@henryfarrell @glenweyl "You're not a true radical, you just want an even more purified version of the status quo" does seem to be a standard way for people to criticize radicals on the other side. In libertarian literature, the status quo is "deeply statist".
Convex worldview perhaps? https://t.co/ZVU5q2tnQI

@henryfarrell @glenweyl “你不是一个真正的激进分子，你只是想要一个更加纯净的现状版本”似乎是人们批评另一方激进分子的标准方式。在自由主义文学中，现状是“深刻的国家主义”。
也许是凸世界观？ https://t.co/ZVU5q2tnQI

@LayahHeilpern @Kb_2481 That's all fair! There's lots of important world problems I don't think about too. What I oppose is more, people using "charity starts at home" to actively argue that eg. their countries should shut their doors or stop trying to help foreigners even if they really need the help.

@LayahHeilpern @Kb_2481 这很公平！我也没有考虑很多重要的世界问题。我更反对的是，人们用“慈善从家里做起”来积极争论，例如。即使他们真的需要帮助，他们的国家也应该关闭大门或停止试图帮助外国人。

@primalpoly @robertwiblin I think the answer is: the worldview where responding to nuclear threats with "ok fine you can have more of what you want" increases the incentive for anyone else who wants stuff they can't otherwise get to try to get nuclear weapons and wave them around.

@primalpoly @robertwiblin 我认为答案是：以“好吧，你可以拥有更多你想要的东西”来应对核威胁的世界观增加了其他任何想要他们无法获得的东西的人尝试获得核的动力武器并挥动它们。

RT: Latest Week in Ethereum News
https://weekinethereumnews.com...
Thanks to @StarbloomVent for making this issue possible 🙏

RT：以太坊新闻的最新一周
https://weekinethereumnews.com...
感谢@StarbloomVent 让这个问题成为可能🙏

@LayahHeilpern @Kb_2481 A quite reasonable perspective, as long as "not care about" means "let other people who are in the right position handle it", and not "actively support things that throw them under the bus in favor of your local interests"

@LayahHeilpern @Kb_2481 一个相当合理的观点，只要“不在乎”是指“让其他处于正确位置的人处理它”，而不是“积极支持那些为了你当地利益而把他们扔到公共汽车下的事情” "

@Kb_2481 @robertwiblin Can't tell if parody.... 😂

@Kb_2481 @robertwiblin 无法判断是否模仿......😂

@robertwiblin Against what? Do you think the level of deterrence should be higher or lower?

@robertwiblin 反对什么？您认为威慑程度应该更高还是更低？

@pedrouid I think there have been two separate lines of research for quite a few years, one focused on meta-txs and the "make it easier to pay for other accounts' txs" problem and the other on the "make smart contracts usable as first class user accounts" problem.

@pedrouid 我认为多年来有两条不同的研究方向，一个专注于元交易和“更容易支付其他账户的交易”问题，另一个关注“让智能合约可用作一流的用户帐户”问题。

@pedrouid Huh it's fascinating that people have that impression because it's not true at all.
ERC-4337 was created to replace EIP-2938 (or create a stepping stone toward something that could eventually be enshrined via something like 2938).

@pedrouid Huh，人们有这种印象很有趣，因为这根本不是真的。
创建 ERC-4337 是为了取代 EIP-2938（或为最终可能通过 2938 之类的东西供奉的东西创造垫脚石）。

@pedrouid Where did this attitude that they are substitutes come from?
They solve different problems!

@pedrouid 这种他们是替补的态度从何而来？
他们解决不同的问题！

@evan_van_ness Oh I agree. We should have implemented NXT-like chain-based PoS despite the short range reorg issues and the lack of asynchronous guarantees, and gotten that out in 2018.

@evan_van_ness 哦，我同意。尽管存在短程重组问题和缺乏异步保证，但我们应该实施类似 NXT 的基于链的 PoS，并在 2018 年完成。

@gvelez17 @glenweyl @fabinger @MSFTResearch In other words, the kinds of things that are being actually proposed for Harberger taxation are usually exactly the kinds of things that *don't* have the property that transfers are value-destructive and if you give them up you can't easily get them back.

@gvelez17 @glenweyl @fabinger @MSFTResearch 换句话说，实际上为 Harberger 征税提议的那些东西通常正是那些 *不* 具有转移具有价值破坏性的属性的东西，如果你给他们起来，你不能轻易让他们回来。

@gvelez17 @glenweyl @fabinger @MSFTResearch I think the simplest critique of this critique is that no one is trying to Harberger tax relationships or integrity and principles or genuine self-expression. People are mainly trying to Harberger tax scarce industrial property.

@gvelez17 @glenweyl @fabinger @MSFTResearch 我认为对这种批评最简单的批评是，没有人试图哈伯格税收关系或诚信和原则或真正的自我表达。人们主要是试图向哈伯格征税稀缺的工业产权。

@razibkhan btw it's spelled "interlocutor"
(I troll, I troll...)

@razibkhan 顺便说一句，它的拼写是“对话者”
（我巨魔，我巨魔......）

@razibkhan ok yeah, agree that's closer to what I ascribed as your definition than to mine.

@razibkhan 好的，是的，同意这更接近我的定义，而不是我的定义。

@razibkhan Though I suppose the two bleed into each other often (but not always! eg. in this conversation I'm the pedant and I don't think either of us even have any motivation to be self-serving)

@razibkhan 虽然我想这两个人经常互相流血（但并非总是如此！例如，在这次谈话中，我是个书呆子，我认为我们中的任何一个人都没有任何自私自利的动机）

@razibkhan aha I see there's different definitions of pedant at play. You're going for something like "stickler for rules of engagement instead of self-serving bias", I usually use it for "stickler for rules instead of intuitively obvious inferences"

@razibkhan 啊哈，我看到对学究有不同的定义。您要寻求诸如“坚持参与规则而不是自私偏见”之类的东西，我通常将其用于“坚持规则而不是直观明显的推论”

@razibkhan For many classes of actors, the socially optimal frequency is somewhere between 0% and 100%, as is the natural frequency, but the socially optimal frequency and the natural frequency are not the same.
With pedants, are we more likely to be underproducing or overproducing?

@razibkhan 对于许多类别的演员来说，社会最优频率在 0% 到 100% 之间，自然频率也是如此，但社会最优频率和自然频率并不相同。
对于学究，我们更有可能生产不足还是生产过剩？

@Hare_9119 @glenweyl @ne0liberal Actually it's Singapore! The western part of SG, which people visiting normally don't go to but is actually quite beautiful😂

@Hare_9119 @glenweyl @ne0liberal 实际上是新加坡！ SG的西部，平时来的人都不去，其实很漂亮😂

@glenweyl @ne0liberal This isn't quite that though, this is more like, exploiting unspecified bits of entropy in the meme of "localism" that turn out to be enough to encode a push toward pretty much any desired outcome.

@glenweyl @ne0liberal 但这并不完全是这样，这更像是利用“地方主义”模因中未指定的熵位，结果足以编码推动几乎任何期望的结果。