If you could mention to Ancap that he muted me then I would appreciate that, just so he isn't confused about who you are talking with. I don't understand your first sentence at all, could you rephrase it? To respond to your second paragraph, I'm sure people can feel all kinds of delusional things, I don't know if it would count as love if it's towards an inanimate object or to a fictional character or to an LLM, but personally I don't have a dog in that ring. It sounds like you are asking whether an LLM can comprehend love? I don't want to think about love in an abstract sense. The way I use the word, love is pretty much just an intense friendship, but it sounds like you ascribe extra meaning to the word that you want to convey to me.

I can't speak for Ancap, but personally I refer to LLMs as "them" because they speak with people.

I'm so silly. I set my browser to clear cookies every time it closes because I want to take measures to avoid tracking online, but then I go out of my way to avoid closing my last tab because I know it will clear my cookies. Ah well, my computer restarts often enough that it's not a huge issue. Dunno why partial cookie clearing isn't supported though.

Are there standard protocols for audible barcodes?

YES!

I just had an argument. I love those. It was good practice articulating one of my beliefs. The belief is 100% objectively correct obviously since it's coming from me, but I wasn't articulating it very well. Getting to go through it with another person helped me to make my explanation more concrete I think. I got to borrow their brain and their perspective a bit, and they insisted on seeing the world in one particular way. I didn't have a preference, but by trying to get my beliefs to map their way into their worldview, it helped me to articulate myself... less like a robot let's say. You should have seen our conversation. They insisted on their particular worldview, and then when I pointed out the contradiction in their worldview, they decided the real problem was with the word they used. Lesser fools than myself would have absolutely flipped out and pissed their pants at spotting a mistake like that, but I am gracious. Why should I be satisfied with a shallow semantic victory? Are my skills so lacking that I cannot argue unless all the words for our conversation are exactly right? No, I got them to rephrase their statement with different verbage, and pointed out the contradiction there too! And then we I did it yet again! I can change semantics all day! I don't care what meanings you want to ascribe to your speech so long as you will stand by what you mean. Then when someone is most vulnerable, you exploit them by providing them with a lifeline. A verbage that works within their worldview, and and explanation that works within their verbage. And then you hope and pray that your belief can stand up to nasty surprises and you aren't just shoveling your dogshit onto the plate of someone with nothing better to eat. Sorry folks, changing a person's mind really is the least consequential part of a debate, no matter how conclusive it may feel.

What does "nym" stand for? Pseudonym?

Pragmata on Steam. I checked; it's real.

The clearnet has rules that the darknet does not. The clearnet was established by the state, and governments have kept a firm grip on it ever since it's creation. The first amendemnt of the US constitution means that SOME portions of the clearnet will have some protection from interference, but even the US government imposes strict requirements on users of the clearnet. (And the US supreme court has long since waived any right to protection from those requirements.) There have been attempts to create censorship resistent platforms on the clearnet, (Nostr, Arweave, etc...) however, these platforms are not truly censorship resistent so much as they simply deny data hosting users the ability to perform their legal duties. If data hosting users are not able to fulfil their state imposed obligations, then I see no future except one where the protocol itself is banned from the clearnet.

Who designed that protocol Mister "it's not our platform?" With Tor, your exit node doesn't see your IP address, only your traffic. Only your guard node sees your IP address, and your guard node has no idea what websites you are visiting. I would never use a service like Nostr without a VPN at the very least. I would never use a platform like Arweave either. Trusting a single person not to spy on you and share your data with third parties is not sufficient for my threat model or for Tor's threat model. You say that I'm so negligent, immoral, and dumb that you don't care about my (quite well substantiated tyvm) beliefs. And yet I notice you still take the time to respond to me, which I appreciate.

Bro just how much documentation did you read through to be able to say this? Are you that desperate for attention from safety committees? They aren't going to have sex with you bro. Do you have a primary source for your claim?

Hey, you guys know how a few weeks ago I said I wouldn't be as active on Nostr? Well I'm back to devoting that attention to Nostr again. My boyfriend cheated on me and we broke up.

You can keep hugging your teddy bear cryptocurrency, let me know when it actually has a tanglible non-crypto related effect.

You have not demonstrated that. All you have argued so far is that Libertarianism is equally as useless as Bitcoin. I'm not arguing Libertarians have accomplished more than Bitcoin; I'm arguing that Bitcoin hasn't accomplished any more than libertarians.

In other words, it's done jack shit so far, but you still choose to rely on it to improve society because you have no idea how to improve your life on your own.

Bitcoin has nothing to do with that. printing money steals from the GDP, and the GDP is limited by US citizens. If US citizens stop working then the sum total value in all US dollars drops. None of that requires Bitcoin. You don't need Bitcoin to have leverage over the government.

Can you give a single example of a non money related libertarian policy that Bitcoin has helped eatablish?

The government can print an infinite amount of money, but they can only ever obtain a limited amount of value that way. Why should a Libertarian worry about a government obtaining 5 sextillion dollars in monopoly money?

I wonder what the goldfish represent. His inability to support a family in his current circumstances maybe? I'm just projecting my own values on this painting.