@glenweyl @joshgans So if you normally vote perfectly in lockstep with 1000 other people, but then one day you go vote something totally separate from them, that vote gets full consideration just like a vote of someone whose votes are independent every single day.

@glenweyl@joshgans所以如果你通常与1000名其他人一起投票，但有一天你会投票给完全不同于他们的人，那投票会得到充分考虑，就像每天都有独立投票的人投票一样。

@glenweyl @joshgans Also, the voting mechanisms we're talking about aren't discounting *people*. There's no "you seem similar to this other group, so you're a sheep, 0.25 votes for you" mechanic. It's operating on the level of voting patterns...

@glenweyl@joshgans同样，我们谈论的投票机制并没有打折*人*。没有“你看起来和另一组人很相似，所以你是一只羊，0.25票支持你”的技工。它是在投票模式的层面上运作的。。。

@glenweyl @joshgans Now, is an N-person group of people who happen to have similar SBTs the same as a single centralized government that claims to represent N people? No. But you can't entirely discount the coordination within such a group.

@glenweyl@joshgans Now，一个由N人组成的群体，碰巧拥有类似的SBT，与一个声称代表N人的中央集权政府相同吗？不。但你不能完全忽视这样一个团队内部的协调。

@glenweyl @joshgans And so explicit per-country votes are a crude countermeasure that at least attempts to compensate for these pressures.
"One vote per country" should not run the world, but "N votes for an N-person country" also shouldn't.

@格伦·威尔（glenweyl@joshgans）和如此明确的国别投票是一种粗糙的对策，至少试图弥补这些压力。
“每个国家一票”不应该统治世界，但“N票支持N人国家”也不应该。

@glenweyl @joshgans I would even say that economies of scale in extraction tend to be larger than economies of scale in production; that is, the optimal country (or company) size for peacefully doing useful stuff is lower than the optimal size for extracting rent by being a tough guy.

@glenweyl@joshgans我甚至会说，开采的规模经济往往大于生产的规模经济；也就是说，和平地做有用的事情的最佳国家（或公司）规模低于作为硬汉获取租金的最佳规模。

@glenweyl @joshgans ... to the point where a 100 million person country has significantly more power than a 100 million person geographic area split between 10 countries.

@glenweyl@joshgans。。。一个一亿人口的国家拥有的权力远远超过10个国家之间一亿人口的地理区域。

@glenweyl @joshgans To name one specific example, the concept of each country having one vote at the UN is something that I used to find really stupid, but recently less so. The reason is that larger countries already have lots of other ways to exert excessive concentrated influence...

@glenweyl@joshgans举一个具体的例子，每个国家在联合国拥有一票的概念我过去觉得很愚蠢，但最近不那么愚蠢了。原因是大国已经有很多其他方式来施加过度集中的影响力。。。

@LefterisJP "Clients" isn't really native lingo for the crypto space (except to refer to geth etc). It's like how nobody in crypto talks about "keychains" or whatever.

@LefterisJP“Clients”并不是加密空间的本地术语（除了指geth等）。这就像加密技术中没有人谈论“钥匙链”之类的东西。

@zengjiajun_eth @gitcoin @opensea In general, I feel like the key is not to only denigrate the degen impulse, but rather to redirect it.

@曾家俊（zengjiajun\u eth@gitcoin@opensea）总的来说，我觉得关键不只是要诋毁德根的冲动，而是要改变它的方向。

@zengjiajun_eth @gitcoin @opensea Maybe @gitcoin should release "Gitcoin donor hero" NFTs for people who matched or contributed different levels, and hire the best monkey artists to make them actually better than the existing ones?

@曾家俊eth@gitcoin@opensea也许@gitcoin应该为匹配或贡献不同级别的人发布“gitcoin捐赠者英雄”NFT，并雇佣最好的猴子艺术家，让他们实际上比现有的更好？

@Noahpinion Hot take: Star Trek Entreprise is actually quite underrated. Might be my favorite of all the series I watched.

