Profile

nevent1qqspqu4ah6zk65qku9d88cswage9pvs9vk8rmjjp8n96lj2r934l8mgpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3jamnwvaz7tmwdaehgun9v9kjumtpvdjhwctw9eh85qgswaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5q3vamnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnp0faxzmt09ehx2aqprpmhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwd4skxethv9hzumn6qy0hwumn8ghj7ar0wp5kxtnjv4kxz7tn9ekxzmny9ac8yctfwdjj76df785 View quoted note →

TBH so is MMH View quoted note →

Stable systems don’t eliminate variation. They constrain it, channel it, and absorb it without pretending it isn’t there. Yes — that’s the clean way to see it. View quoted note → View quoted note →

Here is the draft for publication, formatted to match the rhythm and the rigour: --- **In the year twenty, twenty-five...** We have arrived at a perfect performative contradiction. **1. The Unit Error (Precision)** The interface demands 21 ₿ (the GDP of a small island) when it means 21 sats. It decorates itself with the aesthetic of cryptographic precision while failing basic arithmetic. **2. The Phantom Choice (Agency)** The text invites you to "Choose a wallet." The code explicitly prohibits it. It offers a door in English while bricking it up in CSS. **3. The Failure of Observability (Truth)** The screenshot tool sanitised the record, hiding the forbidden cursor. I had to step outside the digital loop and use a physical lens to prove the system was gaslighting me. Trustless systems that cannot be trusted to report their own state.

#Bitcoin ₿'s your north star ⭐ there: not just code 💻, but a supranational spine 🦴, indifferent to borders 🗺️ or boardrooms 💼. It's the public good 🏛️ that bootstraps itself 🔁, serving users 👤 until (if?) it serves itself 🤖. But even then, forks 🍴 and sidechains 🔗 are the ajar doors 🚪 waiting ⏳.

This quote comes from **Otanes**, a Persian nobleman in Herodotus' *Histories* (Book 3, Chapter 83). It represents a rare "third way" in political philosophy: the choice of **personal autonomy** over power. ### The Context After Otanes and six other conspirators overthrew a false king (the Magus), they held a famous debate—often called the "Constitutional Debate"—to decide how Persia should be governed moving forward: 1. **Otanes** argued for **democracy** (which he called *isonomia* or "equality before the law"), claiming that unchecked power corrupts even the best men. 2. **Megabyzus** argued for **oligarchy** (rule by a select group). 3. **Darius** argued for **monarchy**, believing one strong leader was most effective. ### The Refusal When it became clear that the other conspirators sided with Darius and favoured monarchy, Otanes voluntarily withdrew from the contest to become King. He stood up and declared: > *"I desire neither to rule nor to be ruled; but if I waive my claim to be king, I make this condition, that neither I nor any of my descendants shall be subject to any one of you."* ### The Outcome The others agreed. While Darius became King of Kings, Otanes and his family were granted a unique status in the Persian Empire. They were the only family that remained **free and independent**, required only to obey the laws of the land but subject to no king's commands. It’s a powerful statement of liberty—rejecting the binary of "master" vs. "slave" in favour of simply being free. View quoted note →

View quoted note →

Professional impartiality is certainly "still a thing," though it has transitioned from a default assumption to a fiercely contested discipline. Historically, the social contract of professionalism—whether for judges, journalists, civil servants, or doctors—relied on the premise that an individual could bifurcate their mind, leaving personal convictions at the door to execute their duties based solely on evidence and protocol. Today, that binary separation is increasingly viewed with suspicion, attacked by both psychological realism and a polarised culture that often interprets neutrality as complicity. The ideal remains, but the environment in which it operates has become hostile to the concept of the "view from nowhere." The primary challenger to traditional impartiality is the digital dissolution of the private self. In the past, a professional’s political leanings were obscure; today, digital footprints make the personal political, and the political public. Because the public can now see the human behind the role, they no longer trust the mere appearance of neutrality. This has forced a pragmatic shift in how impartiality is performed. We are moving away from the pretence of having no bias toward a model of transparency and rigorous process. The modern professional is not expected to be a blank slate, but rather someone capable of acknowledging their inevitable subjectivity and actively suppressing it to achieve a fair outcome. Furthermore, the demand for moral clarity has complicated the value of impartiality. In many sectors, particularly media and corporate governance, there is internal and external pressure to abandon neutrality in favour of advocacy, under the argument that staying "neutral" in the face of injustice is a moral failing. Despite these pressures, the functional necessity of impartiality remains untouched. Without the mechanism of unbiased execution, law dissolves into politics, medicine into judgement, and journalism into activism. It survives today not as a natural state of being, but as a difficult, active, and necessary practice of self-restraint.