in fact iteratively deepen and extend corrections, such that at some point without extraordinary measures risk impossibility of correct comfortably. You can say that keynesian monetary policy and fiscal policy suppresses reproduction and creates demand for immigration that creates civil wars. But these are problems of keynesian (saltwater) monetary policy not chicago monetary policy, and not central banking. It is almost impossible to argue against the utility of central banking ( using shares in the economy as currency). You just can’t (with any degree of intellectual honesty).

  • TECHNOLOGY: OPINIONS ON BTC, DIGITAL SHARES, DIGITAL TITLE Initial generations o

    TECHNOLOGY: OPINIONS ON BTC, DIGITAL SHARES, DIGITAL TITLE

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them.

    The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary.

    This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do.

    I’ve said for years now that :

    (a) the idea of title registry and fractional shares as a medium of exchange, itself is brilliant, but;

    (b) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design,

    (c) transaction processing time under proof of work is a bad design.

    (d) lack of posting (rolling up fragments into a single new share and retiring the old) is a bad design.

    (e) lack of federation and sharding is a bad design. (look we invented a division of journals and ledgers for a reason.)

    (f) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability,

    (g) ***I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses.***

    (h) hence the distributed nature of the technology which makes research and development by individuals and teams possible, and provides a cheap means of financial speculation on these technologies, is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc.

    I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance.

    I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges – this will solve the primary problem remaining with that thing we call ‘money’.

    I am thrilled that we might create something on the order of a gold backed fractional share reserver to remove fiat money from circulation as a defense against inflation, and restoration of the possibility of comparatively lossless saving.

    However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durability of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off. Two part keys have been with us since we cut tics in sticks of wood – literally since we evolved speech.

    I haven’t been wrong so far. It is very unlikely that I err.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 11:54:00 UTC

  • Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 08:36:00 UTC