What is a fair price that someone should have to pay to register and unconditionally guarantee ownership of a 5-letter .eth domain for 10 years?

注册并无条件保证 5 个字母的 .eth 域名 10 年的所有权应该支付的合理价格是多少？

@MacaesBruno Why is everybodyy silentFPUT on thiss???

@MacaesBruno 为什么每个人都对此保持沉默？

@MacaesBruno Attempted thought is not exactly a rewarded behavior on this website! https://t.co/gaPDn3GaSV

@MacaesBruno 尝试的想法在本网站上并不完全是一种奖励行为！ https://t.co/gaPDn3GaSV

Computer programs are built on theory, neural nets are built on intuition and empiricism.
Different way of thinking. And different conclusions come out of that way of thinking.

计算机程序建立在理论之上，神经网络建立在直觉和经验之上。
不同的思维方式。这种思维方式会得出不同的结论。

Computer programs are highly structured, they are legible, and they are either perfect or have bugs that break things horribly until fixed.
Neural nets are highly illegible, they make mistakes, but somehow even mistaken answers are... kinda reasonable? https://t.co/BCVRR2oBkl

计算机程序是高度结构化的，它们是易读的，它们要么是完美的，要么有在修复之前会严重破坏事物的错误。
神经网络非常难以辨认，它们会出错，但不知何故，即使是错误的答案……有点合理？ https://t.co/BCVRR2oBkl

When people say things like "human beings are not algorithms", sometimes they're not literally asserting a spirit world not describable with math and physics, rather they're saying: we're different from *computer programs written by humans*. We're more similar to neural nets.

当人们说“人类不是算法”之类的话时，有时他们并不是在断言一个无法用数学和物理描述的精神世界，而是在说：我们不同于*人类编写的计算机程序*。我们更类似于神经网络。

Neural networks as philosophy:
Late 20th century philosophical thought was heavily influenced by intuitions from study of computers and algorithms: *we too* are algorithms, what could those insights say about us?
I wonder if the 21st century will do the same with neural nets.

神经网络作为哲学：
20 世纪后期的哲学思想深受计算机和算法研究直觉的影响：*我们也是*算法，这些见解能说明我们什么？
我想知道 21 世纪是否会对神经网络做同样的事情。

The existence of chickens is a circular argument. Chickens depend on eggs that depend on... chickens.
How any sane person could think that chickens and eggs can be a reliable part of the food supply is beyond me. https://twitter.com/thommers/s...

鸡的存在是一个循环论证。鸡依赖鸡蛋，鸡蛋依赖......鸡。
任何理智的人怎么会认为鸡和鸡蛋可以成为食物供应的可靠部分，这超出了我的理解。 https://twitter.com/thommers/s...

@PeterMcCormack Because it's not a circular argument, it's a spiral argument. People with coins at time T secure the transactions at time T+1.
Spiral arguments and circular arguments sometimes look similar to untrained observers, but they are fundamentally different.

@PeterMcCormack因为这不是循环论证，而是螺旋论证。在时间 T 持有硬币的人在时间 T 1 保护交易。
螺旋论证和循环论证有时看起来与未经训练的观察者相似，但它们有着根本的不同。

@SoraCitizen @pourteaux I don't think I've ever forgotten my phone.

@SoraCitizen @pourteaux 我想我从来没有忘记过我的手机。

@pourteaux A phone OS that supports "weak login" and "strong login" could also do the trick.
There's something in that general design space that's reasonable.
I really don't think face payment is needed period, even if it could somehow be perfectly zero-knowledged.

@pourteaux 支持“弱登录”和“强登录”的手机操作系统也可以解决问题。
在一般设计空间中有些东西是合理的。
我真的不认为需要刷脸支付，即使它可以以某种方式完全零知识。

@pourteaux The challenge with phones as-is is that the process for unlocking your phone has higher security demands (-> should be more inconvenient) than the process for making small-value payments.

@pourteaux 手机面临的挑战是解锁手机的过程具有更高的安全要求（-

@pourteaux The only problem with cards (from a UX point of view) is security: far too much trust required in the merchant.
A card with a confirmation screen and either biometric or PIN verification (to be done before you pay) on the card itself would be closer to ideal.

@pourteaux 卡的唯一问题（从用户体验的角度来看）是安全性：对商家需要太多的信任。
带有确认屏幕和卡本身的生物识别或 PIN 验证（在您付款前完成）的卡将更接近理想。

@pourteaux My blackpill take on "fancy payment systems" is that it's actually quite hard to beat the UX of a credit card.
Watch carefully; the face recognition is reasonably fast, but it's far from instant the way a card would be.
Even mobile phone payments have a hard time beating cards.

@pourteaux 我对“花式支付系统”的看法是，实际上很难击败信用卡的用户体验。
仔细观察；面部识别速度相当快，但它远非卡片的即时方式。
即使是手机支付也很难击败卡片。

@LaterCapitalism @Noahpinion That's true on some other issues, eg. neoliberal pro-family would remove child car seat mandates and liberalize daycares, but left pro-family would also add expanded goverment programs to support child-raisers even further.
Are there similar dynamics with housing?

@LaterCapitalism @Noahpinion 在其他一些问题上也是如此，例如。新自由主义亲家庭将取消儿童汽车安全座椅的规定并放开日托，但左翼亲家庭还将扩大政府计划以进一步支持育儿者。
住房也有类似的动态吗？

@LaterCapitalism @Noahpinion Is it actually correct to put left yimby further right than neoliberal yimby?
Like, does left yimby advocate for policies that will actually lead to even more housing being built than the neoliberal yimby position?

@LaterCapitalism @Noahpinion 将左 yimby 放在比新自由主义 yimby 更右的位置实际上是否正确？
就像，左派 yimby 是否提倡实际上会导致建造比新自由主义 yimby 立场更多的住房的政策？

@Noahpinion Crypto isn't really advocating to repeal any specific thing, but it's organizing to build a specific thing, which is also a kind of definite optimism.

@Noahpinion Crypto 并不是真正提倡废除任何具体的东西，而是组织建立一个具体的东西，这也是一种明确的乐观主义。

@Noahpinion I feel like the good parts of libertarianism have all become definite-optimist over the past decade. Much less complaining about regulation as a category, much more about specifics.

@Noahpinion 我觉得在过去的十年里，自由主义的好的部分都变成了绝对的乐观主义者。更少抱怨监管作为一个类别，更多的是关于细节。

@brockm Errrr are you sure you're actually disagreeing with the paragraph after the quoted text?

@brockm Errrr 你确定你真的不同意引用文本后面的段落吗？

Assuming quantum computers (so, capable of Shor and Grover with millions of qubits) are built this century, which security assumption do you think is more likely to still hold in the year 3000?

假设本世纪建造了量子计算机（因此，能够使用数百万量子比特的 Shor 和 Grover），您认为哪种安全假设更有可能在 3000 年仍然成立？