RT: Latest Week in Ethereum News
🧊 Update your nodes for the Gray Glacier upgrade
https://weekinethereumnews.com...
Thanks to @NexusMutual for making this issue possible 🙏

RT：最近一周以太坊新闻
🧊 为Gray Glacier升级更新节点
https://weekinethereumnews.com...
感谢@NexusMutual使此问题成为可能🙏

@ymallebdrawde @zooko So what's wrong with saying that in regions controlled by the SK gov society is more prosperous?

@Ymalebdrawde@zooko那么说在SK gov控制的地区社会更繁荣有什么错呢？

@ymallebdrawde @zooko Then how you you describe the nice quality that South Korea has today that North Korea does not have today, and that South Korea also did not have back in 1955?

@Ymalebdrawde@zooko那么你如何描述韩国今天拥有的优良品质，朝鲜今天没有，韩国在1955年也没有？

RT: Amidst all the reckage and misery, here's your little ray of sunshiny good news for the weekend: What's New in #Eth2.
All your #Ethereum Merge updates and everything else right here: https://eth2.news/
🌞 Enjoy! 🌞

RT：在所有的抗议和痛苦中，这里是你周末的一个阳光灿烂的好消息：Eth2的新内容。
您的所有#以太坊合并更新和其他所有内容都位于此处：https://eth2.news/
🌞 享受🌞

@Leo_Glisic Also adding to the confusion is that the real divide is not individual vs group, but individual vs group vs world, and surprisingly enough the individual side is in many cases the more pro-world side!
https://marginalrevolution.com...

@利奥·格利西奇（Leo\u Glisic）更让人困惑的是，真正的分歧不是个人对团体，而是个人对团体对世界，令人惊讶的是，在许多情况下，个人队是更亲世界的一方！
https://marginalrevolution.com...

@hudsonjameson So if a given PoS mechanism would not survive a "DAO hacker has 10% of the coin supply" scenario, I would not feel comfortable adopting that mechanism for a blockchain at all.

@哈德逊·詹姆逊（hudsonjameson）因此，如果给定的PoS机制无法在“DAO黑客拥有10%的硬币供应”的情况下生存，那么我将不会对将该机制用于区块链感到舒适。

@hudsonjameson Personally, I think it's a bad goal to try to create PoS systems that literally never get 51% attacked. Rather, PoS systems should be able to recover from 51% attacks.

@哈德逊·詹姆逊（hudsonjameson）个人认为，试图创建PoS系统是一个糟糕的目标，因为它实际上从未受到51%的攻击。相反，PoS系统应该能够从51%的攻击中恢复。

@robertwiblin @artmarkham The Kardashev scale is literally based on log(economic power)!

@罗伯特·维布林（robertwiblin@artmarkham）卡戴舍夫（Kardashev）量表实际上是基于对数（经济实力）！

@epolynya How much is 1 Vitalik?

@epolynya一杯Vitalik多少钱？

RT: Huge shoutout to Mofi from @OPLabsPBC and Michael from @coinbase on demoing a working end-to-end upload/download test of blob transactions on a post-merge 4844 devnet! https://github.com/Inphi/eip48... https://t.co/CgWhaJBDIw

转发：OPLabsPBC和coinbase向Mofi大喊在合并后4844 devnet上演示blob事务的端到端上传/下载测试！https://github.com/Inphi/eip48... https://t.co/CgWhaJBDIw

@vgr Hmm, not quite the same thing. "not littering" is at the other end of the means/ends divide. The equivalent here would be "valuing cleanliness".

@vgr嗯，不完全一样。“不乱扔垃圾”是手段/目的划分的另一端。这里的等价物是“重视清洁”。

@vgr What would the individualism/collectivism-as-identity explanation look like? For any goal you're going to find people with an individualist orientation and people with and a collectivist orientation who have that goal, and so they'll find different ways to express it?

@vgr作为身份解释的个人主义/集体主义是什么样的？对于任何一个目标，你都会发现有个人主义倾向的人，有集体主义倾向的人都有这个目标，所以他们会找到不同的表达方式？

@vgr I've definitely switched to a different style of travel. Longer time in the same place, more time with specific people instead of 15 minutes each with many people.

@vgr我肯定换了一种不同的旅行方式。在同一个地方待的时间越长，与特定的人相处的时间就越多，而不是与许多人相处15分钟。

AI may well be built by shape rotators, but the current iteration of the stuff seems to be the ultimate wordcel. https://twitter.com/togelius/s...

人工智能很可能是由形状旋转器构建的，但目前的迭代似乎是最终的wordcel。https://twitter.com/togelius/s...

Summary: the "things we ultimately want" aren't individual or collective, but "strategies for achieving them" can be either one or a mix of the two.
Even strategies for protecting freedom can be collective (defending against aggressive wars, to give an obvious example).

总结：“我们最终想要的东西”不是个人或集体的，但“实现它们的策略”可以是其中之一，也可以是两者的混合。
即使是保护自由的战略也可以是集体的（例如，防御侵略战争）。

Another confusing one is "economic growth", which often gets construed as individualistic, but there are plenty of collective, and occasionally even freedom-sacrificing, ways of making it happen.
(Economic growth is really important BTW. See https://www.amazon.com/Stubbor... )

另一个令人困惑的问题是“经济增长”，它常常被理解为个人主义，但有很多集体的，有时甚至牺牲自由的方式来实现它。
（顺便说一句，经济增长非常重要。参见https://www.amazon.com/Stubbor... )

Freedom really is more of a meta-goal, basically about preserving your ability to choose which of the other goals you value more at a particular time and place.
(Though some will say autonomy is also to some extent intrinsically important to happiness)

自由其实更像是一个元目标，基本上是保持你在特定时间和地点选择你更看重的其他目标的能力。
（尽管有人会说，自主在某种程度上对幸福也有着内在的重要性）

The "freedom vs safety" discussion is confused because often the issue is really "convenience vs safety", or other terminal goals vs safety. But our culture (imo wrongly) denigrates "mere convenience", so people end up appealing to freedom instead.
https://www.econlib.org/conven...

“自由与安全”的讨论令人困惑，因为问题往往是真正的“方便与安全”，或其他终端目标与安全。但我们的文化（imo错误地）诋毁了“纯粹的便利”，因此人们最终转而呼吁自由。
https://www.econlib.org/conven...

Health similarly isn't a private or public good, it just is. But there are ways of improving our health that are individual, and there are ways of improving our health that only work if very large groups of people cooperate to make it happen.

同样，健康也不是私人或公共物品，它只是一种。但是，有一些方法可以改善我们的健康，这些方法都是个人的，只有在大量人群的合作下，才能改善我们的健康。

Individual convenience-seeking: buying a phone, which lets you do lots of computing and social stuff on the go.
Collective convenience-seeking: the basic research needed to invent the phone and make it possible to produce and distribute.

寻求个人便利：买一部手机，可以让你在旅途中进行大量的计算和社交活动。
集体寻求便利：发明手机并使其能够生产和销售所需的基础研究。