@《星际迷航》企业实际上被低估了。可能是我看过的所有系列中最喜欢的。

@m_j_rossman Right. I feel like there was a shared feeling among the enthusiast community that what the big tech corps were doing "was not us"; even okay-with-corporations libertarians had some idea that ideally things would be more open and decentralized somehow.

@m\u j\u rossman对。我觉得在狂热者群体中有一种共同的感觉，即大型科技团队所做的“不是我们”；即使对公司还行，自由主义者也有一些想法，理想情况下，事情会更加开放和分散。

@m_j_rossman Who is "we" here? It feels like none of the enthusiast tribes were ever in favor of surveillance capitalism, that happened because of corporate profit motive and the desire to win-by-scaling-to-monopoly-size-before-the-other-guy-does, with some government pressure on the side.

@m\u j\u rossman“我们”是谁？感觉好像没有一个狂热的部落支持监视资本主义，这是因为公司的盈利动机，以及在政府施加一定压力的情况下，希望通过在其他人之前扩大垄断规模而获胜的愿望。

The GFC too, though that was a ticking time bomb from the beginning. You only need to take 1-2 steps from "we need to build a new financial system without all that toxic junk" to "what will that system actually look like?" for the divergences in vision to start to appear.

GFC也是，尽管从一开始这就是一颗滴答作响的定时炸弹。你只需要采取1-2个步骤，从“我们需要建立一个没有所有有毒垃圾的新金融系统”到“这个系统到底会是什么样子？”开始出现视觉上的分歧。

I think it's under-appreciated how much opposition to the Patriot Act and the copyright lobby united various subgroups of open-and-free internet enthusiasts. Once those issues receded, they not only lost that lodestar; they also have years of pent-up grievances to work through. https://twitter.com/NateSilver...

我认为，对《爱国者法案》和版权游说团体的强烈反对，将开放和自由互联网爱好者的各个群体团结在一起，这一点没有得到应有的重视。一旦这些问题消失，他们不仅失去了那个洛德斯塔；他们还有多年被压抑的不满需要解决。https://twitter.com/NateSilver...

@iyad_elbaghdadi The concept of inviting "anti-globalist organizations from {all over the world}" never ceases to make me chuckle.

@iyad\u elbaghdadi邀请“来自{世界各地}的反全球化组织”的想法从未停止让我发笑。

@iyad_elbaghdadi This might be a good time for me to reveal this lovely gem from 2 years ago.
I just never responded. https://t.co/DW1sR4H4FO

@iyad\u elbaghdadi这可能是我展示这颗两年前的可爱宝石的好时机。
我只是没有回应。https://t.co/DW1sR4H4FO

RT: Lots of very exciting changes after deploying v4.2.0 of https://ethereum.org/ 😎🧵 https://t.co/FUibj8wJUk

RT：在部署v4.2.0之后，有很多非常令人兴奋的变化https://ethereum.org/ 😎🧵 https://t.co/FUibj8wJUk

@RokoMijic I don't think I'm in the "AGI soon" camp. I have a very wide probability distribution and no clue in the "do we just scale another 1000x to go superhuman or do we actually still need to invent three more Fundamentally New Secret Sauces" debate.

@RokoMijic我想我不属于“AGI soon”阵营。我有一个非常广泛的概率分布，在“我们是要再扩大1000倍才能成为超人，还是我们真的还需要发明三种更基本的新秘密酱汁”的辩论中没有任何线索。

RT: The lack of investment in next-gen vaccines, along with things like better ventilation, is aggravating. My semi-hot take is that both COVID hawks and doves associate COVID prevention with personal sacrifice and overlook win-win solutions that don't involve much sacrifice. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/...

RT：缺乏对下一代疫苗的投资，以及更好的通风等问题，正在加剧。我的看法是，新冠病毒鹰派和鸽派都将预防新冠病毒与个人牺牲联系在一起，而忽视了不需要太多牺牲的双赢解决方案。https://twitter.com/EricTopol/...