yes but it was a microsandwich.

I haven't got the slightest idea what he's saying, but his face and expression do make me want to entrust my one and only child to him as a life mentor. NOT.

I think I won't until I feel it is a necessity for him to have a phone number, and even then I'm not sure I won't give him a dumb Nokia 3310 clone. He has free nearly unlimited access to a smartphone and a laptop as long as he's supervised and is doing smart things on them.

just found a torrent read by David Suchet, the guy doesn't sound as based as Jeff Riggenback, but it's definitely more suited to the bible than Jeff Riggenback

Care to give examples of the most significant three things that changed your life, taken from the bible?

how do you define "moral" though? That's key in understanding whether your "morally wrong" claim is valid, in respect to selling one's own nsec. I argue that doing it is absolutely ethically correct, and whether it's morally wrong is debatable,. depending probably on the history of the npub and the implicit contracts that the npub had made.

I don't understand. If parents are not collaborating or otherwise one is missing, the son only needs to convince the other to sign twice, since he has one key and the setup is 3 of 5.

Can someone please give context?

parents' divorce though... that is evil and untrue.

if it wasn't for the green huge dildo I would have been totally fooled.

I am expecting most of them are just using the default node distribution with the default settings (those which are not barred from being set in the first place, at least) without any active choice of intents.

"oh look how a galactic fuckton of people showed up in the rain to protest us! that's the amount of people who still believes in us wielding power"

I am not sure, does being able to ride horses and shoot a gun at the same time mean that a woman can be a great mother for her kids?

A politician.

I don't know that I agree with this. I see two false dichotomies. On one side, his, with "your freedom is more important than other people's lives", and on the other, yours, "give me liberty or give me death". How about everyone just goes freely minding his own fucking business, and keeps his own life on top of that 😊

Ethics vs moral The two are actually distinct, even if definitions not always coincide. I consider ethics to be a universal set of rules for behaviour among humans, while moral is a more restrictive set of such rules that can never contradict ethics, but in some ways double down on it by adding more requirements, usually derived from one's culture. I personally find prefer, as formally rigorous, Rothbard's approach in The Ethics of Liberty, as it builds recursively and deductively from the basic principle of establishing, logically, that everyone is the sole owner of his own body, and thereafter showing how every other rules can be obtained from this. Molyneux though, has introduced his own set of "moral rules" (he seems to be using "moral" and "ethics" interchangeably, which in my opinion generates confusion) from a constructive approach of his, which is UPB, universally preferable behaviour. He invented this "machine", as he calls it, that allows to test every kind of behaviour for its morality: if you don't know whether something can be considered moral, you have to find out if that is something that can be achieved universally. His main example is with stealing: if you want to argue that stealing is UPB, everyone should at the same time want to steal from everyone else, and be stolen from by everyone else. But, if you want someone to steal something from you, it's really not stealing anymore, it's offering something for free, even if with a twist. Likewise, if you think that donating to the poor is moral, everyone should at the same time want to donate to the poor and be donated to as a poor person. That is a logical impossibility, as, with donating, there can only be a donor and a receiver, poors have nothing to spare to donate, and, if the roles are inverted at some point, that is a sum zero activity so it's like it doesn't exist, moreover poors ends up being immoral as they are not donating, but being donated to. Additionally (and this is what he calls the coma test) someone who is in a coma could never donate to the poor, so it turns out that if donating to the poor was UPB, then everyone in a coma would be an immoral person, which is preposterous. On the other side, "not stealing", "not killing", "not raping" are at the same time rules that can be achieved universally (everyone can in fact avoid stealing from others, and refusing to be stolen from), and that pass the coma test (someone who is in a coma cannot physically steal so cannot be immoral, or unethical as you might). I believe the two are useful different approaches, one for true nerds, the other to explain things to "normal people" in a way that hopefully makes sense to even an NPC. And here I conclude my random pill of wisdom.

Now we just need to start banning people who don't say please, thank you and good morning, then those who eat too much chocolate cake, those who take less than 7000 steps per day, those who go to sleep too late to scroll facebook, [...], and finally the world will be a better place